Superman TM 1978 vs Man of Steel 2013, was the world ready, what do you think?

[sf2]

So let them make their "JLA" movie. Great. But to have Superman as 'one of the superheroes' in his own sequel? Why? I don't remember any a-list superhero having a superhero co-star, let alone two, in his own sequel.

we will only find it out in 2016.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Oh yeah, and on top of that it's delayed as soon as it was announced.

 

[Wildcard]

we will only find it out in 2016.

I don't think it'll be bad like people are thinking it'll be...or at least I hope it isn't. I want them to not pull a TDKR, & have Clark/Superman with the least amount of screen-time.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

So let them make their "JLA" movie. Great. But to have Superman as 'one of the superheroes' in his own sequel? Why? I don't remember any a-list superhero having a superhero co-star, let alone two, in his own sequel.

So JLA is okay with you, but not Batman/Superman?

Regardless if this is primarily a Superman movie, a Batman/Superman movie, or a JLA prequel, it will still be considered the sequel to MOS if it picks up from where the last movie left off.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

So JLA is okay with you, but not Batman/Superman?

And regardless if this is primarily a Superman movie, a Batman/Superman movie, or a JLA prequel, it will still be considered the sequel to MOS if it picks up from where the last movie left off.

I'm saying they should call it a JLA movie, as it seems that's what it is. Because Avengers was not a Captain America sequel, just because it picked up where the previous one left off?

But to make a sequel for an a-list superhero like Superman, and feeling like he needs two other a-list superheroes to keep it interesting is just insulting. Maybe I'm wrong and it won't be the way I say it, but I can't imagine any movie with Batman (let alone him AND Wonder Woman) that's going to be like any other a-list (even b-list) superhero sequel, where the superhero is, you know, the only star.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Well The Avengers is a sequel to Captain America. It's also a sequel to Thor, IM2, and TIH.

IM3 and Thor TDW are sequels to the Avengers.

But regardless, even if this is primarily Superman's movie, there are plenty of Superman comics that feature other league members. Superman: For Tomorrow, Funeral for a Friend, Red Son, etc.

TDKReturns, a Batman story, features Superman and Green Arrow, and it's considered to be one of the best Batman stories, not a Justice League story.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Well The Avengers is a sequel to Captain America. It's also a sequel to Thor, IM2, and TIH.

IM3 and Thor TDW are sequels to the Avengers.

Absolutely correct. But Avengers was not called "Iron Man 2.5/Thor 1.5/The Incredible Hulk 1.5/Captain America 1.5," was it? Nor were Thor 2 called "Avengers 2."

That's what I'm saying.

But regardless, even if this is primarily Superman's movie, there are plenty of Superman comics that feature other league members. Superman: For Tomorrow, Funeral for a Friend, Red Son, etc.

TDKReturns, a Batman story, features Superman and Green Arrow, and it's considered to be one of the best Batman stories, not a Justice League story.

They're not movies, are they?

Because comics often have other characters, or team-ups because they can do it. They have plenty of time and space to develop all of them.

But you don't find any other superheroes in superhero's sequels (other than cameos) because it's a different medium and they have like three movies to develop everything about the main character.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Absolutely correct. But Avengers was not called "Iron Man 2.5/Thor 1.5/The Incredible Hulk 1.5/Captain America 1.5," was it? Nor were Thor 2 called "Avengers 2."

That's what I'm saying.

That's just a semantical argument. Thor TDW is very much a sequel to The Avengers. The Thor story makes no sense if you go from Thor to Thor TDW. Same with IM3.

If this movie was called "Trinity" or "Justice League" and was an ensemble piece, I could still see WB calling it the sequel to Man of Steel, just like if Iron Man and Iron Man 2 were the only movies in the MCU, I could see Marvel referring to The Avengers as the sequel to Iron Man 2.

Besides, this hasn't been called Man of Steel 2 either. But even if it was, the presence of other heroes is fine.

They're not movies, are they?

Because comics often have other characters, or team-ups because they can do it. They have plenty of time and space to develop all of them.

But you don't find any other superheroes in superhero's sequels (other than cameos) because it's a different medium and they have like three movies to develop everything about the main character.

Robin in Batman Forever
Nightcrawler, Pyro, etc in X2
Kitty Pryde, Beast, Angel, etc in X-Men TLS
Black Widow, War Machine in IM2
War Machine in IM3
Black Widow, Falcon in Cap: TWS
Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, War Machine in Avengers AOU

 

[Lord]

So critics are always right, lol. Critics, and even the audience, routinely get it wrong.

No, are you saying critics are allways wrong? exagerating a post opinion can be done both ways And yes, some things critics and the audience get wrong, you should have used better examples like Metropolis or The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. But who says that the positive opinion of The Man of Steel isn't as wrong either? online critics like Red Letter Media and Nostalgia Critic don't have an agenda, yet they keep finding problems in that film too, though RLM's review is probably better, since NC has some nostalgia for classic superman.

Fast & Furious 6 (I liked Fast 5) is objectively a poor, generic and lazy film, yet it was received pretty well by critics and the audience.

I think that has to do with critics starting to accept dumber action films when they do lots of action scenes with real cars and stuff, instead of doing everything on the computer. I'm not saying they're right on giving it such good reviews, in the begining of the century i believe they would have been more negative, as is evidenced by the Mummy and Bad Boys films.

Did Disney's 'Up' ever get criticized for 'bulls****g' as you call it? Thats probably the worst offender, yet critics and the audience swallowed it whole without chewing.

Because Up had a lot of character development in those first minutes and it was a very well told short story. Bull****g isn't that, bull****g is like when Gordon starts saying to the audience what the dark knight is, or when Jor-El starts telling Superman how he is a messiah and we mere humans will walk with him under the sun Or when Superman gets a power boost in order to destroy a ship, with the help of some emotional background music, when it was an easy way out for the script in handling that problem.

Very few films approach perfection...I could perhaps name just 5, if that. I just find it interesting films like Avatar can get so much praise for their visuals and despite a weak story and characters still get received well critically, but Zack Snyder is continually bashed for his visuals and story and characters. He gets no credit for anything. This is why I feel Snyder has a stigma to him now, an undeserved one, and anything he puts out will be looked at with a critical eye instead of a welcoming one.

I don't agree with all the reception Avatar got, but did Man of Steel change anything in cinema technology? Did it show anything actually new to cinema that isn't about seeing a certain characters full powers? Zack Snyder has style, he just doesn't know how to use it properly

 

[Senator Pleasury]

That's just a semantical argument. Thor TDW is very much a sequel to The Avengers. The Thor story makes no sense if you go from Thor to Thor TDW. Same with IM3.

Yes. That's not the point though.

If this movie was called "Trinity" or "Justice League" and was an ensemble piece, I could still see WB calling it the sequel to Man of Steel, just like if Iron Man and Iron Man 2 were the only movies in the MCU, I could see Marvel referring to The Avengers as the sequel to Iron Man 2.

Besides, this hasn't been called Man of Steel 2 either. But even if it was, the presence of other heroes is fine.

Well, Marvel never referred to Avengers as Iron man 3. There might be a reason why.

Robin in Batman Forever
Nightcrawler, Pyro, etc in X2
Kitty Pryde, Beast, Angel, etc in X-Men TLS
Black Widow, War Machine in IM2
War Machine in IM3
Black Widow, Falcon in Cap: TWS
Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, War Machine in Avengers AOU

Hah. Do you also think that the Human Torch was a guest superhero in the Fantastic Four movies? Come on. Robin is part of Batman, War Machine is part of Iron Man. Characters like Black Widow started as a secondary character in the Iron Man comics, and was treated as such in the Iron man movies. It's nowhere near the relevance of a-list superheroes like Batman or Wonder Woman, who started with their own comics from the get-go.

 

[sf2]

I'm saying they should call it a JLA movie, as it seems that's what it is. Because Avengers was not a Captain America sequel, just because it picked up where the previous one left off?

But to make a sequel for an a-list superhero like Superman, and feeling like he needs two other a-list superheroes to keep it interesting is just insulting. Maybe I'm wrong and it won't be the way I say it, but I can't imagine any movie with Batman (let alone him AND Wonder Woman) that's going to be like any other a-list (even b-list) superhero sequel, where the superhero is, you know, the only star.

So BvS or whatever they name it is an insulting movie to superman???

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Yeah, I don't get it.... The Superman/Batman dynamic would be an awesome thing to see on screen.

 

[Batmannerism]

I'm saying they should call it a JLA movie, as it seems that's what it is. Because Avengers was not a Captain America sequel, just because it picked up where the previous one left off?

But to make a sequel for an a-list superhero like Superman, and feeling like he needs two other a-list superheroes to keep it interesting is just insulting. Maybe I'm wrong and it won't be the way I say it, but I can't imagine any movie with Batman (let alone him AND Wonder Woman) that's going to be like any other a-list (even b-list) superhero sequel, where the superhero is, you know, the only star.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, it doesn't look like an MOS sequel, more like a JLA, well actually a Trinity film, which IMHO isn't such a bad idea.

Based on current trends, jumping straight into a JLA film doesn't appear to the be the best way to introduce a new Batman, or a new Wonder Woman, or Green Lantern or Flash but maybe WB should follow a different path than Marvel/Disney has.

You can't fault the Marvel folks, whether you liked their lead-up films or not (and Iron Man is pretty hard not to like, the first one at least) they really set the stage for Avengers.
That approach worked for Marvel, but that doesn't mean its the only way for DC/WB to go.

I kind of see where you're coming from if you see it as insulting, the implication that Superman needs 2 other big names to make a sequel to MOS interesting. That does seem like a bit of a slight. So maybe this film won't really be a direct MOS sequel, but it can still be a logical, and more importantly, enjoyable, follow up.


Personally, I would have preferred a solo MOS sequel, with another classic Superman villain(s), before a team up, even with Batman, but if the upcoming film is well done, I won't be complaining.

Anyway, a Trinity movie could be a good thing, 3 main characters sharing the big screen, that could work. I'm still not convinced with the casting of Gal Gadot for WW, but that's moot now.

Whether it's just the DC trinity, or includes the whole 6 or seven JLA members, either way could work as a follow up from MOS.
It all comes down to casting and good writing.
Ensemble casts work (when they're done right) and in every ensemble cast you have your stars and supporting roles (Avengers seemed to mostly revolve around Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, with everyone else in supporting roles, even the Hulk). Similar story for the X-men films.

No reason we can't have a hugely enjoyable JLA film with Superman and Batfleck as the main characters and everyone else backing them up (the Fast and Furious films are a great example of this, as was Inception, and like I said Avengers revolved mostly around Iron Man, Thor and Cap, and to a lesser extent the Hulk).

I had a point somewhere in there, I think it was this.... really it doesn't matter whether you see it as an MOS sequel or first DC hero-team feature, as long as it's good and we enjoy it that's all that matters.


As for the original intent of the thread, was the world ready ?

Let's review where we seem to be at:

Opinions seem wildly divided,

There seems to be some agreement that MOS hasn't been as well received as STM, and some suggestion that it won't stand the test of time, the way STM has (although those opinions are of course disputed)

At one end some say it wasn't the world that wasn't ready, it was the film that was seriously flawed.

At the other end, people believe that MOS was cinematic magic and that the public were too stuck on STM (let's face it, they probably weren't holding fast to Superman III or IV or Superman Returns, as the definitive iterations of the character), or at least weren't ready to see a different version of Superman, who's a bit more with current trends in Superhero cinema. As such, maybe MOS was misunderstood.

Somewhere in the middle are those who enjoyed both films, and aren't really all that worried about critical consensus or public perception.

Personally, I loved MOS, and still love STM, and while I can admit that MOS didn't get the same universal acclaim as STM, I still think it made an impact -particularly as it seems to have divided fans, and critics (in terms of loving/hating the film), Not really the impact I was hoping for, but an impact nonetheless. Who knows, maybe in the long run that divisiveness, and the strong feelings it generates will keep MOS around for a long time? I've already heard suggestions to the contrary, but really who knows ?

 

[The Endless]

Man of Steel gave me what I wanted to see in terms of action scenes.

But Donner's film still is the best in terms of characterisation of Supes, for me.

I liked how MoS tried to go a little deeper, don't get me wrong. And I loved the opening scenes on Krypton. But it just seemed a little bit too po-faced and serious. There was no real charm. It wasn't a film that made you feel all warm inside like Donner's. And for me that is what a Superman movie should do.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Man of Steel definitely made me "feel all warm inside" as well. It's not present throughout the entire movie (like in the climax), but I think all the 'bad' makes the 'good' feel that much more powerful when it comes, especially in the last scene.

SMTM has more smiles and charm per minute,
MOS has more heart overall IMO.

 

[Batmannerism]

Man of Steel gave me what I wanted to see in terms of action scenes.

But Donner's film still is the best in terms of characterisation of Supes, for me.

I liked how MoS tried to go a little deeper, don't get me wrong. And I loved the opening scenes on Krypton. But it just seemed a little bit too po-faced and serious. There was no real charm. It wasn't a film that made you feel all warm inside like Donner's. And for me that is what a Superman movie should do.

Fair point, and very balanced -with both films' strengths.

To be honest, I think it was a deliberate decision, not to go for charm.

For starters, nobody could out-charm Chris Reeve as Superman or Clark Kent, not going to happen (Brandon Routh tried to imitate it, and it didn't work at all).

Second, I think the hook Snyder and co were going for, to get the audience to invest in Kal/Clark, was his depiction as a very ordinary (Bud-drinking, NFL watching, helping mom with the dishes and doing blue collar jobs) guy, with an extra-ordinary secret -and his struggle to find his place in the world. Of course, did that work ? For some people (like myself) yes,
for many others, no.

In terms of warmth, IMO there was plenty of warmth in the scenes between Clark and Martha, and the flashbacks of his childhood.

But all this is just IMO, as MOS really worked for me, but I can totally see
how it would not work for others. I applaud Snyder and co for having the balls to do something different, but the risk with that was always going to be that it wouldn't have the same appeal as Superman the Movie.

Do you think you would have enjoyed MOS more if it had been a bit less serious ?

 

[The Endless]

I agree with some of your points. I really like the scenes with his mom.

But yes if it was a little less serious, and if Kal/Clark didn't constantly have that furrowed brow I would have probably enjoyed it more.

I can see they were going for a conflicted Kal/Clark who seemed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders, but more scenes like the first flight, where we see the joy in his face rather than the troubled and conflicted look would have been great. This Superman just seemed a little bit too broody for my liking. Apart from one or two scenes, it could have been Bruce Wayne playing Superman.

Don't get me wrong, I did think MoS was a good film. It had some great performances, some really powerful scenes and the production design was spot on.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Fair point, and very balanced -with both films' strengths.

To be honest, I think it was a deliberate decision, not to go for charm.

For starters, nobody could out-charm Chris Reeve as Superman or Clark Kent, not going to happen (Brandon Routh tried to imitate it, and it didn't work at all).

Second, I think the hook Snyder and co were going for, to get the audience to invest in Kal/Clark, was his depiction as a very ordinary (Bud-drinking, NFL watching, helping mom with the dishes and doing blue collar jobs) guy, with an extra-ordinary secret -and his struggle to find his place in the world. Of course, did that work ? For some people (like myself) yes,
for many others, no.

In terms of warmth, IMO there was plenty of warmth in the scenes between Clark and Martha, and the flashbacks of his childhood.

But all this is just IMO, as MOS really worked for me, but I can totally see
how it would not work for others. I applaud Snyder and co for having the balls to do something different, but the risk with that was always going to be that it wouldn't have the same appeal as Superman the Movie.

Do you think you would have enjoyed MOS more if it had been a bit less serious ?

As anyone who has visited any of the SHHypes MARVEL STUDIOS films' threads, post AVENGERS, can attest, humor and charm can be a double edged sword. As I have stated many times, I would have gone ga-ga for a successful Donner like Superman film for the 21st century. But my gut (yeah, I have no empirical evidence... Sue me ) tells me that many of the complaints we hear now would just be reversed.

"Why would they think we wanted a Superman film filled with jokes that doesn't take itself seriously?"

"Ugh... Why are they going back to the Donner formula? Couldn't they have tried something new?"

"People are just too afraid to write anything for Superman that challenges the character or his fans. They just played it too safe."

I myself chalk up the seriousness to the truly mythological angle Snyder went for whole hog. Sure, that kind of meta-textual way of doing things was in Donner's film too. It's filled with messianic allusions. MOS has that too, but it's turned up to 11 and, despite that church scene, more "pagan" in it's mythological approach than Donner was. The destruction and seriousness all goes with the idea that we are seeing a primal myth brought to life. This is the story of gods reemerging on Earth. In any of the old myths that kind of event is accompanied not by sunshine and lollipops, but by cataclysm and, yes, death. There is an old saying, "When two elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers." MOS was a more challenging film than S:TM in that it laid bare the fact that living in a world where gods now wear spandex could be BOTH awe inspiring AND fear inducing. I can't help but feel that if you were to live in the DCU, and it were to be in any way, shape or form, "Real" that's how it would be.

 

[The Endless]

I don't necessarily mean more comedy or humour. I just mean show Kal/Clark as a more happy individual and less weighed down and broody. Maybe in the next films they will show him more happy and comfortable in his role as Superman.

 

[Batmannerism]

I agree with some of your points. I really like the scenes with his mom.

But yes if it was a little less serious, and if Kal/Clark didn't constantly have that furrowed brow I would have probably enjoyed it more.

I can see they were going for a conflicted Kal/Clark who seemed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders, but more scenes like the first flight, where we see the joy in his face rather than the troubled and conflicted look would have been great. This Superman just seemed a little bit too broody for my liking. Apart from one or two scenes, it could have been Bruce Wayne playing Superman.

Don't get me wrong, I did think MoS was a good film. It had some great performances, some really powerful scenes and the production design was spot on.

Yeah, my wife commented the same thing, that Superman frowns a lot.
Personally, I've always thought of him as a more serious character, who carries around a lot of responsibility -which is probably why MOS worked for me so well.

The flight scene was my favourite bit of the film, first because when Cavill walks out wearing the suit, he looked like Superman, as I'd always imagined him - but also that learning to fly wasn't easy, and that we do see him laugh and express joy, for the first time.

A lot of people have commented that he was too broody, and that's a fair comment. Maybe he could have been a little more light-hearted. I suppose he could have been a little more upbeat, and smiled a bit more.
You know when he's saved the oil rig workers and is floating in the sea, and he wakes up and sees the whales, I suppose that would have been the right moment for a smile.
- but too much, and I think that would have taken away from the central sense of struggle, that his path was meant to be difficult.


Even when he saves the busload of kids, obviously the right thing to do, there are reprecussions and there's no celebration afterwards (it's not
"yayy I saved the day" with triumphant fanfare, instead it's "oh crap, my secret might be out, and why the hell am I keeping this secret in the first place?"
To me this worked, but again, I can see how it would turn some off the character or at least make it harder to warm to him - the comparison with Bruce Wayne being a very understandable one.

Hopefully, Cav-El will frown a bit less, and smile a bit more in his next outing in the cape.

cheers.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I don't necessarily mean more comedy or humour. I just mean show Kal/Clark as a more happy individual and less weighed down and broody. Maybe in the next films they will show him more happy and comfortable in his role as Superman.

I think there has always been a brooding and weighed down aspect of the character. It's in the source material for sure and it's not the product of "modern" writers. It's been there for decades and decades. I think they didn't make things easy for Clark, because if you were the most powerful man on Earth trying to live a moral life... THINGS WOULD NOT BE EASY. All apologies to Eliot S! Maggin.

 

[The Endless]

I think there has always been a brooding and weighed down aspect of the character. It's in the source material for sure and it's not the product of "modern" writers. It's been there for decades and decades. I think they didn't make things easy for Clark, because if you were the most powerful man on Earth trying to live a moral life... THINGS WOULD NOT BE EASY. All apologies to Eliot S! Maggin.

Whilst that is true, I think they went a little overboard with it and Cavill had that furrowed brow way too much for my liking.

It's obviously hard being Superman. Having all that power and figuring out what to do with it, still having a strong sense of morality and not becoming corrupted by that power.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Whilst that is true, I think they went a little overboard with it and Cavill had that furrowed brow way too much for my liking.

It's obviously hard being Superman. Having all that power and figuring out what to do with it, still having a strong sense of morality and not becoming corrupted by that power.

I think partially they wanted to compensate for the fact that most people and fans really don't think of the burden the character has and so there is an attitude that he is somehow dramatically inert. He's got the great powers, is good looking and had a stable upbringing... Why should I care about MR. PERFECT again? The emphasis in MOS, and it's also present in S:TM too, is to say, "No, this guy does have an inner life and it's a hell of a lot harder than you all think."

 

[doobie]

But to make a sequel for an a-list superhero like Superman, and feeling like he needs two other a-list superheroes to keep it interesting is just insulting..

I really hope that we first see this Superman fight Lex in a solo movie and not a team up movie. Imagine how much less grand and epic the yin-yang, destined to battle, clash between TDK and Joker would have felt if they had decided to make Green Arrow the co headliner of the movie. Wasting his first battle with Lex on a team up move would crush any chance this series has to be as loved/respected as the Nolan Bat films.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

On the flipside, Lex has been the villain in like every single Superman movie/tv show, and having him make his debut taking on not only Superman, but Batman & WW, could be a refreshing way to do it.