Nolan courting Cameron for real life Aquaman movie confirmed.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
SPOILER THREAD - Man of Steel: Superman 2013
- Thread starter shira
- Start date
- Status
lol, man that guy certainly took a hell of a leap in that last sentence.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
There is one thing I don't understand: why did Faora leave Martha Kent alone once Supes and Zod were fighting?
You would think they would have taken advantage of that fight to get the upper-hand on Clark by taking Martha hostage.
I mean it was literally what, hours? I didn't care for that, well the only thing that made me swallow that a bit was that he was no mere soldier but his class is genetically engineered to be a solider. You can think of him as a sort of Super Soldier.
sketchsanchez
Member
Him shedding that armor and all but outright saying "I'm getting stronger every minute *and* I'm a born fighter...you are so fucking dead." was one of the best parts of the film for me.
I saw someone post this same argument on Reddit acouple days ago.
Y'know? I'd believe the oil rig thing, but all the stuff about the whales or whatever... that's definitely reaching.
Yeah, that scene was really cringe-worthy and a pretty blatant attempt at trying to pull at the emotions of the audience with the ensuing demise of Kent a few minutes later.
I don't think CADMUS would work without Justice League either. Also with Dr Hamilton already gone it removes the potential of him being betrayed by a character he could be close to.
Heh, I guess aiming your heat vision with your eyes is harder to do than mastering flight. But even then that doesn't make sense in the movie context since Superman mastered his heat vision before he flew successfully.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
That was a Super Shredder moment for me. The stranger sitting next to me even said "Oh shit it's on".
That is a bit of reaching - especially that last sentence - but it was a cool little reference. And an unexpected one.
I don't know if it will lead to a full blown Aquaman movie, but anything that helps confirm he won't be left out of Justice League is cool with me.
That's exactly how they should do it, test the waters to see if the public responds to him positively in a Justice League movie and go from there. Sort of how awesome Mark Ruffalo was in Avengers made people want to see him in a new Hulk movie.
Wind's Howling
Member
The Avengers basically was a new hulk movie.
That's how they're doing it for everybody. Put out Justice League and go from there. Wonder Woman might be the only one that doesn't need JL to get her own flick, but they ain't investing in an action movie about a female superhero without something to back it up.
"That's my secret, Cap. This has always been a Hulk movie."
demosthenes
Member
Glad to hear, that's what I was hoping would happen.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Normally I find myself agreeing with the Half in the Bag guys, but their review for MoS was incredibly lazy and it came across like they were hating it for hating's sake.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Fear was shown. Just that it was engendered by Zod's appearance and threat rather than Clark himself. Jonathan rightly protected Clark, and Clark correctly kept his powers hidden until he understood his destiny. And when the right time arose, when people could make sense of his appearance and his powers, Superman was born.
I don't think I would have liked to see a Superman film where people are actually scared of him. That would be kind of weird and darken a film that was already pretty bleak. I'm glad they took the route that they did. It was a perfect harmony of Jonathon's reservations and Jor-El's hope. Clark respected the wishes of both his parents as you expect him to have done.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
How humanity ever forgave Superman in the first place requires one to stretch you sensibilities a bit, I think.
Dude's been hanging out on your planet, no causing any problems which is cool...but he triggers a Kryptonian ship beacon by accident and calls all his angry-ass friends to the planet and they immediately try and terraform the whole damn place, committing mass genocide in the process.
Earth is safer without Superman ever being there. The fact that he helps defeat Zod and friends doesn't change the fact that the only reason they would have come to Earth in the first place was because he was there.
Who knows what else in the universe knows about Kal-El being there and in-turn wants to cause problems there?
Having a dude around who can help police the world is neat, but at what cost?!
Dude's been hanging out on your planet, no causing any problems which is cool...but he triggers a Kryptonian ship beacon by accident and calls all his angry-ass friends to the planet and they immediately try and terraform the whole damn place, committing mass genocide in the process.
Earth is safer without Superman ever being there. The fact that he helps defeat Zod and friends doesn't change the fact that the only reason they would have come to Earth in the first place was because he was there.
Who knows what else in the universe knows about Kal-El being there and in-turn wants to cause problems there?
Having a dude around who can help police the world is neat, but at what cost?!
All true but it's not like he asked to be sent there. He is a chlid of Earth now and has earned the right to exist/live there.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Since we're thinking realistically here, I don't think any single government would want to reject Superman. If America rejects him, every other nation in the world would line up to accept him. You honestly think America would for a second entertain the idea of revoking his nationality with China and Russia waiting at the door with open arms? In fact they even show the military trying to keep a track of him, and when caught, they make sure to question his allegiance to America and not the human race.
Anton Sugar
Member
Just rewatched The Iron Giant for the first time in YEARS yesterday. So fucking good.
If they could have had half of The Iron Giant's heart in Man of Steel, it would have probably been one of my favorite films of the year. The Giant's arc > MoS Superman's.
If they could have had half of The Iron Giant's heart in Man of Steel, it would have probably been one of my favorite films of the year. The Giant's arc > MoS Superman's.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
I guess I just don't buy that the UN would ultimately deem it a good idea to have him on Earth, despite his seemingly good intentions and nature.
It isn't anything I'm losing sleep over, but I had that thought while watching the movie and seeing Supes take down the drone.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
If the UN security council members had that kind of collective harmonious understanding, no country would have nuclear missile technology. Superman is essentially the ultimate weapon, the caveat being that he also comes with free will. He's American and his government will use that to its advantage. Try getting America to ratify a security council agreement against Superman. It's just not realistic.
Edit: Although there is an interesting discussion to be had about Clark's nationality. He wasn't born in America. He's obviously an illegal alien. Did the Kents forge his documents?
On Guilt
Generally, the way morality and condemnation works is that it relies upon agency or free will. A morally culpable action is required for a person reasonably to be saddled with blame (disregard the unreasonable for now, there are less logical restrictions on bigotry).
Additionally, for unintentional harms we segregate cause-in-fact from the concept of proximate cause... that the thing that causes the harm needs to be sufficiently tied in time, place, and expectation that your actions would likely lead to the expected harm. If you stick your feet out carelessly while reading the newspaper on a bus bench and trip someone, you could be said to be the proximate cause of the fall. However, if your postman briefly blocks your driveway, such that you catch six red lights, and get hit by a drunk driver... your postman would be the cause-in-fact, you could say, "If he weren't there blocking my driveway, none of this would have happened!" BUT reasonable individuals would recognize he isn't the proximate cause and would not bear moral culpability for your car accident. Additionally, since the drunk's intentions resulted in the accident, he would be the superseding cause for the accident.
Humanity will have some degree of answers as to how Superman arrived on Earth and a big part of that disclosure is that he came as an infant, one who had no choice in the matter. Having no freewill or agency in his presence, Kal-El would not be morally culpable for his presence. There might be some argument of negligence with respect to Clark going onto the scout ship, however, again there was no intention to summon Zod, no knowledge Zod existed (Jor-El explained their world was dead), no expectation a beacon would go off, and irrespective of Clark's actions the ship was about to be discovered and investigated anyways which could have possibly resulted in the beacon going off regardless (as an intervening cause). So Clark would not have been a proximate cause Zod's actions.
That, of course, is the largest point, that Zod had a degree of agency in his actions. When someone else acts with evil intent, it trumps any negligence on behalf of a prior individual (unless their negligence could be expected to bring about the evil- like leaving a door unlocked leading to theft)... Clark would have no reasonable expectation that simply existing would result in another individual attempting to exterminate humanity.
Thus, under traditional morality, most people judging him would not assign guilt. Irrational hatred, surely, could be directed at him, but what does that accomplish for Luthor if he fans that flame? Even if he can whip hatred into a fervor that results in Superman being criminalized (just for existing), exiled, and shunned... what does that accomplish if you can't enforce it?
---
Blame Game
Irrational hatred is a part of humanity but difficult to sustainably monetize or politicize. The KKK is an extremist joke today and can be discounted. In first-world democracies governed by law and order, tolerance (however troubled and with work to do) is mainstream. Creating a "rift" doesn't accomplish anything.
Blaming Kal-El because he was the target of Zod's focus is like blaming America for building the World Trade Center to be targeted... it's not something you can get traction on with anybody of significance or influence.
It works with the X-Men because the group includes individuals who have actively and proudly joined terrorist organizations to abuse their abilities (versus a single individual who has done nothing to justify moral condemnation). For the X-Men, there is sufficient precedent to make hay even if the enactments are overreaching AND you can effectively enforce those enactments because, by and large, mutants don't have the same scope of powers as Superman.
If, somehow, under crazy bigot congress theory, Lex gets legislation passed against Superman... what does that do? How are you going to stop him from saving hurricane survivors? Is that going to stop invitations from Canada and the rest of the free world pouring in invitations to Superman? (We've already seen this version of Superman is happy to reside in Canada....)
It's a short sighted strategy that doesn't get Lex anything. He'd need the entire global united against Superman and the collateral damage to Metropolis doesn't get you there, not when Superman saves the entire rest of the planet and not when the planet can't do anything against Superman to back up their enactments. This is a Superman willing to down a 12 million dollar drone just to make a point... imagine what he'll do if you try to pass lame duck legislation against him (from Luthor's perspective: whipping up hatred just to get to the point of passing ineffective law?).
Conversely, what does allying with Superman get you? Potentially substantially more... Lex gets to frame the first contact narrative, he gets to be seen as the foremost authority on extraterrestrials, he gets to be perceived as mainstream and thus congress with actual big movers and shakers (rather than sound like an extremist nut job), he gets into Superman's inner circle to learn his vulnerabilities, he potentially gets legitimate access to alien technology and testing of Superman's abilities (assuming consent), and he gets defense contracts if he justifies why the world needs more than Superman.
My concern is that hate-speech version of Luthor is going to turn him into J. Jonah Jameson... basically a joke. You can suspend your disbelief for a little bit and see Luthor getting some traction with hate, but at the end of the day, hurting someone's feelings isn't productive and doesn't accomplish anything for a business magnate.
---
Above posts came from another discussion massaged to fit, but to address your point more specifically, I think you're skipping the impact of a first contact. The Kryptonians give humanity cause to unite and prepare against future incursion. This time they were spared by utter happenstance- an allied alien raised amongst them fighting a militarily crippled and resource starved invading force... why should they anticipate being as lucky the next time out? Now that the paradigm is that technologically superior races exist beyond their own, why would humanity assume there are only two? (Again, this relates to disclosure... we don't know how much was conveyed to Kal-El and then to humanity... but in the prequel comic, the Kryptonians- at a minimum- were aware of the Thanagarians and humans.)
As this relates to Lex...
---
Q: How do you speak ill of an invulnerable alien who's faster than a speeding bullet, can see your secrets through walls, can hear your every whisper, can incinerate you with just a glance, or disappear you in orbit without anyone knowing?
A: Very carefully.
I don't think a smart Lex can exploit xenophobia the way people are assuming he can... at least, not in a credible fashion. The only way they can speak against Superman is if they earnestly believe he won't hurt them (and have valid support for that belief), undercutting their entire message. Killing Zod sets a precedent that lets the filmmakers refresh the Lex Luthor character so that he isn't tritely trying to discredit Superman in public like he traditionally has done in the last few decades of the comics.
If Lex is Machiavelli, you need a bruiser, so I think Metallo provides the primary conflict so that you don't build up corporate genius Lex just to turn him into a mustache twirler or powersuit psycho in one film.
I think you use Lex to play xenophobia more subtly rather than hate-mongering causation. Lex goes to the governments of the world with Superman at his side and says something like this:
"We are not alone. As we know from that fateful day, the universe contains other souls, some as noble as our Friend here. However, as we all experienced, for every one like our Friend there are many more who might be our enemy. Thank goodness for him, or we would have been crushed under the boot of an alien people with technology and capabilities far greater than our own... but not beyond us. While I'm grateful for my Friend, while we all are, Humanity just barely escaped extinction. The day may come when we have more visitors from the stars and if they come in peace, we will welcome them like our Friend... but if they come to conquer or kill we cannot let the entire burden rest with our Friend. I call upon the people of this planet to step forward into tomorrow. Together, nothing is beyond us." (Except not horribly cheesy and terribly written like that!
)With funding and multi-national backing, Lex can advance the transhuman project of making an immortal, superior man of steel / man of tomorrow to serve as a future foot soldier against aliens... foreign or domestic. If Superman is on board, there might even be some "friendly" sparring before it all goes haywire.
The primary themes of the film would be trust and humanity.
---
I hope Lex endorses Superman because I envision a Lex that is brilliant and recognizes public hatred of Superman is not sustainable.
Even if Lex privately hates Superman and even if this is the perfect opportunity to harm Superman's reputation even further... what does that get him? How does that accomplish anything? He simply makes Superman feel bad and go to ground, making him even more elusive and harder to study or hurt. You have this invulnerable alien that you can't do anything about, so how is hurting Superman's feelings productive? Not to mention, you have to assume apart from the Black Zero event, Superman is doing good. Assuming Lex isn't stupid, he'll take Superman's earnestness at face value and recognize that Superman will continue to act in a way that's consistent with good. That means Lex can only sabotage Superman (which would be hell if Lex got caught), yell at Superman's do-gooding irrationally such that only fringe xenophobics listen, or he can be smart... he can keep his enemy closer. Legitimate businesses / political candidates / etc. can only go so far on hate and Lex would see that.
If Lex endorses Superman, assists in improving Superman's image, Superman is more inclined to be out there in the public, to disclose more about himself, and to subject himself to say insightful experimentation (if Lex poses as a friend wanting Superman to know his own limits so Superman can optimize helping people; you don't want to learn in the field what you can and can't lift, etc). Now Lex is gathering meaningful data and setting up Superman for a fall; he's getting inside Superman's circle of trust to learn how to hurt him physically and psychically... moreover, Lex maintains his legitimacy with the public because he isn't just ranting against an obvious, if dangerous, do-gooder.
As far as film tone, the other important thing about this is that it provides the treachery of man in a way that is not psychotic, wounded, or an easy bandwagon to jump on. If a quasi-legitimate billionaire suddenly dedicates his being to publicly destroying an invincible do-gooding alien, that's insane or woundedness... I want Lex to be authoritative, together, and brilliant. Regarding the bandwagon, there's no doubt that MoS has been controversial and has a number of detractors... you don't want a suave, charismatic, and logical villain actually convince the audience Superman is terrible before Superman's earned the audience's trust. Instead, you use that incredible actor to help earn the public and the film's audience's trust... then when Lex betrays Supes, the audience feels the betrayal too and Lex is the proper villain. You do not want Lex so sympathetic and logical that the audience is rooting for him to beat Supes!
Anyways, the idea needs more work but that's the kernel of it....
As a quick aside, even if Lex has person vendetta against Superman, I do not want that vendetta to be all consuming... I want Lex to be a fully formed character with separate ambitions and machinations. He didn't build his fortune all his life because he was shiftless and waiting for an alien to hate... he has his own goals. So this ties back to my underlying premise, if you come out as a hater, he's shortening his life as a legitimate businessman... instead, I'd like to see him play the long con and, at least publicly, endorse Superman.
Here's another way to look at it... traditionally, Lex knows he can badmouth Superman because he knows Superman will always hold back. How does this Lex know that? Superman's been in business for only a day or so and in that time he's been a part of leveling buildings and killing a super-villain... what kind of death wish would Lex have to have to want to make Superman his public enemy? If Lex were Superman, his critics would find themselves on one-way trips to the Sun. Lex can only speak out against Superman if Superman has already established himself as not-a-danger, in which case, Lex speaking out is ineffective (everything he spews just proves how much Superman will restrain himself). So I vote for a smarter Lex to sees this as a losing game and tries to support Superman publicly while planning against him in secret.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Yeah, this is what I was thinking, but its appearance, even if passing in any sequel would make sense if they were intending to push ahead with a JL movie.
Speaking of MM, did anyone else notice the shot of Mars on the laptop just before the Genesis ship takes off.
Was it even Mars? Sure looked like it...
I noticed that too, but it didn't seem to me like anything other than "this guy is a space nerd so he has a wallpaper of Mars on his laptop".
Shamrock7r
Member
Zod didn't announce to the world that Superman was the one that accidentally directed him to Earth did he? It seems the only person that knows that Superman turned on the beacon is Superman.
Anton Sugar
Member
They don't know that specific detail, but the world knows they came to Earth for the sole purpose of finding him.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Crossposting here from the OT, which has become an interesting little whirlwind. Didn't want it to get lost in the sauce.
http://youtu.be/aw_GlYve_Lg
This is what's being called "A rant" by Max Landis, the writer of "Chronicle." Except it's not a rant at all. It's pretty clear-eyed, honestly, and while it's kind of a criticism of Man of Steel, it ends up being a criticism of Superhero movies in general, and how Man of Steel pulled into focus all the problems inherent with the choices studios are making in adapting these stories.
Like the film, dislike the film - there's something in there for you to agree with.
http://youtu.be/aw_GlYve_Lg
This is what's being called "A rant" by Max Landis, the writer of "Chronicle." Except it's not a rant at all. It's pretty clear-eyed, honestly, and while it's kind of a criticism of Man of Steel, it ends up being a criticism of Superhero movies in general, and how Man of Steel pulled into focus all the problems inherent with the choices studios are making in adapting these stories.
Like the film, dislike the film - there's something in there for you to agree with.
Fairly Rational
Banned
I like Max. He's a funny guy and Chronicle was a great movie. Platitudes aside, I agreed with him for the most part. During his "two adults in the room" analogy I had to disagree with his assessment that Superman would just stop it instantly. I mean that's kind of what the last half hour of the film is. Superman realizes he can't reason with Zod and tries to take him down. It's a long, bloody, drawn out slobber knocker and there is a fuck ton of collateral damage. That's not Clark's fault because he's not the one throwing Zod through buildings. Clark doesn't initiate any of the destruction we see in the film (barring one IHOP and the smackdown he gives the World Engine).
On that aspect of his "rant," I think he's just used to seeing Superman win quickly and decisively no matter what. I think what mattered most in the conflict between Zod and Superman is that he tried to stop Zod. He tried to put Zod down quickly and efficiently, but he's inexperienced and has never met anyone who could match him blow for blow before. That's why a lot of people were looking forward to this movie in the first place. Superman isn't just going to wag his finger at the villain and save the day handily. He's going to have to work for it. Dig deep and really fight to protect his people and his home.
I think through that lens the final showdown worked wonderfully.
yea i think people just have a major problem with this particular reinvention of the character.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
A lot of writers consider the plotting to be secondary to stuff like character and theme. Or even dialog, for that matter (Kevin Smith, for example)
I really would like to see Max Landis write Superman, because his thoughts on both storytelling and the character mirror my own. Especially when he says Superman is "just a guy." That was always the important part for me; as much as everyone else likes to view Superman as something totally otherworldly, I've always connected with the character when I viewed him a regular dude who just happens to have godly powers and has to deal with that, which he does by choosing to use his abilities to help people.
He brings up that Man of Steel isn't the only superhero movie to end with mayhem and destruction, citing Transformers 3 and The Avengers as examples. The annotations add Star Trek Into Darkness, which was funny for me, because while I didn't have much problem with MoS, some of the action in STiD took me a back. (Spoilers for Into Darkness)
Watching Into Darkness gave me more appreciation for the side of the discussion that was unnerved by the violence in MoS, my only real beef being the way it has come to dominate discussion about a movie with more severe issues, and the fact these complaints are only being at Superman.
Of course, that's to be expected. I mean, there's the obvious fact that the movie never pays lip service to Superman's intention of moving the fight higher or even having some dialogue stating Metropolis/Smallville were evacuated as we've discussed numerous times in the many MoS threads on gaf. But more than that, and I've said it before, part of the reaction stems from our idea of Superman. Mark Waid's reaction encapsulates a lot of this, I think; since the movie's been out, I've seen comics creators like Paolo Rivera and Yanick Paquette support his view on twitter (Gail Simone is the only one I've seen so far that disagreed with Mark). There was this blog on my wordpress feed titled "You Will Believe a Man Can Fail" wherein the writer says MoS isn't a bad film but a terrible Superman movie. Kevin Smith and Ralph Garman had a big debate about it on "Fatman on Batman;" Ralph hated the movie, and one of his chief reasons was it didn't remain true to the spirit of Superman.
The further I get from the movie, the more I realize that the view that the movie isn't true to the spirit of Superman is a fair one. Superman's (somewhat limited) characterization in the movie, a young man whose scared and unsure of himself and not entirely sure what he's doing as he has to save the world his first week on the job, is very much against the popular idea of Superman as a hero who is always in control and on top of things. Landis says is himself; "Superman always does the right thing."
Which brings me to why I think it's so hard to make a Superman movie in the current blockbuster movie landscape: so much of what makes Superman "super" is in direct conflict with what people want from their action heroes now. There are three superheroes that are more popular than the rest and Landis calls one a narcissistic bully who had a hand in killing his uncle (Spider-Man) and the other a cold sociopath who needed his parents to be shot in front him to learn that crime is bad and that you should help people (Batman). And you know what? As much as I love those two characters, I have to agree. The thing is though, that's what people want in their blockbuster heroes nowadays. They want not just flaws, but tragedy and heroism born of that tragedy (and revenge and what not).
Look at Tony Stark: a egotiscal, selfish 1%'er who is taken down a peg after watching "soldiers killed by the weapons [he] made to protect them" and being kidnapped by terrorist and only then does he decide to take responsibility for his actions and become a hero. Look at Thor: a Superman-like character who is prideful and aggressive in ways Superman is not who learns heroism after being exiled from his home for starting a war. Even in The Avengers, Coulson has to be murdered and New York has to become a warzone just the team can learn to stop being dicks to each other and work together.
That's what people want from their heroes nowadays. The "nice guy who does good for goodness sake" just doesn't vibe with people like it used to. The only popular character I can think of like that nowadays is Captain America, whose basically a less powerful Superman. But even with him, his movie had to turn him into a chorus girl and show him being bullied to make audience almost pity him so that we can cheer when he gets what he wants. Then when we move to the Avengers, Cap is picked on constantly by Stark and made to feel out of date.
That feeling of being out of date that comes from just being a good guy is what Synder et al had to deal with, and for better or worse, they chose to deal with it by having a younger Superman who is lonely and unsure of himself fight with an alien invasion. There is destruction and death and all of that is being placed on Superman's shoulders by the audience. Because the Superman we know would never have allowed it to happen.
But the fact is, the Superman "we" know isn't the Superman people want anymore. Landis asks that the "hero" be put back in the "superhero" movie. I say the "hero" is still there; just not Big Blue's style of heroism.
He brings up that Man of Steel isn't the only superhero movie to end with mayhem and destruction, citing Transformers 3 and The Avengers as examples. The annotations add Star Trek Into Darkness, which was funny for me, because while I didn't have much problem with MoS, some of the action in STiD took me a back. (Spoilers for Into Darkness)
There's Spock blowing the admiral's ship all the way to hell, then all the people on the Enterprise dying while Scotty and Kirk try to reach the reactor.
Of course, that's to be expected. I mean, there's the obvious fact that the movie never pays lip service to Superman's intention of moving the fight higher or even having some dialogue stating Metropolis/Smallville were evacuated as we've discussed numerous times in the many MoS threads on gaf. But more than that, and I've said it before, part of the reaction stems from our idea of Superman. Mark Waid's reaction encapsulates a lot of this, I think; since the movie's been out, I've seen comics creators like Paolo Rivera and Yanick Paquette support his view on twitter (Gail Simone is the only one I've seen so far that disagreed with Mark). There was this blog on my wordpress feed titled "You Will Believe a Man Can Fail" wherein the writer says MoS isn't a bad film but a terrible Superman movie. Kevin Smith and Ralph Garman had a big debate about it on "Fatman on Batman;" Ralph hated the movie, and one of his chief reasons was it didn't remain true to the spirit of Superman.
The further I get from the movie, the more I realize that the view that the movie isn't true to the spirit of Superman is a fair one. Superman's (somewhat limited) characterization in the movie, a young man whose scared and unsure of himself and not entirely sure what he's doing as he has to save the world his first week on the job, is very much against the popular idea of Superman as a hero who is always in control and on top of things. Landis says is himself; "Superman always does the right thing."
Which brings me to why I think it's so hard to make a Superman movie in the current blockbuster movie landscape: so much of what makes Superman "super" is in direct conflict with what people want from their action heroes now. There are three superheroes that are more popular than the rest and Landis calls one a narcissistic bully who had a hand in killing his uncle (Spider-Man) and the other a cold sociopath who needed his parents to be shot in front him to learn that crime is bad and that you should help people (Batman). And you know what? As much as I love those two characters, I have to agree. The thing is though, that's what people want in their blockbuster heroes nowadays. They want not just flaws, but tragedy and heroism born of that tragedy (and revenge and what not).
Look at Tony Stark: a egotiscal, selfish 1%'er who is taken down a peg after watching "soldiers killed by the weapons [he] made to protect them" and being kidnapped by terrorist and only then does he decide to take responsibility for his actions and become a hero. Look at Thor: a Superman-like character who is prideful and aggressive in ways Superman is not who learns heroism after being exiled from his home for starting a war. Even in The Avengers, Coulson has to be murdered and New York has to become a warzone just the team can learn to stop being dicks to each other and work together.
That's what people want from their heroes nowadays. The "nice guy who does good for goodness sake" just doesn't vibe with people like it used to. The only popular character I can think of like that nowadays is Captain America, whose basically a less powerful Superman. But even with him, his movie had to turn him into a chorus girl and show him being bullied to make audience almost pity him so that we can cheer when he gets what he wants. Then when we move to the Avengers, Cap is picked on constantly by Stark and made to feel out of date.
That feeling of being out of date that comes from just being a good guy is what Synder et al had to deal with, and for better or worse, they chose to deal with it by having a younger Superman who is lonely and unsure of himself fight with an alien invasion. There is destruction and death and all of that is being placed on Superman's shoulders by the audience. Because the Superman we know would never have allowed it to happen.
But the fact is, the Superman "we" know isn't the Superman people want anymore. Landis asks that the "hero" be put back in the "superhero" movie. I say the "hero" is still there; just not Big Blue's style of heroism.
Really? I agree with him. Plot is important, but the character stuff is always the meat and potatoes of any story as far as I'm concerned. It's the part of any film/game/show/whatever I need to be on point for me to get into it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Great post, Rei.
Yeah, the fact that Clark has been a "superhero" for all of like, 4 hours has something to do with his actions/reactions in this movie. I've seen some call that an "irritating" response to charges that Superman "doesn't care" in this movie, but I think they're pretty logical assumptions to come to in the text of the film itself.
The problem is that Goyer/Snyder felt that the only way to give general audiences an in to Clark Kent was to throw us into the washing machine with him, set to SPIN, so that when he becomes SUPERMAN we're more used to in the next movie, people are generally on board more than they would have been.
Which speaks directly to Landis' point about superheroes being cast less as heroes, and more as rock-stars. Which really hit when I heard him say it. Because that's what it is. A rockstar image. The hero standing in front of the wreckage - no different than the lead singer at the front of the stage.
Problem being a lot of rockstars are assholes.
Superheroes don't HAVE to be assholes. And Clark, even though he's NOT really an asshole in the movie, is made to have that label attached to him due to the direct comparison to previous incarnations. And he has to wear it until the new movie comes out. Maybe the sticker comes off, maybe a filmy, half-paper residue sticks to him anyway.
It does say something that the only other real "I'm just a genuinely good guy" superhero on film, Steve Rogers, is often ripped for being the worst of the Marvel movies, in no small part to Rogers' characterization, and the overall tone of the film.
What Landis has to say about the way Superhero stories are being adapted to film is something I've been feeling for quite a long time, and it goes back to the choices editors at the comics themselves are making.
I saw Greg Rucka write an essay that argued a Superman movie that you couldn't take your 8-year old to had failed somehow. Which I dont' necessarily disagree with. But I don't understand why the comics themselves long ago abandoned that general rule as well.
Yeah, the fact that Clark has been a "superhero" for all of like, 4 hours has something to do with his actions/reactions in this movie. I've seen some call that an "irritating" response to charges that Superman "doesn't care" in this movie, but I think they're pretty logical assumptions to come to in the text of the film itself.
The problem is that Goyer/Snyder felt that the only way to give general audiences an in to Clark Kent was to throw us into the washing machine with him, set to SPIN, so that when he becomes SUPERMAN we're more used to in the next movie, people are generally on board more than they would have been.
Which speaks directly to Landis' point about superheroes being cast less as heroes, and more as rock-stars. Which really hit when I heard him say it. Because that's what it is. A rockstar image. The hero standing in front of the wreckage - no different than the lead singer at the front of the stage.
Problem being a lot of rockstars are assholes.
Superheroes don't HAVE to be assholes. And Clark, even though he's NOT really an asshole in the movie, is made to have that label attached to him due to the direct comparison to previous incarnations. And he has to wear it until the new movie comes out. Maybe the sticker comes off, maybe a filmy, half-paper residue sticks to him anyway.
It does say something that the only other real "I'm just a genuinely good guy" superhero on film, Steve Rogers, is often ripped for being the worst of the Marvel movies, in no small part to Rogers' characterization, and the overall tone of the film.
What Landis has to say about the way Superhero stories are being adapted to film is something I've been feeling for quite a long time, and it goes back to the choices editors at the comics themselves are making.
I saw Greg Rucka write an essay that argued a Superman movie that you couldn't take your 8-year old to had failed somehow. Which I dont' necessarily disagree with. But I don't understand why the comics themselves long ago abandoned that general rule as well.
Part of my problem was I always felt Clark was being "preached to" and I never got the feeling that he made his own decision to BE Superman.
The whole suit reveal was wasted.
Clark never outright expresses his desire to be a hero, he just kinda goes along with it and it feels more like a Sci-fi movie that just happens to have a guy in a cape in it.
The whole suit reveal was wasted.
Clark never outright expresses his desire to be a hero, he just kinda goes along with it and it feels more like a Sci-fi movie that just happens to have a guy in a cape in it.
Future Foundation
Member
On Guilt
Generally, the way morality and condemnation works is that it relies upon agency or free will. A morally culpable action is required for a person reasonably to be saddled with blame (disregard the unreasonable for now, there are less logical restrictions on bigotry).
Additionally, for unintentional harms we segregate cause-in-fact from the concept of proximate cause... that the thing that causes the harm needs to be sufficiently tied in time, place, and expectation that your actions would likely lead to the expected harm. If you stick your feet out carelessly while reading the newspaper on a bus bench and trip someone, you could be said to be the proximate cause of the fall. However, if your postman briefly blocks your driveway, such that you catch six red lights, and get hit by a drunk driver... your postman would be the cause-in-fact, you could say, "If he weren't there blocking my driveway, none of this would have happened!" BUT reasonable individuals would recognize he isn't the proximate cause and would not bear moral culpability for your car accident. Additionally, since the drunk's intentions resulted in the accident, he would be the superseding cause for the accident.
Humanity will have some degree of answers as to how Superman arrived on Earth and a big part of that disclosure is that he came as an infant, one who had no choice in the matter. Having no freewill or agency in his presence, Kal-El would not be morally culpable for his presence. There might be some argument of negligence with respect to Clark going onto the scout ship, however, again there was no intention to summon Zod, no knowledge Zod existed (Jor-El explained their world was dead), no expectation a beacon would go off, and irrespective of Clark's actions the ship was about to be discovered and investigated anyways which could have possibly resulted in the beacon going off regardless (as an intervening cause). So Clark would not have been a proximate cause Zod's actions.
That, of course, is the largest point, that Zod had a degree of agency in his actions. When someone else acts with evil intent, it trumps any negligence on behalf of a prior individual (unless their negligence could be expected to bring about the evil- like leaving a door unlocked leading to theft)... Clark would have no reasonable expectation that simply existing would result in another individual attempting to exterminate humanity.
Thus, under traditional morality, most people judging him would not assign guilt. Irrational hatred, surely, could be directed at him, but what does that accomplish for Luthor if he fans that flame? Even if he can whip hatred into a fervor that results in Superman being criminalized (just for existing), exiled, and shunned... what does that accomplish if you can't enforce it?
---
Blame Game
Irrational hatred is a part of humanity but difficult to sustainably monetize or politicize. The KKK is an extremist joke today and can be discounted. In first-world democracies governed by law and order, tolerance (however troubled and with work to do) is mainstream. Creating a "rift" doesn't accomplish anything.
Blaming Kal-El because he was the target of Zod's focus is like blaming America for building the World Trade Center to be targeted... it's not something you can get traction on with anybody of significance or influence.
It works with the X-Men because the group includes individuals who have actively and proudly joined terrorist organizations to abuse their abilities (versus a single individual who has done nothing to justify moral condemnation). For the X-Men, there is sufficient precedent to make hay even if the enactments are overreaching AND you can effectively enforce those enactments because, by and large, mutants don't have the same scope of powers as Superman.
If, somehow, under crazy bigot congress theory, Lex gets legislation passed against Superman... what does that do? How are you going to stop him from saving hurricane survivors? Is that going to stop invitations from Canada and the rest of the free world pouring in invitations to Superman? (We've already seen this version of Superman is happy to reside in Canada....)
It's a short sighted strategy that doesn't get Lex anything. He'd need the entire global united against Superman and the collateral damage to Metropolis doesn't get you there, not when Superman saves the entire rest of the planet and not when the planet can't do anything against Superman to back up their enactments. This is a Superman willing to down a 12 million dollar drone just to make a point... imagine what he'll do if you try to pass lame duck legislation against him (from Luthor's perspective: whipping up hatred just to get to the point of passing ineffective law?).
Conversely, what does allying with Superman get you? Potentially substantially more... Lex gets to frame the first contact narrative, he gets to be seen as the foremost authority on extraterrestrials, he gets to be perceived as mainstream and thus congress with actual big movers and shakers (rather than sound like an extremist nut job), he gets into Superman's inner circle to learn his vulnerabilities, he potentially gets legitimate access to alien technology and testing of Superman's abilities (assuming consent), and he gets defense contracts if he justifies why the world needs more than Superman.
My concern is that hate-speech version of Luthor is going to turn him into J. Jonah Jameson... basically a joke. You can suspend your disbelief for a little bit and see Luthor getting some traction with hate, but at the end of the day, hurting someone's feelings isn't productive and doesn't accomplish anything for a business magnate.
---
Above posts came from another discussion massaged to fit, but to address your point more specifically, I think you're skipping the impact of a first contact. The Kryptonians give humanity cause to unite and prepare against future incursion. This time they were spared by utter happenstance- an allied alien raised amongst them fighting a militarily crippled and resource starved invading force... why should they anticipate being as lucky the next time out? Now that the paradigm is that technologically superior races exist beyond their own, why would humanity assume there are only two? (Again, this relates to disclosure... we don't know how much was conveyed to Kal-El and then to humanity... but in the prequel comic, the Kryptonians- at a minimum- were aware of the Thanagarians and humans.)
As this relates to Lex...
---
Q: How do you speak ill of an invulnerable alien who's faster than a speeding bullet, can see your secrets through walls, can hear your every whisper, can incinerate you with just a glance, or disappear you in orbit without anyone knowing?
A: Very carefully.
I don't think a smart Lex can exploit xenophobia the way people are assuming he can... at least, not in a credible fashion. The only way they can speak against Superman is if they earnestly believe he won't hurt them (and have valid support for that belief), undercutting their entire message. Killing Zod sets a precedent that lets the filmmakers refresh the Lex Luthor character so that he isn't tritely trying to discredit Superman in public like he traditionally has done in the last few decades of the comics.
If Lex is Machiavelli, you need a bruiser, so I think Metallo provides the primary conflict so that you don't build up corporate genius Lex just to turn him into a mustache twirler or powersuit psycho in one film.
I think you use Lex to play xenophobia more subtly rather than hate-mongering causation. Lex goes to the governments of the world with Superman at his side and says something like this:
"We are not alone. As we know from that fateful day, the universe contains other souls, some as noble as our Friend here. However, as we all experienced, for every one like our Friend there are many more who might be our enemy. Thank goodness for him, or we would have been crushed under the boot of an alien people with technology and capabilities far greater than our own... but not beyond us. While I'm grateful for my Friend, while we all are, Humanity just barely escaped extinction. The day may come when we have more visitors from the stars and if they come in peace, we will welcome them like our Friend... but if they come to conquer or kill we cannot let the entire burden rest with our Friend. I call upon the people of this planet to step forward into tomorrow. Together, nothing is beyond us." (Except not horribly cheesy and terribly written like that!
With funding and multi-national backing, Lex can advance the transhuman project of making an immortal, superior man of steel / man of tomorrow to serve as a future foot soldier against aliens... foreign or domestic. If Superman is on board, there might even be some "friendly" sparring before it all goes haywire.
The primary themes of the film would be trust and humanity.
---
I hope Lex endorses Superman because I envision a Lex that is brilliant and recognizes public hatred of Superman is not sustainable.
Even if Lex privately hates Superman and even if this is the perfect opportunity to harm Superman's reputation even further... what does that get him? How does that accomplish anything? He simply makes Superman feel bad and go to ground, making him even more elusive and harder to study or hurt. You have this invulnerable alien that you can't do anything about, so how is hurting Superman's feelings productive? Not to mention, you have to assume apart from the Black Zero event, Superman is doing good. Assuming Lex isn't stupid, he'll take Superman's earnestness at face value and recognize that Superman will continue to act in a way that's consistent with good. That means Lex can only sabotage Superman (which would be hell if Lex got caught), yell at Superman's do-gooding irrationally such that only fringe xenophobics listen, or he can be smart... he can keep his enemy closer. Legitimate businesses / political candidates / etc. can only go so far on hate and Lex would see that.
If Lex endorses Superman, assists in improving Superman's image, Superman is more inclined to be out there in the public, to disclose more about himself, and to subject himself to say insightful experimentation (if Lex poses as a friend wanting Superman to know his own limits so Superman can optimize helping people; you don't want to learn in the field what you can and can't lift, etc). Now Lex is gathering meaningful data and setting up Superman for a fall; he's getting inside Superman's circle of trust to learn how to hurt him physically and psychically... moreover, Lex maintains his legitimacy with the public because he isn't just ranting against an obvious, if dangerous, do-gooder.
As far as film tone, the other important thing about this is that it provides the treachery of man in a way that is not psychotic, wounded, or an easy bandwagon to jump on. If a quasi-legitimate billionaire suddenly dedicates his being to publicly destroying an invincible do-gooding alien, that's insane or woundedness... I want Lex to be authoritative, together, and brilliant. Regarding the bandwagon, there's no doubt that MoS has been controversial and has a number of detractors... you don't want a suave, charismatic, and logical villain actually convince the audience Superman is terrible before Superman's earned the audience's trust. Instead, you use that incredible actor to help earn the public and the film's audience's trust... then when Lex betrays Supes, the audience feels the betrayal too and Lex is the proper villain. You do not want Lex so sympathetic and logical that the audience is rooting for him to beat Supes!
Anyways, the idea needs more work but that's the kernel of it....
As a quick aside, even if Lex has person vendetta against Superman, I do not want that vendetta to be all consuming... I want Lex to be a fully formed character with separate ambitions and machinations. He didn't build his fortune all his life because he was shiftless and waiting for an alien to hate... he has his own goals. So this ties back to my underlying premise, if you come out as a hater, he's shortening his life as a legitimate businessman... instead, I'd like to see him play the long con and, at least publicly, endorse Superman.
Here's another way to look at it... traditionally, Lex knows he can badmouth Superman because he knows Superman will always hold back. How does this Lex know that? Superman's been in business for only a day or so and in that time he's been a part of leveling buildings and killing a super-villain... what kind of death wish would Lex have to have to want to make Superman his public enemy? If Lex were Superman, his critics would find themselves on one-way trips to the Sun. Lex can only speak out against Superman if Superman has already established himself as not-a-danger, in which case, Lex speaking out is ineffective (everything he spews just proves how much Superman will restrain himself). So I vote for a smarter Lex to sees this as a losing game and tries to support Superman publicly while planning against him in secret.
Jesus, Dave. Can you write MoS 2/Man of Tomorrow/Last Son of Krypton?
Fairly Rational
Banned
He never says "I want to be a hero," but the whole point of his conflict with Pa Kent is that he feels a responsibility to help people in need. He feels that if he has all this power, why not do something with it?
Surely you didn't miss that.
Anton Sugar
Member
I don't think it's a matter on not wanting or liking "good" heroes who do good deeds and are of good character--I really don't. Tony Stark's schtick does get tiring to me.
One of my main issues with MoS is that Superman/Clark Kent's arc is basically told to us, and him, instead of developed. Actually, before going into that: what is his arc, exactly?
That he learns to accept and love humanity in spite of their self-destructive or violent tendencies? We see Kent encounter a few bullies, both when he's younger and older, but he never comes close to thinking that humans are bad--in fact, in most of these situations, we find that there is a "good" person to balance it out (waitress at the bar, young girl on the bus, redheaded bully-turned-good guy). Jonathan Kent wants to protect him from people, which is plainly given to us through dialogue, but we, and Clark, never experience how ugly humanity is.
This, IMO, is fundamental in Clark's turn as a savior of Earth/humanity. Clark is not averse to helping humanity; he's been saving people ever since he was young and all the way through his adult life, exposing himself in the process. His father warns him about people, but we never really see the extreme of what humanity can be and, given the extensive prologue, we aren't led to believe that Kryptonians are inherently any different.
I guess what I'm getting at is: there is no established danger to Clark exposing himself as Superman or a super being, so when he does decide to go all out and "lead us into the light", it's flat--he never really get to understand the stakes, and therefore don't understand how this changes him. He is told that there is danger, and he is bullied--that's it. The movie itself glosses over this point: after he DOES reveal himself to be Superman, we never see any shots of how humanity, as a whole, reacts. We never even get to see how humanity reacts to the destruction he has contributed to.
Combine that with the contrived, self-fulfilling "this is your destiny" angle, and it's unsatisfying, on a character and emotional level.
I know others have said this will probably be explored in the sequel, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing and, at times, cheap.
One of my main issues with MoS is that Superman/Clark Kent's arc is basically told to us, and him, instead of developed. Actually, before going into that: what is his arc, exactly?
That he learns to accept and love humanity in spite of their self-destructive or violent tendencies? We see Kent encounter a few bullies, both when he's younger and older, but he never comes close to thinking that humans are bad--in fact, in most of these situations, we find that there is a "good" person to balance it out (waitress at the bar, young girl on the bus, redheaded bully-turned-good guy). Jonathan Kent wants to protect him from people, which is plainly given to us through dialogue, but we, and Clark, never experience how ugly humanity is.
This, IMO, is fundamental in Clark's turn as a savior of Earth/humanity. Clark is not averse to helping humanity; he's been saving people ever since he was young and all the way through his adult life, exposing himself in the process. His father warns him about people, but we never really see the extreme of what humanity can be and, given the extensive prologue, we aren't led to believe that Kryptonians are inherently any different.
I guess what I'm getting at is: there is no established danger to Clark exposing himself as Superman or a super being, so when he does decide to go all out and "lead us into the light", it's flat--he never really get to understand the stakes, and therefore don't understand how this changes him. He is told that there is danger, and he is bullied--that's it. The movie itself glosses over this point: after he DOES reveal himself to be Superman, we never see any shots of how humanity, as a whole, reacts. We never even get to see how humanity reacts to the destruction he has contributed to.
Combine that with the contrived, self-fulfilling "this is your destiny" angle, and it's unsatisfying, on a character and emotional level.
I know others have said this will probably be explored in the sequel, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing and, at times, cheap.
Sure, I can see that. I guess in that context it makes sense, it just feels like the writer should have interest in it particularly when constructing something like a screenplay. Just felt odd to see it discounted.
No I didn't miss it, I just would've liked more of an affirmation. Clark got overshadowed by Jor-El due to lack of dialogue.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It wasn't discounted, really. Just placed lower on the ladder of priorities in comparison to things like character.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I took my 8-year-old.
I wouldn't have, but he saw Avengers at day camp, and if he could handle that he could handle this.
PS: He loved it.
exactly right
Anton Sugar
Member
Why would Clark be so afraid of trusting humanity?
Because Pa Kent told him not to?
Because he was bullied when he was younger by narrow-minded children and bible-thumping hicks?
"Humanity" is probably the most thinly developed character in the entire movie.
Because of the risk he takes by exposing who he is and what he's capable of doing. Again, how is this so difficult to understand.
Even after he turned himself over to the military they opened fire on a small town trying to kill him.
- Status