|
Although, I should note, I did hear one spoiler about Superman lore that has me rather angry at James Gunn. The kind of thing that seems like crapping on Superman fans.As a lifelong DC fan (but not a diehard Superman lore fanatic), I didn't notice anything that felt like a massive deviation at least not from the spirit of the lore, if not the letter.
There was one twist--which I believe actually has been done before in at least some comic variations; a background character's motivations are potentially changed--I could see as *upsetting* some fans. But I can't fathom any part of the film as "crapping on" fans, i.e., making fools of them or being dismissive of the fandom.
And that twist I thought actually did a good job of helping serve Superman's arc and actually helped reinforce who he is and who he chooses to be.
I think we're talking about the same point...
At worst, they may have been portrayed as mostly just wanting their son to live, keeping the memory of Krypton and its heritage alive. Outside of maybe some Elseworlds style story, I can't recall a single instance of the two ever being portrayed as that evil. That sounds like more of a Zod thing, or maybe even something from Invincible.
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
In fairness, this particular change has been made before. Smallville did the same thing in Season 2, similar messages existed in the Post Crisis Eradicator introduction. This is not new. It is also left unresolved, so that it is likely setup for a future story. Perhaps involving a character who is alternatingly a superior intellect/a futuristic AI in control of a series of Matryoshka doll like robots/ Kryptonian AI construct/obsessive collector of long lost civilizations.
|
In fairness, this particular change has been made before. Smallville did the same thing in Season 2, similar messages existed in the Post Crisis Eradicator introduction. This is not new. It is also left unresolved, so that it is likely setup for a future story. Perhaps involving a character who is alternatingly a superior intellect/a futuristic AI in control of a series of Matryoshka doll like robots/ Kryptonian AI construct/obsessive collector of long lost civilizations.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
As did my adventures with superman to an extent.
Also considering who is responsable for said reveal it is possible that is not what was actually said or that it was made to be interpreted in the most harmfull way possible.
|
|
In fairness, this particular change has been made before. Smallville did the same thing in Season 2, similar messages existed in the Post Crisis Eradicator introduction. This is not new. It is also left unresolved, so that it is likely setup for a future story. Perhaps involving a character who is alternatingly a superior intellect/a futuristic AI in control of a series of Matryoshka doll like robots/ Kryptonian AI construct/obsessive collector of long lost civilizations.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
True. I never liked it then either. I prefer the more common "they weren't bad" characterization. Here's hoping they will fix it in a future issue. I'd love to see it as a way to bring in that other character they've retconned so often over the decades (I think we're talking about the same character).
True. I never liked it then either. I prefer the more common "they weren't bad" characterization.
In all of those instances, they weren't and it was just a manipulation.
(I think we're talking about the same character).
There's no need to be coy, it's not spoilery or potentially giving anything about Superman 2025 away, I'm talking about Brainiac
|
|
There's no need to be coy, it's not spoilery or potentially giving anything about Superman 2025 away, I'm talking about Brainiac(I think we're talking about the same character).
Yeah, I figure. It’s just there seem to be a lot of people who dislike spoilers of any kind. So I’ve grown a bit….nicer?….about that sort of thing. I for one could give two craps less about whether an entire plot is spoiled.
I know a dude who refuses to even watch trailers or commercials for movies. Weird, but that’s how he rolls.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
Aberzombie, I think the only thing you and I disagree on is the relationship of the fans to the change in the backstory (I could debate the merits and flaws of the actual change). I don't think it's disrespectful to fans to change that bit of lore, especially with how it's handled in the film (more on that below). I think this kind of writing can engage fans and it treats them like people who are emotionally and intellectually intelligent enough to consider and accept different versions of the same story. As, indeed, I am a fan, and I did not feel "crapped on." (There are certainly changes to characters I've seen in other shows and films that I felt was disrespectful to fans; that usually involves stuff where the show/filmmakers seem embarrassed to be making superhero story, which is certainly not the case with James Gunn.)
I wasn't sure what to make of the twist and part of me didn't like the suggestion of a certain character's true motives, but I really, really, really liked how it made Superman reflect on the situation, and the resulting arc showed us why Superman is Superman. AND as others mentioned, the way the twist is presented, the audience can't trust that it is 100% true. What's more interesting is what Superman and other characters do with that information.
I certainly don't expect or even want you to agree with me, but I think this is a script decision that is better understood and appreciated seen in the context of the film, and I'd be really interested in your thoughts about it after you see it.
|
|
.....and I'd be really interested in your thoughts about it after you see it.
Be careful what you wish for.... : )
Just kidding. Mostly.
I shall present my thoughts in abundance once I see the movie. I rarely ever go opening weekend to a movie anymore. I'll probably take at least the boy this weekend. It depends. If my daughter wants to go, then it might be the whole family.
|
|
So....My kids and I just got back from seeing the movie. The wife did not want to go.
For the most part, I enjoyed it. It certainly wasn't perfect, and there were parts that annoyed me, but that's true of a many movies. I think my children liked it more than me, but I suspect the movie was intended for younger audiences.
Was it the best Superman film ever? No. Not by a long shot. Superman I and II still are the best. Hands down. I think I would put it slightly ahead of Man of Steel, but only because it seemed (mostly) a little more comic lore faithful. And it's vastly superior to Superman III and IV, as well as Superman Returns.
Will I ever watch this movie again. Probably at least once. Not in a theater, though. And I would not buy it to add to my movie collection.
The Pros:
The scene with Clark and Pa Kent was wonderful. One of my favorite of the film.
Superman wanted to save the kaiju and protect all the people from the Justice Gang's thoughtlessness was commendable.
The Fortress was, I thought, well done. Same with the robots.
I loved seeing Metamorpho (though his appearance was not without it's problems). Along with Mr. Terrific, he was the other hero I was looking forward to seeing brought to life on the big screen.
The film had a very Silver Age feel to it. And there were plenty of great easter eggs.
The overarching plot was very elaborate, but exactly the kind of convoluted, twisted brilliance one might expect from Lex.
The Cons:
The cast was bloated. There were way too many people to tell a good Superman story. And for the first outing, it should have been even more of a Superman story. This was more like a Superman and all the people who he can't be a hero without their help. It's the main reason I still believe James Gunn was the wrong person to make this movie.
I disliked the dog. He was basically a furry a-hole. And they over used him to ruin otherwise serious, dramatic moments with "humor". For example, that final confrontation with Superman and Lex was going well, until the dog came in. Hulk did it funnier.
The Supergirl cameo was horrific. I was already not interested in that movie because it's based on a story from that utter hack Tom King. Now I'm even less interested.
Both Superman and Lex were far too emotional. Lex just came across more like an angry teenager at times, than the smartest man on the planet. And one of the reasons Superman works best as someone who keeps his emotions mostly in check is because when he gets too angry, the chances he loses control and causes damage increase exponentially.
Eve Tessmacher was horrible. And the plot point where her selfies to the somehow irresistible Jimmy Olsen caused Lex's downfall was ridiculous. I'd have preferred seeing Lois do some old fashion journalism to nail Lex.
Hawkgirl straight up murdered someone. I didn't see her getting arrested.
I thought the way they portrayed Rex was way off from his comic book appearances.
No "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." Though given this was a Gunn film, I can understand why he avoided it.
I'm not sure this was a movie that can carry the weight of being a foundation for a successful DCU. And unless it's international box office vastly improves, I don't think it will make money, let alone beat FF. Though I hope it does.
|
|
One other thought:
The first was that Brainaic altered the message to hopefully corrupt Kal-El. Or at least drive a wedge between him and his birth parents.
The second was the revelation that they are NOT the real Lara and Jor-El, but instead Zod and Ursa.
Either one of those could be cool. I think I’d prefer the Brainaic version, if only because I really want to see Brainaic as the main villain of a Superman movie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One other thought:
** spoiler omitted **
Just wanted to add:
I personally would prefer resolving it via Brainiac, but knowing Gunn's penchant for giving lesser used characters a spotlight with mainstream audiences, I would be very satisfied if this alteration of the message was done by the rampant Eradicator AI.
A slick way to handle that would be to have Brainiac (The Collector) scanning the Kryptonian pod as it passed beyond his ship. He scans the ship, analyzes the source code of the ship and inadvertently activates the dormant terraforming protocols of the Eradicator. Then Brainiac lets the pod go, not yet having become aware of the destruction of Krypton - only to realize he let perhaps the last Kryptonian get away and begin a hunt to find him that ultimately leads to his arrival on Earth 35 or so years later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with you on a lot of points, Aberzombie. Cast overall was great. Thing like the Fortress were well manifested. I didn't think of it this way, but yea, there were some cool silver age touches. I remember thinking on several points in the film I felt like I was reading the old JLA comics I used to read when I was a kid (which was technically past the silver age, but still much more old school).
I also agree there were too many people in the film.
Couple comments/mild disagreements:
Re: Lara and Jor-El's message: you bring up an interesting point with Zod. If you take at face value that Lara/Jor-El want to use Superman to create a new race of Kryptonians, then how much worse is Zod?
And also, again, I don't know if one ought to fully take the message at face value. The value in it is the narrative effect it has on Superman, and I like the use of it as a plot device to make Superman very clearly decide to be a hero because that is who he is, not what his parents want him to be. But the messenger is Lex, not to be trusted. And yeah, there could be other reasons as mentioned upthread as to why the message may have been tampered with (after all, why WAS there a corruption after that point?). Brainiac, Zod, etc.
One way or the other, I'm certain the plot point will be explored further, in both Supergirl and in future movies. And note that he has clearly met Supergirl, who usually origin-wise was meant to guide Superman in the ways of the Kryptonians and just showed up too late to help raise him. Her issues aside, she never got in the way of his heroing nor asked him to start a secret harem, so that suggests the motivation of the El family may not be what it was presented to be.
Re the Supergirl cameo itself: I was horrified too... at first. But I also thought about it a bit and realized that if they are going to do a take on Supergirl at all, it needs to be as different as possible from the version of Supergirl from the CW series several years back. That TV show was hella flawed, but Melissa Benoist nailed that role as a kind and mature Kara. If the Gunnverse's Supergirl is anything like that, she'd just look like a sad imitation of Benoist. So I like that she's a very different personality because it disinvites comparisons.
I also have since seen interviews with the actress that suggest there's a lot more going on with Supergirl than it appeared--she's apparently suffered from a good deal of trauma. The flaw in the film--and I want to make clear, I agree that scene was problematic--was not reflecting that trauma and making her appearance entirely a joke. I think there was a mistake in presenting Superman as simply being irritated with her, when instead maybe he should have been worried about her.
Emotions: I fully disagree that Superman and Lex were too emotional (though I am not shocked that we disagree on this). They were human--and notably, Superman is young and only three years into superheroing--in the sense of relatability. Lex is often portrayed as a very unstable genius and worked for this story. Moreover I think the sooner we stop portraying male heroes (or villains) as stoics who never show emotion, the better. It supports a much healthier social norm; men should feel free to have feelings and express them. It's better for their mental health and for their relationships with other people. Making a major superhero who many men of all ages look up to into someone who works through anger, grief, frustration, and love openly and honestly is not just delightfully refreshing, it is also direly necessary in today's world.
Tessmacher: Eh, I loved her. But I agree she may not be for everyone. But I liked that she was actually secretly spying on Lex the whole time; I'm a big fan of the "Seems dumb but did a brilliant thing" trope.
Also, Lois blatantly DID do the old fashioned journalism to nail Lex--remember the news team workshopping the article in Mr. Terrific's craft? She used the info Jimmy provided--and shared her byline with him because of it--but the reason he was ruined was because of her own research and writing as well. The pictures alone in this day and age where you can claim deepfakes wouldn't have done it. He was brought down because of her article, and it wouldn't have worked without her being the one to write it.
Hawkgirl murdering someone: Clearly part of the plot arc they are setting up for the DCEU--unchecked superhero power and what to do about it. I think they were very intentional with that being a questionable act.
"Truth Justice and the American Way": I believe DC has officially changed this to "Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow." I expect our younger Superman is still workshopping his catchphrase.
Dovetailing on
The way it was presented tees up that this Supergirl is different than what anyone is expecting and leaves the audience wondering why that choice was made. If the trailer hints at the idea that Kara is dealing with being broken by the loss of her parents, her world, and her mission which was to raise her nephew - then it gives the audiences the pieces of that puzzle necessary for a story about Supergirl finding her own purpose.
As for Clark being concerned instead of being annoyed - I didn't feel that Clark was annoyed. He commented to Gary that Supergirl's lack of boundaries was unhealthy, he commented on her behavior as a way to express concern and Gary puts a button on it by saying if he had emotions he would be concerned.
I'm happy to see anything that tries to move the ball forward on Supergirl, because frankly it has felt like DC has no idea what to do with the character - and hasn't since she died in 1985.
The post DCAU white t-shirt Kara was kind of milquetoast, the version that appeared in Superman/Batman in the early 00's was all over the place, which makes sense given all of the "Kara's Soul visits Matrix Supergirl" stuff they were trying to not have to walk back from. The New 52 Kara's rage element never felt as naturally handled as it could have been, and often felt like a wasted opportunity. Rebirth Kara getting essentially de-aged in terms of characterization if not actual chronology and having elements of the CW Supergirl bolted onto her always felt very unnecessary.
Woman of Tomorrow was the most fresh feeling thing the comics had done with the character in a very long time, so teeing that up but also trying to establish her core as being broken by the fall of Krypton feels like it is trying to honor the whole of the character on her own terms - rather than just making her a Clark analogue. I like when they use her to tell stories that work for Superman, but she works best when she has a complete identity of her own.
I would like it to at least exceed the low expectations its been receiving.
It’s presales so far have been well below Superman’s
Well even so, it's been well received by many. I just hope these low sales don't hinder us getting a sequel with someone OTHER than Lex Luthor or Doomsday as the villain. COME ON BRAINIAC!!!