‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

Well actually a more plausible reaction to Superman in the aftermath of that would be "Ahhh! It's one of them!" Run!"

One of my personal disappointments with Man of Steel is contrary to the filmmakers central thesis with the film: "How would people react to a levitating super-human who could shoot layers out of his eyes?" We never had a reaction from normal, everyday people to Superman's first appearance. I hate the idea of having Superman first don to suit to fight an alien invasion as opposed to the traditional idea of him first doing it to stop an accident from happening. If Superman existed in the real world and started flying or whatever I would expect people would be somewhat dubious, scared or just confused. How wonderful would it have been for the film to actually follow through on what was set up earlier in the film with Jonathan Kent exclaiming "People are afraid of what they don't understand." Why couldn't the film showcase the conflicting or mixed reactions of the people towards an alien being? The only reaction we get towards Superman from the people is Jenny(who's an awful character, where's Jimmy Olsen?) This would add to the introspective crisis Clark faced and further raise the deep, internal question: Can he ever be accepted? I think it's the film's biggest failure from a story standpoint IMHO.

 

I think you're probably looking at all this a bit too literally. Comic book movies (and movies in general) routinely play fast and loose with reality and have characters saying stuff simply for the benefit of the audience or to get a story point across.

And besides, it's not like movie was tracking Jenny's every move. Like many people in the city she was certainly aware of what Zod and his gang was up to, and that they were responsible for leveling much of the city with their machine. And she probably saw Supes and Zod duking it out at some point as well, given how much ground they were covering.

For her to think Supes saved them (or at least had a very big hand in it) seems like a pretty natural conclusion for someone to make, I'd say.

 

That you have to blame on the writer, he became Superman after discovering the drone ship and upon it's discovery the signal was sent that drew Zod to earth. Other than learning how to fly he wasn't given the oppertunity of a first day like in the first Donner movie. But then given the reaction to him in general maybe that was a good thing, since his very appearance set off the paranoria Jonathan Kent thought would happen.

 

....So basically your argument is : "IT'S A COMIC BOOK MOVIE! QUIT BEING NITPICKY."
No offense, but I think you're trying to fill in the blanks for a very lazy aspect of the script. The writer/director wanted to falsely convey that the day was saved and Superman actually achieved something despite the fact he didn't really. Comic films are a genre that you'd least expect realism in, however there are certain superhero films that at least attempt to do a tone that has a more grounded sensibility which means being set in a world that is somewhat reminiscent of our own. Man of Steel was one of those films. Now granted, aside from the fact there's a hunky white alien that has super-powers, there were departure's from reality in the film that I could accept. However, the massive destruction that killed tens and thousands of people with Supes barely saving anybody(though I acknowledge he did save many more lives by destroying that gravity machine) in the city and only reaction to it is that terrible line? The scene felt dishonest, especially in the more believable, grounded world the film was set in. Worse enough it was a blatant and in your face. They wanted to assuage any doubts that Superman was a hero with that line--It was a writing cheat to lazily reaffirm Superman's heroism to the audience.

 

So just because writers have been lazy or sloppy in the past, we aren't entitled to criticize it when it happens again?

You're forgetting when the line was spoken. When Jenny said "He saved us," Superman had only just arrived in Metropolis. It was before his direct confrontation with Zod had even started. The only thing he'd done at that location so far was to catch Lois after she fell out of a plane and lower her to the ground. That was when Jenny said "He saved us" -- while Superman was bringing Lois in for a landing, before Zod emerged and their fight started. At the moment Jenny said those words, the only thing Superman had already done to save anyone other than Lois was destroying the Indian Ocean half of the world engine. And that happened on, quite literally, the exact opposite side of the planet from where Jenny was, and she didn't exactly have time to get a news update because she'd spent most of the past several minutes trapped under skyscraper debris. So she could not possibly have known about it.

If she'd said it five or ten minutes later, then you'd have a point. But she didn't. She said it at a moment when it made absolutely no sense to say it. Like so much else about this movie, it was tacked on pro forma without being earned or justified.

 

I don't know, I thought the movie got across that point pretty well. We saw the stunned reaction when Zod made his dramatic appearance, and we saw the reaction of the military and people like Hamilton when Superman stepped forward. Or the frightened and/or amazed reaction of people who were saved earlier by Clark (with some seeming to think he was some kind of religious savior). Not to mention the "oh shit" reaction of the priest.

I also thought it was an interesting twist to see Clark only grow and develop into the Superman we know through being tested in this epic battle with Zod. At first he doesn't want to fight, and then when he realizes he has to he's forced to struggle and learn the full extent of his abilities on the fly (as it were), instead of already knowing what he can do before Zod even gets there. Which to me made it much more interesting to watch.

 

I do blame the writer as well as the director for approving it. In a weird way by having Superman trigger the signal that lead Zod to earth, Supes is actually partially responsible for all the destruction that went on.

 

If you want to criticize it, fine. I just don't think it's the huge deal you make it out to be. It's one little line said by a very minor character.

 

That's mostly because Zod made a threat and already showed hostile intention. I'm talking about the theme or idea of humans being are weary of what they don't understand due to a lack of exposure. It would have added more dramatic legs to the introspective crisis Clark was facing or contextualized it in a different way, with him having to face some fear, paranoia or suspicion of him due to him having powers beyond mortal men. With that in place you could show Supes working to earn the trust of people instead of the usual Oh hey! cool! An alien!

 

I don't know how you could possibly blame Superman for accidentally activating a signal on a ship.

This to me is just piling on because you don't like the movie, so now naturally every little thing annoys you about it.

 

Don't forget bad character. I don't know who's bright idea was it to create that character in the first place, but dear lord was she an awful character. Hoping she doesn't pop back up in the sequel.

 

Yeah, I admit when I think about it Zod would have found Earth eventually. I actually like Man Of Steel quite a bit, though I admire the ideas more then the actually writing itself and really love the performances.

I just kinda iffed that these ideas were not capitalized on IMHO. I'm dismayed on what could have been more then anything else. Prior to this announcement, I had hopes that the solo sequel would rectify some of problems but now I'm all the more skeptical since the sequel has now been hijacked in favor of the box-office safety net: A crossover.

Also I'm not being this nitpicky Grinch or else like you said everything really would annoy me. I mean if that were true I would be complaining about why aliens are speaking English in another planet--A complaint which is generally trivial since there is no need to.

 

One line that neatly symbolizes the much bigger problems that pervaded the movie, the way that the film failed to earn its assertions of Superman's heroism and greatness and the way it tacked on obligatory story beats rather than having them develop organically from plot and character. (For instance, there was no reason why Zod landed the ship in Metropolis, because Superman had never even been there at that point; it was just arbitrarily chosen because Metropolis is where you expect the climax of a Superman movie to happen.)

 

You might as well blame Jor-El and Lara for sending him to earth in the first place then.

 

Heh, yeah it seemed like the only reason she existed was to get trapped in some rubble.

 

I gotta say all that scientificky mumbo jumbo got lost on me in the film. I guess when I think about maybe part of my problem with the film also has to do with it again making Donnor/Singer film mistake of Jesus-fying Superman and making him be this special figure destined for greater things. I just don't like that approach to the character, to me Superman is the every-man boyscout who comes from humble beginnings. Him being on earth isn't a product of being a savior figure but more him being a product of being a refugee who's parents just wanted him to survive. Then by honoring the values that was instilled upon him by his earth parents he becomes that hero.

 

You might as well ask why all those alien races on Doctor Who are always invading London, the Doctor rarely spends anytime in London but yet has to defend London from attacks from all kinds of aliens.

 

Or because Metropolis is effectively the capital of DC Earth. Zod would have known that based on his access to worldwide data.

 

Why should he care, if he was going to destroy the whole world anyway? Besides, if that was his reason, they should've said so in the movie itself. They didn't. They just arbitrarily put it in Metropolis without bothering to justify it in in-story terms. If the audience has to make up things after the fact in order to make basic sense of the story, that's still a failure on the screenwriters' part.

 

Why would the audience need to make up anything about Metropolis? Seventy-five years of comic, radio, television, and movie history have already told us what it is.