drphilter's forum posts

#1 Edited by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

I LOVED the foreshadowing with Roy catching the light rack with the illuminating red lights all over him. LOVED IT!

#2 Edited by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

I am just saying, Loki wasn't really the villain and the fact that he is even on this list is weird. He was as much a hero of the movie as he is a villain.

#3 Edited by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Jason Aaron, I like the sound of Amazing X-men too. Will check this out for sure!

#4 Posted by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

Does it irritate anyone else when they refer to Wolverine as the "first X-man"? I love X-men, I really do but I am so freaking tired of Wolverine. Just die already.

#5 Edited by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

It's simple... Lex Luthor and Bruce Wayne become business acquaintances to restore the parts of Metropolis destroyed by the fight in the first movie when Lex reveals his utter hate and distrust for the one they call "Superman" which leads Batman to pop in perhaps as a cameo which leads to Worlds Finest the next year and Justice League the year after. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Batman to take over the movie, I would prefer it just to be Bruce Wayne for all but one scene. I also think Man of Steel 2 should acknowledge other heroic "super" beings in other cities.

The mid-credits should be something like this:

Fade from black into one of the few darker alleys in Metropolis where a crime has been disrupted before Superman actually got there.

"We need to talk" - Batman... credits. and end of the credits reveals "World's Finest coming 20XX"

Furthermore should they decide to do solo movies before the ensemble, this should be a recurring bit where after the credits have begun or outright end of the credits Superman recruits the likes of The Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Superman acting like as the "Nick Fury".

#6 Posted by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

Uhm, Superman Killed zod in Superman II (movie) and Josh Byrne's "Man of Steel" by using kryptonite. Superman has killed before and after which felt incredibly guilty for doing so, something I am absolutely certain they will explore in further movies and as I suggested the night after watching it will be a major point of conflict between Supes and Batman. In fact I want a World's Finest movie first now even more just to explore this. In fact I think they should explore parts of the DC animated film "Doom" where Batman has a contingency for all of the members should they go Rogue.

I feel bad for the people who didn't like the movie. I don't think it was perfect and there were bits that I would have changed, but that's true for pretty much any movie. I think people are incredibly hypocritical for bitching when Avengers had just as much destruction. I guess the charm of Downey really does blind people. They were trying to destroy earth and would have if Supes hadn't involved himself. Why would any of them let Kal-El simply lure them away, Zod says that he will kill them all, so Superman leaving would have been perfect. Spider-man has killed on film, Iron Man, Captain America and no backlash, which I still say rightfully so, in those conditions they were justified, as was it here. Yes, Metropolis was effed up a lot, but it was that or... earth? Superman turns around to save one person, Zod kills two more when his back is turned. I think there is a lot of super nit-picky complaining mixed with a general dislike for Superman.

#7 Posted by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

@ultimatepunchrod: If they got started now, aimed for a late Summer release, it may not be so bad. Perhaps adopt Nolan's third weekend of July as the official DC release date, kinda like Marvel has first weekend in May locked up usually.

#8 Posted by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42 said:

@drphilter: I like your post and I don't think the Daily Bugle is supposed to be important I think we are supposed to get a glimpse of them.

I really hope you meant Daily Planet :)

#9 Edited by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio
@hiplobo said:

@azura_thena: Thank you for an actual well thought out response Azura. I work full time at a movie theater in cleveland(birthplace of superman ironically) and have seen the film too many times, or at least parts of it over and over again and may have too much of a factor on my opinion. You may be right in saying that I went into the movie with a pre conceived notion of who I think Superman should be. But really what is wrong with that? If you take a character you truly like and hand it over to someone who doesn't respect the core of the character, (again my opinion on what that core is) of course it'll upset anyone. And I really couldn't set that aside at all for this interpretation of Superman.

I feel the main flaw to the movie was it trying to be so realistic that in by doing so I found all the flaws within it. The more real you try to make the world, the more far fetched its actions are in that film whenever their is a plot hole, or an "out of character" moment. Even more so in a comic book film.

So all the little things that wouldn't be a problem normally like the mass destruction of Metropolis, actually is a problem for me. Or kissing in the middle of the destruction. Or how Louis found Superman so fast after he landed and killed Zod. Or how they crashed back down In the exact same spot over and over again after being in space. Or why was Louis Lane taken on the spaceship in the first place? The filmmakers want me to take this as if superman were real and grounded but they leave all these small things in that add up to bug me. I know it's petty and I should enjoy it for what it is but it's difficult for me when the realism gets in the way.

For example the destruction in avengers or even Superman in the comics, versus this film, is that it's a realistic take on things versus straight up fun fiction. Even if it looks like someone dies, you don't think about it because its fun and silly. Ill give it to them though they did a good job with the realism because I care this much about such destruction, I take it to heart for all those dang people dying. I know superman is all new to this. But it seems like a simple decision that is inherent within superman. Ok I'm fighting these people, I will now fly away at light speed, to a dessert. Bam simple. I mean did his father only teach him how to hide his identity or what? Or did he teach him how to be a good man?

And yes I consider it a joyless movie, not because anyone else says so. But because that's how I felt. Joy is a matter of perception, and I just so happened to perceive it that way. I may have a calloused heart but I just didn't feel for the characters.

I don't mind them changing the continuity or origin story, it's just the way they execute it. They try and shove a theme of do the right thing down our throat, which is ok if you do it right and make me feel for these people. Know what they are going through. They tried but came out flat. Speaking of pointless character, Jenny Olsen? You show her in the background for two seconds and next thing you know she's trapped in rubble and is about to die? Why should I care about her? I don't know her. Character development is very important in a successful movie. And there just wasn't enough of it.

Thanks. Sorry for ranting.

Well, I see what you mean regarding "whats wrong with a preconceived notion" and I guess that's just a debatable point. On one hand, I kind of agree, whoever we are whether we read Supes comics forever, recently, etc we all know and either love or hate the character. So preconceived notions are hard to avoid. On the other hand, I would say this is an attempt to reboot the character and tell a familiar story with some updated twists, so as much as possible I think trying to clear the slate, so to speak, isn't out of the question of reasonable requests. That said, it's really up to ourselves to do that or not. I often think that very point is what makes movies more enjoyable for me than I see the vast majority of other people. Great example is, ironically, Snyder's "Sucker Punch". I heard for weeks how terrible it was, etc etc, but I saw a single trailer, thought it seemed like a neat concept and I was able to really enjoy the movie. Was it groundbreaking storytelling or even filmmaking? No. But does film always have to be that? Can't it just sometimes be fun? Which is weird because I really loathed the ladder two Transformers flicks and people who like them say the same thing. I guess it's just how material is presented. (Though I take hotties in skimpy outfits over dirty beat up autobots any day, lol)

I guess I don't distinguish the difference between The Avengers battle and this one, even though this one was definitely more real world-esque. It was never a complaint about either film but I do remember thinking right after Iron Man woke up, "New York is f*****!" I hate the term real-world used in reference to movies because, they are movies, it's all fiction, there's nothing real world about anything in movies. Even David O'Russell pictures over exaggerate things for drama, so maybe that's a bit of disconnection on my part or why things don't bother me that way. I see them as mere artistic differences. Though, Marvel has always struck me as more or less friendly, so I thought both destruction scenes felt at home. I don't argue with the point of safety, though I would say Metropolis was ground zero for Zod and they weren't there to battle Superman, they were there to terraform. Now, I will say, after playing Injustice: Gods Among Us, it would have been pretty epic to see the fight span from Metropolis to the Fortress of Solitude (which was no longer there thanks to Zod, but at least perhaps the arctic) or try things with outrunning each other since Zod was new to flying and super speed, would have been cool and that is why this movie wasn't perfect because those were missed opportunities. I really just assumed, knowing there will be a sequel, that there were things in this move that will be addressed in the future films. (I mean can you imagine Batman lecturing and not fully trusting Superman because he did kill Zod? If we do get a World's Finest film, that would be amazing to play off in which case I will thank this movie everyday for letting that happen.)

It sucks that you didn't find joy in the movie, that is a perception thing. The moment when Ma Kent is at the school with Clark, pretty much any scene with Pa Kent and most scenes with Jor-El really got me into the movie not just for their sake but really helped me put myself in Clark's position and how crappy that's got to feel. I actually really felt for Chris Meloni's and Richard Schiff's character's and their fate more than I did Lois and that's not a dig on Lois, just I especially liked Meloni in this movie.

Yeah, they didn't give much to Perry White or Jenny Olson but why should we care about them? Cause they were innocent people, victims to a madman. I think we should care about them for the same reason Superman does, they are life, human, innocent. I didn't know anyone in any of the countless tragedies that have occurred the past decade plus, but I felt for each of them and their families all the same. I agree character development is important, but White and Olson weren't prominent characters. Prominent only because we know who they are and how they play into Superman's world as we have known it, but with in the context of the movie, they were simply just associates of Lois Lane. Well, they did play Perry up a bit and I really liked Laurence Fishburne in the role, suited him well.

#10 Edited by drphilter (123 posts) - - Show Bio



I disagree with a lot of what you said. The first thing that needs to be addressed is the clear misunderstanding that Superman does not kill. In the comics, he has killed Zod before in a canon Post Crisis issue. Not only that, but he killed Zod's subordinates as well. He had them defeated and THEN he chose to execute them. So as far as it being a problem to be included in this movie, I believe that to be an ignorant understanding of Superman. If anyone wants to then fall back on Reeve's Superman, let's not forget that he not only killed Zod in that one too, but he did it in an extremely violent and unnecessary fashion. He crushed a defenseless and therefore, defeated Zod's hand, threw him against a wall with enough force to surely break even more bones, and then let him fall to his death. He killed a virtually harmless opponent with a smile and felt no pain or anguish afterwards that Henry's felt. On top of that, he let a mentally handicapped person jump to his death and allowed Lois to viciously murder another defeated villain as well... again with an "aw shucks" smile on his face. Then they abandoned Luthor to the arctic north as Reeve went on a revenge agenda that could have potentially crippled a person that not only was beneath Superman at that point but also had no way of defending himself. If someone wants to complain about Superman actions that are decidedly un-Superman, they need to first address the former movie that is somehow preferred over the new one on the issue of killing, as well as address the killing Superman has done in the comics.

As far as the issue of not saving the humans that were around him, I am not sure if you are aware of this but Superman was kind of busy getting handled by other Kryptonians whenever there were humans around. No one died as a result of Superman's actions. He did the best he could when facing a small army of his equals. Also, in the comics, I don't believe Superman has ever had a fight that didn't result in several city blocks being completely destroyed. If you are angry at the movie for this, then surely the comics have angered you to the point where you need to be hospitalized.

I think you may have misunderstood the scene of Pa's death. Superman didn't give a fig about people knowing about his powers. His father did and specifically made the choice to sacrifice himself in order to protect Superman. Superman, as much has he clearly didn't want to, honored his father's wishes. He honored his father's choice and showed his father that not only does he respect him, but he trusts him as well. Your opinion that humanity would readily accept an alien among them is only your opinion. I believe it is an incorrect opinion though, we can't even accept each other. An alien with the power to annihilate us on a whim living among us would cause the exact kind of panic that Pa was afraid of.

It was a mostly serious movie but I don't know that I would call it joyless. Wondering who you are does not mean you are walking about with a deep depression. He didn't seem all that depressed to me when he found his mother alive and well. Saving Lois didn't throw Superman into a suicidal depression. I like comedy as much as anyone else but it is absolutely not necessary to prevent a movie from being labeled as 'joyless'. The modern Superman in comics has often been depicted as a brooding man, if that helps put your grievances to bed.

Lois always needs saving. I don't know why this is a problem for you and you are going to have to clarify what you mean by 'second rate woman', a vague statement that I find slightly offensive. Michael Shannon's performance was completely fine if you actually understood his character in this film.

It seems to me that you need to watch this movie again because I am of the opinion that you spent the entirety of this movie wrapped up in your inaccurate preconceived notions of who Superman is and what he should be to actually enjoy this film for what it was.

Thank you! Particularly for the Pa Kent explanation. I don't get how people don't understand this. I guess if you can't understand that then a lot of this movie would be a mystery to people. I think that's sort of a problem with things. People think just because you CAN do something means you SHOULD. That's what Pa was trying to teach the whole time, restraint and being aware of these things at all times. Pa and Ma Kent love Clark very much but they also want to protect him from the world which is really sweet to me. It's not in fear of what would happen to Clark physically, obviously, but what would happen to him psychologically and they love their son and don't want him to go through that. I think whether or not you think humanity would accept him is irrelevant, the fact that his father was so adamant and believed it to be true transcends this. As you put it, he was respecting what were his father's last wishes. This was clear as day to me as I watched it. Really the odd similarities between Pa Kent and Jor-El were a really interesting factor for me, one I really liked.

In regards to people calling this movie "cold". This has been my biggest complaint and fear of the Marvel movies in general and specifically Iron Man. People love Downey and love the catch phrase heavy, quippy remarks, etc etc. I enjoy it in small doses, at least when dealing with a superhero flick. But that has become the expectation. I wrote a piece last year after Dark Knight Rises came out and there people really started to contrast the humor and light hearted fun of Avengers with the more serious tone of Dark Knight Rises. It bugs me that humor has to be so involved for people to like these movies because that is still part of the general audience and critics alike saying these movies can't be taken seriously. I grew up when Comic books were looked down upon much more than they are now, they were never adequate forms of story telling, they were always a joke, the ladder two Batman flicks only reinforced this way of thinking. Then we see movies like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Green Lantern and Superman returns that struggle with being funny, goofy and cutesy. I honestly believe there are parts in all of those movies that had great potential if the urge to inject comedy and a light hearted atmosphere weren't so prevalent. Being a hero, saving the world can and usually is more serious than fun, and in movies should be treated that way. I think when it's treated with humor and ease it sort of demeans the importance of what actually happens, on a deeper psychological level. Which in contrast makes The Dark Knight or Man of Steel seem cold and all that non-sense.

It really strikes me that people don't realize that it took this event for Clark to really be able to find that balance of him as Clark and him as Superman and I thought that is exactly what the ending of this movie pointed out. He was able to find who he was as Kal-el, Superman and Clark through this journey of a movie but it did require that journey. The journey of even being more aware of innocent byestandards in the future. I would actually really love to see him quit a fight to ensure the safety of someone, even if that makes him vulnerable to an attack, but this was him getting his footing. It would be incredibly cheap for him to just all of the sudden work that way. He goes from learning how to fly to all the sudden being this savior of everyone? That's not a bit of a stretch for anyone?

You can't have it both ways. This is why Superman is so hard to tell. You can't be that cheesy "Clark Kent *glasses off* Superman *glasses on* Clark Kent *glasses off* Superman" "It's a bird it's a plane..." and be taken seriously. I feel like this movie did everything people complained was lacking for Superman Returns, or wanted to see in Superman Returns and now people are complaining because they didn't have enough of those features. Furthermore considering that Superman Returns was technically the 5th installment in that storyline, so it had the benefit of being established, whereas this was breaking new ground for a new cinematic experience with the character.

I really hope the people who didn't enjoy this at least check it out on home video or something and give it another chance and even try to see certain things the way I did because I really do think it was a terrific movie. I honestly could have cared less about the action sequences. At this point in my life I feel like I can't really see anything new, so while they were fun and visually awesome, I really think this movie has more heart than what people give it credit for. It sucks that Mark Waid didn't like the movie and I also hope he gives it another shot. I am inclined to say because it wasn't exactly Birthright page for page, perhaps he is bias and perhaps deservedly so, he did give us probably one of the best Superman stories ever told. One thing I will say about Marvel is, phony or not, at least their guys are always supportive to press. I mean I didn't hear Garth Ennis come out about Punisher War Zone or Chris Claremont come out about Wolverine Origins. It actually kind of irritates me to know that Waid was so free to dish on the film because his influence is pretty prevalent. I know that's asking too much, but still. At first glance it seems like Waid isn't happy it didn't get made exactly the way he would have done it, so wasn't happy with it but I guess that could be said for anyone who doesn't like any movie, I know that is one of the first things I think about when I give a film a bad review, how would I have done it differently. Maybe they could enlist Waid's writing skills for Man of Steel 2, one of those put up or shut up situations.