TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 3

[Ramirez16]

Love the 8.9 on the right to the 55 on the left.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/man-of-steel

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Thing is, the MAJORITY of the fans would disagree with that since the majority here gave it 9 and above. The number with the highest agreement actually is 9/10. So, most Superman fans didn't feel it was a hollow effort but a near perfect if not perfect one.

Well...it's also barely been 24 hours too. Remember, many of us had a honeymoon over Superman Returns for a while as well. But then reality set in and folks began to realize the potential that had been lost. There is a lot wrong with this film's direction and writing. And that's the tragedy of it because the actors are superb.

Even though I'm giving it a C-, I am going to see again tonight just to make sure I truly don't "love" it. I want this to grow one me because I'm such a big fan of this character. However, even I have to admit that many of the criticisms about the film's shortcomings are actually quite fair.

 

[D4rkShaDoWz]

The only question I really had was: why did it take Perry White and the rest of the Daily Planet building so long to evacuate?

Otherwise, I loved it. I really don't agree, for the most part, with everyone's complaints. I know if I say "it's a comic book film" I will be castrated but honestly, if anyone thinks this is worse than Superman Returns, they need to look again at who Superman is.

 

[Tzigone]

I really enjoyed the movie; it wasn't perfect, but neither was '78 Superman. I really like shaking it up with Lois. I enjoyed we got to see her investigative skills. She had a starting point with "Joe" but she traced him back to Clark Kent real quick. I liked that because, to me, Lois Lane is supposed to be a fantastic investigative reporter. And she did more than just wait around to rescued - she was in the thick of things for a while, and that was good. It's very interesting to me, starting with Lois in the know from Superman's first appearance. Hopefully she won't get mind-wiped in the sequel.

The military aspect, the entire aspect of Superman not being universally embraced at first, was interesting. Not really typical Superman. I had considered the idea of people in the future (sequel) being sort of "this never would have happened to us if not for him being here" but I might prefer that to be a very small subset of people, as it seems to me Superman has traditionally been a hero loved by the population, unlike some of the others.

I like that Perry knew Lois was snowing him when said she came up empty. He's a competent professional.

Jor-El was kickbutt (a bit too much so, IMO). Scientist and fighter and so on. Krypton was visually quite interesting. I did like Jor-El expressing the sentiment that he and Lara were part of the failed order - I mean, it was interesting. I don't agree with the idea that people such as themselves couldn't have broken free of that order. Indeed, I'd almost say they did so in having their child. But that they think that way is indicative of his point, I suppose. And, of course, it rolls in well with Zod's speech later. Also liked Jor-El's ghostly-hologram's extreme calmness.

Small bits I liked - introducing the bully, and only after his introduction revealing he was Pete Ross. Woodburn - that was his name, right? That amused me.

Things I didn't like - Jonathan saying maybe Clark should have let people die, Jonathan's death (he went back for a dog, and then just stood there and let himself die without even trying to save himself after he motioned for Clark to stop) just felt contrived and didn't work for me, and the extremely long fight sequence(s) starting in Smallville and going to Metropolis. I got bored with the endless action (which is less visually interesting to me than when Spider-Man fights, but more interesting than shootout movie). I need dialog and character moments and such. I actually appreciated the different sort of action when Supes was trying to destroy the machinery - nice break from people getting thrown through buildings/buildings falling down. Lastly, Lara could have had more to do.

Minor questions (some serious, some sarcastic)

When did the Supersuit actually get made? Jor-El AI made it when leading Clark around and so on?

When did the S-emblem-thingamabob change hands? Did Clark give it Lois before he left and her try to give it to him on the ship? Or did he just give it to her the first time on the ship?

How many people in Smallville know Clark is Superman? I mean, Pete, Lana, some of the other now-grown kids from the bus have to know. Or at least have figured it out after this happened. And the cop that brought Lois to the Kent home. The military knows he grew up in Kansas, that Smallville got attacked, and has a narrow window on when he'd have graduated high school - will they figure it out?

Why did Superman tell them he grew up in Kansas - he shouldn't volunteer info.

Why did Jor-El tell Zod that he had a son and so on - again, don't volunteer info to people you don't trust.

Will Lois actually take three weeks off - I think she has a pretty big story to write immediately (or as soon as they can get something published)?

Why did Zod pick Earth - originally, I mean, not after Clark fought back? He can terraform planets, why pick that one? I know Earth is closest, but if you can terraform any of them, why not pick an unpopulated one? Then they might even have had Kal-El's cooperation.

there are plenty of things luthor can exploit to stir up fear and hatred towards superman. but no one on that planet will turn against superman for the reason of him having killed zod as a means to save all life on earth. he's best off exploiting the consequences of superman's presence and the power he's demonstrated being capable of.

Too true. Just him being here caused so much of this, caused Zod to come here. And so many people had to have died, given all the building collapses. Great for Lex. BTW, is it at all possible, do you think, for Lex to actually be associated with the military (maybe as a civilian expert of some sort?) in the sequel. They already want to know about him, and if Lex want to know, he could try and see what they know. He could maybe discover Kryptonite. He would be in a good position there (or as a consultant to high-level government officials) to influence opinion against Superman. Not saying I want that route to happen - just an idea. But what should spark Lex against Superman in this version, do you think?

I felt Jonathon Kent was a confusing character. He never really imparted his son with any great wisdom or guidance. Clark’s parents are supposed to be the source of his moral compass, but we never really see that being passed on. We see them concerned for his well being and urging him to be cautious of his abilities and to cope with his reality. But there is no great moral wisdom passed on. Clark’s moral compass is mentioned a few times in the film, but we are only told about it, it’s never really on display. Martha’s attempt at guiding her son through hard times was pretty cheesy and forced. Jonathon’s death was almost humorous. Trying to save a dog in the middle of a twister while refusing Clark’s help was pretty anti-climactic and non-sensical.

I agree with this aspect of the review. Clark was good, heroic, because he was. It wasn't anything taught or imparted. I get that his parents loved him - we saw that. We didn't see them teaching him to be a force for good or to save people or even just to help when he able or anything like that. That was just him. And Jonathan's death really was cringe-worthy.

 

[DeadThePoet]

How they did it highlighted his difference. I wouldn't want it to be done any other way. Because, from a writing perspective, it does highlight that part of the character.

Have the heroes in other films felt any devastation when their villain dies? Did Bruce in Batman Begins show any pain when he LET Raas die? What about all those aliens in Avengers that were killed? The Avengers killed them like it was the funnest thing to do. What about James Bond movies and the like where the agent kills anyone in his way like it's no big deal? How many action movies and superhero movies have we seen where the hero is devastated by the death of the villain or having to kill the villain?

Exactly. It shows just how different Superman is.

This is an excellent point. I keep thinking back to the killing of the three criminals in the pocket Universe and how that lead to Superman truly having his no kill rule deep in his heart.

 

[NCBIII]

Other posters have already said anything I could say in-depth, so I'll just say I strongly disliked Man of Steel, as much as I wanted to like it.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

The only question I really had was: why did it take Perry White and the rest of the Daily Planet building so long to evacuate?

Otherwise, I loved it. I really don't agree, for the most part, with everyone's complaints. I know if I say "it's a comic book film" I will be castrated but honestly, if anyone thinks this is worse than Superman Returns, they need to look again at who Superman is.

Agreed...it's lightyears ahead of SR. But I think most folks are complaining that the director and writers didn't look at who Superman is at his core. I know I for one didn't recognize him in certain parts of the film.

For example...he was soooooooooooo damn reckless during the fighting. It was as if he didn't care as much about humans being crushed by all the damage and debris. Well...let me rephrase that...I think he did care but clearly he had not trained for this sort of cataclysm and as a result I don't believe he knew HOW to prioritize saving humans while also minimizing the damage and deaths. I felt like he, Faora, Zod, etc., were like kids on a playground wrestling around and the humans were just ants getting blasted for being in the way and Kal-El didn't quite get that memo sometimes.

For example, he'd save one guy from a falling helicopter while an entire street of people were getting torched at the same time. It was just....weird.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Just wanna say to Mowtown Marvel, after reading your original reaction post that someone just re posted on the last page, it's clear to me we had the exact same experience of this film

Agree with everything you said. Especially Dr Hamilton figuring out the problem with the key was that the ship needed to be turned a bit... that was utterly utterly stupid.

 

[terry78]

So if you saw the credits, you see what Cavill is credited as so they never do call him Supes. I wonder if he actually will use the name.

 

[Tzigone]

So if you saw the credits, you see what Cavill is credited as so they never do call him Supes. I wonder if he actually will use the name.

When they called in (he and Lois and military) they called him Superman and the one guy said something along the lines "The alien - that's what they're calling him."

I expect the Daily Planet and Lois Lane will give him the name that sticks, as has been the case in several iterations.

 

[Anita18]

Minor questions (some serious, some sarcastic)

When did the S-emblem-thingamabob change hands? Did Clark give it Lois before he left and her try to give it to him on the ship? Or did he just give it to her the first time on the ship?

You see Superman slip it to Lois when Faora goes off to get the breathing apparatus for her. He takes her hand and it seems like he wants to hold it for support, but then she looks and it's the key.

Why did Zod pick Earth - originally, I mean, not after Clark fought back? He can terraform planets, why pick that one? I know Earth is closest, but if you can terraform any of them, why not pick an unpopulated one? Then they might even have had Kal-El's cooperation.

I suspect Zod wanted to use Earth for ransom, in a way. At that point, he knows he can (or has to?) kill Kal to get the codex in his cells, and if he destroys Earth completely, he's expecting Kal to be too devastated to fight back.


All the other questions, I'm going to presume that characters in movies don't think.

I agree with this aspect of the review. Clark was good, heroic, because he was. It wasn't anything taught or imparted. I get that his parents loved him - we saw that. We didn't see them teaching him to be a force for good or to save people or even just to help when he able or anything like that. That was just him. And Jonathan's death really was cringe-worthy.

I think what Jonathan did was to impart a sense of responsibility, and high expectations for himself. That in turn led to the morals.

Agreed...it's lightyears ahead of SR. But I think most folks are complaining that the director and writers didn't look at who Superman is at his core. I know I for one didn't recognize him in certain parts of the film.

For example...he was soooooooooooo damn reckless during the fighting. It was as if he didn't care as much about humans being crushed by all the damage and debris. Well...let me rephrase that...I think he did care but clearly he had not trained for this sort of cataclysm and as a result I don't believe he knew HOW to prioritize saving humans while also minimizing the damage and deaths.

He'd save one guy from a falling helicopter while an entire street of people were getting torched at the same time. It was just....weird.

Yeah I definitely got that sense too. He was mostly trying not to get his ass kicked too hard.

 

[MLSkinner]

I still can't see how some think Amy Adams was a good Lois Lane. She was turned into a sidekick half hour into the movie. She had no journalistic fight in her. She can play many roles but as a believable investigative reporter....no. She is way too much of a sweetheart. As for chemistry between the two...it was getting close to portman and Christenson in the star wars prequels. Nothing beats the chemistry between hemsworth and portman...that was lightning in a bottle.

 

[Tzigone]

I think what Jonathan did was to impart a sense of responsibility, and high expectations for himself. That in turn led to the morals.

I don't know. Jonathan was very "don't risk your secret - even if people die" which I strongly disagree with. He did seem to take a big picture sort of view, I guess, since he talked about that aspect and allowing them to die for that reason. Still can't agree with it. He did say Clark would be important in the future and could change the world and yet he also argued when Clark wanted to something other than farm - he seemed to meander around in what he was espousing instead of remaining consistent in his message. I don't know - maybe you could say he was "do as I say, not as I do" since he stopped to help the woman with her child. Don't recall Martha, by word or example, influence either way in regards to helping people, saving lives, or making any sort of difference. But I have only seen it once, so maybe I missed something.

 

[Heretic]

Zod picked earth because Clark activated the ship and Zod's ship picked up on it. At least, I'm pretty sure Zod said that in the film.

 

[Doc Samson]

Y'know, I can't believe what world I live in where a Superman movie is being criticized for too much action. What?! Especially after SR which was almost devoid of any good action, why in the hell is nonstop action AFTER almost 1 hr of exposition and story a bad thing? What kind of comics & cartoons were you guys looking at growing up?

 

[sf2]

I just wanna say if u are looking for the problems, u will find them.

I just cant believe some of us miss the grand picture right before their eyes.

 

[Anita18]

I don't know. Jonathan was very "don't risk your secret - even if people die" which I strongly disagree with. He did seem to take a big picture sort of view, I guess, since he talked about that aspect and allowing them to die for that reason. Still can't agree with it. He did say Clark would be important in the future and could change the world and yet he also argued when Clark wanted to something other than farm - he seemed to meander around in what he was espousing instead of remaining consistent in his message. I don't know - maybe you could say he was "do as I say, not as I do" since he stopped to help the woman with her child. Don't recall Martha, by word or example, influence either way in regards to helping people, saving lives, or making any sort of difference. But I have only seen it once, so maybe I missed something.

He knew that Clark wasn't ready for the responsibility yet, that's why he was holding him back from making his powers public.

Overprotective dad.

 

[Tzigone]

Zod picked earth because Clark activated the ship and Zod's ship picked up on it. At least, I'm pretty sure Zod said that in the film.

That's why Zod came to Earth. He needed to get the codex from Kal-El. But, once the codex, why was he was planning to use his world engine, etc. to remake Earth into New Krypton instead of unoccupied planet somewhere? He's already terraforming to make it hospitable to Kryptonians, so why this one? He doesn't mention being unable to travel further. Sure, it's an inconvenience to have to find a different planet, but it would make Kal-El's cooperation a lot more likely, and it seems like such a minor thing to avoid genocide.

 

[sf2]

This is a prequel superman film. How an alien becomes man!!! OMG... the sequel... how the man becomes superman!!!

Bring it on, Zack!!!

 

[Jack O Lantern]

So, was Zod's plan to turn a planet that gives him super powers into one that doesn't?

 

[Sharkboy]

Since when has a serious tone started and ended with Batman? Last I checked old Batsy can be as silly (if not sillier and funnier) as the rest. I don't think lightheartedness and humour is a requirement for Superman...just a preference if anything.

 

[Tzigone]

Y'know, I can't believe what world I live in where a Superman movie is being criticized for too much action. What?! Especially after SR which was almost devoid of any good action, why in the hell is nonstop action AFTER almost 1 hr of exposition and story a bad thing? What kind of comics & cartoons were you guys looking at growing up?

Sorry, but I like dialog and plot-movement. The Fleischer cartoons bored me, too. I enjoyed the exposition part of the movie. And I enjoyed the action for a bit, but it just got old (I thought the comedic action sequences in POTC2 went on way too long as well, if it helps). Also, I just didn't find the Smallville/Metropolis action to be visually interesting (after a while - I was good with it at first, but then it just went on too long). I enjoyed the Krypton and space-ship action sequences very much, but got tired of the Earth-based fights. It's just an opinion.

He knew that Clark wasn't ready for the responsibility yet, that's why he was holding him back from making his powers public.

That doesn't work for me - it's not when I expect from the Kents - I expect "don't use your powers for trivial reasons (football)", I expect for them to tell him to try to be discreet, I expect "you can't save everyone" if he can't/doesn't, I do not expect them to tell him it's okay to let people die when you want to help because people might turn on you. Clark seems ready enough for the responsibility - he rightly makes the choice that saving lives is worth the risk. They're actively trying to dissuade him from heroic acts when there's no one else there to help, when he can do what others can't. Just doesn't work for me.

 

[Visualiza]

Y'know, I can't believe what world I live in where a Superman movie is being criticized for too much action. What?! Especially after SR which was almost devoid of any good action, why in the hell is nonstop action AFTER almost 1 hr of exposition and story a bad thing? What kind of comics & cartoons were you guys looking at growing up?

I find it equally puzzling and disturbing that you seem unable to grasp the concept of balance. Excess isn't the answer to scarcity. Too much of one thing is good for nothing; the solution to too little is not, nor should it ever be, too much. That is knee-jerk, juvenile logic at its most extreme. You can't simply quantify its worth or relevance either, by arbitrarily claiming that 'one hour of story justifies aimless, wanton violence'.

Action in a film needs to be earned; it absolutely has to have context. It should never be approached as some arbitrary pay off for making the audience sit through plot and exposition. Otherwise, you may as well watch random Youtube compilations of WWE.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy what you saw on screen. That's perfectly fine, but what I am saying is that you should at least entertain the notion that excess exists and isn't always ideal, at least from the POV of others.

 

[Sharkboy]

So, was Zod's plan to turn a planet that gives him super powers into one that doesn't?

Pretty much, that was the great thing about Zod, he genuinely wanted to save his people, he didn't care about rule nor power. Sure his ideas were militant and ultimately genocidal, but he didn't want people to bow down to him, he just wanted his planet and his people, at all costs...out of desperation.

Which makes his outburst in the end all the more tragic, because everything he does is out of despair at him failing in his mission to rebuild his home.

 

[InJustice]

The only question I really had was: why did it take Perry White and the rest of the Daily Planet building so long to evacuate?

Otherwise, I loved it. I really don't agree, for the most part, with everyone's complaints. I know if I say "it's a comic book film" I will be castrated but honestly, if anyone thinks this is worse than Superman Returns, they need to look again at who Superman is.

Metropolis was already pretty damn chaotic as is, if he went ASAP, he could've been smashed by the gravitational fields that the World Engine was messing up. Also, he didn't want to leave Jenny alone, which I commend him because not everyone would do that in a dire situation.