Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

am I the only one who thinks the bit with Hamilton at the end may have been a subtle sequel hook? After what happened, I can easily see him becoming a host for brainiac

So I saw the film

and....

F*CK THE CRITICS

I loved this movie. It gave me everything I ever wanted from a Superman film and more.

The story was great, the action was great, the characters were great.

And I can forgive the shaky cam and Jonathan Kent's death because I love this movie so much.

I bought and downloaded the track Flight and started listening to it again. The magic of Clark's first time flying in the film returned to me all at once. The climax of the piece nearly brings me to tears every single time.

Arcade is on my iPod and I listen to it constantly.

It makes any mundane situation feel epic

I'm curious to see how Cavill will pull of the traditional Clark Kent disguise of being all timid and dorky and stuff. I think he pulled off Superman pretty well, and Clark at home pretty well too. Now his next real challenge is pulling off Clark at work.

He needs to make the disguise convincing or else it won't be believable, like so:

So there was a review of this movie about how it was actually a deconstruction type thing. Thoughts?

I think the movie is a Deconstruction of how humans would react to Superman and perhaps also of the "savior from another planet" part of the premise.

It doesn't really Deconstruct the character of Clark/Superman though, as Clark is still a good and heroic guy.

So, I guess I disagree with the link. I think the movie shows how terrifying it would be to be a muggle when a bunch of flying bricks fought each other, but it isn't really Superman himself whose terrifying (I think the article buys into that exaggeration/false claim that Superman himself is responsible for most of the damage).

I see Clark (and the Clark Kent persona) as being the type who will seem/be naive and not necessarily too bright, but will then make really intellectual comments that take others aback (remember, this is someone who read Plato for fun as a kid).

edited 2nd Jul '13 7:11:06 AM by Hodor

I saw it on Saturday and absolutely loved it. Zod was great fun to watch, and so was Jor-El. Henry Cavill is now the definitive Superman in my book.

Apparently Krypton is another word for Golgafrincham, although without the virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone. The ruling council clearly thought that interior designers weren't necessary in their society. I got a bit tired of the "basalt and black iron" styling.

Still, I liked it, and it was good to see what happens when two gods simply let loose in a city.

Three pages late, but I don't think that scene with Superman, the General and the wrecked Predator was about the US Government knowing who Superman is - it was about them knowing where he was (when he's not Clark Kent in Metropolis, obviously.

I took that as hinting towards a new Fortress of Solitude, maybe not one wholly Kryptonian in design but a place he can rest from the world.

I know some people had issues with Pa Kent suggesting his son should've actually allowed a couple dozen kids to die. To me that thas the Nolan touch.

In that scene, Pa Kent behaved exactly like a caring father would. It sounds harsh, but yes, any parent who realizes that their son doing something like that might get him hauled away and locked in a lab is going to start thinking "Are good deeds really worth it at that cost." Clark is a boy, admittedly one with a strong moral center, Pa Kent is a grown adult who knows who human beings are.

And forget about what would happen if the government showed up looking for this wonder kid. Think about the stress. People would despise Clark for wanting to do stuff like make breakfast, or sleep, or watch a Royals game. Any moment he wasn't saving some busload of kids, or catching burning buildings, or helping damaged planes land, people would bitch.

No, I completely understand Pa Kent thinking maybe his son isn't obligated to that kind of burden. I could see a father thinking a bunch of other people's children aren't so special and important he wants his own son's fragile life ruined.

edited 3rd Jul '13 8:43:51 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

And that father would be a terrible father. "Other people's lives aren't as important as yours" is not a message I want to pass on to my kids.

edited 3rd Jul '13 8:59:39 AM by CorrTerek

One thing I found interesting (not sure if good or bad), is there seemed to be a big aspect of Tall Poppy Syndrome in regard to the way the Kent's treated Clark and maybe a bit in the movie's message.

Like whereas the Incredibles has this possibly Objectivist philosophy and a message that you shouldn't hide your natural gifts (or less charitably, "if you've got it, flaunt it"), Man Of Steel seems to be making an unusual argument that there might have been some benefit in making Clark suppress his abilities/doubt himself, because you don't want a Smug Super (or worse, a bad person) with those powers.

I don't know if I agree with it, but it is an interesting point that no parent necessarily knows how their kid will turn out, and that is very concerning when your kid is essentially a Physical God.

I think this movie at least acknowledges how incredibly careful you would need to be while raising someone with such power into being a good person.

One really big difference between this film and other Superman works is that Clark doesn't discover his powers when he's a teenager, he does so when he's a little kid, so he has to grow up hiding these powers and can't live a normal childhood blissfully unaware of them. The Kents have to try to raise him into being a good person who uses his powers for good while at the same time not getting discovered. They can't just shut him away from the world or else he'll be too ignorant and not necessarily be able to live a normal life when the parents are gone. If Clark was discovered while he was still a kid, he could be taken away and experimented on, and grow up into a hateful person who might try to destroy the planet when he grows up, or get turned into a weapon of the government. And even if Clark wasn't taken way, he could have ended up being deified and worshipped, or at least hounded by the world, which wouldn't do his psyche any good.

Of course, Jon's parenting does end up giving Clark some emotional scars. I really don't think we are meant to see Jon as in the right, but he is trying to be the best dad he can in his own misguided way. He puts Clark's life before other people's lives because Clark is his only child, adopted or otherwise, and I really can't blame any parent doing whatever it takes to protect their kid, right or wrong. And it's not like Jon isn't conflicted over Clark saving people. He doesn't say "Yes, you should have let them die" he just says "Maybe." He clearly knows that Clark saving people is the right thing to do, but he also knows the implications and consequences that could come with it if. The situation is a lot more cimplicated, and Clark being discovered too soon doesn't just have consequences for his life, but for the whole world because he has the power to affect the world in such a big way. It's far from being executed perfectly, but I'm pretty sure that's what they were going for.

EDIT: Think on the comparison to The Incredibles, I wonder if there's a story with an evil Smug Super fighting against an equally evil normal human like Lex or Syndrome, basically a Smug Super that actually justifies the normal antagonist's envy and hatred, with possibly examples of two heroic characters who are a super and a normal hero to oppose them. It would demonstrate that it ultimately doesn't matter where power is attained from as long as it is used for good.

edited 3rd Jul '13 10:12:04 AM by StarOutlaw

One thing I would also to add to that is that thinking about the "tornado scene", Jonathan is standing by his convictions (literally). He was reluctant to let Clark expose his powers saving other people, and it would be somewhat hypocritical if he allowed Clark to expose his powers saving his (Jonathan's) life.

Yeah, that's the impression I got from that. Still, it could probably have been handled better in a different situation, like say a traffic accident involving a fuel truck about to explode, and maybe Jon saving another person's life instead of the dog. I also think the movie probably needed scenes of young Clark actually being happy while spending time with his dad in a normal life.

edited 3rd Jul '13 10:30:56 AM by StarOutlaw

In reality the Kents here is the logical extension of their general portrayal. The '78 movie simplified it as "showing off" but here it acknowledges there is a conflict of interest between having respect for your own abilities and knowing when to use them for the greater good. Without teaching him control he would have powderized the skeleton of that bully.

Ultimately it shows them being Parents as People.

Up until now (saw this movie last week), I don't know what critics you were talking about until I hit the Youtube and I was like....

What the hellish drugs are you on, Youtubers??? There are even degrading nicknames made for this film and its Superman counterpart.

...so yeah, I can definitely agree with F*** THE CRITICS. I think Snynolan both did a great job with this. The story, the psychology, the fights and the story.

^^ I wouldn't go that far, necessarily. There is little to Jonathan's character beyond those speeches he gives - in fact, he's probably the flattest (though ironically one of the best acted) characters in the film, and both he and Martha are blatantly little more than plot devices.

Granted, most of the characters in the film are blatantly little more than plot devices.

How does that make it a bad film exactly?

It's more average, you might say. Not very good, but not quite bad either. The lack of real development to many of the character, including Superman himself, really hurt it, but it more or less accomplished what it was trying to do and all that.

edited 6th Jul '13 8:54:42 AM by KnownUnknown

Is even possible to make a great Superman film with no problems? Seems like super speed is quite a story breaker for a two hour movie. Wonder what a slice of life type film would be like? Boring? Or maybe the main plot started halfway through? Too bad they couldn't have had him team up with the Flash. Then the Flash could superspeed evacuate Metropolis and no one would get killed by the World engine! Oh well. Sounds like that caused most of the deaths.

edited 6th Jul '13 2:27:35 PM by bookworm6390

I think that is one problem with the flashbacks, the middle part of the film feels very uneven because it doesn't carry a very strong narrative. Now I'm pretty sure his jobs go from fishing boat crew-restaurant busboy-arctic expedition worker in that order, but all of Jonathan Kent's scenes are in flashback as well as Clark's childhood so it comes across as a "greatest hits" rather than a portrait of the two men.

I think the movie might have worked a lot better if they showed something of Jonathan and Martha finding the spaceship, then jump to the arctic expedition. They could cover his odd-jobs in flashback via Lois' investigation and Clark's childhood flashbacks could be covered as various instances remind him of those events, as well as his interview with Lois.

Just saw it today.

Seriously, that was awesome. I didn't mind the shaky cam bits much, and the fights were worth the price of admission alone. God Damn, do other superhero movie have a lot to live up to when it comes to fights, because this is easily one of the best superhero movie fights to date, if not THE best.

And yes, I want to see Faora again, she was badass.

I also couldn't help but hum NeoDammerung during the last Zod fight.