Do you think Superman has a double standard against him?

[Lily Adler]

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).

Is MOS considered a remake or should it be a reboot, both?

Watchmen was great. 300 was good as well. Sucker Punch, on the other hand, was dreadful.

I liked Watchmen, but I got more of a sense from Snyder that he cares more on what looks cool or 'awesome' a tad too much. Curse you Slo-Mo.

 

[danoyse]

I liked Watchmen, but I got more of a sense from Snyder that he cares more on what looks cool or 'awesome' a tad too much. Curse you Slo-Mo.

Agreed. I hated 300, Watchmen was all right, but I didn't even bother with Sucker Punch. Even his visual style has gotten old.

 

[Lily Adler]

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.

I actually was tickled when a critic mentioned Snyder's fetish for well muscled tone guys in his review.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I liked Watchmen, but I got more of a sense from Snyder that he cares more on what looks cool or 'awesome' a tad too much. Curse you Slo-Mo.

I love his style (slo-mo and all), but it only works if it's complimented by substance; and in my opinion, there was adequate substance in both Watchmen and MOS, as opposed to Sucker Punch, which suffered from an almost complete lack of it.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I actually was tickled when a critic mentioned Snyder's fetish for well muscled tone guys in his review.

Kurosawa used to harp on about the same thing. It was very.. odd.

 

[RLYHYPERGUY]

I do think a lot of them are being fair. Of course, some may be too attached to the Christopher Reeve movies to fully evaluate this one (I'm too attached to Raimi's Spider-Man to fully evaluate TASM), but I do believe they're being fair. I mean, I'm not a critic by any means, but I agree with what they say about Man of Steel. I was never a Superman fan. In fact, the only experience I have with Superman is from the Justice League animated series and the old Fleischer cartoons. I came into this movie prepared to accept anything I was given, even if it was different from my (not very well-informed) preconceptions of Superman. The film was very clunky for me. I never understood the new Superman's motivations. In fact, he changed very suddenly several times. One scene, he's talking with a preacher, clearly wounded and conflicted, and then the next one he's all super-confident and floating in front of the army. It was very jarring to me. And then there's his relationship with Lois Lane. I saw it as being a friendship. Throughout the film they were just getting to know each other, no flirting or anything. Then after he saves her they make out like they had been deeply in love and couldn't bear the though of losing the other one. I understand they're together in basically every other Superman story, but I was given no reason to believe there was anything romantic between them in this movie. Overall, I never felt anything for the film. Sure, I enjoyed the action, visuals, and music, but I never felt for any of the characters, and I firmly believe this is because the film gave me no reason to. I mean, I'm not a hardcore Superman fan, I've never hated him, so I was going in completely neutral, just getting to know him. If that doesn't say that the movie didn't sell his character well, I have no idea what does. I will admit that there were a few times where I started to get emotional (that music is amazing), but then the film would cut to another scene (usually an action scene or flashback) and cut off whatever I was feeling. I mean, I did like the film. I loved the way Krypton was presented (especially the idea of genetic engineering), I loved the score (I listen to it regularly), and the action was fun. I just wasn't given a lot of reason (almost none, actually) to care for the characters. So, in a very roundabout way, yes, the critics are being fair. I hear that the biggest criticism people have a problem with is "too much action," but I believe the critics actually mean "too little character development," as in they wanted some of the action to be replaced with character development. I agree.

 

[Lily Adler]

Kurosawa used to harp on about the same thing. It was very.. odd.

Kuro could be very odd at times. Every now and then we would get the overtly over-written rant about nonsensical comparisons of Superman to god knows what else.

I do sometimes tire of Snyder's 'style over substance' ideology. Of course this is my opinion of him based on his work and some of his interviews. I believe he's too dependent on a, as Poni Boy said, 'blueprint'. But when that blueprint is a David S. Goyer script with original ideas mixed in with comic inspiration, it's a whole 'nother kit and kaboodle.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Kuro could be very odd at times. Every now and then we would get the overtly over-written rant about nonsensical comparisons of Superman to god knows what else.

I do sometimes tire of Snyder's 'style over substance' ideology. Of course this is my opinion of him based on his work and some of his interviews. I believe he's too dependent on a, as Poni Boy said, 'blueprint'.

Yep. If you didn't see things exactly his way, that somehow meant you hated Superman and had a secret anti-fandom agenda. Good times.

I honestly don't think Snyder neglects substance for the most part, despite being overly style-oriented. ::shrugs:: Watch Captain America with Matt Salinger, and you'll have a whole new appreciation for his films.

 

[Lily Adler]

You no like Red Skull being a piano prodigy captured by the Axis.

 

[Anno_Domini]

That they don't like them?

Ehh, you're kinda missing my point. As another posted mentioned, and one that I'll be replying to as well, I've read many "rotten" reviews that blast Snyder because of his past work like they're bashing his past films and not Man of Steel. It just seems very odd that I've enjoyed all of Snyder's work as a director, but he always gets the short straw when it comes to the critics as if they're critiquing his filmography as a whole instead of the film that has been released.

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.

Pretty much. With Man of Steel, it really seemed like the critics were taking shots of Snyder because of this past film, or this one, but not look at Man of Steel as a film, just what Snyder has done in the past. If you want critics to love your films, it's as if you can never have a "stinker" or anything below average in their eyes otherwise you're doomed forever.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I think it's because admittedly, Zack really hasn't made any low budget, high quality independent films. The closest he has to doing so is the DOTD remake. I think he should make some short features before making MOS2.

 

[Poni_Boy]

If you want critics to love your films, it's as if you can never have a "stinker" or anything below average in their eyes otherwise you're doomed forever.

Every big name director has had critical flops, even Spielberg. Snyder simply lacks independent vision, and seems to have no motivation to grow as a director.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Every big name director has had critical flops, even Spielberg. Snyder simply lacks independent vision, and seems to have no motivation to grow as a director.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steven_spielberg/

Only 1941 besides his attempts as producer for some films. I enjoyed The Lost World and Hook, myself. Still do to this day.

 

[Poni_Boy]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steven_spielberg/

Only 1941 besides his attempts as producer for some films. I enjoyed The Lost World and Hook, myself. Still do to this day.

And that refutes your claim that if you ever had a "stinker" you're forever doomed to critics. You have to be a good film maker who can work independently without oversight. Snyder still hasn't reached that point.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Ehh, it really doesn't when Snyder's films has just never been received well when there's like one for Spielberg.

 

[113]

1) I never got why some didn't like Watchmen? It's basically a panel for panel recreation of the comic. And you know what, the ending of Watchmen graphic novel is ridiculously stupid. Alan Moore was just trolling readers when he did that crap. The ending of Watchmen the movie is superior in everyway to the ending of the graphic novel. I remember reading the graphic novel and almost chucking it across the room at the end because of its' stupidity. On a sidenote, I was never that into 300, it was overrated from the start. But Watchmen is underrated as movie.

2) The mainstream critics are terrible barometers of CBMs for the most part. Does anyone here really think that TDK would have gotten such critical acclaim if Heath Ledger hadn't died right before it came out? Heath was a hollywood darling, all the critics loved him. And while his Joker performance is definitely legendary, the film largely rests on his performance. Are people so naive as to think that critics don't come in with biases and are purely objective in their analysis?

3) The mainstream critics known 1 version of the Superman and that's the Reeve/Donner one. They don't understand (or care) that Reeve/Donner was just one iteration of literally hundreds of Superman iterations throughout his 75 year history. Basically any Superman film that isn't in the vein of those films will be hated by critics because to them it won't be Superman. This is evidenced by the fact that critics liked/loved Superman Returns, which was basically trying to recreate Reeve/Donner (75% on RT).

4) This doesn't happen with any other franchise. No critic complains about Nolan's films because they don't emulate Adam West or Tim Burton. No critic is complaining that JJ Abrams isn't emulating the Shatner version of Star Trek. But suddenly when it comes to Superman it better be Reeve/Donner or they will hate it.

5) So in conclusion, there is a double-standard when it comes to Superman films, and the critics are terrible arbiters of the character on film.

 

[Human Torch]

The critics are not being unfair,for the simple reason that the complants they've raised by and large have merit.

The film is fairly gloomy for a character of Superman's ilk.In all honesty,it isn't much different than SR in that respect.

The reason why it's doing better with the GA is because-lets face it- we want it to do good.I'm as guilty of this as anyone.I had to grade it on the curve,because DC can't get their **** together like Marvel has.I gave SR an 8/10 originally.It's only when I had to be honest with myself that as much as I wanted to see Supe on the big screen...it just wasn't that good. In the same way,once the ardor dies down with this film,I think we're going to see the same thing.(though probably on a smaller scale)Sure some die-hards are still going to praise it.But I'm still waiting for a Superman film that's.....well.....Super.

I want to see Superman get a trilogy.I want a Justice League film.If this film will finally get the ball rolling,then so be it.I'll just grin and bear it and hope the sequel is an improvement.(Like I'm doing with TASM)

I guess you can say this is the Superman film we need,not the one we deserve right now.

 

[Visualiza]

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?

No. Most of the more critical reviews I read judged the movie by common, objective standards first and foremost. The fact that there have been live action films featuring the character that were well received refutes the premise of this thread.

 

[spider-neil]

The main criticisms of the movie are;

A) It's humourless.
B) The main protagonist needs to crack a smile once in a while.
C) The action is too big, broad, repetitive and goes on for way too long.
D) The Superman 'ideal' isn't represented in this movie.

You may disagree with the above but way too many reviewers are saying it to chalk it up to an agenda.

 

[BlueLantern]

1) I never got why some didn't like Watchmen? It's basically a panel for panel recreation of the comic. And you know what, the ending of Watchmen graphic novel is ridiculously stupid. Alan Moore was just trolling readers when he did that crap. The ending of Watchmen the movie is superior in everyway to the ending of the graphic novel. I remember reading the graphic novel and almost chucking it across the room at the end because of its' stupidity. On a sidenote, I was never that into 300, it was overrated from the start. But Watchmen is underrated as movie.

Watchmen is a good movie, to a point. But the reason people probably didn't enjoy it is because it's really not any fun to watch at all. It's a humorless portrayal of a world where the ideals of hope have become parodies of themselves and are outcast by a society more interested in continually disintegrating through the horrors of war.

Alan Moore on the other hand knows this full well, since he intended exactly that. But he really does go the full hog in the parody of comic book characters and simultaneously critiques the state of comics in the 1980s. As a result, he garners a few laughs and injects his usual dry humor into the material too, making it more fun to read considering what it actually is.

All this while, you also care for the character involved because they're pretty fleshed out given the world they live in and you genuinely care for them at the very end of it all, with the romantic sub plots, concepts of redemption, damnation and the greater good. It's a good story with a lot of heart. Or as much as a Moore story can have.

Snyder's Watchmen is panel for panel but by doing he doesn't convey the undertones as well and goes with an almost straight faced adaptation of the material instead of tapping into the inner parody that it was. Thus there's no laughs, no joy and just a sterile adaptation of a complicated comic book for mainstream moviegoers.

 

[Project862006]

in a sense yes the dumbest complaint is when posters called superman a thief for taking those clothes

thats the type of stuff that annoys me and i honestly think they weren't joking

 

[shallbecomeabat]

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?

I think the biggest problem for MoS was that it was not an Avengers style Marvel flick, but a movie that tried to take the story very serious, without winking at the audience constantly and tried to add a little weight to the whole thing. Since Avengers, critics seem to want that self aware, not too serious stuff.
I loved MoS and think its better than anything Marvel has done, but thats because I just like serious and sombre more than funny and light.

 

[BlueLantern]

A film taking itself seriously is not an issue. A film burdening itself with that seriousness is. As mentioned repeatedly, Chris Nolan's Batman films are serious, but there's still enough wit, warmth and joy in them to overcome that earnestness on display. Here it's bleak and dark with endurance the keyword as opposed to aspiration.

 

[spider-neil]

A film taking itself seriously is not an issue. A film burdening itself with that seriousness is. As mentioned repeatedly, Chris Nolan's Batman films are serious, but there's still enough wit, warmth and joy in them to overcome that earnestness on display. Here it's bleak and dark with endurance the keyword as opposed to aspiration.

The warmth and Joy aren't present in BB (imho) but I digress.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I disagree. Bruce taking on the burdens of Gotham and being a dependable hero is very hopeful, IMHO. BB has had this reputation of being VERY dark when it was released, but I consider it to be somewhat dark without CAMP to balance it out. I think most audience weren't used to a camp-free superhero movie at the time, though Singer's first X-men movie comes close to be VERY straight-laced.