|
It was a very different take on the lessons that he learned from Pa Kent. Ultimately, the message of 'hide your light under a bushel / stay in the closet' was rejected, as he chose to have more faith in humanity, and their reaction to his existence, than his father did.
And, until Man of Steel 2, when we see how the world has responded to his 'outing,' we won't know how right or wrong he or his father was.
The crazy amount of destruction wrought in that last hour might point to a very strong anti-super reaction, perhaps spearheaded by folk like Luthor, who might be able to point to thousands of deaths and the destruction of a major city (and a small town) as 'proof' that 'these people' need to be locked up without rights or 'deported' or whatever metaphor the new movie chooses to beat over the head.
Obviously, I must have. I'm glad I saw the one I did. When I go see it again, I'll be sure to rewatch the same one.I think you obviously saw a different movie than I did.well, No you saw clark the whole time. He was not superman until much later. The whole movie was really clark, finding himself and his place.Agreed. In fact, it's one of the best "hero finding himself and learning who he is and what he stands for" movies I've seen. And it makes very clear that the HERO is Clark Kent. "Superman's" just a handle/is now the secret identity.
Tied with the strong themes of family through the film, it's why I felt the movie was very uplifting and heartwarming, in spite of the explodyfest at the very end of the movie (which I just kind of handwave away as requisite for a superhero movie--also, the buildings were shown to be evacuated, so they were breaking empty buildings). The people who call it cold and grim absolutely puzzle me because of this; I felt "warm" the whole time and left the theater smiling.
Okay, I thought maybe you'd clue me in as to what parts of the movie are so heart warming, but snark is perfectly valid response too.
|
|
I found the scenes with his mom, post Pa's death, heartwarming.
The acceptance of Lois, and (assuming that Perry White also recognized 'Clark' before hiring him) Perry, also seemed heartwarming.
The part where Colonel what-his-name orders his troops that 'this one isn't an enemy,' was understated, but also a nice moment. The conversion of someone who considered him 'just another target' to recognizing him as an ally, thereby affirming Clark's choice to not remain in hiding, as Pa Kent would have preferred, seemed like a validation of that choice.
It was a very different take on the lessons that he learned from Pa Kent. Ultimately, the message of 'hide your light under a bushel / stay in the closet' was rejected, as he chose to have more faith in humanity, and their reaction to his existence, than his father did.
And, until Man of Steel 2, when we see how the world has responded to his 'outing,' we won't know how right or wrong he or his father was.
The crazy amount of destruction wrought in that last hour might point to a very strong anti-super reaction, perhaps spearheaded by folk like Luthor, who might be able to point to thousands of deaths and the destruction of a major city (and a small town) as 'proof' that 'these people' need to be locked up without rights or 'deported' or whatever metaphor the new movie chooses to beat over the head.
It's a matter of opinion, but for me if the point of a Superman movie is that Clark has to reject the teachings of his human parents to be a hero, then the movie has basically failed as a Superman movie.
On another note, does anyone know what the heck was going on with the "bomb" at the end?
heh did not reject his fathers teachings, every lesson made him what he was. He recalled the fear, but also the lessons about what kind of man he could be.
This movie showed us clark, showed us his very human side and to me that makes it the best of the superman movies.
Okay, I thought maybe you'd clue me in as to what parts of the movie are so heart warming, but snark is perfectly valid response too.Obviously, I must have. I'm glad I saw the one I did. When I go see it again, I'll be sure to rewatch the same one.I think you obviously saw a different movie than I did.well, No you saw clark the whole time. He was not superman until much later. The whole movie was really clark, finding himself and his place.Agreed. In fact, it's one of the best "hero finding himself and learning who he is and what he stands for" movies I've seen. And it makes very clear that the HERO is Clark Kent. "Superman's" just a handle/is now the secret identity.
Tied with the strong themes of family through the film, it's why I felt the movie was very uplifting and heartwarming, in spite of the explodyfest at the very end of the movie (which I just kind of handwave away as requisite for a superhero movie--also, the buildings were shown to be evacuated, so they were breaking empty buildings). The people who call it cold and grim absolutely puzzle me because of this; I felt "warm" the whole time and left the theater smiling.
I wasn't trying to be snarky, and if that's what you got out of that, I apologize for the unintended tone. Humor was intended, but sure, but I wasn't trying to be negative. I was trying to say that I will continue to view the movie in a positive light.
But then, that I think gets to what I was trying to say: I have a feeling you and I have very different outlooks on both this film, and perhaps the world. I gather from your posts you tend to interpret things in a cynical light -- that Jonathan Kent is a "cold bastard," that my response was "snarky," for example.
I think even if I tried to explain my position further, you would either not see what I was saying, or re-interpret whatever I had to say into your own cynical view of the film. Set said some of what I felt already, and you've already shot his posts down, so I doubt I will have much better luck.
Now, I DID try to post, before this discussion, a more indetail review of the film, which got at more specifics of what I enjoyed about the film and what I found warm and positive. Unfortunately it got eaten, and I haven't yet had the time to reassemble it. Hopefully I will later.
For what it's worth, I did find the scene where Pa dies in the tornado rather contrived---in my gush, I'd overlooked that, but I do think they misstepped there (but I also agree with the idea that it had to do with the issue of faith and trust). But I think the earlier scenes of Pa trying to protect Clark and teach Clark to protect himself, and support him when Clark fought the impulse to fight the bullies, very touching. There was moral conflict there, but I saw very clearly the core of that was love. I've read your posts; clearly do you not; again, I have a feeling that's from a fundamental difference in our outlooks and I doubt I could convince you based on something that is simply my interpretation.
I just feel lucky that my interpretation allows me to enjoy the film. That is all. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, and I hope another movie comes along that speaks to you better.
|
It's a matter of opinion, but for me if the point of a Superman movie is that Clark has to reject the teachings of his human parents to be a hero, then the movie has basically failed as a Superman movie.
On another note, does anyone know what the heck was going on with the "bomb" at the end?
** spoiler omitted **
He could not know that Kal's engine had somehow gotten out of alignment, and all Lois knew was when the key was inserted it was supposed to be sucked in.
It took a scientific genius studding the problem to figure out what was wrong and correct the problem.
My official weigh in is that is was good, not great and that this isn't Superman as much as Nolan's Superman.
This review sums up a lot of how I felt watching this movie. They harp a bit too long on "Nolan fanboys" reactions to negative review but, otherwise what they're saying is 90% what I'd say about the movie if I were to take half an hour to go over it.
This movie was an inchoate mass of conflicting morals, ideologies and story lines thrown together with little or no regard to a single story line, plot or theme (much less temporal connection). From a story telling perspective it was an absolute mess. From a technical perspective the acting (apart from Amy Adams) was some of the worst I've seen in years ("man of steel" is a perfectly apt description of how Superman was portrayed) and the camera work was downright jarring when it wasn't simply recreating the long-ago overwrought technique of "The Blair Witch Project."
Yet in spite of those galling shortcomings, there were strange glimmers of insight and clarity littered around throughout the movie, almost as if by accident.
In the end it's a watchable movie, but nothing to write home about.
Man of Steel was a major disappointment.
This is not the first recent movie to have massive destruction of a metropolis. Star Wreck 2 landed a ship on a city, and now Man of Steel one upped it with Metropolis getting absolutely destroyed as Superman fights it out with Zod.
Avengers also had major distruction but the difference between Avengers and MoS is a lot of the action scenes were about saving lives. Avengers holding off enemies so people could vacate a bus, Cap leaping on a grenade to save an office of civilians. Over and over the Avengers focus on saving civilians while engaging the enemy. Not only was it heroic it added a 3rd element to a great combat scene.
Superman seemed to care little about the destruction. Entire buildings crumbled to ashes in his battle. The loss of life was mind blowing. After 9/11 I just can’t see a building fall and not think of the consequences. How can anyone?
The superman I grew up reading would have taken the fight away from the city or tried to stop the building from crumbling.
The movie had many great and interesting moments incuding an AMAZING intro of Kripton. The wonderful cast who rose to the limits of its weak script. The nomadic Clark Kent was very interesting and I frankly found that part of the film to be more interesting that the 2nd half. Anyway all these wonderful moments were short changed to provide more mindless and consequence free destruction of life and property.
Yeah, call me disapointed.
I need to see it again, but I'm fairly certain that most of the buildings had been evacuated by the time they were being attacked, and moreover the bad guys were not going to be lured away because their death engine was in the middle of the city (which was of course on purpose) and they were going to stay by it.
The rest I handwave away as special effects wanking. I don't think the intent of the film was to have Superman responsible for thousands of death
|
You can't change people's minds unfortunately. They see only what they want to see.
Some will look at a middle aged man dresses for indoors playing with a bunch of kids and say "aww he's sweet, having fun with those kids", and others will say "what a pervert". Unfortunately, the former are a majority.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the intent of the film was to have Superman responsible for thousands of death
That may not have been the intent, but that was the result.
Look, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's just not what I was hoping for from a Superman movie. Although I admit I have overly lofty expectations for Superman movies because he is the granddaddy of all superheroes. The only movie I've seen that nailed the truest element of Superman was Kill Bill Volume 2. :P
This is not the movie I was hoping would launch a Justice League movie extravaganza.
-MD
PS: Caineach, thanks for the link. Too funny!
"Metropolis was evacuated."
LOL
Well, except for every character that the movie going viewer had ever been introduced to as living or working in Metropolis, including the entire staff of the Daily Planet, all of whom appear to have been directly in the path not only of the destructive impact of the gravity yo-yo device, but also still hanging around when Superman and Zod duked it out in the city.
In fact there were enough civilians left standing around at the end to give Supes a rousing cheer when he survived, not to mention enough that Zod managed to find a useful contingent of helpless folks (including children!) to threaten to burn to death so that Clark/Supes had a reason to terminate him with extreme prejudice.
Clearly the evacuation of Metropolis was not effective. Yet buildings are smashed and knocked over with wild abandon. It is not remotely plausible that the battle between Supes and Zod would not have had thousands of casualties as it was portrayed. Unless you just want to pretend that it wouldn't have.
|
|
This is not the movie I was hoping would launch a Justice League movie extravaganza.
That is something I wonder about. Movies like Iron Man and Captain America left behind some positive goodwill for costumed heroes (while Hulk, not so much), so that an Avengers team up seems a viable thing.
Batman and Superman have both trended so dark and weighty, that a Justice League movie feels less likely, instead of more likely, as any sort of shared universe that may exist seems like one that would be powerfully opposed to the notion of these people banding together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am kinda glad I did not see the same movie as some people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't trying to be snarky, and if that's what you got out of that, I apologize for the unintended tone. Humor was intended, but sure, but I wasn't trying to be negative. I was trying to say that I will continue to view the movie in a positive light.But then, that I think gets to what I was trying to say: I have a feeling you and I have very different outlooks on both this film, and perhaps the world. I gather from your posts you tend to interpret things in a cynical light -- that Jonathan Kent is a "cold bastard," that my response was "snarky," for example.
I think even if I tried to explain my position further, you would either not see what I was saying, or re-interpret whatever...
That's funny, because I would describe this as the Superman movie for cynics. Don't like Superman because he's a "boyscout" who had a happy childhood with loving parents and friends? Don't like the bright colors? Don't like that people's first reaction to him isn't fear and hate?
Then this is the movie for you.
Want to know my biggest issue with this movie? I don't thing we see one single moment of happiness from Clark Kent in the entire movie until after he meets Jor El and finally has the yoke of Costner Kent's influence removed.
We spend the first half of a Superman film with a character who has been miserable for most of his life from adolescence on.
Did anyone else notice the lack of superspeed?
|
|
Did anyone else notice the lack of superspeed?
Faora seemed to use it quite a bit while beating the snot out of the soldiers. Other than that, Zod and Kal seemed to use it mostly when they were flying at each other, but not to do much that felt like a specific super-speed stunt, like punch each other a thousand times in a second, or knock someone into the distance and then zip over and clothesline them before they land.
|
|
Just seen it. I was entertained but not blown away. It's a good movie. It's a good Superman origin movie. But, it seemed somehow rushed. The acting was good (except for Kevin Costner who can't stop doing impressions of a featureless board), and the action was amazing. Finaly, i have seen what it looks like to have superpowered beings beating the s*** out of each other.
As for the destruction galore...dude, Zod promised to destroy every living being on earth. He tried it for god's sake. What are a few thousand compared to that?
|
|
Loved the movie. The combat scenes were spectactular and set a new standard, and the evil Kryptonian lady was quite a delight. Her fight scene with Kal and the US Army in Smallville was pretty much perfect.
As for the destruction at the end, well, frankly that just seemed to be a more honest take on what would happen if there was a huge battle in the middle of a heavily populated city. Buildings get levelled, people die.. as you'd expect to happen. Avengers picked a more fanciful vision where it looked like you could fight a huge battle in the middle of Manhattan and do no damage to anything.
Now, the argument that Kal seemed to care little for the destruction and the loss of life seems a little silly, considering that he
|
well, No you saw clark the whole time. He was not superman until much later. The whole movie was really clark, finding himself and his place.Clark Kent and *Clark Kent* are not the same thing. I'm talking about *Clark Kent* - the fun, goofy guy that Superman uses as a disguise. We didn't get any of that - and I doubt we will in the subsequent movies, either, which is really quite a shame. He's a lot of fun.
I'm wondering if you pull your 'goofy guy' Clark Kent from just the 70s movies. Because Clark in the comics is almost NEVER shown as a goofy guy. Most often he is depicted as shy and unassuming, someone who hides in plain sight. Also, Clark is not used as a disguise. Clark is the real person. If you want a secret identity that is a disguise, you're looking for Mr. Wayne.
Personally, I'm the biggest Superman fan I know (and even more so, probably the biggest Kara fan you will ever meet), and I absolutely loved the movie. Were there some things that were out of character? Yes. But I see them building on those things in the sequel.
The destruction in Metropolis can also bring out the best possible Luthor we could ever hope for. An angry, and absurdly jealous and egotistical billionaire business man. A man who sees the destruction of 'his' city, who works to rebuild it and in the process works to turn the public on their new defender.
Personally I'm just holding out hope for Kara to show up in the sequel so that we can get a Supergirl in a good movie.
Want to know my biggest issue with this movie? I don't thing we see one single moment of happiness from Clark Kent in the entire movie until after he meets Jor El and finally has the yoke of Costner Kent's influence removed.We spend the first half of a Superman film with a character who has been miserable for most of his life from adolescence on.
Yet this is the "New 52" take on the character--'the perennial outsider' as opposed to the Byrne/Wolfman/Jurgens' 'the best of us'
Yet this is the "New 52" take on the character--'the perennial outsider' as opposed to the Byrne/Wolfman/Jurgens' 'the best of us'
Want to know my biggest issue with this movie? I don't thing we see one single moment of happiness from Clark Kent in the entire movie until after he meets Jor El and finally has the yoke of Costner Kent's influence removed.We spend the first half of a Superman film with a character who has been miserable for most of his life from adolescence on.
Ugh, haven't read DC or Marvel in a couple of years now, incredibly disheartening.
Actually, DC's current take on the character isn't the problem--they are trying to appeal to readers who feel like they don't fit in, and that's worked mighty well for the X-Men. The worst crime is that since the New 52, Clark/Superman hasn't had any great stories told about him. I think the movie is better than anything DC has published with this character in the last several years.
|
|
No, the worst crime of the New 52 is that while DC has beaten the dead horse of ICONIC ICONIC ICONIC for the past ten years (BRING BACK HAL! BRING BACK BARRY! GIVE AQUAMAN HIS HAND BACK! ETC, ETC, ETC) and yet one of the most iconic pieces of their most iconic character and at the first freaking opportunity they scrap it for the ability to make Wonder Woman and Superman a couple. Screw you DC. Clark belongs with Lois. You bang on your iconic drum, but then throw away the most iconic relationship in comics history? A 75 year romance that now has never existed in the comics? That's asinine and hypocritical on cosmic levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, Superman and Wonder Woman are a couple now? Wonder Woman can fly? She's super strong and invulnerable?
Seriously?
Man, I guess my dad was right and reading comic books actually was a big waste of time after all...
WW has been able to fly since 1986 under the Perez reboot. She's always been super strong, and she's been tough enough to go toe to toe with Supes for a long time. The only new things from the New 52 are a revised origin and the romance with Clark...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And no offense to your dad, but on comics he was wrong ;}
I'm wondering if you pull your 'goofy guy' Clark Kent from just the 70s movies. Because Clark in the comics is almost NEVER shown as a goofy guy. Most often he is depicted as shy and unassuming, someone who hides in plain sight. Also, Clark is not used as a disguise. Clark is the real person. If you want a secret identity that is a disguise, you're looking for Mr. Wayne.
I didn't say "nerdy" I said "fun and goofy." Reeve's Clark was nerdy, but various incarnations of Superman have shown him to have an almost child-like naivete about him (the Justice League Christmas episode is a fine example). He's a small-town boy in the biggest city there is, so he naturally comes off as a bit different.
*Clark Kent* (i.e. affected persona) IS a disguise used to distance the way people perceive him from characteristics widely recognized in Superman. Clark Kent (note the absence of asterisks) refers to an authentic identity that composes a major part of who Superman is (though he is equally Kal-El of Krypton).
Personally, I'm the biggest Superman fan I know (and even more so, probably the biggest Kara fan you will ever meet), and I absolutely loved the movie. Were there some things that were out of character? Yes. But I see them building on those things in the sequel.
I've seen that excuse and I don't buy it. The first movie/book in a series needs to stand on its own merits, in my humble opinion, and for that matter, up until this is dealt with in the inevitable sequel, all of these criticisms are valid. It's demonstrably true that the Man of Steel seems to show little regard for human life, etc. - that's a consequence of how the movie was filmed and scripted. We may well see him being tortured by his decisions in the next movie, but until that next movie appears, the Man of Steel is quite clearly someone who doesn't have his priorities right.
|
|
I'm wondering if you pull your 'goofy guy' Clark Kent from just the 70s movies. Because Clark in the comics is almost NEVER shown as a goofy guy. Most often he is depicted as shy and unassuming, someone who hides in plain sight. Also, Clark is not used as a disguise. Clark is the real person. If you want a secret identity that is a disguise, you're looking for Mr. Wayne.I didn't say "nerdy" I said "fun and goofy." Reeve's Clark was nerdy, but various incarnations of Superman have shown him to have an almost child-like naivete about him (the Justice League Christmas episode is a fine example). He's a small-town boy in the biggest city there is, so he naturally comes off as a bit different.
*Clark Kent* (i.e. affected persona) IS a disguise used to distance the way people perceive him from characteristics widely recognized in Superman. Clark Kent (note the absence of asterisks) refers to an authentic identity that composes a major part of who Superman is (though he is equally Kal-El of Krypton).
I still don't see Clark as 'fun and goofy' at least not as his defining character traits. I can't imagine a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and critically acclaimed novelist as being described predominantly as 'goofy'. And Reed's Clark was not 'nerdy' he was 'nerd stereotype'. Much like characters in the Big Bang Theory. I know plenty of geeky, nerdy people who don't act a thing like the stereotypes.
Personally, I'm the biggest Superman fan I know (and even more so, probably the biggest Kara fan you will ever meet), and I absolutely loved the movie. Were there some things that were out of character? Yes. But I see them building on those things in the sequel.I've seen that excuse and I don't buy it. The first movie/book in a series needs to stand on its own merits, in my humble opinion, and for that matter, up until this is dealt with in the inevitable sequel, all of these criticisms are valid. It's demonstrably true that the Man of Steel seems to show little regard for human life, etc. - that's a consequence of how the movie was filmed and scripted. We may well see him being tortured by his decisions in the next movie, but until that next movie appears, the Man of Steel is quite clearly someone who doesn't have his priorities right.
The first movie in a trilogy is often the weakest, because it has to set up what is to come and leave room for character development in the sequels. I was left with some of the same problems with Batman Begins. Batman leaving Ra's to die was extremely out of character for Batman, even more so than
Apparently, this isn't the first time he has killed Zod.
Wow - pretty weaksauce list there.
1) Smallville: "A super-punch from Clark caused Titan to fall on his own Wolverine-esque, possibly copyright-infringing bone claw, killing him in the process."
So... completely accidental/unintentional? Yeah, VERY different from snapping a dude's neck deliberately.
2) John Byrne's take: Let me introduce you to my little friend called "context," so we can understand Superman's execution of Zod here a little better:
a) Zod had literally killed an entire planet full of people.
b) Superman took a great deal of time before "passing sentence" on Zod before coming to the conclusion that for the crime of global genocide, he needed to be executed, and that since there was no legitimate authority left on that planet, he would have to carry out that judgement himself.
3) After killing Zod, Superman was so wracked with guilt that he HAD A PSYCHOTIC BREAK AND TEMPORARILY ABANDONED HIS IDENTITY AS SUPERMAN.
So... yeah, once again, very different from blithely destroying the only other Kyrptonian left in the universe, looking pouty for a few seconds, and then going off to start an exciting career in journalism with a smirk on his face.
4) Doomsday - I'm actually inclined to give you this one, but then again, as I recall from the comics (and it's BEEN a while for me), this was a no-holds-barred street fight where Superman LITERALLY had to throw everything he had at the monster to keep his attention off of innocent civilians (and his vulnerable Justice League allies). This came across as an unintentional death to me (a product of Superman not having ever encountered a foe where he had to unleash that kind of power before). But like I said, I don't remember it very well - all I can remember is that both of them threw simultaneous punches at the very end and killed each other at exactly the same time.
5) Haven't seen this episode of the Reeves series, so I can't comment, though I will say that this happened relatively early in the character's history - perhaps before he was fully defined (much like Batman's initial killing/use of guns).
6) Superman II
a) The villains are not explicitly shown to be killed, and in fact, the original Donner version makes it clear that they do NOT die.
b) This movie was actually criticized for the same reasons I and others and criticizing Man of Steel - it has several scenes where Clark acts like a jerk and a bully (e.g. the amnesia kiss, beating up the bully at the diner).
c) One thing Superman II got totally right, though? It showed us what Superman's main concern would be in a fight against Kryptonians in the middle of a heavily-populated city.
Listen, it's not really about the killing per se - though obviously that's troubling. It's his ATTITUDE about it. If Superman has to take a life, then it should be an action that he finds devastating emotionally. This film makes it look like a minor inconvenience, and that's a big problem (that, plus the general lack of regard for the citizens of Metropolis and a few other things).
Cori, I find your mention of Batman a bit odd - you found his abandonment of Ra's Al-Ghul MORE out of character than what the Man of Steel does? I find that strange, since Batman has killed tons of people in his history.
|
|
So you'll dismiss the George Reeves Superman example as being at the very beginning of Superman's career, but then throw two lists filled with examples from the 1040s for Batman? In fact the only example in either of those lists that doesn't look accidental or got flat out retconned later (or was written by the most overrated Batman writer of the last century, in the most poorly written Batman series in the last century), was seen as extremely out of character for Batman, and was one of the biggest complaints about Final Crisis. I stand by my original comment.
On Doomsday, yes, it was a no holds barred fight that tore through half the country and ended in Metropolis. A fight that destroyed a large portion of Metropolis and left thousands missing, and hundreds dead. A fight where Superman in the last issues was more focused on stopping the rampage once and for all than protecting the citizens of Metropolis. It was VERY similar to how I saw the Zod fight. Superman was fighting for his life against someone just as powerful as him, a city was laid to waste, and Superman had to put a final end to the fight despite his own problems with doing so. The only difference here is that Superman also died against Doomsday. PS: The death of Superman issue also gave precedent to Superman kissing Lois in the middle of a destroyed Metropolis. The difference this time? He did it while Doomsday was literally throwing cars around the city at the time.
and Zod was genetically engineered for fighting
So were all the Kryptonian soldiers, and yet engineered for science Jor El was their equal in combat.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's early supes. That's what most people don't get. This is not the experienced Superman. This is a small town guy with incredible powers thrust into a situation almost too big for him.
In which case, he cannot rise to the ocaission, and the story is a tragedy.
(At least in the Byre revision, early Superman still manages to embody the virtues necessary to do what's right. Byrne's Pa Kent teaches his son responsibility, not cowardice.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and Zod was genetically engineered for fightingSo were all the Kryptonian soldiers, and yet engineered for science Jor El was their equal in combat.
Jor-el was apparently genetically designed to be a combination of Jesus, Albert Einstein, Rambo and Bruce Lee.
Don't get me started on a society that engineers its citizens for specific jobs, has done so for thousands of years, then ignores their super soldier AND their super scientist when the end of the world is being predicted.
Apparently the genetically engineered "leaders" of Krypton were engineered to be stupid.
Apparently the genetically engineered "leaders" of Krypton were engineered to be stupid.
Perhaps they were just engineered to be taller than the others?
Anyways, I though the film was okay, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about it. The part I enjoyed most was krypton at the beginning and how alien it looked, but that probably missed the point of the movie entirely.
|
|
Apparently the genetically engineered "leaders" of Krypton were engineered to be stupid.
Also genetically engineered to look really old.
It might make sense that the leaders be older folk in a normal society, but this is genetic-engineered-land. The leaders shouldn't have any reason to be older than any other group. It's not like they had to earn their position or anything...
Casting the head of the council with a thirteen year old might have done a better job of explaining the potential problems with Krypton's gene-castes than a bunch of exposition.
Casting him with this guy might have made the point, as well. :)
Casting him with this guy might have made the point, as well. :)
That would be fantastic. :)
Saw it last night, and I did not have any real problem with any of the acting. Kevin Costner portrayed a pretty typical Kansas farmer, my late father in law was a Kansas farmer, and Kevin did a really good job showing that kind of stoicism. The other highlight was the Kryptonian female warrior, I really appreciated the respect she showed the Army Colonel even though he was physically her inferior. She recognized him as a fellow solider and faced him as an equal. How Lois and Clark developed their relationship made a ton more sense than either the comics or previous movies.
The problem with the movie is the acting is only 10% of the movie. The sheer amount of violence, destruction, and noise detracted from all of the good parts of the movie. They could have cut 45 minutes of the fighting out and it would not have made a difference to the plot line of the movie. They should have given the 45 wasted minutes to Kevin Smith to do character development.
Doubt I will buy the DVD.