I know where you're coming from Celestin, but I really think portraying it as a journey towards becoming an icon rather than him starting with all these classic Superman qualities is more interesting. I'm viewing this as more of a start to a story rather than the whole story in itself. That being the case though, a lot rides on what they do in the sequel.

I do think that the portrayal of Jonathan Kent is probably the weakest part of the movie. I mean they showed him staying behind at personal risk to help everyone escape the tornado, so it's not like Clark got the drive to help people whenever he could from nowhere, but the fear for Clark if he revealed his powers overshadowed that. One more flashback solely about the issue of helping people vs. keeping his abilities hidden, and portraying a bigger conflict between the two in him, would've helped. In addition I would've liked the tornado scene a little better if Jonathan had remained stuck in the car, unable to escape, rather than just standing there. Maybe he could've said something to Clark that only he could hear with his super-hearing before he died too.

I can agree, with some deliberation, that they should've cut down a little on the action. In particular, I think it's the scene where Superman has to destroy the World Engine in India, with the tentacles coming out. The tentacles are really odd considering it's just a terraforming device, and weren't necessary when they already had the atmosphere the Engine was creating weakening him plus the increased gravity. A scene with him desperately crawling towards the center of the beam and slowly fight to stand up would've sufficed. You probably could've thrown a flashback scene in there too, I don't know.

I already made my thoughts on killing Zod clear, so I'll just refer back to that.

Lastly, the red trunks just need to stay gone. The only reason I can see for their existence is to break up the color on the suit, but a belt, as on the New 52 suit, does the same thing. That goes for Batman's trunks as well.

 

I'm not against showing the beginning of the journey, but the fact that by the end of the movie I think he is further from being Superman that he was at the beginning is a little worrying to me.

In my opinion replacing "maybe" with "I don't know" would really improve it.

Did you see Jeremy Jahns's review? He had the same suggestion and I agree that the tentacles were unnecessary.

While a red belt is passable replacement, trunks are superior in every aspect.

 

Well I guess that's a matter of perspective.

Yeah, that would've been fantastic. It's such a minor thing but it would do a lot to change Jonathan's character.

No, actually my brother was the one who pointed out the tentacles to me and got me thinking. Maybe he saw it. Now that I've seen it, I thought the review was spot on, and I liked his comparison to the Metal Gear Solid 4 microwave corridor.

 

So I need to retract something I said. Nolan didn't want to make Superman a killer. The blame goes to Snyder and Goyer. And their reason? Because they didn't want his aversion to killing be unexplained. Nice to know that you need to first kill someone to be really against it.

Link.

 

Just watched it. Really enjoyed it. The fights were outstanding, but the biggest problem I had with it was the god awful flashbacks. I get what they were trying to do, but like someone else said, the transitions were fucking terrible, and they were very clumsily placed. But the fights, holy cow the fights, I've been waiting ages to see Superman tear duke it out like that.

 

Spoiler

People seem to be under the impression that people are born with hard set morals such as "never kill." That doesn't happen in real life and since this is a realistic and gritty reboot, it doesn't happen here either. Clark isn't born perfect, he doesn't grow up perfect, he is bullied, he is in psychological pain. In a realistic world that creates a damaged character, especially when you cause the death of your own father.

So what he kills Zod? This is an origins story.

 

Sure it doesn't happen, but in my opinion it should be Jonathan Kent that installed these values in his son and this version of him focused mostly on making Clark afraid of being discovered.

 

When she wasn't stomping around, did anyone else constantly feel like Zod's smokin' hot German Subcommander (Faora-Ul, played by Antje Traue, had to look her up.) moved and fought like a Final Fantasy character?
You know, the super-rapid approach and strike?
There's a million examples, go look them up if you want.
Maybe she just liked to flex the 'super speed' superpower more than others?

 

Can't say Final Fantasy was ever brought to mind when I watched it, no. The superspeed effects were impressive though. I'm interested to see how they do Quicksilver in the next Avengers movie.

 

Okay, one thing I've got to comment on with the stupid reviewer feeding frenzy over this movie, people saying Superman II's version of Zod was better.

Now don't get me wrong, Stamp really nailed the evil megalomaniac Zod. "Kneel Before Zod" was great. But in the end, he was not a very deep character. He wants to conquer Earth because he's evil, and he's evil because he wants to conquer Earth.

By contrast, Man of Steel Zod seems to me like a much more realistic character. He's still a very unpleasant person, but now instead of him just being evil, he seems more like a product of his society/Kryptonian engineering.

When the Kryptonian government refuses to listen to Jor-El's warning that the planet is going to explode, he takes action to protect Krypton. Since he's a soldier who's been bred and told from the moment of his birth that his destiny is to be a soldier, the only real solution he can think of is to launch a coup. He can only really think of things in terms of military solutions, because that's the way he was made.

To me at least, it adds a nice bit of depth and tragedy to his character. He's less pure evil, and more locked into the role Kryptonian society made for him. Superman points out that the Kryptonians and humans could probably coexist peacefully on Earth, and Zod just brushes that off because he's too blinkered by how he was raised to grasp the idea.

Then again, maybe I just like this take on his character because one of my ongoing stories is all about a warrior caste struggling to adapt to a changing world.

Spoiler

I do also like how it makes Zod's death be effectively "Suicide by Superman." It certainly fits the character. He's lost his only purpose for existing, so he grabs the only thing he has left to hope for: an honorable death in battle. It's all he has left, now.

"A good death is its own reward."

On another note, I got a kick out of them making Krypton basically be Plato's Republic. Which they almost certainly did on purpose, given that they make a point of showing Clark reading Plato in one scene.

 

I'm not sure I have understood the film completely (which I really enjoyed btw). I'm not a Superman fan so this is probably a stupid question. Is it the Sun or Earth's atmosphere that amplified Supermans power? I remember the Sun being mentioned a few times, but when Superman was exposed to Krypton's atmosphere he became much weaker, and when Zod was exposed to Earth's atmosphere his extra powers started to develop. I don't understand why they would try to change Earth's atmosphere when it made them that much more powerful.

 

At the same time, "Kryptonian atmosphere" seems to be this universe's kryptonite. It doesn't quite make sense as Superman can hold his breathe for a long time, but I think it's the kind of thing we just have to accept and move on.

 

Except that here Jonathan Kent didn't install those values in Clark. One time, he flat out said that maybe Clark should have let a bus full of kids die in order to protect his secret.

And you can't really tell people that they don't understand Superman's character as well as you do. Superman, like all comic book super-heros, comes in varieties. There are plenty of versions of Superman that fit the darker stories. More than one has killed.

 

Fuck, more then one has killed Zod. Including the one in Superman II. Only, he was way worse in that one, because he depowered Zod and then let him fall to his death for lulz. So yeah.

 

I only said that once because Taure really doesn't get him at all.

The rest was just my opinion which I pointed at the beginning of my little rant.

The fact that it happened before make it all better. Yeah.

 

I reject the notion that there is anything to get.

The character as established by prior material is irrelevant to a reboot, except in that it outlines what direction you shouldn't take the character in.

 

If there is nothing to get then how do you know what direction you shouldn't take the character in? You can't just start changing things without thinking what they are about. Otherwise you will completely miss the point and make a character that has nothing to do with the original one beside their name. Like you did there.

 

Yes, that was the point. To make a different Superman. One that is completely different. To tell a different story, not a spin on the same one.