- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Superman Was Too Powerful to be Interesting in Man of Steel
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:21 pm to TygerTyger
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:21 pm to TygerTyger
Gay
0
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:27 pm to TygerTyger
quote:
I was disappointed with certain portions of Man of Steel. The main issue I had was with him killing Zod at the end. One of the things that makes Superman a Hero is that he DOES have near omnipotence, and yet he chooses to hold himself back. He always finds another way. There's no way Superman would have held a running battle in the heart of Metropolis like that. He would have done everything he could to lure Zod out to some wasteland like a desert or Antartica or something. He certainly wouldn't have carelessly used skyscrapers full of people as part of the fight. (For those that reference the cartoons here, those are written for children, MoS went out of it's way to be more "adult" with it's dark serious tones). And Superman would have found another solution besides killing Zod. My friend and I were discussing this and in just a few minutes of back and forth I came up with a much better ending. Zod wanted to bring back the Kryptonian race. He was pissed because Kal-El had the Codex and that prevented him from doing what he was bred to do, to fight for, protect, and promote his race. During the story Zod talks about finding dead and abandoned scout ships all over the galaxy. All other Kryptonians are supposedly dead. Why not have Superman uncover a clue that there may be another lost colony out there somewhere. As Superman beats Zod to the point of having "won", with Zod now threatening to eyelazer some innocents because he feels his purpose for living is over and WANTS Superman to kill him, Superman uses his intellect and reason, not brute strength to convince Zod that he still has a reason to exist. He can use these new super powers to go out and find the last Kryptonian outpost.
This case has been made, and I certainly see the point. The flip side of it has been that what we saw in this movie was NOT REALLY the Superman you describe...not a fully formed, mature Superman.
What we saw was a guy that days before found out his full origin. Who only days before FINALLY tried to harness his actual power after hiding it his whole life following Paw Kent's orders. Who NEVER EVER before throwing a punch in those fights we saw ever once was in any physical altercation with anyone for fear of breaking them.
Unlike Reeves in the first Superman who spent TWELVE YEARS becoming Superman under the tutelage of Jor El in the Fortress of Solitude emerging fully as Superman, this Superman had literally no clue what he was doing. No sooner did we see him learn how to fly did we see Zod's ship orbit the moon.
My point here is that given the way they set the movie up, what he did was PRECISELY in line with what you'd expect THIS Superman...the one who was essentially a baby first putting on the cape...to do when faced with his first real test. And this wasn't some bank robber...it was a slew of other Kryptonians that were in the process of terraforming Earth. Yes...if the Supes we know as the fully formed one had been faced with this, he likely would have found another way. This just wasn't that guy.
If the argument is that you'd have preferred that guy, I can see how some certainly would. But I've never understood being mad at what he did given we ought to have seen it coming based on the previous 1:45 minutes of film leading up to it.
He won...barely...and did it ugly. I'd expect when we get to the next movie, he'll have gotten better and be far closer to who you want to see.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 3:56 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
He won...barely...and did it ugly. I'd expect when we get to the next movie, he'll have gotten better and be far closer to who you want to see.
And if that happens, if the character development and plot points you described come to fruition, I'm in.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 4:57 pm to TygerTyger
quote:
I so old I saw Superman! The Motion Picture at the Broadmoor Twin in Baton Rouge opening night. As a kid walking out of there, I believed a man could fly.
quote:
I was disappointed with certain portions of Man of Steel. The main issue I had was with him killing Zod at the end. One of the things that makes Superman a Hero is that he DOES have near omnipotence, and yet he chooses to hold himself back
quote:
He doesn't have to kill, he's above that. He is the ideal, and THAT'S what makes him Superman, not the physical powers.
Totally right. Remember when Superman negotiated a treaty with Zod at the end of Superman II?
of course not He threw a now powerless Zod to his death.
Superman kills and has always killed...and just for the record, from Kal-El's pov there certainly wasn't a feeling of victory.
This post was edited on 10/16/14 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 10/16/14 at 5:08 pm to RonBurgundy
I think this discussion brings up some good points about consistency, I mean that's essentially what we are talking about here. But the big idea in this one is consistency of morals. I never really had a problem with Zod's death in MoS, but some people do. Superman is SUPPOSED to be this extremely morally centered and "good" character, that gets shifted to a lot of different interpretations (as people have pointed out before). The reason some keep coming back to Zod's death I think is coupled with the idea of not trying to take the fight out of Metropolis, or not even meditating on the destruction, etc. His "good" morals were very fluid.
And if we take this idea that MoS wasn't about the Superman we know and love, and it was about growing, why did so many people miss that? Is it the age of Superman as a brand? He's been around so long at this point, that going back to the beginning is impossible (but even the earliest Superman stories are simply Superman being "all good," it wasn't until the post-Silver Age that he became tortured, broken, more flawed).
Like this:
I think this bothers people because the movie itself didn't really revolve around responsibility. Any kind of theme of "morally good" actions, or what makes a hero were all poorly developed throughout. It was a sequence of set pieces and destruction. Just like Snyder whiffed on the theme of Watchmen (regardless of the quality of the film, it's still a good movie), I think the point is that he missed here too. People are ok with Superman II because that Superman movies makes it a point to explore heroism. MoS, not so much.
Where Superman II was all about "being good by doing good,m" MoS tried to overcomplicate it significantly.
And with all conversations about moral characters who are consistent...
<---------------
And if we take this idea that MoS wasn't about the Superman we know and love, and it was about growing, why did so many people miss that? Is it the age of Superman as a brand? He's been around so long at this point, that going back to the beginning is impossible (but even the earliest Superman stories are simply Superman being "all good," it wasn't until the post-Silver Age that he became tortured, broken, more flawed).
Like this:
quote:
Totally right. Remember when Superman negotiated a treaty with Zod at the end of Superman II?
of course not He threw a now powerless Zod to his death.
Superman kills and has always killed...and just for the record, from Kal-El's pov there certainly wasn't a feeling of victory.
I think this bothers people because the movie itself didn't really revolve around responsibility. Any kind of theme of "morally good" actions, or what makes a hero were all poorly developed throughout. It was a sequence of set pieces and destruction. Just like Snyder whiffed on the theme of Watchmen (regardless of the quality of the film, it's still a good movie), I think the point is that he missed here too. People are ok with Superman II because that Superman movies makes it a point to explore heroism. MoS, not so much.
Where Superman II was all about "being good by doing good,m" MoS tried to overcomplicate it significantly.
And with all conversations about moral characters who are consistent...
<---------------
This post was edited on 10/16/14 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 10/16/14 at 8:40 pm to AlaTiger
I am of the opinion that Man of Steel was the first Superman movie to get it right. Kryptonians are basically immortal gods on earth, so when they fight, they break stuff.
Otherwise, I agree that Superman is a boring hero because he is invincible to everything but kryptonite and certain magics (Smallville).
Otherwise, I agree that Superman is a boring hero because he is invincible to everything but kryptonite and certain magics (Smallville).
Posted on 10/16/14 at 8:46 pm to Broken Coyote
quote:
Otherwise, I agree that Superman is a boring hero because he is invincible to everything but kryptonite and certain magics (Smallville).
Sigh.
There's more to superheroes than just their superpowers and power feats.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 8:56 pm to Sentrius
quote:
There's more to superheroes than just their superpowers and power feats.
And I loved Smallville for that very reason.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 9:27 pm to Broken Coyote
I agree. It's one of several reasons.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 11:34 pm to abellsujr
quote:wow
Here's another one for you. Superman and Batman fight in their next movie.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 11:46 pm to jeff5891
Anytime. 
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News