Is Man of Steel prequel "Krypton" series a good idea?

[Kae]

Bastardization? Superman has went through some many portrayals and in the hands of different writers that David S Goyer's version is just one of many interpretations.

Not surprising since we are dealing with a character that is almost 100 years old.

When I look at the trailer of Batman v Superman I thought the idea of Superman willingly go to trial against him is something Superman would do if he is accused of something.

Well MarsAtlas summed it up pretty good but regardless, just because there have been many versions it doesn't mean they can't be bastardized, for example Marvel can make Nick Fury Samuel L. Jackson and that's fine because he acts like Nick Fury should act, that's a good adaptation, on the contrary pretty much all that MarsAtlas pointed out, that character doesn't act like Superman and not being the only bastardization of the character is hardly a point in it's favour, after all regardless of who writes it there are certain characteristics that go along with being Superman, and if you want to make a dark story out of it that's fine, but Superman should show remorse about not being able to save everyone and Superman should try to minimize destruction and collateral damage[footnote]Much like how Captain America does in Avengers Age of Ultron.[/footnote], he should try not to kill even harder than Batman did in Goyer's own Dark Knight trilogy, because that's what Superman is, he's the quintessential good guy and that movie just doesn't give a shit about because it's a shit movie.

 

[Kyrian007]

I guess I see kind of a nugget of a decent idea somewhere in there, (the "but" that's coming is a freaking enormous Jabba sized one) but...

If this thing is set in Nolan, Snyder, Goyer-verse Krypton then it's not going to make for a very interesting story. And no matter what version of Krypton we're seeing we aren't going to see characters we care about or if we do we aren't seeing the most interesting time in their lives. We know that will happen much closer to 200 years after the events of the show we're watching.

There was a similar problem with Caprica. The difference was there was enough interesting stuff happening to warrant telling the story. And Caprica still failed. I really don't see Krypton being any better. Especially because in the MoS verse version it's going to be 45+ minutes of people doing exactly as they are told in jobs they were born to do every week. Any Kryptonian breaking out of that mold must have been soundly defeated... the problem is futility. We know how the story will end. Pointlessly except for one baby on an escape pod.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Bastardization? Superman has went through some many portrayals and in the hands of different writers that David S Goyer's version is just one of many interpretations.

Not surprising since we are dealing with a character that is almost 100 years old.

When I look at the trailer of Batman v Superman I thought the idea of Superman willingly go to trial against him is something Superman would do if he is accused of something.

Well MarsAtlas summed it up pretty good but regardless, just because there have been many versions it doesn't mean they can't be bastardized, for example Marvel can make Nick Fury Samuel L. Jackson and that's fine because he acts like Nick Fury should act, that's a good adaptation, on the contrary pretty much all that MarsAtlas pointed out, that character doesn't act like Superman and not being the only bastardization of the character is hardly a point in it's favour, after all regardless of who writes it there are certain characteristics that go along with being Superman, and if you want to make a dark story out of it that's fine, but Superman should show remorse about not being able to save everyone and Superman should try to minimize destruction and collateral damage[footnote]Much like how Captain America does in Avengers Age of Ultron.[/footnote], he should try not to kill even harder than Batman did in Goyer's own Dark Knight trilogy, because that's what Superman is, he's the quintessential good guy and that movie just doesn't give a shit about because it's a shit movie.

And I am of the opinion that it is not a completely shit movie I mean yeah there are flaws, I think the Lois Lane actress is terribly miscast, and that silly sequence of Supes visiting a Catholic Priest. But I liked the good parts. I thought the Krypton sequence was a great opening. I thought Zod was a very compelling villain character. I think the Henry Cavile was a good Superman.

But let me explain something that people seem to forget about watching the movie.

This is Kal-El's first time being Superman. And besides he did cause any of the destruction of Metropolis. At worst he just shoved Zod's head in a building but the building did not brake down. And you forget that the World Breaker did most of the destruction. And during the Zod fight Zod did more damage than Superman.

Now I am basing this and my speculation of the sequal. Superman is going to see the destruction of Metropolis and realize that he has to be more responsible and be careful with his powers and will try to not let villains like Zod wreack havoc. I mean in the trailers of Batman v Superman we SEE Superman saving people from disasters. We see him rescue people from a Katrina-like Flood for example. And looking at the fight between Superman and Batman the city looked empty of people. And did he not saved those workers in the Oil Refinary in Man of Steel?

All in all I just think Man of Steel is bashed way too hard. Especially when I personally think there are worse Superhero movies that came out later like Amazing Spiderman 2.

 

[votemarvel]

The problem is that Krypton's value comes from the fact that it's mostly a mystery. If you attempt to dispel that mystery then you render the entire point of the "alien from advanced world that was destroyed" moot. Especially because Kryptonians apparently had interstellar space travel down already. How are they going to explain away the idea of Kryptonians finding that yellow suns give them super powers, then having them all flock to a planet around one so they can all have super powers? Because that's probably the first thing they'd do.

They explained it away in the comics with the Kryptonians falling under a racist and insular government, one that called back the fleets and refused to explore beyond their world.

Of course that could have been wiped away in one of the many reboots.

 

[Kae]

And I am of the opinion that it is not a completely shit movie I mean yeah there are flaws, I think the Lois Lane actress is terribly miscast, and that silly sequence of Supes visiting a Catholic Priest. But I liked the good parts. I thought the Krypton sequence was a great opening. I thought Zod was a very compelling villain character. I think the Henry Cavile was a good Superman.

But let me explain something that people seem to forget about watching the movie.

This is Kal-El's first time being Superman. And besides he did cause any of the destruction of Metropolis. At worst he just shoved Zod's head in a building but the building did not brake down. And you forget that the World Breaker did most of the destruction. And during the Zod fight Zod did more damage than Superman.

Now I am basing this and my speculation of the sequal. Superman is going to see the destruction of Metropolis and realize that he has to be more responsible and be careful with his powers and will try to not let villains like Zod wreack havoc. I mean in the trailers of Batman v Superman we SEE Superman saving people from disasters. We see him rescue people from a Katrina-like Flood for example. And looking at the fight between Superman and Batman the city looked empty of people. And did he not saved those workers in the Oil Refinary in Man of Steel?

All in all I just think Man of Steel is bashed way too hard. Especially when I personally think there are worse Superhero movies that came out later like Amazing Spiderman 2.

It's fine if you like it but not being the worst super hero movie is hardly a merit to dispel it's criticisms, and I don't care about what might be done in sequels I care about the movie that I saw, and yeah there are good things about the film and sure it's not that terrible but they still screwed up what to me and many other Superman fans is the single most important thing about the character, so yeah it deserves all the bashing it gets, it's like the people making it didn't understand the character which is ridiculous because Superman is one of the simplest most straightforward characters you can find.

Also I don't think it being Superman's first time being relevant or important, and I'll leave it at that because MarsAtlas explained everything better than I could have again, so let's just agree to disagree, I'm not saying you shouldn't like the film, if you like it awesome, but the thing does deserve all the criticism that it gets, after all this is Superman we're talking about, he's kind of a big deal.

 

[WolfThomas]

The problem is that Krypton's value comes from the fact that it's mostly a mystery. If you attempt to dispel that mystery then you render the entire point of the "alien from advanced world that was destroyed" moot. Especially because Kryptonians apparently had interstellar space travel down already. How are they going to explain away the idea of Kryptonians finding that yellow suns give them super powers, then having them all flock to a planet around one so they can all have super powers? Because that's probably the first thing they'd do.

They explained it away in the comics with the Kryptonians falling under a racist and insular government, one that called back the fleets and refused to explore beyond their world.

Of course that could have been wiped away in one of the many reboots.

There's been heaps of explanations over the years. Like Krypton having a massive gravity well, which Kryptonians were evolved to deal with (like superman's early John Carter-esque inspiration) and the experimental rocket was only able to escape as the planet collapsed.

Or that it took years for Superman's body to actually tolerate yellow sun and make him strong instead of sick. So Kryptonian Colonists avoided yellow star planets.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

The problem is that Krypton's value comes from the fact that it's mostly a mystery. If you attempt to dispel that mystery then you render the entire point of the "alien from advanced world that was destroyed" moot. Especially because Kryptonians apparently had interstellar space travel down already. How are they going to explain away the idea of Kryptonians finding that yellow suns give them super powers, then having them all flock to a planet around one so they can all have super powers? Because that's probably the first thing they'd do.

Yeah, the issue of "Why didn't everyone just evacuate Krypton?" and "why had they not colonized other planets" is already kind of a big plothole in the idea of Krypton. Making a series that explores the people and civilization in more detail will probably just end up adding a million other plotholes and issues, especially since these types of series have proven again and again that they cannot avoid blatant fanservice and pandering, so we will constantly see out of place references to everything in Superman - The family crest, Superman's ancestors, Zod's ancestors, Supergirl, the rocket pod, the possible destruction of Krypton...

Earth and humans being in danger will almost certainly end up becoming randomly central plotlines every so often, because reasons. Then they'll probably end up introducing a human to Krypton through plot contrivance. They won't be able to resist including named people and heroes from the DC universe where they don't belong- Doomsday, Darkseid, Brainiac etc. will probably make anachronistic appearances as villains, in exactly the same way that Smallville ended up introducing almost every major villain to teen Clark Kent.

My expectations aren't high for this project, is what I'm saying.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Put in spoilers because Man of Steel ranting.

But let me explain something that people seem to forget about watching the movie.

This is Kal-El's first time being Superman. And besides he did cause any of the destruction of Metropolis. At worst he just shoved Zod's head in a building but the building did not brake down. And you forget that the World Breaker did most of the destruction. And during the Zod fight Zod did more damage than Superman.

You're missing the point, which all the "he's young and inexperienced" sort of excuses do. Superman can collosally fuck up. Thats okay, you can do. Superman can be imperfect, he can even be a bad guy, but the movie has to recognize it. At no point in the grudge match that leveled Metropolis did Superman even think about the millions of people around him. You know what Goku does in Dragonball Z when somebody wants to fight him? He flies to an unpopulated area so it can be fought away from civilians, minimizing casualties. Its incredibly basic and there's no acceptable way that somebody would overlook that unless they just didn't care. And you know what? It would've fine if Superman didn't care as long as the movie recognized it. However, the movie frames him as a caring, benevolent god and thats not who we see. What the movie shows us and what the movie tells us is happening are two separate things, thats the problem. We're seeing Superman show no regard for human life in a city populated by millions - he doesn't even try to take the fight elsewhere. He doesn't even try, and that in itself isn't necessarily bad. But then the movie treats him like a hero we should love and that isn't what we witnessed. What we saw was literally 9/11 times a hundred. I don'tknow how much you know about 9/11, but they were digging people out from under the rubble months later. That was two buildings. The fight with Zod destroyed hundreds. There's certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people trapped under the rubble from the fight and what does the movie do? It ignores it completely. We see no logically reasonable effects of the fight, we don't see Superman try to help people out of the rubble or clean up the city. We see Metropolis instanteously like nothing happened. Thats the problem, the disconnect between what we see and what the movie thinks we see.

There's nothing wrong with a movie about how superheros and supervillains being real would be horrifying, we've had five good movies about that[footnote]Unbreakable, Watchmen and the Nolan Batman trilogy[/footnote], but Man of Steel doesn't think about how any of the regular people on the ground are effected past the first act. The movie forgets about the innocent bystanders so Superman can have a grudge match where, for all we can tell, he isn't even holding back from trying to kill them.

Now I am basing this and my speculation of the sequal. Superman is going to see the destruction of Metropolis and realize that he has to be more responsible and be careful with his powers and will try to not let villains like Zod wreack havoc. I mean in the trailers of Batman v Superman we SEE Superman saving people from disasters. We see him rescue people from a Katrina-like Flood for example. And looking at the fight between Superman and Batman the city looked empty of people. And did he not saved those workers in the Oil Refinary in Man of Steel?

The problem is thats all a token gesture. I guarantee this plotline was originally intended because The Avengers did a better job of addressing far less damage in their own film where the damages aren't even going to become a plotline a whole year prior to Man of Steel. We see him save people a few times, and then what? He brings a grudge match to his hometown him and destroys it. That is all Superman, he literally flies Zod right into the center of town, going through a power plant in the process. If it makes sense, it becomes about stopping bad guys, not saving people. Where is Superman when there's hundreds of millions of people dying slowly under tons of rubble? There's no feasible way that some of those people trapped would ever be saved without the help of Superman. Where is he? He's with his mom, and she's telling him how proud his father would be of him. This while people are being crushed to death. Its complete tone-deafness. Thats the problem with Man of Steel - its not even that Superman doesn't save people, its that Superman doesn't save people while the movie is telling us that he is saving people.

Just imagine for a second if BvS never existed. What would Man of Steel's ending be? Superman is partially responsible for the destruction of Metropolis and doesn't do anything about it. Thats what we were left with for two years, and frankly, a movie should be able to stand on its own legs. I should be able to watch, say, Empire Strikes Back without watching A New Hope, and I can. You can't do that with Man of Steel and still have a superhero. In fact we're probably going to see edits in the future where people put BvS Superman trial stuff into Man of Steel to address this.

All in all I just think Man of Steel is bashed way too hard. Especially when I personally think there are worse Superhero movies that came out later like Amazing Spiderman 2.

90% of Man of Steel is really good. I actually don't take qualms with any of the ideas they did in it. It looked very good (even if Superman's outfit should've been a bit brighter), it sounded good, most of the actors did a great job, the soundtrack is great and I thought some of the controversial decisions were done well, such as cynical Pa Kent. Its just that it screwed up the most important part, which is our hero.. Superman destroys the remaining hope for Krpyton. His reasoning? "Krypton had its chance". Our hero, ladies and gentlemen. Superman fights Zod in a city, ends up flattening the city and killing hundreds of thousands, and ends up having to kill Zod (not that we ever saw him using restraint). How does he react? He feels bad about one death, the guy whose neck he snapped, and none of the people trapped in the city, let alone the millions of others who lives were ruined by the disaster that was his duel. Our hero, ladies and gentleman. If I sound like I'm being harsh its because it deserves it. This is the Phantom Menace level of screwing the pooch, and it such an unbelievably easy fix to make. One minor scene, no CGI or anything like that necessary, just Henry Cavill showing lament for the consequences of his recklessness was all that was necessary to resolve most of the virulent hate for the film.

Superman did not flatten the city, Zod did with his World Breaker and Supes was dealing with the World Breaker on the opposite side of the world.

I would like to also say in criticism of the movie is that I believe all the problems you mentioned is related to Man of Steel imo being rushed, like I feel the movie was made in knee jerk reaction to the success of the first Avengers movie. Like Warner Bros. looked at the box office of Avengers and went all like..."Holy shit Marvel/Disney made 1,000,000,000+ dollars for this movie, quick we gotta make out own cinematic universe with DC Comics."

As to the comment where a movie should stand on its own merits...I think Empire Strikes Back is not a good example of a movie that can be watched without seeing anything prior. And to a degree Marvel movies post Avengers 1. Personally I found Harry Potter 1 and 2 combined to be a better example of 2 movies that stand on its own. I don't need to watch the later ones.

All I can say is I admit the movie has flaws but I stil enjoyed it. But I am confidant that at least the upcoming DC movies will be better. And if the plot sucks well at least in Zack Snyder I trust for him to make great visual action sequences.

Bias is also a factor because I am a much bigger DC fan than Marvel (And no I am not one of those fans that only cares about Batman) And the Marvel movies as of late is starting to drag on me. I thought Avengers 2 was kind dissipointing and hated Guardians of the Galaxy. The only glue that holding my interest in the Marvel movies is seeing Thanos.

But yeah I am just a bigger DC fan and my sometimes its hard being a DC fan these days when I am surrounded by Marvel fans and Batman fans.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Put in spoilers because Man of Steel ranting.

But let me explain something that people seem to forget about watching the movie.

This is Kal-El's first time being Superman. And besides he did cause any of the destruction of Metropolis. At worst he just shoved Zod's head in a building but the building did not brake down. And you forget that the World Breaker did most of the destruction. And during the Zod fight Zod did more damage than Superman.

You're missing the point, which all the "he's young and inexperienced" sort of excuses do. Superman can collosally fuck up. Thats okay, you can do. Superman can be imperfect, he can even be a bad guy, but the movie has to recognize it. At no point in the grudge match that leveled Metropolis did Superman even think about the millions of people around him. You know what Goku does in Dragonball Z when somebody wants to fight him? He flies to an unpopulated area so it can be fought away from civilians, minimizing casualties. Its incredibly basic and there's no acceptable way that somebody would overlook that unless they just didn't care. And you know what? It would've fine if Superman didn't care as long as the movie recognized it. However, the movie frames him as a caring, benevolent god and thats not who we see. What the movie shows us and what the movie tells us is happening are two separate things, thats the problem. We're seeing Superman show no regard for human life in a city populated by millions - he doesn't even try to take the fight elsewhere. He doesn't even try, and that in itself isn't necessarily bad. But then the movie treats him like a hero we should love and that isn't what we witnessed. What we saw was literally 9/11 times a hundred. I don'tknow how much you know about 9/11, but they were digging people out from under the rubble months later. That was two buildings. The fight with Zod destroyed hundreds. There's certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people trapped under the rubble from the fight and what does the movie do? It ignores it completely. We see no logically reasonable effects of the fight, we don't see Superman try to help people out of the rubble or clean up the city. We see Metropolis instanteously like nothing happened. Thats the problem, the disconnect between what we see and what the movie thinks we see.

There's nothing wrong with a movie about how superheros and supervillains being real would be horrifying, we've had five good movies about that[footnote]Unbreakable, Watchmen and the Nolan Batman trilogy[/footnote], but Man of Steel doesn't think about how any of the regular people on the ground are effected past the first act. The movie forgets about the innocent bystanders so Superman can have a grudge match where, for all we can tell, he isn't even holding back from trying to kill them.

Now I am basing this and my speculation of the sequal. Superman is going to see the destruction of Metropolis and realize that he has to be more responsible and be careful with his powers and will try to not let villains like Zod wreack havoc. I mean in the trailers of Batman v Superman we SEE Superman saving people from disasters. We see him rescue people from a Katrina-like Flood for example. And looking at the fight between Superman and Batman the city looked empty of people. And did he not saved those workers in the Oil Refinary in Man of Steel?

The problem is thats all a token gesture. I guarantee this plotline was originally intended because The Avengers did a better job of addressing far less damage in their own film where the damages aren't even going to become a plotline a whole year prior to Man of Steel. We see him save people a few times, and then what? He brings a grudge match to his hometown him and destroys it. That is all Superman, he literally flies Zod right into the center of town, going through a power plant in the process. If it makes sense, it becomes about stopping bad guys, not saving people. Where is Superman when there's hundreds of millions of people dying slowly under tons of rubble? There's no feasible way that some of those people trapped would ever be saved without the help of Superman. Where is he? He's with his mom, and she's telling him how proud his father would be of him. This while people are being crushed to death. Its complete tone-deafness. Thats the problem with Man of Steel - its not even that Superman doesn't save people, its that Superman doesn't save people while the movie is telling us that he is saving people.

Just imagine for a second if BvS never existed. What would Man of Steel's ending be? Superman is partially responsible for the destruction of Metropolis and doesn't do anything about it. Thats what we were left with for two years, and frankly, a movie should be able to stand on its own legs. I should be able to watch, say, Empire Strikes Back without watching A New Hope, and I can. You can't do that with Man of Steel and still have a superhero. In fact we're probably going to see edits in the future where people put BvS Superman trial stuff into Man of Steel to address this.

All in all I just think Man of Steel is bashed way too hard. Especially when I personally think there are worse Superhero movies that came out later like Amazing Spiderman 2.

90% of Man of Steel is really good. I actually don't take qualms with any of the ideas they did in it. It looked very good (even if Superman's outfit should've been a bit brighter), it sounded good, most of the actors did a great job, the soundtrack is great and I thought some of the controversial decisions were done well, such as cynical Pa Kent. Its just that it screwed up the most important part, which is our hero.. Superman destroys the remaining hope for Krpyton. His reasoning? "Krypton had its chance". Our hero, ladies and gentlemen. Superman fights Zod in a city, ends up flattening the city and killing hundreds of thousands, and ends up having to kill Zod (not that we ever saw him using restraint). How does he react? He feels bad about one death, the guy whose neck he snapped, and none of the people trapped in the city, let alone the millions of others who lives were ruined by the disaster that was his duel. Our hero, ladies and gentleman. If I sound like I'm being harsh its because it deserves it. This is the Phantom Menace level of screwing the pooch, and it such an unbelievably easy fix to make. One minor scene, no CGI or anything like that necessary, just Henry Cavill showing lament for the consequences of his recklessness was all that was necessary to resolve most of the virulent hate for the film.

Superman did not flatten the city, Zod did with his World Breaker and Supes was dealing with the World Breaker on the opposite side of the world.

Did Superman even try to get the fight away from the city? No. There's such a thing as criminal negligence. This isn't "inexperience", its callous disregard for human life. He is not that inept, nobody is. He just doesn't care. I understand that he's fighting Zod and he wouldn't just rampage through Metropolis for kicks but there's a degree of responsibility he has for it. Zod wants Superman, period. He doesn't care about the city, not that he ever did. His plans have completely failed with no hope and he just wants to kill the person responsible. I'm not blaming Superman for the terraformer damage, I'm blaming him for when he crashed a ship above one of the most densely populated cities on the planet. And when he threw Zod through the scenery. And when anybody with any regard for human life would've at least tried to get away from the city. Instead, we can't even tell if he's holding back from killing Zod or not, which was no difference from their first brawl together. You can't explain away 9/11 times a hundred with "inexperience".

I get that you like the movie and I did too up until that point. Its just that it screws up the most important thing about the movie at the most important moment.

So no comment on the other stuff I said? I mean I was hoping if you can confirm my thoughts that Man of Steel had a rushed production.

 

[kris40k]

I think the series could be ok, but would likely mirror the fate of Caprica. Lots of potential for stuff to happen, but probably will fail to impress.

Now, one awesome storyline they could use since this is going to be set 200 years before the destruction of Krypton would be a possible conflict between those that want to explore and the isolationist/xenophobic Kryptonians. Ultimately culminate in the discovery and settling of Daxam[footnote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daxam[/footnote], simply because this would lead to the existence of Mon-El in DC's TV Universe, and could segue to the Legion of Super Heroes, which would then lead to The Persuader [http://thegamersguild.net/cricket/dc/persuader.jpg].

Who is awesome.

Therefore this series must be made.