Superman the Movie and Man of Steel essentially cover the same ground, yet one is remembered as a timeless classic, and the other divided fans and critics alike. The big question is WHY ????????
Hanging out there, like the phantom zone, is this idea that somehow
SMTM is qualitatively better than MOS.
Personally, I don't buy it for a second. SMTM was great in its time,
but 1978 was a different world. MOS is how Superman SHOULD appear
in the 21st century.
Now SMTM is probably the most important film of my childhood, as I saw it in the cinemas, as an 8 year old. Coming out of that film I felt like I could fly, the thrill was indescribable.
I watched SMTM again, just after seeing MOS, and the thrill was still there. Well deserving of its 93% on RT (despite arguably the lamest resolution to the central crisis ever....he flies around the world and turns back time, OFFS ? , but who cares ! SMTM is still mega-awesome).
Superman II was awesome as well (although IMO doesn't date as well, whereas SMTM stands up to the test of time a little better). Subsequent
films were quite disappointing, culminating in the atrocious Superman Returns, which despite being a love letter to Donner/Reeve Superman films, was the least super of all (and yes, I actually preferred Quest for Peace).
Anyway, Going in to MOS I'd heard about the death of Zod, and all the other stuff. I was expecting to hate it but....... the thrill returned.
This was Superman as he should be. I absolutely loved MOS, and it gets
better with every viewing.
As a die-hard Superman fan, I could accept MOS for what it was, and love it, yet still enjoy SMTM. Seems like critics couldn't do that.
So, two my questions to you, super fans are
- is SMTM actually better than MOS (screw the critics, what do you think ?)
- if it is better, what makes it better ?
How do these two, very different, versions of the same story stack up.
This is not intended to be a thread where people should feel the need defend MOS at all costs, or in the face of reasonable suggestions/opinions. If you preferred SMTM, I want to know why, and respect everyone's personal taste. If MOS was more your style, again, why ? Which is the better film, and as always, why ?
I don't like to use the term 'better' because it sounds too objective to me, but I'll state how I feel about these movies and which are easier to recommend to others.
1. Personally I don't get much out of SMTM. I prefer MOS by a mile. However, SMTM is a much more accessible and easily digestible film, so I'd probably recommend it to more people (who don't mind older films), whereas I'd probably only recommend MOS to patient moviegoers who get a lot out of action and epic cape shots.
2. SMTM's messages are clearer, happier, and there's more enjoyment that comes from humor and lighthearted human moments (such as Clark at the Daily Planet). It's not likely to turn you off, even if you're not loving the movie. For me, it just fiind the story to be very compelling. I didn't find the characters very likable/watchable, and, a lot of the style (costumes, etc) wasn't very 'cool' to me, and I never latched on to Clark's journey. Given that I didn't see this movie until a few years ago, the VFX didn't do anything for me either.
Whereas with Man of Steel, a lot of the enjoyment comes from being interested in its grandiose thematic ideas, which I was, while also connecting with the main character, which I did, following his emotional journey, and being invested enough so that when the action finally hits, you're still on board. (if you don't connect with Clark from the get-go, and if you don't get as much out of action (or cape porn), you probably won't find it to be very compelling, especially the last act). All the emotional moments hit much harder and truer in this movie. All the characters are more likable. All the action is more exciting.
As for why SMTM was more widely successful: in addition to its accessibility, it was also groundbreaking ("you will believe a man can fly", etc). It gave people an experience like they've never had before. (which is how I and a lot of other people felt about Man of Steel.)
One has fun and was the first of its kind, the other tries to be edgy and gritty, and tries to not be a comic book movie. It's like complaining about a new film not being considered better than Citizen Kane just because it has the advantage of having been released decades later and to have learned from the mistakes of past films.
From what I want from a Superman movie, no, SMTM is not better then MOS. Not by a longshot. However what the critics want from a Superman film as well as the public in general is different.
Critics and the general public want a boy scout Superman who is omnipotent. They want the movie to be full of humor and self-deprecating moments. And above all, it has to be simple. I cant believe there were critics complaining about the codex saying it made the film needlessly complex.
Tomorrow James Cameron could decide to remake Jurassic Park and follow the book more closely, meaning the film would be 'darker' and more adult. Overall the remake could possibly be better then the 1993 film, yet there will be a group of those chained by nostalgia who would never accept it as superior.
Critics for the most part are chained down by nostalgia. If you check their top movies of all time lists, you'll be hard pressed to find anything that came out within the past 30 years. They claim a film needs time to prove itself, but really? You need to wait 30 years before you can decide how good a film really is? No, the issue is these critics and many people have a tough time accepting anything new as better then what they cherished in the past. Again, nostalgia clouds their reasoning.
To many critics and fans Superman The Movie will always be the definitive Superman. The 30 year gap between a true reboot gave Man of Steel no chance at being universally accepted. Seriously, the whole time travel episode as well as 'Otis' automatically put Superman The Movie a step below Man of Steel. Its like the Kid from Superman Returns. Unless Man of Steel is utter garbage, the Kid issue prevents the film from being better.
Ask the hypocritical critics which Superman film is most deserving of a best picture nod. If their pride doesnt get in the way this would expose them quite easily.
SMTM did do some things better then Man of Steel. The romance between Clark and Lois was more interesting, and we got a better idea of how the public felt about Superman. Outside of that, I think Man of Steel did everything better, even the soundtrack was better overall.
Overall, I think the general public accepted Man of Steel. It's strong DVD and bluray sales seem to indicate that. What Zack Snyder made was a film that you could do more then like, you could love it. Too many comic book films today are like a blonde bimbo, a little interesting to look at but in the end they're very superficial and vain.
Now dont get me wrong, I can like an almost purely fun movie like the Avengers. In fact, I rate the Avengers ahead of Man of Steel because I feel that movie has a higher fun factor then almost anything I've ever seen. All of that overcomes Man of Steel's cerebral edge.
I don't think MOS is as "divisive" as people claim. It's not that people weren't ready for a modern re-interpretation of Superman, it's most likely that a lot of people were just bored out of their minds.
S:TM is just a better movie. Lex Luthor and his henchmen seem a little campy in hindsight but remember this was during an age where people weren't going into superhero movies expecting "realism" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Actually considering it's the first of it's kind, no one knew what to expect at all.
Superman the Movie was the first of its' kind. That's why it's remembered as a timeless classic and a lot of people can't shake that image of Superman out of their head. So when a new verison of the character comes along and it's not the Reeve copy, they get skeptical.
I find many of the moments in Superman the movie cringe worthy now, but it's still a classic.
I loved MOS, and so did many others. It won't go down as a timeless classic because it came at a time when superhero movies are the norm. It's still an awesome movie for those that enjoy it. It was one of the top selling home video releases this year, the majority enjoyed it.
I think it's the better movie because of the serious nature of the film. I can't watch Superman: The Movie over and over anymore, it's just too campy and doesn't hold up under my "aged" microscope. I get that comic book movies weren't supposed to be taken seriously, but every side character outside of Lois is a cookie cutter. Zero depth.
The action, the effects, the characters, I just like everything a bunch more in Man of Steel. I'm a fan of the "serious" comic book movie.
And because it's not as revolutionary or "new", i'm a superman fan and i dislike Reeves version, However i won't deny its impact and how much respect it deserves. Lots of people enjoy Michael Bay's Transformers too, that doesn't make them good movies, and just because The Man of Steel didn't have as many tasteless jokes doesn't mean it wasn't as dumb.
I think both movies are great. I do not think STM would work today. Well only the Krypton part stands the test of time. Afterwards the film gets old.
MOS aesthetically is the best Superman film ever made. As a story it's OK. But as an origin film I find it difficult to differentiate yourself as they tried so hard to do (may have been the film's downfall, though I love MOS).
Both are good. STM as a story would not be a classic if it came out today. Reeve was just so good and captivating. He carried that film.
Liking a film is technically not the same thing as thinking it was good, seems like many forget that, i like plenty of films that i know aren't good, that comes from my enjoyment, not the evaluation of how the film really is. I can say that i disliked The Sound of Music, but i would just be plain wrong if i said that was bad film.
Movies being "good" or not isn't a fact, it's objective from person to person.
Are you saying that The Room isn't objectivelly bad? Tastes can be subjective, but most films, expecially mainstream blockbusters, can be easily evaluated from multiple criteria. You can make a case for old classic films that are incredibly racist, like Birth of a Nation, or have a more subjective way of viewing most experimental films.
Superman the Movie was the first of its' kind. That's why it's remembered as a timeless classic and a lot of people can't shake that image of Superman out of their head. So when a new verison of the character comes along and it's not the Reeve copy, they get skeptical.
Well if that's the case shouldn't Batman have had the same problem then? Burton's Batman was a HUGE movie wasn't it? A classic in it's own right? How were so many people able to "shake" that image when The Dark Knight came along? Wasn't that also a "new" and modern interpretation of that same classic tale?
It's because The Dark Knight won people over. It's because it was a better movie. Whereas I believe too many people left Man Of Steel feeling indifferent. That movie didn't do for Superman what The Dark Knight did for Batman, although to be fair... Batman Begins wasn't exactly a colossal smash either and only time will tell what the Man Of Steel "sequel" will have in store.
Missing the point. Movies, just like any other form of art, are to be judged on both objective and subjective terms. Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad. Of course it can't be narrowed down in a factual sense, but one can still exercise their better judgment as well as their own preferences.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. Stuff like "This is Superman for the 21st century" isn't exactly what I'd call legitimate praise; that sort of commentary is far too vague and trite to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points. We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Missing the point. Movies, just like any other form of art, are to be judged on both objective and subjective terms. Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad. Of course it can't be narrowed down in a factual sense, but one can still exercise their better judgment as well as their own preferences.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. Stuff like "This is Superman for the 21st century" isn't exactly what I'd call legitimate praise; that sort of commentary is far too vague and trite to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points. We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Missing the point. Movies, just like any other form of art, are to be judged on both objective and subjective terms. Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad. Of course it can't be narrowed down in a factual sense, but one can still exercise their better judgment as well as their own preferences.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. Stuff like "This is Superman for the 21st century" isn't exactly what I'd call legitimate praise; that sort of commentary is far too vague and trite to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points. We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Missing the point. Movies, just like any other form of art, are to be judged on both objective and subjective terms. Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad. Of course it can't be narrowed down in a factual sense, but one can still exercise their better judgment as well as their own preferences.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. Stuff like "This is Superman for the 21st century" isn't exactly what I'd call legitimate praise; that sort of commentary is far too vague and trite to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points. We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
So the fan community is the only people guilty of this? Yeah right. Ask any critic and they'll tell you Gravity and All is Lost are two of the best films of the year, even though both are void of story and offer little more then decent acting and special effects. They obviously talk up the positives of their favorites while downplaying or outright ignoring the negatives, so why cant fans of Man of Steel? Or are only critics allowed to get away with it?
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
How does none of that make it good? Man of Steel finally gives us the top end action the character is capable of and we've always waited for, yet that shouldnt be seen as a positive? What should be then? The story? It has a better story then critical darlings like All is Lost and Gravity. Acting? Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburn, Russel Crowe werent any good? Character development? Again I recall very minimal if any development in Gravity and All is Lost. So just where exactly does Man of Steel fall so short?
Anyways, believe me, I noticed flaws in Man of Steel. I simply choose not to dwell on them, because theres so much this film did great the negatives got crushed under the weight of the positive.
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism.
No, no no, your getting it wrong. The people, like myself who think Man of Steel is one of the best comic book films ever simply didnt 'like' it, we loved it. Thats why we defend it so passionately.
I remember an early critic coming out a day before its public releasing talking about how he wanted to punch the young clark Kent character in the face for being too much of a crybaby. Knee jerk criticisms can go either way.
On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points.
The first half of this paragraph conflicts with the second half. You claim critics didnt care how much Man of Steel was like Superman the Movie, and then you go on to tell us how they compared them but 'it doesnt count because they featured the same character and it was only to illustrate certain points'. Sorry, but I dont buy for one second this idea of Superman The Movie not affecting the critical response to Man of Steel. You had everything like critics saying Chrisopher Reeve repsented the blue collar American more then the 'too good looking' GQ Henry Cavill. But let me guess, the comparision was made to just illustrate a point. Even if the Donner films never existed people would still be hating on Cavill for looking too good. Right?
We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
I gave Super Man The movie credit, didnt I? It had better romance and it gave us a better idea of what people think of Superman. I know of lots of people who cant stand the Donner films anymore after watching Man of Steel. That doesnt make the first 2 Donner films bad, I still like them, the 2nd more then the first, but still I dont think there anywhere near as good as Man of Steel.
Superman the Movie has so much nostalgia for me, I first saw it as a 3 or 4 year old (can't quite remember which) my Dad sat me down to watch it, it was Christmas time (think it might have been boxing day) and he said you'll like this. I just remember been blown away, the opening credits came out at me, Krypton was so beautiful, seeing the costume and him fly just made my jaw drop, it was such an amazing experience. One that has always stuck with me. Over time and as I got older I discovered more things I loved about this film and of course a few things I didn't care for as much as time went on but still its always been a film I've revisited over and over. Christopher Reeve will always be my childhood Superman, his performance in this film is legendary and he was a huge part of the reason I believed a man could fly. I won't get into my minir negatives if the film as I've mentioned them before. Its still a 9 out of 10 for me.
Where Man of Steel is concerned, I honestly don't think I've ever been so excited to see a film in all my life. Its amazing, the big thing for me was I finally got a Superman film with modern FX and I finally saw a live action Superman punch someone in the way he did in the comics. Henry Cavill was every bit as good as Christopher Reeve yet different. There are of course other reasons I love this film but again its something I've talked about before so I'm not gonna go into it. Its a 9.5 out if 10 for me, it beats Superman the Movie by a .5, its about as damn near perfect as a film gets for me. Its my favourite film of all-time with STM just behind it, and I don't think there's any shame in that.
Now I know that wasn't really the question but I don't really have any other way of answering it other than saying which one is the best for me.
Superman the Movie has so much nostalgia for me, I first saw it as a 3 or 4 year old (can't quite remember which) my Dad sat me down to watch it, it was Christmas time (think it might have been boxing day) and he said you'll like this. I just remember been blown away, the opening credits came out at me, Krypton was so beautiful, seeing the costume and him fly just made my jaw drop, it was such an amazing experience. One that has always stuck with me. Over time and as I got older I discovered more things I loved about this film and of course a few things I didn't care for as much as time went on but still its always been a film I've revisited over and over. Christopher Reeve will always be my childhood Superman, his performance in this film is legendary and he was a huge part of the reason I believed a man could fly. I won't get into my minir negatives if the film as I've mentioned them before. Its still a 9 out of 10 for me.
Where Man of Steel is concerned, I honestly don't think I've ever been so excited to see a film in all my life. Its amazing, the big thing for me was I finally got a Superman film with modern FX and I finally saw a live action Superman punch someone in the way he did in the comics. Henry Cavill was every bit as good as Christopher Reeve yet different. There are of course other reasons I love this film but again its something I've talked about before so I'm not gonna go into it. Its a 9.5 out if 10 for me, it beats Superman the Movie by a .5, its about as damn near perfect as a film gets for me. Its my favourite film of all-time with STM just behind it, and I don't think there's any shame in that.
Now I know that wasn't really the question but I don't really have any other way of answering it other than saying which one is the best for me.
Actually, that was exactly the question, you've answered precisely what I asked.
It feels weird quoting myself but ...
This is not intended to be a thread where people should feel the need defend MOS at all costs, or in the face of reasonable suggestions/opinions. If you preferred SMTM, I want to know why, and respect everyone's personal taste. If MOS was more your style, again, why ? Which is the better film, and as always, why ?
Missing the point. Movies, just like any other form of art, are to be judged on both objective and subjective terms. Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad. Of course it can't be narrowed down in a factual sense, but one can still exercise their better judgment as well as their own preferences....
.....On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points. We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Generally, I have great respect for Visualiza, so with that respect
I must say that if anyone has missed the point of this thread, it's you.
Nobody is crying foul here about unfavourable comparisons. In fact the whole point of the thread is to state your personal opinion and make that comparison IYO, unfavourable or favourable, it doesn't matter.
Again I feel weird quoting myself but....
This is not intended to be a thread where people should feel the need defend MOS at all costs, or in the face of reasonable suggestions/opinions. If you preferred SMTM, I want to know why, and respect everyone's personal taste. If MOS was more your style, again, why ? Which is the better film, and as always, why ?
So, the point of this thread was to state one's preference and why.
While I appreciate that sometimes the MOS fanbase can get fired up and
sometimes dogmatic, this isn't meant to be a debate about which is the
better film overall or whether MOS is a good film or not.
It's all about personal preference.
Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad.
Actually, personal preference IS the quintessential criterion for whether a movie is good or bad, to YOU. And within the context of this thread,
which is solely about personal preference, it is the only criterion that matters.
Some of the first posters got this, as did BH/HHH. In fact Feedona TreeFrog pretty much got it exactly right. I don't agree with Lord's post,
but his expression of opinion contrary to mine is completely valid and what this thread is all about.
My perception of what's happened here is that a thread for expression of opinion seems to have been temporarily hijacked by you taking a swipe at MOS fans. I don't have a problem with you stating contrary opinions, or if a question arises to which logic applies (and this thread ain't one of those) using that logic.
It is one thing to say that MOS fans tend to weigh their own opinion and enjoyment of the film above opinions that are critical of the film. That is a fair comment. It is also fair for you to point out what you perceive as weaknesses in the film -on which we can either agree or agree to disagree.
However, I do have a problem with you slagging off an entire fan community within the context of this thread. If it were called "MOS is the greatest movie ever made" or "MOS flawless masterpiece" then perhaps you might have an appropriate platform, but this thread isn't it.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.....
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. Stuff like "This is Superman for the 21st century" isn't exactly what I'd call legitimate praise; that sort of commentary is far too vague and trite to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such.
That would be a fair point, except that this thread's entire purpose was to
state what your favourite was, within a very limited context, the 2 Superman origin films.
In fact, "This is Superman for the 21st century" is a completely legitimate expression of opinion - I don't really feel the need to further explain that one, other than to say that for a Superman film in 2013 I think it represents 21st century sensibilities, well at least the sensibilities that matter, which are mine. If it's too trite and vague for you, too bad.
I agree that there is an admirable degree of honesty in talking about guilty pleasures.
For example, if I were asked if Pacific Rim was a great movie, for me personally I'd say yes, I loved it. If I were asked if I thought it was a great movie within the context of serious cinema, of course not. It's not the Godfather, or even Star Wars, but boy it's fun.
Do I think that MOS will go down in history as with the same kind of recognition that SMTM got, ( given it's status in western culture, I think we can say that SMTM is considered an "objectively" good film, more on that in a moment). Anyway, do I think MOS is one of the greatest films of all time, honestly no. However, is it probably going to be a long standing favourite of mine -and, to me, the best escapist cinema I've seen in ages. Absolutely yes.
On that note, people have thrown around the words "objective" and "subjective" and not completely correctly. In this context I would say that Subjectively means what you yourself think, objectively means what someone else in your position would think.
There is no objective thinking necessary for this thread, it's completely subjective - which film do you think is better, and why ?
There are a couple of comments you, Visualiza, made that didn't quite stack up to me, although it's possible I misunderstood them. However....
A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films
Other than it features, as you correctly pointed out, the same protagonist (although wildly different interpretations of him) and settings, I honestly don't believe MOS has much in common with the Donner films. In fact, what Snyder and co were trying to go for was something completely different, so it is....not like the Donner films - of which there were only 2, or 1 and a half, depending on whose story you believe.
Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of
On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points
Honestly, I don't see the distinction. if a critic compares the two films, which I agree makes perfect sense (they're essentially 2 versions of the same story), and finds one to be superior overall, then doesn't that imply that the inferior film is inferior because it's not like the first film ?
But anyway that's not the point of this reply. Why don't you do what this
thread was set up to do, and state which film you prefer, SMTM or MOS and why ? If you didn't like either of them feel free to share your opinion on that too.
But if you want to attack the preferences of others, then do it elsewhere.
Much respect to you as well, my friend, but I think your assertion that I have derailed this thread is a bit unfounded. While it's true that I didn't reply to the topic at hand, my post was clearly directed towards DorneyDave's insinuation that if one likes something, then that must mean that it's good. To me, the idea that a prerequisite for responding to a thread should be contingent on rigid relevance to the OP and the OP alone stifles the free-flowing nature of discussion. On that note, I sincerely apologize if I've offended you or anyone else; that wasn't my intention, and I simply saw a post I honestly disagreed with and responded in kind.
The latter half of my post was admittedly a tangent, but with regard to the former, the point I'm trying to get across is that there's more to judging art than personal preference alone. Now, I'm about to go off on yet another tangent, so I'll zip it up into some spoiler tags and you can read at your own discretion.
Alright, since it seems that my food comparison fell on deaf ears, I'll present it in a different context with a bit more relevance - photography. Be advised that this is something of an extreme example to drive the point home.
So let's say I have a friend whose favorite photo is a portrait they keep on Instagram. This photo is taken with a low resolution phone, features a crooked composition, distracting elements in both the foreground and background (coma, flare, chromatic aberration, dirt, dust, take your pick), has uneven/poor lighting, is slightly out of focus, has poor contrast, inaccurate colors, and is riddled with digital noise.
Now let's say I show this friend another portrait of the same subject that was taken and processed by an adept photographer. This particular photo has a very high resolution, a pleasing and balanced composition, has the eyes & face in perfect focus, achieves excellent subject/background separation, features pleasing OOF highlights, has soft & even lighting, is noise-free, balanced and rhythmic, and features rich & vibrant, yet believable colors.
My friend declares that the Instagram image is still his/her favorite, and then goes on to assert that said photo is the superior of the two. The former I find to be perfectly reasonable and human, but wouldn't you agree, even slightly, that the latter is just the least bit self-absorbed? Aside from that, doesn't that show blatant irreverence towards something that was clearly given a greater degree of care, artistry, and consideration?
Again, this was an extreme example, but this isn't me saying that preference is all for naught or in some way secondary to established standards, but I do believe that there should be some semblance of balance when engaging in discussion and passing judgment. I really don't think that's unreasonable. I'm also not saying that commonly accepted standards and principles aren't open to interpretation either, because hey, that's a matter of perspective and discretion, and every individual will bring their own unique perspective to the table when evaluating something. All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to temper personal preferences with a degree of respect and appreciation for established, proven standards when evaluating and comparing different things.
Last thing I'll address before moving on to the topic of your OP:
Honestly, I don't see the distinction. if a critic compares the two films, which I agree makes perfect sense (they're essentially 2 versions of the same story), and finds one to be superior overall, then doesn't that imply that the inferior film is inferior because it's not like the first film ?
Not at all. The point of comparison (and in this sense, contrast), at least in my eyes, is not to declare that one thing should be more like the other, but to demonstrate that one is superlative due to superior execution of a particular element or dynamic. For example, when I say that the dialogue in MoS is worse than that of STM, that isn't arbitrarily because one didn't ape the other, but because the execution of one was simply better than the other. In MoS, I found the dialogue to be trite, forced, unnatural, contrived, and creatively lacking, thus it was uninteresting. STM, on the other hand, featured dialogue that I found to be natural, clever, and complementary to the character interactions, thus it was both interesting and entertaining. None of this implies that one should have been like the other, rather it demonstrates poor execution vs successful execution. It's entirely feasible for one to be completely different from the other, but then that erodes the value of comparison somewhat if the subjects are too different. I could compare the dialogue between Clark & Lois to that of Robin Hood & Maid Marian, and while it's still fundamentally similar (hero & love interest vs hero & love interest), I think we can all agree that two versions of the same thing will usually provide for more relevant comparison...way too far off track now but I hope I've been clear.
I'll address the topic at hand since you were good enough to extend me the same courtesy.
You know that I don't hold MoS in very high regard, and I'll go as far as to say that it was awful. With that said, I'm not as enamored with STM as some others, but I do appreciate the things it did well. We've chatted a bit about some of this before, so I'll just cover the broad strokes:
Story - MoS attempted to juggle so many elements unnsuccessfully, and to the point of convolution. Far too many subplots, devices, and themes were introduced and not given due exploration and/or resolution. The plot buckled under the burden of unnecessary and ill-conceived complexity. Again, we've discussed this before, so I'll assume you know what I'm referring to.
STM adeptly handled its much simpler story, for the most part. Understand that I'm not saying that simpler = better, because in all fairness, some simple movies just suck, as do others that suffer from needless complexity. However, I will point out that STM had plenty of plates to spin as well, the difference here is that the writing was superior overall, and most of what was featured seamlessly integrated into the plot.
The Hero - ...or the lack thereof in the case of MoS. I don't feel like we were shown enough of Clark's personality in the film. Not only were his speaking lines sparse and unremarkable, but he didn't do much interacting with other characters when he shared scenes with them. Far too often, he would defer to others and was relegated to being a sounding board for their preaching and exposition.
In STM, the protagonist was indeed the Big Blue Boyscout, but he embodied that distinction so as to be convincing. The dialogue and interactions, the failings of MoS, were what reinforced the effectiveness of the hero in S'78 for me. He wasn't constantly upstaged by everyone he shared the screen with, he had character and convictions all his own that the director was never coy about conveying to the audience, and Reeve owned it throughout the duration. Whether it was his playful, witty repartee with Lois or his unwavering confidence in the face of his nemesis, Superman's values and personality were expertly communicated to the audience.
Dialogue I've already covered in a previous comparison, but add that one to the STM column as well.
Action/Heroics This is a biggie. No matter how refined we all love to think our taste in film may be, this is ultimately why we watch superhero movies. With that said, action and heroics must be earned; it needs to seamlessly fit into the beats of the plot and have a sense of relevance and gravity. Unadultered action is every bit as bad as thoughtless slapstick and cheap scares; I've said this many times before. It's also not the amount or length that matters, it's the context, execution, and impact. In terms of visual splendor and choreography, it's easy to make a case for MoS. The action was big, beautiful, and bombastic, but due to the poor writing and characterizations, the impact of the action scenes suffered as a result. In this respect, the comparisons to Transformers aren't completely unfounded. Even so, I'll go a step further and say that Transformers was superior in the sense that there were actual stakes involved for the individual combatants. In MoS, we saw repetitive scenes of super people smashing into one another seemingly to no avail. There was never any risk of injury, exhaustion, or exertion in the battles; it all seemed very much like video game characters with endless lifebars wailing on one another to no avail. Then there were really silly scenes like the world engine tentacle bit, which struck me as little more than excessive, contrived spectacle.
By contrast, the heroics from '78 were reinforced by Superman's strong character and screen presence, and his values made his willingness to rescue ordinary citizens convincing and engrossing. Did it all look as cool as the more modern, big budget adaptation? Of course not, but as I alluded to earlier, there's more to it than "Superman gets to punch people all over the place" for me. Even his trek to avert the Jersey missile and save the west coast had a greater sense of urgency than the similar world engine sequence. The baggage from Lex's little girlfriend may have been a cheaply inserted plot device, but it was still effective as it reinforced Superman's uncompromising moral compass, as well as giving the audience a sense of his compassion. Again, not as visually impressive from a spectacle point of view, but more effective in how it contributes to the movie.
Went into a bit more detail than I initially intended, so not quite the broad strokes as I said earlier, but by and large, this is how I would weigh one film against the other. About the only area in which I find Man of Steel superior is visual aesthetics. He's never looked better on the big screen, and that S symbol is the best design I've seen across all mediums. That's about where it starts and ends, however, as Superman '78 is superior in about every other way for me.
Much respect to you as well, my friend, but I think your assertion that I have derailed this thread is a bit unfounded. While it's true that I didn't reply to the topic at hand, my post was clearly directed towards DorneyDave's insinuation that if one likes something, then that must mean that it's good. To me, the idea that a prerequisite for responding to a thread should be contingent on rigid relevance to the OP and the OP alone stifles the free-flowing nature of discussion. On that note, I sincerely apologize if I've offended you or anyone else; that wasn't my intention, and I simply saw a post I honestly disagreed with and responded in kind.
The latter half of my post was admittedly a tangent, but with regard to the former, the point I'm trying to get across is that there's more to judging art than personal preference alone. Now, I'm about to go off on yet another tangent, so I'll zip it up into some spoiler tags and you can read at your own discretion.
Alright, since it seems that my food comparison fell on deaf ears, I'll present it in a different context with a bit more relevance - photography. Be advised that this is something of an extreme example to drive the point home.
So let's say I have a friend whose favorite photo is a portrait they keep on Instagram. This photo is taken with a low resolution phone, features a crooked composition, distracting elements in both the foreground and background (coma, flare, chromatic aberration, dirt, dust, take your pick), has uneven/poor lighting, is slightly out of focus, has poor contrast, inaccurate colors, and is riddled with digital noise.
Now let's say I show this friend another portrait of the same subject that was taken and processed by an adept photographer. This particular photo has a very high resolution, a pleasing and balanced composition, has the eyes & face in perfect focus, achieves excellent subject/background separation, features pleasing OOF highlights, has soft & even lighting, is noise-free, balanced and rhythmic, and features rich & vibrant, yet believable colors.
My friend declares that the Instagram image is still his/her favorite, and then goes on to assert that said photo is the superior of the two. The former I find to be perfectly reasonable and human, but wouldn't you agree, even slightly, that the latter is just the least bit self-absorbed? Aside from that, doesn't that show blatant irreverence towards something that was clearly given a greater degree of care, artistry, and consideration?
Again, this was an extreme example, but this isn't me saying that preference is all for naught or in some way secondary to established standards, but I do believe that there should be some semblance of balance when engaging in discussion and passing judgment. I really don't think that's unreasonable. I'm also not saying that commonly accepted standards and principles aren't open to interpretation either, because hey, that's a matter of perspective and discretion, and every individual will bring their own unique perspective to the table when evaluating something. All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to temper personal preferences with a degree of respect and appreciation for established, proven standards when evaluating and comparing different things.
Last thing I'll address before moving on to the topic of your OP:
Not at all. The point of comparison (and in this sense, contrast), at least in my eyes, is not to declare that one thing should be more like the other, but to demonstrate that one is superlative due to superior execution of a particular element or dynamic. For example, when I say that the dialogue in MoS is worse than that of STM, that isn't arbitrarily because one didn't ape the other, but because the execution of one was simply better than the other. In MoS, I found the dialogue to be trite, forced, unnatural, contrived, and creatively lacking, thus it was uninteresting. STM, on the other hand, featured dialogue that I found to be natural, clever, and complementary to the character interactions, thus it was both interesting and entertaining. None of this implies that one should have been like the other, rather it demonstrates poor execution vs successful execution. It's entirely feasible for one to be completely different from the other, but then that erodes the value of comparison somewhat if the subjects are too different. I could compare the dialogue between Clark & Lois to that of Robin Hood & Maid Marian, and while it's still fundamentally similar (hero & love interest vs hero & love interest), I think we can all agree that two versions of the same thing will usually provide for more relevant comparison...way too far off track now but I hope I've been clear.
I'll address the topic at hand since you were good enough to extend me the same courtesy.
You know that I don't hold MoS in very high regard, and I'll go as far as to say that it was awful. With that said, I'm not as enamored with STM as some others, but I do appreciate the things it did well. We've chatted a bit about some of this before, so I'll just cover the broad strokes:
Story - MoS attempted to juggle so many elements unnsuccessfully, and to the point of convolution. Far too many subplots, devices, and themes were introduced and not given due exploration and/or resolution. The plot buckled under the burden of unnecessary and ill-conceived complexity. Again, we've discussed this before, so I'll assume you know what I'm referring to.
STM adeptly handled its much simpler story, for the most part. Understand that I'm not saying that simpler = better, because in all fairness, some simple movies just suck, as do others that suffer from needless complexity. However, I will point out that STM had plenty of plates to spin as well, the difference here is that the writing was superior overall, and most of what was featured seamlessly integrated into the plot.
The Hero - ...or the lack thereof in the case of MoS. I don't feel like we were shown enough of Clark's personality in the film. Not only were his speaking lines sparse and unremarkable, but he didn't do much interacting with other characters when he shared scenes with them. Far too often, he would defer to others and was relegated to being a sounding board for their preaching and exposition.
In STM, the protagonist was indeed the Big Blue Boyscout, but he embodied that distinction so as to be convincing. The dialogue and interactions, the failings of MoS, were what reinforced the effectiveness of the hero in S'78 for me. He wasn't constantly upstaged by everyone he shared the screen with, he had character and convictions all his own that the director was never coy about conveying to the audience, and Reeve owned it throughout the duration. Whether it was his playful, witty repartee with Lois or his unwavering confidence in the face of his nemesis, Superman's values and personality were expertly communicated to the audience.
Dialogue I've already covered in a previous comparison, but add that one to the STM column as well.
Action/Heroics This is a biggie. No matter how refined we all love to think our taste in film may be, this is ultimately why we watch superhero movies. With that said, action and heroics must be earned; it needs to seamlessly fit into the beats of the plot and have a sense of relevance and gravity. Unadultered action is every bit as bad as thoughtless slapstick and cheap scares; I've said this many times before. It's also not the amount or length that matters, it's the context, execution, and impact. In terms of visual splendor and choreography, it's easy to make a case for MoS. The action was big, beautiful, and bombastic, but due to the poor writing and characterizations, the impact of the action scenes suffered as a result. In this respect, the comparisons to Transformers aren't completely unfounded. Even so, I'll go a step further and say that Transformers was superior in the sense that there were actual stakes involved for the individual combatants. In MoS, we saw repetitive scenes of super people smashing into one another seemingly to no avail. There was never any risk of injury, exhaustion, or exertion in the battles; it all seemed very much like video game characters with endless lifebars wailing on one another to no avail. Then there were really silly scenes like the world engine tentacle bit, which struck me as little more than excessive, contrived spectacle.
By contrast, the heroics from '78 were reinforced by Superman's strong character and screen presence, and his values made his willingness to rescue ordinary citizens convincing and engrossing. Did it all look as cool as the more modern, big budget adaptation? Of course not, but as I alluded to earlier, there's more to it than "Superman gets to punch people all over the place" for me. Even his trek to avert the Jersey missile and save the west coast had a greater sense of urgency than the similar world engine sequence. The baggage from Lex's little girlfriend may have been a cheaply inserted plot device, but it was still effective as it reinforced Superman's uncompromising moral compass, as well as giving the audience a sense of his compassion. Again, not as visually impressive from a spectacle point of view, but more effective in how it contributes to the movie.
Went into a bit more detail than I initially intended, so not quite the broad strokes as I said earlier, but by and large, this is how I would weigh one film against the other. About the only area in which I find Man of Steel superior is visual aesthetics. He's never looked better on the big screen, and that S symbol is the best design I've seen across all mediums. That's about where it starts and ends, however, as Superman '78 is superior in about every other way for me.
Apology accepted. I suppose I don't take issue with what you said, more with how you said it.
Fair call that rigid adherence to OP is undesirable, and a bit stifling, I'm guessing that any thread with over 100 posts is unlikely to resemble the original discussion.
Thank you for sharing your opinion on SMTM vs MOS. Those are some very valid comparisons. I don't necessarily agree - and I watched SMTM shortly after seeing MOS to make a mental comparison ( as a huge fan of SMTM), but that doesn't matter. I might not see the flaws in MOS to the same degree that you do, but I respect your opinion - you are far from alone in asserting that there a lot of things that could have been better about MOS. Fortunately, it's just a movie (after all) and something that
we can all happily agree to disagree on, and move forward.
I must say though, what's interesting is how the same scene can come
across very differently to two people.
E.g. in the Smallville fight, I actually did think there was a sense of tension, as the Kryptonians beat the crap out of Superman, until Faora decides to squash the Army, it's not until Supes can take them on one at a time does he gain any ground. I felt like he really had to fight for his survival, and there was serious sense of threat.
The "Battle of Smallville" I felt was the best action sequence in the film (although I also really enjoyed the Kryptonian civil war scenes) In contrast, I thought that Superman v Zod felt a bit shapeless and chaotic, and could have used a bit more choreography - I can see how people get a Michael Bay/transformers vibe from that.
You saw this differently, but that doesn't make either of us wrong, after all
this is completely about personal preference.
Strangely though, for reasons that defy rationality, I still had a quite an emotional connection with the film, and the character of Clark Kent. (there were a couple of lines I would have dropped, were I in Snyder's chair -really when in Superman-mode Cavill did his best work by keeping his mouth shut) but otherwise I loved it. For whatever reason, or perhaps for no reason, it really worked for me. I'm mildly surprised it didn't get a nod from the Academy, for best special effects.
Anyway, thanks again for posting your comparison, it's great to hear people's opinions, particularly when they put as much thought into it as you do.
Oh right I thought you wanted to know the why of one been a classic and the other having divided fan opinion but glad I answered correctly t:
One thing I've noticed in the modern day is some people think you have to tear one down to say how much you love the other and that is just wrong to me. I personally love both movies and I'm very happy that I have what are two near perfect Superman films to me. I especially didn't want to get into the negatives if why the score for both wasn't a 10 as I want to concentrate on the positives. The internet has become an extremely negative place.
Superman the Movie and Man of Steel essentially cover the same ground, yet one is remembered as a timeless classic, and the other divided fans and critics alike. The big question is WHY ????????
Hanging out there, like the phantom zone, is this idea that somehow
SMTM is qualitatively better than MOS.
Personally, I don't buy it for a second. SMTM was great in its time,
but 1978 was a different world. MOS is how Superman SHOULD appear
in the 21st century.
Now SMTM is probably the most important film of my childhood, as I saw it in the cinemas, as an 8 year old. Coming out of that film I felt like I could fly, the thrill was indescribable.
I watched SMTM again, just after seeing MOS, and the thrill was still there. Well deserving of its 93% on RT (despite arguably the lamest resolution to the central crisis ever....he flies around the world and turns back time, OFFS ? , but who cares ! SMTM is still mega-awesome).
Superman II was awesome as well (although IMO doesn't date as well, whereas SMTM stands up to the test of time a little better). Subsequent
films were quite disappointing, culminating in the atrocious Superman Returns, which despite being a love letter to Donner/Reeve Superman films, was the least super of all (and yes, I actually preferred Quest for Peace).
Anyway, Going in to MOS I'd heard about the death of Zod, and all the other stuff. I was expecting to hate it but....... the thrill returned.
This was Superman as he should be. I absolutely loved MOS, and it gets
better with every viewing.
As a die-hard Superman fan, I could accept MOS for what it was, and love it, yet still enjoy SMTM. Seems like critics couldn't do that.
So, two my questions to you, super fans are
- is SMTM actually better than MOS (screw the critics, what do you think ?)
- if it is better, what makes it better ?
How do these two, very different, versions of the same story stack up.
This is not intended to be a thread where people should feel the need defend MOS at all costs, or in the face of reasonable suggestions/opinions. If you preferred SMTM, I want to know why, and respect everyone's personal taste. If MOS was more your style, again, why ? Which is the better film, and as always, why ?
after half a year, i can make my fair assessment now.
i love both movies but i think SMTM is slightly better than MOS.
even though SMTM has a lot of campiness, especially the villains and no much character development in the superman himself; (i mean after clark goes to metropolis, we basically don't see his life anymore) while in MOS we see some of clark's personal life, his warm moment with his mother and the development of friendship with Lois. but i'm still more connected with SMTM and touched and wowed by it more.
maybe it's the fun and possible tune in SMTM.
maybe it's because Christopher Reeve was playing superman in STM, while Henry Cavill is still an alien trying to fit in.
or maybe the story of MOS isn't complete to introduce superman into the world.
after half a year, i can make my fair assessment now.
i love both movies but i think SMTM is slightly better than MOS.
even though SMTM has a lot of campiness, especially the villains and no much character development in the superman himself; (i mean after clark goes to metropolis, we basically don't see his life anymore) while in MOS we see some of clark's personal life, his warm moment with his mother and the development of friendship with Lois. but i'm still more connected with SMTM and touched and wowed by it more.
That's a good point. That's certainly stuff that I enjoyed more in MOS, as it made Superman a bit more relatable. As for the campiness, it was 1978, I'm not sure a darker, serious Superman would have worked then. The 70's had a lot of dark and serious films - but the escapist films (eg. this is 1 year after Star Wars, and 2 years before Raiders of the Lost Arc) had a lot of light moments. Wow, that was a great time in cinema.
SMTM certainly is fun. I watched it again, after MOS, to see if I would like it any less - nope, it's still awesome, although the ending still bugs me. Christopher Reeve really owned the role, in fact in the movies that came after, that were pretty crappy, he was the one thing that was always good.
I LOVE both. S:TM is no more "a camp Schumacher fever dream" any more than MOS was a "pretentious film afraid of it's comic book roots" (Really?)
Both are, to my eyes, GREAT feature film adaptations of a Pop Culture icon done with great care and attention. Quite frankly, both are great bookends that encompass much of the grandeur, coolness and fun of Superman. I saw Chris Reeve in 1978 when I was 2 yrs old and this summer I paid to see Henry Cavil as Superman 6 times in the theater. Both work big time for me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
t:
