Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I have to admit, I wasn't able to finish watching it.

I'll give it another try when it comes out on DVD/whatever, but I was bored through most of it. Shame.

Didn't like it at all. Too much of an action movie for me. I expected this incredibly deep movie about how difficult Superman's life was, and that's where it appeared to be going for quite a while, but instead it turned into a generic action thriller.

The ending battle sequence was stunning but it felt amazing drawn out and didn't seem like something Superman would do. I seriously doubt he would completely destroy an entire city and think nothing of it. I also doubt he would ever kill Zod, regardless of what he was doing.. That's not the Superman I know.

I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

prowl123 wrote:Didn't like it at all. Too much of an action movie for me. I expected this incredibly deep movie about how difficult Superman's life was, and that's where it appeared to be going for quite a while, but instead it turned into a generic action thriller.

The ending battle sequence was stunning but it felt amazing drawn out and didn't seem like something Superman would do. I seriously doubt he would completely destroy an entire city and think nothing of it. I also doubt he would ever kill Zod, regardless of what he was doing.. That's not the Superman I know.

I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

Superman does kill Zod in the comics

prowl123 wrote:Didn't like it at all. Too much of an action movie for me. I expected this incredibly deep movie about how difficult Superman's life was, and that's where it appeared to be going for quite a while, but instead it turned into a generic action thriller.

With Zack Snyder at the helm? I think not.

prowl123 wrote:The ending battle sequence was stunning but it felt amazing drawn out and didn't seem like something Superman would do. I seriously doubt he would completely destroy an entire city and think nothing of it.

You can hardly blame Superman for the collateral damage. What, do you expect him to just ask Zod for a change of battlefield? Hey, could you try NOT punching me into buildings? Superman actually did try to drag the fight out into space, but Zod pulled it right back down to Metropolis. It was more Zod's fault than anything. Blaming Superman is like blaming the Avengers for destroying New York, or the Autobots for Chicago getting trashed.

prowl123 wrote:I also doubt he would ever kill Zod, regardless of what he was doing.. That's not the Superman I know.

As much as I hated that scene, it does have precedence in the comics. Also in Superman II.

prowl123 wrote:I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

I don't know what you're talking about, because they dealt with that heavily.

Shadowman wrote:

prowl123 wrote:Didn't like it at all. Too much of an action movie for me. I expected this incredibly deep movie about how difficult Superman's life was, and that's where it appeared to be going for quite a while, but instead it turned into a generic action thriller.

With Zack Snyder at the helm? I think not.

prowl123 wrote:The ending battle sequence was stunning but it felt amazing drawn out and didn't seem like something Superman would do. I seriously doubt he would completely destroy an entire city and think nothing of it.

You can hardly blame Superman for the collateral damage. What, do you expect him to just ask Zod for a change of battlefield? Hey, could you try NOT punching me into buildings? Superman actually did try to drag the fight out into space, but Zod pulled it right back down to Metropolis. It was more Zod's fault than anything. Blaming Superman is like blaming the Avengers for destroying New York, or the Autobots for Chicago getting trashed.

prowl123 wrote:I also doubt he would ever kill Zod, regardless of what he was doing.. That's not the Superman I know.

As much as I hated that scene, it does have precedence in the comics. Also in Superman II.

prowl123 wrote:I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

I don't know what you're talking about, because they dealt with that heavily.

Remember we aren't supposed to take anything he says seriously.

njb902 wrote:Remember we aren't supposed to take anything he says seriously.

I can still point out all the flaws in his arguments without taking him seriously. It's surprisingly easy.

Shadowman wrote:

prowl123 wrote:I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

I don't know what you're talking about, because they dealt with that heavily.

I see where you're coming from with everything else but I completely disagree with you here. They only covered his childhood in 3 scenes if I remember correctly and they were all flashbacks. I wish they had gone with a more Smallville-esque depiction of Johnathan. He should've had a bigger role than he did in the movie. We never even saw him alive in real time in the movie.

prowl123 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

prowl123 wrote:I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

I don't know what you're talking about, because they dealt with that heavily.

I see where you're coming from with everything else but I completely disagree with you here. They only covered his childhood in 3 scenes if I remember correctly and they were all flashbacks.

Five. The one in the school where he went into sensory overload, the bus crash and the repercussions, being bullied, the tornado, and the one where he's got that towel-cape. They really got everything in there, I don't know what else you wanted them to show off, nor do I understand the issue with flashbacks.

prowl123 wrote:I wish they had gone with a more Smallville-esque depiction of Johnathan. He should've had a bigger role than he did in the movie. We never even saw him alive in real time in the movie.

Jonathan Kent's role in the Superman mythos is to raise Clark to adulthood, and then die.

Shadowman wrote:

prowl123 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

prowl123 wrote:I was also very irritated by the fact that they skipped over his entire childhood. If they're gonna change his personality like that then they should've gone through his childhood more and made Johnathan a bigger character with more of an influence on Clark's decisions in regards to his powers.

I don't know what you're talking about, because they dealt with that heavily.

I see where you're coming from with everything else but I completely disagree with you here. They only covered his childhood in 3 scenes if I remember correctly and they were all flashbacks.

Five. The one in the school where he went into sensory overload, the bus crash and the repercussions, being bullied, the tornado, and the one where he's got that towel-cape. They really got everything in there, I don't know what else you wanted them to show off, nor do I understand the issue with flashbacks.

prowl123 wrote:I wish they had gone with a more Smallville-esque depiction of Johnathan. He should've had a bigger role than he did in the movie. We never even saw him alive in real time in the movie.

Jonathan Kent's role in the Superman mythos is to raise Clark to adulthood, and then die.

What I think they should have done is put Clark in a position where he had an option to kill somebody but Johnathan convinces him otherwise. Maybe somebody tries to rob the farm and Ckark catches him? I felt that the ending scene was completely out of the blue. There should have been some foreshadowing.

prowl123 wrote:What I think they should have done is put Clark in a position where he had an option to kill somebody but Johnathan convinces him otherwise. Maybe somebody tries to rob the farm and Ckark catches him? I felt that the ending scene was completely out of the blue. There should have been some foreshadowing.

It would have basically been the same as the scene with the bullies, when Jonathan lectures Clark on whether it would have been right to use force or not.

I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

I'd rather see doomsday than darkseid or brainiac, but I would be fine with either. Do you think they are saving darkseid for the justice league movie?

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

I'd rather see doomsday than darkseid or brainiac, but I would be fine with either. Do you think they are saving darkseid for the justice league movie?

I would LOVE to see a doomsday movie. Darkseid will probably be saved for Justice League.

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

I'd rather see doomsday than darkseid or brainiac, but I would be fine with either. Do you think they are saving darkseid for the justice league movie?

You mean that movie that got pushed back even further after they decided to kill its script again? I seriously don't believe it's ever going to be made.

I have to say, I like the idea that Krypton's atmosphere and ecosystem keeping Supes back instead of Kryptonite, makes a bit more sense than a rock weakening him.

Dead Metal wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:I wish they could see beyond lex and zod as villains.

Chances are they'll bring in Lex in one of the sequels, but someone else as well. Possibly Brainiac or--fingers crossed--Darkseid.

I'd rather see doomsday than darkseid or brainiac, but I would be fine with either. Do you think they are saving darkseid for the justice league movie?

You mean that movie that got pushed back even further after they decided to kill its script again? I seriously don't believe it's ever going to be made.

I have to say, I like the idea that Krypton's atmosphere and ecosystem keeping Supes back instead of Kryptonite, makes a bit more sense than a rock weakening him.

I think ya have to leave real world sense at the door with science fiction.

I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

The animated is absolutely stellar. They should remake it into a two parter. Superman dies right at the end of the first part, and in the second part, we see an earth-shattering event of some sort start to unfold (Brainiac?) that promts his return. I doubt this will happen but it would be awesome

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I don't get why people want to see Death of Superman done up in live-action. The fight would be cool, sure, but the emotional impact of the arc boils down to "Oh no, Superman is dead, how sa--oh wait, he's alive again." Looking back, there wasn't a whole lot to the event. In fact, the only long-term impact it had was on Green Lantern.

That said, there's the animated version.

It was a big deal when it happened, they even stopped making the comics for a good long while. I just think the death, absence of, and resurrection of superman would be a great trilogy.

It wouldn't work as a trilogy, considering the entire second movie would just people moping around, and what kind of superhero movie would that be? A very lame one, let me tell you.

I think it would.

A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

So set it a year after his death. Introduce steel, the eradicator, superboy, and the cyborg superman. Tell the story of how they try to replace him, leaving out how the cyborg is a bad guy.

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

So set it a year after his death. Introduce steel, the eradicator, superboy, and the cyborg superman. Tell the story of how they try to replace him, leaving out how the cyborg is a bad guy.

That still raises the issue of making a Superman movie without Superman in it. Not to mention it would stretch out what would otherwise be the third act to twice its length, leaving very little for the third movie to cover.

Superman II: Superman Isn't In This Movie.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:A superhero movie that a) Doesn't feature its superhero due to his death in the previous movie and b) people moping about said death being the entirety of the movie? That wouldn't exactly sell tickets.

So set it a year after his death. Introduce steel, the eradicator, superboy, and the cyborg superman. Tell the story of how they try to replace him, leaving out how the cyborg is a bad guy.

That still raises the issue of making a Superman movie without Superman in it. Not to mention it would stretch out what would otherwise be the third act to twice its length, leaving very little for the third movie to cover.

Superman II: Superman Isn't In This Movie.

I disagree, it's not like they have to slavishly fallow the comic. Even if they do there is the introduction of mongol, the destruction of coast city, superman's resurrection, finding out the cyborg is a bad guy, and the epilogue. If that isn't enough for a movie I don't know what is.

I think you're too hung up on superman not being in the movie. I think plenty of people would go see it. You don't even need to name it superman 2, just name it "rise of the supermen"