Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

[PacificBoy]

You are underestimating all the years under the yellow Sun Clark has had. Zod was getting stronger, but he wasn't quite there yet. He clearly struggles with Clark. He couldn't break that hold.

Possibly. But didn't Zod have Superman on the ropes throughout their rumble? If Superman had a clear strength advantage, wouldn't he simply arm-drag him away or neutralize him him early on?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Possibly. But didn't Zod have Superman on the ropes throughout their rumble? If Superman had a clear strength advantage, wouldn't he simply arm-drag him away or neutralize him him early on?

Zod tries to hurt Clark, kill him, he can't. He is a getting stronger, faster, more powerful. That doesn't mean he is there yet. Zod throws everything at him, literally, and it is still Clark who ends up on top.

 

[John Lambert]

One thing I didn't like about MoS is that I didn't feel that Clark becoming Superman was really earned. He finds the ship, has a five minute conversation with Jor-El, puts on the suit and then he's Superman. In the original that sequence takes 12 years!

It also ruins the Jor-El/Kal-El relationship by having them barely even meet.

Why does Clark have to earn being who he is?

Still I would say if anyone earns it, it is the Clark who goes around saving people more than the Clark who hides our for 12 years and has no contact with the rest of humanity.

I guess I come more from the "Lois and Clark" tradition, where Superman is a device created by Clark to do good, not something he trains for. I guess I just prefer him having an earthly and replaceable suit.

I still love MOS. I just hope they do not go the overly klutzy and border-lin incompetent Clark route.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Man of Steel by MILES!

Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve's performance as Superman, NOT Clark, was the only good thing about the original Superman movie

 

[Loki882]

Superman was getting pummeled for most of the fight, Zod was clearly the better fighter. The only reason that Superman got Zod in a headlock was that he was lucky to land a certain way, it could have easily been the other way around.

 

[psylockolussus]

I voted for Superman: The Movie

 

[PacificBoy]

Superman was getting pummeled for most of the fight, Zod was clearly the better fighter. The only reason that Superman got Zod in a headlock was that he was lucky to land a certain way, it could have easily been the other way around.

My take is that Zod allowed himself to be put in the headlock and eventually killed because he was suicidal at that point but wanted Superman to finish him off and be guilty for life.

Precisely because Zod is a born and bred warrior. He could have easily broken off the hold if he wanted to as Clark never did learn to even throw a proper punch his whole life prior to this.

 

[747]

Superman: The Movie is far and away the better Superman movie for me. And it's not because I'm stuck in the past, I was more than ready to embrace a new fantastic Superman origin movie, but I ended up only quite liking it.

 

[DIRECTOR]

why the f do we have several threads on this subject...........

Anywayz........ PLEASE ENJOY

[YT]VkVn6Ie0OUE[/YT]

 

[conan69]

I don't think STM has iconic scenes. In fact they were blah.

The CGI comic book violence is fun to see and all, but Superman The Movie easily... theres no comparison really.

 

[The Batman]

I do find it funny that while some MOS fans hate how the critics supposedly dislike the movie out of nostalgia for the old, they essentially don't like STM because it dosen't fit their 21st century mandate for a Superman film. Heck, some MOS fans only seem to like it because its modern, and therefore "Theirs".

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Ok I don't get that complaint. The audience the movie and the critics are living in 2013; how are fans complaining about nostalgia from a 1978 movie equal to fans of MOS liking a modern Superman?

 

[The Question]

Superman: The Movie is a much better film. It's better written and better directed and overall much more compelling. The plot is a little clunky, especially in the theatrical cut, and Lois' inner monologue is horrid, but all in all it captures the humanity of Superman much better than Man of Steel did.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Superman: The Movie is a much better film. It's better written and better directed and overall much more compelling. The plot is a little clunky, especially in the theatrical cut, and Lois' inner monologue is horrid, but all in all it captures the humanity of Superman much better than Man of Steel did.

It's funny, but I feel like Superman:TM captures the super-duality of the character, while MOS captures the HUMANITY more, but it brings Supes down to our level (and in some cases beneath-tornado scene, anyone?).

Superman:TM feels like it's enjoying the genre, while MOS seems a bit confused to what it wants to be.

I like them both, though

 

[blumatic]

Superman: The Movie is a much better film. It's better written and better directed and overall much more compelling. The plot is a little clunky, especially in the theatrical cut, and Lois' inner monologue is horrid, but all in all it captures the humanity of Superman much better than Man of Steel did.

Define humanity.

His care for humanity in STM was better.

In MOS he was more human.

 

[The Batman]

Ok I don't get that complaint. The audience the movie and the critics are living in 2013; how are fans complaining about nostalgia from a 1978 movie equal to fans of MOS liking a modern Superman?

It's hypocritical. Its wrong for these critics to diss MOS because its not 1978, but its ok to diss STM because it isnt from 2013? I don't give a damn what era anyone lives in, judge a movie on its merits and understand that different movies come from different eras. I'm not gonna nitpick Superman time traveling because 2013 movies don't do that, and I'm not going to nitpick Superman breaking necks because the Superman of 1978 didnt do it. Don't slag off critics for judging with their biases if you're doing the same thing.

 

[blumatic]

It's hypocritical. Its wrong for these critics to diss MOS because its not 1978, but its ok to diss STM because it isnt from 2013? I don't give a damn what era anyone lives in, judge a movie on its merits and understand that different movies come from different eras. I'm not gonna nitpick Superman time traveling because 2013 movies don't do that, and I'm not going to nitpick Superman breaking necks because the Superman of 1978 didnt do it. Don't slag off critics for judging with their biases if you're doing the same thing.

I totally agree. But time travel is bad in any era. Just like bat nipples.

 

[The Batman]

Superman: The Movie is a much better film. It's better written and better directed and overall much more compelling. The plot is a little clunky, especially in the theatrical cut, and Lois' inner monologue is horrid, but all in all it captures the humanity of Superman much better than Man of Steel did.

Watch out....apparently, MOS Superman is automatically more human than STM Superman because STM Superman was just a boy scout.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Webster's Definition of HUMANITY

1
: the quality or state of being humane (Superman TM)
2
a : the quality or state of being human (MOS)

 

[blumatic]

Webster's Definition of HUMANITY

1
: the quality or state of being humane (Superman TM)
2
a : the quality or state of being human (MOS)

Great answer. Like jello there is always room for STM and MOS. I'm glad I got 2 great Supermans in my life time.

 

[The Question]

Define humanity.

His care for humanity in STM was better.

In MOS he was more human.

He was a better written, more well rounded character and expressed more emotion in Superman: The Movie. He felt more like a person than a character in a movie. The film was much better at conveying his humanity than Man of Steel.

 

[The Batman]

He was a better written, more well rounded character and expressed more emotion in Superman: The Movie. He felt more like a person than a character in a movie. The film was much better at conveying his humanity than Man of Steel.

But...but Chris Reeve never felt the need to talk to a preacher, how is he more human than Cavill?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Which is why "Does it matter?" is a great choice.
Superman:TM is a classic that got the ball rolling on the genre with a jarring tonal shift.
MOS is a film that tries to address what it would be like as a superhero among mortals, and having to deal with the effects of one's own abilities. And yes, I think even the more action oriented second half addresses it BY showing Superman going through the grinder.

Though I will gladly admit that the supporting cast isn't really fleshed out, and that there could be a bit more character development on the part of the main hero, I feel like there is an arc, but a subtle one.

It isn't really fair to pick MOS because it's catered to the aesthetics of a modern blockbuster, and is made in an era with constantly improving digital effects with a genre on the rise. It also isn't fair to pick Superman:TM because that film will always have a legacy that no other big superhero film can share, and that is to be the first prestigious superhero movie.

What matters is that Superman is back, and that the sequels will hopefully build on the mythology and "complete" the weaker areas of its "first" installment.

 

[The Question]

Which is why "Does it matter?" is a great choice.
Superman:TM is a classic that got the ball rolling on the genre with a jarring tonal shift.
MOS is a film that tries to address what it would be like as a superhero among mortals, and having to deal with the effects of one's own abilities. And yes, I think even the more action oriented second half addresses it BY showing Superman going through the grinder.

Though I will gladly admit that the supporting cast isn't really fleshed out, and that there could be a bit more character development on the part of the main hero, I feel like there is an arc, but a subtle one.

It isn't really fair to pick MOS because it's catered to the aesthetics of a modern blockbuster, and is made in an era with constantly improving digital effects with a genre on the rise. It also isn't fair to pick Superman:TM because that film will always have a legacy that no other big superhero film can share, and that is to be the first prestigious superhero movie.

What matters is that Superman is back, and that the sequels will hopefully build on the mythology and "complete" the weaker areas of its "first" installment.

Except the people who made the first movie are making it's sequels, and the plot of the sequel hinges on a cynical cash grab instead of the best possible story.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Good point.