How Flawed is Man of Steel?

[Clark-Kent]

20% flawed. Some pacing/dialogue issues. Still enjoyed MOS!

 

[The Batman]

It's interesting how people keep obsessing about what other people think about this movie. Probably the film's greatest achievement.

I agree. This film has become defined by the "controversy" it brought, and little else. A lot of fans of this film consider that a good thing, but IMO, it really isn't.

 

[Dr doomsday]

Speak for yourself, controversy is a good thing, true MOS isn't universally loved but it's still being talked about, people are still debating as if the movie just came out, that's not happening with the Avengers or even winter soldier. MOS was memorable for better or worse it stayed with people.

I have no flaws with this film none at all.
Krypton was awesome and far more intriguing than I expected.
The flashbacks with the Kent's better than almost any other version
Johnathan complex doesn't have all the answers knows Clark is important but is also still a father, his line was great because it's not sugar coated, Clark can change the whole world and if he's not ready for it it could be catastrophic, Johnathan has to deal with what's worth making certain Clark is ready when the time comes.

The pacing is fine and goes together fine, the third act is no longer than a Marvel movie so nothing wrong there.
Clark is developed as is Lois and Zod.
Johnathan's death makes sense it was Clark having to trust the judgement of others which is important it also mirrors the end, where Clark has to make a hard choice he doesn't want to, which is necessary to being superman. The whole he can't save everyone lesson doesn't make sense since in this world he isn't supposed to right now, the lesson needs to fit the film.

I have no flaws with this film, I can't even say that about the dark Knight which I feel is a little incoherent, the Joker just causes chaos his plans sometimes counteract each other. Simply put while having great character arcs it never gels into a complete narrative, try explaining a full plot summary of TDK and tell me it doesn't sound jumbled and a little scattered.

To me MOS is the best superhero movie ever and probably one of the most memorable too.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I vote 81-85% because I think there is almost nothing good about it. I only like Lois Lane really. I do not like Cavill Superman he very boring. General Zod was bland villain. Action was too cgi and over top. Pa Kent had stupid death and gave Clark bad advice as father. The movie have very bad pacing problems. I think Man of steel is one of worst comic films.

 

[The Batman]

Speak for yourself,

Which is exactly what I did...hence the "IMO"...which, if you didn't know, means "In My opinion"...

 

[Lencho01]

Who came up with IMO or IMHO? It's not even needed.

 

[Victarion]

Hard to say. I don't blame Pa Kent for his worldview, but they could have done better with his death scene. Faora and the other guy could've been cut or given more character. Otherwise I really enjoyed how the movie shifted gears from epic SF to smaller origin and then back to epic SF. So 20% is? That'd give it an 8/10 which is about right. I think Man of Steel is up there with the first half of Iron Man and Batman Begins in terms of origin films; in the context of Superman films (live action), this is the best of them.

Controversy: From my limited experience with it all, the bulk of the controversy seems to be focused on the final showdown with Zod. The only thing that comes across as controversial here is that superhero fans don't actually like the idea of what a super-powered defending their city from another super-powered being entails. The sacrifice that comes with it for the hero and the people of the city. I enjoyed it and the narrative possibilities that it brings. But, it is a departure from the boy scout of the source material. I can somewhat understand why this might not be all that popular to som.

 

[kedrell]

Another MoS poll? <sigh> Well I gave it a 5.5/10 so I guess than translates to about 45% flawed. Enough to make it a bad movie at any rate. But the flaws themselves? Let's see:
-the fights go on far too long and become boring.
-they're just there to scratch an itch to see super-powered punching matches. They don't serve the story commensurate with the amount of screen time they take up.
-the dull color palate where all the color seems sucked out of the movie(this is what a comic book movie looks like?)
-Wooden-ish acting in spots.
-Repetitive dialog(c'mon Jor-El, tell us the exposition one more time please).
-The idea of kryptonian eugenics going nowhere interesting, ultimately. As Hackman's Lex once sarcastically said "I could have just said pasta fazool, couldn't I?"
-Bad dialog(Faora they ain't doing you no favors with that dumb Darwin speech to Clark).
(C'mon Zod, say 'I WILL FIND HIM!' just one more time.)
-a very good cast largely wasted.
-Logical inconsistencies everywhere(just cover his eyes with your invulnerable hand, you fool! Or turn his head to face up. Zod! Just terraform Mars!)
-isn't a Superman film supposed to be...fun?

I don't know. Recounting this is putting me in a bad mood so that's enough. More than enough to get my point across.

And you'll notice I didn't mention neck-snapping anywhere. Because to me I don't care about that crap.

 

[kedrell]

Who came up with IMO or IMHO? It's not even needed.

Actually it is because we're not talking verbally. When you leave that stuff out people tend to think you are saying a fact or that you think your opinions are indeed fact(I'm sure there are a lot of idiots online for which this is true) so it helps to toss an IMO in there from time to time to let the other person know that you aren't one of those idiots.

 

[Lencho01]

Actually it is because we're not talking verbally. When you leave that stuff out people tend to think you are saying a fact or that you think your opinions are indeed fact(I'm sure there are a lot of idiots online for which this is true) so it helps to toss an IMO in there from time to time to let the other person know that you aren't one of those idiots.

But, we're on a website where people mostly discuss their opinions.

 

[The Joker]

Which is exactly what I did...hence the "IMO"...which, if you didn't know, means "In My opinion"...

I agree with you that controversy is not a good thing. Not when the only reason it brings up MOS is to be criticized for bad writing decisions.

 

[kedrell]

But, we're on a website where people mostly discuss their opinions.

We also state facts sometimes too. Best to keep the two clear and separate from each other. Hence using IMO or IMHO to mark the opinions.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I agree. This film has become defined by the "controversy" it brought, and little else. A lot of fans of this film consider that a good thing, but IMO, it really isn't.

I guess the "logic" is that the "controversy" is somehow proof that MoS must be "complex" and "subtle" and "profound" and "edgy". "Makes perfect sense!"

 

[Marvin]

I guess the "logic" is that the "controversy" is somehow proof that MoS must be "complex" and "subtle" and "profound" and "edgy". "Makes perfect sense!"

Speaking of opinions, to whom does this one belong?

 

[Visualiza]

We also state facts sometimes too. Best to keep the two clear and separate from each other. Hence using IMO or IMHO to mark the opinions.

There's something to that, but the issue is that most of the time people pull the "stop stating your opinion as a fact" card, is when you've said something that they either don't like, or can't reconcile. This is the chief reason why I'm resistant to tag my posts with a disclaimer like "IMO", because more often than not, people tend to use it as an attempt to lazily discredit others.

Anyone who can engage in mature debate should know the difference between a stated opinion and a stated fact. If I say "Movie X is awful because of Y & Z", someone will inevitably reply with "OMG STOP STATING YOUR OPINION AS FACT, RAWR!!!" I feel that a statement such as this should never be genuinely confused in that way. I also get the feeling that these folks realize this, but it's easier for them to discredit someone they disagree with than it is to confront what may otherwise be a legitimate concern.

 

[The Shape]

I don't care to discuss MOS at all, really, but just dropped in to say that I got a kick out of the poll for this thread. First time I've seen a poll quite like that, lol

 

[The Batman]

Who came up with IMO or IMHO? It's not even needed.

I agree with you. But there are a lot of insecure souls on the internet, especially where MOS is concerned. I use IMO to avoid inane or pedantic responses. It clearly didn't work in this thread, though.

I agree with you that controversy is not a good thing. Not when the only reason it brings up MOS is to be criticized for bad writing decisions.

Yup. I feel like some fans are trying to find a "Win" for this movie when they say the things they do.

I guess the "logic" is that the "controversy" is somehow proof that MoS must be "complex" and "subtle" and "profound" and "edgy". "Makes perfect sense!"

The funny thing is, that "logic" falls apart easily when you realize that so many films manage to be called those adjectives while being critically acclaimed.

 

[Last Of Krypton]

Isn't it interesting that MoS related threads are always flooded by the same group of people?
Like another poster said. "MoS haters talk more about this film than those who liked it".

Happy DCEU Tuesday everyone!

 

[rogbngp]

Who came up with IMO or IMHO? It's not even needed.

Imho, I have to respectfully disagree with this Lench.

More seriously, though, I have come to the conclusion that what makes a film click or resonate as enjoyable with one viewer versus another, or vice versa as not enjoyable, ultimately boils down to personal, subjective, idiosyncratic reasons. I'm about to get embarrassingly intellectual and wonkish here, but I do passionately believe this:

We can discuss objective facts about a film. The cinematic craft of storytelling is something that we can objectively analyze. This includes such things as cinematography, the screenplay and script, acting performances, pacing of the action, CGI, etc., and especially how well the director orchestrates all the various elements of the film. We can offer objective evidence for how well these things are accomplished, or not, in our own appreciation of a film.

But I assert again that the deepest reasons why one might appreciate a film as "good" or "bad" (which really means "like" or "dislike") still ultimately varies individually, from person to person. That is undeniable and self-evident in fact. Clearly we do not all agree. Anything but.

I think it is true that there are certain 'universal' principles that govern how the brain produces aesthetic experiences. The golden ratio of 1:1.618 seems a good example. But clearly not everyone loves works of art that are (understandably) considered masterpieces. Those works of art leave some people cold--many people, actually. How many young people do you know that love anime, for example, but would simply shrug at the Mona Lisa? Human taste in art is insanely diverse.

The subjective experience of the film, and one&#8217;s overall appreciation of it, is processed through each viewer's unique personality structure, personal tastes, and personal life history. Appreciation is filtered by these things. And for that reason the foundations for personal tastes are ultimately individual.

Here is how I frame film appreciation these days:

a film succeeds for me in the most basic terms if:

1) I care what happens to the characters (they matter to me, their fate matters to me)

2) I become interested and engaged in the story itself and how it unfolds (it takes me on a journey, and I&#8217;m willing to go on it)

3) I appreciate the cinematic craft of storytelling, i.e., specifically through the medium of film.

And, by the way, again: isn't most of that going to boil down to personal subjective reasons? At least with respect to the first two criteria above: Why do I care about the characters? Why is the story entertaining to me? Aren't those reasons ultimately going to be personal? Hell, even the third criterion is, arguably.

There is the level at which we are 'all the same', as a species, with a shared physiological structure (nervous system and brain) that is subject to the laws of physics and certain structural constants.

There is the level in which we are all 'both the same and different' which is the group identification level--the society and culture we share with others around us, and all of its subsets.

And there is the level at which we are all 'like no one else' in being a unique individual with a one-of-a-kind physiology, location in time and space, and personal identity and history, etc.

All of things things are true, they are all happening together. But it seems that the 'final word' on what we feel an affinity for is most tied to what makes us an individual.

 

[BH/HHH]

There are times when IMO or IMHO are warranted. Especially when you get those people who just say "Not it sucks" or "no you are wrong" when you can't actually be wrong because it's an opinion. I think those terms help to keep the conversation less hostile aswell and I know for a fact if we all had these conversations in person we would probably come across a lot more civil hence the no need to use those terms in person.

 

[Flint Marko]

There are times when IMO or IMHO are warranted. Especially when you get those people who just say "Not it sucks" or "no you are wrong" when you can't actually be wrong because it's an opinion. I think those terms help to keep the conversation less hostile aswell and I know for a fact if we all had these conversations in person we would probably come across a lot more civil hence the no need to use those terms in person.

I agree that if someone is responding to a discussion with such pithy answers as "no you're wrong, no it sucks", then pointing out that it's all a matter of opinion is warranted.
But so often around here that isn't the case. Instead someone will simply state their opinion and then a pedant who disagrees comes in and insists they clarify that it's merely their opinion. That's when it's annoying and unnecessary, and it happens far too often.

 

[BH/HHH]

I agree that if someone is responding to a discussion with such pithy answers as "no you're wrong, no it sucks", then pointing out that it's all a matter of opinion is warranted.
But so often around here that isn't the case. Instead someone will simply state their opinion and then a pedant who disagrees comes in and insists they clarify that it's merely their opinion. That's when it's annoying and unnecessary, and it happens far too often.

It's happened both ways on many occasions and that's why IMO is sometimes better to just simply do. I think there are more respectful ways to disagree at times and unfortunately some people don't want to do that.

 

[Lencho01]

We also state facts sometimes too. Best to keep the two clear and separate from each other. Hence using IMO or IMHO to mark the opinions.

Sure, but it's not hard to discern between facts and opinions. Thus, the use of IMO/IMHO is pretty pointless to me. Unless we're all a bunch of idiots.

 

[Lencho01]

But, speaking on the topic of this thread: "How flawed is MOS?" Well, MOS stands for "Man of ****" and that's the fact, Jack! t:

 

[Warhammer]

There are times when IMO or IMHO are warranted. Especially when you get those people who just say "Not it sucks" or "no you are wrong" when you can't actually be wrong because it's an opinion. I think those terms help to keep the conversation less hostile aswell and I know for a fact if we all had these conversations in person we would probably come across a lot more civil hence the no need to use those terms in person.

IMO and IMHO are never warranted. If someone's post comes off as rude, it comes off as rude regardless. And IMO and IMHO is just paralanguage. If you are typing it, it is clearly an opinion.

As for Man of Steel, it is a flawed movie. However, if the DCEU ends up becoming great, Man of Steel will be viewed in a much better light down the road. The entire DCEU revolves around Superman's first appearance on Earth. The same applies to the film itself.