Superman and Batman

[DaveSumm]

The fuck? It didn't look even remotely crazy that he went out to save the family dog. What sort of blood runs through your veins if you find it ridiculous that someone would rescue a deeply distressed dog that is about to be killed?

It didn't look even remotely crazy that he chose to send his invulnerable son to safety, and return to an extremely dangerous tornado to save a dog? It's not like the tornado suddenly took turn for the lethal after he made that decision, he wagered his own life for a dog. He left Martha a widow and Clark father-less so they wouldn't be dog-less. It'd be a hell of a derail if we got into the relative worth of various forms of life, but suffice to say if he'd asked Martha whether she'd rather a pet or a husband, she'd have chosen a husband. If he'd asked Clark whether he'd rather a pet or a father, he'd have chosen a father. So I don't find it ridiculous that someone would save a dog, I find it ridiculous that he would trade his own life for one.

[WTFSalami]

It didn't look even remotely crazy that he chose to send his invulnerable son to safety, and return to an extremely dangerous tornado to save a dog? It's not like the tornado suddenly took turn for the lethal after he made that decision, he wagered his own life for a dog. He left Martha a widow and Clark father-less so they wouldn't be dog-less. It'd be a hell of a derail if we got into the relative worth of various forms of life, but suffice to say if he'd asked Martha whether she'd rather a pet or a husband, she'd have chosen a husband. If he'd asked Clark whether he'd rather a pet or a father, he'd have chosen a father. So I don't find it ridiculous that someone would save a dog, I find it ridiculous that he would trade his own life for one.

Yeah it was a pretty epic display of shitty writing. Nobody in this movie acts in a believable way except for maybe Martha.

The whole first half of the movie I was just thinking to myself "who is the Jonathan Kent asshole and why is he teaching his badass alien son to be such a fucking pussy???" Talk about character assassination of the highest kind. It's a miracle that this version of Superman didn't turn into a psychopath.

"No Clark, don't save a sinking bus full of your friends and classmates, just watch then die a horrible death, knowing all the while you were the only thing that could have saved them."

"No Clark, don't easily sprint over here, punch this tornado, and pull me out of the way, just watch me traumatically die in front of your mother knowing all the while that you could have saved my life."

Completely unbelievable dumbassery.

[drawkcabi]

Man of Steel was a horrible movie, it could have been redeemed by a better director, tighter writing, and the Williams score, but what we got was garbage.

I have no faith in any movie or series of movies that is using MOS as a springboard. I keep up with the information that continues to leak out on what they are doing with the new film(s) basically out of general curiosity and interest in the DC universe, but the only thing that could possibly get my hopes or anticipation up for a new movie would be learning they are once again dumping the latest version and going with a fresh reboot again.

[Fiddler]

It didn't look even remotely crazy that he chose to send his invulnerable son to safety, and return to an extremely dangerous tornado to save a dog? It's not like the tornado suddenly took turn for the lethal after he made that decision, he wagered his own life for a dog. He left Martha a widow and Clark father-less so they wouldn't be dog-less. It'd be a hell of a derail if we got into the relative worth of various forms of life, but suffice to say if he'd asked Martha whether she'd rather a pet or a husband, she'd have chosen a husband. If he'd asked Clark whether he'd rather a pet or a father, he'd have chosen a father. So I don't find it ridiculous that someone would save a dog, I find it ridiculous that he would trade his own life for one.

You might find it ridiculous, but it happens in real life all the time. Someone rushing back into a burning building to safe the family pet.

Granted I thought the scene was BS also, but not due to it being the dog. It was stupid because he sent Clark away. He should have went away and let Clark handle it.

I really enjoyed the movie itself. That is until Zod showed up and Supes and him started fighting. I hated the rest of it.

[Calibandar]

It didn't look even remotely crazy that he chose to send his invulnerable son to safety, and return to an extremely dangerous tornado to save a dog? It's not like the tornado suddenly took turn for the lethal after he made that decision, he wagered his own life for a dog. He left Martha a widow and Clark father-less so they wouldn't be dog-less. It'd be a hell of a derail if we got into the relative worth of various forms of life, but suffice to say if he'd asked Martha whether she'd rather a pet or a husband, she'd have chosen a husband. If he'd asked Clark whether he'd rather a pet or a father, he'd have chosen a father. So I don't find it ridiculous that someone would save a dog, I find it ridiculous that he would trade his own life for one.

Yeah I clearly have a higher opinion of a dog's worth than you do, and what they mean to families.

That much is clear. But of course Old Kent didn't set out to trade his life, and it didn't look like that. He went back to save the dog, and he could have come back in time. Except he didn't, and that's why he died. It wasn't a certain death per se, the idea was to stay alive *and* save the dog.

And if you look at it in that light, there's nothing ridiculous there, or anything to condemn.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

But why not send Clark? Clark didn't need to use obvious superpowers to have better chance of saving the dog and surviving than OId Kent had.

[Werthead]

It's better than Superman III and IV, sure, but so is root canal surgery. But it's absolutely terrible compared to I, II or even the very-much-flawed Superman Returns. And it's not just the dog scene. The end of the film, where about 50% of Metropolis is absolutely levelled and Clark does not even show a single flicker of remorse or concern, is horrendous. The pornographic, "Let's outdo 9/11!" shots of skyscrapers collapsing onto crowds of fleeing, terrified people is appalling. People run into the buildings on the main street of Smallville and cower behind windows, only to doubtless die screaming in the massive, repeated explosions that obliterate the whole street seconds later, again whilst Superman does nothing (except save one soldier and expect people to be amazed he did that much).

If this was something like Terminator, that might even make sense. But in a Superman film? No. It was wallowing in misery and death to try to make Superman 'edgy', which is really not what the character is about, at all.

This film was awful. It could have been great. There were some good ideas and some good actors. But they blew it with over-wrought action sequences that even the Wachowski Brothers may have felt were a bit on the long side and some really, astonishingly terrible CGI. Once the action left Krypton and moved to Earth, it was all terminally downhill.

ETA: Russell Crowe was the boss in this though. When's Jor-El: The Considerably Superior Prequel coming out?

[DaveSumm]

Yeah I clearly have a higher opinion of a dog's worth than you do, and what they mean to families.

That much is clear. But of course Old Kent didn't set out to trade his life, and it didn't look like that. He went back to save the dog, and he could have come back in time. Except he didn't, and that's why he died. It wasn't a certain death per se, the idea was to stay alive *and* save the dog.

And if you look at it in that light, there's nothing ridiculous there, or anything to condemn.

I gave no indication how high my opinion is of a dogs worth, other than I rank it lower than a parent. I had a dog as a kid, loved him to pieces. But more than my Dad? No. And had my Dad risked his life to save him I would have been angry, because it's an irresponsible decision. As I said, the tornado didn't take a sudden turn for the worse, he just completely misjudged it and then gave up. He left his family without a father, which makes his 'everything's fine Clark' look at the end all the more silly because it really wasn't, it was a massive error of judgement.

@Werthead, Superman's lack of reaction to the destruction is made all the more strange by the fact that they did this exact plot in Superman II - he fights Zod in Metropolis, it gets far too destructive, so he looks aghast and leaves, realising things would actually be safer if he didn't challenge Zod. That's his entire end-game, take the fight to home ground.

[Myrddin]

If this was something like Terminator, that might even make sense. But in a Superman film? No. It was wallowing in misery and death to try to make Superman 'edgy', which is really not what the character is about, at all.

Or maybe Ka'El is affected by what happened that he decides that it will never happen again. He will never kill again. Never let innocents get harmed again.

This was the first time he cut loose with his power. He probably had no clue what was possible until he was just reacting to Zod's assault. He was on the ropes for most of the fight, really.

I agree there should've been some denouement at the end, where he looked around with disgust at what happened. But the regret was there in his face when he killed Zod, even though there was no other option.

And you think the lame rehash of Superman I's real estate scheme in Superman Returns was better than this? Really? I think you're over reacting a bit here.

[Raja]

If this was something like Terminator, that might even make sense. But in a Superman film? No. It was wallowing in misery and death to try to make Superman 'edgy', which is really not what the character is about, at all.

Like you, I didn't like the film much either. However, a lot of the criticism of the film seems to be that the character is "not what they imagined" or "not something Superman would do/ be" it seems to become this thing where Superman wasn't handled the way that people were used to, and that's why they don't like the film. Given that the character has probably had several different interpretations, I suppose they were going for something a bit different. If someone does not like the film because of the direction they chose to go in, then fair enough. But I can at least try and understand why they chose to do away with some of the things superman may/ may not have done before.

[polishgenius]

To be fair, Superman (or one of many other DC heroes) smashing up cities in a manner that should cause a huge death toll is

(I remember JLA a comic written by Mark Waid - possibly the Fernus story? - where Plastic Man gives thanks for a crap economy as yet another series of buildings is brutally demolished in an epic battle). This is just the first time we've seen it in live action.

Though from interviews (that I think I linked in the movie spoiler thread) with Goyer and what we know of the plot of this film, I strongly suspect that the death toll caused here will be part if not all of the reason that Batman is initially fighting against Supes.



As for "this is not what Superman is about" - naaaaaaah. Sure, Superman is most often optimistic and full of wonder. However there have quite clearly been stories that aren't that with him at the core that have been majorly successful. Kingdom Come being the most blatant example, but even something as simple as Death of Superman, which even involves a slightly similar rampage through Metropolis (though there it's made clear that Superman is trying to minimise the damage, which this lacked).

But they blew it with over-wrought action sequences that even the Wachowski Brothers may have felt were a bit on the long side and some really, astonishingly terrible CGI.

The final fight was indeed far too long, but it was still essentially what the similar fight in Matrix III should have been. The rest of the action I thought was fantastic - the only other superhero film that I think consistently competes with this on an action level was Kick-Ass, and that was much smaller scale (mind you, most films are. Man of Steel and Pacific Rim really changed the game in that respect this year - there have been some huge action set-pieces this year that look positively tiny compared to those two).

[Raja]

I should have added to the comment, that I'm not very familiar with Superman in either comics or even the movies, and as polish has already pointed out above there are instances where Superman deviates from his stock image. I was merely trying to say that it's a re-imagining of the character, and I suppose they felt that the superman in MOS was the way to go.

[Mazrick]

Though I loved Man of Steel, I'm more than a little worried about this movie.

Henry Cavill is an excellent Superman, but the rest of the casting feels a bit off. Ben was horrible in Dare Devil, and I have doubts whether he can pull off Batman. Gal Gardot is on the bad side of meh when it comes to acting chops, and she doesn't really give off the Wonder Woman physicality or gravitas. I don't see her carrying a solo film.

Besides the questionable casting, the fact that there are so many important characters really makes me think of the abortion that was Spidey 3. Also Snyder's Sucker Punch and less than stellar Watchmen makes me fear how he will handle an ensemble piece.

I really want a film that develops the dynamic between Batman and Superman. I would be alright with this movie if it lays the groundwork for the inevitable Justice League, but they might be rushing things too much.

[drawkcabi]

And you think the lame rehash of Superman I's real estate scheme in Superman Returns was better than this? Really? I think you're over reacting a bit here.

Absolutely! 110% better!!! The only problem with that movie (besides one or two actors wrongly cast) is that it was too much of a rehash and should have been more of an expansion.

And for that matter I'd take Superman III over MOS any day as well. Superman IV though...yeah that or root canal...toss up.

How It Should Have Ended nailed it in their one parody with Superman daring Batman to hit him:

"Your movie was uninspiring," - Batman

Boom. Direct hit.

[Knight of Ashes]

I just hope they don't ruin Batman as well. The Dark Knight trilogy were the best superhero movies in the past decade.

Two out of three ain't bad.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Like you, I didn't like the film much either. However, a lot of the criticism of the film seems to be that the character is "not what they imagined" or "not something Superman would do/ be" it seems to become this thing where Superman wasn't handled the way that people were used to, and that's why they don't like the film. Given that the character has probably had several different interpretations, I suppose they were going for something a bit different. If someone does not like the film because of the direction they chose to go in, then fair enough. But I can at least try and understand why they chose to do away with some of the things superman may/ may not have done before.

Yeah aside from decades of consistent behavior (most notable of his character was his concern for the people he was protecting), there was one time they made Supes edgy. He came back from the dead and had a mullet for awhile. I mean character wise he remained exactly the same (honorable, heroic, kind), but he did have that mullet.

Here is a link to the mullet if you want to see it: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6xoH967aC00/TMYBbOeD6iI/AAAAAAAAa6g/K8RAu-FpqcM/s400/reign008.jpg

But saving lives always has gone two ways with Superman, the first way is to fight the super villain and the second way was to protect people from collateral. Superman II nailed this aspect of his character.

Oh, and Superman 3 while generally terrible had the amazing Clark vs. Superman scene. Though 99 percent of that movie was...something bad, that fight scene was amazing.

[Martini Sigil]

Karen Carpenter as Wonder Woman is a bad idea.

[Rhom]

Yeah aside from decades of consistent behavior (most notable of his character was his concern for the people he was protecting), there was one time they made Supes edgy. He came back from the dead and had a mullet for awhile. I mean character wise he remained exactly the same (honorable, heroic, kind), but he did have that mullet.

Here is a link to the mullet if you want to see it: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6xoH967aC00/TMYBbOeD6iI/AAAAAAAAa6g/K8RAu-FpqcM/s400/reign008.jpg

But saving lives always has gone two ways with Superman, the first way is to fight the super villain and the second way was to protect people from collateral. Superman II nailed this aspect of his character.

Oh, and Superman 3 while generally terrible had the amazing Clark vs. Superman scene. Though 99 percent of that movie was...something bad, that fight scene was amazing.

I give Superman 3 props for being the only one without Luthor... Although the wealthy industrialist who creates a video game to destroy Superman might as well have been Lex. :lol:

[Slurktan]

Yeah aside from decades of consistent behavior (most notable of his character was his concern for the people he was protecting), there was one time they made Supes edgy. He came back from the dead and had a mullet for awhile. I mean character wise he remained exactly the same (honorable, heroic, kind), but he did have that mullet.

Here is a link to the mullet if you want to see it: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6xoH967aC00/TMYBbOeD6iI/AAAAAAAAa6g/K8RAu-FpqcM/s400/reign008.jpg

But saving lives always has gone two ways with Superman, the first way is to fight the super villain and the second way was to protect people from collateral. Superman II nailed this aspect of his character.

Oh, and Superman 3 while generally terrible had the amazing Clark vs. Superman scene. Though 99 percent of that movie was...something bad, that fight scene was amazing.

You really think Superman has been "edgy" once in his entire run? Have you ever even fucking read Superman stories?

[Werthead]

And you think the lame rehash of Superman I's real estate scheme in Superman Returns was better than this? Really? I think you're over reacting a bit here.

Superman Returns wasn't very good, agreed, though the 'saving the airliner' set piece was excellent (even landing during the football game was cheesy but worked). The oddball stalkerish element to the film was lame, though the melancholic air of Superman-as-the-lonely-god is something that movie actually nailed (as did the first two) but Man of Steel didn't; Superman gets a support network of allies and helpers, including his own dad as an AI, way too quickly and easily. Spacey was also a much better-acted villain than the guy who played Zod, even if it was Spacey phoning it in and Zod was conceptually stronger as an idea. Routh was actually on a par with Cavill: they're both okay and look the part, but neither really had strong material to work with (and they're both better actors than either film suggests; Cavill was the best thing in The Tudors after Dormer and Maria Doyle Kennedy, and Routh was very solid in Scott Pilgrim and Chuck). However, in Returns the plot made somewhat more sense (though that's not saying much) and the ending was a lot better. And Returns - somehow despite being seven years earlier - had better effects. The action was also better-handled and more work was put into context: it's a long way from Bryan Singer's best film, but even on an off day he's a much better director than Zack Snyder. Plus, though unoriginal and lifted from the first two movies, the music was stronger.

Also, looking at the relevant critic-registering sites, Superman Returns was actually considerably better-reviewed than Man of Steel. The idea that Man of Steel is 'definitely the better film' is a bit of a myth; certainly on a critical level it was quite poorly received.