Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
He'll thank you one day, when he can come on message boards and post those pictures saying, how he's been a superman fan since birth :lecture

Jyecat: Hey I posted baby pictures of you on a forum.

Soncat: well that's embarrassing.

Jyecat: what if I told you it was full of grown men who collect dolls?

Soncat: **** you.
 
And:

1841532-generalzod_i_02.jpg


...among many others.

So yeah, nothing much like the new Zod. Which is a plus, if you ask me because these versions look boring.

Sorry, but Zod has been in armor b4. Nothing new...

1329855-zod_2.jpg


1329846-zod_1.jpg
 
25 million.

WWZ brings in 30.

Monsters Inc probably around 30-40.

MOS will drop down to three for this weekend, but pop back to number two with Monsters Inc leading the way. WWZ pushed down to 4.
 
Last edited:
As I post this I'm sitting at 10,000 feet aboard a red-eye flight from Los Angeles to Tampa. Gonna be a LOOOOONG night but at least they've got wi-fi.

Anyway I flipped through this weeks Entertainment Weekly at the airport and stumbled across a full page rant by one of the columnists against Man of Steel. He complained that the first half of the movie was a weak attempt at a Superman/Christ origin and that if you know anything about Superman or have ever gone to church then you know exactly how the first half of the movie is going to go.

Then he turned around and got positively weepy about how sacrilegious it was to have Superman kill Zod because Superman/Jesus does NOT kill. Nevermind that Superman killed Zod in Superman II he says. That movie was an "Airplane"-esque parody of a superhero film compared to MoS so that doesn't count. And when he killed Zod in the comics it bothered him for weeks or months or years or whatever so that was an example of showing Superman killing someone with the "proper" consequences.

But in MoS, the columnist laments, he simply screams and then a couple scenes later is joking around with the Army major or whatever. Sacrilegious. Superman doesn't kill and then be okay with it. Even worse neither does Jesus. Well what the great minds at Entertainment Weekly apparently fail to realize is that Zod is anything but a human in need of salvation. He's Satan! Or a demon, or whatever destroyer from the "outer world" you want him to represent.

And no according to the Bible Jesus doesn't "kill" Satan either. He has the archangel Michael subdue him and banish him to hell. But really? Do our allegories need to get so literal that they're no longer allegories? I don't recall any uproar over Jesus smashing the serpent's head with his foot in the garden at the beginning of the Passion of the Christ, because his lethal act was symbolic of the total and permanent victory he was about to achieve over the devil. Oh noes! He killed the poor thing! Sheesh.

I realize I've already crossed into "Didn't Read!" territory with my trivial commentary on someone *else's* commentary but the more I read about the supposedly greatest "sins" of this movie the more I appreciate it for actually being able to stand up and hold strong on its own artistic merit.
 
EDIT. Nevermind.

Hating a movie because someone wanted the ENTIRE movie to be about Jesus and whatever is kinda stupid. Christ allegories are in the film. But I don't think it went THAT far.
 
Saw this movie last Sunday and was a little dissapointed.The 3 main problems for me were
1-Pa Kent telling Clark to hide who he was
2-The cinematography
3-The story being told out of sequence
I still thought it was a good movie that I'll definitely watch again but I hope MOS 2 is better.
 
Back
Top