Man of Steel (Superman Movie Thread) - June 14, 2013 - NEW Trailer pg20

[donmega]

But Nolan will likely have no involvement in the sequel. :\

He isn't? Man that's a bummer.

I didn't take it any kind of way. I was just speaking on that possibility cuz it did pass my mind, it just never got any discussion.

It'd be funny to see Tom Hardy as Lex or JGL

Good point about the codex. Jor-El says he put in Clark so he could try and form a world of kryptonians and Earthlings working together but if he was really opposed to the whole genetic engineering pod babies. He could've smashed Lara-El the old fashion way and then stole another female baby unless he doesn't mind incest.

I wonder if the codex being in Clark will lead to anything

All good fam!

And Tom Hardy as Lex would be crazy lols

As for the codex, I am curious as to how they would approach it in the sequel.

 

[rfx45]

Knowing Goyer, wouldn't be surprised completely ignore it in the sequel.


As for the codex and Supes continuin the legacy, I though JorEl pretty much wanted him to just do it with a bunch of female Earthlings. JorEl and Lara talked about finding the right planet and they probably considered Earth having a similar physiology so that dude isn't doing it with weird alien beings (beastiality).

 

[clarkkent415]

^

Please don't say that RFX lol. I need a great Justice League or at least World's Finest movie to happen.

 

[x Buddha Bless x]

I'd at least hope Lex figures it out and tries to power himself up.

Zod: Hmm. Nah, I think I’ll just stick with the terraforming/killing all of humanity thing.

Superman: What about this: I give you the Codex, and you go guys go terraform another planet? You save the Kryptonian race, I save the Earth.

Zod: That is a great idea. But if we do that then the movie ends.

Superman: Nuts.

Exactly what I said earlier. Dudes could've went to Mars and still had the yellow sun. Then just enslaved humanity at a later point when they had an army of supermen. Where was the kryptonian engineered to be a politician and use cunning and subterfuge?

(Superman has Zod in a headlock)

Zod: You are such an *** hole!

Superman: What did I do?

Zod: Hey, remember when you blew up that ship with all the tree pod babies? You committed genocide!

Superman: But…

Zod: No buts! You destroyed pretty much the entire last bit of the Krypytonian race, besides you, me, and those dudes you sent back to the Phantom Zone!

Superman: Hey, you were trying to kill all of humanity with the World Engine thing!

Zod: You know why? BECAUSE I’M THE ******G VILLAIN. I’m evil; that’s what I do. Aren’t you supposed to be better than that?

Superman: What else was I supposed to do?

Zod: Well, you could have not destroyed my ship and concentrated on just defeating me. Then you could have restarted the Kryptonian race again and sent them to another planet or taught them to co-exist with humans or something. It wouldn’t have been that hard.

Superman: But I saved humanity!

Zod: Well, kind of. I mean, you still managed to let an area the size of Manhattan get completely annihilated. And thanks to the disaster porn-loving director, we got to see countless people getting killed, really emphasizing your inability to save them. Have you seen the estimated damage and death tolls from our final fight?

Superman: No…

Zod: It’s ****** up, man. Hey, you know what I just realized? I only tried to commit genocide, but you accidentally succeeded at it! Nice work, ****!

Pure GOLD

 

[rfx45]

Exactly what I said earlier. Dudes could've went to Mars and still had the yellow sun. Then just enslaved humanity at a later point when they had an army of supermen. Where was the kryptonian engineered to be a politician and use cunning and subterfuge?

Well a lot of research and scouts were sent from planet to planet, Earth was one they found habitable. Plus how can they go to Mars and grow an army when Kal had the codex and the ship with pods they use to procreate? Zod isn't about getting busy with Faora either, he seems to just want engineered babies through pods.

And the Kryptonians with Zod were all criminals, it was the ship that was sent to the Phantom Zone. So I assume most, if not all, were Zods army. They had a scientist in his army though.

 

[big j 33]

Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie?

 

[x Buddha Bless x]

Double

 

[x Buddha Bless x]

Exactly what I said earlier. Dudes could've went to Mars and still had the yellow sun. Then just enslaved humanity at a later point when they had an army of supermen. Where was the kryptonian engineered to be a politician and use cunning and subterfuge?

Well a lot of research and scouts were sent from planet to planet, Earth was one they found habitable. Plus how can they go to Mars and grow an army when Kal had the codex and the ship with pods they use to procreate? Zod isn't about getting busy with Faora either, he seems to just want engineered babies through pods.

And the Kryptonians with Zod were all criminals, it was the ship that was sent to the Phantom Zone. So I assume most, if not all, were Zods army. They had a scientist in his army though.

What I originally said, was for Zod not to approach Kal like a villain. He could've manipulated him to get the codex, the pods, and ship. He could've said he learned from his time in the phantom zone and only wants to see the rebirth of his ppl and live in peace. Jor-El didn't give Zod the details of what happened and from what we know his army are only criminals for the coup. Then go to Mars and use the world engines to terraform Mars. I'm really not seeing a reason why they couldn't terraform Mars unless in that world it isn't habitable at all like the other planets in our solar system (Going off the Through the Wormhole episode, "How can we survive the death of our star", terraforming Mars is very possible). They sent scouts not just cuz it was habitable but because it had ppl on it (ppl that don't look any different than kryptoninas coincidentally). If it was just looking for any habitable planet there's higher chances he would've ended up on a planet alone.

Hell if he wanted, Zod could've remained hidden on the ship. Sent Faora or that scientist to do the talking. Hoodwink Clark and then go about their business. Krypton on Earth didn't HAVE to happen.

If you read what I originally said I didn't say anything about Zod having sex with Faora.

What I originally said:

On another note, one thing I found a bit dumb story wise which caused the conflict was Jor-El wanting Clark to make it so the codex would be used to make new Kryptonians to work together with Earthlings and Zod simply wanted to use them (Earth/Earthlings) as their foundation and wipe them out. While we all know a hospitable planet is right next door in Mars. They must've passed it to hide behind the moon. They had world engines to terraform the Earth and they could've just done that on Mars. Problems solved. Key flaw in genetic engineering. Had Zod been programmed with a little personality encompassing subterfuge and manipulation. He could've came to Earth in peace, got the codex, repopulated all of New Krypton on Mars and came back and took over Earth starting off a nice growing galactic empire.

 

[lamekilla]

I personally don't understand why they want to restart the DC universe with a new batman. As dumb as TDKR ended I think it could for the most part co-exist in the same world with superman. Honestly I just don't see the reason for them to cast another batman. They could think of some loopy way for bale's Bruce Wayne to put back on the cowl as batman. It could even be a good set up for a worlds finest/justice league film...

 

[36Hypno]

Although I despise ST:ID Cumberbatch did a great job in it as well as in what I've seen so far in Sherlock. I can definitely see dude pulling off an effective Luthor.

I think they'll eventually go with a less known actor though.

 

[fresh out dabox]

Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie?

what was wrong with it?

 

[rfx45]

Damn dude, you need chill. Geez, Faora thing was a joke because it seemed like you said to have an army of supermen on Mars. Lighten up. And before you try to "clear it up" and try your best to make everyone else look stupid, I know you could have meant just the existing Kryptonians to be the army of supermen once powered but your post was vague (the one I quoted, not any other post), so yes I could have read it the wrong way, apparently.


And yeah Zod could have done that but that isn't his personality. Plus he did try to reason with Kal, he laid it out clearly that JorEl send the codex with him and he needed it back. It wasn't in his personality in the film to be deceitful, he just wants to get the job done straight up w/o BS. He was born and grown that way.

I mean if we really think about all these films, we could make hundred of scenarios where we can say "he could have done this, he could have done that... and then it'll be better". There is a reason it was written that way and unless we get a full explanation of why from the writers/directors, etc... you just got to assume or speculate the reasoning behind their actions. I assume they found Mars inhabitable because there is no living being in there while Earth does. And they did say it in the beginning that they used to send scouts and mine their core for energy and resources (JorEl explained this to Kal too) but they apparently changed their way and they tried to mine Kryptons core thus dooming the planet.

 

[firepower]

Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie?

Because people love to hate Superman more than any other fictional character out there. No other superhero film has gotten scrutinized, analyzed and picked over the way Man of Steel has.

It's like that guy who broke it down a few posts ago, yes he was on point and it's a good laugh, but let's not pretend that you couldn't take any one of a 100 random other movies, dissect them and point out their flaws/plot holes in the same way.

 

[donmega]

Just read this interesting article over at CBR. Quick quote from it:

"Have to admit, when something like the new Superman movie comes out I always feel a little bit like a monster wearing human skin on his face. I just sort of don’t relate to the whole idea of Superman as this sort of aspirational idea, let alone a character in which I have ownership. I mean, I may not end up liking the Superman movie if I get to see it, but I’m confident it won’t be [because] my idea of Superman wasn’t used. I don’t have a conception of Superman, I don’t know what Star Treks are supposed to be like, I can’t get worked up about the Lone Ranger. I guess I usually say that these characters are whatever their creators say they are, like Jaime H decided Maggie Chascarillo, not me. But these corporate characters are just empty suits, right? They’ll say or be whatever the person that owns them says they’ll say they’ll be. Maybe I’m just dead inside, I don’t know; I mean, I get “bad” but I don’t get “wrong.”


Full article here: Is it OK to claim ‘your’ Superman?

 

[x Buddha Bless x]

Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie?

what was wrong with it?

If you read it, it's the same Superman fans saying it's nothing like the Supes they know.

The point about it being a cross between John carter and Transformers is cold though. I thought it might've went over thte top Transformers style when that building started to fall but it didn't go on too long or lag and become boring destruction imo.

I personally don't understand why they want to restart the DC universe with a new batman. As dumb as TDKR ended I think it could for the most part co-exist in the same world with superman. Honestly I just don't see the reason for them to cast another batman. They could think of some loopy way for bale's Bruce Wayne to put back on the cowl as batman. It could even be a good set up for a worlds finest/justice league film...

It could but even Nolan will tell you his Batman was not constructed to deal with aliens and all that supernatural ****. He left out a lot of the detective stuff in Bats. Plus he made him extra human the way he took damage.

Writers/directors said they want Supes to be the guy being the spark/inspiration for the other heroes in the DCU.

I mean you gotta think, Bats is dealing with nukes in Gotham and Clark is off being a drifter? So many years passed too.

Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie?

Because people love to hate Superman more than any other fictional character out there. No other superhero film has gotten scrutinized, analyzed and picked over the way Man of Steel has.
It's like that guy who broke it down a few posts ago, yes he was on point and it's a good laugh, but let's not pretend that you couldn't take any one of a 100 random other movies, dissect them and point out their flaws/plot holes in the same way.

I think it's just cuz MOS wasn't THAT good compared to ppl's reactions to SM2, TDK, etc. More of the consensus seems to be this is a polarizing movie. You either like it or don't. I can see why ppl don't despite me liking it and don't think it's cuz Supes has a target on him. On the other hand IM3, TDKR, etc. get criticized despite the box office success just as much. There's like a 17 min vid of Kevin Smith completely breaking down and pointing out all of the plot holes of the TDKR. So I don't think Superman is that special when it comes to scrutiny and analyzing.

Damn dude, you need chill. Geez, Faora thing was a joke because it seemed like you said to have an army of supermen on Mars. Lighten up. And yeah Zod could have done that but that isn't his personality. Plus he did try to reason with Kal, he laid it out clearly that JorEl send the codex with him and he needed it back. It wasn't in his personality in the film to be deceitful, he just wants to get the job done straight up w/o BS. He was born and grown that way

I was just referring to the ones on the ship but yeah Zod not being in to girls is hilarious. I know. I basically said that by acknowledging that subterfuge and manipulation aren't in his makeup. I said this several times. It's not in his personality to do what I suggested. It's why I said only if he was programmed with that capability or someone capable of doing it spoke up.

I mean if we really think about all these films, we could make hundred of scenarios where we can say "he could have done this, he could have done that... and then it'll be better". There is a reason it was written that way and unless we get a full explanation of why from the writers/directors, etc... you just got to assume or speculate the reasoning behind their actions. I assume they found Mars inhabitable because there is no living being in there while Earth does. And they did say it in the beginning that they used to send scouts and mine their core for energy and resources (JorEl explained this to Kal too) but they apparently changed their way and they tried to mine Kryptons core thus dooming the planet.

I just brought it up again cuz it was mentioned in that link. It's not like there aren't other habitable planets in space. I know they wrote the story a certain way so that it'd be entertaining and have conflict. I was just pointing out something I felt was a bit glaring. I mean if what I said happened, the movie is over. As for the Mars thing though, it is habitable in real life so in the movie it'd have to have no signs of being that at all.

No big thing, just sayin'. I dunno maybe next time read my post in a different tone instead of being so defensive

 

[rfx45]

I wasn't even being defensive, most of these comments amuse me. If I were defensive or mad, I ain't going to be talking about Zod not wanting Faora (I mean who wouldn't want her?) and Superman and bestiality.


You just got to chill with the "why don't you read what I wrote again..." and "watch this movie again..." as if no one can read or has seen the films before. That just always sounds mad or defensive no matter what context it is read on.

 

[firepower]

Buddha -You're definitely right, it is a polarizing movie (it was always going to be anyway with that ending) but it just seems a lot of negativity has snowballed from a select few early reviews and suddenly every armchair critic in the world has come crawling out of the woodwork to chip in their 2 cents.

Of course I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their opinions or that there isn't justified criticism of the movie, but I don't ever recall this level of scrutiny for any other superhero flick. Then again, that's probably because I'm so wrapped up in MOS, that I'm checking and reading every article, blog post, mention of it I see lol.

But my point about Superman being the superhero that people love to hate more than any other is very real and it has been going on looong before this movie. I remember John Landis' son doing that sickeningly patronizing break down vid on why (according to him) everyone hates Superman, so yeah Superman still gets scrutinized even when he's not particularly in the spotlight. Whatever negative points people might have about the Batman films, they still love him and his bastard prep time ...or Tony Stark and his bastard charisma 

Like I said before, Man of Steel certainly wasn't perfect and believe me, there's plenty about it that I would change personally, but I still think it's a great Superman movie.

 

[x Buddha Bless x]

I wasn't even being defensive, most of these comments amuse me. If I were defensive or mad, I ain't going to be talking about Zod not wanting Faora (I mean who wouldn't want her?) and Superman and bestiality.


You just got to chill with the "why don't you read what I wrote again..." and "watch this movie again..." as if no one can read or has seen the films before. That just always sounds mad or defensive no matter what context it is read on.

I don't think I told you to watch the movie again or reread my post just now but if you aren't defensive, well just imagine all of my posts narrated by Morgan Freeman then. Just keep his voice in mind. You should be fine then.

Buddha -You're definitely right, it is a polarizing movie (it was always going to be anyway with that ending) but it just seems a lot of negativity has snowballed from a select few early reviews and suddenly every armchair critic in the world has come crawling out of the woodwork to chip in their 2 cents.
Of course I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their opinions or that there isn't justified criticism of the movie
, but I don't ever recall this level of scrutiny for any other superhero flick. Then again, that's probably because I'm so wrapped up in MOS, that I'm checking and reading every article, blog post, mention of it I see lol.


But my point about Superman being the superhero that people love to hate more than any other is very real and it has been going on looong before this movie. I remember John Landis' son doing that sickeningly patronizing break down vid on why (according to him) everyone hates Superman, so yeah Superman still gets scrutinized even when he's not particularly in the spotlight. Whatever negative points people might have about the Batman films, they still love him and his bastard prep time ...or Tony Stark and his bastard charisma

Like I said before, Man of Steel certainly wasn't perfect and believe me, there's plenty about it that I would change personally, but I still think it's a great Superman movie.

They just did the same thing two months ago to IM3. I think the way you're viewing it is close to prisoner of the moment since the movie came out last week and negative stuff is still rolling out. Give it some time and it won't look that bad.

It may only get extra attention given Supes status compared to the quality of movies he's had amongst the other top billing comic book heroes. Plus there's no denying the past Superman movies just haven't been that good.

As for loving to hate him. I know plenty just flat out hate him. There's been plenty reasons posted on this forum for why they don't like Superman. They think he's boring, too much of an all powerful being, no personality, etc. So when he's brought up and praised you'll get naysayers. That comes with being one of the most popular superheroes in the world, especially when you got ppl championing that he's the best. For many the novelty has simply worn off. They'll be guys stepping up for Bats and IM cuz they're cool (IM more recently) and really Superman is not. He's suppose to be the boy scout. That era and generation that liked the good guy for being the good guy isn't that favorable anymore. It's why Captain America barely gets any traction. So some of the dislike for Supes is just inherent to his character.

 

[firepower]

Oh yeah, I've heard every single naysayer argument against Supes being a great character under the sun, I stopped worrying about what other people think of him or trying to champion him to them many years ago lol.

 

[donmega]

Buddha -You're definitely right, it is a polarizing movie (it was always going to be anyway with that ending) but it just seems a lot of negativity has snowballed from a select few early reviews and suddenly every armchair critic in the world has come crawling out of the woodwork to chip in their 2 cents.
Of course I'm not saying people aren't entitled to their opinions or that there isn't justified criticism of the movie
, but I don't ever recall this level of scrutiny for any other superhero flick. Then again, that's probably because I'm so wrapped up in MOS, that I'm checking and reading every article, blog post, mention of it I see lol.


But my point about Superman being the superhero that people love to hate more than any other is very real and it has been going on looong before this movie. I remember John Landis' son doing that sickeningly patronizing break down vid on why (according to him) everyone hates Superman, so yeah Superman still gets scrutinized even when he's not particularly in the spotlight. Whatever negative points people might have about the Batman films, they still love him and his bastard prep time ...or Tony Stark and his bastard charisma 

Like I said before, Man of Steel certainly wasn't perfect and believe me, there's plenty about it that I would change personally, but I still think it's a great Superman movie.

I guess Superman gets most of the criticism as he is THE Superhero. People hold him in a totally different regard than the other superheroes.

 

[blakep267]

did he really just say, hes never seen a superhero movie get such scrutiny? Every super hero movie gets torn apart, besides TDK. TDKR, Avengers, amazing spiderman, spideman 3, superman returns, the list goes on. Talk about missing the mark

 

[rfx45]

He definitely gets scrutinized plenty. I mean everyone is looking for the Reeves Clark/Superman in MoS but they weren't looking for a Keaton in BB. I'm sure no one wants a Clooney or Kilmer Batman again so I won't count them.

And really, Nolans Batman isn't really the Bats we know. I mean really, he didn't do much detective work in any of the trilogy films. He used some gadgets like that scanning machine to determine the bullets trajectory or some other mumbo jumbo that pretty much led to nowhere in TDK. Hell the Joker was always one step ahead of him throughout the whole film and that is suppose to be Bats in his prime. Bruce couldn't even deduce who Crane was working for in BB and he couldn't deduce that Bane wasn't working alone in TDKR. He showed some signs but I seriously wouldn't mind seeing a film that is just full of detective work similar to the arc Hush.

It also lacked action if you really think about it. Nolan did a great job filming and the script and everything so it becomes less of a problem but for a Batman film, there could be a bit more action. And the action scenes we got, was kind of confusing. Like the first time Bats comes out and takes out those guys in the docks, I had no idea what the hell was going on.

Bruce wasn't the Bruce we know, they barely showed him as a Socialite Bruce, Nolan got no flack for not showing the charming and charismatic Bruce, he was actually more of a d*ck than the humanitarian playboy we have come to expect. But with Clark, they expect the Reeves version when he wasn't even working in the Daily Planet yet.


I know others will disagree but those are just some comparisons I could think of where Superman hate is just there because he is Superman. I guess Nolans shines better as a director than Snyder do too but some of those problems seems to get a pass with Batman while it becomes a huge problem with Superman.

 

[blakep267]

He definitely gets scrutinized plenty. I mean everyone is looking for the Reeves Clark/Superman in MoS but they weren't looking for a Keaton in BB. I'm sure no one wants a Clooney or Kilmer Batman again so I won't count them.

And really, Nolans Batman isn't really the Bats we know. I mean really, he didn't do much detective work in any of the trilogy films. He used some gadgets like that scanning machine to determine the bullets trajectory or some other mumbo jumbo that pretty much led to nowhere in TDK. Hell the Joker was always one step ahead of him throughout the whole film and that is suppose to be Bats in his prime. Bruce couldn't even deduce who Crane was working for in BB and he couldn't deduce that Bane wasn't working alone in TDKR. He showed some signs but I seriously wouldn't mind seeing a film that is just full of detective work similar to the arc Hush.

It also lacked action if you really think about it. Nolan did a great job filming and the script and everything so it becomes less of a problem but for a Batman film, there could be a bit more action. And the action scenes we got, was kind of confusing. Like the first time Bats comes out and takes out those guys in the docks, I had no idea what the hell was going on.

Bruce wasn't the Bruce we know, they barely showed him as a Socialite Bruce, Nolan got no flack for not showing the charming and charismatic Bruce, he was actually more of a d*ck than the humanitarian playboy we have come to expect. But with Clark, they expect the Reeves version when he wasn't even working in the Daily Planet yet.


I know others will disagree but those are just some comparisons I could think of where Superman hate is just there because he is Superman. I guess Nolans shines better as a director than Snyder do too but some of those problems seems to get a pass with Batman while it becomes a huge problem with Superman.

you got it in your last paragraph. I let alot of nolans mistakes slide, because he makes good movies with great stories. Snyder, not so much. Not saying that I loved Bale, I actiually didnt at all. but I accepted it. I didnt feel that way about Superman.

 

[rfx45]

did he really just say, hes never seen a superhero movie get such scrutiny? Every super hero movie gets torn apart, besides TDK. TDKR, Avengers, amazing spiderman, spideman 3, superman returns, the list goes on. Talk about missing the mark

I think he was talking about based on the source material the way Superman films has been scrutinized. I mean comics books change all the time but people always wants to stick to only what they know. Hell Superman was a jerk back then and a bit racist.

Avengers didn't really get much flack, at least not to ridiculous proportions like TDKR did with the broken back and Bruce getting back to Gotham, these things still haunts people to this day.

 

[rfx45]

you got it in your last paragraph. I let alot of nolans mistakes slide, because he makes good movies with great stories. Snyder, not so much. Not saying that I loved Bale, I actiually didnt at all. but I accepted it. I didnt feel that way about Superman.

I about halfway agree, I just think if purists wants to destroy Supermans origins because it isn't page for page the same from what they remember, then Batman shouldn't get a pass from it's flaws.

Like with IM3, I really do not get the good reviews it got even if you have no prior knowledge of Mandarin and what they ruined with him. The film was just not that good. The filming/directing wasn't great, some plot points made no sense and seemed pointless really, cinematic was nothing spectacular, etc... Yet it got so much good reviews.