Supermansito's forum posts

#1 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

@zhurong said:

Rachel is powerful but she is no match for a Thor villain

#2 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

really :D?

#3 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

@bezza: I agree with you.....this isn't the cartoon where you can freeze breath the bad guy and for what ever reason they can't break out of it, or idk trap doomsday in a layer of hardened lava....really he couldn't have broken free from a thin layer of lava around his body? Fair enough.

"He hits too much"

Aside from the aliens that just threatened his mother who did he hit? the kids that picked on him every day? the guy who threw beer in his face?

and I am sorry why would anyone want to watch him save cats, this was him becoming superman. He finally became superman at the end of the movie, why would he do superman-esque stuff through out the whole thing when the point of the movie is supposed to be him becoming that man. I truly don't understand peoples complaints either.

I understand people disliked this movie, only thing I disliked was the pacing, but I Will be seeing it 3 times now.

ill be seeing it 4 :D i love it

#4 Edited by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

@hiplobo:

The only issue that can be had when going into this movie with an inaccurate preconceived notion of who Superman is, is that you will miss everything about this film that did in fact do a good job in honoring the core of the character. I referenced the two mediums that are being used by those that did not like the movie to incorrectly slander this movie as a horrible offense to the character that is Superman. Both of my references point out the flaw in the accusation. I know you want to believe that Superman would never kill but that is not who Superman actually is. When he thought Lois died at Doomsday's hands and Superman was killing people in his attack on who he thought was Doomsday, he specifically said he didn't even care that people were dying because of his actions. He literally was aware of what he was doing and did not care at all. All he cared about was revenge. Superman is not infallible. He is not Christ. He is a flawed "human" being with human reactions to dangerous situations. He projects an image of perfection to the people he protects in his universe but you must take care not to become absorbed by the identity that he is trying to project or you completely miss the reality of who Superman is in the comics, which in my opinion means you miss a critical aspect to enjoying Superman beyond seeing how much he can lift.

I don't understand your problem with the realism. You are going to have to clarify that statement for me in order for me to address it to the best of my ability. Why was the destruction of part of the city a problem? Why was the kiss after they thought the battle was over a problem for you? Believe it or not, people do sometimes kiss when in, or after scary and/or harmful situations.

Lois finding Superman right after the fight with Zod seems like a bit of nitpicking to me. If that got to you, how do you ever enjoy any movie at all? They all use a bit of movie magic to compress time for the sake of plot. But if you need an in-canon explanation, it is entirely possible that their fight concluded within reasonable running distance. The same goes for your grievance for them landing in the city after flying into space. I am sure that if anyone came to you with trivialities like this over a movie that you had even a neutral stance on, you would likely find it hard to do anything but dismiss their opinion on the film entirely. Lois was identified as someone who was close to Superman and thus might have had information that the Kryptonians required. This was actually explained in the film.

I disagree with your opinion on the destruction in the comics being portrayed as fun or silly. I don't think that has ever been the norm in a Superman comic with regards to city-wide destruction. I can't remember every comic, so there may be some out there but I do remember many and none of them showed Superman skipping over dead bodies or doubling over in laughter right after.

If Superman flew away to a desert mid-battle, he would have flown there by himself while the Kryptonians continued to kill everyone around them. The Kryptonian armor did not grant them the ability of flight and it shielded them from the sun's radiation, which meant that none of them had the ability to follow him. Not only that but there was no need to follow him. He initially wasn't the reason they were in the city (and town for that matter) causing mayhem.

I again disagree with your point about requiring character development to care when they are dying. It was not that we were supposed to care that Jenny was about to die. It was that other characters came together to risk their lives to prevent her death and when that failed, to knowingly die with her. The struggle to prevent her death was what was important, not the character.

Bravo!

#5 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

@hiplobo:

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 a 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.

Bravo x 2

#6 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

@jldoom said:

Just saw the movie and to me it was amazing. All I wanted from a Superman movie and more.

I really don't get some comments that say the movie was "too dark" and not joyful enough. Superheroes get different interpretations all the time, as long as they stay true to the core of the character they're all valid and to me this movie respect everything about Superman while delivering a highly entertaining experience.

agree

#7 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

for ppl that said this is not superman ....

Superman killed Zod in the comics, in fact he outright executed him with Kryptonite, and it had a massive effect on his character, morals etc. He actually vowed not to kill unless 100% necessary afterwoods. Superman killing Zod was completly in character, he was saving not just a family, but the world.

Reeve's wouldn't have killed normally nor would Cavill's, but under those conditions 'Superman' would have done the same. Zod HAD to die to save the world, as said by him himself. The filmmakers didn't betray the character, they were more accurate to modern comics than the Donner films.

#8 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

First and foremost, I really enjoyed the movie. I hope to see it a second time this weekend. Almost everything worked for me. The Jonathan Kent stuff was really great, in fact the representation of the Kents and Jor-El was the best I have seen. I really liked how they did the flashbacks, totally worked. I even liked how Lois was portrayed and I was concerned a bit that I wouldn't. I will wait for this movie to be out a bit more before going more in depth, but I want to in regards to that. I would say the only two things that really jarred me were how Lois meets Kal-El and the end of the battle between Supes and Zod. All in all I give it an 8/10.

Now to address gripes I have read. First I want to address the gripe about tearing down Metropolis. Which was a smaller portion than I think people realize, but this was an Alien invasion and an 8th of Metropolis is better than the whole planet. Not to mention, you are telling me the damage sustained in Metropolis was no worse than the damage to New York in Avengers? I mean, yeah it is unfortunate but when things of that nature happen, stuff gets knocked down. Plus, as Zero Year and Arkham Origins will be depicting, a superhero just starting out doesn't have full reigns and haven't perfected how to be so smooth with their gifts. I would like that to be something he addresses in the movie but it has to be a learning curve. The whole movie was about him choosing between his birth world and the world he was raised on so he wouldn't just instantly be conscious of all the people around him. I am fine with that. Again I point out The Avengers tore through buildings, dropped the huge flying-worms through buildings and such and no one had anything to say about that.

I have also heard people address the movie as cold and perhaps I want to see it too much but I just completely disagree. How the things Jonathan Kent says come back to play in Superman's world fit so well and you could tell started to really shape the kind of man he grew up to be whether he knew it or not, it was beautiful. The struggle between being an absolute outsider, hiding who you really are because other people will judge you, very compelling stuff. Though the last Superman movie that played on these emotions and such was bombed.. so which is it?

I think Superman is a harder character than people may think. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it definitely is mine. I can't wait for the sequel. I hope they find ways to better polish things, but this was the first time around the track, it usually takes a warm up to hit full stride and if this was the warm up, then the full stride is going to be amazing.

well said sir

#9 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines: marvel fan detected.....everything you said about this movie is negative just dont see it and let the vine ppl enjoy it like i did

@deaditegonzo: man i think... that Novi _homines is trolling yo u srs......

#10 Posted by Supermansito (196 posts) - - Show Bio

This movie is a 10/10 and honestly the best superhero film ive ever seen. Its also one of the best movies ive ever seen period. I went with two non-comic book fans and a fellow comic book fan. 3 of us out 4 agreed it was the best superhero film weve ever seen (one of the non-fans, myself and the other fan), the other person with us still really enjoyed it and wanted to see it again, but didnt love it quite as much. She did like it a lot better than Iron Man 3. Its also worth noting that I was literally the only person in my group who likes Superman/ sees himself as a Superman fan.

I find it interesting that a good deal of the "positive" reviewers, and a BUNCH of the audience have agreed on this point and even stated it directly, that it is the best superhero film yet. That stands out to me, its even apparent throughout these comments. It makes me think both the negative reviewers, and negative audience reviews on here, stem from a foolish attempt at being "high minded" and seeming superior to what said people see as the unwashed masses of movie viewers. If you let such a desire for superiority ruin an enjoyable experience, then youre really only hurting yourself, and no normal will really give a damn what you have to say... And frankly you seem all the more foolish to me.

I think this movie balanced everything so well, that it is almost a rorschach test for its audience. If you really are just in it for the action, then you will be 100% satisfied, its the best action ever offered up in a superhero film, EVER. If you are someone who likes to really dissect and stew on a film, you will be offered great depth, character and emotion, to your hearts content, and also leave happy. Basically, the only people who will leave unhappy are the people who are just smart enough to think theyre above mindless action, but not quite smart enough to actually fully explore the movie and its subtleties (a category where most reviewers fall I fear).

I liked this better than the entire Dark Knight Trilogy, which I originally saw as the bench mark. It utterly annihilates every offering that Marvel has offered up so far.

Is it a pure art-house film? No, it sure isnt. But ive never even bothered to see the Artist, the King's Speech, or Argo (the winners of the Oscar for best picture for the last 3 years). Why? Because regardless of how intellectually stimulating they may be, they all looked boring, and I am definitely not trying that hard to seem smart. This made me think, it made me feel, it blew my mind with its gusto, I had the chills more than I ever have had in a film, to me, its value is far greater than any of those movies that the critics raved about.

wow well said sir!!!