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

[jmc]

It wasn't subtle in the least.

 

[Human Torch]

I don't find the Jesus window all that blunt.I think it's obvious to us,who have followed Superman on screen and off.But,I personally doubt given what's shown in the movie,that Joe Public would see that scene and automatically think "Clark in front of a Jesus window-in a church!The Superman story must be a Jesus allegory." But in any event,the one scene was hardly enough to say they laid it on too thick.

 

[jmc]

I really don't get how you can't see it. If it's not the church seen it's him flying in a crucifixion type pose.

 

[Flint Marko]

I really don't get how you can't see it. If it's not the church seen it's him flying in a crucifixion type pose.

Didn't he do that on more than one occasion?
I remember him laying in the ocean with his arms out cross style, and exiting the ship the same way for no reason right after Jor-el told him "you can save them all". Both times were pretty blatant.

 

[Human Torch]

I think I should point out,that I'm not saying there was no allegory in the film,only that it was not over the top/in your face,IMO.Certainly not more so than SR.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

I do not think Man of Steel is a good film, nor a good Superman film.

It is thematically inconsistent with itself (the first half drums up the theme that Superman will show humanity a 'better way', the second half is all about him coming into the open in reaction TO events, culminating in him compromising his own morality to defeat Zod).

Pa Kent was inconsistently written, and the tornado scene was terrible for a number of reasons, not least the hugely uncomfortable implications that Clark would feel responsible for his father's death for years to come. I know that wasn't Kent's aim, but that's a horrible load to put on a kid.

We never really got a sense of the humanity that Superman needed to save in the film. The Daily Planet crew are near extras, with only Lois getting any real screentime.

The colour palette is awful. A Superman film should not consist of such a washed out tone, permeated with greys. I'm glad to see that at least no one in this thread is really arguing in favour of this.

Ultimately Superman as a character in the film is primarily reactive. He reveals himself as Superman not out of his own initiative (as Pa Kent foreshadowed he should and the film stressed numerous times) but rather in reaction to the invasion. The invasion was there because he was there. We never get a real sense of Superman care of ordinary people - there's no Cap Avengers style moment of protecting ordinary people in the midst of fighting.

Rather instead we get two gods duking it out. The film's failures can really be almost entirely extrapolated from one little microcosm:
When Zod, in washed out grey and black tones, chucks a fuel truck at Superman. A parking lot is behind them, presumably empty, but we can only presume. What does Superman do? He doesn't try to halt the truck on its course to destruction. Instead he glides over it as if above it all, and cares not for the giant explosion behind him as the entire complex is levelled, kicking up dust all around the block. We can't know if the lot was empty - after all on that exact same street people were running and gazing in awe just seconds ago.

Also, I'm fairly sure that Zod is the one to take the fight out into orbit when he hurls Superman. The whole time I was almost screaming at the screen for Superman to try and get him out of the city. It would be hard to keep him out, but the fact that Zod takes the initiative says wonders about Snyder's failure to incorporate character into action.

 

[Boy Scout]

I think I should point out,that I'm not saying there was no allegory in the film,only that it was not over the top/in your face,IMO.Certainly not more so than SR.

That's where we disagree. I thought it was very much in my face. SR being guilty of the same thing is irrelevant.

 

[Sorath]

It was what it was a decent summer action flick.

 

[Infinight888]

Jonathan was changed to fit the narrative of the film. To explain why Clark was so secretive and evasive, and to further cement the whole
"Acceptance or rejection" angle of the film.
And despite there being a statue of Supes in BvS, I'm hoping that there is rejection from some of the population...and that falls onto Lex to be the leader of that posse of people. Hopefully it shows that Jonathan was right in that regard, and hopefully it shows him to be right that Clark will change the world.

I think I honestly would have had less of a problem with the changes made to Jonathan's character if we had gotten a satisfying pay-off to the Acceptance/Rejection plotline in this movie. If it comes into play during BvS as you believe, then that will at least partially make up for it (except for the fact that I still would have to wait four years to see the resolution to an uninteresting sub-plot which dominated the first entire half of the movie).

That's the thing also. Lois is caring and compassionate, her ballsy attitude can make her a *****. Erica Durance was the perfect embodiment of those qualities. Amy...I've said from the beginning, she's a fantastic actress, but she wasn't right for Lois and nothing in this movie convinced me otherwise. Durance, Bosworth, Hatcher and even Kidder could have wiped the floor with this Lois. Honestly, if she wasn't thrown into the movie with the most convenient ways, she would have been forgettable.
I know a lot of these characters over the top personalities were played down to fit the more serious tone, but Lois suffered through it and it was a waste to Amy's talent. That said, I still liked this Lois...She wasn't the comicbook character, but I liked her, actually for being played down. She felt more real and less obnoxious than comicbook Lois...but still, I really wanted more of the ballsy character.

We seem to be in 100% agreement here, so I'm mostly quoting this to have it reposted.

I think I might have been more accepting of the change in Lois had we actually saw why they're attracted to each other. The relationship part of the movie seemed very shallow, with Lois mostly being interested in him solely because he saved her life.

The bullying had a point; to demonstrate how Clark's powers affected his relationship with others. He kept himself to himself because of them and that caused friction with the other kids and he became a target...also explaining why he was constantly on the move and why he wouldn't stand up for himself in confrontations, like that guy in the bar. So at least Jonathan's misery lessons kept him grounded

Showing Clark restraining himself as a child to explain why he restrains himself as an adult feels like an unnecessary redundancy. Both scenes are intended to build his character, and both do so in the same way.

Yeah, invincible people battering eachother, in an overlong and overblown fight, wasn't as exciting as I would've imagined. The Smallville fight was way better, because it felt like nobody was invincible in that scene.

Another paragraph I'm quoting just for the sake of repeating.

The Smallville TV SHOW fight was better than that in the Man of Steel MOVIE.

The fact that we can say this without the slightest hint of irony is something that never should have been able to happen.

 

[I Am The Knight]

The Jesus bits that stood to me the most were when he said he was 33 and then when Jor-El says "You can save all of them" and Supes extends his arms to form a cross while a choir is heard

 

[HaplessHenchman]

I didn't notice the "Jesus" stuff at all until reading about it on the net.

 

[jmc]

Also, I'm fairly sure that Zod is the one to take the fight out into orbit when he hurls Superman. The whole time I was almost screaming at the screen for Superman to try and get him out of the city. It would be hard to keep him out, but the fact that Zod takes the initiative says wonders about Snyder's failure to incorporate character into action.

I think the final battle, and the Smallville battle as well, are probably the areas of the film that amplifies the problems with the movie for some people. This is where Superman needed to be Superman, instead he comes across as reckless. It was an over indulgence of action with little in the way of showing the best qualities of Superman. The finale of every action film is meant to showcase all the qualities of the hero, that's when he's suppose to rise to the occasion. But here the fighting is meaningless because we aren't shown those qualities, only that he can take a punch. Thought may have been put into how the fight looked, but no thought was put into what it meant. It becomes hollow if it's just two super powered being beating the crap out of each other destroying buildings.

 

[Human Torch]

I didn't notice the "Jesus" stuff at all until reading about it on the net.

I honestly don't think many people did.

My only question for people who thought it was "too much" is,what would be enough without losing the allegory entirely?

 

[Boy Scout]

I'm all for losing it entirely. We've seen enough of it. The only thing Superman needs to have in common with Jesus is a sense of morality and overwhelming compassion.

 

[The Question]

I honestly don't think many people did.

My only question for people who thought it was "too much" is,what would be enough without losing the allegory entirely?

1: Tying more Christ-like thematic elements into the story instead of hitting us over the head with imagery.

2: The allegory should have been lost entirely. It isn't a very good allegory. Superman is not particularly like Jesus at all.

 

[Marvin]

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.

Curious how old you think he was in the Donner movie(before saving a single life that is). Not that you think that movie is perfect of course, but I am curious what your read was...

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.

Sorry but your assertion about what origin stories need to have is far less objective than one about spelling errors in a script. Blade's an 'origin story'...it's somewhat unconventional. But then again all of that as well as the films quality is 'subjective'.

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.

If I were to argue this, I'd no doubt say it's better to reveal your earth destroying powers when there is giant comet promising imminent death on it's way. But that's if I was going to argue it. Again, do you recall what Perry said about someone like Clark existing?

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.

Clark becoming a hero as you way, isn't about encouragement to become a hero. If you really mean to argue this then I find you are arguing for a lesser hero relative to others imo, the old pat on the head and shoulder if you will. Clark becoming a hero, as I was hoping you were arguing, was about he being shown love and that being his motivating factor to show his love towards the rest of the world. I really couldn't give a care if that act(tornado sacrifice) was meant to keep him from being a "hero" or not(again I don't need superman getting hero encouragement for it to work), I care that said act enforced the love of his father(probably don't do that for someone you don't love). If you want to discuss if this act strengthens the idea of jons love for his son vs weakens, please do. Otherwise I fear we are talking about different things.

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

I'm not beholden to anything. Just look at my undying love for the Blade movie for instance; Read that book it's based on lately? I believe in the idea of adaptation, I also believe in receiving such a thing on it's own merits regardless of what came before. I grew up on 60's batman, I didn't use that to then gauge TAS/DKR.

If I was to make a truly great power ranger movie right now, what would I be beholding to, it's fans and what they expect or the best possible execution of it's premise given all of our film history? Oh wait but I made the villains win? Fail, not because that's actually a bad idea but because during the saturday morning run...

His powers are alien, his heroic nature is not.

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?

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.

Reading all of these statements in order I feel you and are simply disagree on just what a hero is and just what it was Clark was up to prior to meeting Jor.
That includes the oil rig fiasco.

As for that first point about his heroic nature. I fear this is the crux of our issue. Just what is Clark's nature at the age of 13 if not heroic exactly? I suppose that's thanks to jor as well..

 

[Shikamaru]

My final thoughts on Man of Steel are still the same ones I had after seeing it and thinking about it. It's a mediocre piece, from start to finish. It's got brilliant ideas, but all poorly executed by our "wonderful" dynamic duo of Snyder and Goyer.

But of course, you can't say that on here without being labelled a hater or Marvel fanboy (or both) by the DC tinfoil hat wearers of the SHH. Just in this thread alone, we've had those baseless accusations left and right. Reminds me of why I left the BvS boards long time ago...

Though I'd like to talk about the ridiculous notion that people can't accept a "dark" Superman, or a "killing" Superman", or a "new take" on Superman. That's just absurd. It's not a matter of the film not falling in line with people's tastes, it's a matter of the film distancing the character so much from the audience to the point people couldn't make up their minds on who the character is.

That's exactly what all the adaptation complaints boil down to. When you think about it, Cavill has very little dialogue overall and most of Clark's lines come from the child actors when he was a kid. This is simply a film that thinks it really got you in the character's head in Batman Begins or Iron Man style, thus thinking it can get away with things like the neck snapping, when that's simply not the case. It failed to reach that level, and that's just the truth.

It's not Superman killing that's the problem. Me personally, I love the idea of paper. I like the idea of starting a Superman take where Clark is forced to take a life on his first adventure and then having to learn from that and become Morrison's "there's always a way" Superman after that. But that's not what we got in the execution. The audience simply isn't given time to think about what just happened and form a solid opinion on it. There's no talk about killing in the film prior to that nor is there talk about it after (the film just shifts to the next scene). All of that, of course, being on top of the piss poor job they did of letting the audience get to know Clark as a character. There was no substance to it, and they payed the price in giant volumes of internet rage.

And you wonder why people are skeptic of the sequels. Nolan's trilogy is irrelevant at this point, as is the disaster that was Green Lantern. Going forward, this is all we have as a main source of reference, a launch in this universe. No amount of complaining is going to put people at ease in the near future.

 

[Boy Scout]

Marvin: I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) Reeve's Superman became Superman at age 30. He left for the Fortress at eighteen and trained with Jor-El for twelve years. Because he was being productive, and not wandering aimlessly around North America, I'm more forgiving of him, but it still wasn't an ideal situation.

 

[Shikamaru]

It was very annoying seeing the entire Internet **** on this movie which I think galvanized the defenders.

It's not the best movie ever made, i give it like a 7.5/10 or so, but the hate it got from the nerdosphere felt like tag team bullying. I was dissecting the movie myself somewhat but I went a little softer once I saw that the vastly inferior Thor 2 was given a free pass by the same haters.

There is some irrational stupidity in a lot of the criticisms which supports my diagnosis. Dumb, incorrect, comments like "Jonathan Kent had no motivations" or "there is too much male gaze in Snyder movies" or whatever suggest the critics are more interested in hating than in understanding.

In what way does Thor 2 get a free pass? It's one of the lowest rated Marvel films on RT and gets constant flack in the Marvel boards all the time. I think what you're really saying is "Thor 2 doesn't get as much crap as MOS when it should", to which there's multiple valid reasons for that not being the case.

1) Despite his recent success, Thor is no Superman in terms of brand, iconic image, fanbase and overall pop culture impact. Thus a mediocre or bad Superman film will always leave people with a worse taste than a mediocre or bad Thor film respectively, unless the status of these characters changes in the distant future.

2) Thor 2 was more-or-less a filler film in the grand scheme of things. Wasn't the first Marvel film, nor the last, didn't start Phase 2, wasn't even a big event in-universe like TWS. It's one of the most superfluous recent films and you can practically skip most of it. In contrast, MOS was meant to be not just a film that revives an old classic franchise, but WB's Iron Man - the film that launched off their universe. And I can guarantee you Marvel would have been in trouble has Iron Man had MOS-like results.

Essentially, both points boil down to greater expectations leading to (potentially) greater disappointment. And I don't see the fault in that. If anything, it's a compliment to Superman as a character that people are so passionate to address their concerns with him and his films, compared with other characters like Thor.

 

[The Question]

In what way does Thor 2 get a free pass? It's one of the lowest rated Marvel films on RT and gets constant flack in the Marvel boards all the time. I think what you're really saying is "Thor 2 doesn't get as much crap as MOS when it should", to which there's multiple valid reasons for that not being the case.

1) Despite his recent success, Thor is no Superman in terms of brand, iconic image, fanbase and overall pop culture impact. Thus a mediocre or bad Superman film will always leave people with a worse taste than a mediocre or bad Thor film respectively, unless the status of these characters changes in the distant future.

2) Thor 2 was more-or-less a filler film in the grand scheme of things. Wasn't the first Marvel film, nor the last, didn't start Phase 2, wasn't even a big event in-universe like TWS. It's one of the most superfluous recent films and you can practically skip most of it. In contrast, MOS was meant to be not just a film that revives an old classic franchise, but WB's Iron Man - the film that launched off their universe. And I can guarantee you Marvel would have been in trouble has Iron Man had MOS-like results.

Essentially, both points boil down to greater expectations leading to (potentially) greater disappointment. And I don't see the fault in that. If anything, it's a compliment to Superman as a character that people are so passionate to address their concerns with him and his films, compared with other characters like Thor.

Also, I just liked Thor 2 better. Sorry.

 

[Shikamaru]

Also, I just liked Thor 2 better. Sorry.

I was talking about in general.

 

[Flint Marko]

Also, I just liked Thor 2 better. Sorry.

Thor and Loki's relationship alone is better than basically anything in MoS.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Thor 2 was trashy fun, but I prefer MOS for the visuals and score.

 

[Boy Scout]

The score was really good.

 

[Flint Marko]

The score was really good.

Agreed. The new Superman theme was very strong, one of Hans Zimmer's best.