MOS: Putting Superman in the real world

[LoneNecromancer]

Welp, looks like someone here's an anarchist. Seriously, I'm not gonna even touch the situation unfolding in Ferguson, which is an incredibly complex and nuanced issue that you're just glossing over with such a sweeping generalization right there.

Anyway, I noticed how you don't really offer much evidence to back up your claims. No, seriously, you have to tell me how exactly MOS displayed Clark being negative, selfish, or bending to the will of an unjust government.

How was he negative? The movie never really showed Clark as being overtly negative or gloomy. The absence of overjoyed enthusiasm at the prospect of saving the world from bad guys does not equal negativity. Clark was shown as a character who, while a little reluctant to showcase his full potential for fear of judgment and ostracism, eventually takes the reigns and accepts his role as a hero. HINT: that's how a normal person would act. I know you all are gonna say "I wouldn't," but the fact is that you don't know how you'd act in his shoes until you actually are in that situation.

How was he selfish? Was it for all those years he had spent using his powers to help people whenever he could? I'm sure that school bus full of children thought he was just being a showoff. If he was truly selfish he would have let that oil rig burn or those kids drown.

And finally, how exactly was he symbolic of restricting power to the government and away from the people? As already explained, he spent years helping out people who needed him, whenever they needed him. Furthermore, at the end of the movie, he is shown actively resisting government attempts to surveil him. How is he at all taking power away from the people and concentrating it in the hands of the government when he in fact uses his power to help people and resist the government?

Dude, the only thing that makes no sense is your reasoning. Its almost as if you didn't see the movie.

No, really? Someone might spend hours upon hours, making countless posts, bashing a movie they haven't even watched? Like, who would do that?

[Gee-EL]

What's the government going to do about Clark now that it knows he exists and have seen the amount of death and destruction someone like him can cause? Realistically, the next movie should be about the militaries of the world trying to capture or kill Clark.

Why would they? He saved them after all. Someone in the movie was even kind enough to point that out in case we'd miss that point. Moreover, they think he's hot, too. Someone in the movie was kind enough to point that out, too.

[planetman]

I'm not obliged to tell anybody anything, but in the interests of clarification I will endeavour to try and correct some mistaken impressions which may have arisen. I made a simple observation of fact that the use of power ascribed to the Superman character by the original creators was overt and benign for the benefit of others as the basis of their non real world fantasy. Snyder reset the character in his version of a real world setting negating the fantasy elements of the original, by definition a negative action.

Although, Snyder's Clark is not overtly portrayed as having a negative personality, negative feelings regarding the superpowers are induced by a negative injunction by the Pa Kent character as not to be used for fear of arousing negative interest by others or by authorities, culminating in the negative event of the death of Pa Kent as a result. Again, a negative departure from the original story.

The heroic actions of saving the school bus and the oil rig personnel are diminished and offset by the final negative event of the murder scene at the film's climax. A Superman who kills has to be the ultimate negativity in comparison with the characters origin and history. Thus, my assessment of Snyder's movie as negative in form and content and deliberately intended as such.

My comment on the use of state power was not intended as a political judgement but, again an objective observation.

I'm wondering also as to how 96 posts could be regarded as " countless" in comparison with 1,416?

[manofsteel1979]

I'm not obliged to tell anybody anything, but in the interests of clarification I will endeavour to try and correct some mistaken impressions which may have arisen. I made a simple observation of fact that the use of power ascribed to the Superman character by the original creators was overt and benign for the benefit of others as the basis of their non real world fantasy. Snyder reset the character in his version of a real world setting negating the fantasy elements of the original, by definition a negative action.

Although, Snyder's Clark is not overtly portrayed as having a negative personality, negative feelings regarding the superpowers are induced by a negative injunction by the Pa Kent character as not to be used for fear of arousing negative interest by others or by authorities, culminating in the negative event of the death of Pa Kent as a result. Again, a negative departure from the original story.

The heroic actions of saving the school bus and the oil rig personnel are diminished and offset by the final negative event of the murder scene at the film's climax. A Superman who kills has to be the ultimate negativity in comparison with the characters origin and history.

So...I take it you finally have seen the movie? Just curious, as those are pretty specific points of scenes from the movie (for you anyway) and not the usual blanket statement of SNG being horrible people out to ruin Superman.

Oh and Superman never killed when he was originally created? I think Siegel and Shuster would beg to differ as several of their earlier stories depicted Superman killing or causing the deaths of very human (non superpowered) criminals. Yes, later that changed..but Superman as he was first introduced DID take lives. Not excusing the ending of MOS...just pointing out facts.

[Qwathings]

Why would they? He saved them after all. Someone in the movie was even kind enough to point that out in case we'd miss that point. Moreover, they think he's hot, too. Someone in the movie was kind enough to point that out, too.

I loved the moment when Jenny claims that Clark had saved them all. She had just been trapped under a building and wouldn't have had any way of knowing what had happened. And technically, the people on the plane had died to saved them all. It was a funny moment. I assume Jenny had a concussion.

As for trusting Clark after he had saved the world... Why would people fear him less after that? That doesn't make him any less powerful or dangerous. In fact, the final fight with Zod proves how much damage someone like him can cause.

[The Overlord]

I always felt you wanted to have a realistic version of Superman, have the public be split on him, some people like him and some people don't. Having the public either all love him or all hate him, make the public seem either like mindless sheep or paranoid fear mongers. Superman is not a good symbol of hope if everyone just accepts him right away, hope cannot exist without hopelessness. However just having hopelessness and nothing else can undermine Superman, why is he wasting his time on a bunch of fear mongering idiots who have no desire improve themselves? Negative things like fear, hopelessness and despair exist, saying they don't and everyone can just be happy all the time and never fight is just childish. But these things exist to be overcome, wallowing in them all the time and not let any positives in is just as juvenile.

[DCCoolness]

"A man with superhuman powers, can't be hurt by bullets, can melt through tanks and drones by looking at them, can tear through armies with ease..."

You don't really know what the governments of the world are like, or have a great imagination if you think people would be just okay with someone with the powers of Superman appearing in the real world.

"People with special gifts" Those people don't generally have the power to topple anything they disagree with.

Are you saying super jumps and super speed equals super strength and invulnerability? How? So the government knows all of this just by watching a kid displaying only super speed or powerful jumps on tv?

Dude, I'm sorry, but your theory here is utterly ridiculous. Mr. Mastermind is absolutely right.

As long as you're not using all your powers, the government won't give a hoot about you?? Like, what the hell are you saying? Its not the issue of how many you're using, dude. Its the fact that you have them in the first place and that you have the potential to use them at all. You honestly think that the army and the government are going to sit on their asses and let a dude with herculean powers, who could probably take down entire armies on his own, run around in Kansas and pose a potential threat to national security? Uh...no! No, they're not! Its just that simple.

Also, those special gifts you mention never reach the level that we are talking about here. The fact is that, yes, people would freak out if they found out that little Bobby from down the road could suddenly fly at supersonic speeds, shoot fire out of his eyes, and lift a car with his pinky finger.

Honestly, and I don't mean to offend you, but your reasoning here is incredibly dumb, almost to the point where I don't even think its grounded in reality. Like, do you know anything about the real world, especially the post-9/11 world?? Part of me thinks that you have to be trolling.

Nowhere in my thread did I say I would display those powers in public? What I'm saying is, if my dad was in trouble, I would use only a SMALL portion of my powers, not the over the top ones you listed.

Are you saying super speed alone will get me shot by the army? Yes, let's blow an innocent kid's head off just for running faster than a normal man.

Btw, who would take a bunch of small town southerners seriously, especially if there was no news van around?? Not like they had cellphones with cameras back in 1997. Screw the news! Who would get close enough to film that?

(a bunch of town folks walk into a police station)

Man: Officer, you won't believe this. Some kid saved an old man from a tornado. He appeared out of nowhere.

Officer: Yeah...um...whatever. Is this some kind of gag? Have you been drinking again, Billy?

Woman: We saw it with our own eyes!!!

Officer: *Sigh* Go home before I have you all arrested!

[planetman]

We've already had a thread where the issue of Superman killing was discussed in detail. I don't propose to re-hash that here. Suffice to say that some ambiguous incidents in early S&S work are now being used as ex post facto justification for Snyder's deliberate and contrived murder scene which may satisfy some who accept the basic thesis Snyder has introduced for his "real-world" Superman. I don't accept it and never will, simple as that.

The issue here is how a fantasy character can be transferred to a "real-world" setting. I'm saying it's a logical contradiction and doesn't work. With multiple unreal characters added to his current movie Snyder's thesis is likely to fail again.

[Superlad93]

Are you saying super jumps and super speed equals super strength and invulnerability? How?? So the government knows all of this just by watching a kid displaying only super speed or powerful jumps on tv?

Kinda just wanna point out that Superman's speed comes from his muscles ie super strength. In reality he just has super strength that extends to his legs allowing them to pump at inhuman rates. Also his speed is dependent on his invulnerability (actually nearly everything is). If we were to move our legs at even a fraction of Superman's rate we'll super heat them and run them down to nothing but nubs.

So if you think about it Superman just has strength, invulnerability, and a fusion-like cell structure.

So if they do see the kid run almost super sonic then that WILL be something to look into because you can infer a lot from just that. But I get what you mean. If he only showed a fraction of his power in that moment and blamed it on adrenalin and a tornado picking him up then it would have worked.

[Superlad93]

We've already had a thread where the issue of Superman killing was discussed in detail. I don't propose to re-hash that here. Suffice to say that some ambiguous incidents in early S&S work are now being used as ex post facto justification for Snyder's deliberate and contrived murder scene which may satisfy some who accept the basis thesis Snyder has introduced for his "real-world" Superman. I don't accept it and never will, simple as that.

The issue here is how a fantasy character can be transferred to a "real-world" setting. I'm saying it's a logical contradiction and doesn't work. With multiple unreal characters added to his current movie Snyder's thesis is likely to fail again.

I agree that he really should ease up quite a bit on his "real world" take of the DCU. These guys characters don't thrive as well in a real world setting. Things begin to fall apart, unanswerable questions pop up, issues that can't really be tackled to satisfactory levels SHOULD pop up.

Funny thing is this whole "real world" thing wouldn't be a problem if it was a world with a set end in sight. Look at the great real world Superman take of Secret Identity. I can't actually think of a better "what if he were real" take on the character. But the one thing it knew it had to do was have an ending to that world. But new movies are doing quite the opposite. They're looking to be serialized installments in a greater and expanding movie universe to build a bunch franchises on.

This just doesn't come off as too smart given the subject matter they are trying to adapt. Marvel knows this so they ease up and let the tone breath a bit with their movies starting with Iron man 1 which ran the gambit with tone. This "Superheroes in the real world" stuff is almost always made to have a beginning middle and end. Noland sure knew this was how it worked as he only alluded to the idea of a next movie that would never be made. This was the same in Secret Identity where we get a glimpse of a new world we'll never really see.

It's gonna be a hard road for Snyder and the gang if they stick with this "real world" stuff I can tell you that. Who knows though, maybe MOS and DOJ are transition movies made to be taken in stark contrast to the next wave of movies. Like the superheroes change the very working of the world and make it brighter. Maybe they'll work that with the realism idea and actually have movies down the line where they've made great advancements in tech and culture and the very planet. Interstellar relations, magical awareness and all that.

Who really know? I'll just keep an open mind and wait and see like I've been doing till now. Hope for the future!

[planetman]

What you're saying is basically correct. The DC universe has been more fantasy oriented than Marvel. The Marvel movies, while given realistic backgrounds are basically tongue-in- cheek about it; yes we're realistic but we're going to f*** it up like we do in the comics anyway. So, the concessions to "reality" are confined to the background, as they ought to be when dealing with highly fantasised characters. This is why Marvel beats DC hands down every time.

Whereas, Snyder seems determined to emphasise the realism at the cost of the fantasy basis of the characters and force it on the audience leaving nothing to engage the imagination.

This is typical Snyder, "look but don't think" attitude of contempt for the audience and for me, resulting in a total boredom.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Are you saying super jumps and super speed equals super strength and invulnerability? How? So the government knows all of this just by watching a kid displaying only super speed or powerful jumps on tv?

Displaying super speed and jumps that it would take to save someone from a tornado is more than any man on the planet has. So, yes, that would be cause for alarm.

Nowhere in my thread did I say I would display those powers in public? What I'm saying is, if my dad was in trouble, I would use only a SMALL portion of my powers, not the over the top ones you listed.

Like I said, the amount of power needed to save John from the tornado would still be "over the top." No normal man would be able to survive running into a tornado and then running back out.

Are you saying super speed alone will get me shot by the army? Yes, let's blow an innocent kid's head off just for running faster than a normal man.

Yes, but that's if you posed a threat. You'd more likely be removed, observed, experimented on, etc.

Btw, who would take a bunch of small town southerners seriously, especially if there was no news van around?? Not like they had cellphones with cameras back in 1997. Screw the news! Who would get close enough to film that?

(a bunch of town folks walk into a police station)

Man: Officer, you won't believe this. Some kid saved an old man from a tornado. He appeared out of nowhere.

Officer: Yeah...um...whatever. Is this some kind of gag? Have you been drinking again, Billy?

Woman: We saw it with our own eyes!!!

Officer: *Sigh* Go home before I have you all arrested!

They still had cameras, did they not. Its not as if video was invented in 2000. If Clark's running around showing off his powers, then someone would be bound to catch it on camera. On top of that, there are traffic cameras, surveillance cameras, etc. If Clark were to use his powers whenever his mom or dad needed him, he'd be caught on tape somewhere.

[Powerboy]

What you're saying is basically correct. The DC universe has been more fantasy oriented than Marvel. The Marvel movies, while given realistic backgrounds are basically tongue-in- cheek about it; yes we're realistic but we're going to f*** it up like we do in the comics anyway. So, the concessions to "reality" are confined to the background, as they ought to be when dealing with highly fantasised characters. This is why Marvel beats DC hands down every time.

Whereas, Snyder seems determined to emphasise the realism at the cost of the fantasy basis of the characters and force it on the audience leaving nothing to engage the imagination.

This is typical Snyder, "look but don't think" attitude of contempt for the audience and for me, resulting in a total boredom.

Got to agree here. "Realism" within the context of super heroes is generally in one of two categories as people have already said. One is the short-lived story setting that we know is only going to be used once or very sporadically. Yeah there might be a sequel ten or twenty years later buuuut... I know MoS could be argued to be in that category: three stories and out. But it's the sheer number of people they are reaching as a major movie series.

The other and far more common way is that realism is just flavoring, a little bit of sugar and milk in the coffee, not the primary contents. It's often just some things throw in to create an illusion that it's all very realistic when most of it isn't. Also, as Planetman said, there's a feeling about what is primary. The Avengers? Thor? Captain America? Sure there's realism but the sheer fun of the comic book super hero is still primary. The realism is flavoring and it's very important flavoring but still. With Mos, the "realism" overshadows the fantasy.

[Terok Nor]

Imagine how successful a Superman movie with the wit and heart of Guardians of the Galaxy could have been.

Because this one didn't make as much money as its studio thought it would, it did not change the perception of Superman writ-large ("They tried to make Superman like Batman" is the most common comment I hear about it from people outside CBR), it did not establish Superman as the first hero of the DC Cinematic universe (That's Batman), and it didn't start up a new Superman series (because the next movie is co-headlined by Batman, to minimize risk). I cannot thing of a single level on which the film succeeded, but criticizing it here engenders a pretty violent reaction.



STILL the final word on MoS.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Imagine how successful a Superman movie with the wit and heart of Guardians of the Galaxy could have been.

Because this one didn't make as much money as its studio thought it would, it did not change the perception of Superman writ-large ("They tried to make Superman like Batman" is the most common comment I hear about it from people outside CBR), it did not establish Superman as the first hero of the DC Cinematic universe (That's Batman), and it didn't start up a new Superman series (because the next movie is co-headlined by Batman, to minimize risk). I cannot thing of a single level on which the film succeeded, but criticizing it here engenders a pretty violent reaction.



STILL the final word on MoS.

Oh yes, let's listen to a bunch of nerds who nobody has ever even heard of when we could look at IGN, MSN movies, and several other mainstream sites that gave it 4-4.5 stars out of 5.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/...f-steel-review

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-c...an-of-steel.2/