|
Good job, you two. All those words and you convinced each other of absolutely nothing! While I would definitely consider myself a fan of the Marvel flavor of films, it'll be interesting to see whether DC can use JL/MoS2 etc. to change peoples' perceptiosn of MoS1. Many would argue it's irrelevant and only MoS1 itself matters on its own merits (shouldn't be buoyed by subsequent works) but if Superman follows on the arc set by MoS1 and doesn't seem like a totally different character in JL/MoS2 as a result of fan reaction, perhaps it'll retroactively make aspects of MoS1 more palatable. Like some have said, pay service to the complains about Metropolis' destruction and Supes' behavior before/during/after. It seems like the BvS angle is trying to go there, perhaps when it's all said and done the "DCU" Superman could illustrate a nice path from Young Imperfect Superman to the adult, mature, Perfect Superman that many speak of.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:34 |
|
Sion posted:Lars Von Trier directs Identity Crisis where Dr Light is the focal character. I guarantee it'd be more tasteful than Identity Crisis was.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
There is a weird trend with audiences lately where they will come out of a movie and claim it was cynical (when it wasn't) when really its the audience who is cynical. I don't get it, what is the point of coming out of a movie grumpy and saying "No I am not the one who is grumpy, the movie is!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
How do the Nine Realms fit into our universe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:How do the Nine Realms fit into our universe? Rungs on a ladder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
I still laugh when I hear the SUPERMAN NEVER KILLED ANYONE IN THE OLD MOVIES argument. Does no one else remember the ending of Superman 2, where he literally squishes Zod's hand and lobs his rear end into a wall, to fall into the ether below his artic fortress? Lois even kills on of the other kryptonians, and Non just jumps to his death like a giant tard. Hell, even in the original movie I still have no loving clue if he let NJ be destroyed or not because of how the time travel bit works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:There is a weird trend with audiences lately where they will come out of a movie and claim it was cynical (when it wasn't) when really its the audience who is cynical. I don't get it, what is the point of coming out of a movie grumpy and saying "No I am not the one who is grumpy, the movie is!" Because a lot of those movies are cynical. They're not trying to be but they fail at what they're doing at the end result is cynical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Superman is basically Jesus, so it's understandable that many people take the Ricky Bobby approach and specify that it's Baby Superman that they love. "Dear Lord baby Superman, lyin' there in your rocket pod, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors..." The problem is that that's not a very accurate picture of the guy who chased money lenders out of the temple with a whip of cords. Man Of Steel says explicitly that Clark acted out of trust in the tornado scene. So the question is why people don't trust Kevin Costner, call him insane, etc., for saying things that are all sensible and turn out to be true. It seems like the idea is Clark is inherently Superman, Superman is always right, so why isn't Kent trusting his judgment? Why is he FORCING Superman to do something? If Superman doesn't like it, it must be WRONG!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I'll just reiterate that what I said was that what Superman represents is subjective and what aspects of him are fundamental and define him as the Superman to any given person are subjective and that in a given interpretation by someone with a perspective on Superman, it's pointless to compare him against you're preferred vision as a way of engaging with the piece. See, I can't disagree with this. That's why I felt obligated to throw in a "no one has to care about this" disclaimer when I posted my version of "not my Superman". To me, Superman is the Mister Rogers of superheroes, but I can't force that interpretation on anyone. Other people are bound to find different aspects of the character important. In the end, the fact that I can't get behind the Superman depicted in "Man of Steel" applies only to me. That doesn't change the fact that I really can't get behind it, because it feels wrong to me in a pretty fundamental way. But I can't really call someone wrong for enjoying it either, though we'll certainly disagree. Superman is many things to many people, and most of them probably don't care nearly as much as I do (and that's probably a good thing). This discussion has really helped me refine my position on the movie though. My issues ultimately boil down to Jonathan Kent saying "maybe" (far more problematic to me than the tornado scene), Superman killing a dude at the very beginning of his career (the way I see it, forcing Superman to kill has far greater significance if he already has an established history of not killing), and the generally dark and cold tone of the film. I could also throw in Superman's apparent disregard for collateral damage while fighting Zod, but that would require me to watch the scene more closely to determine how often the damage is caused by Superman punching Zod through things, and not vice versa. I don't really want to watch the movie again, so I probably won't do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Good job, you two. All those words and you convinced each other of absolutely nothing! I wonder was the MOS sequel would have been like if the original hadn't received such mixed reviews. I wasn't the biggest fan, but I would have liked to see where they would have taken the character on his own without shoe horning Batman in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Rungs on a ladder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:06
|
|
JT Smiley posted:I wonder was the MOS sequel would have been like if the original hadn't received such mixed reviews. I wasn't the biggest fan, but I would have liked to see where they would have taken the character on his own without shoe horning Batman in there. The reviews probably have nothing to do with this. Marvel's success at building a film univers is the motivator.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Does that mean that Thor if just chilled out in Asgard, he wouldn't be affected by Thanos taking over our universe? Sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Sure. In Thor 2, Heimdall says he can see 9 realms and 10 trillion souls. That seems a bit low, 1.1 trillion persons per universe. But then he says, of the Convergence, "the universe hasn't seen this marvel since before my watch began", which implies the universe (our universe) includes the 9 realms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Then were the Thor filmmakers just disinterested in showing us that each realm consisted of more than 1 planet? Because Asgard is shown as 1 planet, our realm is shown as Earth, the Frost Giants had 1 planet, etc. Actually, I lied.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Man Of Steel says explicitly that Clark acted out of trust in the tornado scene. So the question is why people don't trust Kevin Costner, call him insane, etc., for saying things that are all sensible and turn out to be true. I have no problem with the point the movie is trying to make. The vehicle chosen to kill Kevin Costner (who I don't trust on principle, Mr. Non-British Robin Hood) provides a more than adequate cover story, because it's a tornado, which people survive insanely all the time and are perfect for obscuring vision. I'd also think Pa was dumb if he instructed Clark to let him get eaten by a tiger that was free in a room full of coma patients. I'll grant that Pa Kent had a worldview where Clark revealing himself would be a bad idea, and I'll even grant him as being correct for purposes of the story. The objection is still not his worldview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Superman is basically Jesus, so it's understandable that many people take the Ricky Bobby approach and specify that it's Baby Superman that they love. I like to think of Superman as like a dirty hobo, sitting on the corner. You see him and try to ignore him and he comes at you and you shout "Go away hobo!" But then you look again, and guess what? That's Superman!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Because Superman taking action during that scene would not have caused his identity to be revealed, either by saving his father or the dog. You're being beyond obtuse. Jonathan Kent's thinking, which he actually says out loud multiple times in the film, is that the world is not ready for Clark...yet. They will be at some point (though Batman v Superman seems to be going with maybe not just yet) and Clark possibly exposing himself with the tornado is not an acceptable risk for Jonathan. Maybe Clark could have saved him without anyone knowing, maybe not, but Clark will eventually lead the world to a new understanding and even advance human civilization far beyond what Jonathan can even comprehend and to Jonathan if he has to die to ensure that then fine. He is teaching Clark to think beyond being just a regular person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Jonathan Kent's thinking, which he actually says out loud multiple times in the film, is that the world is not ready for Clark...yet. They will be at some point (though Batman v Superman seems to be going with maybe not just yet) and Clark possibly exposing himself with the tornado is not an acceptable risk for Jonathan. Maybe Clark could have saved him without anyone knowing, maybe not, but Clark will eventually lead the world to a new understanding and even advance human civilization far beyond what Jonathan can even comprehend and to Jonathan if he has to die to ensure that then fine. Dude's faster than a speeding bullet. There's no risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I appreciate a third person telling me a point I have already granted. Yeah but Jonathan Kent thinks there is. That's the point. It doesn't matter if you think there's no risk, the character within the film that takes the action does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
i feel like the lesson of "acceptable losses" is like one of the worst lessons you could teach Supermanthough
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
They should have staged a scene where there would be obvious risk and consequences, like needing to lift or catch something heavy, or walk through something only an invulnerable person could, or blow out a fire, etc. Staging a situation where superspeed (essentially invisibility) is required to save someone but you can't because you might reveal your powers was just staged very poorly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i feel like the lesson of "acceptable losses" is like one of the worst lessons you could teach Supermanthough I don't think it's a lesson of "acceptable losses" but that Clark must eventually embrace his role as god/being beyond human.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Yeah but Jonathan Kent thinks there is. That's the point. It doesn't matter if you think there's no risk, the character within the film that takes the action does. ...and I think that makes him a dumb person whose poor judgment results in his own death, making it subsequently very difficult to think of him as sage or a person who Superman should learn things from. As I said earlier, make it that he's about to get hit by a train in clear daylight in front of a bunch of people, where there's no way to disguise Clark's intervention, and I have absolutely no problem with Clark being unable to save his dad without revealing himself. The manufactured scenario is so glaringly not a problem that I can't take it seriously, and Superman would be completely justified were he resentful of a father figure who put principle above common sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
greatn posted:They should have staged a scene where there would be obvious risk and consequences, like needing to lift or catch something heavy, or walk through something only an invulnerable person could, or blow out a fire, etc. Staging a situation where superspeed (essentially invisibility) is required to save someone but you can't because you might reveal your powers was just staged very poorly. I think this is the point people were initially making, but this argument seems to have gone way off track. Everyone understands the message, themes, and subtext of that scene and the movie itself. It's just that the scene blew rear end and conveyed its message in a terribly stupid way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:...and I think that makes him a dumb person whose poor judgment results in his own death, making it subsequently very difficult to think of him as sage or a person who Superman should learn things from. "I thought jonathan kent being killed by a tornado made him seem like he was a dumb person. He should get hit by a train instead."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
The quality of an idea matters significantly less then it's execution. The tornado scene was dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:I think this is the point people were initially making, but this argument seems to have gone way off track. Everyone understands the message, themes, and subtext of that scene and the movie itself. It's just that the scene blew rear end and conveyed its message in a terribly stupid way. I'm actually liking my own idea the more I think about it - a kid's caught on the railroad tracks at the local Amtrax station, Clark isn't nearby. Pa, being awesome, jumps down and gets the kid free, but breaks his leg in the process and can't get back out. Clark arrives 10 seconds before he would get squished, and can't do anything because of the crowd. Making it 1. Not a dog and 2. Not survivable without a reveal completely removes my objection. A tornado was an incredibly silly choice. Ignite Memories posted:"I thought jonathan kent being killed by a tornado made him seem like he was a dumb person. He should get hit by a train instead." *May not have yet been Superman, likely still faster than a speeding bullet, relative power to locomotive to be determined by independent study. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:I don't think it's a lesson of "acceptable losses" but that Clark must eventually embrace his role as god/being beyond human. there are justifications, but I think it's easy to tell how the general public could be slightly squicked out by a Superman movie where Pa Kent unambiguously imparts the lesson "sometimes, you have to let people die as opposed to revealing that you are Superman." I'm just thinking of this in comparison to something like that bit in Spider-Man 2 where Peter Parker walks by the guy being mugged and doesn't intervene and this is shown as a selfish, wrong action. or, for a comics example, the bit from Bendis' Daredevil where Luke Cage calls out Matt Murdock for acting like a sheisty lawyer by flat-out publicly denying that he's Daredevil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
teagone posted:The destruction in Metropolis/Smallville is testament to Clark's inexperience as a hero. And why can't you accept (or understand?) that Man of Steel was a film about Clark becoming Superman? It's obvious the film presented itself in a way where a man has to face significant trials and take on hard responsibilities when given god-like powers. The narrative's intent wasn't to present Clark as a boy scout who knew exactly what to do and how to use his powers from the get go... you get that at least right? Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets it. You're posting good stuff. theflyingorc posted:Because you're so dead-set on pushing your point of view that there appears to be no thing I haven't said that you won't assign to me. I'm not arguing with you about any of the content to this post, you're constructing strawmen and knocking them down again and again, and none of them change the fact that the tornado scene is awful (and I liked the movie). Even people that like the film agree that tornado scene sucked. Humbug Scoolbus posted:Big Hero 6. Why did you have to be so loving charming? Was it good? What say we change the subject? I'm really sorry I brought up MOS. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I'm actually liking my own idea the more I think about it - a kid's caught on the railroad tracks at the local Amtrax station, Clark isn't nearby. Pa, being awesome, jumps down and gets the kid free, but breaks his leg in the process and can't get back out. Clark arrives 10 seconds before he would get squished, and can't do anything because of the crowd. Making it 1. Not a dog and 2. Not survivable without a reveal completely removes my objection. A tornado was an incredibly silly choice. What you're suggesting is contrived and undermines what is most important about Pa Kent's death scene in Man of Steel. Look, I get why some might see the use of a tornado is dumb, but let me try to explain. The tornado is a force of nature; unshakable and unwavering in its violence that forms spontaneously almost out of nowhere. No one consciously made it happen. Pa Kent, in the face of such violence, demonstrates the resolve to make a conscious choice of self-sacrifice in order to protect his son, save a life that otherwise could not save themselves, and save the lives of others. Destiny or coincidence had no say in the outcome of the situation (e.g., Pa Kent dying from a heart attack, kid trapped in train tracks). The use of a tornado vs Pa Kent is also a good nature vs nuture narrative concept, but others might see that as a huge stretch. I think it works. teagone fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Alright nerds, how about this - Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, so why doesn't his fight with Zod take place entirely at bullet-speed? Why is Superman intentionally slowing himself down so that the human eye could follow the fight? Couldn't he have just punched Zod 500 times before Zod punched him once, if Zod couldn't match that speed yet? The whole final sequence should've happened in 20 seconds with everything around them in slo-mo, like that part in the new X-men. If I wanted to see Molasses Superman I'd watch the 50s show 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
teagone posted:What you're suggesting is contrived and undermines what is most important about Pa Kent's death scene in Man of Steel. Look, I get why some might see the use of a tornado is dumb, but let me try to explain. The tornado is a force of nature; unshakable and unwavering in its violence that forms spontaneously almost out of nowhere. No one made consciously made it happen. Pa Kent, in the face of such violence, demonstrates the resolve to make a conscious choice of self-sacrifice in order to protect his son, save a life that otherwise could not save themselves, and save the lives of others. Destiny or coincidence had no say in the outcome of the situation (e.g., Pa Kent dying from a heart attack, kid trapped in train tracks). The use of a tornado vs Pa Kent is also a good nature vs nuture narrative concept, but others might see that as a huge stretch. I think it works. I think it's pretty crazy to act like "whoops, forgot the dog, oh well now I'm trapped" is more contrived than any other way you could construct a "dad dies in a way where Superman can't save him without revealing himself", and I see absolutely nothing of a nature VS nurture dichotomy being created by the presence of the tornado. I really don't see how you can posit that coincidence doesn't impact the scene, either. They happened to be driving near a tornado, they happened to forget the dog.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Has there been any movie news amidst 200+ posts about Pa Kent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Auritech posted:I'm just wondering how many people watched Man of Steel and were Superman fans to begin with versus those that were just comic fans with knowledge of the character. I have no interest or desire to see MoS because it's Superman, a character I respect for being important but not exactly one that I like or find compelling in any way, and these back and forth arguments even among those who like the movie don't sell the experience very well. You should watch it. I never cared much for the character even though I enjoyed the Donner movies as a kid. I hated "Superman Returns". To me the more interesting takes on Superman have been things like "Red Son" and "Kingdom Come" and, yes, MOS. I haven't seen or read "All Star Superman" yet but I hear it's good. edit: Electromax posted:Good job, you two. All those words and you convinced each other of absolutely nothing! Yeah...I wonder how they're going to handle it, assuming you're speaking of Batman V Superman. I assume it's gonna be the DKR approach but they haven't really set that up too well and it feels rushed. I wish they'd do MOS 2 where Superman IS Superman, takes on Lex, rescues kittens and all that other boy scout poo poo and then maybe reboot Batman with Affleck as an older Bruce Wayne - coming out of retirement or whatever - or even do a basic Batman film that establishes him in the universe where he fights the Riddler or Mr. freeze or something. Otherwise, it just feels rushed and problematic to me, as much as I'd love to see TDKR made into a film. Then I can hold my breath for a "Kingdom Come" movie. But they have to set it up first and DC isn't doing that. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Honestly, the worst scene for me isn't the dog, or Zod's death, it's the scene where Zod and Superman fight it out in the middle of a crowded street. Zod hurls a tanker trunk at Superman, and he just dodges it, letting it explode at the side of the building. Where people are huddled around. Just kinda gross and weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I think it's pretty crazy to act like "whoops, forgot the dog, oh well now I'm trapped" is more contrived than any other way you could construct a "dad dies in a way where Superman can't save him without revealing himself", and I see absolutely nothing of a nature VS nurture dichotomy being created by the presence of the tornado. Nature vs nurture is obviously one of the themes of Man of Steel. The tornado scene is an extension of that, i.e., Clark's inherent wanting to save people because he is a god-like alien vs Pa Kent's xenophobic protective upbringing that ultimately teaches Clark to think before he acts, among other things. As for coincidence/destiny, I'm talking about how Pa Kent consciously made the choice to die in order to protect his son as opposed to having his son save him, not the circumstances that led him to that point. The tornado happened out of nowhere as opposed to a kid getting trapped, or Pa Kent having a heart attack. [edit] CelticPredator posted:Honestly, the worst scene for me isn't the dog, or Zod's death, it's the scene where Zod and Superman fight it out in the middle of a crowded street. Zod hurls a tanker trunk at Superman, and he just dodges it, letting it explode at the side of the building. Where people are huddled around. You can see Clark turn around and look at the explosion. He was probably like "Oh poo poo, I probably should have grabbed that". It's his first day on the job as a superhero, you can't expect him to do everything right. teagone fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
In non Man of Steel news, this may be the first look at Yellowjacket in Ant Man
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
NienNunb posted:Has there been any movie news amidst 200+ posts about Pa Kent? Big Hero 6 is apparently cool and fun. So there's that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:As I said earlier, make it that he's about to get hit by a train in clear daylight in front of a bunch of people, where there's no way to disguise Clark's intervention, and I have absolutely no problem with Clark being unable to save his dad without revealing himself. The manufactured scenario is so glaringly not a problem that I can't take it seriously, and Superman would be completely justified were he resentful of a father figure who put principle above common sense. Or just make him have heart attack or a stroke. Something beyond Superman's powers. The scene sucked but it didn't ruin the loving movie. NienNunb posted:Has there been any movie news amidst 200+ posts about Pa Kent? I hear Big Hero 6 is good. Dacap posted:In non Man of Steel news, this may be the first look at Yellowjacket in Ant Man that's rather bad rear end. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:16
|
|