Jump to content

Man Of Steel (2013 Superman reboot directed by Zack Snyder)


Luke Skywalker

Recommended Posts

So the problem isn't America or how we present ourselves through our movies. It's how the rest of you perceive us, how a part of our way of life in our movies you want to feel. That makes much more sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the answer to why is because Superman in the past has stood for Truth Justice and the American Way!

Apparently you don't know your Superman lore.

I've never been big on superhero stuff; never read a single one of those comics either. Give me Asterix and Obelix or Tintin or Suske and Wiske any day of the week!

I watched Superman mainly because of the John Williams score. But my favourite superhero movie is still The Incredibles.

I know the whole "Truth, Justice and the American Way" is part of the original story concept, but to me that "the American Way" part seems rather outdated.

Truth and justice should be pretty much universal. And any real superhero should be universal too. But "the American Way" is decidedly not.

Want a Dutchie or Spanish superhero, spreading tulips, or smallpox to the Indians? Go invent him.

With Captain America, I can understand the obvious patriotism. After all, it's right there in his name. But I don't need a "Captain Holland" or anything.

It just seems to me that any actual Superman character should have no care about international boundaries or different cultures.

We're American chaac, and Donner isn't the beginning of Superman lore or the idea that he's here for truth justice and the American way. the Name of our Country is America btw.

Technically, is "America" not the name of the continent that includes Canada, Middle and South America?

People worldwide keep referring to the USA as "America". But there's a lot more to America than just the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, is "America" not the name of the continent that includes Canada, Middle and South America? People worldwide keep referring to the USA as "America". But there's a lot more to America than just the USA.

It depends on your perspective! The name was originally meant for what we know call South America. Later also applied to North America by extension. As the English colonized an area in North America, and communication was scarce at the time, they mostly applied the name to their colonies, that would end up being the United States of America. So America gets termed instead "The Americas" in plural, referring to North and South America and it sounds cool.

On the other hand, for a lot of people it's rather vague. As the USA name sounds as generic as you can get, in Castillan the people there get called "estadounidenses" ("United-Statesians", which in English sounds dumb). And the United Mexican States get called Mexico, because it's more specific (even though applying the name of a smaller area to a much larger territory, which would be the opposite process). A lot of the time (specially in translation of local material that would use "Americans") we use it literally, and sort of deduce from the context. I don't know how they go with this in other languages. (Anecdote: the Mexicans I know get quite pissed off when USAns call them not American.I find the whole situation with the name hilarious).

Whether America is a "continent" or two is a mere matter of convention. Of the shape and size you prefer your very big islands to have. Continent =really big island with some name, or whatever floats your boat. It's not really important. Most people don't give a flying fuck about serious geological definitions on what a continent is and it would be confusing for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the suit makes it clear enough...

I'm remembering now in the 2011 film the absurd amount of effort to try to make the character ans his world palatable in some way. I consider the film a failure but at least it knew how to play around with the character today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow your logic... Why is the patriotism of Captain America "obvious" because it's "right there in his name"? Shouldn't that superhero stand for the whole American continent, and not just the USA? I would agree with you if his name was "Captain USA", but it isn't, is it?

What Chaac said. And "Captain USA" isn't very catchy, is it? Need a catchy name to be able to be a superhero!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. It wouldn't fit the context of the character. They wouldn't try to go correct and name him Captain USA, they'd go "Captain 'MERICA!" and that kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the suit makes it clear enough...

This and the fact that you never see Captain America defend brazilian citizens against crime (wouldn't that be a feat?) or rain forest animals against poachers.

He knows where his homeland is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brits should have one as well. Captain Cornwall.

503445-cptbritain.jpg

We have one too!!!

uxf0D29621.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if we follow Pieter's definition of America (which includes (but isn't limited to) the USA), then "Captain America" isn't the right name for the character! The guy only defends US citizens. As Pub said, he doesn't give a shit about Brazilian citizens and other guys like that.

It'd be like having a superhero called Captain Europa who only fights for Spanish people.

LOL! My definition of America as meaning ALL of America with USA for that big country in North America that isn't Canada is technically true.

But applying such technically true statements to a comic book character is a bit over-the-top. So I don't mind the name "Captain America".

And since he's a super-soldier from the US army, the whole thing is fair enough.

There are gazillions people who use the terms "America" and "USA" as if they mean the same.

There's nothing really wrong with that if the context clarifies the use, but it can be confusing at time and still isn't technically true.

But to bring this back to Superman, I know he landed in the USA and was brought up as a US citizen. But he's SuperMAN, not SuperAMERICAN.

(Oops... Look! I did it myself...! :rolleyes: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, is "America" not the name of the continent that includes Canada, Middle and South America? People worldwide keep referring to the USA as "America". But there's a lot more to America than just the USA.

It depends on your perspective! The name was originally meant for what we know call South America. Later also applied to North America by extension. As the English colonized an area in North America, and communication was scarce at the time, they mostly applied the name to their colonies, that would end up being the United States of America. So America gets termed instead "The Americas" in plural, referring to North and South America and it sounds cool.

On the other hand, for a lot of people it's rather vague. As the USA name sounds as generic as you can get, in Castillan the people there get called "estadounidenses" ("United-Statesians", which in English sounds dumb). And the United Mexican States get called Mexico, because it's more specific (even though applying the name of a smaller area to a much larger territory, which would be the opposite process). A lot of the time (specially in translation of local material that would use "Americans") we use it literally, and sort of deduce from the context. I don't know how they go with this in other languages. (Anecdote: the Mexicans I know get quite pissed off when USAns call them not American.I find the whole situation with the name hilarious).

Whether America is a "continent" or two is a mere matter of convention. Of the shape and size you prefer your very big islands to have. Continent =really big island with some name, or whatever floats your boat. It's not really important. Most people don't give a flying fuck about serious geological definitions on what a continent is and it would be confusing for them.

you know your explanation makes no sense. no surprise there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG Yes! Can't believe anybody else even knows who that is! AWESOME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greatness has nothing to do with the usage of vibrant colors, otherwise all Marvel movies would be great.

Having said that, I'll take 'fun' (like in The Avengers) over the usual flatliners that Marvel used to produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda see this reboot like Batman Begins. I personally can't wait for "Man of Steel to be released. The 3rd trailer was AWESOME! I think most fans will be skeptical seeing it because the last film wasn't as great as fans were expecting. Props to John Ottoman on the score though, it is amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because the Donner version is looked upon like it's a holy shrine. To them, Superman The Movie is Citizen Kane. You don't do another Citizen Kane. I understand that. I just think Supes needs to be hip again and therefore needs an update. Maybe Nolan & Snyder (the combination is so onorthodox!) will be able to put Supes back on the map of comic book heroes. It won't be easy but the name Nolan can do wonders.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because the Donner version is looked upon like it's a holy shrine. To them, Superman The Movie is Citizen Kane. You don't do another Citizen Kane. I understand that. I just think Supes needs to be hip again and therefore needs an update. Maybe Nolan & Snyder (the combination is so onorthodox!) will be able to put Supes back on the map of comic book heroes. It won't be easy but the name Nolan can do wonders.

Alex

To me, Superman: The Movie is just silly in parts (mostly Lex and Otis) and it takes away from the best moments in the film. And some of the plot twists are even sillier. Singer's Superman Returns ditched the silly moments but it was stuck between being a love letter to Donner's film and being a whole new Superman franchise. (And a lack of Superman kicking ass.)

I'm not saying the 1978 film should've been darker, but more tonally consistent (not a mix of the campy 1960s Batman series with the more reverential treatment). Heck, I enjoy Burton's Batman film more than Superman: The Movie because it knew what it was from the outset.

Man of Steel looks to fix that problem. It is paying some homage to the 1978 film without being un-original, but ditching the silliness that plagued that film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what they're wearing in Addis Ababa?

Looks like a burnoose



the quality of a movie is often defined by it's quotability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh at those who say John's music wouldn't fit.It would fit wonderfullu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree

And wow, I guess that producer guy who wanted Kevin Smith to have a giant robot spider in a Superman film finally got his wish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh at those who say John's music wouldn't fit.It would fit wonderfullu.

Of what I've seen, it would totally fit.

And wow, I guess that producer guy who wanted Kevin Smith to have a giant robot spider in a Superman film finally got his wish

LOL!

Smith's whole explanation of the story is fucking hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh at those who say John's music wouldn't fit.It would fit wonderfullu.

I listed to Ottman's SR score yesterday, and I can't help picturing it working well in MOS. Maybe use a bit of "Jack the Giant Slayer" to represent the Kryptonian villains...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh at those who say John's music wouldn't fit.It would fit wonderfullu.

It might fit but that kind of brassy heroic theme music is deemed old-fashioned and cheesy now. It reminds people of the late seventies and the early eighties. Also, MOS is supposed to be a new angle for a new generation. There's no new angle when you keep referring to the old one. That would be like using Korngold's music of The Adventures Of Robin Hood for your brand new take on Robin Hood. That's why Man Of Steel will be getting a kind of score that is very 'today', not 'yesterday'. So, in short, it doesn't fit the new movie because it doesn't serve the new angle.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why go for "new angle" when that is NOT the same a "better angle"? Just being different for the sake of being different?

And it's not even THAT different because compared to other new films out there, it's rather samey-samey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a little reality check is needed here: apart from some guys over 40, nobody wants the old SUPERMAN sound back (i don't include the handful of JWfan members). And Warner did kind of try it with SUPERMAN RETURNS and i don't think the experiment went over too well.

There is a sound for every generation and for better or worse, Hans supplies it in this case and probably millions will declare it 'fucking epic'. Mission accomplished. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a little reality check is needed here: apart from some guys over 40, nobody wants the old SUPERMAN sound back (i don't include the handful of JWfan members). And Warner did kind of try it with SUPERMAN RETURNS and i don't think the experiment went over too well.

There is a sound for every generation and for better or worse, Hans supplies it in this case and probably millions will declare it 'fucking epic'. Mission accomplished. End of story.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.