Was it a mistake to leave reporter Clark out of MOS?

[theoj]

Perhaps they shouldn't have deviated from the formula so much. I for one would have much preferred to see a good 45 mins of Clark as a reporter and more interaction with Lois rather than an unnecessary 45 mins of action that went on and on.

It surely would have made the film more compelling and more involving if we had got some more chemistry not only between Superman and Lois but between reporter Clark and Lois too.

They only hint at this in the closing seconds of MOS as a kind of promise that we will get more of that in the sequel but who knows? We may not even get many Clark and Lois scenes in MOS 2 as they've now gotta make way for Batman scenes and who knows what else to build up to the Justice League movie.

So just when we thought we'd get a whole new take on Superman and Clark from Cavill, it looks like he may end up taking a backseat in the sequels in terms of character depth, only to be substituted for other superheroes and more action.

There's no way we will ever see as much of Clark's character as we saw from Christopher Reeve, and Clark is arguably the more interesting personality of the two.

I have far less faith in MOS 2 than I did in MOS.
And it probably won't even be called MOS 2!

[Metallo]

I don't think it was a mistake to leave reporter Clark out. Would have been tough to work him into the story they told. They'd have to make some major changes to fit him in there somehow. Plus it probably wouldn't have so radically different a personality from the Clark we got. The problem was not giving Clark Kent much character or personality in the first place. They still could have done that reporter or no reporter. Even when Bale wasn't donning the billionaire playboy guise his Bruce Wayne still seemed to be a more well rounded character in Batman Begins. With Clark in MOS he just wasn't as fleshed out as a person. The same problem extended to other characters in MOS like Lois. She had more to do but they somehow managed to give her less of a personality.

[Deleted]

I find it hard to believe he just walked into the fictional equivalent of The New York Times and landed a job with apparently no experience and no college degree. Judging by Lois's reaction, it's not like he networked his way into that one. I've been out of work for nearly two years, have a decade of experience under my belt, and I can't get a fucking $20,000 a year job in podunk Idaho.The whole concept of reporter Clark is antiquated. It's why they dumped it in the comics.

[theoj]

Then perhaps its biggest downfall was simply in its dumbing down of the last hour.

Everyone seems to unanimously agree that the first hour was brilliant and spectacular and compelling and exciting without even needing a big action fighting scene.

It seems great effort and care went into the first half of the script and the story and the characters and that's what makes a great film. Then at some point halfway through, a WB exec steps in to order them to put action above everything else "because that's what puts bums on seats and that's the difference between half a billion worldwide and a billion".

...WRONG!!!

Would love to hear Snyder's thoughts on the matter and to see if he defends the second half or admits to making some big mistakes and regrets it. Though his hands are probably tied even further now that Batman has been thrown into the mix, in direct response to MOS not making a billion dollars!

[Deleted]

Thinking about it more, the MoS version isn't that far off from Donner's movie. After all, Clark spends a dozen years in the Fortress, then just shows up at the Daily Planet with no background. Based on Perry's dialogue, Clark can type really fast and is a brown-nosing kiss ass. Even in "Lois & Clark" there is no reason why Clark wants to go to Metropolis to be a reporter. This is one of the things "Smallville" did right: establish an interest in journalism from a young age by working on his high school newspaper, then transitioning that to interning or whatever the fuck he did at the Planet starting in season eight.

This has always been a huge hole in live-action Superman. Out-of-work reporter's rant over. You may now resume your regularly scheduled program.

[EnriqueH]

Sept 17, 2013 23:02:18 GMT -5 @bamabrad said:

I find it hard to believe he just walked into the fictional equivalent of The New York Times and landed a job with apparently no experience and no college degree. Judging by Lois's reaction, it's not like he networked his way into that one. I've been out of work for nearly two years, have a decade of experience under my belt, and I can't get a fucking $20,000 a year job in podunk Idaho.The whole concept of reporter Clark is antiquated. It's why they dumped it in the comics.

Totally.

I saw an article recently that ranked 100 careers. Journalism came ranked DEAD LAST.

Wanna know what came in at #99?

Lumber jacking.

[ye5man]

I saw an article recently that ranked 100 careers. Journalism came ranked DEAD LAST.

Was it written by a journalist?

[crazy_asian_man]

It surely would have made the film more compelling and more involving if we had got some more chemistry not only between Superman and Lois but between reporter Clark and Lois too.

The original Siegel and Shuster comics did something incredibly smart: if Superman was going to be the 'straight' man- then to make things more interesting, Lois was designed to have 'too much' personality to counterbalance Superman's 'nice guy' with little personality--- AND have there be work antagonism between his 'fake' Clark identity and Lois. Doing away with that element in the DC comics, the tv show, and the movies was an attempt to have a fresh angle- but, it sure looked/looks like the choices made aren't any better, for the most part. Having Superman not be with Lois in the comics hasn't made his character any more interesting- and having Lois be less comedic and over the top just seems to dull a real opportunity for some fun or joy in that department.

My thought was always: if you're going to change something, then make sure it's AT LEAST as good as, if not a better choice.

So just when we thought we'd get a whole new take on Superman and Clark from Cavill, it looks like he may end up taking a backseat in the sequels in terms of character depth, only to be substituted for other superheroes and more action.

Goyer knows how to write stuff that shows character pain and angst, (which made him great for two out of three Batman films)- but in most of the films he's done--- I can barely think of any protagonist he's created that had any depth outside of Nolan's Bat films.
I think what we got in MOS is as much character stuff as we're gong to get from the movies....

With Donner and Reeve- we got that Clark was a goof--- but the idea that I also got was that Superman was having FUN playing the Clark role. The smirk on Clark's face when he catches the bullet and catches the disdain of Lois in the alley for fainting may be too silly for some, but I took it as another level of characterization if you see it as Superman playing a part and enjoying it.

(*This gets incredibly muddled and thrown off-course with Lester's rewrite of Superman 2. With Lester's, you're not sure if Supes wants Lois to appreciate him as Clark. With Mank's script for S2- it's more consistent that Clark is just a charade for Supes.)

Anyhow- the choice of Superman's first meeting with Lois is using his heat vision to burn her sides shut- is just.....awful in concept. Sure, it's different. But not in a good way. Is that really the best thing that Goyer/Snyder could come up with?

In some ways, MOS is Superman through the filter of a horror film. I don't mind a Superman film with an edge- but a number of choices and changes (Jenny Olsen) just make one want to bang their head against the wall and ask why it was necessary.

[atp]

When Clark used his heat vision to cauterise Lois' wound, was she thinking that the beams were kinda hot?

[cypher85]

Obviously, her screams of pain would indicate that.

[crazy_asian_man]

When Clark used his heat vision to cauterise Lois' wound, was she thinking that the beams were kinda hot?

[Jimbo]

The end of MOS felt like a huge tease, just like Smallville. In Smallville, we see a split second of "Superman", and in MOS, we see a split second of "mild-mannered Clark Kent."

Though unlike Smallville, MOS would have gone on with a sequel, so it would have been OK. We'd presumably get to see that side of the character in MOS2. But now? With Batman in the mix, just how much Clark Kent are we going to see?

[crazy_asian_man]

Though unlike Smallville, MOS would have gone on with a sequel, so it would have been OK. We'd presumably get to see that side of the character in MOS2. But now? With Batman in the mix, just how much Clark Kent are we going to see?

It might be a mixed blessing in disguise.

If Snyder's strengths are visuals and action.... then he might be relieved that he doesn't have to do many character scenes, and play up to his strengths.

If WB had to go this route, I would have rather that they chose to go with Wonder Woman or reboot Green Lantern vs. Superman.... at least it's more of a fair fight and we'd have something possibly more visual. (Snyder's take on GL might actually be interesting, given what we got out of Martin Campbell).

[ye5man]

Will we get a scene in MoS meets BM where, in costume, they refer to each other as CK/BW, each surprising the other?

[atp]

Sept 23, 2013 11:59:02 GMT -5 ye5man said:

Will we get a scene in MoS meets BM where, in costume, they refer to each other as CK/BW, each surprising the other?

No.

But we will see someone ask Batman what the bat symbol is, and he'll say, "It's not a bat. In my city, it means fear."

[cypher85]

That doesn't actually sound bad, I like it.

The difference is that it clearly is a bat, but that Batman would be pointing out the difference in their two styles.

[crazy_asian_man]

The difference is that it clearly is a bat, but that Batman would be pointing out the difference in their two styles.

It's a little ironic that Goyer's Batman doesn't kill- but his Superman does.

[EnriqueH]

That's because he doesn't get Superman.

Hitflix has an article that quotes Goyer saying they didn't have Superman snap Zod's neck to be cool. And that he's not bound to the rules of the character.

My question is: then why do the movie?

These last two movies don't understand Superman, which is why they failed miserably.

[Melv]

I never had a problem with Superman killing. He kills Zod in SII completely nonchalantly. Why did no-one ever care about that? He's right that it's bad for creativity for a character to be unchangeable so he used the start of Supes' career to get some of the more controversial ideas in. I really don't see the major issue.

[Shane]

superman should of just taken him to the north pole and throw him into some icy abyss

[ye5man]

Superman killed Zod in the comics and was so remorseful he vowed never to do it again


If they'd have put the "I'll never kill again" point across clearer in the film, then I guess people would not have a problem with it

[EnriqueH]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you wanna have Superman kill?

Fine.

BUILD UP to that moment. Make it a big deal.

They didn't.

[Metallo]

That's my problem with it. Superman killed in whatever happened to the man of tomorrow but it was a huge deal. If MOS had built to it or followed up on it it could have been a strong moment but that didn't happen. And the idea that Superman has to kill to learn not to? That's just fucking ridiculous. I could accept the guilt making him hesitant but they don't don't even go into that either.

[crazy_asian_man]

I never had a problem with Superman killing. He kills Zod in SII completely nonchalantly. Why did no-one ever care about that?

Because he didn't kill them. I know some members are convinced he did, but I'm pretty sure they kept it deliberately vague.
In using specifics:

In Donner's version, they had the arctic police take them away, with the deleted scenes and the script.

In the RDC version, I blame ridiculous editing (here, it DOES look like Superman uses the heat vision to destroy them in the FOS) , but even then, apparently Superman went back in time so that they stayed in the Phantom Zone and the Luthor plot apparently never happened.

In Lester's version, the script has Superman create a hole (yep) for each of the villains- including Luthors to keep them in at the Fortress of Solitude. (This was a voiceover that- thankfully- they never kept)

The one time that I recall where Superman did kill (in Byrne's reboot), it was done in a way that didn't feel nearly as brutal. If memory serves right, the villains massacred a planet, and Superman after much deliberation, explains it to them why he had to come to the conclusion as judge/jury/executioner, and uses kryptonite on them.

In any case- it's just the time investment of Superman's rule in the comics that he never kills, and always has red tights. But, it's a whole new ballgame now. Guess he can kill and do whatever the heck he wants under whoever's holding the reins at DC now.

[crazy_asian_man]

Superman killed Zod in the comics and was so remorseful he vowed never to do it again


If they'd have put the "I'll never kill again" point across clearer in the film, then I guess people would not have a problem with it

I think if they had edited it in a way that it didn't look like he was recklessly having people get killed all around him during the battle sequences, without too much concern on his part (fixable via editing), there would be less problem with it, too.