Skip to main content

View Diary: Superman Don’t Weep for Collateral Damage (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  my experience was different (0+ / 0-)

    there were a lot of pre-teens, early teens in the audience, for them, this was their first adventure, they needed the backstory.   If you like movies as a media, the story has to be told in the movie, no assuming someone read 50 plus years of the comic books and watched old tv series or old movies or the last Superman movie that apparently only I and a small handfull went to see.

    For oldsters to the story, who read comic books, saw all the movies and all the tv shows along the way,  the things that are the same are comforting, the new twists a challenge to confront and either agree with or decide to reject.   I thought in some ways that this movie updated story in ways that made sense for a 21st century audience meeting a venerable Superhero that needs to become their superhero, not mine.

    That means that the awesome in 3D super effects also come as part of the package, and yes, the destruction was overdone, but hey, we're talking 12 and 13 year old boys, build it to knock it down again, in large part.

    I think that this is a coming of age story for Superman, a reluctant and reclusive child who has repressed the expression of his powers, issues reinforced by his parents,  which made retelling the story of his father's death in a new way make sense to me at least, though I still thought it was a lot stupid to show people heading for the underpass in direct contravention of every tornado warning.  And who forgets the dog in the first place.  See it is always easy to pick at a detail and lose the larger thread.   But this is the conflict that want to set up.  Superman isn't ready to be Super, to take control of events instead of being a reluctant hero.

    Hence he gives in , surrenders, he  let's Zod pick the battlefields, and Zod's rather nasty monologue about his superior training in military affairs and where did Superman learn to make war "On a Farm??!!"

    The end of the movie,  Superman kills the drone (who wouldn't love that) and throws it down in front of the general.   He has learned to picked the battlefiedl.

    For all the derivative things you mentioned, to me it was more like the Bond reboot, one whole movie for James Bond to earn the right to say  "Bond, James Bond".   If you are building a franchise, you want a foundation of the character and room to grow.  Based on the reaction of the younger fans, I think Superman has successfully rebooted.

    •  I see your points (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FutureNow, jfromga, cynndara

      But two things: Can we accept that Superman has been re-booted and STAY THERE? They "re-booted" Spiderman after just ten years. I suspect that the next Batman movie will tell the whole Batman Joker thing over again. I understand that 12 year-olds may never have seen the previous films or read the comics, but do ALL movies have to be made for 12 year-olds? And I think my point about James Bond and Captain Kirk is valid. We managed to go 50 years without seeing James Bond as a boy. We never needed to see Doctor Who as a child. We get told a précis of their back story and then watch them tell THIS story: The one we're watching. Not every character needs to be introduced with a 3 hour telling of their childhood. We've just had 11 years of television's Smallville telling us all about Superman's back story. This character is an iconic American hero. Can't we just assume everyone knows who he is? And even if they don't every kid in the world knows what a super hero is (heck, every kid in the world knows who Superman is). Is it really necessary to launch EVERY franchise with a backstory?

      And I do think the "I've seen this all before" aspect is telling. I really did spend a significant portion of this film thinking I had seen it before (and I didn't even go into the fact that most of the Kryptonian tech looked like it had been built by World of Warcraft Blood Elves). So not only is the story one that is rather more than a twice told tale, but even the art direction felt like copies of someone else's work.

      Add in the falsity of the emotional crux of the story and you have a problem.

      I did like the whole, "Dad told me not to use my powers" thing. That was good, but it didn't really pervade the film. It seemed like mostly a throwaway, heck, it was abandoned halfway through. How, in ANY way, did affect the last half of the film? It certainly didn't affect the outcome. Actually it would have been stronger if Clark Kent had punched a kid and killed him as a boy. Set up that whole conflict. Give him more reason to not kill and then present it as a problem when Zod forces him to do so. Something like that.  

      Overall, I think this was a very modern film in that there were a lot of good ideas that never really got explored, and it spent WAY too much time clothed in explosions and scenes that were there ONLY so they looked good in 3D (I saw it in 2D, I hate 3D movies, they give me a headache).

      •  I hate 3d (0+ / 0-)

        can't keep the focus, and the 2D versions sometimes suffer from blurriness where you know a big 3 D effect was planned.

        I don't feel that the story line of can humans accept knowing I exist, can I use my powers and not frighten or provoke the humans, was abandoned half way through.

        The whole being outed, first fight in Smallville was all about how Superman was just another target, a threat.  The Colonel was convinced by the end of the fight, some of the brass clearly less so, but also Superman was still a throwaway, a bargaining chip to them to appease Zod.  

        As to Superman needing to kill things as a kid to set up the conflict, I don't buy that as a necessary part of his conflict.  You just are making the violence more personal, but not more sensible.  He has a reason to not kill, it is wrong and he understood that on an intellectual and emotional level without having to kill.  Many people can relate to that.  Or else murder rates would be much higher than they are.   I think the bully at the bar's truck tells us as much about Clark as some huge childhood trauma.  Not everything has to be pathos to set up conflict.

        I think the movie was what it was supposed to be, not an intellectual exercise first and foremost, but a summer blow em up with enough character development to be interesting.   And how long between reboots is an interesting question.  I think that the stronger the original series, the longer between reboots.  And tv has a rather different audience than a movie.  And movie's belong to the young when it comes to ticket sales.  Old farts like me are all too frequently inclined to wait at home for the DVD.   But I make exceptions for special effects movies that will look so much better on the big screen.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site