Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

[B]

Just the same as things in SR and MOS are completely different, but with similarities.

Nevertheless in both movies Zod was present in the same circumstances: judged in Krypton, exiled, released and going to earth.

I have already given you my retort to this & I'm not going to get caught up in your circle of stupidity by you listing off cannon comic book elements along similar lines of Clark Kent is Superman, as some sort of logical comparison to my original comment(s) regarding the plot similarities that you've taken offence to.

I suggest you go back & re-read my previous replies until you can understand & then accept my point of view, then move on as I won't be addressing this topic with you again.

Yes, to STM and SII. That's common knowledge but at least your lack of information explains your posts.

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns

"Based on the DC Comics character Superman, the film serves as an homage sequel to the motion pictures Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980), ignoring the events of Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

"Movie Info

The Man of Steel returns to the big screen with this continuation of the icon's film legacy that picks up after the events of the first two Christopher Reeve films."

http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Superman_Returns

"In the behind-the-scenes featurettes included on the DVD release, the writers and director specifically indicate they approached Superman Returns as a sequel to the first film and, to a lesser degree, Superman II."

Unfortunately you aren't telling me anything I didn't already know, WB labelled Superman Returns a sequel/continuation of Superman The Movie & Superman II, however I am choosing to completely ignore that because I've seen Superman The Movie, Superman II & Superman Returns & I know for a fact that Superman Returns does not continue the same story that STM & SII laid out.

Let me let you in on some real common knowledge: For a film to be a sequel it would continue the previous film(s) story & continuity, you cannot change, add or ignore key elements of the previous film then label it a sequel. It becomes a separate entity because it is a separate continuity.

It was labelled a continuation/sequel by WB simply because it doesn't read very well for a synopsis if you describe the film as 'a vague sequel, a loose sequel or a sequel, but not a sequel', all of which terms I heard Bryan Singer himself describe Superman Returns as, in interviews during & after the films production.

Yes, if he had landed in Mars he would have been the ruler of a uninhabited world? No, right? He wanted to rule the earth.

I didn't write the story, I'm just telling you how it was. Zod was released beside Earth or Planet Houston if you want & set about conquering the planet after he had discovered that the yellow sun had given them powers. He had absolutely no idea Kal-El was even on the planet until after he had already been named absolute ruler of Earth.

Zod's sole goal in this film was & I quote 'to RULE, finally to rule.'

You mean to rule the earth?

At no point during Man of Steel does it's Zod show any sort of lust or will to rule anywhere. He does however indicate several times about rebuilding Krypton to ensure the survival of the Kryptonian race.

Well, let's start reminding you this is a world where alien and alien technology exist. We know this for a fact, do we? The fact that you try to cherish a movie because of its plausibility and then you try to deny the very base of the main character is a living contradictory.

Anyways, people cannot just stop an army convoy and hack a missile that's top security.

Let me just stop to remind you that we aren't talking about 'that world', we are talking about the 'real world'. Once again you have strayed a million miles away from the original comment in which you quoted.

In the real world it's a much more plausible that a missile is hijacked, sent into a stress point in the San Andreas fault destroying California, than it is to have Alien technology build an island.

The way the old school James Bond-type of villain do: you destroy a country, then they know you are to be taken seriously.

It doesn't work this way even in films never mind real life. In films they'd scramble a few jets to bury Luthor under his island by bombing it, in reality, they'd probably send a Navy Seal team in & kill him.

When you can put entire continents under the water, they have to, although I doubt they'd be happy.

Now, with that power I'm sure Luthor can get more than 4 people working for him.

He can't put any continents under water at the flick of a switch, the first response from the army would be more than likely to just bomb the island.

I ignored, I cannot be fixing up your contradictions. That's your job.

My statements have been clear, you've confused yourself by trying to put words into my statements.

You said everything I had listed was "default for every character & every Superman origin." And it's not for every character (like Batman). And not every Superman origin contains Zod (which I listed too).

Yes.. default for every character that you listed in that post.

You've not read my first post correctly & as a result misunderstood it.

No. What they did in the movie is not achievable.

You can have a trained woman dressed in black but not doing what Black Widow did in the movie, like jumping in the air and catching a speeding Chitauri vehicle without pulling your arms out.

Elements of fantasy are everywhere in Avengers. The tone of that movie, same as Spider-man 1 which you also mentioned, have nothing realistic. You keep talking about how Hawkeye is human. Like that alone gave a whole movie a realistic tone, because fantasy can't involve humans, right?

No woman, no matter how trained she could be, can jump and catch speeding vehicles like she did.

The original post which you quoted:

It (Batman Begins) was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy.

I never said The Avengers movie or any of the individual characters origin stories had a realistic tone, my comment was that there are elements about each character & each film that are more believable, such as an archer with an insanely good shot, a man putting on 50lbs of muscle & becoming a supreme athlete etc.

Then there are elements that aren't believable at all.. such as super human regeneration, near indestructible shield, aliens & some of the fight scene capabilities.

Yes, none of them have Hawkeye super-human aim.

I only singled this comment out & didn't include it with the rest because I wanted to ask, what was super human about his aim? That he hit his intended target with upwards of 90% of his shots?

Go watch footage of archers from the Olympics, some of them hit their intended targets 9 times out of 10.

Finally you kind of realize there's no realism here.

Finally I realise? It was never in any doubt, neither Batman or Iron Man from either film are realistic & I never implied they were, what I was referring to was how realistic the takes were on each character, both of which aren't a million miles away from one another.

A man saves a lot of people. People boo him because they don't know his name/address/whatever?

You have a helicopter falling over you and you'll cheer whoever saves you.

The public didn't cheer or boo Superman in Man of Steel, in fact there was only 1 scene that springs to mind in which we briefly see the public's reaction to him & they didn't cheer or boo.. they reacted with nothing.

It was the military's reaction I was referring to most.

Like a crowd that was saved by him would applaud and cheer, a different man like Perry White would be more interested in finding out who he is and a man like Luthor would see him as a menace. All happened in STM.

Perry White didn't ask for anything in regards to Superman in Man of Steel & in STM Lex Luthor didn't see Superman as a menace, he saw him as a problem & an obstacle in his land scheme.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I have already given you my retort to this & I'm not going to get caught up in your circle of stupidity by you listing off cannon comic book elements along similar lines of Clark Kent is Superman, as some sort of logical comparison to my original comment(s) regarding the plot similarities that you've taken offence to.

I suggest you go back & re-read my previous replies until you can understand & then accept my point of view, then move on as I won't be addressing this topic with you again.

I am barely able to make you accept your own point of view. Either both MOS and SR are similar to STM/SII because of their similarities or they're different because of their differences. You want to apply that rule to onme but not to the other. And in any case SR has the benefit to be the sequel to those, so at least you can get why it's similar.

Unfortunately you aren't telling me anything I didn't already know, WB labelled Superman Returns a sequel/continuation of Superman The Movie & Superman II, however I am choosing to completely ignore that because I've seen Superman The Movie, Superman II & Superman Returns & I know for a fact that Superman Returns does not continue the same story that STM & SII laid out.

Oh but that's much better.

If you choose to ignore reality you can pretty much state whatever you want. That would both explain your posts and why you don't feel to back them up.

Let me let you in on some real common knowledge: For a film to be a sequel it would continue the previous film(s) story & continuity, you cannot change, add or ignore key elements of the previous film then label it a sequel. It becomes a separate entity because it is a separate continuity.

Ignoring facts doesn't make them disappear.

It was labelled a continuation/sequel by WB simply because it doesn't read very well for a synopsis if you describe the film as 'a vague sequel, a loose sequel or a sequel, but not a sequel', all of which terms I heard Bryan Singer himself describe Superman Returns as, in interviews during & after the films production.

In fact it was firstly described by Singer as a 'vague sequel.' Of course you can't quote anyone - other than yourself - backing your personal interpretation of this.

I didn't write the story, I'm just telling you how it was. Zod was released beside Earth or Planet Houston if you want & set about conquering the planet after he had discovered that the yellow sun had given them powers. He had absolutely no idea Kal-El was even on the planet until after he had already been named absolute ruler of Earth.

Zod's sole goal in this film was & I quote 'to RULE, finally to rule.'

No, you said: "The plot & goal of SII was for Zod to be the ruler of a planet, any planet at all."

That's not true. It had to be earth as it's the only inhabited planet around.

At no point during Man of Steel does it's Zod show any sort of lust or will to rule anywhere. He does however indicate several times about rebuilding Krypton to ensure the survival of the Kryptonian race.

That's a difference between both movies, right?

But hey, there are differences in Luthor's plan too, and yet you say it's "exactly" the same.

Let me just stop to remind you that we aren't talking about 'that world', we are talking about the 'real world'. Once again you have strayed a million miles away from the original comment in which you quoted.

No, you started saying MOS was more realistic. And MOS is Superman's world.

In the real world it's a much more plausible that a missile is hijacked, sent into a stress point in the San Andreas fault destroying California, than it is to have Alien technology build an island.

Not hijacked like that though.

It doesn't work this way even in films never mind real life. In films they'd scramble a few jets to bury Luthor under his island by bombing it, in reality, they'd probably send a Navy Seal team in & kill him.

Sure, they can try.

But the movie doesn't just disregard the point. It states that Luthor plans to use his alien technology against those who opposes him.

He can't put any continents under water at the flick of a switch, the first response from the army would be more than likely to just bomb the island.

That's your speculation.

One thing that you got wrong is that he can't put continents under the water as if he can grow a continent, it would move water around it. We could even see a map where most of America would be under water when Luthor's continent grow.

My statements have been clear, you've confused yourself by trying to put words into my statements.

Your statements have been admittedly ignoring facts. So far I have quoted you literally.

Yes.. default for every character that you listed in that post.

You've not read my first post correctly & as a result misunderstood it.

Zod is not cannon for Superman origin anyways.

The original post which you quoted:



I never said The Avengers movie or any of the individual characters origin stories had a realistic tone, my comment was that there are elements about each character & each film that are more believable, such as an archer with an insanely good shot, a man putting on 50lbs of muscle & becoming a supreme athlete etc.

Then there are elements that aren't believable at all.. such as super human regeneration, near indestructible shield, aliens & some of the fight scene capabilities.

Sure, I mean, like every movie has a character that's human which, according to your words, would make it realistic because you can find humans in reality. So STM has realism in it too. I mean, Luthor can exist in real world.

I only singled this comment out & didn't include it with the rest because I wanted to ask, what was super human about his aim? That he hit his intended target with upwards of 90% of his shots?

Go watch footage of archers from the Olympics, some of them hit their intended targets 9 times out of 10.

Olympics don't include shooting from a plane to another plane, making the arrow go through a tiny gap to a specific point of a control board.

Finally I realise? It was never in any doubt, neither Batman or Iron Man from either film are realistic & I never implied they were, what I was referring to was how realistic the takes were on each character, both of which aren't a million miles away from one another.

The takes are not realistic.

The public didn't cheer or boo Superman in Man of Steel, in fact there was only 1 scene that springs to mind in which we briefly see the public's reaction to him & they didn't cheer or boo.. they reacted with nothing.

It was the military's reaction I was referring to most.

Believable, I know.

But cheering him because he saved a crow is also believable.

Perry White didn't ask for anything in regards to Superman in Man of Steel & in STM Lex Luthor didn't see Superman as a menace, he saw him as a problem & an obstacle in his land scheme.

Perry White asked Lois (and the rest of the Daily Planet staff) to get information about Superman in STM. In MOS he asked Lois to hide that information.

Luthor saw Superman as a menace to his plans and all he is. He thinks he is the best and cleverest man ever, and Superman proves to be superior than him (in the extended version Luthor is even angry at Miss Teschmacher liking Superman).

 

[kedrell]

MoS is barely a good movie. STM is the only great movie WB/DC has to their name. This isn't even remotely close for me.

 

[B]

Oh but that's much better.

If you choose to ignore reality you can pretty much state whatever you want. That would both explain your posts and why you don't feel to back them up.

Ignoring facts doesn't make them disappear.

Here is a rock solid fact for you, Superman Returns continuity or story doesn't align with Superman The Movie's or Superman II's, hence it isn't a sequel regardless of what WB have labelled it as.

Your only argument or retort for claiming it is a sequel is 'because WB's synopsis said so', I mean if I actually turned my brain off & treat this as a sequel to Superman II, then my opinion of the film will lower even further considering crucial elements to the story(s) don't align. It's directly because of these flaws that it should be treated as a separate entity.

In fact it was firstly described by Singer as a 'vague sequel.' Of course you can't quote anyone - other than yourself - backing your personal interpretation of this.

Well the fact is he has described it at one time or another as all 3, however that's beside the point as they all mean exactly the same thing.

If WB had labelled SR as a vague sequel in it's synopsis that would have sent warning sirens out to the general public that they were about to go & see a film that wouldn't make any sense.

No, you said: "The plot & goal of SII was for Zod to be the ruler of a planet, any planet at all."

That's not true. It had to be earth as it's the only inhabited planet around.

It was a figure of speech, they were released next to the Moon, landed on the Moon, found some astronauts that indicated they were from Earth & they went there.

Also to elaborate further for you, in order to be a ruler, you have to have someone or something to rule, this would instantly rule out any uninhibited planets.

That's a difference between both movies, right?

But hey, there are differences in Luthor's plan too, and yet you say it's "exactly" the same.

Either you are trolling me, or are too stupid to understand what I've laid out for you several times in plain English.

Zod in Superman II wanted to rule.

Zod in Man of Steel wanted to rebuild his race.

Lex in STM wanted to sell land.

Lex in SR wanted to sell land.

Much like the previous comment in the last post, I'm not going to get caught in a circle of stupidity with you repeating the same things to me that I've not even disputed. Really though, I don't understand how you are having a problem understanding plain English.

No, you started saying MOS was more realistic.And MOS is Superman's world.

Actually what I said was:

The film's plot was the thing that was similar, which was a Lex Luthor who's ultimate goal was to sell land. It wasn't a particularly thrilling plot in STM, however it was more thought out & kept a little more plausible.

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that when you are talking about plausibility of something, you are obviously talking about the real world. It's not my fault that you've failed to understand the original comment.

Sure, they can try.

But the movie doesn't just disregard the point. It states that Luthor plans to use his alien technology against those who opposes him.

I know what it states, however there is no technology shown in the film that is threatening or would prevent an attack on him.

That's your speculation.

One thing that you got wrong is that he can't put continents under the water as if he can grow a continent, it would move water around it. We could even see a map where most of America would be under water when Luthor's continent grow.

It's not speculation, he didn't have the equipment to be able to pick a country or point on the world that was threatening an attack & put it under water, he had a yacht with a mounted harpoon gun attached for firing one of the crystals. He'd have to sail to within a certain distance of a countries coast & fire the thing off & even then it wouldn't necessarily put the country under water.

Zod is not cannon for Superman origin anyways.

You just can't admit when you've made a mistake.

But again, in the post you made, you listed elements for Zod that are canon for the character, exiled to Phantom Zone before Krypton's destruction, escapes, fights Superman.

Sure, I mean, like every movie has a character that's human which, according to your words, would make it realistic because you can find humans in reality. So STM has realism in it too. I mean, Luthor can exist in real world.

I dunno what to tell you, I quoted my exact words & comment for you in the last post & you are still trying to fabricate as if I've said something completely different or far more elaborate than what I originally said.

Olympics don't include shooting from a plane to another plane, making the arrow go through a tiny gap to a specific point of a control board.

The bullseye one of those targets at the Olympics is a pretty small target, small enough that only 1 arrow that is less than a cm thick can land right on it & these archers all tend to land arrows within close proximity of one another.

The takes are not realistic.

It (Batman Begins) was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy.

Keep reading my original post until you can understand it. I didn't say either were realistic, what I said was that both of them were about as realistic as one another.

Perry White asked Lois (and the rest of the Daily Planet staff) to get information about Superman in STM. In MOS he asked Lois to hide that information.

Precisely, you've just completely contradicted your own previous comment & proved my point for me. In one film he asks for information, in the other he asks for no information.

Luthor saw Superman as a menace to his plans and all he is. He thinks he is the best and cleverest man ever, and Superman proves to be superior than him (in the extended version Luthor is even angry at Miss Teschmacher liking Superman).

Again, you are pretty much telling me canon elements for the character.

Lex Luthor is Superman's opposite in pretty much every incarnation, perhaps maybe not always in elseworld stories but they are exactly that, elseworlds.

 

[John Lambert]

Define humanity.

His care for humanity in STM was better.

In MOS he was more human.

What, because he lets so many people die, because heis willing to stand around listening to Luthor's dialogue, and then get tricked. If he had taken off right when he first found out aout th missiles, h culd have caught both of them.

Anyway, he probably allows less deaths in Man of Steel. In S:TM the nuclear missile hits. Not only are people killed by the earthquake, but the nuclear fall out will probably leave southern California unlivable for ages to come.

 

[John Lambert]

I am not sure why people like Superman:The Movie so much. I thought MOS hadmuch better Krypton scenes. They give Lara a more clear role. The whole "Superman melds with the universe" scene was odd. Luthor was just over the top. Lois being unable to spell was an atrocious gag. The whole Lois and Superman flying scene, Lois reciting the poem was horrendous. Then Lois walks into the room with Clark not wearing his glasses and notices nothing.

The reverse time sequence/go back in time was also just too much to take.

It is not that MOS is more modern. It is that it approaches the stuff in a slightly more believable way. If Superman had these powers, the big issue would not be "can I score more touchdowns", it would be "how many lives should I save and how". The tornado scene could have been done better, but it got the point across.

Plus, I just thought the fainting all over the place in S:TM was too much. MOS was just way better. If Lois was there on the train, why did she not ever clue into Clark being from Smallville, and think "he is from the same place I saw someone as a child who must have been Superman."

I am really not sure what is considered so amazing about S:TM. The incompetence of the military was atrotious, and even at that the above ground nuclear test in the United States was not being done in the late 1970s.

 

[John Lambert]

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.

More well rounded? expressed more emotion? Whatever. In Man of Steel we see him save Lois Lane at the first meeting in a way that is not putting himself over here. They avoid the totally cheap laughs of S:TM. I never really saw in S:TM why Clark was so smitten by Lois.

We felt the struggle of Clark. The struggle of being overwhelmed by too many senses. I never got the sense in S:TM that he had to figure out how to control his senses. MOS got that right.

 

[John Lambert]

It also did the scenes meant to humanize the character better. All of the stuff in Smallville in Superman: The Movie completely blew Man of Steel's Smallville scenes out of the water.

S:TM Smallville scenes were junk. MOS has really feeling and real struggle for Clark. Dealing with he overwhelmingness of his senses. Not him sowing off his ability to run going past a train. in MOS Clark uses his powers to save lives, not to get home to goof off with his friends faster. In MOS Clark proactively refuses to fight back, not using his powers off to the side to move faster in mundane tasks.

Plus, the whole flow of S:TM, at least up until he goes to the Daily Planet is horrible. The 12 years away scenes were excessive.

 

[John Lambert]

Lois dialogue was studio pressure. That was supposed to be a scene with them and just music... no dialogue. The studio didnt "get" it" and the voice over was put in.

I was really hoping that voiceover would be cut from the Dir Cut.

It still is in the film, and still is atrocious. The whole flying scene was atrotious. Who has lead planters on their balcony? At least in MOS Clark sees bones and muscles with x-ray vision, not underwear.

Also, what type of a girlfriend is Lois going flying with Superman when she has a date with Clark?

I prefer MOS Lois. She is competent, and actually gets stories. I never got the impression S:TM Lois was competent. Also, if she is on the city beat, why does she go to do a story in southern California?

 

[John Lambert]

^ Cuz it was Lois. He cares passionately about Lois because he likes her sense of honesty and tact. But that's somewhat superficial, when one thinks about it

I don't get that from the film though. It more seems like, Clark Kent walks in, sees Lois, is smitten with love, end of story.

In MOS, Clark sees Lois, then sees her again and saves her, then she tacks him down, he talks her into not telling his story, she goes to prison instead of revealing who he is, she saves him from being held on the ship, he saves her, they work together, he saves her again, then he kisses her while she is alive. Then he fights Zod and has to kill him and she conforts him in his grief.

What did Clark ever do with Lois in S:TM. Faint on her while she is being mugged. Why did she even agree to a date with the guy?

 

[John Lambert]

There is a message...the message is he reflected on what his kryptonian father told him NOT to do....but he went on to do what life had shown him as a human to do. He did not like not being able to save his father on earth when he did die...so he chose to not accept Lois dieing.

And to clarify THEY DID SHOW A relationship between Lois and Pajamaboy..He flew around w/her in the infamous "Can you read my mind?" /see my panties? scene. He obv. liked her...and she did him....for pajamaboy this would of been his first love...and 2nd big loss...all while digesting he is Superman and should be able to do more.

Now lets use Chris Reeve and have him fly opposite and fast forward 35 yrs later....where we find WB studios ripping off the first film by having his father die...ONLY this time it wasnt a heart attack....its a stupid tornado...and pajamaboy just watches !!! The fact is HE COULD OF DONE SOMETHING in this ripoff...vs in the old version he truly could not.

Prometheus had no holes...its just you can't seem to piece things together becuz u need cheap noises and special effects to do everything for you.

I dont think the time travel gig was great but i do think they made it work. so oh well.

I want to like MOS I really do...but like I said it really reminded me of one of the transformers supposedly "epic" battles where you just end up yawning and waiting for it to be over....the action just numbing to say the least...and the stupid devices were annoying. How the freak cant the S chip plug in properly.?? a problem the older Crystals never had.

STM had all 3 of the phantom villains having fun with Pajama boy together.

BTW old ZOD could kick new Zods ass. But thats not to say I wasnt happy with this Zod I was.

Honestly we should not be able to compare these movies...but yet we can.
MOS should be leaps and bounds above STM....but yet its not.
This is a reflection on hollywood.

Conan69 you are 100% correct....we will however not be able to discuss the later conan ever..as I walked out of it.

I thought his reasoning behind not saving Jonathan in MOS was compelling. It would be very difficult for his parents if his secret was revealed. He was not ready to deal with that. I will agree they could have had a more compelling reason for Jonathan to be out of reach, but Clark's actions made sense.

On the other hand, in S:TM yes, Lois is gaga for Superman, but why is he for Lois? Why Lois over any other woman who is gaga for him. That was never shown.

In MOS he goes for Lois because she proves she is able to measure up to him, and reaches him on a level no one else has. In S:TM it is unclear why he choses Lois to be the one he interviews. Sure, he likes Lois, but why her and not someone else? Well, because she is Lois, and Lois and Clark fall in love. But we never saw a reason why.

 

[John Lambert]

So it was the ending for tr second movie fine, I am not disputing that. This isn't about the real world but the world the film crrated. In the film wanting to save his father is one thing, it's his dad. But wanting to save a woman you barely know is another. It was made sense if Dean Cain's Superman did it, Tom Welling's Clark did do it; but in the context of Superman the movie there is not enough of a relationship developed that would lead me to believe he can't live without her so he's going to do something drastic to bring her back.

That was one thing good "Lois and Clark" did. They made it clear really early on why Clark loved Lois. In S:TM it is unclear why he loves Lois. Just the first episode of Lois and Clark gives us a more convincing connection between the two than anything S:TM does.

 

[John Lambert]

I don't think S:TM had a very plausible plot by Luthor. A missile hitting the San Andreas fault would not cause California to fall into the sea. Even if it would, it would turn Lex's worthless desert land into worthless nuclear fall-out land. Plot wise, S:TM is just as bad as SR. They just avoided needless plot drama.

 

[John Lambert]

SR can't be a sequel to SII, because SII Superman would not leave earth.

 

[adeel7861]

The trailers for Man of Steel actually look better than the whole movie itself unfortunately.. the biggest problem I had was how fast they went through the whole sequence of where clark locates the ship, finds out about his real father, his heritage, coming out as superman and flying off.... this whole sequence should have been the most dramatic and emotional part of the film. There didn't seem to be any proper buildup, it felt rushed and underwhelming, kinda makes sense why the critics didn't like it much and I also think they should have gone linear rather than going back and forth through flashbacks...

The only good thing this movie had was a lot of action and explosion, also I dont think the beginning part of the movie that showcased Krypton was bad either, just the middle part that needed more work... I was really looking forward to this movie, but in the end I was disappointed, have a hard time believing Nolan was actually the producer for this film.

 

[dpguy]

I am not sure why people like Superman:The Movie so much. I thought MOS hadmuch better Krypton scenes. They give Lara a more clear role. .

The scenes on Krypton were amazing to me and developed the Superman back story better than any Superman movie before.

The movie started to lose me when we got to earth.

IMO it officially jumped the shark when Faora started beating the crap out of Superman while delivering a lecture on social Darwinism.


It was all downhill from there.

Disaster porn combined with one horrendous line of dialogue after another.

I just thought that overall, it was a very sadistic and mean-spirited film. Superman snapping Zod's neck was lame. No, I don't have a problem with Supes killing. It just seemed like lazy writing. "Okay this fight is running a bit long and we need to end it right here. Let's snap Zod's neck."

 

[BlueLantern]

BUT IT'S MODERN, REAL AND THE OMFG BEST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER MADE. Right?

 

[PacificBoy]

Man of Steel is a good-looking movie, and STM is pretty dated, with an arguably wonky ending, but which movie will stand the test of time better? Which movie has scenes which one can revisit time and again?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Man of Steel is a good-looking movie, and STM is pretty dated, with an arguably wonky ending, but which movie will stand the test of time better? Which movie has scenes which one can revisit time and again?

Superman TM will stand the test of time better, because of its ability to break the mold at the time. MOS was designed with the audience in mind, and feels rather conventional near the middle of the film.

Buuut.. as for memorable scenes, I'd go with both. The FOS scene in the original is a classic, as is Superman's first appearance. The Kent scenes in MOS are very emotive, Krypton has a cultural richness to it, and the Smallville fight is probably the best action in a superhero movie.

In the end, does it matter?

If Superman:TM is better, it's because of Donner's direction, Reeve's performance, Puzo's mythological script, and the celebration of its source material.

If MOS is better, it's because it took place at a time when superhero adaptations could be taken more seriously, Goyer's emphasis on the difficulties of growing up with intimidating Superpowers, and Snyder's eye for action, visuals, and talent.

But I think this competitive mindset isn't really fair.

 

[PacificBoy]

You're right, it shouldn't be a competition.

 

[Skrilla31]

S:TM Smallville scenes were junk. MOS has really feeling and real struggle for Clark.

Pause.

Nothing in MOS compares to the scene when Clark is standing out there alone in the field when he's about to say goodbye to his mother. You try saying goodbye to the only life you've ever known. To your loved ones, to your mother... not knowing what lies ahead and not knowing if you'll ever make it back to see her again. Leaving everything you know behind.

 

[STARMAN]

STM has already lasted 35 years. I think it will always be around.

 

[Jim-El]

Saying that MOS was as good or better than STM is like saying a Cubic Zirconia is as good or better than a Real Diamond.
I liked MOS, but it is no STM.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

If MOS does one thing it forces people to realize that Richard Donner did not create Superman and neither did Christopher Reeve. He existed 40 years before the movie and 45 years after the movie as a separate entity. With that being said SM is still the better movie though MOS did make me realize if had some flaws, the relationship between Lois and Superman.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Here is a rock solid fact for you, Superman Returns continuity or story doesn't align with Superman The Movie's or Superman II's, hence it isn't a sequel regardless of what WB have labelled it as.

Show me how SR does not match STM.

So far your statement is just that, an statement.

Your only argument or retort for claiming it is a sequel is 'because WB's synopsis said so', I mean if I actually turned my brain off & treat this as a sequel to Superman II, then my opinion of the film will lower even further considering crucial elements to the story(s) don't align. It's directly because of these flaws that it should be treated as a separate entity.

That and the fact that we're dealing with the same take of the characters: Clark is still the same mumbling clumsy man, Lois can't spell and does everything for an exclusive, Lex is arrogant and campy and a lion etc that you should know if you had either seen the movies or accepted facts.

Now feel free to link me to those reliable/official sources that state SR is not a sequel.

Well the fact is he has described it at one time or another as all 3, however that's beside the point as they all mean exactly the same thing.

Yes, a sequel.

If WB had labelled SR as a vague sequel in it's synopsis that would have sent warning sirens out to the general public that they were about to go & see a film that wouldn't make any sense.

WB did label the move as that. That's fact. They were saying all over the place that Marlon Brando would be reprising as Jor-el, pictures of Routh looking like Reeve and those virals Singer made talking about SR continuing the story.

It was a figure of speech, they were released next to the Moon, landed on the Moon, found some astronauts that indicated they were from Earth & they went there.
Also to elaborate further for you, in order to be a ruler, you have to have someone or something to rule, this would instantly rule out any uninhibited planets.

Yes, it wasn't just "any planet" as you claimed.

Either you are trolling me, or are too stupid to understand what I've laid out for you several times in plain English.

Zod in Superman II wanted to rule.

Zod in Man of Steel wanted to rebuild his race.

Lex in STM wanted to sell land.

Lex in SR wanted to sell land.

But you said: "Just look at Superman Returns for proof, in my opinion that film was virtually just a more updated telling of that same story/plot & it wasn't even in the same league as STM."

So, you were talking about the plot and now you talk about the villains' goals only?

The plot is Zod coming back to earth once he is freed from Phantom Zone. Sure there are differences in their goals, as there are differences in Luthor's plans.

But yes, Luthor's goal remained the same. You wanna know why? Because SR was a sequel.

Much like the previous comment in the last post, I'm not going to get caught in a circle of stupidity with you repeating the same things to me that I've not even disputed. Really though, I don't understand how you are having a problem understanding plain English.

I wish you repeated more and changed subject less when you're proven wrong.

Actually what I said was:


I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that when you are talking about plausibility of something, you are obviously talking about the real world. It's not my fault that you've failed to understand the original comment.

Oh, so you're talking about a real world, praise realism, call alien technology implausible and then you're okay with Superman.

Superman is an alien, in his world alien technology exists and saying that plausibility/realism is better than implausibilities is just going against what Superman and his universe are.

I know what it states, however there is no technology shown in the film that is threatening or would prevent an attack on him.

Just one that could threaten the existence of continents if they do something.

It's not speculation, he didn't have the equipment to be able to pick a country or point on the world that was threatening an attack & put it under water, he had a yacht with a mounted harpoon gun attached for firing one of the crystals. He'd have to sail to within a certain distance of a countries coast & fire the thing off & even then it wouldn't necessarily put the country under water.

All he needs is a man throwing a piece of crystal into water. Not much of an equipment needed there. Other than the crystals, that is.

You just can't admit when you've made a mistake.

But again, in the post you made, you listed elements for Zod that are canon for the character, exiled to Phantom Zone before Krypton's destruction, escapes, fights Superman.

But Zod is not canon to Superman origin.

Before feeling confident with your emoticon-using skills you should stop ignoring facts like this one.

I dunno what to tell you, I quoted my exact words & comment for you in the last post & you are still trying to fabricate as if I've said something completely different or far more elaborate than what I originally said.

Well, you jkust can't go on and say Avengers is realistic and then when proven wrong claim that there are archers in real world and that's your evidence of the realism there.

The bullseye one of those targets at the Olympics is a pretty small target, small enough that only 1 arrow that is less than a cm thick can land right on it & these archers all tend to land arrows within close proximity of one another.

And the helicopter is part of it?

But what the hell, there are journalists in the real world so all the Superman movies are realistic.

Keep reading my original post until you can understand it. I didn't say either were realistic, what I said was that both of them were about as realistic as one another.

And I said that none were it.

Anyways, Batman Begins didn't have mutant monsters, gods from a parallel dimension and such. That doesn't sound "as realistic as."

Precisely, you've just completely contradicted your own previous comment & proved my point for me. In one film he asks for information, in the other he asks for no information.

Read again. In MOS he asks not hide information. Not the same thing.

Again, you are pretty much telling me canon elements for the character.

Lex Luthor is Superman's opposite in pretty much every incarnation, perhaps maybe not always in elseworld stories but they are exactly that, elseworlds.

Not talking about how similar/different Luthor is from incarnation to incarnation, but refering to how many different reactions Superman would cause. Please consider context before replying.