Man of Steel vs Thor TDW, seen 'em both, what do you folks think ? Compare/contrast

[Lord]

Man of Steel has real characters?

 

[Batmannerism]

Originally I had rated both the same for different reasons. But MOS has 2 things Thor 2 completely lacks of: real characters that truly interact and a worthy story.

Nice ! I really enjoyed Thor TDW, but as great fun, forgettable fun but fun nonetheless.
MOS had a little more substance in the story, because it was a man's
personal journey, from birth to finally finding his place in the world.
Thor TDW is exciting, but it's kind of apocalypse light.

Where I think TDW went wrong was having Malekith speak Elvish
for the early parts of the film - as an audience, you just don't connect with him, which is a shame as Eccleston is such a good actor, wasted in that role. He wasn't evil enough to hate, nor sympathetic enough to feel anything for. He was just kind of there.
(and of course, Faora was much hotter but also cooler than Kurse)

Also, his whole plan was to un-make out the universe, but he didn't seem to care too much about whether there were any of the Dark Elves left to enjoy the dark ( as he was very quick to sacrifice them as cannon fodder).

Zod was quite nonchalant about wiping out humanity, but he was dead
set on restarting his own race. There are some holes in that story too,
but overall, it was a bit more compelling than TDW.

But then again, I'm a Superman fan, so really it's all IMO.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

After watching both movies a few more times, EASILY, EASILY MOS for me, it beats TDW in every department for me. Plus, MOS gets better with repeat viewings while I have found TDW gets worse. That movie was such a disappointment. I loved the 1st Thor movie as well.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Man of Steel, by miles
I couldn't enjoy Thor 2 anywhere as much as I enjoyed the first one, and I really like the first Thor film

Man of Steel has real characters?

They both have fictional characters only

 

[Lord]

Man of Steel, by miles
I couldn't enjoy Thor 2 anywhere as much as I enjoyed the first one, and I really like the first Thor film

They both have fictional characters only

You know what i mean

 

[Senator Pleasury]

You know what i mean

The other ones are called people.

 

[sf2]

I watched Thor 2 at my friend's house yesterday. it's more boring and hatching patching editing than I remember.

0 rewatchable value. a bad commercial movie but doing great in box office.

it's mind bogging to see superman fans said Thor 2 is miles better than MOS.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

Marvel is taking the "comic" in comicbook movie way too literally with their movies.

 

[Lord]

Thor does have fun going for it, you can see why someone could rate it higher if that person is annoyed by the Nolanification of all things

 

[The Endless]

MoS definitely has a better story and the development/arc of the lead is superior. Cavill did a good job but i'd like to see more of that great smile and less of that furrowed brow. Visually stunning, great production design and great action scenes. I loved the opening on Krypton. Zod is an effective villain, much stronger than Malekith. Faora was also much better than Kurse. The film was a little too po-faced for my liking though. And the last half hour descended into a Michael Bay movie on steroids with two indestructible CGI characters punching the crap out of each other. They could have added more tension to the final fight by showing the consequences of this city destroying battle or showing Kal at least trying to save people and perhaps failing.

Thor 2 had a bit more charm and didn't take itself so seriously, which i consider a positive. Hemsworth and Hiddleston were again fantastic. I liked their relationship. I also really liked Frigga and Loki's relationship, even if it was only shown briefly, it was effective and i truly believed that Loki loved her and her death spurred him on. Her funeral was stunning. Visually it was also really good. The attack on Asgard and the escape from Asgard were awesome. I also liked the finale and the way the worm holes were used in the fight. Like MoS it had fantastic production design. Asgard looked fantastic. Malekith was a weak villain though. Eccleston was wasted. Hopkins totally phoned it in as Odin. A lot of the comedy fell flat, although the scene where Selvig is explaining his theories then it's shown he is in a nut house really made me laugh.

Overall, they are about even for me. I enjoy them both, but was also disappointed in some ways. 7/10.

 

[J.Howlett]

Nolanification of all things?

Don't understand that word at all considering the variety we get from blockbuster filmmaking on a yearly basis. But please, continue the echo chamber nonsense against Nolan's trilogy.

 

[The Endless]

Nolan's films were the right tone for Batman. Not so much Superman. I can see why there is criticism there.

 

[Lord]

Nolanification of all things?

Don't understand that word at all considering the variety we get from blockbuster filmmaking on a yearly basis. But please, continue the echo chamber nonsense against Nolan's trilogy.

Not sure if you noticed, but since Nolan's reboot on Batman we've constantly been getting remakes and reboots that try to be more "dark" and "Edgy", some work, others do not.

And how am i echoing chamber nonsence against Nolan's Trilogy? I love his movies, Begins turned me into a Batman fan, The Dark Knight is one of my favorite movies. Just because something works, it doesn't mean everything needs to be like that.

 

[J.Howlett]

Not sure if you noticed, but since Nolan's reboot on Batman we've constantly been getting remakes and reboots that try to be more "dark" and "Edgy", some work, others do not.

And how am i echoing chamber nonsence against Nolan's Trilogy? I love his movies, Begins turned me into a Batman fan, The Dark Knight is one of my favorite movies. Just because something works, it doesn't mean everything needs to be like that.

But everything isn't that way. Case in point; the Marvel Universe.

This is what I don't understand. Everyone talks about we're getting nothing but gritty and dark films in our blockbuster films and the Marvel universe is the exact opposite of that...even though Iron Man's template was Batman Begins. They've changed the tone significantly since that original film, even when that original Iron Man film wasn't dark/gritty in the slightest. It was just grounded a bit to fully buy into the ridiculousness of the rest of it.

And honestly, when's the last time people actually fully watched Nolan's trilogy in one sitting? The push and drive for hope is running through the entire trilogy from frame one. Not to mention the wicked sense of humor that the trilogy has.

I just don't understand it at all this notion that Nolan's take on Batman has changed blockbuster filmmaking for the worse.

Don't get it.

 

[The Endless]

There is hope in Nolan's Batman films. But there is a sense of nihilism too. That bleeds into MoS a little bit, when it has no place being in a Superman film in my eyes.

 

[Lord]

I know the MCU isn't that way, which is good, neither is G.I.Joe for example, a franchise that i would argue that fits this type of stuff better, that still doesn't take away from the fact that most of the other stuff are being like that, these two are exceptions not the rule, or just half of the blockbusters.

And i think it did change for the worse due to the copycats applying his style on things that don't fit it all that well, hell, just look at the planed "Winter's Knight" movie that is supposed to be a grittier origin for Santa Claus and is aparently going to feature him fighting against Vikings.

It's not as if Nolan's style was completelly unique, it seems to be very inspired by Michael Mann's, and from what i've seen it doesn't work with certain properties. Going more off topic now, i even think that Superman deserved a more pulpy style on line with the Fleisher cartoons and the animated series, i think The Man of Steel went with the mindset of a remake of Superman I and II in the Nolan style. But that is another discussion entirelly.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Thor does have fun going for it, you can see why someone could rate it higher if that person is annoyed by the Nolanification of all things

But it's fun devoid of any character development. Like, any. Certainly not the solution to any Nolanification.

 

[Flint Marko]

I said this in the rate and review Man of Steel thread and it seems appropriate to mention it here as well; I disliked a lot about the movie, especially the tone. Apparently the film makers mistook "dark, mature, and gritty" with "cold, stiff, humorless and withdrawn". The movie took itself to seriously in an attempt to look like it was cut from the same cloth as Nolan's Batman but in the end it looked like the only way the film makers knew to do this was to take all the humor and fun out of the movie and make it dour and bleak. This is mistaken by some for substance and maturity, but I found it to be severely lacking. This is exactly the "Nolanification" of the film that we are discussing, and the movie really paid dearly for it.
The plot was unimaginative but serviceable, if only the characters weren't paper thin and underdeveloped. Superman himself, the main character, pretty much felt like a complete stranger once the movie was over, as did the rest of the cast save Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe. Seriously could anyone tell me something about the personality of Clark Kent? All he did was react to things happening around him. You never really got a good glimpse into his head or his motivations. One of the biggest complaints about the superman character is how vanilla and boring he is (the big blue boy scout) and this movie did nothing to dispel that.
All in all I pretty much agree 100% with the critics. It had potential and was at least nice to look at, but overall I was severely disappointed. I have hope for the future, maybe they'll learn from their mistakes, but I'm not letting my expectations get to unrealistic.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

thanks for your OPINION

I'll just say Man of Steel is not the "spoon feeding" type of movie especially if you really have a short attention span.

 

[Lord]

thanks for your OPINION

Then i guess that Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Room and any Uwe Boll film being bad is just an opinion and not a fact huh?

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

pretty much every movie "criticisms" or reviews are opinions. rotten tomatoes is just a collection of movie opinions. the trick is, is it objective or subjective? the former is what a good movie criticism should be, the latter will bring endless debates and is the most common type of a review. also what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think it goes without saying that everything I post is going to be merely my opinion.

But it's fun devoid of any character development. Like, any. Certainly not the solution to any Nolanification.

But what sort of character development was present in Man of Steel?
Clark was pretty much the exact same guy doing the exact same thing throughout the entire movie. He made the same choices over and over. Just because we see his literal birth and then him when he's older does not automatically mean we see character growth.
We see Superman wrestle with this supposed conflict of whether or not he should help but in the end it's utterly meaningless, because he makes the same damn choice every time.
What was the difference between Clark at the beginning of the film, saving the kids from the bus, and Clark at the end when he saves the family and snaps Zod's neck? Next to none.

 

[Lord]

pretty much every movie "criticisms" or reviews are opinions. rotten tomatoes is just a collection of movie opinions. the trick is, is it objective or subjective? the former is what a good movie criticism should be, the latter will bring endless debates and is the most common type of a review. also what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

Movies can be evaluated through subjective and objective means, blockbusters post-Spielberg's influence are more easily evaluated in objective ways because they all follow a similar structure and try to postray similar themes.

It is okay to like bad movies, as it is okay to dislike good one, i like Chronicles of Riddick and dislike Lincoln, but in no world am i gonna defend that Chronicles of Riddick is a better film, because that simply is not true.

You're getting way too defensive about your oun opinion of a certain movie, if you enjoyed it that's alright, but that's not an excuse to ignore any of its problems or deserved criticism.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I think it goes without saying that everything I post is going to be merely my opinion.

But what sort of character development was present in Man of Steel?
Clark was pretty much the exact same guy doing the exact same thing throughout the entire movie. He made the same choices over and over. Just because we see his literal birth and then him when he's older does not automatically mean we see character growth.
We see Superman wrestle with this supposed conflict of whether or not he should help but in the end it's utterly meaningless, because he makes the same damn choice every time.
What was the difference between Clark at the beginning of the film, saving the kids from the bus, and Clark at the end when he saves the family and snaps Zod's neck? Next to none.

So when young Clark saves the bus, when he did NOT save Pa Kent and when he had to kill to save people are the exact same to you?

With Zod, he starts respecting Jor-el, killing him and then losing everything.

I didn't like MOS much, and I am aware that the 'to save or not to save' conflict was not very well done. But even so there was plenty more character development than in Thor 2 where nothing happened to the characters. Thor and Jane, we still don't know why they love each other and nothing at all happens with their relationship. The villain's story was all just an excuse for the action and what to say about Darcy, her assistant and the pantless scientist. Mere excuse for poorly done humor.

 

[Flint Marko]

So when young Clark saves the bus, when he did NOT save Pa Kent and when he had to kill to save people are the exact same to you?

With Zod, he starts respecting Jor-el, killing him and then losing everything.

I didn't like MOS much, and I am aware that the 'to save or not to save' conflict was not very well done.

It didn't make sense. "You're gonna one day do great things and be a great leader, but maybe you should've let those kids die". It wasn't well done at all.
Character development isn't him sitting around discussing how conflicted he is and then doing dang near the same thing every single time.

But even so there was plenty more character development than in Thor 2 where nothing happened to the characters. Thor and Jane, we still don't know why they love each other and nothing at all happens with their relationship.

Wait, was Man of Steel's paper thin "romance" any better? There was never any hint of a romantic inclination, especially on his part, between the two until they had that jarringly inappropriate kiss that came out of nowhere.
Seriously, go back and watch the movie and tell me where you see even feigned interest on Superman's part. I recall him telling his mom that she was "a friend", and that's about the only time she was acknowledged by him. At least in the first Thor movie they had a visibly physical attraction.

The villain's story was all just an excuse for the action and what to say about Darcy, her assistant and the pantless scientist. Mere excuse for poorly done humor.

They undeniably had more and more personality than the MoS supporting cast. We got maybe one or two scenes with them saying and doing nothing of value, and then all of a sudden we're supposed to care about them when the city starts falling around them and they are in peril.
I in no way think that Thor 2 was a master piece, and I'd definitely say I was disappointed in it to an extent but when it comes to basic storytelling mechanics MoS dropped the ball big time, more so than almost any other blockbuster in recent memory.