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

[Superchan]

I wish there was a 'Decent' option because that's what I'd give MOS but out of the options given 'average' is what this film deserves.
The movie had alot of nice elements to it (krypton, Jor-el and Zod's characterisation, omission of the superman/lois/clark love triangle, Henry Cavill, the modernization of the superman suit and the smallville fight scene) but the film committed the same cardinal sin that SR did by focusing on everything but the character of kal/clark/superman.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

somewhere between average and very good. I love the little details often forgotten/unnoticed by people. good thing there's this thread in the MOS forums. I appreciate "risky" movies compared to safe and pandering movies.

anyway, I see Man of Steel as becoming Superman not being Superman.

 

[Mikelus]

Once and for all? Because there are not better polls already with thousands of votes right?

Best four superhero movies (AMC poll):

1) Avengers: 12,722
2) The Dark Knight: 10,105
3) Man of Steel: 6,365
4) Iron Man: 3,748

https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-n...-four-for-the-best-comic-book-superhero-movie

MOS Best Movie of 2013 in ScreenCrush’s 2nd Annual Fan Choice Awards: http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel-best-movie-2013-screencrush-awards/

Best summer movie: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...movie-poll-man-steel-saves-day-222445002.html

MOS, fans' favorite Superman film: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/06/17/whats-your-favorite-superman-movie

Regal held a poll where fans voted on the best Summer movie with the top two favorites getting released in theaters nationwide for a second time. Man of Steel came on top along with Despicable Me 2: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/re...in-rpx-selected-by-moviegoer-votes-2013-08-23

And people also voted with their money:

Man of Steel beats Iron Man 3 in DVD and Blu-ray sales

'Man of Steel' was placed as the third highest-selling Blu-ray of the year (behind 'Despicable Me 2' and 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey') selling nearly twice the number of units that 'Iron Man 3' managed to shift.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/man-steel-beats-iron-man-3-dvd-blu-102900205.html

 

[Zionite1]

Once and for all? Because there are not better polls already with thousands of votes right?

Like Rotten tomatoes and Metacritic?Because they say a different story than the polls you are referring to.

 

[kguillou]

Once and for all? Because there are not better polls already with thousands of votes right?

Best four superhero movies (AMC poll):

1) Avengers: 12,722
2) The Dark Knight: 10,105
3) Man of Steel: 6,365
4) Iron Man: 3,748

https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-n...-four-for-the-best-comic-book-superhero-movie

MOS Best Movie of 2013 in ScreenCrush’s 2nd Annual Fan Choice Awards: http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel-best-movie-2013-screencrush-awards/

Best summer movie: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...movie-poll-man-steel-saves-day-222445002.html

MOS, fans' favorite Superman film: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/06/17/whats-your-favorite-superman-movie

Regal held a poll where fans voted on the best Summer movie with the top two favorites getting released in theaters nationwide for a second time. Man of Steel came on top along with Despicable Me 2: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/re...in-rpx-selected-by-moviegoer-votes-2013-08-23

And people also voted with their money:

Man of Steel beats Iron Man 3 in DVD and Blu-ray sales

'Man of Steel' was placed as the third highest-selling Blu-ray of the year (behind 'Despicable Me 2' and 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey') selling nearly twice the number of units that 'Iron Man 3' managed to shift.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/man-steel-beats-iron-man-3-dvd-blu-102900205.html

VERY interesting. I guess there really is a big difference between the reviews and reactions that you read on internet forums and what general audiences think. You would never guess that MoS was received that well by going online.

 

[Rodrigo90]

The GA go and see the Transformer movies, giving them billions of dollars, and they're ****.

 

[WBwins]

Once and for all? Because there are not better polls already with thousands of votes right?

Best four superhero movies (AMC poll):

1) Avengers: 12,722
2) The Dark Knight: 10,105
3) Man of Steel: 6,365
4) Iron Man: 3,748

https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-n...-four-for-the-best-comic-book-superhero-movie

MOS Best Movie of 2013 in ScreenCrush’s 2nd Annual Fan Choice Awards: http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel-best-movie-2013-screencrush-awards/

Best summer movie: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...movie-poll-man-steel-saves-day-222445002.html

MOS, fans' favorite Superman film: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/06/17/whats-your-favorite-superman-movie

Regal held a poll where fans voted on the best Summer movie with the top two favorites getting released in theaters nationwide for a second time. Man of Steel came on top along with Despicable Me 2: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/re...in-rpx-selected-by-moviegoer-votes-2013-08-23

And people also voted with their money:

Man of Steel beats Iron Man 3 in DVD and Blu-ray sales

'Man of Steel' was placed as the third highest-selling Blu-ray of the year (behind 'Despicable Me 2' and 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey') selling nearly twice the number of units that 'Iron Man 3' managed to shift.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/man-steel-beats-iron-man-3-dvd-blu-102900205.html

All that proves is that the GA loved Man of steel which is pretty obvious.

This is a poll for Fans with regards to the man of steels quality not its reception.

The GA loving a movie doesnt mean its good.See transformers and TMNT

 

[baerrtt]

Having rewatched the picture I really hope, with Terrio scripting, that BVS and the JL movies are genuinely excellent because my ultimate issue with MOS (a 6/10 for me) aren't it's supposedly divisive ideas on how to present Superman 'realistically' on the big screen at this point of the 21st century but are simply a matter of directorial execution.

Simply put the film's issues, in my eyes, fall on Zack Snyder a director who isn't as good with character as he is with 'cool' fight/action scenes or spectacle and if you're going to try to sell to everyone a Superman who doesn't, at first, seem as completely heroic as prior incarnations you need a stronger director to implement that. Even with David Goyer's clunky writing and Nolan's pitch I easily imagine we would've gotten a much or even slightly better film if any of the prior choices (Duncan Jones, Matt Reeves, Darren Aronofsky, Guillermo del Toro or even at this stage of his career Robert Zemeckis) had done the job and Jeff Robinov, according to industry/insider sites, hadn't pushed for Snyder out of 'loyalty'.

It's a cliche but the better received superhero movies time and time again have all come from directors who have a stronger grasp of drama or character than Zack ever has. This is the man who, imo, faithfully reproduced WATCHMEN's panels on the big screen but didn't take the other qualities that made Alan Moore's story truly great in the first place and instead presented the fights and the sexual content in the manner of the kind of unintelligent fanboy who looks at comic books solely to see nothing else but people punching other or to leer at unreal looking girls or women.

The approach to Superman wasn't the problem (if James Bond can be presented in a similar 'real' manner in CASINO ROYALE or SKYFALL with complete critical and audience success....)whatsoever. Unless he has upped his game considerably come BVS the film's weaknessess are typical of a Zack Snyder production.

 

[Marvin]

The GA go and see the Transformer movies, giving them billions of dollars, and they're ****.

According to you or according to the millions of people that make up the GA?
Art is subjective, 2+2 = 5 is bad math according to the truth. A piece of art is 'good' or 'bad' according to no such math but rather the opinion of the greater audience and how they define what's 'good' or 'bad'. Case in point, Beatles music is '****' according to classical orchestra fans. Luckily the actual opinion that matters is that of the greater audience as to how they define good vs bad.

Anyways, I asked a new friend what he thought of MoS and he said, he'd never seen it nor does he intend to. I asked why, he said cause he hates superman and finds the character uninteresting. Then he went on about how it's boring having someone that can do everything and solve every problem with with his endless list of powers, solve every problem and when things get rough, can just spin the world backwards. True story.
MOS' greatest enemy. Snyder either caters to the real fans for the potential ones. Maybe next time.

 

[Rodrigo90]

But when the art is terribly written, acted, directed, complete with plot holes and nonsensical tripe, you cant help but wonder about the minds of those that enjoy and rate it amongst Van Gogh's finest

 

[kguillou]

I have to respectfully disagree that Snyder was a detriment to the film. I think Superman desperately NEEDED a director like Zack Snyder, who is arguably among the best visual directors in the business, to make a film that finally and truly showcases what Superman can do. I think we can all agree that after Superman Returns we were all starving for a Superman film with some serious, epic action. In order to deliver that, you need a director who can do action on the grand epic scale that a character like Superman demands. In fact, tbh, Snyder is the MAIN reason I'm salivating at the mouth for BvS, because, if nothing else, I know he is going to absolutely deliver on the "versus" aspect of the movie and give us a visually awesome battle between Batman and Superman.

At the end of the day, I think Snyder just needed a better script to work with. That's all. For me, this movie's a solid 8 but it would easily be a 9.5 if we just had more scenes getting to know adult Clark, have Henry Cavill talk and smile more, and cut down on the interspersed flashbacks. I felt like they kept teasing us with tidbits about Clark but never fleshed them out; we kept seeing him go from place to place without even knowing why he ended up there in the first place (working at that diner, the oil rig etc.) To me, that's a script issue, not the director.

 

[The Question]

I have to respectfully disagree that Snyder was a detriment to the film. I think Superman desperately NEEDED a director like Zack Snyder, who is arguably among the best visual directors in the business, to make a film that finally and truly showcases what Superman can do. I think we can all agree that after Superman Returns we were all starving for a Superman film with some serious, epic action. In order to deliver that, you need a director who can do action on the grand epic scale that a character like Superman demands. In fact, tbh, Snyder is the MAIN reason I'm salivating at the mouth for BvS, because, if nothing else, I know he is going to absolutely deliver on the "versus" aspect of the movie and give us a visually awesome battle between Batman and Superman.

At the end of the day, I think Snyder just needed a better script to work with. That's all. For me, this movie's an 8 but it would easily be a 9.5 if we just had more scenes getting to know adult Clark, have Henry Cavill talk and smile more, and cut down on the interspersed flashbacks.

1: There's so much more to filmmaking than epic visuals. Even an action movie still needs a director who knows how to use visuals to tell a story and inform character and theme, things that Snyder is terrible at. He was a detriment to the film because, despite his visual flair, he's really bad at directing the non action stuff.

2: This part…

I think we can all agree that after Superman Returns we were all starving for a Superman film with some serious, epic action

No we can't all agree on that. We were not all starving for a Superman film with serious, epic action. I wasn't. The lack of "epic action" had nothing to do with Returns' flaws as a film.

 

[Bullseye1]

Average to good. Lots to admire but it has its faults which cannot be overlooked.

 

[kguillou]

1: There's so much more to filmmaking than epic visuals. Even an action movie still needs a director who knows how to use visuals to tell a story and inform character and theme, things that Snyder is terrible at. He was a detriment to the film because, despite his visual flair, he's really bad at directing the non action stuff.

2: This part…



No we can't all agree on that. We were not all starving for a Superman film with serious, epic action. I wasn't. The lack of "epic action" had nothing to do with Returns' flaws as a film.

Fair enough. The reason why I said that was because there was a pretty large consensus that SR was kinda boring and mopey. Tbh, I think it's pretty clear that WB heard that complaint which is probably why they gave Snyder the job to "action" up Superman to appease more people.

 

[The Question]

Fair enough. The reason why I said that was because there was a pretty large consensus that SR was kinda boring and mopey. Tbh, I think it's pretty clear that WB heard that complaint which is probably why they gave Snyder the job to "action" up Superman to appease more people.

If there had been more action, the Returns would have still been boring and mopey just with more action. Action does not negate boring. Engaging storytelling does.

I mean, you're right. Man of Steel is absolutely a response to the criticisms of Superman Returns. It's just responding to the wrong criticisms and seriously overcompensating for them.

Returns' main flaws was that it was a sequel to a movie from 30 years earlier and so felt disconnected from that narrative and it relied way to heavily on callbacks to the old films instead of establishing its own identity. Because of that, the artifice of the film was betrayed. We saw the seams in a way we're not supposed to, and we weren't given enough new material to establish an emotional connection with the characters and the story.

I think Superman Returns is a very strong argument against the notion that we don't need to establish the new Batman or retouch on the origin story because audiences already understand Batman's backstory. It's not about understanding the plot details, it's about establishing an emotional connection between art and audience, and you can't do that if you don't make your take on a franchise feel fresh and independent from its predecessors.

 

[Mikelus]

Even with David Goyer's clunky writing and Nolan's pitch I easily imagine we would've gotten a much or even slightly better film if any of the prior choices (Duncan Jones, Matt Reeves, Darren Aronofsky, Guillermo del Toro or even at this stage of his career Robert Zemeckis) had done the job and Jeff Robinov, according to industry/insider sites, hadn't pushed for Snyder out of 'loyalty'.

Nolan selected Snyder:

Nolan came up with an idea that put the Batman director in a godfather position on Superman, which besides from the Batfranchise is the linchpin of DC Comics franchise characters. Nolan has already started meeting with candidates and will submit his choice to the studio within the next few weeks.

http://deadline.com/2010/09/chris-nolan-looking-for-superman-director-69671/

Producer Christopher Nolan talks about the primary element that factored into Snyder being selected as the film's director.
Nolan: “[Zack has an] innate aptitude for dealing with superheroes as real characters. That was what a new approach to Superman required. He understands the power of iconic images, but he also understand the people behind them."

Nolan acknowledges that Zack's take on Watchmen is essentially a polar opposite of what's trying to be accomplished in Man of Steel.
Nolan: “It’s ironic but it’s a very productive irony. You’re dealing with a filmmaker who has deconstructed this mythology and now has to reconstruct it. That’s a fascinating challenge for him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/movies/man-of-steel-aims-to-make-superman-relevant-again.html

Zack Snyder, who first met Nolan on a Warner Bros plane heading to a film industry convention in Las Vegas and leapt at the chance to direct a similarly toned Superman reboot, Man Of Steel – for which he studied, at Nolan’s request, test footage from White Sands, New Mexico, to get a sense of how objects behave at high velocity.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/04/-sp-christopher-nolan-interstellar-rebooted-blockbuster

Fanboys are so fickle, just not long ago Nolan was a "god" to them, now after TDKR, MOS and Interstellar (all good movies despite their flaws), he's not that good anymore. So, who do you want next to disappoint you fanboys?

Some keep using the infamous RT score as a crutch, like critics were perfect, guess what? Critics have been wrong before:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-classic-movies-that-critics-hated-dbell.php

http://flavorwire.com/272219/12-great-movies-the-critics-got-dead-wrong?all=1

And speaking of RT, haters forget to mention that MOS has an average user rating of 3.9/5 (by 432,396 users). But I guess some critics are more important than the majority opinion.

 

[The Question]

Fanboys are so fickle, just not long ago Nolan was a "god" to them, now after TDKR, MOS and Interstellar (all good movies despite their flaws), he's not that good anymore. So, who do you want next to disappoint you fanboys?

When a director you like is involved in making three movies in a row that you dislike, you start to like that director less. That's fairly common.

Some keep using the infamous RT score as a crutch, like critics were perfect, guess what? Critics have been wrong before:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-classic-movies-that-critics-hated-dbell.php

http://flavorwire.com/272219/12-great-movies-the-critics-got-dead-wrong?all=1

None of this disproves the criticisms of Man of Steel either.

And speaking of RT, haters forget to mention that MOS has an average user rating of 3.9/5 (by 432,396 users). But I guess some critics are more important than the majority opinion.

Kind of, yeah. Critics usually put a lot more thought into movies than the average moviegoer does.

And in any event, positive general reviews don't "prove" the film is good any more than negative critic reviews "prove" the film is bad.

You're kind of missing the point. People don't say that bad reviews prove the film is bad. They make reasoned arguments for why they think the movie is bad and then the cite bad reviews as an example of other people who think the same way and articulated their points a lot better.

I don't think haters exist. I think some people just genuinely think the movie isn't good. Why do you think they hate the movie other than that?

 

[Mikelus]

No we can't all agree on that. We were not all starving for a Superman film with serious, epic action. I wasn't. The lack of "epic action" had nothing to do with Returns' flaws as a film.

You were "starving" for what then? Most people agree the lame action of SR was one of its flaws.

I got what I wanted with MOS, a serious, more realistic tone instead of the campiness from the '80s, and real epic action. It had flaws like all genre movies, but at least, it didn't have dumb juvenile humour and the kryptonians were good antagonists, unlike the weak villains of most Marvel movies.

 

[Marvin]

But when the art is terribly written, acted, directed, complete with plot holes and nonsensical tripe, you cant help but wonder about the minds of those that enjoy and rate it amongst Van Gogh's finest

It's all relative. For example any one that's watched a film like "the room" that then goes on to describe the work done in even the most decent tent polls is being hyperbolic, for it's in that film that you find you it is you are describing. But then again even that is subjective.

Secondly, films like sharknado are getting 80's on RT and these are hardly Van Gogh. This feeds into the idea of it being art and not simply judging a math equation on if it's right or wrong.

People want to watch something funny, they give a one of these new Seth Rogan films a high score. It did what it promised and more importantly what they wanted.
People want to be entertained, they give one of these transformers movies a high score due to it being 'entertaining' and what they want. 'Entertainment' is the measure here not some ever shifting subjective rules on what is considered good art execution. If what I'm describing had no merit, films like the avengers and GotG wouldn't be getting higher scores than serious films landing just under 90 or less.

 

[Marvin]

I have to respectfully disagree that Snyder was a detriment to the film. I think Superman desperately NEEDED a director like Zack Snyder, who is arguably among the best visual directors in the business, to make a film that finally and truly showcases what Superman can do. I think we can all agree that after Superman Returns we were all starving for a Superman film with some serious, epic action. In order to deliver that, you need a director who can do action on the grand epic scale that a character like Superman demands. In fact, tbh, Snyder is the MAIN reason I'm salivating at the mouth for BvS, because, if nothing else, I know he is going to absolutely deliver on the "versus" aspect of the movie and give us a visually awesome battle between Batman and Superman.

At the end of the day, I think Snyder just needed a better script to work with. That's all. For me, this movie's a solid 8 but it would easily be a 9.5 if we just had more scenes getting to know adult Clark, have Henry Cavill talk and smile more, and cut down on the interspersed flashbacks. I felt like they kept teasing us with tidbits about Clark but never fleshed them out; we kept seeing him go from place to place without even knowing why he ended up there in the first place (working at that diner, the oil rig etc.) To me, that's a script issue, not the director.

Agreed.

 

[The Question]

You were "starving" for what then? Most people agree the lame action of SR was one of its flaws.

1: I've already explained what I felt was lacking in Returns. See above.

2: Most people may have agreed that the action was a problem, but I was not one of them, and I think those people are looking in the wrong place for why that film doesn't work.

I got what I wanted with MOS, a serious, more realistic tone instead of the campiness from the '80s, and real epic action. It had flaws like all genre movies, but at least, it didn't have dumb juvenile humour and the kryptonians were good antagonists, unlike the weak villains of most Marvel movies.

I fail to see how the Kryptonians were good antagonists. I found them to be fairly dull.

I also think saying "it had flaws like all genre movies" isn't a particularly useful observation. Every movie is unique and has unique strengths and flaws. Some movies have more flaws than strengths, some movies have more strengths than flaws, and how that reflects on the work as a whole still depends on how strong the strengths were and how flawed the flaws were and how they relate to what the film is trying to accomplish. Every movie's strengths and flaws should be judged and analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[The Question]

People want to watch something funny, they give a one of these new Seth Rogan films a high score. It did what it promised and more importantly what they wanted.
People want to be entertained, they give one of these transformers movies a high score due to it being 'entertaining' and what they want. 'Entertainment' is the measure here not some ever shifting subjective rules on what is considered good art execution. If what I'm describing had no merit, films like the avengers and GotG wouldn't be getting higher scores than serious films landing just under 90 or less.

I don't think there's just one measure.

And entertainment is just as subjective and ever shifting as "good art execution." There is absolutely no objective standard of what is and is not entertaining. They're also not always different things.

There's no reason not to discuss both.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

It's easy for me to recognize how I could have enjoyed it so much more.

A number of scenes/conversations aren't terribly interesting: Superman and Lois exploring the ship, the ship lifting off and flying away, Jor-El's krypton/history lessons, Lois and Woodburn at the bar, Zod's history lesson, Zod and Jor-El's catch-up, tentacle fight, Zod fight, Zod's final monologues. There's also a lack of set-up in some areas and a lack of pay-off in others.

Yet it still does so much more for me than most superhero movies.

This is mostly because I find the core story to be very powerful. While a lot of this comes from Superman being a character that I personally find to be more rich and compelling than most, I do think that Goyer/Snyder were able to successfully bring a lot of that out, which is worth some praise imo.

 

[Marvin]

I would tend to agree that it's subjective. I also see why people can discuss whatever it is they mean to discuss.

But when people are dumbfounded as to why it is a film with 'bad acting...etc' can elicit such a massive and consistent following, the answer seems simple and derives back in the first point about it being about subjective entertainment and not about these so called rules of good vs bad art.

 

[Mikelus]

When a director you like is involved in making three movies in a row that you dislike, you start to like that director less. That's fairly common.

Critics usually put a lot more thought into movies than the average moviegoer does.

And who do you want to direct the next Superman movie? I'm sure that director has disappointed some already. What really matters is if most people like a movie, not a minority of critics that, despite putting a "lot of thought", use nostalgic arguments and make idiotic comparisons. But to each its own.