Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@trans8010 @jmaldo85 @Contrabardus @rosslunney "In fact the only portion of that allegory that remained was mainly based on the interpretation from the original writings, not the movie itself."
Everything you pointed out about the "christ allegory" came from the original comics, as I stated.
And, to answer your question, no he wouldn't just "fly out and start helping people" because he has no idea what to do. That is MOS greatest accomplishment. He didn't just strap on an "S" and become Superman. At the point in the movie when he put that suit on and flew, he still had doubts about humanity, had JUST learned his heritage, and was essentially still the guy who grew up semi-alone, isolated, and "scared" as a child with god-like abilities would. 
He wouldn't know what he is supposed to do, and how to even go about it the right way. The scene where he "exposes himself" isn't because he HAD to, it was the opening he "needed" in order to introduce himself as a friend and not a threat. 
"The love story seemed tacked on?" As compared to what? Him meeting her in the news room and thinking shes cute? And EVERYTHING about her was necessary. Her figuring out who he is on her own, her sacrificing herself at Zods request to prevent a war, and her being there for him as an anchor when he is at his weakest. Those are all major parts to who Lois Lane is. The only thing this movie failed to portray accurately was her "wild" "tough" side. They tried with the scene on the ship, but having AI Jor-El lead her around made it come off weaker than it should have. 

1 year ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman

Reply

@trans8010 @Juano Guzman   You again with the characterization and again you missed the entire point. He wasn't more interested in causing destruction than stopping bad guys; he was dealing with the problem that he saw he HAD to deal with. You talk about the characters being one dimensional, this completely proves that they were NOT one dimensional. In the original movie they avoid any kind of character development for Superman by having him perform a 12 year hibernation in the fortress of solitude where he learns everything he needs to know in order to be "Superman". The character himself never develops, never learns any lessons, and across all 4 movies never has to deal with any of the choices he makes. In MOS we finally get a Clark that has to actually BECOME Superman. That is what the action scenes and fight scenes were. How an inexperienced, brand new "god" would handle these situations. Attack the problem that he sees to be the major threat head on, and then in doing so he has to deal with the consequences of his choices. That is true character development and you see that constantly in the film. It shows what it really means for Clark Kent to be Superman, which is putting the world before himself and making those hard choices that no one else can make. He chooses to let his father die, not because he's an idiot, but because he truly believed that he was not ready to be exposed like that and that the world was not ready for that, which is the truth. The reaction to him in the original films makes NO SENSE. Guy flies up, catches a helicopter, flies away, and everyone is just "YAY!" and immediately accepts him. In this film we had to see Superman earn that acceptance, and by the end of the film he did. Just like in the Avengers some will like him because he saved the entire planet, but others will hate him because they will see him as a threat based on the damage and amount of power he has. All great things that can be explored later in future films. 

Every choice he makes in this film, builds up to him being Superman by the end of the film, There are so many intelligent scenes where you see him becoming Superman. When he leaves the ship and realizes that he has to save humanity, when he is potentially sacrificing his life to destroy the terraformer, and when he sacrifices his "soul" to kill Zod in order to save, not only that family, but essentially the world because Zod would never have stopped, as he made very clear by attempting to murder that family. 
Then, when he snaps Zods neck...finally Superman actually has more sides to him! Real turmoil, passion, anger, and frustration and not just because Lois died or he got a hold of tainted Kryptonite, but because he is finally DEALING WITH HIS ACTIONS. Something that he NEVER did before. Examples, first film, chooses the "wrong" missle, Lois dies, he spins the world backwards, all better. Second film, gives up his powers "permanently", "oh crap it's Zod", back to the fortress, gets his powers back, all is better. Third film, goes "bad", wrecks a bunch of crap, little kid says "snap out of it Superman", he has an internal struggle, fixes a few buildings, and all is forgiven. 
Zod was portrayed magnificently and finally as an actual General with a real purpose and not just some crazy vendetta. In fact, by the last fight scene you actually start to feel for the man when you learn about his "purpose". He was the best kind of villain, the kind that are "believers" in what they are doing. In Superman 2 you get more of an aristocratic feel from Zod than a military one. Other than order around Non and Ursa, he doesn't even do anything in a militant like manner. 
Lois Lane, you say could have been replaced by anyone, well then I will say that goes the same for the original movie. You finally see Lois as an actual reporter capable of figuring out who this god like being is. Where as in the original movies she does very little to show her skill as a reporter, one would even argue that she does NOTHING to show her skills as a reporter. The only reason Superman even goes to see her is because she stood on a roof in some "nighty-like" dress and he thinks shes cute. Finally we see a real reason why Superman loves her. Not just because he is attracted to her but because she provides him with a positive look on humanity. After all that work, she chooses to not publish her story because she trusts him in that the world isn't ready, and she gives up herself in order to prevent a war. What exactly does Lois do in the original films that apparently makes her so irreplaceable and a much better "developed" character? Aside from the purse snatcher you don't even really see her "Lois Lane" toughness until part 2. 

I will say that of all the characters in the film, Lois was the weaker of them in that she did not display all the characteristics I had hoped; however she served her purpose in the film well, and showed what she could bring to future films. Don't sit here and talk about characterization when you can't even see the development in the film. You can't praise one film, and hate another, when the Donner films lack WAY more than the Snyder/Nolan/Goyer film.

Oh, and the action scenes were some of the best superhero scenes that have ever been depicted in a film yet.

1 year ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman

Reply

@trans8010 @Contrabardus @rosslunney
@trans8010 not to be insulting but you really did not understand this movie at all! First, on the original Superman and the Christ allegory; that was not part of the original film at all. In fact the only portion of that allegory that remained was mainly based on the interpretation from the original writings, not the movie itself.
Your father and grandfather did not like the movie for the same reason my grandfather didn't, like you they failed to understand that this movie is NOT a "Superman" film. Like "Smallville" This is an origin story about everything Clark Kent went through to become Superman. So when you complain that he didn't feature the characteristics of Superman, that is because he was not yet Superman. Why else do you think he is only referred to as Superman once? And not even directly.
You have said that the characters in this movie were one dimensional, I also don't think you know what that means. If anything this is the first time the characters are not one dimensional. Never before in a live action movie did you see why Clark loved Lois, and felt the connection towards her. In the original movie, other than the fact that he thought she was cute there was never any reason for Superman to love this woman. She was easily replaceable. In this film you finally see what she is to him. She is his anchor to humanity and his crutch; she's what keeps him grounded. This opens up the chance for future films to show sides of both characters that have not been seen yet.
I could go on forever, but the main point is you went into this movie, like many others, expecting a "Superman film" and instead got one of the most impressive origin stories ever told and with incredible attention to detail.
You're reason for disliking it the way you did, is because you didn't get it.

1 year ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman

Reply

I would not be worried about Affleck as Batman. The movie doesn't even have a released script yet and it's two years away.

The media and general public are only focusing on stuff like "Gigli" and "Jersey Girl", and aren't mentioning anything about "Good Will Hunting", "The Town", "Chasing Amy", "Hollywoodland", and "Argo"...all movies where he was praised for his performance as an actor and/or directoral ability. He wasn't even bad as Dare Devil, just the movie itself sucked big time. It had a horrible script and a crap villain, but go back and watch it and you'll see that Affleck himself played DD/Matt Murdock just fine (minus the playground fight scene..yikes) and looked the part. Rewatch "The Town" and you will see his ability to 1 - get in required/desired shape for a role; 2- play a dramatic role featuring a bad ass with duality issues; and 3-convince an audience to root for the antagonist or a film. I don't care how much like "Heat" it was, it was still a great film.

DC needs this. They are on a roll right now that started with M.O.S and has continued with the way they are releasing information. Crushed the box office with M.O.S (regardless of what critics think), killed Comicon by releasing the information that fans will finally see Superman and Batman in a movie together, shocked the world when they announced a huge star (regardless of what you think of him, he is) like Ben Affleck will be the next Batman, and has now just given a ~90% confirmation of Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor. This is what they need to compete with Marvel.

I'd have faith in this production team and company, they seem to know what they are doing. Also, have a little faith in Affleck. I highly doubt he has worked this hard at repairing his reputation just to ruin it all by screwing up the biggest role of his career.

1 year, 1 month ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman

Reply

And if you'd like to go one reason at a time to maintain order, I'm cool with that too. I am just really curious as to what about this movie earned such a bashing.

1 year, 1 month ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman

Reply

I would like to know your reasoning for why this movie is a "stinking heap of garbage". During all of your replies and your initial post you stated no solid reasoning in anything that backs up your statement. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I and I will tell you and argue with you that this movie is arguably one of the best super hero films of all time. This coming from a fan of the Donner film (the only one he did not counting the half of Superman 2 he was responsible for) and almost all other cannons of Superman (even Lois and Clark, which had its place and hit it's target audience in the 90's). So please, enlighten me and back up your opinion with facts of your own, not stuff from critics, and not just "the story was weak".

1 year, 1 month ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman

Reply