Spoiler Same here. Especially since it was Zod's key that was in the ship when it crashed, and Zod talked about his "purpose" being the preservation of Krypton. Could be the Eradicator on down the line too.
Here are my thoughts Monst. There's been several versions of Superman in Comics in which he does the wandering thing. Check out Superman: Birthright for the most recent example - whole sections of the film look like they were lifted from Waid's story. (And that's a great book on it's own - highly recommended) Heck, even in the first Superman film, he was gone for 7 years - I highly doubt he was listening to the Jor El Educational Series that entire time. I personally think that the reason he is in Alaska is because Spoiler the Kryptonian ship is calling out to him, a lot like the crystal did in the original film. Come one dude. Amy Adams > Kate Bosworth. I'll concede she needs darker hair, but that's about it. She had limited screen time to make an impact, but I really liked the fact that Spoiler Lois Lane, intrepid reporter, tracked down Superman before he told her. Hey! She's not blind to those glasses after all! I don't know, we got a ton of Kal-El through the bulk of the movie. If anything, we needed some more Clark Kent. But again, this wasn't a story about Lois and Clark, it was about Superman. You could make the argument (like Kevin Smith did) that we only saw Superman at the end of the movie - and that everything up to that was Clark Kent/Kal-El coming to terms that he was two separate people. Comic spoilers: Spoiler Yes he killed Doomsday, but he also killed the three Phantom Zone criminals (Including Zod). In the John Byrd Man of Steel reboot in 1986 (also really good) or shortly thereafter, he kills them because he has to, which is the event that leads him to the "Never Kill" philosophy. He's got statues of them in the Fortress of Solitude. (Or the Cave of Silence, as Mrs. VO calls it). In other words, Superman has killed - so the "never killed" thing is sort of a misnomer. It's a big deal for him if he does, and I have no doubts that the death of Zod in this film was to set up that philosophy for future films. The 2006 film is ultimately an unsatisfying coda for films that were progressively messy as they went on. Look, I love Superman I and II, but III is horrible and IV shouldn't exist. Returns suffered as a film because it stuffed itself in between II and III, and tried to keep 25 years of continuity straight while moving forward. It was a really messy concept, and while I can appreciate what Singer was going for, ultimately it failed. They had to make a clean break from the Reeves films. Returns showed that a film that tied back to them just couldn't work. I'm with you on the score - I miss it too - but this is a brand new film, and I'm glad that they went with a clean break in terms of theme. There are echoes of it in certain parts of Zimmer's new score, but it's completely new otherwise. How can they have an over reliance on special effects and then have boring fight scenes? They literally did things on film I've never seen before. If you wanted to complain that Spoiler there was TOO much damage, and that all of Metropolis should have been dust. Then yeah, I can get behind that. I found the film to be excellent from start to finish. I however, am a huge Superman fanboy (he's my favorite comic character), and if you're not in awe of the character you may be a little peeved, I guess.
Superman II is a really flawed film. The Donner cut that came out a few years back tries to fix it but doesn't go as far as it should. They really should have just let Donner finish I and II as 2 films and not brought in Lester. He totally changed the tone of II and the result is a disjointed mess. Lester did give us an epically awesome short film in Superman III - the evil Superman / drunk scene / junkyard scene is pretty awesome. Too bad the rest of the movie is pure camp.
Yeah I really need to catch up that Donner Cut one of these days. I feel like they should have really cut a lot of the filler scenes in both 1 & 2 to make the film tighter. Also nice couple of posts, you certainly know your Superman stuff.
I think it was out on Netflix. If not it should be easy enough to find. Fun fact: The ending of Superman I was supposed to be the ending of Superman II. But they wrote themselves into a hole in I so they used II's ending, figuring that they could "fix it later." Of course that didn't happen because Donner was fired and Lester came in and we got Super Cellophane and Super Kisses. Sigh. Thank you for the kudos on Supes ... like I said he's my favorite comic character and I've read quite a bit of the comics and whatnot. Getting this discussion back on track, I think that the discussion we need to be having is whether or not Man of Steel is a spiritual successor to the George Reeve TV series of the 1950s - with the Sci-Fi tone and focus (including Superman's attitude and manners), it feels like a Silver Age comic done with a Modern Age twist.
I'm probably in the minority, but I loved the look of Krypton. It felt a lot closer in tone to the recent New Kryton books that were done (I think) by Geoff Johns. Tonally, they've shifted away from the crystal ice that was the look of the first film. I guess if you want to complain about the dragon/whatever thing, you can ... but it didn't seem out of place to me. As for butchering his character, I think you're off base. Having watched Smallville - and yes, I watched the whole thing - I can tell you with absolute certainty that they did a much worse job tackling the character. For example: Spoiler They made Superman a terrorist. Dude demolished a building with his heat vision. Yes, I'm serious. Oh, and Jor-El was a tweener character voiced by General Zod from Superman II, with no payoff whatsover. That series ... so much wasted potential. Man of Steel did none of these things. In fact, outside of what you outlined in your initial post in spoiler tags, I'm not really sure what else you're referring to. He's a good guy. But again, tonally, I'm of the belief that they're not going with the Modern Age Superman - this is more Gold and Silver age Superman, at least from an attitude perspective. Check out some of the old books in collected if you can find them - or the George Reeve Superman show. Tonally, you'll see a Superman who is very close to what Snyder and company put forward in Man of Steel.
Yeah I actually read up on some of the background of the Superman movie franchise, so I knew all of that. I love reading about the backgrounds of movies and some of the original plans that got changed. I really wish they went with the original endings in both movies and how Superman freed Zod in Superman 1 and it ended with them flying to earth. It would have been such a better cliff hanger ending leading to 2. I understand why the film makers did it I guess since they weren't sure if 1 would have been a success but still. I will have to be on the look out for the Donner cut on Netflix soon.
Liked it a lot, problem is the hype was Dark Knight like and IMO the movie didnt sniff either if those 3. Still very solid and will be looking foward to the sequel.
Smallville was a good show until the whole Lex and Lana love thing. Then it spun out of control. I thought this movie was entertaining. Good not great. I kind of liked the flashbacks with his earth childhood, but had it been more timeline oriented and significant, ala Godfather II, it'd have been WAY better. I too think this movie missed the mark a bit. It just didn't seem to have the great story telling, substance, or significance of Batman Begins. But Cavill did a great job, everyone did really. It was fun.
After thinking about it for a bit, I realize I feel about this movie the same way I feel about our new logo: I don't love it or hate it, but its miles better than what's come before it.
Yup, same here. I enjoyed it and will buy the Blu-Ray when it comes out but in no way do I think it's the best Superhero film ever made, although it probably is in my own personal top 10 superhero films. It has it's good and bad moments and has flaws like all films. I do think it's the best Superman movie ever though. Even with the 65% drop off from the opening weekend to this past weekend WB is going ahead with a sequel. Hopefully that does well and leads to more of the DC characters getting solo films.
Yeah it's already been announced that MOS is getting a sequel. Goyer and Synder have been working on the script since May, I believe. WB is obviously banking that they can use this franchise to jump start the Justice League project they've been working to get off the ground for 8 years or so now.
I don't know, the first Superman with Reeves was pretty good, especially for the time period. Its way better than any Adam West feature length Batman movie. The small Crypton part with Brando, the Smallville backstory... There was a lot of good mixed with some bad in the 2nd. And the rest was a disaster. I feel the Pierce Brosnon James Bonds were hokey and hard to take serious after Craig's. So I see where you're coming from. But I like that first Superman.
Actually that's a pretty good comparsion between the Craig Bond and everything else that came before it, especially the Roger Moore Era. Superman The Movie wasn't bad, especially given the time it came out. I think now it's very dated and the effects don't hold up as well. I think 2 isn't bad either but think it tads to be a bit overrated and like you said it's all downhill from there. Although I rewatched Superman Returns over the weekend and say it might be better than Superman 2. I think that film is a little underrated. But saying it's great by any means but I do think it's a film that was maybe unfairly judged at the time it first came out because people were expecting it to be the best thing ever. Like I said a few time, I'm not the biggest Superman fan, but I do hope the franchise keeps going up. Superman deserves a universally loved film ala TDK. It's kind of crazy to think that a character like Thor, Iron Man or even possibly Captain America have better solo films then an icon like Superman.
Make no mistake, this new one didn't make me look at the old ones any differently. I always thought they were hokey, even as a kid. I don't think the originals were waaaay better than Adam West's Batman. They were pn the same par as the Joel Schumacher Batman movies after Burton's and before Nolan's....which is awful.
agree with all your points. I've been a superman comic book nerd for 37 years now. The only thing in the movie that was a bit off was Amy Adams' hair color and maybe Jor-El riding the winged beast, but the latter wasn't that big of a deal.
It's all relative I guess. the 1st superman was better than the 2nd, which was far better than the following ones. Richard Pryor and then Jon Cryer? even as a kid, I hated those two movies.