Comic Book Issues - Man of Steel Vlog

(49 votes, average 3.59 out of 5)
Facebook Share
Comments (62)
  • starlordx0  - Not FIrst
    He has a Opinion People, If you dont have the same , Then Congratulations, You are different
  • L2  - Come on guy. Chill.
    Woah there buddy.
    Where is this coming from? Doesn't look like anyone commented yet.
  • alejokatana  - check the comments below
  • L2
    Check the time stamps.
    It's very possible, in fact I know it is because I was freak'n there, that this was posted before any comments originated.

    Take a backseat, sonny, until you know what you are talking about.
  • voxa.m.
    Whoa whoa whoa, Starlord. Slow your roll, big guy! Some of us enjoy hearing someone who is both knowledgeable about comics and able to maintain a rational train of thought. I liked the movie (and thought the answers to some of L.A.G.'s questions/picks were obvious from the movie, which I guess that just points out what different people glean from the same source material), but I appreciated hearing what he thought. Not everyone who enjoyed the movie is irrational (and even if they/we were, there's no reason to fire the first shot before anyone can speak). Breathe.
  • L2
    A few of things:

    1) Yeah, LAG is pretty laser pinpointed with the movie in this problem (and I knew it wasn't going to be your typical "Superman" movie when Clark started stealing clothes from strangers).
    2) I'm really surprised you didn't mention the shaky cam in the action sequences. They were a bit much to the point where I couldn't exactly enjoy even a long action sequence because I couldn't tell what was going on half the time.
    3) I'm also surprised you didn't mention the mass destruction and death in this movie. That REALLY surprised me when watching it. That when I literally said "am I... watching a Superman movie?"

    4) Thanks for pointing out some good moments in it. It helps sell your argument by acknowledging that it does have some okay and good points.

    All in all, I liked this movie, but I do acknowledge it has some major flaws and problems.

    Also, 90s Superman (from Superman, the Animated Series to JLU the 00' cartoons) is still my favorite Superman.
  • gojirafan430
    All the collateral damage was caused by Zod not Superman

    DCAU Superman caused way more collateral damage when fighting Doomsday, Darkseid and even fucking Captain Marvel so you really have no room to complain about collateral damage being a problem
  • helix
    I was hoping for a scene where he tries to move the fight somewhere else. Kinda like what they do in DBZ
  • gojirafan430
    Zod would just kill civilians if he did that...

    The whole point of the fight was Zod claiming he wants to kill as many civilians as possible out of spite and Supes tries to stop him if he left Metropolis in hopes Zod would follow, it would just lead to Zo killing a fuckton of people to lure Supes back
  • Razmere  - I honestly enjoyed the film a lot.
    I'm right with you on the WORST PA KENT EVER bit though.


    FUCK YOU!!!!

    I honestly loved the movie. It was by no means a flawless film, but the action was a lot of fun and Superman and Lois Lane both (in my opinion) turned out very likable.

    Plus at least there was no bullshit moment like the reversal of time or the memory eraser kiss.
  • helli0n
    Angry Geek, I like a lot of your stuff, but you clearly weren't paying attention in the movie. They baby ship had Phantom drives that allowed it to put them into the Phantom Zone. Also there were several LexCorps signs. You also don't seem to know your comic history. Superman killed Zod the very first time they met in the comics.

    That being said I prefer the first two Superman movies to Man of Steel. So I agree with you there.
  • KungFuMan
    Him killing Zod in that comic was a reluctant last-ditch effort that left him shaken and questioning his beliefs, not celebrated like a victory like it is here. Hell didn't he leave Earth for awhile because he was worried he was getting too dangerous because of the fact he did it?
  • AnthonixMaximus
    As much as I do appreciate your balanced review of the new movie (more so than NC and Brad's), I have to address the journalism thing. Believe it or not, you don't necessarily need a degree to write for the paper,but it helps.
  • cdrood
    No, but you also can't just walk into a major newspaper in the biggest city in the world and get a job as a reporter, either. You either work your way up from low level jobs or you spend years working in smaller markets, building up your resume.

    However, you can't really fault this movie for that since the Donner films pretty much did the same thing. He was a teenager, disappears for 12 years, and then gets a job at the Daily Planet because he types fast.
  • shenlow558
    why do people hate this film so much? so its not like the other films versions of Supes its not going to be the films are made in different decades with different values and different supermen the films are honoring. Sure the film had its problems but what fucking film doesn't, sure he killed Zod but you can clearly see that he didn't want to nor did he celebrate it, its just the reaction was kinda rushed to get the film its run time. me personally, this version of Superman is by favorite of the live action ones because not only is he compationate an d embodies all that Supes is meant to stand for, at least at the end, but he contains the philosophical aspects that made Grant Morrison's version so great. So everyone stop your bitching and accept that this is in the top three Supes films without a doubt.
  • Cirrra
    Thanks, no, we can speak our minds.

    This is a generic superhero movie, not a Superman movie. It actually has more in common with X-Men (a powerful being feared and prejudiced against, struggling to control his powers, afraid to use them--and boy, he looked a lot like Wolvie as a fisherman!), and yes, Batman (angsty, brooding, fucked up in the head).

    As for other version being made in the future, it could always stop. The movie industry keeping going this way, it'll implode. Don't count on it, it could be the last.

    So...the last one, we settled for an "okay" superhero movie with "good fight scenes" and many Transformer-bashing of buildings...

  • Munkee
    I don't hate the film per se...

    but to adress a few of the mentioned issues:

    My guess is they wanted to add conflict to the way he grew up, but... it felt over the top. I'd understand if Pa Kent was upset if a kid / teenage Clark uses his powers irresponsibly or obviously when it's NOT necessary... but really, would you let your dad die if you could save him? Unless you really hate the guy?

    The values the Kents taught their adopted son were what shaped his believes, thats what made him Superman in my opinion. To that was a bit like *Spoiler alert, haha* changing the way how his parents loss made Bruce Wayne Batman.

    And the killing... I try to see it from a somewhat objective point of view:

    Superman is strong enough to break the guys neck, but is not able to just turn Zod's head just enough for that Family to get away? Maybe I over looked something but what exactly kept them from getting away in the first place? Aside... is Zod an owl? is he incapable of looking somewhere without turning his entire head?

    The costume... I got mixed feelings. One of my (admittedly small) peeves with previous superman movie costumes was the way the cape was attached. Yes, it's a minor thing. But this movie got it right. But while I liked that the costume was not that bright blue, this felt just too dark. But I believe in many cases that was a problem with the light. There were cases it looked just fine to me, but at other times the structure, the color, the shineyness... just felt off.

    About his enemies... Why Zod and the Phantom Zone crew? I guess they wanted a sort of Invasion? big battles? Aliens taking over? That makes one name pop up in my mind.

    Brainiac. They wanted kryptonians? the bottled city of Kandor. They want massive destruction? Battle robots.

    Speaking of destruction, I like cool battles and yes, when someone at the power scale of superman fights things break. But it's actually one of Superman's "weaknesses" to rescue innocent bystanders even in the heat of battle, often opening him up to attacks while doing so, and is not able to dodge.

    Just my two cents worth.
  • MarqueeMoon  - Less and less interested in seeing this...
    ...but I probably will anyway. I'm more curious about this than I was about "Iron Man 3," but I'm prepared to be disappointed. And it's not just fanboy issues; it's the sense that Superman's greatest power seems to be the ability to defeat any attempt to make a really solid, true-to-character movie about him.
  • TomFool  - Lex
    I agree with just about everything you said. I was really disappointed with this movie.

    While there was no Lex Luthor cameo, Lexcorp was written on the side of some trucks that were thrown around in the final fight.
  • Youngbountygirl
    THANK YOU! Of all the reviews, you actually are the only one that gave Louis Lane credit. This was the Louis Lane done right. I mean they actually took a dumbass in distress and made her more useful than ever before. She doesn't go into danger like a dumbass and thinks things through. In fact, there's a scene where she actually frees herself when she's in distress in Man of Steel. DID ANYONE CATCH THAT!?! ANYONE!?! Louis Lane actually saved herself for once! Hello!! CO'MON! You guys had to have caught that!
  • ImInsanityIncarnate  - who is the worst pa kent
    have you seen smallville
  • Redninetailfox
    Pa Kent DID NOT SAY THAT! I saw the movie today and he did not say that, he gave him the answer that anyone would give in his situation. I don't know, but your secrete is important because people will be afraid of what they don't understand, but when the time is right and you know what you where meant to do then you will know when and how to use your powers. Also when he died to protect his son secrete and if he didn't and that story was never told Louis or any other person who somehow tracked Clark back to the Kents the secrete would be safe because no one would blatantly disrespect the dead especially someone who died for this very reason to harm someone who is only trying to do good.
    Also Kyrpton was awesome and MADE MORE SENSE THEN ANY OTHER. Okay lets start with, it looks like a planet on the verge of death. Okay you are telling me you think that a planet as technologically advance and doing so well like in the other movies, comics, and cartoons couldn't have stopped there planet or move off planet before the big boom. You are telling me no one other then Jor-El knew the planet was going to explode.Really? That is stupid! Also maybe Jor-El and other citizens outside of the military had to use animals because they stated they where running out of resources. Vehicles don't run on magic, even in the DCU . What if the people of Krypton had to use flying animals and such to get around because fuel was scares and expensive.
    Also I don't agree with your option that Clark was a alien that would never fit in. I feel like this story is more about a boy trying to find both a side of himself that he never knew or understood to become the man he was always meant to be. Never once did he forget what his Pa and Ma Kent taught him, the evidence was when he was dealing with that drunk guy at the bar he worked at. They showed him never loosing control even when he was seeing the worst in people, and then later they showed him how Pa Kent taught him how to turn the other cheek no matter how many stones would have been thrown at him.
    Also killing Zod, you mean the man that said "I will not stop till one of us is dead!" the man that was going to fry a family, the man that literally left no other choice but to either kill him, keep fighting till earth is nothing but ash or he kills was not okay to kill him. FUCK YOU! What could he have done!?! Okay he could have covered his eyes to keep him from killing the family the fight would have gone on and the rest of the city and probably planet will turn into ash, a loose situation if you ask me. He could have let Zod win and then he destroy the planet, yet again another loose situation. So the only choice was kill him, and it isn't like Superman wanted to. It wasn't like it was a happy victory, it was a hollow one the earth is saved but at the cost of his morals.
    Also the atmosphiric conditions from Krypton makes sense because Kryptonite is chucks of Superman's home...
  • Cirrra
    hehehe...*pointing at Redninetailfox* Gee, you'd think that he tied you down and forced you to listen to him ranting over and over about how stupid you are for liking the film until you snapped and had to fight back.

    Overreaction, just a bit?
  • raknai
    It's a funny movie.
    The Dragon Ball Movie I expected when I saw revolution.
    But When I saw "Man of steel" I expected a Superman Movie.
    (Well, this movie is almost superman 4 again)
    In a time when everybody aproaches the comics they go far away to the other side.
    People who make this movie hate superman and don't want nothing to do with Superman.
  • gojirafan430
    all around a pretty bullshit comment
  • DakotaCruz
    It has been a hoot watching people's reactions to this movie (and really ANY comic book movie)

    You have those who liked it, ok that's fine. You have people who hate it and again that's totally fine.

    Then you have comic nerds who seem to be angry over the changes made to their Superman.

    Then everything becomes bad - like a lens of shit covered glasses.

    IF you want the Superman YOU want, you have that guy - you have him in comics, cartoons, and even the older movies.

    See, when you hate something, for whatever reason, you then start hating every part of every scene, line of dialogue, etc etc

    What did I think? It doesn't really matter now does it?

    I guess if anything I do take exception to his last comments of - you might like it if you no nothing of Superman - SO not true. This argument is weak and so not true. Maybe for fanboys of Superman who HATE change, and hate anything THEY don't think is in character. Main point - I want to be entertained and surprised, this movie did both. AND it's not even close to perfect but when I hear comments like this - comic nerd elitism, I kind of take exception to that.
  • danatblair
    There are 3 arguments for the movie that I am rapidly getting sick of-

    1. you didn't understand/watch it closely.

    I did. I don't like it. All those things people are pointing out in it's defense, I got in the theater. Still do not like it. It is possible for people to simply not have the time/space to address every possibly angle of an argument.

    2. It's the 21st century, deal with it.

    Honestly, Superman was created in the great depression. He has been around during WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam, economic down turn, terrorist attacks of foreign and domestic origin. I am not convinced that the problems we face are actually different from the ones we have faced over the past 70+ years. If anything is changed, it seems to be what we will accept and tolerate from the concept of "hero." If this Superman is the absolute best we can do, we really are a sad and pathetically cynical lot.

    3. the old stuff still exists. shut up and go enjoy that.

    this is one of the most bullcrap arguments I have ever heard. It's not new. I have heard it applied to other movies that got a reboot. The issue that I take with it is that someone is defending the new, by simply ignoring the actual points that people might be making against it. See, I know I can watch and read actual Superman stories. But, for the time being .. new ones will not be made. Saying that I can't be annoyed because new material will not be made, and in a supremely jackass manner, is just showing that you don't actual care what the opposing argument is.
  • DakotaCruz
    1) You do not have to like it, that's all good by me, and for whatever reason you didn't like it is totally fine too. Hell, even the fanboy-like reasons ie. Superman does not kill. whatever, that's all good.
    - I took exception, if any from the comment of to like this movie you don't know anything about Superman - which is not true (maybe it is for the majority but hell, that's no fun)

    2) I hope that the 21st century comment wasn't pointed at me, I like different takes on things when i go see a comic book movie because I HAVE that already which leads into #3

    3) There will be Superman stories told that center on and around the classic Superman. Maybe not the new52 Superman but that's DC choice. The most important thing about a comic book movie is that it's an adaption, that's it, it's not the end all be all and the definitive representation of said character. It's like Superman: Red Son, again, a story about Superman, and he's Russian! Because it holds the themes of Superman and so did this movie, although the movie changed a lot of the core elements. So did Dan Slott with Superior Spider-Man, and again we had the fanboy backlash and if anything, that's the most bullcrappiest thing
  • Cirrra
    Very articulate, very knowledgeable, and yes, you keep a rational train of thought and give a very calm critique of the current film backed up by specific examples and names of what came before to establish the character and story. You can say why you don't like something or do like something efficiently, and you move on without harping.

    Probably the best review I've seen so far. I do hold your thoughts in high esteem, Last Angry Geek. :) Thank you for your time.
  • Jankrist
    Superman killed Zod in the comics as well in 1988 in Superman 22.

    Zod, Zaora and Quex-Ul had wiped out all life on a alternate earth (or something like that)

    Superman managed to take away there powers using Gold Kryptonite.

    After this he choose to use green kryptonite to end the life of all 3 kryptonians in fear that they might regain there powers and find there way to his earth.

    So Superman dose kill in the comics if he can´t see a solution, and that was in a situation that was not urgent, in the movie it was a very urgent matter.

    I agree Superman should not kill unless he is put into a situation where it is a last resort, witch i think they showed it was in the movie, i do not see how he could have stopped Zod and keept him alive.
  • danatblair
    No, really simply dismissing anyone who does like a story or direction taken as nothing more than fanboy backlash is far worse. At that point it becomes taboo to step out of line and say you dislike it. Any dislike is labeled as "hate" and is therefore ignored offhand. In fact, you just did with Superior. If you did not mean to say that dislike of Superior is based on hatedom, it did not come through. It really seems like that is your take.

    Yes, someday there will be a different take on superman, but as this is successful in monetary terms it will be a very long time before another version is made. There will be a sequel or two, and at least one jla movie. Movies takes several years to make. I can very easily be looking at 8-10 before this version of the franchise is over with. And, it will take some time for people to decide to make a new version. How long of a wait was there between Reeves and Returns? As Smallville is still current, it could easily be a few more years before there is another tv version. NU52 is not that old, and could easily run for several more years, at a minimum. I am so glad that I can look forward to, maybe, someday getting a product that might interest me. Weee!!

    The movie commits a fairly large sin. It does a lot of telling and no showing. It says outright Superman = X, but it does not once ever really show Superman exhibiting the traits it claims he has. He pays minimal attention to civilians through out the entire movie. He can apparently just get a job in journalism (I guess the sudden opening of 100s of thousands of jobs on the market in Metropolis let him get hired easily) instead of actually believing in journalism, or truth, or the justice system. Aside from the child actor, I never felt any real emotion. I understand why people would be afraid of him. I have no idea why people would respect him, other than the fact that I was told they respect him.

    I am fine with adaptations (despite your implications that I simply don't like it because it is an adaptation), I love Holy Musical Batman, and I wouldn't say it is overly accurate with details. As a satire it takes many liberties, however, it does a much better job at showing character traits than MOS. I empathize with that Superman, while I can't get a read on the adult MOS version. He's just blank clay. It is a shallow adaptation.
  • DakotaCruz
    1) I can dismiss fanboy rage because it's ridged and won't allow for changes or growth. That's why i brought up Superior Spider-Man because the fanboy backlash was amazing to watch! Death threats and hatred poured onto Dan Slott WHEN in fact it's a comic book character ... that's all these are. btw I like the Superior series, it's quite good.

    2) You have to wait for a Superman you like? Ok. So what? If I seem (again) dismissive it's because you come across as someone who was broken up by this movie WHICH in fact it's just a goddamn movie. Get over yourself dude. I even gave, or tried to give, a positive spin on things in saying there will be Superman stories for you. So you won't get a movie, so what! Jesus you sound so entitled, I didn't ask for the current Man of Steel movie, I went to go see it, watched it, enjoyed it and then moved on.
    ...then why am I here? I had no intention of commenting until LAG said you might like it if you don't know Superman, that's so pretentious and I didn't even lash out at him, I didn't call him names. I disagreed with that point of view.

    3) the movie isn't perfect, again, so what! Don't tell me or anyone how to feel. You didn't get anything emotionally from the movie, ok, move on...

    and 4) I didn't even come close to saying you didn't like adaptions, or even that you didn't like this or that because frankly, I don't give a shit what you like or don't like. So call it shallow, call it anything you want BUT it will make money, it will get sequel, maybe even sequels and lots of poor dumb ignorant people like me can go and watch and hopefully enjoy.

    Like I said, I just want to be entertained, and a few surprises will help that...

    I'm sorry you weren't entertained and that the movie has caused you grief. The only sort of grief I got from the movie was being a huge comic fan and watching other comic fans act like elitist assholes.
  • danatblair
    And yet you lumped all negative reaction in with the death threats. You decided that the reactions of a few, invalidated all negative reactions to this version of spidey. That is dismissive because you decided that it was not worth separating legitimate complaints from less legitimate ones. You are still not making a case otherwise. i get that you like it.

    edit: I think I figured out a way to explain this. I am not saying that all people who like Superior are uncritical Slott fanboys that will go along for any ride. I am saying that the arguments from someone who dislikes it cannot be dismissed as simply anti-slott hater propoganda based on the actions of a few. Both statements are extreme (a few death threats = all are just haters and Liking = blind loyalty). I have not read it, but it seems reasonable to conceive of a world where people can like and dislike it for valid reasons without getting lumped into the category fanboy. you have yet to say that there are valid reasons to dislike it, or that such a stance could possibly be reasonable. Instead, you indicated that the only reasonable stance was the pro-Superior camp. That is dismissive, especially when you do it repeatedly.

    Don't tell you how to feel??? Ha, really that is hilarious considering your next batch of words.

    I did not say it caused me "grief". I did not say i was "broken up". I don't like the movie and gave specific reasons. I said that for the foreseeable future there seemed to be a complete lack of anything resembling a version of Supers that I cared about, or that I would invest in. And i don't like the people who act like i am not allowed to legitimately dislike something that has to do with comic books, and simply dismiss any critique as fanboy rage. Your point about the adaptation would almost be valid, except that ... You seem like you may be reading my words with a specific tone, and then congratulating yourself for being better (you specifically state that I come across as broken up, although I contend it is you adding the tone). You are adding emotional words that I did not use, so perhaps you should take your own advice and not tell me how i am feeling.

    As I did not actually insult anyone who supported the movie, you may not want to use phrases like elitists assholes, pretentious, or entitled for the people who don't (Did you just, without a hint of irony, decry people who dislike this supes as comic nerd elitists in the same sentence where you say your only crime is being a "huge comic nerd" saddled with dealing with them? That almost sounds like you were being condescending or elitist). Once again, you are basically lumping in all possible reactions into one while saying that people can't tell you how to feel. It's a bit of a mixed message.
  • DakotaCruz
    I'm really trying to go back and figure out what,in my original post you have issue or disagree, or what even caused you to reply.

    I said people will like it, people will not like it (or hate it) and then there was comic book fans, fans of the character - that will hate it because they changed up the character. This is where I get weird. I don't like that. I feel it is wrong to hold back creators - not just the MoS movie makers, but any creator who tries something with a character - when they are forced to one ideal and one ideal only, that makes for a very ridged story.

    Another example would be the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3. Some people were quite upset at this character not being true to it's original character.

    I lumped these people into the camp of fanboy. It's a label I used because it does fit. I'm a fanboy. I raged over the Star Wars prequels. I raged until I realized - hey, it's just a story and it's not for me. There might be Star Wars movies and whatnot in the future but for now the prequels and the clone wars cartoon is what we get for Star Wars. Even though I dislike it, some people DO like it and I will never take that away from them.

    and here in lies the problem. maybe I am not being clear. When I originally said - "What did I think? It doesn't really matter now does it?" What I meant was that I wasn't going to rush to the defense of a movie someone didn't enjoy. I didn't get into what I liked about man of Steel NOR did I go on about things I didn't like.

    I tried to sum that up in saying - yeah, it wasn't a perfect movie. You have your perfect movies, I have mine, it's a very individual thing. What I tried to explain later on was that I enjoyed it, and I enjoyed it partially because of the changes they made to the Superman mythology. Some are mad and hated it because of those changes.

    Honestly the parts of MoS that I really enjoyed were the two fathers and their outlook on their son. Being a father I see where both of those men were coming from.

    Pa Kent, as much as people hated him really just wanted to protect his son. It didn't matter that Superman was invulnerable to damage, it was a father wanting to protect his son. This was not even subtle. It was spelled out, maybe too simple.

    Jor-El saw his son as a new hope for his own people and a God to the people of Earth. In the situation with their planet dying he set his son up so that he would thrive.

    These two different views really hit with me. Maybe because I'm a father I see the points from both sides. This is why I liked those parts. The Pa Kent death scene was over the top, kind of silly BUT it was the ultimate (and like I said, not subtle) way of saying - I'd die to protect you.

    So now I figured, maybe even assumed the movie bothered you because a) you took the time to reply, you replied originally with things I didn't even sa...
  • danatblair
    what are you talking about? You responded to me. I wasn't really talking to you, and it wasn't until now I realized that my first comment was after yours.

    I was, to be very specific, thinking of people upthread, some of the rabid reactions to the cinema snob thread, as well as the arguments I had heard in several other reboots.

    It's the same arguments that I have heard before. 1. If you don't like this new version, go read your old stuff (In particular, this was a battle cry of the people who liked the NuTrek. It was even used by one of the movies writers. and it was a ubiquitous way of saying on the forums of the time "Eff you, I do not care what your actual complaint was.") 2. The character had to be modernized. (Funny thing though, all the previous modernizations of supes didn't try to be so bleak and depressing, despite some depressing eras he was modernized in. What does that say about us and our era?) 3. You just don't get it. (This is just a way of dismissing an argument.)

    I dislike that these tactics are basically used as a way of silencing people who say "I don't like this new version." People can not like a direction a character takes and have valid reasons for it.

    I don't think there is anything wrong with simply not liking a version of the character. I liked Batman Begins. I don't like Man of Steel. I think that, of the two, the BB movies did a better job of explaining a developing the character.

    I was fine with twist in the Mandarin, largely due to his character being based on an old movie racial stereotype. It's extremely difficult to take a character that was once interpreted as innocent but is now offensive and make it work. I am curious to see how The Lone Ranger will handle the same problem.

    Still, I generally take the line "I must have complete creative freedom" as shorthand for "I am lazy and uncreative." What was the point of arguing for complete creative control of NuTrek, if they were just going to directly lift scenes from Wrath of Kahn? I feel like the originally stated reason behind needing to ditch the old universe have been largely undercut. Had they made a sequel that didn't have villains (and entire scenes) from established Trek lore I would have respected their original argument more.

    But I digress, so back to hard to write for ... we have Superman.

    See, I don't think expecting that a character have certain morals, values, or essence is a rigid expectation. The question "What superhero is your favorite?" is a Rorschach test. People choose heroes based on the traits and values they represent.

    Spider-man is a trickster who is mentally and physically agile. Green Lantern is fearless and relies on harnessing inner willpower. Wolverine is a loner who has a set of ideals that he has difficulty living up to. The heroes you choose to identify with ...
  • Touché  - This movie had no sense.
    Is there a reason Zod has something against Earth? Was he destroying worlds for the last 33 years just for the hell of it? This whole movie's plot falls apart with just the most minor thoughts. Why not use Mars or ANY OTHER WORLD! They do not say the World Engine needs a planet capable of supporting life to work, it makes the planet capable of supporting life that's its job.

    If Zod wasn't a threat to earth then Clark has no reason not to give him the codex.
    There you just solved the movie.

    Pa Kent's little slip up was meant to show his complete lack of knowledge how to deal with this and his selfishness in wanting to keep Clark with them. But it was still a horrible Pa Kent.

    Lois was the best thing in the movie.

    The humans in danger at the end were morons and written that way. With Superman holding him they could easily have jumped the 2 1/2 -3 foot stone banister and been safe in seconds.
    Zod as a military genius and hand to hand combat specialist cannot escape a simple arm bar. Why not leap up and through the building which would drive Clark through the building and likely free himself.
    (This is done in other movies where the person has super powers)

    Zod can turn his eyes and kill the humans if he wanted too, he wanted to die and Clark being a moron did exactly what he wanted.

    It is very clear Kryptonians in this movie need air.. choke him out... your strong enough to snap his neck you can easily choke him out.

    The Kryptonian air making Clark weak was retarded. If you wanted something like that make it that the interior lighting to their ships is Red Sunlight like back home. That Jor-el teaches Clark to undo for the ship he was using. This way you have Clark who is normal levels and can be beaten by the Military trained people making them still a threat.
    Did a count on damage btw
    Zod and his people damaged or destroyed 16 buildings themselves (Not counting the world engine things)
    Clark damages 13 (Four or five of which where done with the ship he caused to crash) buildings... When the hero is doing more damage then the bad guy you need to rethink who your rooting for.

    LAG you did a great review. Please forward this to Joe.
  • danatblair  - message was too long. so part 2.
    Spider-man is a trickster who is mentally and physically agile. Green Lantern is fearless and relies on harnessing inner willpower. Wolverine is a loner who has a set of ideals that he has difficulty living up to. The heroes you choose to identify with represent on some level who you want to be. Yes, over time these have changed - but when those core definitions changes the heroes begin to not be the hero that someone specifically chose to like.

    When I was a kid, one of the heroes I wanted to be was Superman. I wanted to be Christopher Reeves, George Reeves, Tim Daily/George Newbern, Dean Cain. I was less interested in the powers, and more interested in the man. Every person mattered to him. There were no acceptable casualties. Growing up in the Midwest taught him humility, patience, and gave him a fairly grounded perspective. He chose a profession based on what he believed in, not because it was convenient.

    All-Star Superman makes me want to put on a cape and run around the house again. The Superman in many of the Dc animated movies, the same. MOs Supes ... no. There is nothing there I want to aspire to.

    And ... I don't like the notion people shouldn't get attached to these characters. I don't like the idea that we should distance ourselves from them and the people who do identify with them are somehow unbalanced. I don't think that the people who don't get attached have any right to sit back and say "tsk, tsk tsk." Who are they to tell someone what to believe? Who are they to tell people where they are allowed to get their beliefs from?

    I recall an interview with Lou Ferrigno where he stated how much of an influence The Hulk had on him as a child. Lou was small and sickly. He was teased, a lot. In the Hulk he saw someone who was strong enough to defend himself and so he eventually became a bodybuilder. When he got to play the hulk he was the world's happiest fanboy. I do not get that level of connection with the Hulk. But, I understand that type of connection. I respect it. If he were to say he didn't like a given take and that he disconnected from the character because of it, I would understand.

    For me it's the Green Lantern. I am agoraphobic. I tend to quietly touch my ring finger or ring when I am looking for a bit or fearlessness or willpower. If Green Lantern was rewritten so that facing daunting tasks with determination was no longer a part of his mythos - I'd check out. He would not mean anything to me anymore. I have not picked it up in a while, but I like most of the Lanterns. I like the different personalities in the Corp. I am not overly attached to any given Lantern. But, they all represent a certain ideal and I love reading stories about the different ways the individuals of the corp try to live up to them.

    I am not saying there can't be different interpretations of the same character. I like elseworlds stories, but elseworlds storie...
  • danatblair  - part 3
    I am not saying there can't be different interpretations of the same character. I like elseworlds stories, but elseworlds stories don't replace or alter the primary interpretation of the character. Red Son,All-Star, Smallville, etc. didn't replace Superman in all media. If Superman-Earth One, Nu52, and MOS Supes are the prevailing voice (and the old interpretation becomes the one that is only rarely seen in one offs, mini-series, and occasional cartoon movies) than there is a shift in what the character means. The new meaning does not coexist it replaces by choking the other out of the market. I don't like that, to be very specific.

    Some people find strength in a given religion. Others adhere to political ideology. I don't see why people can't find meaning in stories and characters.

    I just really dislike the, "It's no big for me, but all the haters are just refusing to adapt." Instead of saying," I don't bond with the character in the same way, but I understand how you feel" it comes off as more of a "It's not big to me, why can't you just be like me and deal with it."

    If you don't mind the changes, fine. Don't tell people who dislike them who they have to accept as a given hero or that they are wrong disliking them. you are assuming it is stereotypical "fanboy rage" but I suspect that many of the people are reacting for very specific and personal reasons. Some people got into journalism because of him. Others see him as a set of ideals they would like to live up to. Others see him as a representation of America, and of the working class. Others see him as part of the Midwest. Those are all okay.

    (While not a journalist, I am a Midwestern who studied some Journalism in highschool and college. I was less than impressed with the movie's take on both subjects. the only time my face lit up the entire movie was when Supes had the Royals shirt on, as that is the only detail from Kansas that really felt right to me.)

    I think the short version of this is: If you choose not to connect with the character a certain way that is fine, but don't tell people that they can't connect to him in their own way or dismiss their stance as simply being haters.

    edit: or maybe i am saying that people can have very specific reasons for being attached to a character and if something interferes or changes that it is okay for them to say they are unhappy. people may not verbalize it well, but I think there are deeper reason than typically given credit.
  • DakotaCruz

    I read your posts, twice in fact. I guess there's nothing really left to say.

    I'll not argue your attachment, or any other peoples attachment to the characters. I still totally disagree with that philosophy but to each his own. It's just that when you believe and hold dear something that is a real person or a fictional character you're bound to get disappointed.
  • danatblair
    What is there beyond real person or fictional character? If it is bad to believe in both, then it's pretty much bad to believe in anything.

    I have been disappointed with Pastors and politicians. Any belief can be challenged. Any faith can be lost. I don't believe that any specific ideology or attachment, in particular, is more prone to providing disappointment.

    The only way to not be disappointed is to have no expectations out of life.
  • DakotaCruz
    How about believing in yourself? Then the expectation becomes to be the best person you can be based on that. Any disappointment comes from personal failure and then picking yourself up and learning from that.

    Hell if you need someone to look up to fine, if there's a set of ideals of a certain person that's fine too, but jesus christ start with yourself. At least that way you don't have to hold anybody or anything to certain standards.

    Still at the end of the day MoS was a big dumb fun movie that tried to inject some heart but had the movie had some problems, the least of which was Superman snapping Zod's neck.
  • danatblair
    I asked is there anything other than "real" or "fictitious" and the answer is no, unless someone is quasi-real somehow. You are still a real person. You can be just as disappointed in that. You can lose faith in yourself. Believing in oneself is no less flawed than any other belief system.

    What system works for one person may not work for another. And what works for one moment in your life may not work later. It just kinda depends on what seems to fit. And, sometimes multiple belief systems can be used at the same time. I'm not sure there is something that works all time for all people.

    Aside from not exactly seeing why actually having standards in life is wrong, I am confused by the fact that you put forth believing in oneself as belief system that is better (as the lack of external standards will someone keep you from being disappointed)yet you seem to think this system is better. So, you have standards for people - that they should believe in themselves so as to not have standards (which they will apparently have anyway and suggest that other people follow).
  • danatblair
    okay, so I meant to revise this but it had been to long.

    Your last post is the only one I consider genuinely offensive. Congrats, you have pulled it off.

    Recall, for just a second, that I said I was agoraphobic and that I drew inspiration from Green Lantern. When someone replies later with "Jesus christ start with yourself first" it is a hamfisted attempt to declare that you have solved my problems for me - with no effort at all. It's patronizing and pretentious. If you hurry, I am sure you could find someone who is clinically depressed to yell "Stop thinking sad thoughts and you'll feel better" to.

    The most you know is what works for you. Even if two people have a similar set of issues the paths to overcoming those issues can be very different. Any source or inspiration or belief can fail, but it is always up to the individual to find what works. You cannot force people to respond to what inspires you, however you should respect what they choose.

    That is what I have been saying this entire time. Respect the people who are more connected to a given hero, as you may not really understand how or why the connection helps them. You lack of understanding does not prevent the connection. And, above all don't assume you know enough about someone to tell them what connections are right for them.
  • DakotaCruz
    Man. It's like one big sad fest. I'm not saying believing in one's self is a way to cure or overcome one's clinical issues.

    If you want to get offended go ahead. The only thing that came close to bothering me was the way Superman fans went on about this movie. Wasn't about you and your ideals or your way of life, in fact this topic has gotten way beyond you and I going on and on about deep shit.

    And it isn't deep, it's a movie and I really don't care if it's deeper to you or anyone else. Is that disrespectful? Sure, ok. I view this as a movie discussion that's gone way off the rails, fine.

    I tried to say if you liked the movie - great, if you hated - great and if you hated because you're beholden to the character - not great.

    and yet here we are talking how I'm this great big jerk who is insensitive to everyone else and forcing my believes onto people.

    Oh and yeah, you'll come back (if you do) and say how you didn't call me a great big jerk, etc etc etc.

    Way off the rails, I don't know you and vice versa, I'm not judging you and your lifestyle no matter what the hell you say. Yeah I've come off as pretty goddamn dismissive and whatnot. So what. stop being so defensive - for which you'll disagree with, stop being so sensitive - for which you'll ..who the hell knows. It'll be this come back after come back so I'm done.

    You want to go on, go on. If you think dismissing reactions under the fanboy umbrella is bad ok. I do, end of story - for which you'll probably call be a fucking racist or something.

    Actually I said stop being sensitive and defensive so you can shoot back with some shit of your own. How dare I presume things.

    one last thing, I never intended to equate your agoraphobia with the idea of believing in one's self. In fact that's not even the slightest bit true. I may be an asshole but I'm not that big of an asshole. I'll take being an asshole for totally disagreeing with the whole fanboy thing, but no matter what you think, it really doesn't go beyond that. You may be an asshole too, but it's not because of any agoraphobia.
  • danatblair
    If I am of the opinion that you judge others, you only have your own words to blame. Your very first post expresses schadenfreude at a group you dismiss as fan boys. You later express great hatred for another group of fanboys. When I said you should let people pick their own believe system you basically argued that you had a better solution with a one size fits all approach (After I mentioned 2 specific cases where an individual found strength in a story. I can name more if you wish).

    I would not use the word "racist." Words have meanings and if you stretch the meaning of a word it loses potency. The words you are looking for is "ableist" or "intolerant" depending on which group you're against.

    My rails have not changed. I dislike those who use dismissive tactics and I think that there is validity in choosing who or what you believe in for yourself. You keep changing the subject.
    And I did not call you an asshole. I guess you are insulting yourself to insult me. Yay, Pyrrhic internet rant?

    edit: telling people to be less sensitive and go fight their own battles is a textbook argument made by people who have no clue to people who are dealing with a wide range of issues. it is not new or inspiring. It is offensive to say these things and I am not the only individual who has this as a pet peeve.
  • DakotaCruz
    I got some words for you: go fuck yourself. I do feel better you unknowing shithead.

    Obviously you have no clue how people and the way people work. You have no goddamn idea what is serious/not so serious, you don't know how to pick up on those queues.

    Oh and I'm still not mad but you sir are an asshole. pick those words apart.

    Unless I get banned, then so be it...
  • danatblair
    there is no need to pick your words apart. they speak for themselves.

    isn't this the second time you said you were done, but not already?

    Feeling superior and insulting people? Yes, you have proved my case rather nicely.
  • DakotaCruz
    No. I didn't. I said I was done the time before but you drone on and drone like some fucking idiot and so I felt the need to get - off my chest - that you are all kinds of fucking goofy.

    Fuck. You don't have a clue. Even something like - hey, believe in yourself gets a fucking argument, ok buddy you know what - don't fucking believe in yourself. Do whatever.

    Fuck, might as well edit too: you proved that you're socially stunted and a douchebag. There's no proving anything you fuck.

    Now fuck off.
  • danatblair
    You are just cursing and ranting to yourself. You have no argument beyond profanity and insults. I don't think the person acting like a child who just found out a new dirty word is in a position to critique another's social adjustment. And, you are the one who started responding to me. If you wish to end this conversation, please do. When someone responds to me directly and insults me it gets my attention. I literally never really noticed you until you started posting to me directly.
  • DakotaCruz
    yup it's all you dude. You said I was feeling superior, no, just argued something online. Insulting people? no, just you. and that was just recent, originally I wasn't insulting, the first reply I wasn't and yes I responded to you, yes it's all you.
  • danatblair
    are you done with your tantrum yet? And, you actually did insult LAG in your first post, just not with curse words. Unless pretentious is a compliment. And you insulted various groups that you called fanboys with the phrase "pretentious assholes". You have reserved some of the choice curse words for me, but not the insults. And the feeling superior line was in response to you admiting as much in the previous post. I swear you cannot remember what you wrote one post ago.
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

Animerica: Death Frenzy

Watch Video

Linkara: TTfAW: Quest Research

Watch Video

Freeman's Mind: Episode 61

Watch Video

Rerez: Super Mario Bros Movie

Watch Video

TNchick: Pumpktoberfest 5

Watch Video

LAG: YKW - Mummy on the

Watch Video

Word Funk: Kiss From a Rose

Watch Video

Vangelus: Riobot Detonator Orgun

Watch Video

Lucky 6: Nerdy Girl News

Watch Video

BB: Vampire Academy

Watch Video

Oancitizen: Blue

Watch Video

MikeJ: Bacon Bowl Revisited

Watch Video

FB: Imitation Game / 71

Watch Video

Brad: Fury & Book of Life

Watch Video

Shaun: Monstrous October 16-18

Watch Video

Lesbian Talk: Episode 74

Watch Video

LOTD: Monsterpocalypse

Watch Video

Nash: You're All Screwed

Watch Video

SF Debris: VOY - Workforce P2

Watch Video

Making of NC: Maximum Overdr

Watch Video

Accursed: GD - Revenant

Watch Video

Lupa: Yes Madam

Watch Video

MasakoX: BFT - Friendship is

Watch Video

Nerd: Ep 132 - Gotham

Watch Video

LOTD: Deadpool - DG

Watch Video

SJwaC: TGWTG Trailer

Watch Video

AJ: Alien Isolation

Watch Video

Count: I Spit on Your Grave P2

Watch Video

TNChick: Pumpkt - Dark Brew

Watch Video

Lupa: Legend of Billie Jean

Watch Video

Rap Critic: Goin Off #5

Watch Video

LOTD: The Ghoul

Watch Video

Brad: Fun in Balloon Land

Watch Video

MikeJ: S. Darko

Watch Video

Drmmr5: The Hitchhiker

Watch Video

Team NChick: Pumpktoberfest 3

Watch Video

Lucky 6: OtR - X-Men DoFP

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (143)
Sports (264)
News (283)
Book Reviews (567)
Funny (589)
Top # Lists (772)
Animation (973)
Wrestling (1008)
Movies (1125)
Anime (1142)
Thoughts (1195)
Comics (1275)
Misc Reviews (1344)
Music (1504)
Video Reviews (2003)
Film Review (2810)
Uncategorized (4076)
Video Games (5369)
Old Blogs (15309)