Rate MAN OF STEEL......once and for all

[Eirrinn]

They were used like a COMIC BOOK (shocking isn't it that a CBMS would do that ) and for me it worked perfectly. It was the same in Batman Begins. They showed you the bits you needed.

It didn't feel very Comic-booky (to me that is) it jumped around wayy too much it needed to calm down a second.

 

[Zionite1]

I'm not sure they can but had you made the poll so you could see who voted you may have been able to tell. Problem is even if you start a new one with a new poll where you can view who has voted then it will probably have the same problem.

Depressing.I wish I could restart the poll then

 

[BH/HHH]

Depressing.I wish I could restart the poll then

You could ask the mods if you can start a new one and get close this thread. Although I'm not sure they will. Another suggestion for improving the poll is maybe put a time limit on it of 20 days or so then have it close.

 

[Rodrigo90]

They were used like a COMIC BOOK (shocking isn't it that a CBMS would do that ) and for me it worked perfectly. It was the same in Batman Begins. They showed you the bits you needed.

My main gripe is this.
The flashbacks in Batman Begins were part of the main story.
The flashbacks in MOS weren't relevant to anything within that story. They were used as filler, just to explain why Clark does what he does.
That can be said about BB, but those flashbacks had relevance to the story that would come later.

The only time in MOS that it bears relevance is when Lois tracks down Pete and asks him about the bus incident. Without that flashback, you wouldn't know what she was talking about.
The rest were pratically filler and nonsensical in the context of the movie.
I like a more coherent flow of storytelling, like Superman The Movie.

 

[kguillou]

You know one thing I never understood? How was it that after young Clark saved that bus full of kids that people did not instantly realize "Hey...this kid is not a normal person...we should alert the news or something." If this happened in real life, it would've been all over the news and the government would've been all over Clark instantly. I mean there was a whole bus full of witnesses who saw Clark lift a bus out of water. Was it because there were no adult witnesses that maybe they didnt take the kids' word seriously?

 

[Rodrigo90]

You know one thing I never understood? How was it that after young Clark saved that bus full of kids that people did not instantly realize "Hey...this kid is not a normal person...we should alert the news or something." If this happened in real life the government would've been all over Clark instantly. I mean there was a whole bus full of witnesses who saw Clark lift a bus out of water. Was it because there were no adult witnesses that maybe they didnt take the kids' word seriously?

One of the kids' parents went to the Kents because they had been told by that kid, that Clark had pulled the bus out of the water.
And these people were bible nuts, so nobody in their right minds would believe them if they went to the papers
'Jesus Christ reborn in Smallville, Kansas'

The kids on the bus, and perhaps some of the parents, covered it up.

 

[BH/HHH]

My main gripe is this.
The flashbacks in Batman Begins were part of the main story.
The flashbacks in MOS weren't relevant to anything within that story. They were used as filler, just to explain why Clark does what he does.
That can be said about BB, but those flashbacks had relevance to the story that would come later.

The only time in MOS that it bears relevance is when Lois tracks down Pete and asks him about the bus incident. Without that flashback, you wouldn't know what she was talking about.
The rest were pratically filler and nonsensical in the context of the movie.
I like a more coherent flow of storytelling, like Superman The Movie.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it was all very relevant. It was character building. I think without those scenes its harder to understand why Clark is as he is later. Not everything has to be a plot device some of it is simply to build character. This is Clark's movie its about him becoming Superman.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Saving that busload of kids says nothing about Clark's character. He was in no danger whatsoever (and he knew it). If he hadnt saved them, if he was like "eh, **** em", now that would have been telling. Disturbing, but telling.

No, the important scene as far as Clark's development goes was the conversation with Jonathan right after. That "serious talk" with his dad was presumably where the lessons were learned. I guess: In order to protect your secrets, sometimes (a lot of) people have to die? I suppose thats relevant to the destruction in Smallville and Metropolis. Or the neck snapping. It certainly has no relevance to being selfless and brave and heroic. And it doesnt explain "why Clark is as he is".

Maybe watching his father commit suicide right in front of him over a dog and small town gossip explains it. Its all so confusing! (hint: not really)

Like most of Snyder's stuff, its best not to think too much about it and just enjoy the pretty pictures. (Except DotD. That movie had some delicious character development. Mekhi Phifer's zombie baby ftw!)

edit: Not sure of the revelevance to grown-up Clark, but I did think the scene where he had his "diurnal emission" in class was pretty well done. Diane Lane was particularly good.

 

[BH/HHH]

I disagree you needed the bus saving scene to show that he wants to help even as a child. Also we see a side to him where he will save people even if they are nasty to him (i.e. Pete Ross). It also sets up the following scene where he discovers where he is from.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

As i said, he had no choice but to save them. Was abandoning them out of spite (or indiference) a viable option? Don't think so. Completely unnecessary to the overall plot and at best told us something that everyone on the planet already knew going in: Superman is a nice guy. Or, more accurately: Superman isnt a sociopath. Not particularly insightful.

And any number of things could have "set up" the next scene. They could have done it after the bully scene and it would have made zero difference.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Indeed, and it got out of hand a loooooooooooong time ago. Those particular types are very reminiscent of cult members. If you don't follow the dogma, you're an evil blasphemer (hater, troll, Donner-lover, etc.) that must be expunged from this community. I have to wonder, who on these boards that doesn't like this movie hasn't been labeled a troll?

For as much as they like to champion the idea that their opinions should be respected and dignified, the stans for this movie sure do like to rationalize and invalidate even the mildest of critics.

Yeah, it's like a cult. "The Cult of Steel"? Or maybe The Church of Zodology? Someone accused me of trolling because I critized Batman vs Superman. Some other guy even removed me from his friend list because I said some bad things about MoS. That's so childish, it's almost disturbing!

But I know how it is. Let me tell you a story about a guy I knew. This was back in 2002...he was fourteen years old at the time. Let's just call him Boshgarn Datman or something. Anyway, Goshdarn Batman went to the theatre and watched Spider-Man with his cousin and his mother. He had waited for it for many years. He knew it would be the best thing ever, because Spider-Man was the best thing ever.

But it sucked ass...no, just kidding! It was the best movie in the whole wide world (I think he said "universe", but I'm not sure). The special effects were perfect, the acting was perfect...everything about the movie = perfect. The guy was obsessed with it, almost possessed by it. I don't know how many times he watched it.

One day, he read an article about movie mistakes, and Spider-Man was mentioned. "Peter Parker destroys his lamp, but in the next shot it's on the table again". "********!" He cried. "It's not the same lamp! Peter Parker has two of them!" He could explain away every little mistake in the movie.

Someone criticized the special effects: "the movie is good, but the CGI doesn't look very convincing". The guy couldn't stand that kind of talk. "What CGI? I can't tell the difference between the so-called CGI and the real Spider-Man/Goblin! It's awesome!"

If someone said they didn't like the movie...he smiled and said "that's your opinion". But in his mind, he imagined that he punched their balls out of their nostrils.

Anyway, many years later he decided to watch the movie again. I don't know what happened, but suddenly I...uhm, HE realized that the special effects were pretty crappy, many of the lines are cheesy etc. It's not the perfect masterpiece he wanted it to be.

It's still a good movie though, but he decieved himself, and ignored all the bad stuff in it. Even before the movie came out, his mind was set; "the best movie ever". I think it's the same case with some (but certainly not all) of the MoS fans.

And how do I know all of this? Get ready...it was...me!

 

[Zionite1]

So i reported the poll problem to a mod.Hope they can do something about it

 

[BH/HHH]

As i said, he had no choice but to save them. Was abandoning them out of spite (or indiference) a viable option? Don't think so. Completely unnecessary to the overall plot and at best told us something that everyone on the planet already knew going in: Superman is a nice guy. Or, more accurately: Superman isnt a sociopath. Not particularly insightful.

And any number of things could have "set up" the next scene. They could have done it after the bully scene and it would have made zero difference.

But the scebe directly sets up why they have the talk. But lets just agree to disagree.

 

[SiegePerilous]

As i said, he had no choice but to save them. Was abandoning them out of spite (or indiference) a viable option? Don't think so. Completely unnecessary to the overall plot and at best told us something that everyone on the planet already knew going in: Superman is a nice guy. Or, more accurately: Superman isnt a sociopath. Not particularly insightful.

And any number of things could have "set up" the next scene. They could have done it after the bully scene and it would have made zero difference.

How is it unnecessary to the overall plot? Establishing the hero's heroic nature isn't filler. It doesn't matter if everyone in the audience knows Superman is a hero, from a narrative perspective you still need to set it up in the story. And people are going into the movie expecting to see him save people. It's not like someone goes "Well, I know Superman is a hero, so I don't need to see him acting heroic at all."

Of course he has a choice to save them or not. And Superman always makes the choice to save people. It's not like whenever we read a scene of him saving people in the comics, we come away thinking "Well, at least I know he's not a sociopath, he could have chose to look the other way there." It shows that Clark is going to go against whatever instincts of self preservation he has, and defy his father's wishes to keep himself hidden, in order to do the right thing.

And one of the common complaints about this film, for whatever reason, is that there are not enough scenes showing Superman saving people. Why should one of them get excised? Then people would be complaining even more.

 

[Duke]

OK. I don't totally dislike the movie because it did have it's good moments. The things I didn't like were how Krypton was reimagined & the Matrix like childbirths was absurd, also, Zod killing Jor-EL was a big no-no for me too. That being said, I'd rate the movie as just mildly good.

 

[Boy Scout]

How is it unnecessary to the overall plot? Establishing the hero's heroic nature isn't filler. It doesn't matter if everyone in the audience knows Superman is a hero, from a narrative perspective you still need to set it up in the story. And people are going into the movie expecting to see him save people. It's not like someone goes "Well, I know Superman is a hero, so I don't need to see him acting heroic at all."

Of course he has a choice to save them or not. And Superman always makes the choice to save people. It's not like whenever we read a scene of him saving people in the comics, we come away thinking "Well, at least I know he's not a sociopath, he could have chose to look the other way there." It shows that Clark is going to go against whatever instincts of self preservation he has, and defy his father's wishes to keep himself hidden, in order to do the right thing.

And one of the common complaints about this film, for whatever reason, is that there are not enough scenes showing Superman saving people. Why should one of them get excised? Then people would be complaining even more.

Superman usually chooses not to kill people either, but a lot of you are happy to ignore that.

My issue with Superman killing Zod (besides the fact that I'm very much against Superman taking a life) is that it went nowhere. It meant nothing. He does it, he screams, and then he's smiling in the next scene. I believe a very compelling and emotionally engaging story can be told about the consequences of Superman doing such a thing, and despite my views, I'm not opposed to seeing it play out, but Snyder really dropped the ball.

 

[Duke]

Superman usually chooses not to kill people either, but a lot of you are happy to ignore that.

My issue with Superman killing Zod (besides the fact that I'm very much against Superman taking a life) is that it went nowhere. It meant nothing. He does it, he screams, and then he's smiling in the next scene. I believe a very compelling and emotionally engaging story can be told about the consequences of Superman doing such a thing, and despite my views, I'm not opposed to seeing it play out, but Snyder really dropped the ball.

That's another thing I didn't like about the movie. Superman never kills people or beings, only as a last resort.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

But, but he had no choice!

Oh, wait...

 

[Rodrigo90]

What was he supposed to do?

Let those people die?

 

[Predator jp]

i wouldn't mind Clark let his father die or killing Zod if they had been told in more convincing manner.

 

[Rodrigo90]

i wouldn't mind Clark let his father die or killing Zod if they had been told in more convincing manner.

I still can't understand to this day why Jonathan did what he did. But from Costner's performance, you could tell Jonathan was a pretty depressed guy and just wanted to be sucked into the tornado.
And living in MOS's depressing enviorement, with other depressing people, I'm not surprised.

And I can justify Supes killing Zod. I had no problem with it. Zod wouldn't have stopped even if he had killed those people in the station...why don't people understand that?

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Well raising a ticking time bomb takes its toll. Poor guy just wanted out. But doing it in front of his son was pretty cruel.

Okay im done. Im sorry. The truth is that the first time i saw the movie i was entertained. Its not as bad as, say, Sucker Punch. Its just not special, and that sort of sucks. I still have a glimmer of hope for BvS, though paradoxically i would have preferred a straight up sequel.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well raising a ticking time bomb takes its toll. Poor guy just wanted out. But doing it in front of his son was pretty cruel.

It was cruel. But suicidal people aren't usually in their right minds, so we can give him a pass

Okay im done. Im sorry. The truth is that the first time i saw the movie i was entertained. Its not as bad as, say, Sucker Punch. Its just not special, and that sort of sucks. I still have a glimmer of hope for BvS, though paradoxically i would have preferred a straight up sequel.

If Oscar winning Chris Terrio can't save us...we'll all be joining Jonathan in the tornado, instead of Clark in the sun...

Some of us of course, not the guys who will take whatever crap is given to them

 

[Black Narcissus]

That's another thing I didn't like about the movie. Superman never kills people or beings, only as a last resort.

Which Zod did.

 

[BH/HHH]

Superman didn't have a choice, the phantom zone was closed, no prison would hold Zod, he pulls Zod away and the fight just continues.