Do you know anyone who hates the film because...

[Darthkush]

...it's not like the Reeves and Donner films. I have a friend who totally hates Man of Steel because it's nothing like the old Superman movies. He hates the lack of a crystal fortress of solitude, he hates that superman's heat vision has actual heat/flame effects instead of 2 single red eye beams, just everything. He also says he doesn't like the scene in Superman Returns when Superman recharges from the sun. He's 41 and is not into comics. Do you guys ever encounter regular folks like this? I know people hate man of steel for the controversy surrounding superman/zod's fights but this stuff feels....silly to me.

 

[Steamteck]

I feel a number of the critic's reviews seemed to do exactly that.

 

[Avenging Angel]

Well the movie as a whole isn't bad. I think it was good enough to act as its own stand alone. I think Snyder was trying to distance himself away from the originals which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Too much distance isn't good though.

 

[HaplessHenchman]

Yes. I see some variation of this all around the net but especially in the comments section of Yahoo.

 

[lndsaico]

You mean those haters on IMDB?

 

[godisawesome]

...it's not like the Reeves and Donner films. I have a friend who totally hates Man of Steel because it's nothing like the old Superman movies. He hates the lack of a crystal fortress of solitude, he hates that superman's heat vision has actual heat/flame effects instead of 2 single red eye beams, just everything. He also says he doesn't like the scene in Superman Returns when Superman recharges from the sun. He's 41 and is not into comics. Do you guys ever encounter regular folks like this? I know people hate man of steel for the controversy surrounding superman/zod's fights but this stuff feels....silly to me.

I think there's definitely a strong current in older circles to see MOS as inferior because it breaks from the mold they see for Superman. It's similar to the break between comic fans over Superman and his world, but a bit more entrenched because of how ground-breaking the first film's imprint on pop-culture was. The nostalgia factor also gives it an edge for people who have grown up with it as the personal pinnacle of comic book movies.

I do think it's important to note that there's a major disagreement over the philosophy of Superman's powers and the depth of the Science Fiction in the stories. "Adherents" of the Donner films and their portrayal have a strong believe in what "adherents" of more modern stylings of Superman consider weaknesses or jokes of the style: clumsy, comedy-centered Clark Kent portrayals, liberal use of deus-ex-machina, excessively inconsistent portrayal of Superman's abilities, a weaker supporting cast in terms of their actual capabilities and development, a fanatical devotion to the status quo, and a greater focus on fantastic approaches to the whole world.

For instance, someone like me, who is seriously biased against those traits, sees the ending of MOS as a fantastic and visceral rebuttal of what I perceive as weaknesses to S:TMP and SII. I believe that turning back time and amnesia kissing away a subplot ruins the conflict the films' develop and betrays the point of a Superman, whereas they see the destruction of the city and violent climax as a betrayal of Superman's message; the reverse is also true. I think that a klutzy Clark Kent is a charlatan, and that a shallow Daily Plaent staff is juvenile; they think that a subdued and stoic Clark is bland, and that the Palnet has lost some of its charm without its quirks.

And those differences can radically shift the way you see the film: a lot of older critics despise the violence, and never mention the scene where Perry and Steve try and save Jenny, while I am finally satisfied to see Superman be a badass and actually think the Planet staffers standing together gives the film a heart that I never saw in S:TMP's human characters.

 

[Batsfan1]

while I am finally satisfied to see Superman be a badass

There's nothing that about violence and killing.

 

[DavidTyler]

I think there's definitely a strong current in older circles to see MOS as inferior because it breaks from the mold they see for Superman. It's similar to the break between comic fans over Superman and his world, but a bit more entrenched because of how ground-breaking the first film's imprint on pop-culture was. The nostalgia factor also gives it an edge for people who have grown up with it as the personal pinnacle of comic book movies.

I do think it's important to note that there's a major disagreement over the philosophy of Superman's powers and the depth of the Science Fiction in the stories. "Adherents" of the Donner films and their portrayal have a strong believe in what "adherents" of more modern stylings of Superman consider weaknesses or jokes of the style: clumsy, comedy-centered Clark Kent portrayals, liberal use of deus-ex-machina, excessively inconsistent portrayal of Superman's abilities, a weaker supporting cast in terms of their actual capabilities and development, a fanatical devotion to the status quo, and a greater focus on fantastic approaches to the whole world.

For instance, someone like me, who is seriously biased against those traits, sees the ending of MOS as a fantastic and visceral rebuttal of what I perceive as weaknesses to S:TMP and SII. I believe that turning back time and amnesia kissing away a subplot ruins the conflict the films' develop and betrays the point of a Superman, whereas they see the destruction of the city and violent climax as a betrayal of Superman's message; the reverse is also true. I think that a klutzy Clark Kent is a charlatan, and that a shallow Daily Plaent staff is juvenile; they think that a subdued and stoic Clark is bland, and that the Palnet has lost some of its charm without its quirks.

And those differences can radically shift the way you see the film: a lot of older critics despise the violence, and never mention the scene where Perry and Steve try and save Jenny, while I am finally satisfied to see Superman be a badass and actually think the Planet staffers standing together gives the film a heart that I never saw in S:TMP's human characters.

I feel exactly the same way. The Donner film was a comedy and juvenile. Snyder's film, on the other hand, is for adults.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

your friend must have loved "Superman Returns"

 

[Batsfan1]

I feel exactly the same way. The Donner film was a comedy and juvenile. Snyder's film, on the other hand, is for adults.

Violence, brooding and destruction isn't adult.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

There's nothing that about violence and killing.

Violence, brooding and destruction isn't adult.

Ooh... I can already tell that your act is going to wear thin around here.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I feel exactly the same way. The Donner film was a comedy and juvenile. Snyder's film, on the other hand, is for adults.

I wouldn't consider the Donner film a comedy or MOS to be a film for adults. I think MOS was designed to appeal to male teenagers/young men, while the Donner film was for all ages.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Most adults I know don't spend every waking moment of their lives trying to convince people how of adult they are. Not least by namedropping dark and gritty films about men in tights. That is more angsty teenager territory.

Pixar's Up is more adult than Man of Steel.

 

[rogbngp]

Yep, three of my friends who are also superhero film nerds all dislike MoS because it is a departure from the Donner/Reeve films. Well, actually one of them has come around to liking Man of Steel now, but he still prefers the Donner/Reeve version hands down. They say that their immense affection for Reeve as Superman makes it difficult for them to appreciate MoS.

They are much more into comics than me, btw. I grew up with a Silver Age Superman (and early Bronze), for which I didn't really have any frame of reference for comparison then as a kid. But now as an adult I'm shocked at how corny the Silver Age comic book Superman is. It is total whimsy.

I agree that there are a lot of wonderful things to appreciate about Reeve's Clark Kent and Superman, and the chemistry between Reeve and Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. They were very charming together. But I also agree with Zack Snyder that past depictions of the character in film (presumably he's thinking also of the 50's TV show, and probably the 40s Max Fleischer cartoons as well) were a very "Chevrolet and apple pie America" vision of the character. For my part, I love how Snyder/Cavill's version finally breaks free from that mold (I like to think of MoS's first flight scene as Superman metaphorically breaking free not just from the bonds of gravity but also from the previous mold of who the character "must be" in the audience's mind) and gives us a character that is more complex, and who faces real challenges in today's world of figuring out who he is and shall be. There is just so much more interesting human depth and mythic subtext to MoS compared with Donner/Reeve that it is like night and day to me.

 

[Batsfan1]

Ooh... I can already tell that your act is going to wear thin around here.

I'm being sincere.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!

 

[ThePhantasm]

...it's not like the Reeves and Donner films. I have a friend who totally hates Man of Steel because it's nothing like the old Superman movies. He hates the lack of a crystal fortress of solitude, he hates that superman's heat vision has actual heat/flame effects instead of 2 single red eye beams, just everything. He also says he doesn't like the scene in Superman Returns when Superman recharges from the sun. He's 41 and is not into comics. Do you guys ever encounter regular folks like this? I know people hate man of steel for the controversy surrounding superman/zod's fights but this stuff feels....silly to me.

Lots of people do this, I'm afraid. Just like some people hated the Nolan films because they weren't like Burton's, and some are already determined to hate BvS because it seems different from Nolan's work. Its called close-mindedness.