Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Agent Richard07, Jun 11, 2013.
^That would be a power never portrayed in the comics as I understand them.
Maybe not, but there are hints scattered throughout the film, such as Jor-El's ability to take his sone through space on a journey of exploration even though only 12 years pass during his training. There are other clues as well.
That's my theory. I think one of the things that makes film as a medium less effective is that we are presented with it all: sounds, images, and music, and as a result, we tend to take everything at face value, and when it comes to something like this people are put off. I don't think he was literally spinning the Earth backwards and that alone wouldn't rewind time.
Of course, Donner has become a bit of a snot. Listen to hid "Donner cut" commentary to hear his holier-than-though tone. If you ask him now, he'd deny what I believe and say that yeah, it's literally what Superman was doing.
but I think my theory works.
Not to mention his flying that fast sort of undoes the whole "even you with your great speed couldn't stop both missiles at once!" Huh, I guess he can.
Well, he could, and he did.
But the price was that he had to disobey, or at least (as it were) disappoint, both his fathers: Jor-El, by interfering in human history; and Pa, by falling short of the reason for his being sent to Earth. Apparently, there wasn't any other way.
At least he was able to stay true to the spirit of what they were trying to teach him, and not let it go to his head.
I finally watched it last night. Here's what I thought:
There was definitely more about 'Man of Steel' that I liked than I disliked, but I did have some reservations. Most of those were with the action-packed second half, though, as I quite enjoyed most of the movie's first half. That's something I wouldn't have expected from a Zack Snyder film: I actually liked the quieter moments more than most of the big action stuff. Especially the final fight, while visually impressive, felt unnecessary (and unnecessarily violent). There had been plenty of mayhem up to that point and I would have preferred some more character development and an acknowledgement of the human toll of all the destruction to yet more fighting and destruction.
I don't generally object to approaching iconic characters in a fresh, different way, but I feel that this movie lost some of what makes Superman so iconic in the first place in the process. While I thought that the marvelously realized depiction of Krypton at the beginning of the movie was quite compelling, I couldn't help but feel that some of the essence of the character Superman (namely his earnest, aspirational qualities) was missing, and that it wasn't replaced by anything equally interesting. There are some plot points about eugenics and planetary atmospheres thrown in there, but neither of them lead to much or make much sense.
Nevertheless, I can't deny that it's a beautiful film with a very distinctive sense of style and some kick-ass action scenes, and I did enjoy a lot of the character scenes, too. The actors are well cast and get a lot out of their characters, even if some of their motivations aren't as clear as I would have liked them to be.
I give it a 7/10.
Yep - It was Silver Age Superman in the 1978 film (which was why he couldn't just as quickly CLOSE the lid on the lead-lined box with the Kryptonite in it, as when he opened it.)
Max Landis, the writer of Chronicle, has a few things to say about Man of Steel. I loved the movie, but at the same time I can't deny he does bring up some good points. Now I'd be very interested to see his take on a Superman movie.
I don't know - he's entertaining, but he's sending some mixed messages here. First he says Superman should be a "regular guy from Kansas, who happens to be an alien", then he says he should be better than everyone else and an adult among children. Which is it?
Then he says what's appealing about Superman is that instead of absolute power corrupting absolutely, in Superman's case absolute power equals absolute goodness. I agree that this is what we love about Superman, but from a storytelling point of view to have that simply occur - is not very interesting. It can be appealing in a childish sort of way, but superheroes have long since ceased to be kiddie fare. What is interesting is to see how it is that someone with that level of power struggles through the temptations of absolute power and again and again makes the choice to use the power for absolute good.
What critics seem to be missing about MoS is that is chapter one in the story of a regular guy from Kansas, who happens to be an alien and who does have an innate sense of heroism (Joseph Campbell defines the hero as someone who gives oneself to something bigger than themselves and has an instinct for protecting/ helping/ giving to others), and how he learns to use his power for absolute good. The fact that this is a struggle seems to be upsetting a lot of people - but isn't that what makes a character have... character?
I fear this may be why it's so hard to make a Superman movie - he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he has no internal struggle and is just perfectly good from the get go, he's a static, boring character that no one can relate to. If he has an internal struggle and has to learn how to be perfectly good, then he's dismissed as an angsty, emo, not-really-Superman character that no one can admire. Though the notion that you can't admire someone because they aren't just created of whole cloth with a perfect moral compass and the knowledge of how to protect um, everyone on the planet while getting your ass royally kicked for the first time in your life seems kinda bizarre.
I agree Lapsis. It seems that most critics seem to set up their vision of what Superman should be and then attack the movie from that perspective. Superman has not been that type of hero in the comics for quite awhile.
Yeah I've never understood this desire to have Superman be a perfect and flawless hero who always does the right thing and never has doubts or fears about anything.
Or they'll even argue that Superman is not supposed to be relatable; he should just be a noble, larger than life icon and nothing else. Which I just do not understand at all.
Time travel was a routine trick in Superman's bag in the Silver/Bronze ages (up to the 1986 reboot). In his Superboy years, he even routinely commuted to the 30th century to serve as a member of the Legion of Super-Heroes.
His time travel in the comics had its own set of rules that the writers mostly followed, which dictated that he couldn't change his own past. For the movie's story, regarding the usual time travel question of why doesn't he go back to then or then instead, he's probably trying to minimize his impact on the timestream, since what he's doing is supposed to be such a big no-no in the first place, according to the rules laid out by Jor-El. Kryptonian temporal prime directive.
Likewise, I always interpreted the "amnesia kiss" as an unusual manifestation of Super-Hypnosis, another trick in his arsenal in those days.
Yeah the Donner movies presented Superman more as an almost magical being than an alien from another planet (which is obvious from the start when see a Krypton that seems to exist more in another dimension or plane of existence than simply a neighboring galaxy).
Which is why I never really had a problem with the more mystical abilities of Superman in those movies (turning back time, the amnesia kiss, etc). It all seemed to be fairly consistent with the mystical world that we saw he came from.
Not unlike, say, how some Trek fans compare each new film or series to their "vision" of what Star Trek ought to be.
Never got that impression myself...
If folks are interested, another interview:
Same here, it always struck me as obvious it was a regular planet in another galaxy, just a civilization that happened to be much more advanced than ours. Yes, SM:TM took more from the Silver Age in its portrayal of Superman who had nearly limitless powers and a overly-boyscout take on life but it never seemed implied he or Kryptonians were from another dimension or plane of existence.
And, really, I didn't like the portrayal of Krypton here (not that I'm a fan of Donner icy/crystalline look.) It looked like a cross between Vulcan from ST'09 and pretty much every planet visited in the Star Wars prequels.
Really? Between the trippy space effects, the music, and the design of Krypton as this white crystal heaven in the clouds (which Donner has said in the past was part of their whole Superman-as-Christ theme), I thought it was hard to miss.
I don't think the movies were saying he was literally from another plane or anything, but I think they wanted it to at least feel somewhat like that.
Well that "feel" I can see but it, again, along with the Moses-like origins mostly goes with Superman's history entirely.
Well hey, nice to see that MOS at least beat WWZ in the UK, if nothing else.
But his time travel in the comics isn't a power per se. It's a side effect of his ability to travel at great speeds. Same as The Flash. It's not like they snap their fingers and appear in another time.
Separate names with a comma.