Originally Posted by The Batman
I love how people like Batmannerism criticize me for "Slagging off fan opinions", but people get to tell me "I hope you don't seriously believe that". I don't lose any cred saying my opinion, especially if you're the one deciding what's credible to say. You, like me, are an internet fanboy giving an opinion at the end of the day. You're no specialist and neither am I.
The problem is, if we decided to put the films I mentioned under the same microscope Man of Steel endured, what would we see? Besides, my losing cred comment was directed towards Richard Roeper, who is suppose to be a 'top critic' who talked down Man of Steel for not being funny enough but propped up Iron Man for being funny.
Maybe my comments to you were a little out of line. I just cant see how anyone would group Man of Steel with those particular films. It just seems some people tend to want or expect safe, formulaic films. To this day Im shocked Captain America is sitting at 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. Weak Villain, a story that features a bizarre mixture of realism and fantasy (just what in the world were those Nazi tanks
), weak showdown with the villain at the end, and more. Iron Man 2 and 3 both suffered similar issues, weak villains, and disappointing showdowns with the bad guy. And spouting off quips mere seconds after a tragedy? Thor 2? Again, same issue, weak villain whose sidekicks looked like cosplayers and they got outsmarted by yuppies. But they're suppose to be older then the Universe? Oh and Thor hangs his hammer on a coat rack but the Hulk can't pick it up? I could go on and on.
Originally Posted by Lord
The original cut of Blade Runner was objectivelly boring and weak due to studio interference, it was only when the Director started to be able to show his original vision that critics started to change their minds, a similar thing happened with Kingdom of Heaven, where the original version was panned, while the director's cut is very praised.
The Man of Steel is medíocre all around, the style of conveying emotion Snyder uses is what i like to call bulls***g, and he's not the only one to use it, Michael Bay does the same and Christopher Nolan can sometimes fall into this territory. Now what is this bulls***g i'm talking about? It's the use of a strong musical theme in the background, while the plot in the form of a character tells you how he is feeling, or the director spoon feeds you this in another way, like flashback and etc.
I see this style used a lot in anime and filmmakers like Zack Snyder have started to incorporate it, the problem is that this way the film is telling you how you should be feeling, instead of letting the plot develop the characters properly and therefore making the connection actually matter. This technique can easily make people confuse an actually well development and characters with shallow emotion, making films like Armageddon be sometimes known for having people cry, even though the plot and characters weren't exactly well constructed.
Needless to say, bulls****g emotion make amazing trailer shots or great scenes to see alone, but when viewed in the whole structure, they fall apart.
So critics are always right, lol. Critics, and even the audience, routinely get it wrong. Fast & Furious 6 (I liked Fast 5) is objectively a poor, generic and lazy film, yet it was received pretty well by critics and the audience.
Did Disney's 'Up' ever get criticized for 'bulls****g' as you call it? Thats probably the worst offender, yet critics and the audience swallowed it whole without chewing.
Zack Snyder could be compared to the late Michael Crichton. Crichton always got criticized for apparently weak characters in his books, yet the rest of what he did was so fantastic people could easily overlook it. Snyder is similar, though I feel his films are way more emotional and character driven then Crichton's books.
Very few films approach perfection...I could perhaps name just 5, if that. I just find it interesting films like Avatar can get so much praise for their visuals and despite a weak story and characters still get received well critically, but Zack Snyder is continually bashed for his visuals and story and characters. He gets no credit for anything. This is why I feel Snyder has a stigma to him now, an undeserved one, and anything he puts out will be looked at with a critical eye instead of a welcoming one.
Originally Posted by Skrilla31
Personally I thought it was much worse. In fact the moment MOS ended I was quite confident it was the worst movie I had seen in the theater all year. And mind you this was only about a week or so after baring witness to such timeless classics as After Earth and The Purge. Granted this is just one man's opinion and you don't necessarily have to agree with me, but yes... I do seriously believe that.
Now if we are to place it within the pantheon of superhero flicks? That's tough for a variety of reasons. The bad movies usually tend to be forgotten altogether. People still talk about Superman and Superman II but no one really ever talks about Superman III and Superman IV. I mean yea they happened, and people kinda remember them... but they've definitely exited the public consciousness. For god sakes Brian Singer treated them like they didn't even exist when he made Superman Returns.
The same thing will inevitably happen to Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3. We'll always remember the first Iron Man but those two don't stand a chance in hell. They're like the Robocop sequels.
Thor wasn't any good either but it was just good enough to keep people along for the ride until Avengers which was the real prize. Plus it's the movie that first introduced Thor to the world, so no matter how bad it is that's gonna count for something. No one knew where Thor came from until they saw that movie and now he's closer to a household name than he ever was. The same goes for Captain America.
Where does Man Of Steel lie? How will it be remembered? Time will tell I think. I know that The Dark Knight definitely did wonders for the reputation of Batman Begins, so who knows what lies in store and what kind of retroactive effect the Man Of Steel sequel is going to have on it's predecessor. It may have some, it may not have any. But right now I'd wager to think that Man Of Steel will be largely forgotten. Call me crazy and call me delusional if it makes you feel better, but I just don't believe this movie will go down as a classic Superman movie in the years to come. It may roll off the tip of people's tongues for awhile, especially considering it will still be sort of fresh in everyone's mind... and it certainly won't die the quick death that Superman Returns did... but you watch, 15-20 years now when you hear someone talking about Superman I bet you there's a good chance they will have learned what they did about the character after having watched Superman The Movie... not Man Of Steel.
And you know what? That makes me both happy and sad. Happy because I believe that Superman '78 truly is a wonderful movie that should be handed down for generations, but sad because I think it partly keeps the character grounded in the past.
I disagree, theres no way Superman the Movie will be remembered as the definitive Superman 20 years from now instead of Man of Steel. The new generation grew up on Dragon Ball Z, Transformers, etc. When they get a chance to see Superman the Movie I think they'll find it extremely boring. Superman doesnt punch or fight anything, except a goofy old bald man with even goofier sidekicks. No cool spacecrafts or sci-fi. No good looking women like Amy Adams or Antje Traue, only a smoking Margot Kidder. Jor-El is a stiff compared to Crowe's version who literally kicks butt. Superman the Movie has no chance to be remembered more then Man of Steel. And when they see Superman II which is more like Man of Steel...nail in coffin.