Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Frontier

The Man of Steel - Next Superman Movie

58 posts in this topic

Superman isn't a reluctant hero. He's a hero, period.

Except when he voluntarily chucks his powers just to have sex with Lois... :giggle:

That's about as heroic as letting your cat die because it fell in the pool while you were having sex and didn't want to be interrupted.

Anyway, I'm partially kidding; I know Superman later reverses decision of forsaking his powers to 'get back into the fight'; but still; he knew there were other occasions where his powers might've come in handy, yet he still chose to voluntarily chuck those powers for some hanky-panky with Lois.

This is the action of a man conflicted by his heroic nature; an interesting relatable character, and not a stalwart demigod.

That's the Superman I care about; the one who is torn by his nature, and not so perfect...

This is the man who turned back time itself not to save all of humanity; but to save the woman he loved.

I very much enjoyed the scene of Superman Returns where he flies up into space and 'hears' all the radio turmoil and distress of his adopted planet; there is a beautiful serenity and humanity in that single moment that we rarely see in the franchise afterward. That single moment gives one a feeling for what a demigod goes through; to bear that enormous burden of having to help everywhere all at once. That's what makes Superman even remotely interesting to me; not that he's got my back, but that beneath his superpowers he is just a man as conflicted as any of us...

The story of an impervious, invulnerable man doesn't interest me; the story of an impervious, invulnerable man who shares my emotions and internal doubts does....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We both know Superman didn't chuck his powers to get laid. He made a terrible mistake, and for a short period, felt that he had done enough. Ultimately, he wasn't thinking that there are threats humanity can't handle without him, and has to be there for those problems. Obviously, he would have met Zod head on if he knew.

For the first time in his life, he wanted to act in his self interest, and be with someone he loved.

After all the good he did, he felt entitled to that, and he wasn't really wrong.

You give and give and give, and there comes a point where the man who gives so much is entitled to happiness.

What WAS wrong was some need to give up his powers. He could have just said, "uh, no. I'm going to keep my powers AND be with Lois." But that was a weak plot point to set things up.

In the Donner version, Superman doesn't look so stupid. In both versions, he gives up his powers for love, but in the Donner version, he's not some oblivious idiot, sitting at home reading Dickens when bad things are happening. Zod just kind of landed when he was distracted.

Plus, in the Donner version, Lois doesn't find out his identity because he tripped into a fire, which makes no sense. She found out because she pulled a brilliant move.

Anyway, Superman didn't know about Zod when he gave up his powers. And the second he found out Zod was on Earth, he went back to the North Pole and did what he had to do. There was never a question that he would do the right thing in the end.

I do agree that one of the appeals of the character is his conflicts.

No matter how powerful Superman is, he has to make choices of who to help and when. Ultimately, the only decision is to help people that need it most, like a triage doctor.

Whatever the police can do, they handle.

He chose Metropolis as his place to patrol. That might be resented by others, but Superman has to be able to say, "sorry, but this city is my home."

I feel it's very interesting that by watching Man of Steel right after the good Reeve movies, it makes it that much easier to see the flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You give and give and give, and there comes a point where the man who gives so much is entitled to happiness.

This is precisely what I mean when I say he is a conflicted hero; he has needs (emotional and physical), just like anyone else. That is one of the aspects of Superman that I can actually relate to, and appreciate.

We both know Superman didn't chuck his powers to get laid.

No, of course not.

He also got laid in Superman III (with his powers intact). :giggle:

He chose Metropolis as his place to patrol. That might be resented by others, but Superman has to be able to say, "sorry, but this city is my home."

True, he's based in Metropolis, but in we see Superman acting on behalf of the entire world (esp. in Superman II, when he goes off to Paris, or in IV, where he's in Italy and about a million other places; including a Soviet space station). I realize that he is (primarily) an "American" hero, but I prefer to think that he'd go wherever he's truly needed; enemy nation or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is precisely what I mean when I say he is a conflicted hero; he has needs (emotional and physical), just like anyone else. That is one of the aspects of Superman that I can actually relate to, and appreciate.

That's fair. I like that too. He was raised as a human, so he thinks like a human, and a very good one. One thing that Byrne did that I absolutely loved was that he spared the lives of the Kents, and Superman had his parents alive in his adulthood. That was probably the early stages of making them younger, which was a good thing. Adults have parents. Having Superman have that parental relationship to me was awesome, and one of the few changes made that was for the better.

True, he's based in Metropolis, but in we see Superman acting on behalf of the entire world (esp. in Superman II, when he goes off to Paris, or in IV, where he's in Italy and about a million other places; including a Soviet space station). I realize that he is (primarily) an "American" hero, but I prefer to think that he'd go wherever he's truly needed; enemy nation or not.

I think that's a safe bet. I think he would fight for America against enemy nations in certain situations, like he was portrayed in WWII, though fortunately, those situations don't arise often, and it's not like he would be a human weapon for the US military. He wouldn't do that.

He also wouldn't be the type to say, "I'm not going to Gotham. I hate their baseball team."

Ultimately, he would do exactly as you mention--even enter the airspace of an enemy nation if there were innocent lives at risk, even if he identifies himself as an American, which he absolutely does, because he was raised in the USA.

A hero helps people in need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this is the right place to talk about the trailer but I finally caught it as a preview to the Star Wars movie. I am cautiously optimistic. Do I need a SPOILER warning?
 Well here it is just in case...

 

SPOILERS!!!

 

I like that they are dealing with the repercussion of the mass destruction via Bruce Wayne. The previews do seem to show that this is the major driving point of the movie up to an extent.

On the negative side, did anyone think that Lex Luthor came off very Jokerish???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this is the right place to talk about the trailer but I finally caught it as a preview to the Star Wars movie. I am cautiously optimistic. Do I need a SPOILER warning?
 Well here it is just in case...

 

SPOILERS!!!

 

I like that they are dealing with the repercussion of the mass destruction via Bruce Wayne. The previews do seem to show that this is the major driving point of the movie up to an extent.

On the negative side, did anyone think that Lex Luthor came off very Jokerish???

I thought Lex came off more like Mark Zuckerberg on cocaine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superman seems like a character I should like, but I haven't found an interpretation that really gets to me. Man of Steel definitely had problems, but I did like a few moments: Clark trying to cope with his powers as a child, and hiding away, or the scene where an obnoxious man in a bar dumps beer all over him and throws a cup at his head, and Clark walks away. (Although the bit just after that, with the messed up car, ruins it a bit.) There's also him explaining the symbol on his chest to Louis, and that it stands for 'hope'.

I'm a big fan of Captain America, and I've seen people comparing that character to how Superman should be depicted. (It sounds like they've actually done something like this with the new Wonder Woman.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Explorer3 said:

Man of Steel definitely had problems, but I did like a few moments: Clark trying to cope with his powers as a child, and hiding away, or the scene where an obnoxious man in a bar dumps beer all over him and throws a cup at his head, and Clark walks away. (Although the bit just after that, with the messed up car, ruins it a bit.) There's also him explaining the symbol on his chest to Louis, and that it stands for 'hope'.

^
This.  MOS had many issues, but I still find parts of it better than the whole.  I thought Clark's childhood moments were a beautiful and powerful allegory for autism (having a god son on the spectrum, that was my takeaway from it).   There are moments in the movie that begged for further exploration, but they got drowned out by that loud, dumb and unnecessarily noisy ending.   

8 hours ago, Explorer3 said:

I'm a big fan of Captain America, and I've seen people comparing that character to how Superman should be depicted. (It sounds like they've actually done something like this with the new Wonder Woman.)

^
Very much so (on both points).  If you're in any way reluctant to check out WW?  I can safely say that DC really got it right this time. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0