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

[BH/HHH]

Are fans making fake accounts and voting for "Excellent"
It's shot up over 30 (baffling) votes in under 24 hours
Perhaps my "snide comments" and "trolling" have brought out more defence for it?

And all that fits in with the context of this thread. My comments are expressing my distaste for certain elements of the film. Snide? Perhaps, but totally fitting.
And if you wish to discuss my little comments here and there, where I merely expressed that Ra's was a better villain than Zod, explaining otherwise why my opinion is incorrect, instead of getting upset about it, then please do. I'm not here to fight.

It's like EVERYTHING around here, if you express distaste for something, if you're a minority to the opinion, then you're a troll.

And if I was indeed trolling, then I shall refrain from doing so again in the future. But I'm not going to conform just because a larger majority idolise this thing.

The Ra's line wasn't the trolly snidey part it was the "and he doesn't mumble" part. There were various others aswell but hey ho, let's move on.

End of the day to you your opinion is correct and to me mine is. That's the way the world works. My point been that there are just as many on here who hate when people love this film as there are as many people that hate people hating this film.

I just think the negative people go abit far at times basically saying those that love it are wrong to do so.

 

[Rekall101]

Something to fit this generations Superman....

When it gets down to it Man of Steel took risks and is better for it, they finally gave us that Superman action we had been craving in a modern Superman film

Right there you are praising what I think is the biggest problem with this film. They didn't stay true to the characters. For example, the reason Superman is hero is because Jonathan Kent teaches him to use his powers for the greater good, not to hide and to let people die just in case his secret gets out.

Superman should be an inspiration, a guy who believes in humanity, who wants to show them a better way! This film drags Superman down to our level. It loses the hope, the happiness and the sense of adventure.

And before anyone says it, I know the world is much darker, more depressing and cynical than when Superman was first thought of but isn't that exactly when we need inspiration. A Superman film should be uplifting not depressing.

 

[Rodrigo90]

It is baffling to me how anyone can think MOS is an excellent movie. Good? Sure. Great? Eh. Maybe. But excellent? That escapes my comprehension. But that's just me, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Exactly.

I DON'T hate the film. But I don't love it either, and you're the bad guy if you pick out its faults.

Others may not see it, because it's herald as
"The Greatest Superman Movie of all time"

Cavill beats Reeve.
Shannon beats Stamp.
The music beats John Williams'
The story beats Mario Puzo's.

Of course they are based on opinions, but not ones that I agree with.

I give fair credit where credit is due.

 

[BH/HHH]

Right there you are praising what I think is the biggest problem with this film. They didn't stay true to the characters. For example, the reason Superman is hero is because Jonathan Kent teaches him to use his powers for the greater good, not to hide and to let people die just in case his secret gets out.

Superman should be an inspiration, a guy who believes in humanity, who wants to show them a better way! This film drags Superman down to our level. It loses the hope, the happiness and the sense of adventure.

And before anyone says it, I know the world is much darker, more depressing and cynical than when Superman was first thought of but isn't that exactly when we need inspiration. A Superman film should be uplifting not depressing.

I must have had this same discussion with people all over. Jonathan Kent is not telling him he can't save people. He wants him to be careful because he's afraid of what people will do to him. He also tells him he's here for a reason and ONE DAY he'll know what that reason is.

Superman is an inspiration in this film, look at the way he inspires the soldiers in the film, or people like Perry White & Steve Lombard to save Jenny, or Lois Lane to help save the world, etc etc.

The world is a darker world because it's trying to be more realistic in the way the world would deal with a super human being from another planet. Superman is still as much Suepr,am in the

You must have a very definite vision of what you want each character to be and that's fine if so, but just because you do doesn't mean they aren't staying true to the characters. You do realise they are pulling from decades and decades of Superman lore. It's nit all the same or in line with each other. Want an example go read some of his stuff from the 30s compared to the 90s etc etc. they stayed true to the core of each character whether you like it or not.

 

[Rekall101]

I must have had this same discussion with people all over. Jonathan Kent is not telling him he can't save people. He wants him to be careful because he's afraid of what people will do to him. He also tells him he's here for a reason and ONe DAY he'll know what that reason is.

Suoerman is an inspiration in this film, look at the way he inspires the soldiers in the film, or people like Perry White & Steve Lombard to save Jenny, or Lois Lane to help save the world, etc etc.

The world is a darker world because it's trying to be more realistic in the way the world would deal with a super human being from another planet. Superman is still as much Superman in the film than any other film.

I don't know if you've seen the Dark Knight films but comparing the ending for example this film ends on such a more hopeful note than any of those films did. If you took away that it was depressing than that's fine for you but this film is full of hope and inspiration.

But if you've had that discussion over and over then that suggests to me that the film-makers have mucked up. Whatever the intent, what people are taking away that Jonathan Kent is fine with Clark letting people die. You didn't but the majority of people I know did. Surely that makes it an issue?

Also, I have no problem with the world it's set in being darker and reflecting the modern world but for me, as a fan of comics, films and t.v. where I have been reading/watching Superman for years, this film changed the basic character and made him darker.

I have seen the DK trilogy and you're right they don't have hopeful ending. But that's because they are about Batman who is not a hopeful character, those films work because their dark tone fits with the character. The dark tone of this film doesn't. It clashes with the character.

 

[Infinight888]

True, but we don't know that Clark didn't encounter more serious problems like murderers and rapists during his travels. Even without directly fighting them, someone with his powers would be able to stop human criminals with little effort. The danger of them actually succeeding in killing their targets while Clark is around is significantly smaller than with Zod, who actually poses a threat to someone of Clark's power level.

I don't really feel that the film needed to establish Clark's stance on killing before the Zod encounter. The average person isn't really gung ho about killing anyone, and despite his alieness, Clark lead a pretty normal life in a small town. Most people like that would have a pretty traumatic reaction to killing someone for the first time, no matter if it was the right call to make.

And this scene is probably the equivalent of that scene with Bruce in Batman Begins. They both establish the main character's "no kill" code for future installments. And unlike Bruce, Clark wasn't preparing himself for getting into brutal fights against hardened criminals, so there really isn't any reason for why he should think about such a scenario ahead of time.

Clark lived a life of constantly hiding who he was, with his father even suggesting that he should have let a bus full of kids drown in order to preserve his secret. Then his father died right in front of him. It was anything but a normal life, and we have no idea how that might have affected him.

Moreover, we know from the beginning that this is a "gritty" interpretation of Superman. We can guess that he doesn't kill because he doesn't in the source material, we can guess he doesn't kill because the average person is against it, but these are not things that are actually stated about his character. We don't even know that Zod was the first person he killed, and are left to infer that by his reaction afterwards.

The thing is, Superman killing somebody was the closest thing to a "plot twist" in the whole movie. It was supposed to be the scene that showed Superman breaking his moral code to protect innocent lives. The problem is that his moral code was never put in place to begin with, something which you would think should have happened in a film which felt the need to show a flashback of him fighting with bullies in school.

 

[The Batman]

Are fans making fake accounts and voting for "Excellent"
It's shot up over 30 (baffling) votes in under 24 hours

This is spot on. Kinda sad, really.

And if I was indeed trolling, then I shall refrain from doing so again in the future. But I'm not going to conform just because a larger majority idolise this thing.

You won't trolling. People make remarks about CBM's they don't like or care for all the time. But for some reason, when those type of comments are directed at MOS, its suddenly a problem.

Or maybe people just actually do think it's excellent. So hard to believe?

This thread had steady numbers, and then spiked in the "Excellent" option out of nowhere. Yeah, someone definitely created some extra accounts, and its something an MOS fan would do.

 

[BH/HHH]

But if you've had that discussion over and over then that suggests to me that the film-makers have mucked up. Whatever the intent, what people are taking away that Jonathan Kent is fine with Clark letting people die. You didn't but the majority of people I know did. Surely that makes it an issue?

Also, I have no problem with the world it's set in being darker and reflecting the modern world but for me, as a fan of comics, films and t.v. where I have been reading/watching Superman for years, this film changed the basic character and made him darker.

I have seen the DK trilogy and you're right they don't have hopeful ending. But that's because they are about Batman who is not a hopeful character, those films work because their dark tone fits with the character. The dark tone of this film doesn't. It clashes with the character.

Not at all, I believe it shows that some people have very definitive ideas on what certain characters should or shouldn't do/say and really that is wrong. These characters have existed for so long, they've been through many things in many different stories, told by many different people. It's kind of funny to think but had the Internet existed when Superman the Movie came out there would most likely have been uproar. That film changed a hell of a lot of stuff to what had been done in the comics at the time but people don't remember this as much because it was a different era and for many people (probably me included) that's how Superman was supposed to be. Uber confident pretty much from the get go. But again it was a different era where people weren't as interested in the complexities of what been a Superman could actually be like, they just wanted to "believe a man could fly" (not that there's anything wrong with that, there's isn't) whereas today you need to delve into Superman more psychologically.

Superman is not a dark character in Man of Steel at all but the world around him is a very real one. Infact he's probably a little bit more like the original depiction of the character, not a man of a whole lot of words but a man of action. He's also a very conflicted character because he's in a place of uncertainty for a chunk of the movie. People forget he was also in this place in Superman the Movie but because it was brief it's not really called out on.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the film but a lot of the preconceived notions of what you feel a character should be is probably the film's biggest problem for you. The characters at their core are very true to the interpretations of these characters over the years.

 

[BH/HHH]

This is spot on. Kinda sad, really.

You won't trolling. People make remarks about CBM's they don't like or care for all the time. But for some reason, when those type of comments are directed at MOS, its suddenly a problem.

Or maybe people just actually do think it's excellent. So hard to believe?

Sorry but ai'd have called him out in any thread for any movie had I seen those kinds of sporadic comments. I stand by what I said.

 

[The Batman]

And before anyone says it, I know the world is much darker, more depressing and cynical than when Superman was first thought of but isn't that exactly when we need inspiration. A Superman film should be uplifting not depressing.

I get what you're trying to say, and I agree overall, but we can't forget that Superman was created:

1. During the Great Depression
2. On the verge of World War II and the Holocaust.

Superman was created during one of the darkest periods in human history, a time period (arguably) worse than it is now.

 

[Infinight888]

I must have had this same discussion with people all over. Jonathan Kent is not telling him he can't save people. He wants him to be careful because he's afraid of what people will do to him. He also tells him he's here for a reason and ONE DAY he'll know what that reason is.

He didn't tell Clark NOT to save people, yes. But he did discourage him doing anything that would reveal his powers. When Clark asked if he should have let those kids drown, he responded with an "I don't know".

What's more damaging to Jonathan's character isn't what he said here, but what he didn't say. And he didn't encourage Clark to be a hero. He didn't tell him to do what he thought was right, or anything that would have made Clark into the man he became. If anything, Jonathan's teachings in the movie seem to be an obstacle Clark has to overcome in order to become who he's supposed to be.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Yeah. It shows Jonathan to be a little too caring, in that makes him out ot be a father that puts fear and doubt in his son.

 

[BH/HHH]

This thread had steady numbers, and then spiked in the "Excellent" option out of nowhere. Yeah, someone definitely created some extra accounts, and its something an MOS fan would do.

It's a poll, maybe more people voted. You're letting you're own opinion get in the way. I really don't see anyone creating that many fake accounts just to rig a poll that's been done before.

He didn't tell Clark NOT to save people, yes. But he did discourage him doing anything that would reveal his powers. When Clark asked if he should have let those kids drown, he responded with an "I don't know".

What's more damaging to Jonathan's character isn't what he said here, but what he didn't say. And he didn't encourage Clark to be a hero. He didn't tell him to do what he thought was right, or anything that would have made Clark into the man he became. If anything, Jonathan's teachings in the movie seem to be an obstacle Clark has to overcome in order to become who he's supposed to be.

He wants to protect his son, he's doing what any Father would do, he's basically telling him to be cautious. He knows that Clark will change the world and he doesn't say you can never save people. He tells him one day the world will be ready for him, that's not discouragement in the slightest.

No Jonathan shows him when he saves the dog, Clark's wanting to help comes from his Father. It's all their in that scene, he brought him up well.

 

[Flint Marko]

It is baffling to me how anyone can think MOS is an excellent movie. Good? Sure. Great? Eh. Maybe. But excellent? That escapes my comprehension. But that's just me, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Yeah the fact that this poll shot up 30 votes in the past 24 hours goes to show you that someone's got a little too much time on their hands.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Wish we could see who's voted.

A lot of new profiles are appearing here as well

 

[Infinight888]

It's a poll, maybe more people voted. You're letting you're own opinion get in the way. I really don't see anyone creating that many fake accounts just to rig a poll that's been done before.

And every one of them voted for the same thing? Do all of the Man of Steel fans come out on Thursdays?

He wants to protect his son, he's doing what any Father would do, he's basically telling him to be cautious. He knows that Clark will change the world and he doesn't say you can never save people. He tells him one day the world will be ready for him, that's not discouragement in the slightest.

No Jonathan shows him when he saves the dog, Clark's wanting to help comes from his Father. It's all their in that scene, he brought him up well.

Even without forbidding him from saving people, he was still upset that Clark revealed his powers by saving the school bus. This was a discouragement. Even in his death, even when he risked his own life, he still didn't want Clark to use his powers to save anyone (himself included). An idle promise of a hypothetical "someday" when the world will be ready for him is hardly an encouragement. In the end, Jonathan's wishes seemed to be "keep your secret, no matter what the cost".

 

[Rodrigo90]

And every one of them voted for the same thing? Do all of the Man of Steel fans come out on Thursdays?




Even without forbidding him from saving people, he was still upset that Clark revealed his powers by saving the school bus. This was a discouragement. Even in his death, even when he risked his own life, he still didn't want Clark to use his powers to save anyone (himself included). An idle promise of a hypothetical "someday" when the world will be ready for him is hardly an encouragement. In the end, Jonathan's wishes seemed to be "keep your secret, no matter what the cost".

4 Everything

 

[I Am The Knight]

He didn't tell Clark NOT to save people, yes. But he did discourage him doing anything that would reveal his powers. When Clark asked if he should have let those kids drown, he responded with an "I don't know".

What's more damaging to Jonathan's character isn't what he said here, but what he didn't say. And he didn't encourage Clark to be a hero. He didn't tell him to do what he thought was right, or anything that would have made Clark into the man he became. If anything, Jonathan's teachings in the movie seem to be an obstacle Clark has to overcome in order to become who he's supposed to be.

Exactly. To quote the great Anakin Skywalker:

"He's holding me back!"

 

[Rekall101]

Not at all, I believe it shows that some people have very definitive ideas on what certain characters should or shouldn't do/say and really that is wrong. These characters have existed for so long, they've been through many things in many different stories, told by many different people. It's kind of funny to think but had the Internet existed when Superman the Movie came out there would most likely have been uproar. That film changed a hell of a lot of stuff to what had been done in the comics at the time but people don't remember this as much because it was a different era and for many people (probably me included) that's how Superman was supposed to be. Uber confident pretty much from the get go. But again it was a different era where people weren't as interested in the complexities of what been a Superman could actually be like, they just wanted to "believe a man could fly" (not that there's anything wrong with that, there's isn't) whereas today you need to delve into Superman more psychologically.

Superman is not a dark character in Man of Steel at all but the world around him is a very real one. Infact he's probably a little bit more like the original depiction of the character, not a man of a whole lot of words but a man of action. He's also a very conflicted character because he's in a place of uncertainty for a chunk of the movie. People forget he was also in this place in Superman the Movie but because it was brief it's not really called out on.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the film but a lot of the preconceived notions of what you feel a character should be is probably the film's biggest problem for you. The characters at their core are very true to the interpretations of these characters over the years.

I can understand what you are saying. However, for me if you are going to use a character you have to stay true to the essentials. It's possible to use a well established character in a new way but still keep what is unique about them intact. For example, all the recent versions of Sherlock Holmes. All very different to each other but still very Sherlock.

This film, in my opinion is a re-creation of the character not a reinterpretation. It's not Superman as I understand him. If you like this re-creation you are going to like the film and fair enough, good for you if that's the case. But the way I see Superman, the image I have built up after seeing him in multiple different media's and in lots of interpretations does not fit with the character in this film. In the end though it's personal opinion and I can totally understand you seeing it differently.

 

[BH/HHH]

And every one of them voted for the same thing? Do all of the Man of Steel fans come out on Thursdays?

Even without forbidding him from saving people, he was still upset that Clark revealed his powers by saving the school bus. This was a discouragement. Even in his death, even when he risked his own life, he still didn't want Clark to use his powers to save anyone (himself included). An idle promise of a hypothetical "someday" when the world will be ready for him is hardly an encouragement. In the end, Jonathan's wishes seemed to be "keep your secret, no matter what the cost".

To be fair I didn't realise it had jumped up that quickly. In every walk of life there are obviously saddos who do things that are pointless. If someones creates fake accounts to vote then they're obviously idiots.

He is cautious, even in that maybe line there is hesitance. He doesn't forbid him from saving people. He keeps telling him there will come a time when the world is ready for him. Even Glenn Ford's Jon Kent and John Schneider's version gave Clark a hard time for using his powers at times. It's nothing nee for the character. Theres always been a caution there. The only time Jonathan truly puts the breaks on is when his own life is at stake because he knows Clark's secret is more important than his own life.

 

[Rekall101]

Even without forbidding him from saving people, he was still upset that Clark revealed his powers by saving the school bus. This was a discouragement. Even in his death, even when he risked his own life, he still didn't want Clark to use his powers to save anyone (himself included). An idle promise of a hypothetical "someday" when the world will be ready for him is hardly an encouragement. In the end, Jonathan's wishes seemed to be "keep your secret, no matter what the cost".

I go with the 'Everything Wrong with' comment, fairly certain Clark could have done something to save Jonathan without the explanation turning straight to aliens

 

[BH/HHH]

I go with the 'Everything Wrong with' comment, fairly certain Clark could have done something to save Jonathan without the explanation turning straight to aliens

Actually we have no idea what he can do at that age save for strength, heat vision and x-ray vision. We don't know if he has speed or can leap at all. You can't say he could have found a way as he's not an experienced Superman yet or for that matter even an adult.

Also for all Jonathan knows the twister may have been enough to kill Clark.

 

[BH/HHH]

I can understand what you are saying. However, for me if you are going to use a character you have to stay true to the essentials. It's possible to use a well established character in a new way but still keep what is unique about them intact. For example, all the recent versions of Sherlock Holmes. All very different to each other but still very Sherlock.

This film, in my opinion is a re-creation of the character not a reinterpretation. It's not Superman as I understand him. If you like this re-creation you are going to like the film and fair enough, good for you if that's the case. But the way I see Superman, the image I have built up after seeing him in multiple different media's and in lots of interpretations does not fit with the character in this film. In the end though it's personal opinion and I can totally understand you seeing it differently.

You just proved my point its your perception of, the core characterstics are there whether you choose to see them or not. He is selfless, heroic and caring, right there 3 traits that are all Superman and always have been.

 

[Rekall101]

To be fair I didn't realise it had jumped up that quickly. In every walk of life there are obviously saddos who do things that are pointless. If someones creates fake accounts to vote then they're obviously idiots.

He is cautious, even in that maybe line there is hesitance. He doesn't forbid him from saving people. He keeps telling him there will come a time when the world is ready for him. Even Glenn Ford's Jon Kent and John Schneider's version gave Clark a hard time for using his powers at times. It's nothing nee for the character. Theres always been a caution there. The only time Jonathan truly puts the breaks on is when his own life is at stake because he knows Clark's secret is more important than his own life.

But taking mysterious metals that don't even exist on Earth to metallurgists, that's fine. And doesn't set off any alarm bells. Or lead to investigations of any type. And the metallurgist in question never mentions it to anyone. Or asks where the hell it came from.

 

[BH/HHH]

I can understand what you are saying. However, for me if you are going to use a character you have to stay true to the essentials. It's possible to use a well established character in a new way but still keep what is unique about them intact. For example, all the recent versions of Sherlock Holmes. All very different to each other but still very Sherlock.

This film, in my opinion is a re-creation of the character not a reinterpretation. It's not Superman as I understand him. If you like this re-creation you are going to like the film and fair enough, good for you if that's the case. But the way I see Superman, the image I have built up after seeing him in multiple different media's and in lots of interpretations does not fit with the character in this film. In the end though it's personal opinion and I can totally understand you seeing it differently.

But taking mysterious metals that don't even exist on Earth to metallurgists, that's fine. And doesn't set off any alarm bells. Or lead to investigations of any type. And the metallurgist in question never mentions it to anyone. Or asks where the hell it came from.

What's to say this guy isn't a close friend of Jonathans? I agree that line does raise questions but ultimately it doesnt meany anything. Jonathan didnt have to say where he got it or that it came in a rocket with his so does he?