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

[hopefuldreamer]

According to the poll 89 people thought this was excellent, and 48 thought it was very good, yet it's the detractors who are the loudest in this thread.

It is pretty common for lurkers to vote in polls but not bother to post. And I think most of the time it's when something has either REALLY pleased you or REALLY upset you that you have a lot to say.

Btw hopeful dreamer, every movie ever made requires you to fill in the blanks, that's how human communication works, we fill in blanks using models of the world. We never communicate every detail.

That is such an unfair dismissal of my point, and of the technical side of film making/story building in general.

In fact, i'd say your trying to straw man me.

Of course you can't say EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING in a movie. But that doesn't excuse leaving integral aspects of the story to the audiences imagination rather than incorporating them into the story itself.

That something should adhere to conventions, such as the 'cbm rules of an origin story' is entirely subjective. Case in point: people tell unconventional stories all the times and they tell them in unconventional ways. People make unconventional films as well. That's my immediate respond to your statement.

I said nothing about 'rules'. I just said that an origin story has different priorities in terms of highlighting elements of back story than a non origin story.

So you can't take something like Great Gatsby and say 'Gatsby didn't need to explain the back story for it to work' and use it to justify a lack of information present in MOS (which IS an origin story).

It failed you because it didn't do something which you believe it should have. That's my understanding. That being said, I personally think they showed plenty of his loving environment. I think the simple fact that he witnessed his own father die for him is indicative of that which you claim isn't present(on screen). I'm having a hard time naming other super heroes having their parent(s) sacrificed their lives literally for hero in question(save for naruto and potter to an extent). You brushing off what was shown is your prerogative but I have the grounds to assert that it was there. Now it's a matter of debating if there is enough...which is always fun btw. Either way, that should put to rest this idea that "it wasn't there".
That they lifted the father son hugging/crying in the cornfields scene from secret origins...

Well that's a whole other can of worms, because I don't see Jonathon dying 'for his son'.

I see him dying for an idea that makes NO SENSE, is later DISPROVED (cause as it turns out, the world WAS ready and seems to have dealt with it fairly well) and was a delusional product of fear and irrationality.

So to me, it's not an example of Jonathon's love for his son. It's an example of his and Clark's dysfunctional relationship.

Let's pursue this idea of discouragement(though I personally only see disapproval of early exposure). What exactly is the qualm with this? For example if we look at the Steven Rogers paradigm, you find inspiration in a man/hero that persisted in the face of constant discouragement and harshness of environment to become a 'really good person/hero'. I have to assume this is the part where one downplays this direction when applied to superman, in favor of the tried and true approach that has been applied to him in the past? Which is why I always advocate for inherent value.
Looking further into Steve Rogers, you have someone that simply cannot find a way to contribute until the joseph campbell character shows up and gives him a way, enlightenment (and an extra push in the right direction, maybe even a costume). Both Steve and Clark doing good deeds leading up to and before this opportuinty(Clark doing more of course).
Again, I ask, just what is so wrong with this approach other then that it's different? Is it because you feel that if clark doens't get the encouragement during his young 'human' life than the turn to hero is a product of Jor? Because I would argue, that like Rogers, he's the hero long before that. Jor only proves an avenue(just like Eskire).

I have no issue with the concept of a hero overcoming discouragement in general and have never said so... so your point seems irrelevant

I just object to it in a big screen Superman origin story, when that discouragement comes from his parents - two characters who are credited in the majority of previous incarnations with at least HALF the reason he becomes the hero he is; usually by offering encouragement and support of his decision to do so, and having nurtured his heroic tendencies in his youth.

Even in Smallville, where his Dad was very protective (especially during season 1) they made sure that even when they were worried someone might have seen him, they still stopped to tell him how proud they were of what he did.

Yes, they showed the love between the two. However, they never showed two seconds of Thomas encouraging his son to go out and fight crime(or equivalent stakes JK was referring to). They focused on the love between a father and son. I argue when it comes to that aspect alone, MOS delivers. Jon loved his son and his son loved him back surely you argree. This isn't just some inferred insight, it's right there in all their scenes together.
You opened this discussion talking about how that was key to superman being both superman and having humanity in your opinion, and here we are.

When has Batman's back story ever been know to show his father encouraging him to go out and fight crime when he grows up? Again, it's an irrelevant point.

That's a KEY DIFFERENCE between Batman and Superman.

Batman is the hero he is because of how his parents died. Superman is the hero he is because of how his parents lived.

 

[Marvin]

Exhibit A: Casino Royale. The build up and release of this movie was the polar opposite of MoS, whereby most folks broke out the pitchforks and torches the moment Craig had been cast, but were blown away once the film dropped. It was a phenomenon exactly as jmc stated above in that people had never thought of Bond like that before, and were pleasantly surprised at the outcome. For many of us, Man of Steel didn't do this, and it had very little to do with expectations, but rather, execution as jmc said.

Marvin, I think it's pretty disrespectful of you to insist that the chief reason people didn't like the movie is because it didn't match up with their expectations. That's not even fair, and how is one supposed to respond to that exactly? Seems like with every retort that's sent your way, you simply reply with "You just didn't get what you wanted to see, that's all."

There are too many examples of satisfying movies subverting expectations for that line of thinking to work as an argument.

Chief reason?
I said I combat the idea that it plays no part in this at all. Even in JMC's post he explains that it's there, only to suggest it would be overlooked had the movie been 'good'.
Please don't mistake what I'm saying. He's saying if it was great people would have supposedly looked past this, I'm asking what happens if it was just Thor2 good? You know, kinda how thor 2 was simply 'good'.

As for every resort, that's what happens when I encounter a subjective opinion of the like: superman was supposed to...and because he didn't, it didn't work(see encouraging parents or wish fulfillment etc). That's like saying superman is supposed to fight in a film and because he didn't it failed. Well that's clearly what said person needs for a film(about superman to be good), not much more imo.

As for Casino Royale, the pitch forks were there even during the trailer stage and casting, note the key difference between that element and MOS's reception. Anyone anywhere suggest Royale "didn't get the character"? What about when he failed to succeed(save the girl) or killed and broke some unwritten rule? Did they radically change M? Point me to some of those reviews. For quality and execution aside, I'm curious if that particular phenomena happened as well. Then we'll talk comparison.

 

[Marvin]

I can admit Superman's greatest drawback is the fact he is held to a higher standard. It might be unfair but that's the way it is and we have to live with that. But you're also not a slave to that standard. If you want to do something different you are entitled to do it, but the risk is if you take something that people are familiar with and want to do something different to it you have to get everything about the film and story right otherwise you risk greater rejection than you would with a more conventional telling. If you do it wrong the audience has nothing to cling on to, they have neither a recognizable character nor a satisfying story, instead they have this new thing that kinda looks like something they know in a story that isn't well told.

Fair enough. At least in here I can see some common ground.
And sure if it was some great film, this might be a very different world today. But like I said above, what if it was simply good.

 

[Naked Shia]

the idea of thor 2 being considered good scares me.

 

[Marvin]

I said nothing about 'rules'. I just said that an origin story has different priorities in terms of highlighting elements of back story than a non origin story.

So you can't take something like Great Gatsby and say 'Gatsby didn't need to explain the back story for it to work' and use it to justify a lack of information present in MOS (which IS an origin story).

I explained that you were talking conventions here. And I argued that unconventional....is all well and good so no need to point out 'how origin stories are supposed to work'.

Well that's a whole other can of worms, because I don't see Jonathon dying 'for his son'.

I see him dying for an idea that makes NO SENSE, is later DISPROVED (cause as it turns out, the world WAS ready and seems to have dealt with it fairly well) and was a delusional product of fear and irrationality.

Actually, it's very much proved. He said Clark was to wait for exposure till the world was ready and not before. Something even Perry alluded to. Zod threatening to eat everyone might just be that moment given how humanity works. So no, hardly disproved. As for dying for his son, he loved his son, if he didn't I'm not so sure he would have gone through with that. On this Waid and I agree(and we never do). I don't know I see love there, more importantly, I see clark seeing love there. I even see lois seeing love in that act.

I have no issue with the concept of a hero overcoming discouragement in general and have never said so... so your point seems irrelevant

Good, hopefully this follows trough at some point.

I just object to it in a big screen Superman origin story, when that discouragement comes from his parents - two characters who are credited in the majority of previous incarnations with at least HALF the reason he becomes the hero he is; usually by offering encouragement and support of his decision to do so, and having nurtured his heroic tendencies in his youth.
...

Batman is the hero he is because of how his parents died. Superman is the hero he is because of how his parents lived.

And this, all of it is pretty much what I mean about preconceptions and walking in with what you are seeking and inside knowledge...
unlike the GA(normally)

That is instead of telling me what is supposed to happen with Superman...

When has Batman's back story ever been know to show his father encouraging him to go out and fight crime when he grows up? Again, it's an irrelevant point.

again if you follow our discussion closely, we are actually talking about your own statement that the love superman received is the key reason why he loves the rest of us, why he's a hero. You went on to say he got none of that when he was young(even from his parents). My point was that he got just as much from his parents(in this film) as anyone. I pointed to batman. That was all. But now we are talking about the preconceived role Thomas plays vs JK. Surely you see how this stuff get's in the way.

 

[DA_Champion]

the idea of thor 2 being considered good scares me.

Agreed, it's the most painful experience I have ever had in a movie theatre.

 

[Steamteck]

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.

I feel the same way about TDK so folks just see different things in films

 

[Steamteck]

It is very very important to MoS fans that the general public and fandom love the film. They will cherry pick the most dubious sources (IMDB, Cinemascore. They arent picky) to reinforce this belief. Convincing them otherwise, or even questioning it, is utterly pointless.

.

That's kind of how I feel about the opposite side so .. there we are. Its a movie that seems to hit lots of people on a primal level, for good or bad.

For me it is literally to the degree when folks describe problems with a certain scene or character I feel like they saw a different movie.

 

[DA_Champion]

That is such an unfair dismissal of my point, and of the technical side of film making/story building in general.

In fact, i'd say your trying to straw man me.

Of course you can't say EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING in a movie. But that doesn't excuse leaving integral aspects of the story to the audiences imagination rather than incorporating them into the story itself.

No strawman at all. Every movie requires us to fill in blanks, and in MoS' case it seems like there were two versions shown in the theatre.

There's a version of the movie where Clark left Lois to die in the snow, where Jonathan Kent was a sociopath, where Pete Ross threw Clark under the bus, where Superman destroyed most of Metropolis.

And then there's the version I saw. Where Clark had two great human parents, where Lois was a competent reporter which we have not seen before, where Zod was a great villain with firm motivation, and where Superman was challenged for the first the ever on film.

It's about filling in the blanks differently.

 

[DA_Champion]

That's kind of how I feel about the opposite side so .. there we are. Its a movie that seems to hit lots of people on a primal level, for good or bad.

For me it is literally to the degree when folks describe problems with a certain scene or character I feel like they saw a different movie.

Yeah man I wrote the same thing in the post below !

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I explained that you were talking conventions here. And I argued that unconventional....is all well and good so no need to point out 'how origin stories are supposed to work'.

I just disagree.

I don't think what we're discussing is conventional vs unconvential.

I think it's quality vs lack of quality.

I mean, having a script that was full of grammatical errors and incorrect words would be pretty 'unconventional'... but it'd also be an indication of a lack of quality writing.

Actually, it's very much proved. He said Clark was to wait for exposure till the world was ready and not before. Something even Perry alluded to. Zod threatening to eat everyone might just be that moment given how humanity works. So no, hardly disproved. As for dying for his son, he loved his son, if he didn't I'm not so sure he would have gone through with that. On this Waid and I agree(and we never do). I don't know I see love there, more importantly, I see clark seeing love there. I even see lois seeing love in that act.

Again, just disagree.

I don't see how it is a BETTER time to reveal yourself when someone else from your race has just threatened the entire planet and made your kind into something to fear.

And i'm not saying that Jonathon didn't love his son.

Just that I can't see that act as a loving moment that counts towards why Clark became the hero... because it's very purpose was to stop him being a hero. It was to cement the ideas of him hiding himself. And Clark complying was him agreeing to do so.

Good, hopefully this follows trough at some point.

I have no idea what you mean by this...

And this, all of it is pretty much what I mean about preconceptions and walking in with what you are seeking and inside knowledge...
unlike the GA(normally)

That is instead of telling me what is supposed to happen with Superman....

So you don't think that adaptions of books/comics/plays should try to keep certain integral aspects in tact?

Again if you follow our discussion closely, we are actually talking about your own statement that the love superman received is the key reason why he loves the rest of us, why he's a hero. You went on to say he got none of that when he was young(even from his parents). My point was that he got just as much from his parents(in this film) as anyone. I pointed to batman. That was all. But now we are talking about the preconceived role Thomas plays vs JK. Surely you see how this stuff get's in the way.

No we've been talking about my (and others) opinion that in MOS Clark becomes a superhero soley because of encouragement from Jor-el rather than how he was raised on earth - and the fact that some of us see this as a shame.

As i've previously mentioned, one of the things I love most about Superman is the idea that being so 'good' that you want to use your gifts to help people isn't something alien... it's something he learned from good people here on earth. His powers are alien, his heroic nature is not.

I love a Superman that doesn't become a hero because he HAS to react to something (like someone threatening the earth), or because someone tells him it's what he's meant to be. I love a Superman that becomes a hero because he sees that good people suffer in the world and he wants to do what he can to help.

And I can't see anywhere in this film, where he would have decided to become a hero of his own accord after the way he was raised.

If he hadn't found that ship, what would he have done with his life?

He would never had set off the beacon that drew Zod to earth, he would never have had Jor-el tell him what they'd intended him to become.

So would he have just carried on drifting in the shadows?

I mean, he's in his 30s already... he's wasted A LOT of his life hiding in fear because of his parents.

If they had had the courage to say 'The world might reject you... but not at least TRYING to use these gifts to help people would be wrong', then maybe he'd have been out there fighting the good fight a lot sooner. Or at least trying out different ideas of how to go about it.

No strawman at all. Every movie requires us to fill in blanks, and in MoS' case it seems like there were two versions shown in the theatre.

There's a version of the movie where Clark left Lois to die in the snow, where Jonathan Kent was a sociopath, where Pete Ross threw Clark under the bus, where Superman destroyed most of Metropolis.

And then there's the version I saw. Where Clark had two great human parents, where Lois was a competent reporter which we have not seen before, where Zod was a great villain with firm motivation, and where Superman was challenged for the first the ever on film.

It's about filling in the blanks differently.

It is my opinion that in a quality film, there would not be so much disagreement. The 'blanks' we are supposed to fill in would be clearer, as they would be lead by the actual events of the film.

I mean, take the first example.

As a writer, you have to think about how what your showing will be received.

If you have Lois left in freezing cold temperatures, people are going to question whether or not this was a dangerous thing to do. Because in reality, it could kill you.

And why not have Superman leave her somewhere safe? There are so many alternatives of where she could have been left that would not have been a risk to her life.

Or heck, just cut that scene completely BECAUSE it raises those questions.

I mean, if you leave that as a 'blank' for people to fill in because you can't see how it would work visually, that's okay - because the audience assuming that he dropped her off somewhere safe is logical (because she did get back safely).

Do you see the difference i'm trying to point out?

Some things can be left blank and the assumptions are obvious and don't stick out as something open to discussion.

Some things can't.

And a lot of what has caused these 'questions' to be raised is actual contradiction.

I mean, saying that we are supposed to 'fill in the blanks' that Jonathon and Martha were in fact much more loving and warm and happy parents than the film showed, is pretty much asking the audience to directly contradict the material given. It just doesn't work effectively.

 

[Naked Shia]

It is very very important to MoS fans that the general public and fandom love the film. They will cherry pick the most dubious sources (IMDB, Cinemascore. They arent picky) to reinforce this belief. Convincing them otherwise, or even questioning it, is utterly pointless.

1. The critics were Snyder haters and/or they didn't "get" it.
2. The box office was great for a reboot and was exactly what WB was hoping for.
3. The dvd sales prove the film is beloved by the GA anyway.
4. The response would have been even bigger if it werent for either a) old farts nostalgic for some outdated version of Supes or b) fallout from Superman Returns
5. The various polls on SHH "prove" that the real fans actually loved it.
6. Etc...

If it means that much to them, let em have it I say. Thats why Ive abandoned the MoS/Supes forums for the most part.

I couldn't care less if anybody like the movie. I did, I know why I did, I know it's really flawed, but as long as I liked it, that's all that matters.

that said, the "not fans of MOS" side is eager to "prove" MOS is not liked as well.

 

[Zionite1]

I liked MOS.But Hopeful dreamer makes very solid pionts with regards to its flaws.With exception of the Killing which I really think wasnt a big deal.

 

[HaplessHenchman]

That's kind of how I feel about the opposite side so .. there we are. Its a movie that seems to hit lots of people on a primal level, for good or bad.

For me it is literally to the degree when folks describe problems with a certain scene or character I feel like they saw a different movie.

 

[WBwins]

The Top 5 things I think needed to be changed in the movie were

1.NOT Making Superman the cause of the Invasion
2.Jonathan kent
3.Editing
4.Showing the world needing Superman
5.Showing the worlds reaction during Zods invasion(Not after like in BVS).
6.Show Superman try to minimize civilian casualty.

Whilst I agree the movie was flawed I dont see why It dserves the level of hate that it gets in the web.I expect a Thor2 reaction at most.

Goyer truly exposed his flaws in this film

 

[Rodrigo90]

Give me a few days and loads a cups o coffee and I'll rewrite Man of Steel in the way you all want to see and I'll post it Scribd...

I have no life and need a hobby

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I liked MOS.But Hopeful dreamer makes very solid pionts with regards to its flaws.With exception of the Killing which I really think wasnt a big deal.

Yeah, that's something I dislike on a personal level mostly.

 

[Boy Scout]

Another thing I didn't care for was the decision to make Clark become Superman at 33. I don't think it should've taken him that long.

 

[Flint Marko]

Another thing I didn't care for was the decision to make Clark become Superman at 33. I don't think it should've taken him that long.

No see you're not getting it, it was important to the film makers to have several unnecessary, heavy-handed Christ-parallels that were never really explored or fleshed out.

 

[Boy Scout]

Oh, well, in that case...!

 

[WBwins]

Give me a few days and loads a cups o coffee and I'll rewrite Man of Steel in the way you all want to see and I'll post it Scribd...

I have no life and need a hobby

Way ahead of you.
Allready prepared the story outline for Man of steel rewrite and a BVS fan script.Trying to decide which one to write first

 

[Rodrigo90]

Way ahead of you.
Allready prepared the story outline for Man of steel rewrite and a BVS fan script.Trying to decide which one to write first

Man of Steel. That'll give you a clear idea of what continuing themes and arcs will go into BvS...

I'll probably start it then get writers block. Happens all the time

 

[The Question]

Another thing I didn't care for was the decision to make Clark become Superman at 33. I don't think it should've taken him that long.

Good God, I absolutely loathe the Jesus comparisons in Superman. Superman is nothing like Jesus. Superman is not a religious and political leader who heads a ministry/activist movement challenging the authority of a corrupt religious institution and an expanding empire. He's a superhero who punches robots and saves people from burning buildings. Holy **** people, there is literally no similarity between the two. Even when Superman has been more overtly political (which would have been a much more interesting way of changing up Superman's status quo than the non-comital nonsense we got in Man of Steel), there was nothing Christ-like about his activism.

 

[Boy Scout]

I feel that those comparisons have been done to death. I would've liked to see something different, preferably a Superman who becomes the hero we know and love because he wants to, not because he was influenced by his long dead biological father.

 

[The Question]

I feel that those comparisons have been done to death. I would've liked to see something different, preferably a Superman who becomes the hero we know and love because he wants to, not because he was influenced by his long dead biological father.

If one defines pretension as "profundity that is unearned," Jesus comparisons in Superman are a perfect example of pretension. They are attempts at being profound without actually doing anything to earn it, simply relying on hasty and inappropriate religious allusions.

Superman isn't the Messiah. He's just a guy doing a job. That's the whole point of Superman.