Man of Steel


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:04 pm

You knew that I, über-geek fanboy that I am ( :oops: ), would have to start a thread about this movie. Out 3 days, it's already made over $200M. Of COURSE I liked it, but there was waaaay too much violence and destruction. Are character development and interwoven plot lines too much to ask? HC was perfect in the role (Mrs. M swooned several times, I think), but everyone else was a place-holder. Oh well, with this $ucce$$, there'll be plenty more to do other interesting things with.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:14 pm

The fights/destruction and the interminable length of them are for no other reason than to justify 3D. And 3D adds more money to the till. Violence was on par or even less than most movies; it's not like someone's head was crushed in someone's hands. They got some A-list talent to sit in: Costner, Fishburne, Lane (not Lois, Diane)...not bad.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:28 pm

batonless relay wrote:The fights/destruction and the interminable length of them are for no other reason than to justify 3D. And 3D adds more money to the till. Violence was on par or even less than most movies; it's not like someone's head was crushed in someone's hands. They got some A-list talent to sit in: Costner, Fishburne, Lane (not Lois, Diane)...not bad.

I'm over 3D in almost all movies. We went to the 2D IMAX show. It was worth the extra screen space. I like Kevin Costner in anything. Just very 'believable'.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:The fights/destruction and the interminable length of them are for no other reason than to justify 3D. And 3D adds more money to the till. Violence was on par or even less than most movies; it's not like someone's head was crushed in someone's hands. They got some A-list talent to sit in: Costner, Fishburne, Lane (not Lois, Diane)...not bad.

I'm over 3D in almost all movies. We went to the 2D IMAX show. It was worth the extra screen space. I like Kevin Costner in anything. Just very 'believable'.

I never watch 3D anymore. I've watched two 3D movies total and the experience just isn't for me, nor is it worth the additional money, imo.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby lonewolf » Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:01 pm

I don't do 3D. Having vision in only one eye, I don't know what y'all are talking about.
Dithering about seeing Man of Steel . I remember when the original Superman came out, circa 1937, (my town cousins had comic books) and suspect the story line is about the same.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Daisy » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:56 pm

I took my two boys (7 & 11) to see it. Too loud for them. And far too much fighting for the sake of it for me. It was what I expected and fairly good for the genre, i guess. But as Marlow mentioned, the script writers really could do a lot more with the stories in these movies.

We also opted for the 2D. I don't think we missed much.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:42 pm

lonewolf wrote:I remember when the original Superman came out, circa 1937 and suspect the story line is about the same.

Well, they DID mess with the story, but as you can imagine, Superman is Superman. In this movie he becomes Sman at 33 (ring any scriptural bells? - at one point he also floats with his arms straight out) and Lois Lane figures out the CK alias near the beginning. He has LOTS of angst which MY Sman didn't have, but the one of the 80s and beyond did.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby jhc68 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:10 am

Lots of press about the Christian symbolisms... even commentary about how evangelicals are embracing the movie as an affirmation of faith. Is it that heavy-handed?
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:18 am

jhc68 wrote:Lots of press about the Christian symbolisms... even commentary about how evangelicals are embracing the movie as an affirmation of faith. Is it that heavy-handed?

Not when it's so obvious. Both Pa Kent and Jor-El speak to him as though he's mankind's messiah. There's even a 'sermon kit' put out by the movie's promotion dept for Xtian preachers.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby scottmitchell74 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:24 am

Saw it with my girls on Father's Day. I liked it a lot. It was gritty, and full of back-story and origins, which I love. I liked this Zod much better than the 125 pound original Zod, and Amy Adams at least looks like someone who a Super Hero could fall in love with. Also, this Cavill dude is some scenes looks like he could be Christopher Reeve's son.

The Jesus connection was everywhere. I noticed the age 33 thing as well and the "Arms held out, in my Jesus Christ pose" thing often. The scene in the church with the stained-glass Jesus in the garden "take this cup from me/Thy will be done" right next to Superman's head while he's having pretty much the same discussion with the preacher/priest was incredibly obvious. Also, a "miraculous" birth of sorts fits in with that theme, as well as an "Only Son" being sent to Earth to save/guide it.
scottmitchell74
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:49 am
Location: Abilene, TX

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Daisy » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:26 am

jhc68 wrote:Lots of press about the Christian symbolisms... even commentary about how evangelicals are embracing the movie as an affirmation of faith. Is it that heavy-handed?

I didn't notice it.

Marlow wrote:Both Pa Kent and Jor-El speak to him as though he's mankind's messiah.

I did notice that Jor-El said "He'll be like a god to them" But that does not seem so out of place given what he can do.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Brian » Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:23 pm

Haven't seen it yet, but glad a thread was started. I am always curious as to what direction each respective screenwriter and director takes with this character. Figures there would be more crashes and explosions, etc. thanks to better-developed CGI and the fact Nolan was brought on board after his successful "Dark Knight" trilogy; the darkening of the red and blue costume in the promos during the preceding months hinted as such.


Superman as a character is always a challenge. Outside of the super powers--especially flying--he is actually pretty bland, if not downright boring, as a personality.

With some modern deviational attempts aside, the character is basically a big Boy Scout. Always has been; that's why the old formulas in the comics centered around peripheral issues such as variety of specialized villains, Lois trying to discover his identity, the effects of Red Kryptonite, etc.--all external conflicts.

One of the big reasons for the popularity of the television series "Smallville" was that Clark was young and capable of making mistakes--which is always more interesting and relatable than an adult who is pretty much perfect, which is what the classic parameters of the Superman mythos force the character to be.


In fact, the only tried-and-true enduring fictional character I can remember being more superficial (pun intended), was the pulp hero Doc Savage. This is actually ironic, as advertisements for Doc Savage in other pulp books described him as "an intellectual genius...a physical superman..."

The Doc Savage pulp stories (the majority written by Lester Dent under the pseudonym Kenneth Robeson) were printed in the early '30's; Siegel & Shuster introduced "Superman" in 1939.

But neither Dent nor S&S invented the term/name. Both almost certainly got the term "superman" from our old buddy Nietzche (1844-1900; "That which does not kill me makes me stronger"), who--before his brain turned to tapioca from syphilis--coined the phrase "Uber Mensch" to describe his concept of the ultimate male.

[In the very first episode of "Smallville" there is a nicely-done tip of the hat to Friedrich N. as between classes at the high school Lana notices Clark has a copy of a Nietzche book and jokingly asks him "So...are you a man or a superman...?"]

And for the record, I have enjoyed both characters throughout the years. This is by no means meant to be an anti-Superman rant.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby jeremyp » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:40 am

So since steel is stronger than iron does that mean that Superman would whup Downey? Enquiring minds...
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:26 am

jeremyp wrote:So since steel is stronger than iron does that mean that Superman would whup Downey? Enquiring minds...

Superman's heat vision would turn him into a slag-heap in a nano-second, which brings us to the character's 'problem', aside from his kryptonitephobia, he can beat anyone at anything, so what's the point? I loved how in the movie he had to strain mightily to keep an oil-platform from toppling, but he can smash things 100 times bigger/heavier with the flip of a wrist. The best part was when he had to go up against an overwhelming Kryptonian energy force and it took everything he had to do it. I actually got verklempt, because I am such a sap!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby JRM » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:48 am

Marlow wrote:aside from his kryptonitephobia, he can beat anyone at anything, so what's the point?


Nah. The Hulk would give him a run for his money!
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:51 am

JRM wrote:
Marlow wrote:aside from his kryptonitephobia, he can beat anyone at anything, so what's the point?

Nah. The Hulk would give him a run for his money!

Ha! Perfect fanboy grist. Sman can hurt Hulk; Hulk can't hurt Sman. QED. :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby JRM » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Marlow wrote:
JRM wrote:
Marlow wrote:aside from his kryptonitephobia, he can beat anyone at anything, so what's the point?

Nah. The Hulk would give him a run for his money!

Ha! Perfect fanboy grist. Sman can hurt Hulk; Hulk can't hurt Sman. QED. :D


Nah, not a fanboy, just that Hulk was always my favorite growing up... long ago.... Based on what I saw in the Avengers, however, the new take on Mr. Banner is that he's more or less invincible, and can literally move mountains.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Brian » Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:55 pm

Brian wrote: ...the pulp hero Doc Savage. This is actually ironic, as advertisements for Doc Savage in other pulp books described him as "an intellectual genius...a physical superman..."

The Doc Savage pulp stories (the majority written by Lester Dent under the pseudonym Kenneth Robeson) were printed in the early '30's; Siegel & Shuster introduced "Superman" in 1939.


One more thing: the Doc Savage character used to make a solo retreat periodically to a base in the arctic where he would then study up on new scientific methods and breakthroughs.

The name of this base was his "Fortress of Solitude."


[Maybe the Superman character should be called the "Man of Steal"...]


Does anybody still believe gh & crew are being too sensitive about plagerism?
.
Last edited by Brian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Brian » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:17 pm

One last post on a probably "done" thread:

A 1971 collection of short stories by Hugo Award-winning author Larry Niven titled "All The Myriad Ways" contains a hilarious (IMHO) piece on Superman's love life and potential inability to mate and reproduce, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex."

In mock clinical scrutiny, Niven explores the problems pertaining to reproduction with Lois ("LL"), including Kal-El's alien biological make-up and the physical mechanics of sex. At one point, Niven explains how, as Kal's semen would be as strong/invulnerable as the rest of his body and as even super-powerful ejaculatory muscles are involuntary, sex with LL would result in the top of her head being blown off like a shotgun blast. Niven first considers LL wearing a Kryptonite belt around her waist, then moves on to artificial insemination, but concludes the only life form capable of carrying a super-strong kicking fetus to term would be Superman himself:

"...The mind boggles at the image of a pregnant Superman cruising the skies of Metropolis. Batman would refuse to be seen with him..."


Despite being written in or before 1971, the piece holds up well.

Available at Amazon.com.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Marlow » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Brian wrote:the only life form capable of carrying a super-strong kicking fetus to term would be Superman himself

That is actually a brilliant observation. Superbaby, Jr. would tear an earth woman's uterus to shreds! There is, however, a viable solution. Implant the zygote into Kara, his cousin, who is also invulnerable, and let her carry it to term.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Brian » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:02 pm

Marlow wrote:
Brian wrote:the only life form capable of carrying a super-strong kicking fetus to term would be Superman himself

That is actually a brilliant observation. Superbaby, Jr. would tear an earth woman's uterus to shreds! There is, however, a viable solution. Implant the zygote into Kara, his cousin, who is also invulnerable, and let her carry it to term.


I thought the same thing when I first read it as a teenager in the early '70's (kind of; as Supergirl was a total babe, I thought: move to Tennessee--or wherever Jerry Lee went--and attempt things the more traditional way).

All I can guess is that the literary agent and/or publishers back then vetoed any such "blasphemous" thought.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Man of Steel

Postby JRM » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:21 pm

Marlow wrote:
Brian wrote:the only life form capable of carrying a super-strong kicking fetus to term would be Superman himself

That is actually a brilliant observation. Superbaby, Jr. would tear an earth woman's uterus to shreds!


Science fiction author Larry Niven had a short story devoted to this very subject back in the 70s (although addressed by many other subsequently):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Ste ... of_Kleenex
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Man of Steel

Postby Brian » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:37 pm

JRM wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Brian wrote:the only life form capable of carrying a super-strong kicking fetus to term would be Superman himself

That is actually a brilliant observation. Superbaby, Jr. would tear an earth woman's uterus to shreds!


Science fiction author Larry Niven had a short story devoted to this very subject back in the 70s (although addressed by many other subsequently):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Ste ... of_Kleenex


Now why didn't I think of that...?
;]
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JumboElliott and 6 guests