That's usually been the explanation in the various incarnations of the character, and if they had left it at that I'd have been perfectly fine. The problem is that Man Of Steel went to great lengths to explain that Clark gets superpowers from our Sun because he grew up on this planet and his Kryptonian physiology developed over the 20+ years absorbing the radiation.LadyRhian said:
The Donner films didn't end the "Big Blue Boyscout" thing of Superman, Crisis on Infinite Earths did. After the retooling of the DC universe, Superman became significantly less powerful, significantly more flawed, and significantly more morally ambigious, though considering how ridiculously overpowered and painfully "token good guy" he was before then that's not saying he wasn't still a powerful and morally upright hero.undeadsuitor said:
They kinda do, since it's boring for heroes to be so powerful that nobody can realistically expected to be challenging them, and they must be flawed and morally ambiguous because it's identifiable. People don't like it when anyone is portrayed as perfect, both in fiction or real life, because they know that such a thing is impossible.undeadsuitor said:
The differences between the "Dark Avenger" image that Batman's built up the last 2 decades and the "Big Blue Boyscout" image that Superman is stuck with is this:undeadsuitor said:
Yeah, I felt the movie spent a whole lot of time focusing on Jor-El, who was good for backstory in the Superman mythos, but didn't influence who Clark is as a person. Yet this movie glosses over the his upbringing in Smallville in flashbacks, while spending the first half-hour of the film on Krypton. Gives Superman a very emotionless feel, when his wholesome down-home Kansas roots were what was really supposed to define the character. His adoptive parents gave Superman his moral compass; this movie they're just minor side-characters put in to hit certain story-beats so the character is still recognizable as the Superman everybody knows from the comics and previous movies, when this character is anything but. This character, they could've left out the Kents altogether and arrived at the same place, which I think is the wrong direction to go in.Kamille Bidan said:
Completely agree with you about Burton's Batman, and another example of how Man of Steel is just copying what came before it, while taking it completely out of context. When I came out of the theatre, my first thought was that they should have actually copied the first episodes of Superman: TAS, but now I realize that they did. They just changed it from Braniac to Zod, and in the process made it make no sense. The TAS episodes had Braniac destroy Krypton, but since Zod would have no reason to destroy his own planet, they made it the Kryptonians themselves do the deed - again adding another unnecessary layer of darkness.Kamille Bidan said:
I can't stand this argument. First and foremost I have never had an attachment to the Superman character and I saw the original movies way too recently to have nostalgia for them, but in my eyes as a long term Cinephile and Christopher Nolan/David S. Goyer fan this movie is pandering dreck that desperately wants to be taken seriously but also contains a freaking rediculous pseudoscience Doomsday device and can't go ten seconds without cramming in useless, badly shot action scenes that do nothing but detract from any kind of drama the movie wants to make. The characters are one note without having the good sense to be remotely entertaining. And the usually competent Zack Snyder can't keep the camera still for 5 seconds. The Donner films held up better decades after they were intended to be watched than this movie did on my second viewing because Richard Donner knew how to film a movie. This thing doesn't even hold up against previous summer superhero movie Ironman3 since that actually grappled with personal issues and semi complex themes while this movie deals with neither. It just makes drawn out excuses for the big stupid way to long fist fight at the end. Also Superman returns was in no way panned by critics though it was called out for being a weaker immitation of the originals which makes me confident the originals would be similarly acclaimed now as they were then. . This movie was dark and serious only its colors and lack of personality.immortalfrieza said:
The Dubya said:
Wait wait, how was World War Z "abysmal"? Are we talking "not as good as the book"? Are we talking "it's not legendary like Zombieland"? Exactly to what standard are we talking that "abysmal" is an appropriate qualifier?MovieBob said:
It IS nostalgia googles, but of a different sort. Even those who have never seen the Donner films view Superman as this incorruptable pure pureness invincible character, the embodiment of all that is good, the Donner films merely popularized this perception. As a result most people expect him to be like this all the time and few are willing to accept him as anything else. I've seen all the complaints about MOS around here, and most of them are just people complaining that Supes isn't the beacon of hope and justice they think he's "supposed" to be, even being so makes him a worse character. The other complaints, like yours, are whining about the fight scene being over the top, drawn out, and that the whole movie is just an excuse for it, as if that wasn't the best part of the movie, or the characters being "one note" despite the fact that MOS is a 2 hour long movie, not a T.V. series or long running comic book where the characters have both the time and reason to act differently.ImSkeletor said:
I agree on all counts. That purely good invincible character that the general public believes Superman has to be all the time has always been boring to me. That, and that hope and justice only mean something if the world isn't always filled to the brim with it already.Arppis said:
I'm growing increasingly convinced you have never seen another movie in your life. You can have great well rounded character in two hours. Thousands and thousands of movies have done it. Other films have relatively one note characters that are vaguely entertaining to watch as opposed to this. You can like this movie. I'm not taking it away from you but your pathetic self congratulation for covering your ears whenever anyone has a opinion opposite to yours is as tiresome as it is laughable.immortalfrieza said:
Pal, I could easily turn most of what you said right back at you. "I'm growing increasingly convinced you have never seen another movie aside from the Donner films in your life." I've been saying this entire time that Superman hasn't been a invincible perfect boyscout for a LOOOOONG time, and people like you are just "covering their ears" and saying something akin to "SupermanMUSTbeperfectNOEXCEPTIONS!!!" over and over again, which "is as tiresome as it is laugable". The fact that people everywhere aren't praising MOS for making such poor character much more relatable even if they panned everything else proves this. Oh, and characters tend to be one note when they only have 10 minutes total of screentime, which all the characters except Superman, Jor El, and Zod only have around that much, and all 3 of them are significantly more nuanced. I bet you and anyone you know acts pretty one note in the span of 10-15 minutes.ImSkeletor said:
I think that the twist, as you called it, will be the dawn of a few things for new Supes.Mcoffey said:
Awww thats so sad. You have to ignore everything somebody says so you can enjoy a movie they don't. See we adults can watch a movie and have someone else think differently than them and be okay with it and understand others have different perspectives and that as long as they provide reasons their opinion is not baseless. I like tons of stuff no one else does, but I can deal with that and hopefully, someday you will be able to as well and let me finish with this. I was beyond hyped to see a more complex version of superman in theaters, but that was not what I saw. I saw the same old boyscout put in a context where it doesn't work.immortalfrieza said:
