Man of Steel - *Spoilers*

[crazy_asian_man]

Best thing about Byrne was he dialed a lot back to basics. That was needed. The continuity and additions had become unwieldily since the Weisinger era. All of DC needed a streamlining back then. Some of his edicts were for the worst though. I don't want tons of Kryptonians but no Kryptonians eliminates a lot of good potential stories.

Agreed.

Still, I liked that they gave (for the most part) authorship - or at least it seemed that way- to ONE person and seemed to stay out of the way to see what could happen. Creating the Superman comics by committee in three different titles every month seemed to be a recipe for mediocrity at best--- and drivel at the worst.... not suprisingly.... most are. Way too much quantity, not enough quality.

[atp]

Jor-El: "You were the embodiment of that belief, Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you."

Kal-El: "Why didn't you come with me? Was it because you were a product of the failures of your world, tied to its fate?"

Jor-El: "Um, no. It's because I got murdered with a 2-foot blade."

Kal-El: "Oh. OK."

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2013 10:03:45 GMT -5 Metallo said:

This! Is! Kryptoooooon!


Gerard Butler and Lena Headey as Jor-El and Lara? Hmm...

Instead of a birth scene, the movie would have started with conception. Lena, yum.

[atp]

Lara: "He'll be an outcast. They'll kill him!"

Jor-El: "How? He'll be kinda hot to them."

[Rod]

- permission to be hot, sir!
- permission granted.

[cypher85]

Some comments from Goyer from last night's BAFTA and BFI screenwriters lecture. And I gotta say, I agree with 100% of what he said, so suck it MOS haters



"It’s not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren’t just doing it to be cool,” Digital Spy quotes Goyer as saying at last night’s BATFA and BFI Screenwriters’ Lecture. “We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.”

The impossible choice was, of course, what to do with a murderous General Zod set on revenge following the defeat of his Phantom Zone forces. In the end, Superman snapped his neck.

“This is one area, and I’ve written comic books as well, and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers: ‘Superman doesn’t kill,’” Goyer explained. “It’s a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don’t believe in rules like that. I believe when you’re writing film or television, you can’t rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film. [...] So the situation was, Zod says ‘I’m not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.’ The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can’t fly to the moon, and we didn’t want to come up with that crutch.”

However, that’s not to say the Man of Steel will keep breaking the rule — or his opponents’ necks — which should come as good news to Ben Affleck’s Batman.

“We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films,” Goyer offered. “Because he’s Superman and because people idolize him, he will have to hold himself to a higher standard.”

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 24, 2013 11:18:54 GMT -5 cypher85 said:

Some comments from Goyer from last night's BAFTA and BFI screenwriters lecture. And I gotta say, I agree with 100% of what he said, so suck it MOS haters



"It’s not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren’t just doing it to be cool,” Digital Spy quotes Goyer as saying at last night’s BATFA and BFI Screenwriters’ Lecture. “We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.”

The impossible choice was, of course, what to do with a murderous General Zod set on revenge following the defeat of his Phantom Zone forces. In the end, Superman snapped his neck.

“This is one area, and I’ve written comic books as well, and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers: ‘Superman doesn’t kill,’” Goyer explained. “It’s a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don’t believe in rules like that. I believe when you’re writing film or television, you can’t rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film. [...] So the situation was, Zod says ‘I’m not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.’ The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can’t fly to the moon, and we didn’t want to come up with that crutch.”

However, that’s not to say the Man of Steel will keep breaking the rule — or his opponents’ necks — which should come as good news to Ben Affleck’s Batman.

“We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films,” Goyer offered. “Because he’s Superman and because people idolize him, he will have to hold himself to a higher standard.”

I wonder what Geoff Johns thinks about Goyer's thoughts.... hm....

[cypher85]

I would wonder if Goyer cares what Johns thinks. Is Johns the ultimate authority on Superman's motivation and character? Is anyone?

[crazy_asian_man]

I would wonder if Goyer cares what Johns thinks. Is Johns the ultimate authority on Superman's motivation and character? Is anyone?

I think Seigel and Shuster might have been the authority....

Aside: Have you read Johns' Secret Origins or Superman and the Legion?
- Or sat through Goyer's other movie works? (Edit from Blade:tv show because Goyer paid the favor back to Johns by letting him write an episode)

When you view both, you might agree that Johns is the superior writer.

Goyer and Johns were writing partners on JSA when Goyer was first starting comics, I imagine he would have SOME thought about Johns' thoughts as well.

In any case:

Superman isn't legally public domain, but he's become enough of a pop myth that I feel like there isn't a real authority as to who he is or isn't anymore and really belongs to the world.
If Goyer says Superman is a guilt-ridden killer, who stands for remorse to set his morality, so be it.

[cypher85]

I think Seigel and Shuster might have been the authority....

The character has grown and evolved so much since they were really in charge of the character that I would say that they aren't any more entitled to be the authority than anyone else.

And I'll agree that Johns is the better writer...however it doesn't mean that his opinions on the character are any more valid or authoritative.

The way I picture it, there is no authority, and I as a consumer of Superman media will either be happy with whatever portrayal I'm consuming, or I won't. But, I can't say that their interpretation is any less valid, and they shouldn't be entitled to their opinion, and to have their take on superman if they are lucky enough to be the steward of Supes for a little while.


And while I really like quite a bit of Johns work with Superman (Last Son, Up Up and Away, Brainiac), I personally think that your two examples (Secret Origin, Legion) are among the weaker entries in Johns Superman portfolio.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 24, 2013 11:55:15 GMT -5 cypher85 said:

I think Seigel and Shuster might have been the authority....

The character has grown and evolved so much since they were really in charge of the character that I would say that they aren't any more entitled to be the authority than anyone else.

And I'll agree that Johns is the better writer...however it doesn't mean that his opinions on the character are any more valid or authoritative.

The way I picture it, there is no authority, and I as a consumer of Superman media will either be happy with whatever portrayal I'm consuming, or I won't. But, I can't say that their interpretation is any less valid, and they shouldn't be entitled to their opinion, and to have their take on superman if they are lucky enough to be the steward of Supes for a little while.


And while I really like quite a bit of Johns work with Superman (Last Son, Up Up and Away, Brainiac), I personally think that your two examples (Secret Origin, Legion) are among the weaker entries in Johns Superman portfolio.

Legally, DC the corporation I'd think is now the authority on what is/isn't Superman, as they own the character.

Creatively- it's arguable if the originators should or shouldn't be considered the final word on what 'is' the character. You're right- other hands over time have been involved in building interpretations and additions to the character's history- and probably will still do so.... whether they're valid or more important than others' opinions depends on who one could say the character belongs to- the public's imagination (any one of us as a consumer) or the editors in charge of what legally gets published with the Superman character in it.

While I have issues with some of the execution of the ideas in MOS, I also have a raised eyebrow on Superman's development as a character in it.... because I always imagined that the reason that the Superman character had longevity was in no small part due to the simplicity of his character motivation.... He IS 'too perfect', 'too square'--- and was committed to good JUST for 'good's sake'- no other hidden motivation nor guilt trip....

But under Goyer/Snyder- he had to have issues and darkness within him. I thought Singer gave him issues and darkness- but in that case, I felt it was that he suffered because he was 'too good for this world' - and too unselfish.... so I felt that was fine.... but in MOS, I just felt that Goyer never 'got' Superman. but the same was said for Singer and SR- so, ultimately- just depends how you like your 'Superman' character served, I suppose..

[EnriqueH]

And that is why SR and MOS both failed.

[Deleted]

Between two sets of movie continuities, the new 52 continuity, the Adventures classic continuity, the Beyond continuity, and the Smallville continuity ... there is no one authoritative take on Superman anymore. Pick whatever you like best. That's kind of neat, actually.

[EnriqueH]

I think it's stupid.

[cypher85]

Because choice its always a bad thing.

[crazy_asian_man]

Between two sets of movie continuities, the new 52 continuity, the Adventures classic continuity, the Beyond continuity, and the Smallville continuity ... there is no one authoritative take on Superman anymore. Pick whatever you like best. That's kind of neat, actually.

Well.... it's a corporate product, and has been since Siegel and Shuster created it under a 'work for hire' situation.

I have a mixed feeling about the whole situation- if not for DC, nobody else wanted 'Superman'- and it's questionable if it ever would have been published... and being published by a strong company kept it alive (same company which squashed the original Captain Marvel legally by being in their opinion too similar, then acquired the rights from the same company afterwards).
And- you have all these artists and writers that have added and taken away from what Superman was for decades. Whoever decides who Superman is now, is decided by a committee who may or may not really even care.

Contrast that with an author of a book series who owns all the rights and can protect their creation.

Lucas had that kind of control with Star Wars- unfortunately, he wasn't a very good writer and made some very terrible choices. But he definitely knew how to protect his creation when he wanted to keep them.

Also, look at the Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter series, etc.- from what I understand, the owners (or their kids or the estate) has been very protective creatively- so there is a level of either quality control or just enough control so that whatever is adapted falls within the owner/creator's creative guidelines on who the character should be.

With Superman- it's gotten different interpretations- and I would argue that even though we mostly worship Donner's STM above the rest- I don't think it's overrating him to say that he really did have a vision of who he was, and the spirit of how that world should/could operate.

That there's so many versions of him now- I agree that it can be either exciting to pick and choose, or it can incredibly irritating if they do things that feel totally against what a person feels isn't the character nor what they represent. (I have a friend who feels SR was horrible primarily because he felt Superman would never have a kid and ruined his character, but I loved the way it was done)

If Superman can be any version you choose- then the x-rated parody could arguably just be as legitimate a version.

If Superman can just as legitimately be a sex fiend as he can be a symbol for hope (or patriotism or whatever one chooses)- then it does remove the layer of nostalgia one has for it.

It's sort of like having a great respect for an older teacher who had great qualities and wisdom growing up, then seeing them currently getting plastic surgery and a ponytail to look 'cool' and fit in with a new generation.

Rather than presenting something as it was, and having people appreciate it--- instead it can have plastic surgery and hack off whatever parts one wants to be considered beautiful for the moment.

In fact, if comparing someone who does a new adaptation of the character to a plastic surgeon- If the surgeon is great, then it feels like a restoration of a great piece of art. If the surgeon has bad taste, then the adaptation can feel like the bride of Frankenstein. (Sort of how I feel about the current New 52 version of Superman).

In any case, if down the line someone were to tell me that James Cameron were to do a reboot of Superman, wake me up and give me a call--- THEN I'd be very excited.

Right now, I'm mildly accepting what is, and trying to make the best of the situation....

[Metallo]

There's a reason the DC house is a mess right now. There is no strong creative guiding force. That's why the comics are an editorial mess and there are a lot of miserable creators.

As for Goyer...it seems obvious Johns carried his ass whenever they partnered together. His explanation for having Superman kill was such bullshit. They obvious they had the idea and worked backwards from there on how to make it happen instead of letting it grow organically from the story. That's why it feels so slapped together.

[Jor-L5150]

live action:
1) STM "Donner-verse/salkind-verse" (STM/SII/SIII)
2) Man of Steel ...verse
3) B/W george reeves

animated:
1) S:TAS / BB / JL / JLU / B:TAS
2) all-star superman

comics:
1) BYRNE-to-doomsday
2) bronze age
3) geoff johns neo-silver/donner-ish

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 25, 2013 13:28:14 GMT -5 Metallo said:

There's a reason the DC house is a mess right now. There is no strong creative guiding force. That's why the comics are an editorial mess and there are a lot of miserable creators.

As for Goyer...it seems obvious Johns carried his ass whenever they partnered together. His explanation for having Superman kill was such bullshit. They obvious they had the idea and worked backwards from there on how to make it happen instead of letting it grow organically from the story. That's why it feels so slapped together.

Goyer seems fine- as long as there is a counterbalance to smooth out rough edges on his work.

Unfortunately, Snyder is someone who ALSO needs a counterbalance to his work. Great visuals (most of the time), but any of his scenes where the actors aren't giving voiceover generally have come out flat or more often than not- stilted or ridiculous.

Can't help but wonder what the draft was that Nolan approved, before Snyder came on.....

[atp]

MoS spoiled itself by being crap

[atp]

Jun 16, 2013 13:12:16 GMT -5 atp said:

You know, if Jor-El is really such a great scientist, why does he make three such retarded mistakes?

a) He announces to Zod that he and Lara have had a baby. Even worse, he tells him this before the baby has even been launched away safely. Way to go there Jor-El, making your son a target!

b) He manages to let Zod get close enough to stab him even though he has a gun on him. WTF?

c) He uses a suit of armour that is useless against Zod's knife. Um, isn't armour like, you know, kind of, supposed to, actually protect you against blades? Isn't that why knights used to wear it?

And don't get me started on Jonathan's retarded behaviour too. Actually wait, I think I WILL get started on his retarded behaviour.

Let's see, first he's telling Clark that he is destined for great things, and that even if it takes him the rest of his life, he owes it to himself to find out the reason why he was sent here. But then he tells him he should be a farmer.

And then, when the tornado comes, he decides to let himself die rather than be rescued. In all that chaos, who was going to notice, or even care, if Clark rescued him from the tornado?

Yeah, I can just imagine the scene if Clark had gone back for his father...

BYSTANDER 1: Whoa! Did you see that? That guy just dragged his father to safety.
BYSTANDER 2: I saw! It's incredible. No-one in the history of the world has ever pulled a man with a broken leg away from danger.
BYSTANDER 1: What does it all mean?
BYSTANDER 2: The guy must be an alien.
BYSTANDER 1: You're right! Now that we know who he is, what do we do?
BYSTANDER 2: We should reject him. (Out of fear.)
BYSTANDER 1: I agree. The world isn't ready.
BYSTANDER 1 & 2: HEY YOU! ALIEN! GO AWAY. WE'RE REJECTING YOU (OUT OF FEAR).

No answers yet?

[dejan]

Jul 19, 2022 13:29:08 GMT -5 atp said:

Jun 16, 2013 13:12:16 GMT -5 atp said:

You know, if Jor-El is really such a great scientist, why does he make three such retarded mistakes?

a) He announces to Zod that he and Lara have had a baby. Even worse, he tells him this before the baby has even been launched away safely. Way to go there Jor-El, making your son a target!

b) He manages to let Zod get close enough to stab him even though he has a gun on him. WTF?

c) He uses a suit of armour that is useless against Zod's knife. Um, isn't armour like, you know, kind of, supposed to, actually protect you against blades? Isn't that why knights used to wear it?

And don't get me started on Jonathan's retarded behaviour too. Actually wait, I think I WILL get started on his retarded behaviour.

Let's see, first he's telling Clark that he is destined for great things, and that even if it takes him the rest of his life, he owes it to himself to find out the reason why he was sent here. But then he tells him he should be a farmer.

And then, when the tornado comes, he decides to let himself die rather than be rescued. In all that chaos, who was going to notice, or even care, if Clark rescued him from the tornado?

Yeah, I can just imagine the scene if Clark had gone back for his father...

BYSTANDER 1: Whoa! Did you see that? That guy just dragged his father to safety.
BYSTANDER 2: I saw! It's incredible. No-one in the history of the world has ever pulled a man with a broken leg away from danger.
BYSTANDER 1: What does it all mean?
BYSTANDER 2: The guy must be an alien.
BYSTANDER 1: You're right! Now that we know who he is, what do we do?
BYSTANDER 2: We should reject him. (Out of fear.)
BYSTANDER 1: I agree. The world isn't ready.
BYSTANDER 1 & 2: HEY YOU! ALIEN! GO AWAY. WE'RE REJECTING YOU (OUT OF FEAR).

No answers yet?

Lol!-excellent synopsis!

[atp]

Jul 14, 2013 12:48:07 GMT -5 atp said:

Jor-El: "You were the embodiment of that belief, Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you."

Kal-El: "Why didn't you come with me? Was it because you were a product of the failures of your world, tied to its fate?"

Jor-El: "Um, no. It's because I got murdered with a 2-foot blade."

Kal-El: "Oh. OK."

😆