Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

I think people are still a bit too attached to Silver Age Superman for it to get the acclaim this movie deserves. Sure, we interneters make fun of it a lot, but damn if a lot of people can't think of Superman any other way.

Which is a shame, because I don't think this Superman is really all that different from Silver Age Superman anyway.

In what ways? I thought that this Superman is adapted from Post Crisis Superman while Reeve/Returns Superman is adapted from Pre Crisis Superman.

Definitely not derived from Byrne. Byrne had him learning heroism from his adoptive parents.

Kinda random, but Zod trying to kill off humanity made me think of some scenario where a baby might get killed so that an old man might live. Are people more sensitive to buildings being destroyed on film since 9/11?

Arguably not. We've had plenty of city smashing movies since then.

^^^^ In the relationship between him, Earth and Krypton. The way he's portrayed as a so godlike - like a visiting savior - while ultimately having more of a connection character-wise to Krypton than to Earth.

I dunno how accurate this really is (I don't follow Superman as much as I do Batman or Spider-Man), but I kind of associate Post-Crisis with Clark being a little more of a human being first and an alien savior a very close second, so there's that. I agree with metaphysician, that for him to be really Post-Crisis there would probably need to be more emphasis on him learning morals from his Earth parents and being a person - this movie really emphasizes him as an outsider to humanity and something above us all.

On the other hand, this movie probably does adapt some Post-Crisis stories (like the whole Brainiac bit with Zod), and they definitely twist things around quite a bit (like how much Krypton is antagonistic), but I think this movie feels kind of like if they took the Pre-Crisis Superman character and revolved a Batman Begins-esque modern superhero movie around that. It's written in a modern way, but it still feels very Pre-Crisis.

edited 11th Jul '13 9:53:22 AM by KnownUnknown

Recent development, and thus a lil' confession: I initially saw this movie pirated with my brother because he had only gotten to see the first third in theaters before he had to go home. However, this past weekend my dad and I went to see it, and I figured I might as well see it again and pay the filmmakers their due. And test how a movie theater experience differed from watching it on a laptop.

OH. MY. GOSH. And not in a good way. The last third felt so long because I knew the end was still nowhere near. By the time of the Faora fight I was already exhausted. The Zod fight would have interested me again if it weren't for all the previous action and climax wearing me out and boring me. And I nearly went deaf for the constant soundtrack of "BLAAAAAMM!!! BLAAAAAMM!!! BLAAAAAMM!!!" I spent the latter half of the climax with my fingers in my ears. Hans Zimmer, I loved your loud Inception soundtrack. But just one loud note doesn't work for Man of Steel.

You pirated it?

You're worse than Lex Luthor

Technically he'd have to pirate it 39 more times to be as terrible as Lex Luthor.

So that's Luthor's nefarious plan. Bootleg the movie to ludicrous degrees, so that no one will go see it in the theaters. Thus, the film will make no money and the future of Superman films will come to an end! Muhuhuhahahah-etc.

Terrible. Totally foiled already, but still... terrible.

edited 11th Jul '13 5:39:02 PM by KnownUnknown

Why don't you just put the whole world in a theatre Superman?

But that guarantees Luthor won't have any future movies of his own either!

So Lexcorp is an illegal movie sharing company? I can't say that's what I expected for Man of Steel 2. Or should it be called Man of STEAL?

I won't be surprised if Luthor becomes a Rooting for the Empire target in the sequel, since apparently he's more "relatable" due to being a normal human.

Same here. Especially if they decide to have him voice the common complaint of "look how many people Superman must have killed in this film!"

You know... Something I never understood.

Why is being "relatable" so important?

Because otherwise you have no reason to care about what happens on screen.

I related to a grand total of 3 fictional characters in all my life.

I still cared for those that I did not.

Well if you cared for them you obviously related to them on some level.

Edit: Nevermind.

edited 12th Jul '13 7:47:29 AM by SaintDeltora

A basic concept used in the industry is something called "Rooting Interest," you have to catch the audience and make them care about what happens to the characters early on. The simplest way to do that is to give them relatable qualities. Even if your goal is to show utterly despicable characters doing despicable things, you need to pique interest by other means like a Driving Question.

I thought the movie was awesome (saw it opening weekend), but the coolest part was after it ended. They guys in the row in front of me said as they were leaving "Took 10 years, but they finally got it right."

It must be noted relating to someone and identifying with them aren't always the same thing.