I found this incredibly interesting. I loved the film before and I think after seeing this I believe this movie to be as the creator says, a masterpiece. Tell me what you guys think below.

Wow. Talk about Superman worshipping...

@i_am_lightning: Buh dum tss?

Well...damn. Certainly more thought went into that than any Marvel film. I guess it's Marvel that needs to catch up. At least this and Dark Knight have messages.

I loved MoS and think there was a lot of symbolism within the movie..... but even I think this is going a tad far.

For the purposes of the movie, I don't think it's too far at all. It's like the guy in the video said: I've been looking at it backwards. It's not an adaptation of Superman, it's an adaptation of Christ through Superman, a hero that reflects our values as a society. Maybe a bit much for a character that was conceived as an allegory of the Jewish immigrant experience, but Snyder at least deserves props for trying in a genre dominated by vapid spectacles like the Avengers. I think it's his best comic movie yet because it doesn't just panel-for-panel adapt pre-existing comics, and in Watchmen's case, failing to do it justice (which I think his him just overestimating the film medium, because Watchmen really needs the art style, level of detail and reader control provided by comics, as Alan Moore said).

lol the movie was average no matter how much time someone spent over-analyzing the movie

Obviously.

Goyer did say he read the bible and "whatever the Jewish equivalent of the bible" when prepping for this movie. And the sequel will be touching on subjects of religion and philosophy, because of what a being like Superman mean for them. The reason I say this goes to far is because there's a bunch of sex symbolism, which I don't think Goyer had in mind when writing. And yes, I agree with the part in bold.

It's not over-analysis, it's a different sort of analysis altogether. The movie is about archetypes, not characters. True, by traditional standards or to a comic fan, it might be a failure, but source material accuracy and standard Hollywood character development were never the goal.

@saint_wildcard: it was called a masterpiece lol objectively it is faaaar from a masterpiece

I know

I also believe this has been posted several times here.

I think this guy reads in to the move a lot more than even the guys that made it.

Nah man, think about it Zod=douche, It's so obvious and it works for both meanings.

MOS was far from a masterpiece. Its flaws out way the good.

@rpgesus: Are you editing your comments and removing the "in my opinion"?

No, I'm adding it.

@saint_wildcard: Ahh, okay.

@mercinwithamouth:

Liked the thesis.

But. It's too deep. Too religious.

It's like making a storm in a glass of water.

Superman, creation had indeed a lot of mythical factors into it, but one cannot or should not, take it too far.

Yes, he enbodies a lot of things, but comparing him to Jesus or looking at all he is, like a big cosmic sexual moment, is taking things to far.

One of the worst things a fan of Superman can do, is deepen the already too deep, abyss that separates him from us.

Who has a kid, has not dreamt of being Superman, of wielding his powers, flying through the skies even to outerspace, to be able to do things we can't even imagine even when we try. Superman is a very powerful figure, an icon in his own right. But that's has far has I dare to take him. Because any further and I risk losing my grip with reality itself.

Superman is a lot of things to a lot of people. But most of all, he is himself. I always believed Superman should always embody the future. What we has readers, has normal men and women, should inspire to become. Superman should not embody the past, because one cannot move forward by looking at the past.

This is a simplification of how I see him. And already to some people it's too much to handle.