Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

[Loki882]

He has less time with her than in MOS. They quite literaly saved the world together and she helped him become Superman. I buy the attraction much more here than in STM.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^

I'm sorry, but a certain someone shouldn't vote until he can say he's seen the genre-creating Reeve classic. Watch both, then come back later

 

[conan69]

You can't compare these two.

I'd rather see a movie with modern graphics, wiring, tones, and views than stuff from way back then.

One place you fail is with "tones" since movies today rely of great FX to "distract" you.... tone has suffered greatly.

FX are supposed to be a tool to help tell a story, not BE the story. Unfortunately, in too many films now that is exactly the case.

"Views"?... Do you mean point of views or camera work and photography, because shaky cam is evil and must die. I would agree I like the darker, grittier, more realistic and heavier philosophical material of recent times, but camera work...please. Very few directors today can match the amazing camera work of some of guys like Kurosawa, Wells, Hitchcock, Kubrick,Coppola, etc.

Youre right you cant compare the 2.

Donner Superman is magic. It contains magnificent and thoughtful frame composition, the story takes its time is allowed ot breathe and fully connects scenes, not rushing to get to the action, but rather serving the story, and providing depth, the score in incomparable and glorious, some of the dialogue (especially Jor-Els) is brilliant, a unforgettable performance by Reeve, great cast chemistry, well rounded characters with unique identities that we spend enough time with that we "get" who they are... I can go on and on.

Its not dated.. its a snapshot of a certain time period. Is Citizen Kane dated?

They just dont make films like this anymore.

As for the film being hokey, campy or corny, go to 3:06...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP1DrCM02H0

Reeve gets it. Theres even a joke about Supermans out of timeness in the film with Lois saying "Any more at home like you?"


There was some great stuff in MoS, just not enough of it. I liked the film more the first time I saw it. The second time, I really thought the first half was messy. Thinking about it, I think MoS has some of the same problems as SR.

This film also has some TDKR worthy character issues.

^ If Goyer has to write the next film, I would really, and I mean REALLY like someone else to help out with the script.

 

[Loki882]

I have seen both, and stand by my critique (I like Donner, I just like MOS more).

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

MOS because I haven't seen S:TM!

I wasn't talking about you, Loki.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

^ 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

Just cuz he likes her doesn't mean he has to spin the world backwards. Now don't get me wrong i love that he did it I love that Superman does something like that, just MOS made me realize they had zero relationship in SM to warrant Supes doing something so drastic.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Well no not really, in Superman II Zod's plan was seemingly to just rule Earth & kill Kal-El.. or have him be his slave. In Man of Steel, Zod's plan is much more in line with what Zod's angle is in comics & other incarnations of the character with his main goal or aim being to rebuild Krypton.

Sure, and Superman's cape was a little shorter so it's a complete different movie based on that alone.

But no, you see, the origin of Superman, meeting Lois and Zod's coming is what happened in STM and SII in broad terms. Details of course are different, which is partially what I addressed when I said "more updated."

But I'll help you out this time: "Lex Luthor was not in it, Senator Pleasury!"

STM & SR's main plot angle both involved a Lex Luthor obsessed with selling land.

But SR didn't involve Superman's origin, nor did it involve missiles destroying California, Superman saving the president, and a long etcetera. You see, if you're going to use details as your main proof that two movies are completely different, you have to involve them when trying to say that's what make two movies completely the same.

However this is getting away from my point, my point wasn't that they each had similar plot angles, my point was that STM's main plot wasn't good enough & memorable enough to be updated & retold.

And yet it was.

Superman's origin, his youth in Smallville, the way he got to the Planet, met Lois, fell in love with her and vice versa and is introduced to the world is good enough and memorable enough, that's why every incarnation has them, that's why MOS has most of them, although MOS thought Superman being an amazing awe-inspiring being in the eyes of people wasn't interesting enough.

I kinda disagree, Spiderman wasn't in the same tone as Batman Begins, however it was a more modern story & made an attempt to give more of a realistic take on the character that had been seen before.

What was realistic in Spider-man? Pretty much nothing; the romantic story, Goblin powers, bombs exploding next to Peter's face with not a burnt, Goblin having Spider-man unconscious without unmasking him (even when he was later aware that his identity could be essential to get to him), MJ's ability to fall a long distance and grab a tram car without any major damage (not to mention she managed to do it without having the speed affect his hands), etc.

And what was seen before of Spider-man on the screen? The 1977-79 TV series. And we can tear that apart but it was far more realistic.


********************************************

I'm still waitin for someone to tell me why Superman cares so much Lois is dead. If the kiss in MOS is forced, Supes reaction in SM is just convenient, it happens only cuz he's Superman and her name is Lois Lane, with that being said i still think SM > MOS.

Well, the movie pretty much explains he is in love with her. That's why he chooses her to give an interview, take her on a personal flight, flirting, etc. And yes, that happened because he is Superman and she is Lois Lane. Those are the characters.

If that's not enough, Superman kind of cares about humans, specially their safety.


*************************************************

Not to mention that turning back time goes against EVERYTHING that Jor-el had taught and warned him about, the entire point of the movie. Yet, he suffered NO consequences for doing this. At least in MOS, Superman was forced to kill a man, which goes against everything he believes in, and had a reaction to it.

Well, a reaction is not exactly a consequence (I think Snyder said the consequences are to be shown in the sequel). Superman also reacted when he remembered Jor-el's words, but he went on anyways. The fact that he remembered his Kryptonian father's words and hesitated means that the movie addressed the issue.

 

[Loki882]

Yet he ignored them, and suffered no ill effects, great message there guys.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Yet he ignored them, and suffered no ill effects, great message there guys.

He thought he had to take the risk of disobeying his father and he did it. Then he did it again in SII (sure why not, it worked the first time) and... uh-oh... ill effects right there.

 

[Skrilla31]

S:TM is one of my all time favorite movies and I will concede the ending is horse s***. I'm not against the idea of Superman going back in time but it's the fact that he does it without consequence. His father warned him not to do things like that. It would have meant so much more if it were implied that by going back in time he would have had to make a great sacrifice. Instead it's happily ever after.

 

[MrMaooz]

I wasn't talking about you, Loki.

I still don't plan on watching S:TM.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

S:TM is one of my all time favorite movies and I will concede the ending is horse s***. I'm not against the idea of Superman going back in time but it's the fact that he does it without consequence. His father warned him not to do things like that. It would have meant so much more if it were implied that by going back in time he would have had to make a great sacrifice. Instead it's happily ever after.

Ever after = the sequel, right?

 

[Loki882]

Zod escaping had nothing to do with his choice in the first film, so there still weren't any consequences.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Zod escaping had nothing to do with his choice in the first film, so there still weren't any consequences.

What about Superman not listening to his father (mother, after Brando quit) again and having to face the horrific consequences?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm still waitin for someone to tell me why Superman cares so much Lois is dead. If the kiss in MOS is forced, Supes reaction in SM is just convenient, it happens only cuz he's Superman and her name is Lois Lane, with that being said i still think SM > MOS.

I answered this a little while back. It is because it was the ending originally written for the second film after the romance was developed a great deal more. Then the Salkinds changed it so that it was the end of the first film and as a result it has a lot less meaning.

It really goes back to what Clark said after Pa Kent's death though, that despite all his powers he couldn't save him. He wasn't going to let that happen again.

 

[JohnConner]

Yet he ignored them, and suffered no ill effects, great message there guys.

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.

 

[blumatic]

I still don't plan on watching S:TM.

Bro you should. You missing out.

 

[Loki882]

No, his dad warned him that he shouldn't use his powers selfishly, and he did it anyway (in MOS, it was selfless). There should have been consequences (which Zod ecaping was intially supposed to be).

 

[JohnConner]

No, his dad warned him that he shouldn't use his powers selfishly, and he did it anyway (in MOS, it was selfless). There should have been consequences (which Zod ecaping was intially supposed to be).

It was a message of his humanity. Their were no consequences because he decided he would be a part of Humanity not just stand outside of it...he changed the role his father designed for him.

I think this happened in MOS as well tho...but strangely.

 

[Loki882]

Sorry, you and I just aren't going to see eye to eye on this John Conner (Donner wanted Zod escaping to be the consequence of Superman's selfishness, but the Salkind's forced him to change the ending). Also, if he was fast enough to spin the world back and reverse time, then why couldn't he stop both missiles exactly? (Hello, giant plot hole).

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

New Zod would melt old Zod. The first time Superman and Zod clash, Zod gets thrown into a pepsi logo :P

But old Zod is a more deliberately evil villain, and Superman:II will always be a classic

 

[PacificBoy]

New Zod would melt old Zod. The first time Superman and Zod clash, Zod gets thrown into a pepsi logo :P

Nowadays all the cool Kryptonians get thrown into IHOP.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

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.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

Its not dated.. its a snapshot of a certain time period. Is Citizen Kane dated?

Certain films can be timeless, while others can become dated.

Being a big Star Wars fan, I always like to use this comparison when talking about this topic.

The Star Wars movies A New Hope and The Empire Strikes back can perfectly show how one movie can become dated (A New Hope) while the other can remain timeless (Empire Strikes Back). I believe it is ultimately a difference in tone and depth that can make that determination.

A New Hope has a similar tone to Superman: The Movie, they take themselves seriously but do have a bit of a corniness to their tone. And the stories in each movie take place more on the surface than really dive deep into the world and characters.

A movie like The Empire Strikes back has a very serious tone to it, and it gets quite dark. It also goes deep into the world, and the characters involved in it.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

I still don't plan on watching S:TM.

it's good for some laughs, especially from Gene Hackman and his goon

and that's about it