Do you think Superman has a double standard against him?

TheFlamingCoco

Avenger
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
10,479
Reaction score
16
Points
33
I feel like MOS has some narrative flaws (underdeveloped characters, awkward pacing) but do think critics are placing him on a much higher pedestal than other superheroes and judge him more critically than others?
 
You know what this isn't a dig because people can dislike the film if they want but there's a fair few critics who had prejudices against this film before they even saw it. Especially as there's alot of critics who just don't like Snyder. Not to mention those that didn't like the new one simply cause it wasn't the same as Chris Reeve's Superman. So no it's not all critics but there's definitely some out there that had issues with the film before they'd even seen it.
 
YES, and it was obvious from the RT grades itself.. both WWZ and MOS has about the same grade 6.2 vs 6.3, but one is a healthy 'fresh', the other was 'rotten'.
 
YES, and it was obvious from the RT grades itself.. both WWZ and MOS has about the same grade 6.2 vs 6.3, but one is a healthy 'fresh', the other was 'rotten'.

Every time I see that I just shake my head. Averages a bit better than a passing review and yet is voted rotten. Doesn't matter to me, though. I loved it.
 
Reviewers have their ideal of what Superman should be and if the movie doesn't deliver on that ideal they are going to ding the movie. I read a lot of negative reviews for Superman and they pretty much all saying the same thing.

Snyder and co wanted a modern and contemporary but the Donner Superman (I doubt a lot of reviews read the comics) rightly or wrongly is ingrained in the reviewers minds.

http://blip.tv/redlettermedia/episode-6605916

This review is case in point.
 
I think it's more along the lines of critics just not liking Snyder and his style. A similar thing happened with WATCHMEN.
 
Reviewers have their ideal of what Superman should be and if the movie doesn't deliver on that ideal they are going to ding the movie. I read a lot of negative reviews for Superman and they pretty much all saying the same thing.

Snyder and co wanted a modern and contemporary but the Donner Superman (I doubt a lot of reviews read the comics) rightly or wrongly is ingrained in the reviewers minds.

I find the entire situation fascinating for various reasons.
I remember interviews about superman after 2007 that would seemingly always mention that the character doesn't work for today as he is, and I saw alot of people agree. This same conversation was broached in the comics when with the rise of marvel and their relatable characters.

I think there was a serious damned if you do/don't type situation here. And the producers took a leap and hoped for the best. I also think if MoS2 has a 160plus opening we'll know if it they made the right choice. They had t get through begins to get to the latter phenomenon. Then again spiderman simply started huge...then again MoS opened much higher than spiderman did.
 
It's completely fair.

Regardless of whether or not you enjoyed Man of Steel, it isn't a well-constructed film from a writing standpoint. That is what critics care about the most. Regardless of how fun the action is, if the story isn't well-paced, they aren't going to like it. Compare Man of Steel to Superman Returns. The plot is better constructed, better balanced, and you understand the characters better.

Superman Returns is boring, but technically it works.

Man of Steel is awkwardly passed, imbalanced, and has a lot of problems. It's fun, but it's flawed. Critics will tear it apart. The fact it's directed by Snyder doesn't help.
 
I personally think it's no surprise really. Donner's Superman is part of Americana. It's a movie classic which is part of academic discourse, especially when it comes to hero archetypes. Of course MOS will be judged against it. A remake of the Godfather would be equally compared against the original and therein lies the problem.

People expect a remake to be as good as the original or they will judge it inferior and MOS simply doesn't add up to the standard. I highly doubt people will be talking about it 50 years from now on while Donner's film will still be at the same position in cinematic discourse it is now.
 
It's completely fair.

Regardless of whether or not you enjoyed Man of Steel, it isn't a well-constructed film from a writing standpoint. That is what critics care about the most. Regardless of how fun the action is, if the story isn't well-paced, they aren't going to like it. Compare Man of Steel to Superman Returns. The plot is better constructed, better balanced, and you understand the characters better.

Superman Returns is boring, but technically it works.

Man of Steel is awkwardly passed, imbalanced, and has a lot of problems. It's fun, but it's flawed. Critics will tear it apart. The fact it's directed by Snyder doesn't help.

SR has a very simple plot n linear story progress. It's easy for to follow. While MOS storyline is very much riches n complicated n toghether with sci fi elements. Worse, the progress isn't linear. Critics getting lost. Lol

Another critical issue is the ending action. It didnt have the saving n caring elements. N most of the critic simply base on this issue.
 
I personally think it's no surprise really. Donner's Superman is part of Americana. It's a movie classic which is part of academic discourse, especially when it comes to hero archetypes. Of course MOS will be judged against it. A remake of the Godfather would be equally compared against the original and therein lies the problem.

People expect a remake to be as good as the original or they will judge it inferior and MOS simply doesn't add up to the standard. I highly doubt people will be talking about it 50 years from now on while Donner's film will still be at the same position in cinematic discourse it is now.

It's a remake like Donner's version was a remake of the origin episode of the George Reeves Superman show.
 
The Donner movies had fun, charm, memorable villains and a hero that was larger than life but not angst ridden. You deviate from that and the critics are going to rip you a new one.
 
^ They were fun. They were memorable mainly because there weren't any real film villains to compare them with-and they could get a bit campy. Though I like Stamp's Zod-a lot.

Reeve's Superman was fun, though I don't think the films showed the overall burden of having superpowers. But he owned the role.

I'm not gonna say that if you don't like MOS, you just want more of the same.
Perhaps people want a consistently well formed narrative, and I don't think MOS is. I think it's a bit dodgy, but I like it enough to give it high marks due to the performances, the Smallville fight, and the overall relationships between Clark and other characters.
 
Honestly, I see the critics having an issue with Zack Snyder's films just in general more than anything else.
 
That's what he deserves for choosing 300 as his first major project. :o
 
^ Ouch. But a good point. It's almost like if Bay did Transformers before doing something like a Batman movie or something. He might make a good and emotional movie, but he'd always have that stigma against him.

But I like Zack more.
 
Snyder is a mediocre film maker at best. He lacks the ability to translate an original thought on screen with cohesiveness. He's fine with following a shot-for-shot blueprint but that's it. How anyone wonders why critics have a predisposed opinion about him makes no sense to me. That opinion is based on his own body of work. Jesus. Common sense
 
Could do without the condescension, but okay. Which is why I believe the film and possible future films need a stronger writer to make them work. All Snyder has is mostly visuals, unfortunately.
 
Snyder is a mediocre film maker at best. He lacks the ability to translate an original thought on screen with cohesiveness. He's fine with following a shot-for-shot blueprint but that's it. How anyone wonders why critics have a predisposed opinion about him makes no sense to me. That opinion is based on his own body of work. Jesus. Common sense

Probably because they are paid professionals and not children.
One would think anyways.
my opinion.
 
There are just a whole bunch of excuses being thrown around here. Critics don't have some kind of bias against Snyder, its just that the guy hasn't made a movie worthy of critical acclaim. He got pretty good reviews for Dawn of the Dead (which was also a remake of a beloved movie).
 
T"Challa;26189213 said:
There are just a whole bunch of excuses being thrown around here. Critics don't have some kind of bias against Snyder, its just that the guy hasn't made a movie worthy of critical acclaim. He got pretty good reviews for Dawn of the Dead (which was also a remake of a beloved movie).

Bingo

And he deserved the positivity, it was a damn good movie
 
Honestly, I see the critics having an issue with Zack Snyder's films just in general more than anything else.

Funny that you mentioned that. I noticed some critics took a jab at MOS before it even came out. In a review for one of Snyder's older films, one critic wrote, "They're letting this guy direct the new Superman movie??" And sure enough, when the film actually came out, he gave it a rotten.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"