TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 3

[Lionbush]

He knew all that while being held captive on Zod's vessel. There was no choice at that point. It was already made clear that Zod isn't to be trusted. Zod was already in the process of terra-forming Earth. Zod has already threatened Earth and the people he loves. Trying to have some dramatic pause in the conflict just didn't work for me because of what was already at stake. I don't believe Clark cared at all about Krypton or it's possible future. The reason I think he cried out after killing Zod was the simple fact that Zod forced him to take a life not because he killed a fellow Kryptonian that until recently knew nothing about.

All he knew was that Zod was going to terraform the earth, not how he was planning to repopulate it. Or he could have protected the ship earlier (or destroyed it).

Even if he did know, it's still a completely different thing when you plan something of this magnitude to the point when you actually do it. His pause, clearly shows that he handn't thought about it like that at all.

And of course Clarke cared about Krypton. That's who he is, Kryptonian. Hence his delight when he found out about his heritage. The whole film is about how he is struggling to fit in to Earth and it's population. It's him trying to find an identity as an outcast, an alien species. He doesn't know who he actually is or why he is on earth until he meets his Holofather.

The moment when he pauses is the moment he chooses to fit in fully because it is the moment he wiped out his own bloodlines, his own civilization to protect those who were adopting him. He fulfilled his fathers wishes by trying to lead the people of Earth, and by saving them.

 

[Lionbush]

Also, Zod was already an evil character and the codex was just an excuse. If getting the codex was the most important thing then he wouldn't have ordered baby Kal-El's ship destroyed. He wouldn't have screamed at Lara that he'd find her baby. To Zod Kal-El was an abomination and already wanted to destroy everything he cared about. This is why I always say it doesn't matter the motivations behind these villians. They are simply villians in their nature. When you try to relate or see their side and reasoning it never makes sense.

I think you missed the point of Zod there.

Evil isn't black and white. He explained that he was designed to protect Krypton. This was his way of doing it. His morality was warped, but what was Earth to him anyway? Nothing, but a planet he could rebuild Krypton on. He was accomplishing his objective by restoring the people of Krypton.

The only time his objective was out of pure evil was when it was just him and Kal-el. That was when he reall had no excuse anymore.

As for Kal-El, he was born in an illegal way, so yes he probably would want him destroyed. In history people were burned for hersay. And since he called Jor-el a heratic, I'd say he was again reverting to protecting the laws and customs of their people.

 

[FLICK]

here's another positive review NOT on Rotten Tomatoes.

http://fanboyfactor.com/2013/06/man-of-steel/

 

[BlueLantern]

Because he's a random guy on a website called the Fanboy Factor?

 

[marcvader]

I never found Zod to be evil. He was just a zealot to me.

 

[Project862006]

he is kinda like magneto a villain with a meaning and a purpose who has legit reason for his cause but goes about it the wrong way

 

[Lionbush]

Because he's a random guy on a website called the Fanboy Factor?

To be fair, what makes his opinion any less valid than a writer reviewing a film?

Film reviews are a dying breed anyway. 15-20 years ago they were the sole source of opinion. Nowadays you can log on to any forum and gauge opinion from there.

 

[BlueLantern]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not invalidating his opinion. I'm just pointing out that Rotten Tomatoes tends to take reviews from specific places.

Though I'll admit some of their sources of reviews are ridiculous like this place called FanTheFire. It's almost always got a negative review of comic book films.

Ironically the guy who normally writes the reviews hasn't done Man of Steel. It's another guy seems a bit more sensible.

 

[Lionbush]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not invalidating his opinion. I'm just pointing out that Rotten Tomatoes tends to take reviews from specific places.

Though I'll admit some of their sources of reviews are ridiculous like this place called FanTheFire. It's almost always got a negative review of comic book films.

Ironically the guy who normally writes the reviews hasn't done Man of Steel. It's another guy seems a bit more sensible.

Fair enough, I've never gone by rotten tomatoes anyway.

What more bothered me about a lot of reviews though was the fact they were reviewing it against the Reeve films rather than on it's own merit. I just never got a fair feel from a good many of reviews. Fair enough if you don't like it, but not liking it because it isn't Superman: The Movie isn't right at all.

 

[BlueLantern]

But that's people for you.It's like the people who respond to criticisms of this movie's logic and storytelling with 'omfg, you want logic but why no u hate Avengers?'

Erm, they're different films with completely different goals as to how they portray their characters and the world they live in. Pardon a lack of uniformity.

 

[Lionbush]

But that's people for you.It's like the people who respond to criticisms of this movie's logic and storytelling with 'omfg, you want logic but why no u hate Avengers?'

Erm, they're different films with completely different goals as to how they portray their characters and the world they live in. Pardon a lack of uniformity.

I like this version of the MOS because it's what I always thought he would be like in terms of his physical power and strength. I like the way he isn't fitting in and is trying to figure out how to do it. The scene in the church and the Father is one of my favourite. Especially the 'leap of faith line'. Because that let's it all click for Clark.

I like Nolans Batman because it feels human and real. I like MOS because I can empathise with the character, and I get to see his true power which I always thought the character should have. As this is an origin story he is raw and not developed. I hope that comes in later films. But for now, this is the Superman origin for me, and in my opinion it doesn't suffer for a lack of camp humour that the Reeve films had.

Plus, Cavill looks like Superman in terms of his physical size which helped buy the character he was trying to potray. Infact, so did Shannon who also beefed up!

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

@ BlueLantern; we call it 'fanboy logic' around here...

 

[BlueLantern]

I like this version of the MOS because it's what I always thought he would be like in terms of his physical power and strength. I like the way he isn't fitting in and is trying to figure out how to do it. The scene in the church and the Father is one of my favourite. Especially the 'leap of faith line'. Because that let's it all click for Clark.

I like Nolans Batman because it feels human and real. I like MOS because I can empathise with the character, and I get to see his true power which I always thought the character should have. As this is an origin story he is raw and ot developed. I hope that comes in later films. But for now, this is the Superman origin for me, and in my opinion it doesn't suffer for a lack of camp humour that the Reeve films had.

Plus, Cavill looks like Superman in terms of his physical size which helped buy the character he was trying to potray. Infact, so did Shannon who also beefed up!

Yup, I completely agree with you. I think the truth is that as an origin story it hits all the right notes. I just can't help but think a more rounded finale would have made it an indisputable classic of the genre.

I'm currently watching the making of Superman Returns. There's two things that come to mind. Firstly, Brandon Routh is much smaller in terms of frame or build compared to Henry.

Secondly, Singer's got such a good idea for good shots. Him and Tom Siegel really get how to visually interpret scenes. Just a pity that they didn't have the right execution in terms of the plot of that film.

Regarding that church scene, whilst I think it's logically sound and written very well, the gap between that and him actually clicking, i.e. when he talks to Jor-El aboard the Black Zero is too big. It leaves very little time for Clark to actually stand proud as Superman.

That's this film's issue. Shoddy storytelling unfortunately in the final act.

 

[Lionbush]

Yup, I completely agree with you. I think the truth is that as an origin story it hits all the right notes. I just can't help but think a more rounded finale would have made it an indisputable classic of the genre.

I'm currently watching the making of Superman Returns. There's two things that come to mind. Firstly, Brandon Routh is much smaller in terms of frame or build compared to Henry.

Secondly, Singer's got such a good idea for good shots. Him and Tom Siegel really get how to visually interpret scenes. Just a pity that they didn't have the right execution in terms of the plot of that film.

Regarding that church scene, whilst I think it's logically sound and written very well, the gap between that and him actually clicking, i.e. when he talks to Jor-El aboard the Black Zero is too big. It leaves very little time for Clark to actually stand proud as Superman.

That's this film's issue. Shoddy storytelling unfortunately in the final act.

Which is why I think it will be interesting to see what Snyders final cut was like, before he had to trim it for Theatre. If what has been reported is true then the cut he wanted to release was an hour longer, so maybe that filled in the gaps better.

If, and I'm just summizing, Snyders original cut did fill in the gaps better then the questions need to be aimed at WB as to why they felt the need to trim it. Was it due to criticism of TDKR and The Hobbit in relation to running length? To me a film need to be be as long as it needs to be. As I said yesterday, it felt like too much was crammed in too quickly and that even 30 mins more probably would have made it run a lot smoother. This fits in with your comments about the gaps and church scene etc.


As for Cavill, well I've known of him since The Tudors was released. in that he played Charles Brandon (Henry VIIIs right hand man). He's a talented actor and I am glad to see him get this role. He did a good job. It was also good to see him want to bulk up to look like a Superman. It means he took it very seriously in that he wanted it to be believable. In The tudors he is quite slight in frame during his many naked shots (HBO produced sexual fest at times). So, when I say he has bulked up it was quite considerable.

EDIT: Funnily enough I was watching SR yesterday. I did like Singers version, I just think that by continuing the story from Superman 2 they shoehorned him down a path he may not have wanted to follow as he was stuck to certain expectations. The plane rescue in that film was superb, one of my all time favourites. The story let him down too in terms of Luthor/Kryptonite (again). It was interesting when you read about how he wanted a sequel to go, almost once he had broke free from the shackles of the first film. I don't place all blame for SR at Singer to be honest.

 

[BlueLantern]

Yeah, I've been routing for Cavill since around 2008. He didn't disappoint.

A three hour cut will likely be excessive unless it adds in a boat load of Krypton stuff and details of Clark's childhood. I'd still trim the action scenes a bit though.

 

[Lionbush]

Yeah, I've been routing for Cavill since around 2008. He didn't disappoint.

A three hour cut will likely be excessive unless it adds in a boat load of Krypton stuff and details of Clark's childhood. I'd still trim the action scenes a bit though.

I suppose it depends on what it brings to the table. If it adds to the film in a meaningful way, then I think it will be fine.

The film flew by both times I have seen it now. So i must have enjoyed it.

And yes, I'm very glad Cavill got it. He didn't disappoint at all

 

[BlueLantern]

The film flew by both times I have seen it now.

For me it flew by until probably when you see Faora and Nam-Ek walking towards him. Then it began to seriously stumble in terms of storytelling and just went '**** it, let's blow **** up instead'. Then the length became visible.

It's really strange because neither the Dark Knight nor the Dark Knight Rises felt that way. Though I'll admit Watchmen definitely felt like that in terms of pacing but the source material was so strong in terms of story that the film held up all the way through the bumps in pace.

 

[Lionbush]

For me it flew by until probably when you see Faora and Nam-Ek walking towards him. Then it began to seriously stumble in terms of storytelling and just went '**** it, let's blow **** up instead'. Then the length became visible.

It's really strange because neither the Dark Knight nor the Dark Knight Rises felt that way. Though I'll admit Watchmen definitely felt like that in terms of pacing but the source material was so strong in terms of story that the film held up all the way through the bumps in pace.

I didn't mind the action, but yeah it may have needed to be tempered with something inbetween just to slow the pace down a little. That may have been a little bit more time with his mom, surveying damage (or whatever) once they had retreated from smallville. I say that because that seemed like it was meant to be the natural break in the action anyway. As it was, he returned hom, briefly spoke to him mom before Lois came saying she knew how to stop them. And, then we were off again. You could even have added a little more Lois/Clark development in there. Just something to slow it down between the last big bang.

The blowing up is fine for me because that is what I would expect from this kind of battle. However, 5-10 mins less of it and 5-10 mins more of the characters doing character stuff may have been a little better.

I also think the constant use of the score really added to the relentless pace of things too though. A little restraint on that front may have made things feel a little less rushed. The score is great, but it is intense in a lot of the pieces.

I feel like I am slagging the film off haha! Overall I really enjoyed the film even for its, to me, small flaws that stop it being a great film.

 

[BlueLantern]

Eh, it's not slagging the film off to desire a better product. Constructive criticism is one thing but some people either go 'Y U NO LIKE MOVIE? IT BETTER THAN AVENGERS!' and others go 'MOSes SUCK AND THOR CN KIX HIS ASS ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!'

That's slagging off and pretty annoying but a good discussion about shortcoming in a film that was pretty good overall but had so much potential to be more is fine.

 

[Lionbush]

Eh, it's not slagging the film off to desire a better product. Constructive criticism is one thing but some people either go 'Y U NO LIKE MOVIE? IT BETTER THAN AVENGERS!' and others go 'MOSes SUCK AND THOR CN KIX HIS ASS ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!'

That's slagging off and pretty annoying but a good discussion about shortcoming in a film that was pretty good overall but had so much potential to be more is fine.

Very true.

I think most films have their flaws, bar the very elite one. For that I'm talking 'Shawshanks Redemption' quality films.

And I do think that part of the problem with Superhero films is that they are hard to get the exact mix right between diplaying the super part of them, and also the human aspect of what defines them. I'd say Superman is the hardest because he is basically Invincible, hence why he is hard to translate to big screen. And before anyone jumps in with 'Nolan Batman', I will say that he isn't a conventional superhero in Nolans films because Nolan grounded him very much in reality. There was nothing 'super' about him. He was trained, his company developed kit that was based around existing tech, and even the villains were realistic to an extent.

For me Nolans 'Batman' films are the definitive version. It will take a hell of a lot of beating, and to me is now in a state where a reboot would never better them. It's in the all time classic films lists.

Man Of Steel falls shot of that list. Whilst a lot of the ingredients are there to make it definitive, I don't think it quite reached that level like Nolans Batman. Right now it's the best of the lot, but I do think that it could have been done better. And I think that comes down to the fact it did feel like two films crammed into one, rather than the story not being strong enough.

My view on why that is? Because Nolan picked a lesser Villain for Batman Begins to allow Bruce Wayne/Batman to grow into the future films. Ra's, only became the villain in the last 30 minutes, though you always knew he was there. Just not who he was. But when he did reveal, you knew the character already despite his limited screen time. (hope I explained it well there).

 

[BlueLantern]

I agree entirely. Thing is I think if Chris Nolan had been involved in a bigger way at the writing phase, the film would've turned out much much differently.

Goyer's gone on record saying he wrote the story and Chris Nolan gave him notes and volunteered to share a writing credit to expedite the process of making the film.

Apart from the truly classic films, every movie has its flaws. A film would have to be at the level of the Godfather I & II in order to be completely immune.

 

[Lionbush]

I agree entirely. Thing is I think if Chris Nolan had been involved in a bigger way at the writing phase, the film would've turned out much much differently.

Goyer's gone on record saying he wrote the story and Chris Nolan gave him notes and volunteered to share a writing credit to expedite the process of making the film.

Apart from the truly classic films, every movie has its flaws. A film would have to be at the level of the Godfather I & II in order to be completely immune.

I think you are right about Nolan. I think if he had been more activly involved then the antagonist/protagonist balance would have been a lot different. He would have followed the Batman Begins formula I am sure.

A good barometer would be to say take Zod (and minions) out of this film and look at the running time. Without them how long would the film have been? 1hr/1.15? Almost a standard film length without a villain in there. The material was there in spades for the character part of the film.

 

[BlueLantern]

Indeed. I think it's the culture of excess that kind of seeped into the film's script.

 

[Lionbush]

Indeed. I think it's the culture of excess that kind of seeped into the film's script.

Maybe so. I personally think that it was trying to get everything into one shot because they thought there may not be a sequel to get to where you could do the bad ass villain.

Again comparing it to Nolans Batman films (being so successful I think you have to), then you see how he created the whole trilogy.

Begins - set up Batman. The villains were just background pieces who didn't really require much of a background/story in order to add to the film. It was about Bruce/Batman and his arrival.

TDK - Batman was already set up. The foundations of who he was got expanded upon, but the main development was around The Joker/Two Face and what they were doing. This left room for the action scenes.

TDKR - Again it was all set up from the previous film. Bane and his plot was the main story element. Batmans return was left untill a third way through. Again lots of room for explosions/action to take place at the end without it feeling rushed. (although some did feel that it was crammed still)

Man of Steel was like trying to force the Dark Knight rises into Batman Begins. I'm not sure whose fault it was that was the case, but I think that is where many issues with pacing do come from.

 

[jokrsmile]

Here's two reviews that I agree with completely.
http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

http://http://toynewsi.com/news.php?catid=10&itemid=20581

I really don't see how so many people can over look all of these problems and still say this is a great movie.