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

*********THIS DISCUSSION WILL HAVE SPOILERS!!!!!*******

If you don't want to read spoilers before you've viewed the movie, *STOP NOW!* Turn back and following the links to Pre-viewing Discussion of the movie.

(I haven't yet seen the movie, I'm just setting this thread up for the future. Just in case.)

Let the begin!

Wow.

So. Wow.

I'm tired. After the movie got out last night at like 3am, I felt the need to discuss it for another two hours with my friend and my brother. So I went to bed at 5:30, and it's only 9:30 now... my eyes are burning.

I've concluded that I need to see it a secnod and third time to decide what I think about it. It was fun, cuz midnight showings always are, especially in big groups.

I found myself laughing a lot. I was nitpicking from the very start, and I hate myself for that, because I always do that at the movies. I hated the actress who played Lara, and I wasn't too keen on Zod at the start... That being said I still LOVED the movie!!

I LOVED Lois. I didn't think I would. I loved that she found out about Clark's secret before he even was Superman. I loved I actually loved how they made the movie solely based on Clark's origins and how they did the flashbacks throughout. And, much to my surprise, I loved Henry Cavill as Superman. There I said it. I din't like him bearded, but when he was just a little scruffy or clean shaven... He did a good job acting, too. I loved Russel Crowe. I actually loved a lot about this movie, more so than I expected. Glad I went to the midnight showing.

I'm too tired to think of anything else.

Movie: Awesome.

Yeah, that blew me away the most. All the other changes were "Well, they've changed X with every re-telling" or "Well, they're just updating Y because it's modern times, now." But having Lois know from the get-go....it felt...different, and yet kind of right. On the one hand, having Lois be fooled by a pair of glasses for at least a day is an integral part of the whole mythos, and has been from the beginning; but on the other hand, Lois is awesome. Of *course* she would/should know. I don't know how to feel about this part, frankly. I'll say one thing, though, it's a lot better than the nonsense of Supes dating wonder woman.

I liked the movie too. I actually liked him in the beard...maybe my motivations as a male were different <g>. I liked the flashbacks to his childhood best, and I liked Amy Adams as Lois. How he'll be as Clark Kent in the Daily Planet I'll reserve judgment. I liked Perry White being played by Lawrence Fishburn.

I *loved* the fact that they used the stuff I'd written about in my story "Control." (Not that they'd read my story, but still...)

I have to admit overall I am although I have to say that Clark is not really Clark if he apparently does not start being a journalist until he is 33.

at having no memory wipe kiss. OK, I didn't think they would, but still they are clearly not going to do it.

I think Lois figuring out that CK=Kal-el before he goes public and before she names him Superman is a good development. Clark being able to pull the wool over others eyes and not show that CK=SM is doable, but when it is someone who is supposedly the best investigative reporter there is, someone who he is friends with and who he interacts with personally with in both guises, it never works.

I also liked how much Lois had important roles to play in the drama.

One issue though is that with Perry and Jenny seeing Lois and Superman kissing, how is Lois going to have a relationship with Clark without developing suspicion.

I also liked how Lois called him Clark right after they were turned over to Zod, but I still thought "Lois, you are supposed to be protecting his secret".

Well, technically in "Smallville" Lois was never fooled by a pair of glasses. Still, Lois did take a while to realize the hero the man were the same there.

I see why they did Lois finding out here. Mainly my points about Clark fooling Lois never being credible. I also think with 50 years of comics until they got to Lois learns the truth, multiple TV shows where Lois never learns the truth, and putting it off a long time even where she did learn it, you almost have to have Lois learn up front for the whole thing to be exciting.

It fit with this Lois and it worked with the plot. This Lois would always push toward knowing the full truth.

I forgot two biggies!

1. Jenny... like Jimmy? Did they really genderbend? And that's awesome.

2. Superman killed Zod. KILLED. I mean, I get that he had to do it, and I'm totally fine with it... but still... I don't know. Superman doesn't kill.

Loved the kiss at the end He's coming...

Though there was a lot of product placement, too. I wouldn't normally let that get to me but one of them was blatantly obvious and then I couldn't stop noticing. Sigh. I miss the days when I could just watch a movie for fun instead of analyzing it to death on first viewing.

CGI was fairly well done. I enjoyed it actually, and that's hard for me to do sometimes in a live action film.

/will be back when more occurs to me/

I only noticed Lexcorp once, when things were exploding, but there was probably a bunch of stuff I missed.

I noticed Lexcorp on the side of a tanker truck in Metropolis and another truck in Smallville. My husband said that the satellite that Superman destroyed said Wayne Industries, too. I like having Lex in the background like that. He doesn't have to be the villain. He can just exist as part of the landscape.

Overall, I liked the movie, but I had some gripes. My three main gripes were Johnathan Kent's death, Zod's death, and the millions of innocent civilians that died needlessly.

I understand Johnathan's reasons for telling Clark not to save him, and I understand Clark listening to him, but the execution was awful. I had thought that he was going back for a kid who was stuck in a car, but he was saving the family dog. Be as much a dog lover as you want, but no person's life is worth losing over a dog. He should have been saving a kid. Then, Clark could easily have run over at human speed and helped his dad to get under the overpass with everyone else. The situation was not extreme enough that it would have required him to out himself. Use the same setup, have Pa Kent save a kid, and have a car or something fall on him such that Clark would have to visibly use his powers in order to save him, and the scene would have been much better.

Zod's death: Well, I guess they're going for Golden Age Supes, 'cause boy did he kill a lot of people in the 30's and 40's. Always throwing gangsters out of tenth floor windows and stuff. But later Superman changed so that he doesn't kill. I have mixed feelings about it, though, because it wasn't just random murder; it was war. Also, Superman ended up executing the Phantom Zone criminals with kryptonite back in the 80's because he ended up with no alternatives, but he anguished over the decision, and he felt sick about it afterwards. Part of my dislike of Zod's death is that I didn't see any reason why they didn't just have Zod sucked back into the Phantom Zone with everyone else. It didn't really further the story in any meaningful way.

That said, I really liked the way Lois came in and held him afterwards. It was touching, and it was a good bonding moment.

Now for the innocent bystander death: In Superman II, Zod and company were throwing Superman and various vehicles around the city, endangering the civilians. What did Superman do? He flew away to somewhere remote to continue the fight in order to spare the bystanders. In Man of Steel, he just continues throwing punches in the middle of IHOP in Smallville. He throws the other Kryptonians through skyscrapers. How many buildings collapsed that day? How many people worked in those buildings? Enough damage had already been done to Metropolis by the world engine; Superman acted like it was his responsibility to finish off the rest of the city by throwing people through buildings or being thrown through buildings himself. He should have taken the fight away from the city.

Oh, my other gripe was that Clark shouldn't have told the military that he grew up in Kansas. How many people live in Kansas? And he told them how long he's been here. It won't take the military long to track down just who he is.

I liked Lois. She didn't back down from anyone. She was determined to find out the truth about Clark based on a lot of vague information. Then she sat on her findings in order to protect him.

I liked Jor-El. He was a scientist with principles who fought to do what was best for his people. He was forward-thinking and a revolutionary. He was very well done.

My son liked the Kryptonian robots that followed Jor-El and Lara around. I think one was called Kalex, but I want to call it Skeets because it reminds me of Booster Gold's little robot that floats around and talks to him.

I liked Clark's answer to Zod about Clark killing Krypton's future: that Krypton had its chance, and it's over.

I liked how Clark used the Kryptonians' weakness against them: that they haven't learned how to filter out all the sounds and how to use their vision powers. He dropped the ball, though, when he told Zod how his mother taught him to focus on one thing to learn to control it. Zod used that trick later.

Clark's reasons for working at the Daily Planet (besides being near Lois) are very Golden Age. He wants somewhere where he can keep appraised of situations where he might be needed and where he can come and go without question. This is quite different from post-Crisis Clark, who just always wanted to be a journalist because he enjoyed it. He gained a lot of joy and satisfaction from doing well in a field where he was on a level playing field with everyone else.

It was a good action/sci-fi movie all around, but in many ways it didn't feel like a Superman movie. It also felt too much like a first movie setting up for a sequel. I don't mind setups for sequels in general, but this felt too much like it was the primary purpose for the movie. I'm hoping that the next one will feel more like a Superman movie because Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter, will be in it, glasses and all.

So does anyone else agree that this just cries out for an LnC/MoS crossover fic?

Well, I just got back from the theatre. I got there at 6 and the movie started at 6:20 and there were about 5-10 people in the theatre ahead me. It filled up before the start of the film but it wasn't sold out by any means.

I thought the movie was okay. I didn't walk out saying 'that movie rocked!' like I did with Avengers, but it was hands down 200%+ better than Superman Returns. I don't think re-seeing it will make me cringe as rewatching Superman Returns does. It was entertaining, but I knew the story, so not much on the surprise front. A solid "B".

It was some of the minor things that nitpicked me. Clark not being scared over revealing what he could do in front of other people, not being scared that so many people knew by the end that CK=SM, and stating things like "I'm from Kansas" in front of people not in the know. Jor-El taking over the movie. Clark stealing out of the back of the car, didn't like that... even if it was necessary. The fact that everyone called SM the "man in blue" even though the suit wasn't very blue, looked more steel gray to me (*loved* the velvet cape though). That Zod and SM destroyed Metropolis. Zod's comment about it taking them "33 years" to find Earth. Um... Would that be Kryptonian years or Earth years, and how to calculate "years" in space? The comment made by the female army captain(?) about Superman being 'hot'. :rolleyes:

Henry C. made a great Superman. The beard didn't bother me, because it fit who he was at that point in the film. I had no trouble with it. He definitely did well with the conflicted Clark Kent character. Oh, so, very glad he wasn't dark like Bruce (was a bit worried there)! Yea! Conflicted, worried about his mother, wanting to protect people more than himself, friends with Lois from the get-go, and that hating killing Zod, that's our Superman.

Amy Adams (despite the lack of being a brunette) made a good Lois Lane. I like that she broke the rules for a story enough for Perry to punish her. I like that she hunted CK down and found him. I didn't like that it was so easy (it felt like it took less than those two weeks Perry gave her off). If she could find CK so easily, so could someone like Lex Luthor.

I liked the relationship between Clark and Lois. I liked that Lois always called him Clark, except at the army base (although, I didn't like it that she said it in front of the Smallville PD, but since clearly EVERYONE in Smallville knew Clark's secret, except the stupid town bullies, but that didn't really matter because Zod basically destroyed Smallville).

I liked the new retelling of the end of Krypton (better than the boring one at the beginning of Superman:The Movie - yawn), but I didn't like that they kept bringing Jor-El back, and back, and back, and 'let me tell you how to defeat 'em, son'. Enough already! :rolleyes: LnC did it right. Introduce Jor-El to tell Clark his history and THAT's IT! Let Clark figure it out on his own, Dad! Geeze! No wonder Lois is known as the smart one.

Russel Crowe did well as Jor-El, but once he's dead, could he stay dead. Lara was okay, a little whimpy, but she usually is.

I was pleasantly surprised that I liked Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as the Kents. They did an excellent and understated job. This film might be a little traumatic for anyone who has recently lived through a natural disaster.

Perry was underutilized. Come on, you get Lawrence Fishburne to play Perry and then you give him nothing to do, except yell (kind of) at Lois (once) and hold the hand of his intern. Please! Let's hope he does more if they do a sequel.

I kept looking for Jimmy for half the film, then I remembered I heard they switched Jimmy to Jenny, but then they kept showing all these women at the Planet who could be her, so what was the point? She wasn't distinctive enough to pick her up out of a line-up. Jimmy's role is CK's pal and they didn't say two words the whole movie, so I hope a real Jimmy appears later on.

There was a 'Ralph' type character, too, who's name I believe was "Steve?" He was more recognizable as an actual character as opposed to an extra than the "Jenny" character.

I liked the Army colonel (who's name I didn't catch), but I liked that actor from L&O:SVU. And Hamilton makes an appearance as our beloved scientist, too bad he got sucked into the Phantom Zone with Zod's team.

I liked Zod's right hand woman. Very well done. For a second there, when she pulled the Kryptonian dagger out when battling with the colonel, I thought it might be Kryptonite and I kind of hoped the K dagger might make another appearance.

Zod was annoying, but that's his character. He was raised to save Krypton or die trying. Well, isn't that a sad existence once your planet is dead.

I *LOVED* that they used ShayneT's idea in the movie, but I think he should have gotten at least screen credit. Go scientists! Trying something "new". I loved what Clark did to that rude trucker's truck. Brilliant. The glance between SM and Pete Ross as SM and Zod were fighting in Smallville. I liked that. I loved the image of Clark on fire at the oil rig. That was cool imagery. So, was Jonathan Kent's protecting his son's secret with his life. You'd think Clark would honor that sacrifice a bit more by not telling everyone that he's SM. I liked the ending scene with Perry introducing Clark to Lois, but I think he should have put on the glasses BEFORE entering the Planet (again not working on hard on protecting his secret). I loved the LexCorp logo on the gasoline trucks in Metropolis that SM and Zod then blow up. I liked the flashbacks, especially with the young Clark at school. We usually don't get to see how scary it was being him. That worked better than telling everything chronologically.

I did get a bit lost though when directly after the spaceship crashes to Earth, we see the fishing trawler. A "33 years later" would have been nice transition there, on the odd chance there is SOMEONE OUT THERE who doesn't know CK's story. (it's possible, right?)

That the Kryptonian explorers didn't make it at any of their outposts. that Clark learning about his past (interesting that his "Fortress of Solitude" was actually an Kryptonian ship) clued Zod in on where to find him. (Good going there, Jor-El). that Pete Ross bragged that CK is different, even after they became friends. I didn't like that Metropolis is basically flattened by Zod and Superman's battle.

Absolutely HATED that Superman *killed* Zod. True, Zod was about to burn up a family, but -- come on -- how many people died because of the buildings which fell down and Zod and Superman blasted each other through? Plenty more than that one Earth family. True, SM didn't see any of those people die with his own eyes, but still -- they be dead, too. If you really cared about civilian (human) causalities, may I recommend taking your battle to the death with your Dad's arch enemy OUT OF TOWN! At least, Chris Reeve's Superman did that in S2.

Oh, yeah, that kiss between Lois and SM in front of Perry, and Perry doesn't recognize SM as CK? Nah, I don't think so. Too obvious!

That Zod kept using Earth time bothered me, too. Why would he know what 24 hours was? He should have said "one Earth day" or something like that.

As for the army captain or whatever her rank was, I could totally see her comment coming, and it made me cringe. I was expecting her to say it differently, though, more like, "He's very handsome," or "He's totally good-looking." Using the word "hot" made her sound like a teenager.

I had heard that Jimmy was a girl, but I completely forgot about it and assumed that he wasn't in the movie. When I mentioned it to my husband afterwards, he pointed out that that intern was Jenny Olsen. I hope that her cousin/brother Jimmy Olsen shows up later. It's nice that they want more female characters, but making Jimmy a girl completely changes the character's relationship with Superman. You can't have "Superman's Pal Jenny Olsen." If he's paling around with a woman, she would be assumed to be his girlfriend.

I recognized Jenny whenever she appeared, but I didn't really catch her name, and I certainly didn't recognize her as a replacement for Jimmy. I don't think we got enough scenes in the DP to establish what her relationship is with Lois, or anyone else, though.

I was hoping that they would have a regular Jimmy who happens to be cross-dressing for an undercover assignment, though. He did that a lot back in the day. A good example is in All-Star Superman (the comic or the movie).

Steve Lombard is a sports writer for the DP. He's been in the comics since 1973. I've always seen Steve as the prototype for Ralph. I've wondered, actually, why they didn't just use Steve in LnC instead of making up another character. I guess they're not quite the same, though. Ralph has this creepy vibe, but Steve is a jerk jock.

Actually, I was thinking about the fic where our Lois & Clark watch Superman:TMP. Let them watch MOS. Oh, when Lois sees that MOS Lois learned who Superman was before there was even a Superman - learned it in a few days. She would throw a fit. It would be hilarious.

I find the genderbending usually without purpose, but I'm not sure if they did that here or not. Promotional (a book) said Jenny Olsen (or so I read), but someone at SHH posted a screencap where her name tag read "Jenny Jerwich." So I don't know.

Oh, that bugged me. Especially since a small town in Kansas was the first attacked and he gave them his age. Check the high school yearbooks for the right timeframe, and there he is.

Now my thoughts:

I've only seen it once, and I'm a person who likes to watch things multiple times. Sometimes I love something and keep loving it (usually), but sometimes it just falls apart on subsequent viewings, and, on rarer occasions, sometimes I appreciate it a lot more of subsequent viewings. So these are all first impression thoughts.

I knew almost nothing going in - I'd heard that the Kents didn't want him using his powers, saw one trailer on the website, and the teaser trailer. Nothing else - I don't think. I don't even think I knew Zod was going to be the villain. I almost didn't see the movie because I have firm opinions about what the Kents should be, and I didn't like what I was hearing.

I enjoyed the movie a lot. I did not think it perfect or amazing. But I did like it.

I loved how Lois tracked him down so quickly. I like what it says about her investigative skills. I love that we saw that she was an amazing investigative reporter. I liked how they talked and how she knew he wouldn't stop helping and said she'd be able to find him that way. It was lovely. A mention of him always having to come back to visit mom would have been nice, but given the themes of this particular movie, I could say it might have been awkward - distracted from the point being made about his heroism. I liked her followup of dropping it. I liked this Perry - he didn't shout and he's ...quieter, I guess, than some Perrys. Both when he refused the original story and when he knew she was lying about her leads, he just kept his calm, said it like it was and such.

I love Lois knowing early. So there aren't jokes on her lack of knowledge that make her look stupid. And she's really part of the action, so that's great.

I did enjoy Jor-El and Lara more than I usually do. I'm a fan of the Kents, and I felt nothing for Jor-El and Lara in TMP or LNC (did like them in the animated series, though). Jor-El was a bit too good at everything, I'll grant, and Lara didn't do much. But Lara had gravitas about her, despite that, and seemed a strongish sort for some reason. It was very interesting how they were never going to go with Kal-El. It wasn't the selfishness of making their son an orphan because of not wanting to leave their world (or one not wanting to leave the other, if one parent could have gone), but rather that they believed they were part of the failed order, that the Kryponians could have their bright future and free destinies with them there. I don't necessarily agree - they broke their bounds already by having that child, and I think they could have contributed, been there and still accomplished their goal. But they don't think they could, and that's what matters. I also found under-reacting holo-Jor-El quite amusing.

I was very disappointed in the Kents, particularly Jonathan. I love the idea that Clark is the hero he is because of how they raised him. I know that is by no means a defining characteristic of the Kents across all versions, but it's a version I love. Here, that simply isn't the case. His father says maybe he should let a bus load of kids die?! No, just no. Instead of being a hero because they raised him to help when he could, he's innately heroic, and they try to discourage him from it because of the risk to himself. He's a hero despite of their guidance, not because of it. I will grant it maybe a "do as I say, not as I do" thing because Jonathan stopped to help the other woman with a child. And Jonathan didn't break his own rules, even for his own life. But I still disliked that aspect of the Kents.

Following up on heroic - I liked Clark and the oil rig. People are in danger, and he has to help. I love it. And the workers there might have been a bit discombobulated when the door was ripped off, but they followed him because he upped their chances of getting out alive and getting out alive is exactly what they wanted. Also like how the pilots were like "get that last guy" - nice to see other people caring about saving lives, too. Then he was holding up the thing so they could get out and they saw that and they left. But that wasn't leaving him to die, since he was already doing the impossible.

I liked Supes talking the military folks - him breaking the handcuffs was fun. I enjoyed all the scenes where they were on the spaceship. I'm slightly confused as to why they wanted Lois, though. I'd thought they were going to use her as a bargaining chip against Kal-El, but they never did. Then again, she did escape her cell almost immediately.

But the Smallville action sequence followed by the Metropolis action sequence just went on too long, got too repetitive. I got bored.

But the ending was nice, and Perry and pals saw Lois kiss Superman (well, the alien, they don't know his name yet). And they don't necessarily know he's the hero. He didn't have establishing heroics in-costume in this version, so he not so much a known entity to them. And many people in Smallville must know Clark is the alien. Several incidents in childhood, then they know aliens with powers exist and the battle happens there. And the cop saw Lois call Superman "Clark."

I'd love to see fanfic about how the world perceives Superman right now. I expect Lois will push the heroism as far as Perry will let her. But Zod came to this planet only because of alien, so some people might blame him for just being here. They don't know he's a hero yet. He doesn't have the past actions or the publicity. And some will undoubtedly think of it as just a battle between aliens, not accepting/realizing that the reason for Superman's battle was to save earth and that he lost a chance to bring his people back over it. At least until Lois gets writing (somehow I don't think her three weeks leave without pay is going to stick). I expect the military/government will publicly say "he's on our side" no matter what they actually believe because they don't want to panic people. How much will they want Lois to keep secret - and how bad will they fail at that?


What do you want for the sequel?

I think Lois should be showing him the ropes as a reporter. As far as we know, he neither any training, experience, or education in the field.

I'd really like to avoid the the Lois-wants-him-to-use-his-powers-for-her-story thing. I dislike that idea intensely. Lois is very, very good on her own.

I can't decide if it would be amusing or annoying to have someone else see his lack of experience and wonder how he got the the job.

Obviously follow-up on the subset of the population that rejects Superman, those that might blame him for drawing Zod here, would be good to me. I'm not sure how I want Lex to play in in that. I mean, him using anti-Superman sentiment, even whipping it up further, seems quite feasible to me, given the themes of MOS. But they really gave Zod a motivation, a reason, for his nature, his actions. So what is Lex's reason for what he is doing - why does he hate Superman? What does he gain from destroying him? If they go the scienc-y route with Lex, would the codex in Superman's blood be of use to him?

As for any potential anti-Superman sentiment - I'd like to see that the DP made sure they put out Superman as hero. Because he is, of course. And Lois knows that he gave himself up and how he did this to save them at the expense of his own people being reborn. Not sure how much of that will be publicly available - what would Perry allow to be published? Unlike the beginning of the movie, the public is now willing take seriously anything Lois might write about it. It will be interesting how much the DP shapes pubic opinion on Superman. And how do the other DP staffers feel about him? Of course, this aspect on how soon after MOS a sequel picks up.

I am fervently hoping there is no mindwipe of Lois - and I don't think there will be. But a tiny part of me still worries, given her history. I want to see more of the Lois/Clark dynamic, of them learning more about each other. But we can't see all that, of course, because there's only so much time in a movie. Some of it will have to alluded to or implied. Or have already happened off-screen, between movies. But I'd like to see some, and some of the two of them being reporters - perhaps as a lead-in to a plot-point or action scene. I don't want really-dweeby Clark. I always liked the Clark-as-the-real-guy version. Well, most of the real guy, anyway. That way he can have real relationships, friendships, etc. But, since Lois does know the truth, he can already have that relationship, even if he plays the dork. But it they go that way I so want Clark and Lois to rehearse/try-out some of the dorky bits as a humorous scene.

How does Perry treat Lois in the aspect of her potentially knowing Superman's identify? Does he want to publish it? Or want her to consider it? No, I think he knows she won't (phone conversation in MOS), but how does he feel about it? Think it's just being a responsible journalist? And will we get some implication that he's a smart enough journalist himself that he can put those pieces together and see that it's Clark (but never tip his hand to them)?

Emotional issues over having had to kill are likely to plague Clark. I don't want that to overshadow everything else, but as a recurring theme and part of a larger whole, it could work well.

Lastly, I guess, I want to see how Clark reacts to having a permanent place. It seems he was a traveler before, he didn't forge new connections of any depth. He always had to ready to walk away a moment's notice, as soon as something happened? Now we the issue that he can put a costume and then go back to work afterwards. Does he maybe consider running when something happens? He is using his real name now, and I don't think he was before (he definitely wasn't as "Joe", but Lois' talk about tracking him down indicate he wasn't the other times, either, I think). I don't think running will come up - I think he's past that. But maybe. It's just an interesting thought, how making himself a permanent place might effect his non-Lois, non-Mom relationships.

ETA: Forgot to mention these two bits - I loved Lois and Supes talking when he was handcuffed. He was like "if it makes them feel better..." and I wondered about the handcuff scene with soldier when I saw the promo. Once I saw it and I realized they had no clue he was super strong, it made more sense.

Also - there's a big plot-hole in the movie. It can probably be fanwanked, but there's no explanation given in-movie (that I recall): why did Zod want to make Earth his new Krypton? They can terraform planets, so why not pick one with no life on it? Then Kal-El might have been more agreeable to Zod getting the codex (well, he didn't trust him anyway, but still). Why did it have to be Earth. I mean, I know Earth was closest, but it's such a small inconvenience to go elsewhere and avoid genocide.

Okay, that thing drove me CRAZY! I could not take it seriously and when it cropped up with Lara's face I just kept laughing. It looked like those little toys you stick your hand against and it leaves and impression... shoot, I don't remember what they're called. Anyway, it was neat and cheesey at the same time for me.

100% agreed, Virginia! I think the strongest scene for me was right after he saved Lois from the jettisoned spacecraft and they're getting close and it looks like they're about to kiss, and then there's that moment RIGHT THERE where Clark pulls away and has this look on his face and then takes off... Then when he attacks Zod defending his mother-- that scene was just perfectly done! That's probably one of my favorite parts of all.

Did anybody else expect at least someone in the military to be Gen. Sam Lane? I kept looking for him, but nada.

I think you're right on this for the sequel, Tzgonc. I'd like to see it adressed a little bit more, but I don't want them to do the whole PTSD thing, like with (spoiler) Ironman 3.

My other last thought: As far as I'm aware, they *are* planning on making a sequel, and they *are* planning on using Lex Luthor to some extent or another. Here's some of my issues with that-- Lex Luthor is my favorite Superman villain. I would be ecstatic to see him done right on the big screen. I would squeal and fangirl my little heart out. But I don't know how they would work it. In my mind, he'd have to be a John Shea kind of Lex Luthor, not anything else. Someone Superman can't come right out and attack, just shady and who gives Clark a bad feeling but can't pin anything on. There's so much difficulty in pulling that off though. It's one thing in a tv show, where every episode is kind of different, and it's following a whole arc. That's where they went wrong with the former Superman movies-- Lex Luthor wasn't really a sinister villain, he escaped jail at the start of each next movie, and the only thing he had to rely on was Kryptonite. Which made him an opportunist, not a villain.

But that's kind of the point, I guess. Movies, especially superhero movies, *need* action. Otherwise it ends up like SR and it falls flat. They came out of the gate swinging with Zod and crew in this one-- sequels usually have to be even stronger action-wise to hold up. I don't see how you can make Luthor stronger without the addition of Kryptonite.

Also, how the heck are they ever going to use Kryptonite?! I know the director's gone on record saying some stuff about not wanting to use it, and there was a very obvious lack of it in MoS. My question is that how on earth can you go an entire movie where you see Krypton's explosion, Clark's arrival to Earth, Zod's arrival to Earth, a scout ship from Krypton, and terraforming Earth into Krypton without once ever running into something that, hey, glows green and kinda hurts. And if it is the case that they are going to bring up Kryptonite eventually, how are they going to explain that lack? On the other hand, how do you make a series of Superman movies without even one nod to Kryptonite?? I understand that it's kind of cheesey giving him one weakness, fine, but it's an integral part of Superman's character. The public as a whole has adopted the phrase "my Kryptonite" into the vernacular (mine, btw, happens to be chili cheese fries :p ). You can't not include it.

The only other possibility for Kryptonite that I can think of is the idea that it could have been accidentally formed during the attempted terraforming process. They focused a lot on the differences between Krypton and Earth's atmospheres; perhaps the combination created this substance that is a lethal combination to Kryptonians? Or maybe humans too? I don't know, but it's something that's kind of weighing on my mind.

Agreed. He can't be obvious or a known criminal. I thought perhaps he could be associated with the military or government and influencing persons in power to an anti-Superman POV, maybe creating some problems and attributing them to Superman (like our Lex did with the heat). If he's sciency, he might want access to Clark's blood so engineer super solider or gain immortality/power himself. Others have recommended the idea that he plays philanthropist, contributing a lot to the rebuilding of Metropolis. Possible owns a competing media outlet? I'm curious to if he'll have a reason to be Superman's enemy, given how well (I think) they did with Zod.

That is an extremely intriguing idea.

ETA: I have to admit, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of LNC watching MOS. Lois would think of the military and their plans about Supes in LNC when the military acted here. Might think about Nor. Clark would react to Zod attacking Martha. And they'd both be really impressed by the special effects. Lois would call reboot, especially after seeing Zod again. Not sure how it'd work with them watching a future made movie, though.

It just dawned on me we learn nothing about Lois's family from the film. Is this unusual for Superman films, or have their been other ones where we did not learn about Lois's family?

On Clark saying he grew up in Kansas, there are 2.8 million people in Kansas. That averages out over 300,000 births a year, probably well over that. Even if they could be sure he had come as an infant, that still would be looking for 1 in 150,000 births. That might give them a head start, but in and of itself would not be enough.

On the other hand, since Lois found him without even having the Kansas lead, it would not be hard for someone else to as well.

I don't really see any reason we would learn anything about Lois' family. So far as I recall (and my memory of III and IV is almost non-existent, and it's been a while since I watch II), the only reference to Lois' family in the four Reeve movies was a one-liner saying her sister had kids, cats and mortgage. And did SR mention any relative except her son?

Yeah, but the first attack was in a small town in Kansas. So starting with that town is logical, and that's a lot fewer people to go through. I am assuming (I don't think we saw) that Clark flew the spaceship to the Colonel in Smallville instead of calling him out to the farm to collect it, of course. It was that ship, wasn't it? Not the artic one?

For once LnC Lois will not have to rip on a movie Lois for totally ignoring Clark. Although this Lois will have even more grounds to say "Well Duh, Clark Kent is Superman" to LnC Lois then Tempus ever did. This Lois dug the fact CK=Kal-el out with total grit and determination, no touches or kisses or looks or vanishing sequences to lead her on.

On the Jenny Olsen thing, I remembered reading the speculation, and I think I clued into the right actress early on, but I have to admit that even half knowing she was rumored to be "Jenny Olsen", I was not convinced until near the end of the show.

I guess the question is, if Lois is 100% in on the secret even before Clark is brought on at the planet, than does Clark need anyone except Lois? Over time Lois has become so much Clark's support and accomplice, that the need for Jimmy has been lessened. In L&C, Jimmy was often more Lois's friend than Clark's.

I think Perry was a much less developed character than he could have been. I would not mind them actually bringing in Jimmy, but Jenny has a place too.

My theory on why Zod wanted Lois on the ship was that he could tell Kal-el had feelings for her, and that he figured as long as she was safely off the world he might agree to their plan of killing all the humans to make room for the Kryptonians.

However Zod never presented that angle. It seemed more like Zod may have tried to learn the truth of how Clark had been raised from Lois, but even that was less than clear.

On the issue with "why do they have to terraform earth", my first reaction is, terraforming won't overcome the planet not being in the right orbit. Still, I would have to agree it is an issue that was not really adequately dealt with.

Oh, one unaddressed thing - not a plot-hole, just something we don't know the answer to (yet): What happened to Zod's body? Did Clark get rid of it? Did the military collect it? Will it somehow end up in private (Luthor?) hands? I don't know if/when an autopsy would be possible, but I can understand why Clark wouldn't want anyone to know very much about Kryptonian biology.

I think that, if he thought about it, Clark would take the body and be gone before anyone else arrived (and then, after finding some way to dispose of the body, either being alone to ponder or going to get comfort/reassurance from Lois or Martha). But Clark is emotionally raw, and not experienced with the aftermath of battle yet, so I could also understand if he didn't think of it. But I'd think Lois would. What do you think?

/shudders/ That's a chilling thought. I would guess that he didn't consider it, and the military has it somewhere-- which is scary as anything. If Lex Luthor is in any capacity involved with the government, I can see him (or even just generic govt) using Zod's body for nefarious purposes... Perhaps ending up with some cloning projects...

Or perhaps this is how Kryptonite is manufactured. The govt finds Zod such a threat, they need to create something just in case Superman ever decides to turn on them or some other Kryptonians stumble upon Earth... It ends up somehow in the wrong hands-- in Lex Luthor's hands-- and no one wants to take responsibility.

It's a very interesting thought. And if Clark did get rid of the body, there'd be some other frightening implications there-- the guilt for one thing.

I just don't know. I could completely see Clark not thinking about it, but what about Lois - she's there, too. But maybe she wouldn't think of it, either. She's had a busy day, and she's not used to thinking in those terms yet, of aliens existing, etc. It's relatively new. In any event, if they wanted to use it, it could totally be used in a sequel.

I don't know if there'd be guilt for disposing of the body, depending on how he did it. Burial is common here (in ice?), but cremation is not unusual, and he could maybe be okay with that. He could try saying a few words, but that'd probably make him feel dishonest/hypocritical, since he killed the guy. But knowing Clark, you're probably right and he'd feel like he was treating the body like trash to be disposed of.

Side note: timeline question? My thought was that Lois came immediately back to Metropolis (after being saved by "Joe"), wrote the story, then tracked down Clark in a matter of days, at most. Others seem to think it took her months to track it down. And she didn't really seem to be injured later in the movie. Thoughts?

I just have to squee about the movie!

It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen but it was solid. And it's Superman.

Many posters have already commented upon things, and I'll probably be repeating. Bear with me.

I liked that they had a whole lot more of Krypton than usual. The movie did a good job of showing an alien culture, an alien landscape, different and alien ways of living. The flying insectoid personal transports were just so "out there" it was neat. I wonder if every Kryptonian citizen gets a personal flying animal, or do you have to be an eminent scientist to do so? And do all families live in these towering defensive citadels? If Krypton is so advanced, how come Jor-El and Lara's dwelling had intruder repelling technology?

Usually, in Superman movies, Krypton is mentioned in passing, or not shown at all. OK, well, maybe they show it, but they tend to just show it exploding . I believe that so far, every TV show or movie has had a flashback to Krypton's destruction. Here\'s the version from \'Smallville\' . I'm too lazy to dig up the ones from the animated series (although I know it happened) and from "SR" (actually, did they have Krypton's destruction in there, or just the remnants?)

/returns from irrelevant tangent/ Anyway, it was a nice change to see so much of Krypton. And it turns out to very important to the movie, which is very much focused on Clark fitting in, trying to balance his Kryptonian nature with his Earth nurture.

Agreement with those above who argued that Jonathan Kent was just not right in this film. As (whoever) said, it's like Clark became Superman not because of him, but in spite of him. I can't ever see the L&C Jonathan telling Clark (basically) that he should have let those kids on the bus die to protect Clark's secret. i just can't believe that they had Jonathan even suggest that! All through the Superman mythos, J&K have been stalwart in suggesting that Clark save lives, even if it blows his secret. Sure, they'd prefer that Clark keep his powers on the down low, but if it came down to people getting killed, we know which way they'd go and what they would teach Clark to do.

Perhaps that's why the writers had Jonathan Kent die in such a manner as he did on the show - Clark not using his powers, not showing what he could do, even at the expense of his adopted father's life. (And I have to agree with the previous posters that the set-up was lame, very lame. The family dog? Come on!

With the killing, Clark's innocence is lost. Does this correlate to America of the 1930's and post-WWII, when we were the good guys (Superman not killing) and now we are doing some ethically dubious things (pick the political program of your choice)? Have we, the country, lost our innocence as well?

OK, no more of that. Going back to movie talk: I agree with all the posters who pointed out that Clark is really not doing much to keep the secret identity going. Let's see:

- rescues a bus as a kid
- saves a bunch of people on a going-up-in-flames Arctic oil rig (which I had to admit was a great action scene) in full view of tons of people
- tells the Army colonel that he grew up in Kansas
- tells somebody else that he's been on Earth for 33 years
- leaves a trail of miraculous rescues (I like this, it's sort of like our LnC Clark) where he has to move on because people are getting suspicious
- the alien spaceship lands in Smallville, in his mother's backyard! Gee, do you think that people might want to backtrack where the alien ship landed, and draw conclusions about why it landed where it did?

Plus, the government could just check the metadata on Lois Lane's phone calls and GPS in her phone (given that they've got that data collection program going on in real life ) and find out where she's been. If they suspect that Lois Lane knows Superman's civilian identity (which they will, given that the FBI arrested her on suspicion of this in the first part of the movie), why wouldn't they go back and trace her movements? That would narrow down their search significantly.

Look at the intelligence effort expended on the Boston Marathon bombings. Can you tell me that tracking down an alien (ok, the alien on our side, but still an alien with astounding powers and a member of a race who almost destroyed the Earth) wouldn't gather the same or more effort? Maybe Clark had better deploy some Kryptonian technology to confound his searchers.

Things I didn't like, or got tired of:
- there was an absolutely insane amount of property destruction
- what about all the people that got killed when Metropolis got to be the unwilling host of a super-battle? (I'm just hoping that everyone evacuated in time.

Things I really liked:
- the swirl of the cape when Clark is walking in the Arctic
- Lois finding out on her own, and tracking Clark down before he's "out" as Superman. It shows that she deserves her Pulitzer Prize. She's not galactically stupid; she's the one who finds out things first.
- Clark getting up from the interrogation table and casually breaking the handcuffs
- the colonel saying "This man is not our enemy"
- the communication tech in the war room - "They're calling him Superman now" (but we know that Lois said it first in the interrogation room, she just got interrupted)
- Clark Kent with his tousled hair and glasses being introduced as a new stringer for the Daily Planet
- and best of all, because I hope for sequels, Lois Lane meeting Clark Kent's eye and saying, "Welcome to the Planet" or was it, "Welcome to the planet"? I like the double meaning there. A great way to end the movie.

Oh, I know. It was pathetic. But I will say that Jonathan didn't want Clark to use his powers, so at least he didn't have a double-standard where it suddenly became okay to risk Clark's secret when it was his own life on the line.

I think squeaky-clean, non-killing-Superman came in the 40s (maybe the radio show developed it because parents heard it, unlike with comics? or did the comics do it first?), but am not sure. I've definitely seen other people on the Internet reference him killing in the early comics. Of course, he also didn't have nearly the amount of power in the early comics. He wasn't nearly strong, didn't have supervision (much less X-ray vision), etc. When a being has that much of power advantage, they don't have to kill anyone - it's too easy to disarm and capture their opponent. They took that advantage away here. I don't mind it, myself, but I'm not a die-hard Superman fan (more of a Lois and Kent-family fan, usually). I want him to be good, to not kill needlessly, but I'm okay with it if they write him into a corner, as they did here. Better that he kill the killer than let the killer kill others.

And, as has been mentioned elsewhere, Ursa and Zod got thrown into deep pits in Superman II - and that would seem deadly (and unnecessary, as they were depowered). But then there's the UNused arrest footage.

Absolutely love that he does that. He wants to save people. He chooses his way over Jonathan's, in that regard. But do you think he's using his real name when working those other jobs? I was thinking not, because then Lois wouldn't have had to track him as much, but am not positive. That goes back to the "permanence" thing I mentioned in my other post.

Oh, I know, I got so tired of it. And then when they move to a new section of the city, it seems the residents don't know what's going on in the other section of the city. Big city. I also noticed there didn't seem to be any tv news people trying to get in on the scene - I don't think there are any public photos or video of Superman yet.

Oh, I love that. I love her being in on things from the start. She comes off as just brilliant and talented and very good at what she does. Plus it gets rid of treading the same "she swoons over me in my other outfit" story. And she was literally only minutes behind him getting into the spacehip - I love that.

I really like that it enables honesty and trust in their relationship from day 1. I was just thinking about this because I read a MOS fic where Lois thinks how she always believes what Clark says, and also I watched '78 Superman earlier today and Superman there says "I never lie" which is an absolutely huge lie.

It also puts the more equal footing. It doesn't have him with all the power and the knowledge and her the crushing (and very overwhelmed, at first) school girl. Yes, he saves his life as soon as he sees her, but he does it as man, not a superman. He's in normal clothes, he's holding her hand, and he's talking to her like a normal person instead of spouting one-liners. He's physically close to her, and she can see his face, and will know him when she sees him again, and that's vulnerability, a risk he takes when he saves lives. He's not larger than life to her despite his powers. Once she investigates him, she discovers his rescue of her is not a fluke. She knows the kind of man he is by his deeds. And she holds his secret and he just has to trust she'll do the right thing with it, and she will. He says he can disappear, but he can't, because his nature won't let him stand by when people are in danger, and she knows that. And, though her keeping that secret, he knows the kind of person she is. It's a very solid foundation for their relationship, IMO.

I liked that, I really did, but I liked the conversation while he was still handcuffed even better. He was just making them comfortable and Lois knew it and it just lovely. They had no idea the powers he had - flight was all they'd seen.

Yeah, Lois was one the party sending the message, so I assume she told the Colonel that's what he was called and that's what the Colonel said the communication tech.

Wonder what Lois' colleagues think of her kissing "the alien" when they see it? I mean, he's not "Superman" in the public consciousness yet. Though I'd think Perry, at least, would know he was Lois' rescuer, and a good guy, not bad like Zod.

I saw the movie this last night and had to share my observations.

I really, REALLY, enjoyed the movie!

If this isn't a well-received Superman movie, then there never will be one. From top to bottom I think this is about as good as you can do with a Superman movie where you had to cover all the origin issues as well as having another story beyond that. Given the way a movie has to be made to be a success in this era, I honestly believe that this was very close to as good as you are going to get. There is always room for improvement, but they did a heck of a good job.

Generally I agree with many of the comments that are already here. I thought the weakest role was Jonathan Kent. Costner wasn't bad, bit he had the weakest character in a movie where most of the other actors and roles were top-notch. I was particularly impressed with Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Antje Traue as Faora-Ul. If Faora-Ul would have had more screen time, then Antje Traue might have stolen the movie.

As for Clark killing Zod, I was a little surprised, but what else do you do? Zod has made it clear that he was going to kill everyone in his reach and that he would continue to kill until every human was dead. Given the circumstances, what was Clark supposed to do? I think in that context (no Kryptonite and no Phantom Zone projector) this was the only honest answer for what to do with Zod.

I love that Lois is in on his identity right from the start. I just hope that they make enough money to green-light the sequel where we can see the real Lois/Clark relationship get going.

Bob

Originally posted by Tzgone:
He doesn't use his real name. One of the people Lois approaches with his pictures in her investigations says "Yeah, that's Joe." So at least in one circumstance we know that he's not really using his real name.

Also, the scene where he's first in the suit and flying means he didn't fly before, right? So he literally was travelling the old fashioned way around the world. He could jump, but flying wasn't an option. Or at least that's how I interpretted it?

Given Superman's status in society, I'm not convinced that the movie needed to cover his origin in the first place.

Yes, those records are falsified (Lois says so in the voiceover for her article), but that was the job that got him close the spaceship, so it might be different with the other jobs where he was just drifting. I personally think he was using fake names there, too, given the other hints.

I agree. It was only when Jor-El told him to start testing his limits (something the Kents weren't big on) that he tried jumping as far as he could which led to him realizing he could fly.

BTW, am I misremembering or did Jor-El not talk about Kal-El being great and wonderful in this version until after he was grown and Holo-Jor-El met the man he became? If that's correct, I like it.

My sister brought up an interesting idea. She thought maybe the reason Jonathan was telling Clark not to risk his secret was to further the theme that Kal-El didn't have to choose the role society would choose for him. Not sure if that really works, when combined with Jonathan's "change the world" talk, though.

For this movie, I think the origins were a necessity. Zod and Kryptonian society factor in too heavily to not be addressed/explained earlier on. And if Lois is supposed to know who Superman is before he's Superman, then we need to see that on-screen instead of being told about it later - departs to radically from the story the broader public is familiar with.

This movie raised the question "How will the people respond to Superman's existence?" but we didn't get an answer. "Superman" hasn't even been introduced to the public yet. I'd love for the next movie to pick up just a couple weeks after this one ended. On the one side, you have Lois' editorials in the Daily Planet endorsing Superman. On the other you have someone (Luthor?) raising sentiment against him. Not sure if I'd have the government play in. You could either have villain raising negative sentiment (framing Supes for something?) or just the general populous. In MOS, he was intentionally given a far murkier intro. He wasn't established before the action, no one knows who he is - to the public, he's an alien, not "Superman". Zod wouldn't have come to Earth if not for him, so you can see why people wouldn't like him. And while the military knows that Superman fought Zod to save the planet, the general population may just see it as two aliens fighting each other, not knowing much about the attempted terraforming. I'm sure Lois will try to clear thing up, but she might not universally trusted. And how much will the government cofirm/deny her story? I'd think the movie would with Superman's acceptance and his birth as the public hero we're familiarly with him as.

So many things I want to follow up on there. I'll be very, very disappointed if they skip all that.

I agree that they couldn't do this movie without his origin, since that was the entire movie anyway. What I meant was that they didn't need to set out to tell an origin story. They could have done a movie where Superman is already an established hero and Clark already works for the Daily Planet, and none of the audience would have been lost wondering where this "Superman" guy came from.

Given this movie, the movie I was wanting is going to be the second one. What they've done, though, in retelling the origin is change Superman's relationship with the government and the public from what it's been for decades. I've got mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, it's a very modern take on the character, which doesn't necessarily win points with me. In many ways, it's more realistic and less idealistic. I like Superman because it's escapism, not because I want a realistic portrayal of things. On the other hand, the early Superman comics had the police trying to capture him and the general populace terrified of him, so it's taking Superman back to his roots, which I can respect.

This movie was a good beginning for a series. I just think that they could have jumped into the middle, and it would have worked.

I can't say as much as I'd like right now. (I'm typing on my iPad with a child asleep on my shoulder.). A couple of thoughts, though:

1. I agree with Bob aboutt Clark killing Zod. Zod has declared his genocidal intent for the entire human race. That's also why Clark couldn't take the fight elsewhere; Zod is out to kill humans, not to kill Clark. If Clark had flown off, Zod wouldn't have followed him. He would just have started systematically slaughtering every human in sight. So, although the collateral damage was distasteful to me, I don't see how Clark could have avoided it. This is also a very inexperienced hero, so he gets a lot of slack from me.

2. Ditto everyone's disgust with JK dying to save the dog. Sorry, dog lovers, but you owe it to your wife and son to not risk your life for the dog. Personally, I would have saved my dad whether he liked it or not. Let him yell at me later when he's safe.

3. The part I did admire about this JK is how he taught Clark to be nonviolent. That's what made Clark so heartbroken over having to kill Zod. He'd spent his whole life disciplining himself not to strike back, but in the end Zod gave him no choice.

4. Loved how Lois and Clark worked in tandem to save earth. This Lois is no damsel in distress. She's Clark's equal, not his groupie.

5. Perry must know S=CK. it's the only possible reason he'd hire a completely unqualified applicant like Clark. Either that, or Clark forged credentials the same way he forged previous identities for previous jobs.

6. Yes, Several times I wanted to shout at Clark to st giving all his secrets away.

As mrsMxyztplk mentioned, Superman killed Zod in the 80s-90s comics, but he then self-exiled himself for months out of guilt and a feeling that he was a danger to the world. This synopsis covers it fairly well: http://sequencedestroyer.tumblr.com/post/41958300720/021-superman-exile

In the movie, he was clearly anguished at the time, but we don't see any ongoing remorse (about Zod or any of the presumable thousands of Metropolis bystanders). Maybe it took place between scenes, but it would have improved the movie to show some of it. They certainly could have have traded out some of the miscellaneous property destruction scenes.

Now that I think about it, such a transition could have also covered his decision to operate openly. Yes, he had decided to expose himself to appease Zod, but that's different from being an everyday superhero, throwing the fact of alien existence into everyone's faces on a regular basis.

Like others, Jonathan's character bothered me, but I think it's important to recognize that his motivation for secrecy was not Clark's personal safety -- I think we're projecting that from L&C. Instead, this Jonathan believed he was protecting the world from information it was not ready to handle. Letting a few die for the greater good is an understandable position, though not something we generally associate with Superman.

I don't agree with Clark self-exiling in this circumstance - it does no one any good and it's just running away. No, we don't see ongoing remorse afterwards - it's the end of the movie. We've seen the climax, and it makes no sense to continue the movie for very long after that. It would have less impact. They just close it up with a tag (which I'd say very soon after the battle) - an upbeat one, even. Hopefully we will see some guilt in the sequel - not that I think he should feel guilty (I think he did the best he could, the best that could be done), but I think it's in character for him to agonize a bit over Zod's death. I certainly don't think he should self-flagellate over the deaths in Metropolis/Smallville. Mourn for them, absolutely - blame himself, no.

I mean, I wouldn't have minded some of the building-falling being replaced with plot/character-driven material - I'd have loved it. But we didn't need significant time after the climax - that just isn't the pacing I'd prefer.

I disagree with this entirely. That makes being a hero (openly) being about being under the judgement of the public eye. It's negative. It should be positive - about embracing what he's always wanted to be. It should be about choosing his destiny himself, as his birth parents wanted for him. That is the theme to me in the movie - that Clark always wanted to be a hero, to make a difference, but would never allow himself to live that way. He'd move on every time he did, because he thought the world wasn't ready or he wouldn't be accepted - letting society dictate his destiny. Now he he takes a stand and claims his own destiny - the one he wants.

I disagree with this. It was about Clark's safety to me - because of the way the world might react, it would make his son unsafe. And, frankly, if Jonathan is taking it upon himself to decide what the world is ready for, that is Doctor-level (Doctor Who) arrogance. I mean, wow! What greater good is accomplished by preventing people from learning a great truth? He doesn't say anything about society collapsing or rampant murder, does he? It's all in terms of Clark.

Speaking of this bit - I didn't think Mrs. Ross seemed scared or rejecting. She was very positive and attributing Clark's uniqueness to God and treating it like a good thing. She seemed more awed than fearful to me. That has it own potential set of Very Bad Consequences, but she didn't seem ready to start a chapter of the Friends of Humanity.

I agree that Mrs. Ross didn't seem scared by Clark's abilities, more gossipy "did he get his powers from God?" sort of thing. It wasn't as if she attributed Clark's abilities to the Devil which would have been a negative viewpoint. I was confused a bit by Jonathan's reaction there. Of course, having Clark being thought of as a "powers from God" figure is a scary thought and I could see why Jonathan wouldn't want that for his son.

I have to agree with your assessment of Jonathan's character flaw here. He should never have told Clark not to save his peers on the bus, perhaps scolded him for doing it so overtly (like standing there in full few of what I'm guessing was supposed to be Lana, since she looked like Lana from the Smallville series, for several seconds before diving into the water to save Pete). Nevertheless, Clark clearly follows his own gut and continues to save people despite his father's advice. Clark knows that risking his own safety isn't worth the death of others. I'm hoping this means less use of this plot device in the future.

3) I prefer this death to the trite and overdone heart attack. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's canon.) Jonathan is showing his son that it is important to risk oneself for others (even the dog), but I'm sorry Clark didn't receive the message with his father's dying action "my life is less important to me than protecting your secret". Clark seems to take it the other way, and risks exposing his secret with almost every other rescue after that. (Oh, sure, he'd move on, change his name again, but the breadcrumbs were easily found my Lois.)

4) So nobody's bashing Martha Kent for LOCKING the dog in the car when a tornado is a coming?

5) I agree Clark should have saved Jonathan anyway, but this was before Clark knew he could fly. Grabbing his father and returning to the overpass, quickly, would certainly reveal his secret. Since everyone in Smallville seemed already aware of Clark's secret, what's one more example by saving his father? (Does anyone remember if Clark's still holding the little girl when the tornado strikes? That would be the only motivation for him staying behind. That, and having to live with the angst of having his father die in the midst of their biggest argument -- another overused and predictable plot device used in Hollywood.) I would have liked to see Clark to go grab his father and use his density to save them from the tornado as they walked back to the overpass together, despite the tornado passing overhead. People would have been amazed, but it could have been listed as a fluke miracle. THEN, Jonathan could die of a heart attack after that traumatic experience.

So, I'm sticking with my first impression of this scene. I liked it. I'm glad someone was finally shown the world how stupid it is to always go back for the dog. Who knows how many people have died trying this feat due to everyone always surviving it in the movies, only to die themselves? (Hey, if they can blame movies on other things, why not this?)

I also liked the scene when Martha told Clark that his father knew that Clark would grow up to be a hero by watching him pretend to be a hero as a kid. Hmmmm. Maybe I should worry more about my son playing 'mad scientist'.

I wonder if this goes back to the 1978 film with Christopher Reeve, where Superman didn't fly until after he made it to the Fortress of Solitude and got tutored by Jor-El. It seems to be a theme - maybe flying is so inhuman, so not-normal, that Clark has to get some sort of stimulus from his alien father before he can do it.

I thought that at first too, but it wasn't that. The atmosphere on the ship matched that of Krypton (a world with a red sun instead of a yellow sun) which is why Zod's team doesn't have powers on the ship but do when they expose themselves to our sun. It didn't make much sense that Zod and his team needed to breathe Earth's atmosphere to get all that the Yellow sun offers them, unless their uniform shields them so complete from the sun and they waited until their air guard gets knocked off to get truly exposed. If there had been Kryptonite on Zod's ship then it would have killed Zod and his team, wouldn't it have?

I figured that the force-field helmet things must have been filtering out the yellow sun, so that they got a dose of it once their helmet was broken or turned off. The atmospheric differences was an interesting addition, but that wouldn't have been the whole story. I think it would have made more sense if they also had red lighting on the ship that matched Krypton's sun. Lois and Ghost Jor-El changed the atmosphere in the ship; they could have changed the lighting at the same time.

Earlier in the thread there was a debate about how kryptonite could be reasonably incorporated into this version of the story. Both Kal-El's ship and Zod's ship used the Phantom Zone projector to basically go through hyperspace to get to Earth. The exploded fragments of Krypton would have taken the long way through normal space. Maybe it's taken this long for any of the debris to reach Earth, and some of it will start falling as meteorites in the next few years?

The atmosphere seemed to have something to do with the super-senses, but not the super-strength (assuming they didn't have that normally). I don't think it was Kryptonite. I think it was a new thing for the movie. (But a much more logical new thing than the cellophane S-trap of the Christopher Reeve movies.)

I loved the movie. Loved it. And I'm old enough to have loved the original movie. I look at them as separate stories. One doesn't affect the other. Both are special to me.

Actually, from this scene I got the impression that the Army had been chasing Superman around for some time (I'm thinking weeks to months) to "find out where he hangs his cape". And I'm also thinking that by now, it's kind of turning into a game between General Swanwick (and his aides) and Superman. When Superman tells Swanwick that the latter should intercede for Superman in Washington, Swanwick responds with a sort of good-natured exasperation. I think the Army captain is picking up on the lighter atmosphere and that's why she makes that unguarded comment.

Plus, I think he's kind of hot too:

I'd love to see a fanfic from the POV of one of the guys on the oil rig, a few weeks later. They'd just have to realize that hey, this guy that saved them had to be Superman in his civilian identity.

I wonder how they would feel about that after they saw the remnants of the super-battle. On the one hand: saved my life. On the other hand: destroyed Metropolis.

Tzigone had a great comment about this:
I feel the same way.

Originally posted by VirginiaR:
*coughcough* Um, perhaps you should watch "I Am Legend." Or on second thought, don't. Like ever. Suffice it to say that dog dies. Also, a large reason they do that is because people relate strongly to dogs. I can watch people die left and right in live action movies, sometimes done well and other times not, and never be as strongly impacted as when a dog (or animal of sort-- if it's not a dog, then they will use a horse, if you'll notice). I've never cried so hard in my life as with both "Marley and Me" and "Stone Fox" (the latter was actually my third grade teacher's brilliant idea for a class read/follow up movie. She obviously did not consider she'd have 32 bawling students on her hands afterwards.) Psychologically speaking, audience members connect to dogs the most out of anything-- most people have an easy time disconnecting from the main characters and viewing the movie as though they were apart of it by the side of the hero (AKA the dog). We experience the trauma and events, we consider ourselves to be companions with our hero but not the hero ourselves, we sympathize and are affected, and we usually don't die at the end of the movie. :p Thus, it's usually a very bold move to actually have a dog die in the film. The same goes for comedies, except instead of the audience being the dog we are the idiot who asks all of the annoying questions (sometimes a kid).
Have you watched Dr. Horrible? If not, it may only encourage him, so depending on which end of the clark kent-lex luthor spectrum you're shooting for...

In theory Lois should, but after nearly dieing at least twice in a day or so, Lois is probably not thinking clearly, even if she is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who figured out Clark's secret faster than I can say "shazam".

It leaves open a way for Luthor to learn of Clark's weakness that does not involve mad guessing.

I think that the voice over was meant to suggest Lois was really struggling at this tracing the lead. I think it would make a lot more sense if it took at least a month.

I would say the movie was a little fast and loose with chronology. I think the makes of the film actually deliberately decided to avoid giving a time frame to how long it took Lois to meet up with Clark in the cemetery, because they wanted to present Lois as competent without her coming off as too super at investigating, so it was easier to have each viewer work out their own timeline.

Plus, movies are really bad at showing time elapse, so they just didn't. I think 5 weeks is probably a reasonable amount of time. I really wish they had put a little more attention into showing that, maybe a few more Perry/Lois discussions about her pursuing this story and him thinking it was totally off the wall.

I really wish we had seen more of Perry. I also wish we had seen more of journalist Clark. I am hoping they do a sequel where we see significant amounts of both.

Perry rescuing Jenny was a good scene, but even that was under developed.

Some people complained about Zod using earth time above.

I have no problem with him saying "24 hours". If he has mastered things about earth enough to broadcast in their own language a massive broadcast to the entire earth, I have no problem with him knowing about hours. If he can speak in English, he can use English terms.

I do see a bigger problem with his back dating his search for 33 years. There I think it is part of their deliberate analogies to Christ dying at 33. Persoanlly, I think that was a bit much. I liked the scene in the Church and thought it was well done, although I did not figure out if the pastor was supposed to have a connection with the flashback of Clark and the bullies or not. I am not sure if it was even clear if the pastor already knew Clark and if the Church was in Smallville or where.

However, I thought their harping on 33 was over much. Especially since neither case did it make sense. Zob may know what our years are, but back-dating his time frame seems a bit much, unless Krypton years are the same, which considering that Kryptonians and humans looks the same, might not require much suspension of disbelief.

On the other hand, Clark saying he lived in Kansas for 33 years was overly precise. Even if he had said "I started living in Kansas over 30 years ago", while some of the gripes about revealing Kansas would still apply, at least he would be trying to be a bit vague. He did not need to be that precise.

Maybe. I need to see it a second time. My sense that it was quicker comes because of how I remember the sequence of events, but I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly (I mostly remember what happened, but have trouble with "when"). As I recall, Perry's story was rejected by Lois, and at that time she did not know who her rescuer was. She spoke to Clark. She came back to work and was punished by Perry for the blog-leak (probably within a week, because if that was old news, he wouldn't be talking about it now). Now, she could have been healed up and doing searching before she turned in her article-that-wasn't-published. But I definitely don't think it was month between the article going to the blog and her finding out the truth, because she was reprimanded immediately upon her return. Idle thought: I should check her clothes during her investigation scenes and see if she's wearing the same outfit in any of them or not (doubt it).

However, if she had already done her research and discovered Clark before she turned in the first article to Perry (and it was rejected), then I could see it taken much longer (and it'd explain why she didn't seem injured anymore). But I don't see why she'd wait a month to publish an article about a spaceship and a super-powered being. And if she already knew who he was it would make more sense to either publish his identity (not respecting his wishes/privacy) or (respecting his wishes/privacy) not publish anything at all about the superpowered probable-alien (at least until she talked to the guy she'd already identified).

I really do need to see it again, because I'm just not sure.

I'd love to see more of Perry. On the little we saw of him, he seemed interesting. Smart, perceptive, and not as over-the-top as some Perrys (which I also enjoy, I admit). I don't care about journalist Clark - this, to me, is clearly one of the versions of the story where journalism is just a way to further heroism. "Hero" is his job description and being at the paper just lets him do his real job more efficiently. It's sorta golden age, and I'm good with that. At this point, I'd be disappointed with the seeing Clark as someone always interested in journalism or as someone who found his calling in that. It seems clear to me that the theme was in Clark choosing his own destiny, despite the words or wills of those around him. What he always wanted was to help people and make a difference and now he's letting himself do that through his abilities. While he could do that through journalism, as well, that's not him becoming "something other than what society intended" the way him using his powers to be a superhero is (since that's what he was told he couldn't do). Does that make sense?

I tend to agree. I wasn't really emotionally invested.

From doing some internet searching, apparently "Man of Steel" has broken all previous records for an opening weekend in June. I think it is pretty safe that there will be a sequel.

I have to agree that Clark was not really qualified. Even if we add in that he did actually get a degree in journalism before doing his odd jobs, and may have even filed a story here or there over the years, it still seems a bit much for Perry to higher him.

I had no problem with Clark killing Zod. It seemed the only reasonable response to the situation. If anything I think Clark waited to long to kill Zod.

I feel the same - Perry must know something's up.

BTW, can anyone tell me if Clark telling Martha about discovering his heritage and her telling him about the reporter coming by are in the same scene or two different ones?

I guess I like journalist Clark from Lois and Clark too much to be able to be fully comfortable with another incarnation.

On the other hand, I am thinking that I may have overestimated the time it took Lois to find Clark.

Still, I think that how Perry reacts to Lois and how long it would have taken her to hunt down Clark going through multiple locations, that do not even start near Kansas, did not quite jive.

I am also thinking that Metropolis is only workably on the west coast. At least it seemed to me that it was earlier in the day at the DP when the message from Zod came in than it was for Clark in Kansas.

from Tzigone
I thought it was rather implied that there weren't a whole lot of planets that could be terraformed and that because of previous failures, Earth was one of the only possibilities they had. I also got the impression that Zod was making Earth "pay" for Jor-El's "treachery".

~~~~~

Someone mentioned that most of the people of Earth didn't know what was happening, but I remember a scene where the terraforming process was being transmitted on TV, so the vast majority of the people of Earth did know that aliens were attacking and trying to take over the planet.

~~~~~

I, for one, did not like that Lois knows so soon that CK=Superman. That just seems to suck a little bit of the romance out of it. I mean I always thought she was smart enough to figure it out, but she was blinded by her love of and caring for Superman.

~~~~~

For the most part, I really liked the movie, but I did think it went a little overboard on the destruction. I couldn't help but be reminded of 911. Maybe that was done for effect for the 3D. I didn't watch the 3D because of a history of migraines.

~~~~~

I liked the beard and indeed the hairy chest!

~~~~~

I felt sorry for Clark because he had to kill Zod, but it was obvious he was upset about it. I thought it was an integral part of the movie. Even our beloved LNC Clark came to that point himself when he nearly killed Nor and would have if the government hadn't stepped in to try to kill him, too.

~~~~~

I think they could have had Clark save the bus load of kids without revealing his secret. He wouldn't have needed to come up out of the water so quickly that Pete Ross and Lana Lang saw him. I think they just wanted Pete and Lana to know. As for Jonathan saying that Clark should have let the kids die, if you think about it, that is what someone might say before they think. Like if they said it in anger. But that isn't what they did in the movie - Jonathan was quite calm.

~~~~~

I do think Clark could have saved Jonathan without anyone noticing. As for saving the family dog, I can see Jonathan going back for the dog and thinking that he had more time. Plus the dog also dies. Having a child die in MoS probably wouldn't have been a good thing and would have garnered negative attention - thus the dog.

~~~~~

On a side note, I've been hearing on the Weather Channel that heading for an underpass during a tornado is a bad thing because the wind is actually worse and can suck you right out from under the underpass, so don't do that.

~~~~~
From Mouserocks:
That was the first time he had flown.

~~~~~

I don't think it's a given that Clark had no credentials to be given the job at DP. Even in LNC, he traveled around the world after he got his education, and I was always thought it was assumed that he did not always work as a reporter in those travels nor did he always use his own name. He would not necessarily need to have a degree in journalism. A degree in other things could also work. Perry could know something is up or maybe not. Big companies do sometimes give people jobs that don't have any or much experience - otherwise, how would people get experience?

~~~~~

I didn't notice this. I guess I'd have to see the movie again. I would not like moving Metropolis to the west coast (just as I didn't like it being in Kansas in Smallville).

Um... no. The dog survives. Jonathan is able to let it out of the car, and it runs towards the group under the overpass. But Jonathan is stuck in the car due to the other car hitting the top of it. Finally, he's able to free himself and then realizes that he can hardly walk, let alone run away from a tornado. The dog he releases from the car is the same one still living with Martha all those years later.

Really? I totally missed that. I thought the dog died. I remember turning around and looking at something behind me at one point. That must have been when I turned. I knew that he ended up being injured and couldn't walk.

I didn't get that impression, because it seemed to me that the other planets were successfully terraformed at one point. It was just they couldn't stand alone after Krypton withdrew support. I mean, if they can change gravity and atmosphere, I don't really see why another planet wouldn't do. But I might have missed something, I admit.

I don't recall it being transmitted, but I'll take your word for it. But unless we saw a spokesperson telling them what was happening, I'm not sure most of the population would know the planet was being terraformed (as opposed to some weird alien weapon) or that that (instead of some other reason) was why the alien in blue was fighting them. I mean, even the military didn't consider him on their side at first, and that was after he turned himself in to save the planet.

I think Clark couldn't have saved them discreetly, but that's for storytelling reasons, not logical ones. Thematically, he needs to be going against "society's wishes" (the Kents, in this case) when he's saving people to fit the theme of choosing his own destiny instead of doing what he was always told he should do. Also, he's 13 and doesn't have much time to think about these things in the heat of the moment. I'll say discretion doesn't seem to be something this Clark ever learned. He just does what he has to as leaves afterwards. I think the reason is for the audience to see that repeatedly he's faced with the decision of revealing himself or letting people die and chooses revealing himself (the bus, the oil rig, Lois), because that's what he is. Except that one time Jonathan convinced him otherwise (in scene I'll admit doesn't work for me - may improve on a second viewing).

As far as I can recall, Clark never uses his powers surreptitiously in this movie. It's like the idea never occurred either to him or his family.

I agree Jonathan was calm when he said that. Maybe troubled, I'm not sure on that account. I will say he says "maybe" instead of "yes." I guess he doesn't know all the answers, either. I think of it as "I don't want anyone dead/hurt, but if it's their lives v. my child's..." and others think he's got a "greater good" mentality for the planet. I guess we really don't know. I do think he'd probably be less careful if it were his secret. And I wonder if he just can't understand how it feels to Clark in these situations. It's kind of interesting, really, the contrast between this and the '78 movie, where Jonathan absolutely understands how Clark feels, but Clark's only motivation to use his powers is to win football games and show up bullies (he's not exposed to life or death situations).

For me, didn't mind Superman killing Zod. He was written into a corner where there was no other way, and it's okay for Superman to kill under that circumstance, to me. I'm glad he was conflicted and so so broken up about it, of course. Loved the hug scene aftewards. But it'd they wanted Zod sucked into the Phantom Zone with the others, I'd have been okay with that, too. It wasn't necessary to the movie, to me.

I always thought Clark did use his own name in his travels in LNC, but I can't be sure of that, of course. This Clark may well have a degree, but I don't think he's done journalism before - there's no indication of it. But again, I guess we can't know.


Yeah, I think he manages to kick open a stuck door, and the dog runs free, but then Jonathan is limping. Can't swear that's the way it goes down, though.

It was extremely brief (milliseconds) and there weren't any words that I can recall - only a screen shot. It was mentioned at the DP that it was on TV. Perhaps I read too much into it that they actually understood what was happening, but with the later talk of terraforming, and with the involvement of the TV news people these days, I took it that they did indeed know what was going on.

~~~~~

Nor did I. As you noted, he was backed into a corner and had no choice. And it wasn't a decision he entered into lightly (thus his tears).

~~~~~

No, I didn't get the impression he'd ever worked in the field either, but that doesn't rule out a degree in journalism (which I'm doubting in this case). If he has a degree, it's likely in something else.

From Classicalla

To be quite honest, I have grown to HATE the speech by H.G. Wells about this. It is the sort of thing that could go REALLY bad if Clark wasn't THAT good (and for the LnC version it did multiple times before Clark.) I was really very happy that they bypassed that.

"Blinded by love" doesn't work for me on multiple levels. Caveat that I don't remember the actual speech from Wells at all. But I don't like the concept of that. Firstly, a love with so much root in deception isn't a good thing for me. Being blinded by love usually goes with loving someone unworthy and that blindness enabling very bad things to happen. Also, I don't think there was convincing love-at-first-site, so that Lois didn't see because she was in love doesn't make logical sense to me. If she'd known Clark for months and developed a trust with him or love for him, then Superman showed up on the scene, it'd work better for me, because then I could think she'd have more of a reason to think that she really knows Clark and not see Clark in this other person (or the reverse if Supes showed up first). But I've not known that to happen in any version of Superman. And lastly, I think seeing a person as they really are in their entirety and loving them for that is far more romantic than than being blinded by love. Give me clear sight any day - to see all the flaws and all the strengths and still love.

As I've said I love Lois knowing from the start. I like the trust and honesty from day one. It's a stronger foundation. And really like that we don't have to watch Lois making an absolute fool of herself chasing after Superman like a teenager with a celebrity crush while he's cool as cucumber. It opens the way for a much stronger, more substantial relationship than the one seen in the earlier movies (not to mention not having the massively unequal power dynamic). It also highlights her awesome investigatory skills.

On a psuedo side-note, I actually really kind of like how neither one of them really noticed the other when they met, because both were busy with the alien spacecraft. And then when Lois did notice him, it wasn't in a starstruck kind of way, and that was nice.

On a really side note, but still MOS, I did read a post today that made me think of something in a new light. I caught that the bully was Pete Ross, so I didn't think of it in these terms, because I know of him from the comics and Smallville. But it was pointed out that after Clark saved a bully, the bully became better towards Clark when others bullied him. It can work as Superman showing people the way to be better. He inspired the good in the bully. Not sure if it really works, since it's only Clark we saw him behave well towards, but it's a nice idea and fits well with Superman inspiring others.

And I did notice originally that human beings got to do things in this film, got to be heroes, too. The military were essential in sending the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone (and Lois was too, of course). And on the oil rig - Superman didn't just carry them over to the helicopter, but instead the helicopter came to get the stranded workers. And wanted to get that "last guy", too. And our first "rescue" on earth was someone else trying to keep Clark from getting splattered, wasn't it? I liked that.

Something I just realized...

Lois wasn't expecting to go back when they were making the decision to open the Phantom Zone. If I remember correctly it pulled the whole plane into it. She would have been lost had she not fallen out of the plane.

People have been highlighting this scene (on other forums and reviews) as "proof" she's a damsel in distress in this (again) when I'd say she was being a hero in her own right (going above and beyond her duties as a journalist.)

That's not quite right, I don't think. Originally, they were all expecting to come back. Or at least that they might. They were originally supposed to drop one phantom drive out of the plane and onto the spaceship. But that plan didn't work out because they couldn't get the code key inserted right and Hardy was going to try the kamikaze route, but Hamilton got the phantom drive on their plane activated, so the portal-black-hole-whatever-it-was opened.

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.

Yay! I finally had a chance to see the movie.

I'll start off by sharing one reaction I had that I am guessing is unique among members of this MB: I thought the scenes with Clark and Zod reacting to their newly heightened senses were phenomenally well done. I was thrilled to see them, because now I have another tool in my arsenal for trying to describe to others what my son is going through when he has a meltdown due to sensory overload. Obviously my son doesn't have to deal with x-ray vision, but he still has trouble taking in all the sensory input when, say, he is in a crowded store that has music playing.

All right, while I'm typing, I guess I will give a few of my other thoughts:

- I was concerned when I saw Lara giving birth at the start of the movie that the producers didn't seem to know their Superman comic lore; I was quickly relieved of that misapprehension, though, when they indicated that Kal-El's natural conception and birth was the exception rather than the rule.

- I love what they did with Kelex. They kept the robot true to the comics while adapting it for modern movie-going audiences.

- As good as the movie was, I thought it could have been improved dramatically if they had shaved off at least 15, possibly even 30, minutes of the destruction. We would have gotten the idea of what was going on without the repetitive demolition.

- I had heard the phrase "Black Zero" bandied about a lot leading up to the movie, and had been eager to hear precisely what it referred to. If they actually uttered that phrase in the movie, though, I missed it. What, precisely, did it refer to? General Zod's ship? The terraforming ship? Something else?

- I had been excited that Lois was going to play a pivotal role in saving the world, but then was extremely disappointed to see that Emil Hamilton had to do what she apparently could not.

- I didn't like Jonathan's characterization. I had no problems with him being paranoid about his son, but I do have a problem with him saying that perhaps young Clark should have let the schoolbus-full of children die.

- 9/11 is still too fresh in my memory for me to feel comfortable being entertained by seeing buildings coming down, especially due to (admittedly extraterrestrial) terrorists.

- I'm still not sure why Jimmy Olsen underwent a sex change. Jenny played such a minor role in this movie that, unless they have gender-specific plans for her in a sequel, it seems to me to be change for change sake.

- Metropolis seemed so thoroughly destroyed, I'm wondering how the Planet managed to be back in business apparently so soon afterward.

- I really enjoyed the bit of romance between Lois and Clark in the movie.

- I'm hoping that there is enough box office response to this movie that they make a sequel, and that the sequel is as good. (Would it be too much to hope that they spend less time on punchy-punchy-run-run and special effects and devote the time thus gained to plot, characterization, and relationships?)

And on a different, although still movie-related, note -- I was in my local Walmart earlier this week, and it was wonderful seeing Superman memorabilia in several places around the store. I didn't buy anything, but it was still nice to see. (I did try on the shirts; unfortunately, they only sold men's shirts, and none of the sizes fit me well. I guess they didn't think there would be enough fan girls to warrant making Superman-themed women's shirts.)

Joy,
Lynn

edit: How could I forget such a biggie? I have seriously mixed feelings about Clark killing Zod, at least in the manner they showed. I think a lot of my opinion of that will depend on whether a sequel, if such there be, deals with him trying to come to terms with his actions and with how his killing Zod will affect humanity's view of him. On the one hand, it was certainly justifiable as an act of war and in defense of humanity; on the other hand, it is one of the first deeds of Superman which the world will have seen. Not necessarily the best first impression to make on humanity. If the sequel does deal with the psychological aftermath (both Clark's and the general human population's) and if it handles it well, then I might be OK with it. If not, then I am not.

I know that Superman has killed before, even relatively recently (late 1980s), in comic-book canon. The circumstances were actually fairly similar -- three Kryptonian criminals escaped the Phantom Zone and killed everyone on a pocket-universe's counterpart to earth. They threatened to do the same to Clark's earth. He exposed them to gold kryptonite to remove their powers permanently, and then executed them by exposing them to green K. But the comics spent *many* months dealing with the psychological aftermath of Clark breaking his vow never to kill. Clark was seriously haunted by his deeds -- he even exiled himself from earth -- but he had seen no other way to ensure the safety of earth. If the movies deal with the consequences of the killing as well as the comics did, I'll be OK with it. If they just gloss it over, however, then I would say that this isn't the way I would like to see Superman handled.

Steve Lombard was a Bronze Age character in the comics. Like Ralph, he was a real jerk most of the time. For a period of time, it was required in every issue that he play a practical joke on Clark, and that Clark would get back at him by the end of the issue, often via surreptitious use of his superpowers.

This was yet another nice nod to comic book fans.

Joy,
Lynn

To be honest, as much as I appreciate what they were doing in that scene, it took me out of the movie a bit. After all, kids in RL put on red towels to pretend to be a superhero because of Superman. Who was movie-Clark pretending to be?

I just met him when I read "All-Star Superman". He's a good companion / juxtaposition to Cat.

Interesting thoughts on Zod's motivations, Virginia. I'm not sure it's where they were going with it (though I'm not entirely sure), but I like it as a retcon if nothing else.

Zod did threaten to kill all the humans, but that may have been bluster in the heat of the moment; he never got a chance to calm down. Of course, he would have killed many, many more people before calming down, so it's not like killing *everyone* was necessary for him to need to be stopped.

Also, Lynn has expressed my thoughts on Superman's reaction to killing Zod better than I could!

My only gripe is the fact that the Clark disguise will work. No way. I don't buy it at all. The cops took Lois to the Kent farm where a spaceship had landed and then she yelled Clark to him.

I agree with you there. He needed to be stopped before he got bored with killing off humanity.

Lynn, what a great analogy. Thank you for sharing it!

My pleasure. And the funny thing is, the friend I was seeing the movie with has two kids on the autism spectrum, one of whom also has sensory processing difficulties. When I whispered something about "sensory integration issues," she immediately grokked what I meant and wholeheartedly agreed. I would guess that those two scenes would be considered relatively minor by most of the audience, but they are probably the two that will remain most vivid to me for some time to come. I've certainly done my equivalent of Martha's "imagine you're on an island" speech often enough.

Joy,
Lynn

One thing I didn't notice until the second viewing... most (the vast majority?) of the death and destruction was due to the World Builder, and Clark did the exact right thing to deal with that: He went to the other side of the world and destroyed the machine as quickly as possible. The fight in Smallville was mostly confined to the streets and freight yards, and the final battle with Zod was actually fairly short, and didn't involve a lot of (or any?) buildings collapsing -- condemned, probably, but with time for people to escape.

A silly question...

Was I the only one who half expected to hear the name "Luke" after "I am your father"?

Joy,
Lynn

Didn't even occur to me. And I'm a SW fan.


You know, someone else mentioned this about Zod, but my memory is a bit hazy on the details, so if anyone could confirm/deny, that'd be great.

Did he, indeed, order Kal-El's ship shot down/destroyed (rather than captured in some sense) when he learned the codex was on it? If so, wouldn't that have destroyed the codex and doomed Krypton's future? And if it wouldn't destroy Krypton's future (enough people/expertise on the planet to re-create it/create a better one), then why did it matter if Kal-El's ship escaped? Or you think he thought the codex would survive?

I liked the idea, as was pointed out elsewhere, that even if not for Jor-El, Zod's coup still would have failed. It took the authorities very little time to completely put down the attempt. Though I suppose he could have bargained with the codex, had he gotten it instead of Jor-El.

Leads me into another thought: it was my impression that the council had, indeed, accepted that Krypton was going to be destroyed by time we open up with Jor-El talking to them - what do you think? Am I misremembering? They would know Jor-El took the codex from their security system, and they know there is a child, but Lara seems not to be in any trouble? Do you think it is not illegal to have a natural birth? Do you think they couldn't pin her as an accomplice? Or did they simply decide it wasn't worth prosecuting or that they didn't want to panic the population by telling them the codex was gone (this would mean they didn't tell them about the planet being doomed, either).

I'm just not sure what I think. From the way Jor-El was talking about having held hope in his hands, I almost get the impression he was going to tell them about Kal-El and ask them for the codex, ask them to back his plan. But I can't remember the scene that clearly and may completely change my mind whenever I get the dvd and am able to watch it over and over again for the small details.

Where was this island speech? I don't remember it.

That feeling sounds familiar.

Little Clark at school, hiding in a closet. His teacher called his mother.

Right.

I think this supports the "Clark did some things to give himself a better chance to get a job as a stringer at the top newspaper" theory.

The film covers lots of time, they just do not in any way show the time going by.