Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Superman Related Post-Viewing Discussion: Man of Steel movie (SPOILERS)

I liked that about Pete's character too, but then he brags about what Clark did to Lois. So much for friendship. Although, there are many people out in the world who don't think when sudden fame thrusts them into the spotlight (i.e. a reporter asks them questions, they really shouldn't answer). I do like the Pete seems to like Clark more after knowing what he can do, not less, like Jonathan is afraid will happen. Pete is the antithesis of Jonathan's argument. Also, Lana seems more interested in Clark too after the bus accident. It would be nice if people like Clark for Clark *before* they knew he was a super powered being from another planet.

I liked this about the movie too. It's nice to see humans as less than helpless, just as its nice to see Lois doing more than just drooling at Superman.

I also liked the allusion to Speed, where Lois says basically what Sandra Bullock's character says to Keneau about relationships started under duress are doomed to failure, and Clark responds (basically), "Oh, that's only applicable when both are human." It was a cheesy line, but it was my kind of cheese.

Did we hear what he actually said? Because Lois had already made it to Smallville by then, and may well have already known that it was Clark and told him so (several other kids on the bus saw him, too, and that wasn't the first incident). Or it could be he was just happy someone believed him when he told the story. I don't know. Maybe he is just thoughtless, like you said.

What gets me (IIRC) is that he said "if the other person is human" and Lois is human so by that logic it would be all downhill for Clark after the first kiss. The line just sounded weird to me.

BTW, has anyone read the novelization? Is it any good? Not even an except on Amazon so I can't even judge the writing style. I'm not big on novelizations that depart drastically from or change the flavor of the source material, but I like extra character insight.

What I liked about it was that Lois was getting all typically scared about a relationship, throwing up her usual walls, and Clark wasn't letting her. Plus, I'm sure my interpretation is what was meant.

That seems to be reading an awful lot into the line to me. I just don't see the evidence that she's scared of relationships or frequently has walls around her in this version. It's rather like saying Clark must have something going on with the waitress (or that she must want something) because she called him "sweetie" - didn't see that, either.

I believe you are mistaken. The dog saved from the tornado was a black-brown-red shepherd-type, and the dog that barked at Lois Lane at the door was a black-and-white border collie.

Second viewing thoughts:

The pacing seemed a lot different.

It wasn't addressed whether they could have found another world to terraform. Basically, Zod didn't care about the humans, started attacking, and Clark wouldn't have had had any opportunity to suggest the idea even if he'd thought of it.

I definitely still think it took at least a couple weeks for Lois to track her mystery man down, but the timing with Perry is weird. Maybe she had the blogger hold the story for a while? Or maybe she's been AWOL those weeks, and this is the first time Perry's seen her to chew her out?

I also stand by my earlier assessment of Jonathan: "There's more at stake here than our lives and the lives of those around us. The world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything, our beliefs, what it means to be human, everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared. People are afraid of what they don't understand."

On the issue of Clark using his own name in his LnC travels, I am not sure it is every entirely clear. We actually get very little about his previous travels, other than that he was most recently in Australia working for a publication based in Indonesia.

We also in "Never of Sunday" learn that Clark was at one point in Jamaica. I was going to suggest he might not have given Perry that story because it did not have his name on it, but then I realized that Baron Sunday only was able to hunt him down because he did use his name.

We also know he edited the Smallville Post at one point. Still, if he was 27 when highered by Perry that means he probably traveled for 5 years.

On the other hand, with him 33 in MoS, he has been probably traveling for at least 11 years, even if we assume he has a college degree, which we have no evidence for. Even if he does have a degree in journalism, which we have no evidence for, it would be over a decade old. I guess if he has free lanced a story here or there, it might just be enough for Perry to higher him on a trial basis. Still, I think it would seem more likely if the story was set 50 years ago.

And I still think Jonathan was scared of what they'd do to Clark when their beliefs were challenged - that they'd lash out. Interestingly, neither Pete nor his mom reacted that way. Pete became far more friendly and more accepting and his mother thought it was the providence of God. I saw how Pete's mom reacted - she didn't seem scared to me; more awed.

More than that, though, the world can never be able accept Clark if they never know of him. At least if he reveals himself he's got a shot.

Jonathan is afraid the world will not accept his child, will harm his child. It's how their reaction would affect his child that scares him. It's not for the sake of the world that he cares if they know - it's for the sake of his child.

Seriously, how does the paradigm shift in the world view hurt the world? Changes, challeges in belief are not bad things. Learning more about the world, the universe, it can be good thing. He never thinks about the people that want to understand.

But more importantly to me, why I think it's all about Clark's well-being when the world finds out: he doesn't talk about civilization's decline, mass murder, mass suicide, etc. No tangible negative effect on society is ever even alluded to - only that people would be scared because they didn't understand. It's about the world not being ready, yes, but it's only because them not being ready constitutes a threat to Clark that it is an issue.

Jonathan, I think, is listening chiefly to his fears, his fears of what society's rejection might mean for his son. I do think him saying it's bigger is ...justification for keeping his son safe at the expense of others. Especially because he never gives a concrete example of the consequence of this fear. And double especially because we don't see this fear in the people Clark helps (might in the sequel, of course). Pete wasn't afraid, didn't lash out. Neither did his mom. Neither did Lana. Neither did Lois. Neither did the oil rig guys. Certainly, the military reacted poorly, but those actually exposed to him most came to his side. It's kind of a thing with Superman - being in the open makes people trust him more. More exposure leads to more understanding leads to more acceptance - at least in the case of Pete and Colonel Hardy.

It's interesting that it means Jonathan has a dimmer view of humanity than Jor-El. Or perhaps Jor-El just is more aware of Clark's invulnerability. But Jor-El thinks humanity will ultimately find its place in the sun with Clark, while Jonathan doesn't seem think acceptance can happen within Clark's lifetime. Mind you, Jor-El'ls view of his own society was very pessimistic, so maybe you have to be on the outside to be optimistic?

I have to second the view that it was a good thing they by-passed the "Lois rejects Clark but is in love with Superman" angle. Or any other angle of Lois not knowing.

It just always undermines Lois's credibility as a tough, competent investigative reporter. It has also been done to death. The comics ran that angle for 50 years or so. Even "Smallville", where they did not have Superman yet, did the "Lois in love with Clark's super identity" line.

I think it was high time a new formula was used.

From what little I have seen of the earlier Superman films, I always thought the Lois/Superman relationship was done horribly. I was so glad we did not get a repeat of Jor-el's "never choosing just one of them", anti-Lois spiel.

I also got the impression that Superman's x-ray vision is more realistic than in the 1978 film, where he can someone see clothing under other clothing with it. That whole interview scene with Superman and Lois was just messed up.

Lois knowing allows her to be a more active participant in the relationship. Superman still may have saved her life three times (and I might not be counting all of them), but he would not have escaped from the ship if Lois had not done some of the things she did.

I hope Lois gives him the "We need to make sure others do not find out who you really are" speech.

Well, in theory a modern reporter if covering certain stories could just email them in, and not have to go in the office. So maybe Lois has been meeting her regular assignments while criss-crossing the world to find her alien, so she has not been in direct contact with Perry.

I really think they should have had another scene with Perry first reacting to her leak, and then done the search, and then the scene they did.

Perry refers to Clark as the new "stringer," i.e. freelancer, so maybe he just had to show up with one good story that Perry wanted to buy. Then the only curious bit is that he assigned his Pulitzer-winning star to "show him the ropes."

Re Jonathan, I'm not saying he's *right*, nor that they executed it well; it was more exposition than integration. But I think it's the seed of what they were going for.

Well, finally got to see the film in Germany! It's 1:30 AM here and I'm tired, but wanted to get my thoughts on this while it is fresh... I've read some of your comments, and will read them all in more detail later, as I'd like to compare notes...

OK... I feel mixed about it, I really do... I thought I would like Amy Adams and hate Henry Cavill... but --and I know many of you disagree--- but Adams' Lois wasn't strong enough for me. The lines and plot were right in character (and I love her finding out at the start too!), but I needed a stronger delivery on a lot of them. I even bought her being a red-head Lois Lane... but she is just too sweet as Lois.

And Henry Cavill totally floored me! I was unconvinced in the trailers and the posters, but seeing the film, I totally fell in love with his humanity as Clark.

About the killing Zod bit -- here's how I saw it: He saw that Zod would be ruthless no matter what. That was the whole reason for Zod using heat vision, honing in on that family. Clark/Kal/El's human side both won and lost in the same moment. He saw the value of saving the family, and his anger at Zod for wanting to destroy pushed him over the edge. I think his primal scream at the end of that mess was a mix realization of the fact that he had killed someone, and that he was truly, the last of his kind... and it was great that Lois stepped in right there at that moment, to reassert his humanity and his ties to Earth.

Though the special effects were impressive, I thought they were overused to cover up a lack of a deeper story. The plot was pretty predictable most of the way through, though there was some good dialogue.

I liked the nods to LexCorp and I am fairly certain their Smallville is the same as 'Smallville's Smallville... I noticed a Vancouver team in the credits, so that is likely the case...

I now like the new suit, sans red pants. The detail on the cape was quite nice as well...

Overall... I don't know. I think I need to see it a few more times to make my final judgement. It was definitely better than 'Superman Returns'. The effects are of course way and beyond anything we've seen, but there was so much more story in both LnC and Smallville. I know these are TV shows vs a movie, but still... I really wanted them to go in more creative directions than just with the special effects...

One last thought -- best acting of Kevin Costner's CAREER! I think he is usually a very flat, boring actor. But this role really worked for him. That was a surprise to me.

Edit: Just found this review. Has great perspective on the MoS killing Zod issue and JK death:
MoS Review

'If Clark had rejected his father's advice and always risked himself to save others, the story could play out the same way but with a different moral core. Then, when Zod comes and tells the world, "Give me Superman," the world would stand up and say, "No." Because the world needs such a "Superman." The world needs hope and inspiration.

The filmmakers chose to go a different way.'

Really powerful review that doesn't agree with the filmmaker's choices. Written by Andrew Wheeler, who I think is an important voice in comics, no?

Personally, I find the scene with Mrs. Ross ambiguous at best. "Miracle" is a positive term; "sign from God" is probably positive. "Act of God" is generally used for tragic events outside of human control. Saving the kids was not tragic, but I can see it maybe as "no mortal should have the power to decide who should be saved."

I could see Jonathan thinking someone seeing his son as "godlike" as being a negative, something scary.

I read the review above, and I think the reviewer had a point, but I think he was trying too hard to make it.

We did see the scene where Clark avoids reacting to the attack so I think we have seen him act virtuously.

To blame Clark for the attack on earth is just too much. Also, his whole act of voluntarily giving up was helpful.

Anyway, he did save those people on the oil rig, and the people in the bus and lots of others.

I did find his attack on the truck a bit much, but considering how demeaning towards woman that jerk was it seemed reasonable. The stealing of the clothes did disturb me a bit, but I think that Clark's motivations for not coming out as to who he was made sense, even if they were not fully explained.

We may all think "yeah, Superman can have a life as Clark Kent to", but how is he supposed to know that? Considering how much the glasses and restyling his hair is mocked as a way to have a secret identity, can he really be sure that it would work. How could he be, when obviously a really determined journalist like Lois can see through any disguises he puts up?

His only hope is to have the really determined journalists, or at least the most determined, on his side and helping him keep disguised.

On the other hand, I think the death of Zod was unavoidable. The reasons and situations were compelling. I do not think he had any choice there. Maybe I am conditioned by having read the Book of Mormon so many times and having dealt with Nephi killing Laban. Still, there are situations where killing is unavoidable, and dealing with a invading, war fighting enemy is one of them.

I assumed it was a Hobbit reference, since in the Shire 33 is when you become an adult.

I do agree about the time references, we see scenes with the message "You are not alone" in many different languages. Clearly they spent sometime learning the languages, so why is anyone surprised that they learned our units of measurement for time and translated theirs into ours?

I like this idea, it also gives one a sense that some larger period of time has passed.

First, Perry didn't hire him in the sense of a job with hours and a salary. It is made clear Clark is a stringer

2nd why do you see Clark as an unqualified applicant?

We don't know how much time has passed between scenes. It could have been years.

I picture Clark as Superman doing all sorts of things all around the world while Clark as Clark takes classes to prepare for his new job as a reporter.

Imagine him already having finished college before he started wandering the world. Now he goes back, and adds the few classes needed to get a second or third degree, this one in journalism.

He could also use this time period to put some distance between Superman and Lois Lane. After being outed on TV and having the FBI come after her, clearly something needs to be done.

=================

I think the part I liked most was Clark traveling around the world, helping people and moving on.

Years of traveling, hundreds of rescues, time for Clark to make friends, to lose them, to help, to fail to help, to grow as a person.

The filmmakers made Clark kill Zod intentionally. They could have easily made them fight over a Kryptonian dagger (like the one Zod's first hand woman carried), and have Superman accidentally kill Zod. The end result would have been the same. Clark would feel horrible for killing someone, and Zod would be dead. The only difference would be that humans wouldn't see that Superman defended a human family over the life of a Kryptonian (thus choosing us over his home world). Even that could have been achieved if Zod had been aiming the dagger at a human and Superman stopped him, they fought over the dagger, ending with Zod stabbed. The neck-snapping incident was just too anti-Superman IMO. Creatively, they could have found a better way to kill Zod without breaking that important part of Superman's creed.

Well, yes, they could have. But they didn't. As it was written, Clark didn't have a choice. And to me it wasn't choosing a human family over a Kryptonian. He was choosing the entire population of a planet over a murderer who intended to destroy it. Zod specifically said he would not stop. Even if Clark had flown away with him there or turned his head, as soon as he couldn't hold Zod, even for a second, Zod was going to try to kill more people. And they have no Kryptonite and no way to hold him. Clark was intentionally written into a corner, I agree with that. But you can only blame the writers, not the character, for the choice, IMO. And, I admit, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a fan of Superman particularly (I like superheroes, but don't follow Supes specifically) and I know he's killed in the past (albeit rarely) and I think it was necessary in the case, and thus it doesn't bother me.

I also can't agree the angst/guilt is the same over an accidental death. There he can always say "I didn't mean to" (or someone else can say it to try to make him feel better) and now he can't, because he did mean to, and he can be all "what kind of person does that make me." I just can't agree the end result would have been the same. An accidental would have been a cop out to me. Choosing to have Superman find some other way that didn't involve death would have been a writing choice that would have gone in a completely different direction. More traditional (and fine with me), but it wouldn't have the same effect within the story or on the characters. I really think the writers did a good a job of writing Clark into a corner, because two weeks later, I haven't seen a course of action proposed that Clark could have taken to end things differently at that point.

Yeah. I never bought that argument. It didn't make any sense. That would be like killing each and every individual mosquito because everyone but you died of malaria. It seemed a bit like irrational overkill for Zod, who wasn't insane he just didn't believe what Jor-El did on how to keep Krypton alive. Pacifism, the not killing of others, seemed a strong part of Jor-El's beliefs. Zod, on the other hand, was willing to do anything for the survival of his species, even kill off the species of another planet, so that Kryptonians could survive. Killing off a species of a planet out of anger, but with no positive outcome for Krypton, just to spite Kal-El doesn't work for his character... It seems petty. Therefore, that motivation made no sense for Zod. Let me suggest this alternative motivation for Zod's actions instead:

Krypton was dead. All of Zod's soldiers had been sucked back into the phantom zone. All that was left of Krypton for Zod to "protect" (what he admitted was what he was created to do) was himself and Kal-El. Even if Zod killed off every human, it would never have saved Krypton. There was no reason left for Zod to live. So, in Zod's mind, he had lost. But he was a solider, a soldier who never admits defeat. The honorable thing for him to do was die in battle. Only the crux was, on Earth Zod was invulnerable. The only way for him to die would be at Kal-El's hands. Kal-El had been raised by humans and loved humans more than anything. Zod knew that Kal-El hated him for killing Jor-El (amongst other things), so Zod believed he could not accomplish turning Kal-El against Jor-El's core beliefs by threatening to kill the humans, but he could also then die in battle. Therefore, this current ending has Zod tricking Superman into going against his own beliefs, his father's belief's, by killing Zod, which is what Zod wanted (death by superhero).

The only way Clark would be able to have any honor in killing Zod, and not going against his family's beliefs (and, thus, not be duped by Zod), would be if Superman knew going in that Zod wanted him to kill him. Thus, killing Zod would be equivalent (although, not really) to an act of mercy, such as what Clark did with Vatman by flying him into the sun. Unfortunately, if this were the case, it was so subtle that even Clark missed it.

So, sorry, you haven't convinced me that killing Zod, in this manner, was a positive move for Superman.

Okay. So I just got back from seeing MoS a second time with my mom this time (and a few other friends) and surprisingly enough, she had quite a different reaction than I expected. Normally, she comes out of any movie and says she loved it, usually excepting one or two things.

She's torn on it. She hated the backstory in the beginning (bear in mind that she still enjoys the 70's movies despite the fact that they're cheesy and really liked SR) because it took too long (which I can understand-- I like getting the backstory a lot but for the pacing of the movie I get why it could be edited better). She didn't start liking it until they sent the message across the tvs saying "you are not alone."

She liked the actors better than she thought she would-- said Henry Cavill looked a lot like Christopher Reeve especially at the one point near the end when he's destroying the world engine. Which I did notice this time around more, and I'd agree. he's like a 10x better looking version, but at some points it's almost like he could be related.