Superman: Legacy

I liked it. May be not as much as I’d hoped after the first trailer which made me tear up, but I enjoyed it. Felt the ‘pocket universe’ was a bit messy and too sci fi for a Superman movie, but other than it, it was good. I got Cornswets Superman straight away, and really liked his ‘gosh darn’ approach to the character and I did like the humour he introduced.

But was the story a mash up of previous movies?

Spoilers be ahead


Lex tries a land grab, even intending to rename either the country of parts of it after himself. The map in one of the selfies showed this.

Lex finds the Fortress of Solitude and uses its tech against Superman. S2.

A large undersea menace rapidly approaches Metropolis, like the Kryptonite island in SR.

Lex uses a piece of Superman’s hair to create a clone of him, which is an inferior mentally, but as physically strong as him, and overcomes Supes in several fights. (S4: tqfp)
 
somerset fox said:
I tried finding how to, but sorry, couldn’t. Which is the correct tab?
Click to expand...
Click the three dots. Then the little mask-thing! :)

1752399563175.png
 
I am baffled by the RLM guy's complaints about this tbh - most out of touch I've ever seen em. The lack of origin story in this one is one of its strengths, I think. They acknowledged everyone already knows it and so it would be redundant, and then said they should have included it anyway? Why?

I guess some folks are struggling with the structure of it (and I was too, for the first 30 minutes or so) but it clicked for me; the movie is emulating the experience of picking up a comic book for the first time. There'll be a bunch of ongoing storylines and you just have to jump in somewhere. That's cool as hell!
 
TimDRX said:
I am baffled by the RLM guy's complaints about this tbh - most out of touch I've ever seen em. The lack of origin story in this one is one of its strengths, I think. They acknowledged everyone already knows it and so it would be redundant, and then said they should have included it anyway? Why?

I guess some folks are struggling with the structure of it (and I was too, for the first 30 minutes or so) but it clicked for me; the movie is emulating the experience of picking up a comic book for the first time. There'll be a bunch of ongoing storylines and you just have to jump in somewhere. That's cool as hell!
Click to expand...
I actually thought they were going to completely tear it down like they have with the last two Ghostbusters movies.

Hmm, I hadn't thought about that comic angle. The first time I picked up Uncanny X-Men (issue 207) I loved it even though I had no idea what was going on! (Not sure I ever did figure it out, haha.)
 
This film is really comic booky in a couple different ways. The opening shot of Antarctica with the brief text, straight out of comic book intro pages that have been happening since the late 90's. Just a brief explainer to catch someone up if they've never picked up a comic before. "Every comic is someone's first comic"

The plot MOVES, often with no preamble. We go from event to event to event, without a lot of expository handholding. In some places its more like being dragged by the wrist, but I think it works here. Even when the pieces don't seem to line up perfectly, a snippet of dialogue will give you enough to connect the dots and then things are moving again.

I wasn't prepared for how much this would lean into "comic book nonsense" as far as plot points are concerned. There was a thing that happened near the end of the film that made me go "oh yeah, of course. COMIC BOOKS."

The movie sticks to being earnest, and while it's not Christopher Reeve's Superman, this one is just as likeable and even more human imo.
 
Last edited:
Saw it tonight. I guess I liked it overall. The best thing it has going for it is it was different than other versions. I didn't like everything, but it kept me interested. I did see the "reveal" coming, though.

Sone of the side characters could've been left out though, like Steve Lombard and Cat Grant. They served no real purpose (other than Cat jumping up and down in slo-mo, as far as I can tell).
 
Saw it last night. Better than I expected. Not perfect and the 1978 movie has nothing to fear, but that's one I'm getting on physical media when it comes out. Yes, there were too many irrelevant characters. Yes, some of them were ridiculously over the top. It was still fun and ultimately, that's all I care about.
 
(No spoilers)
Another thought I had: for a movie like "Superman," it's kind of hard being dropped into a world where we don't really know what's possible. The technology, and even how people behave in this movie, is different from the real world in many ways, so it can be difficult for a viewer to know what can happen and how. I think most of us go into movies, even sci-fi films, assuming the world presented is largely similar to our own. So when plot points are hinged on technology that doesn't exist, it can take us out of the film. It can also lead to things happening and resolving based on imagined tech. I felt like some of these things happen in "Superman," where it almost seems like a writing cheat. It'd be like reading an Agatha Christie novel and finding out the killer originally evaded detection because they had a Star Trek transporter. It's hard for plot points to have weight to them when it's based on made-up stuff that the viewer isn't privy to and had no idea was even possible.

As far as people behaving differently, there's a lot of hyper-characterizations, with people behaving in extreme ways, mostly for comedic effect. If you're watching a comedy, you accept the world you're watching has these type of personalities, that people make jokes and respond in ways that normal people don't. This movie had a little to much of these "sitcom" type characters for me. Tonally, it can feel off when Clark and Lois are discussing the ramifications of Superman acting as an international arbiter of justice in one scene, then have other characters ranting like lunatics in another.

I still enjoyed the movie overall, but these types of choices still feel like they could be improved. In the MCU, for example, their world started more grounded in "Iron Man." Even though it used fantasy tech, their world was more like our own, with the tech feeling like it wasn't far off from our world. Personally, I think the tech and aliens and multiverse stuff in the MCU has gone too far. It makes it hard to believe "Daredevil" exists in the same world that has holograms and nanotech suits of armor and aliens that all speak colloquial English (including anthropomorphic animals). But at least it started from a point where the viewer had less leaps to take in believing their world.
 
I ended up liking it.
Didn't have a problem where the story started.
But I almost walked out about 20 minutes in. Way too much Gunn goofiness serving no purpose.
Not a fan of the score. I suppose it was done well if that's the style you want. I don't.
Not crazy about the depiction of the Kents and their home, but Pa's speech was right on point.
The monkeys: no.
There was absolutely no freaking point to Beck Bennett (I have no idea what character he is) and the blonde woman with glasses (ditto). Have them in the newsroom I guess, but they were immaterial and cramming them into the spaceship thing made it look like they were going to be involved in some way but they were not.
Nathan Fillion was perfect.
True and proper exploration of what makes Superman tick.
 
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with what's been said so far. Better than I thought it would be. The good parts were good but the bad parts weren't unforgivably bad. I enjoyed it.
 
Treadwell said:
I ended up liking it.
Didn't have a problem where the story started.
But I almost walked out about 20 minutes in. Way too much Gunn goofiness serving no purpose.
Not a fan of the score. I suppose it was done well if that's the style you want. I don't.
Not crazy about the depiction of the Kents and their home, but Pa's speech was right on point.
The monkeys: no.
There was absolutely no freaking point to Beck Bennett (I have no idea what character he is) and the blonde woman with glasses (ditto). Have them in the newsroom I guess, but they were immaterial and cramming them into the spaceship thing made it look like they were going to be involved in some way but they were not.
Nathan Fillion was perfect.
True and proper exploration of what makes Superman tick.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you said. I liked it okay too, though now that I reflect on it, I have more problems with it, like the fact that
the Ultraman reveal was just another "clone/evil version of the hero" trope that we've seen done better in other films (like "Logan" or even "Superman III"). And the video being accepted as real so quickly was done poorly. Sloppy writing.

I liked other Gunn projects, but I have doubts he can mold the entire DCEU into something that will rival the MCU (through "Endgame" at lesst). He's got too much goofiness. He needs to lay off the anthropomorphic animals for a while.
 
Bloop said:
Agree with everything you said. I liked it okay too, though now that I reflect on it, I have more problems with it, like the fact that
the Ultraman reveal was just another "clone/evil version of the hero" trope that we've seen done better in other films (like "Logan" or even "Superman III"). And the video being accepted as real so quickly was done poorly. Sloppy writing.

I liked other Gunn projects, but I have doubts he can mold the entire DCEU into something that will rival the MCU (through "Endgame" at lesst). He's got too much goofiness. He needs to lay off the anthropomorphic animals for a while.
Click to expand...

It's a comic book style approach that is not intended to rival the MCU in any kind of comparison of content. The goofiness is intentionally built in.
 
Astyanax said:
It's a comic book style approach that is not intended to rival the MCU in any kind of comparison of content. The goofiness is intentionally built in.
Click to expand...
Gunn included that style in his MCU movies. But the difference was that it wasn't the ONLY style in the MCU. Different films had different levels and types of humor and goofiness.

And explaining it away as a "comic book style approach" is an generalization that isn't true. It's ONE style from comic books. There's a lot of different tones to superhero comics. My point is that if Gunn keeps all the DCEU movies in this one style (at least the connected ones, not "The Batman" sequel and other projects), it could get old, fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Yet another Fallout (IV)Pip-Boy
Replies
0
Views
505
Phelan Kell
P
DOGFOX2109
Interest Return of The Jedi Darth Vader Production Made Lineage Helmet "JBR"
11 12 13
Replies
245
Views
37,820
DOGFOX2109
DOGFOX2109
NostromoCrew
ALIEN: ROMULUS News And Updates!
15 16 17
Replies
324
Views
39,201
TheMechanic
TheMechanic
turner3d
Trek TOS Communicator: Animated Moiré Plans on the Cheap
Replies
10
Views
1,773
Trooper_trent
Trooper_trent
thd9791
Limited Run Mynock Cave Dagobah Oxygen Tank
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
5,833
Elevader
Elevader
Back
Top