Superman Movies

Yeah, but aside from Emil Hamilton, I don't think they really drew from the comics' mythology anymore than Returns did, it just wasn't as fetishitic about it. And probably the only reason it wasn't was because Returns existed in the first place, since the chaotic, practically apocalyptic punchfest seemed to just be there as a wink-wink "No saving planes and real estate schemes THIS time!"

The whole redesign and nature of Krypton is influenced, not exclusively but largely, by John Byrne's 1986 reboot, specifically the cloning-as-procreation (which I don't think has ever been used in any other adaptation - even the '90s cartoon went Silver Age for Krypton), the council's costuming, and Kelex and Kelor, the robot butlers. Krypton alone puts this movie in the "deeper in the comic mythology" than Donner/Singer, since aside from the names Jor-El, Zod, and Krypton, nothing about Donner's Krypton had anything to do with the comics.

Steve Lombard is a character that has never been put in live-action before. The notion of Clark wandering the Earth as Clark Kent before becoming Superman is drawn from Byrne's reboot and Waid's Birthright. The supersuit as part of Kryptonian armor is from The New 52 (though which came first and influenced the other is up for grabs, since both were in development at the same time).

The only thing I would say the movie lifts from Donner is the Kryptonian glyph concept - and even that is something that's been part of comic lore since 1986.

Minor details, sure, but more than just "Emil Hamilton".

As for reusing Zod, Superman has a crappy Rogues gallery. Lex has been done to death, Bizzaro is a comic character, Darksied would come off as derivative of Darth Vader (even though it's the other way around) and the New Gods stuff is dated and goofy beyond belief. Which leaves Brainiac, who I think Snyder should go with.

I'll admit, he kind of does. Brainiac, Lex, and Zod are really the only heavy hitters that constitute actual characters and could support an entire movie. Parasite's interesting, but not "major villain in a movie" interesting. Doomsday is awesome, but he's a force of nature and a plot device, not a character (despite what Smallville tried to do by giving him a secret identity). Mxyzptlk and Bizarro would be fun to see, but when done correctly neither of them is truly a villain. Metallo requires Lex Luthor or a complete revamp of his origin. And with Lex or without him, Metallo brings in Kryptonite, which I for one was not sorry to see missing this time around.

Most of the others that Superman frequently faces off against - Darkseid, Chemo, Starro, Amazo - are more "DC Universe" villains than "Superman" villains.

Honestly, if WB wants to get out ahead of Marvel, they should be aiming their shared universe at ultimately doing an adaptation of Crisis on Infinite Earths. Anti-Monitor for the win!

You can also piggy back Zod onto Kal-El's orgin story, which is a narrative advantage.

I came across this article which is a bit spoilery in places if you haven't seen the film. Considering the debates I've seen online over certain things that happen in this film, I thought this was interesting: 

• Possibly spoiler, erring on the side of caution:

Also spoilering this in case it ruins anything for anyone who hasn't seen Man of Steel yet:

Spoiler:

Yeah, both Mark Waid and Chris Sims have cited their displeasure with

Spoiler:

Mad respect for Mark Waid - Kingdom Come is one of my favorite stories in any medium ever.

But... wow. He's very eloquent in his review and his dislike, but I still come away from it feeling like he's extremely narrow-minded and unwilling to even consider another point of view. That he closed his comments because he was tired of people citing Superman #22 or the ending of Superman II and then ended his last comment with "This is why we can't have nice things"... Fuck him, man. Just fuck him.

Very interesting articles-- I notice myself, over the last two or three years, my tolerance for disaster movies and smash-the-whole-city-fighting-the-bad-guy movies has really plummeted. I can't stop thinking about the fictitious body count, and no matter who "started it" I find myself getting pissed off if the good guys ignore the toll. (I make no secret about how much I ended up disliking The Avengers, which was very disappointing after months of excited anticipation, but I did appreciate Whedon's coda acknowledging the fact those buildings that got destroyed were full of people.) Not being a reader of comics or knowledgeable about superheroes, I thought that was just me.

I think there is a valid point that the movie has

Spoiler:

The movie is definitely missing some of its connective tissue.

I wonder if it was shot-and-cut-out, or never done.

From all accounts, the final bit of conflict was a late-game revision by Snyder and Goyer because they started feeling that having Zod go back into the Phantom Zone with the other Kryptonians was anti-climactic. So it could go either way, though I'm inclined to say they probably just didn't write it.

So that thing that's in the film that has people talking so much, David Goyer and Zach Snyder discuss it in the latest Empire magazine podcast. But they have some of the highlights on the website and here's what they have to say about that thing that happens:

From the podcast:

Whether I end up agreeing or not, I still find it interesting to hear about the thought processes that lead to these kinds of decisions.

I thought all the actors brought the right gravitas and weight to their roles and that Henry and Amy had a mature, grounded chemistry. For some reason though, they don't physically look right together to me, but I don't really know why I feel that way. Maybe part of it is that Amy just seems out of place to me in a big budget superhero movie or something despite the fact that I thought she handled the performance very well. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner were great as the Kents though I was laughing at Diane dressed down in clogs and a gardening apron. Never thought I'd see that since she's always been so glamorous in all the other roles I've seen her in. It's too Diane was playing Clark's mom though cuz the dirty part of my mind wanted to see her and Henry make out. 

EDIT: I really hope no one who hasn't seen the film saw the stupid spoilers I wrote that the damn spoiler tag didn't successfully hide. If you did, I am so sorry! 

I saw it and mostly enjoyed it.

The down side to me was I felt the big action sequences just went on too long. I was bored by the end of the Smallville and Metropolis dust-ups. Which isn't to say I didn't think they were amazingly well done, cos they were.

I thought the casting was excellent.  I liked the non-linear story structure. Caville was wonderful. I only know him from The Tudors before this.

Yeah, my only real gripe is that the battles went on way longer than they should have or needed to. I wanted a few quiet moments interspersed throughout the last 45 minutes to cut through all the loud ass, never-ending fights. Other than that, I loved the movie and found the ending vastly compelling and realistic. Well, as realistic as a movie about aliens battling for the planet can be.

Of all the things I expected from this movie--a movie I ended up loving, fwiw--being

Spoiler:

wasn't one of them.

I've heard that, but I really can only recall two instances that are anvilicious, and one that probably went over the heads of most people (the stained glass window, the falling away from the Phantom ship, and then his referring to being on the planet for 33 years). I mean... they didn't sack us with a "Superman's dead!/Not really!" moment. I think Returns was a lot more heavy handed with that.

That's the stuff I caught as a Christian. Not sure about anything specifically Jewish that isn't inherent in the source material ("El = God", the Moses metaphor) being particularly hammered in this movie.

As soon as I heard the age 33 thing, I thought "oh right, like Jesus", and then my mind went to "Leave him alone! He's only 33!" There are some pop culture things you never forget, it seems.

It never even occurred to me why they picked such a seemingly random age. However, it did amuse me since Henry barely turned 30 recently.

I think it's one of those things, if you know it's a Christ reference, it's a REALLY OBVIOUS one. 

I had a friend that, when he turned 33, would splay out his arms as if on a cross as the answer to the question, "How old are you?"

See, if it's they really want to make it work as a Christ metaphor, then they needed to make Kal 30, not 33. Jesus was 30 when he was baptized by John and began his ministry. And then you can have all kinds of fun with casting Zod in the dual role of John AND Satan and have this whole thing about this first outing being Kal's "baptism of fire" and his temptation.

Then, for the third movie, you make a reference to him being 33 and you bring in Doomsday.

But again... the age thing probably went over most people's heads.

He was a Royals fan. If that doesn't qualify as a martyrdom I don't know what does.

OMG. He looked so damn fine in that Royals shirt. I confess that is the image most viciously seared into my brain from that entire movie.