Bio not provided
@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
@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.
@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
You're reason for disliking it the way you did, is because you didn't get it.
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.
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.
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".