I kind of question what movie people were watching that they think there was nothing but darkness and grittiness in this film, and that they didn't feel a sense of joy, fun and wonder at times.
As far as the writing goes, this script isnt perfect. But to call it weak? No. If anything, this is David Goyers best writing work. Yes, his work on MAN OF STEEL is better than BATMAN BEGINS. Because it has simply got less concept and screenwriting flaws in it than that work had. The dialogue was also quite solid compared to most superhero/action fare out there, much better than Goyer's previous efforts, and interestingly enough, there was a lot less cheese than, well, than anything else in the superhero genre, really, including Batman.
Im already getting annoyed with people who are savaging the writing without any concrete examples of issues they have with it. There are moments it could have and should have been stronger, absolutely. There are a few key concepts that could have been fleshed out more, but "the writing was bad" is just not an objectively legitimate complaint to have about this film as a whole.
The much-whined about product placement isnt just about product placement. Its about placing Superman in the real world. Snyder and the other filmmakers have said as much. They didnt want Superman getting thrown through a Big Belly Burger. They wanted him getting tossed through real world places. Some of the vans have cable companies on them.
And let's talk about Superman saving people and the destruction in the third act. A lot of people are concerned or upset about the fact that Superman didn't stop to save innocent people, and are missing two huge points.
A. Him STOPPING Zod is what is going to save lives. Because the reason people are dying in the first place...is because Zod is RAGING. Not because buildings are randomly falling on their own. It's simple logic. To stem the tide of destruction, Superman has to end the threat.
B. Zod won't let him. The film shows that Zod doesn't exactly give Superman a moment to breathe, or even consider the situation. He's constantly attacking Superman, throwing him through buildings, and doing so in what appears to be a strategic manner. The ONLY time Superman gets the upper hand...the only time Superman stops getting thrown around and beaten up HIMSELF, is at the end of his encounter with Zod. You cannot save people when you are yourself in mortal danger, and when you are being prevented from doing so. That is what the film shows happening.
People are acting like Superman is just recklessly wailing on Zod, and that led to destruction. That's not what the film shows. The scene in SMALLVILLE showed an incredibly angry Superman being a bit reckless, but his fighting style EVOLVES in later battles. He becomes more careful, starts to stop himself when he tumbles, flies out of control, etc.
It's not a question of Superman not wanting to save lives in the final battle. There are several shots of him realizing how much destruction is happening around them, and even shots of him trying to take the fight elsewhere. Zod. Won't. Let. Up.
The destruction is not a "side effect" of their battle. Zod is intentionally causing as much destruction as he can. He is choosing his targets to maximize the death and destruction in Metropolis...because that is what he told Superman he would do before the battle began.
I don't like watching or like seeing my favourite characters being thrown into a third act that is essentially a glorified disaster film. See every Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay film made in the recent past apart from their attempts at low-budget cinema. It's been done before.
I think that's unfairly simplifying what's onscreen a bit. Consider the dynamics between the characters and what the final sequence means to all of them. Because the film certainly did.
As far as someone going to die? No, but you're missing the key point behind these films. Everyone knows the hero will save the day. The questions are why is he doing this and how is he going to do this? The action sequences in the Avengers and the Batman films were well done. They were engaging and satisfying. Ditto for the Iron Man films.
How was the action in this movie not engaging and satisfying in comparison to the films you mentioned?
It's Superman. He flies around, saves people, beats the bad guy and gets the girl. All of the while with a sense of joy at achieving the impossible.
And...Superman did these things in MAN OF STEEL. There was quite a bit of joy to be found in this film.
But the action scenes were so over the top but all the same emotionally sterile that I kept detaching myself from the film and waiting for the next great character moment. That's not a good sign in a film. It really isn't. And a lot of it has to do with the message this film is trying to convey as well.
You know, sometimes you get what you put into a film. I don't know how you look at thousands of people running in terror as their city collapses and get "emotionally sterile"...I don't know how you look at the final encounter between Superman and Zod and get emotionally sterile. I really don't.
So instead of sitting around and wondering what it would be like to live a normal life or why he's here, he just gets on with using those powers for good and saving people.
Even in Mark Waid's Birthright when Clark is a young journalist traveling the world, he saves people and does it willingly. Sure, he has pangs of guilt knowing that he's alone in this quest, but he does it anyway. Why? Because that's the powers given to him. They're a gift. And the purpose behind them is clear. Guide humanity by embodying their best qualities.
Was that evident in this film? Not really.
Well, the movie showed Clark pretty much caring about nothing BUT saving people right from the start.
You're saying that the film didn't show why Clark saves people?
Because I think it kind of did.
He cares about people. And because he can, given his fantastic powers.
And also, psychologically speaking, as an adult, because when he wanted to the most...with someone special to him, he didn't do so. There's an element of Clark sort of exiling himself from humanity after what happens in Smallville as a young man.
Even at the end of Batman Begins you sense that Gotham is grateful that there's this guy out there saving people and having the will to inspire them into being better. Not here.
The idea that Superman was meant to inspire others is pretty clearly communicated in the film by Jor-El.
The filmmakers haven't gotten there yet, but neither, arguably did they ever really get there during the Batman franchise. If that's one of his overarcing concepts, it cannot be resolved in the first film. The Earth just met Superman. Give him some time to inspire them as a race.
Here those ideals are sacrificed for 'realism' in crashing alien ships and beating opponents through buildings. It's not Superman. It's just not.
None of those things are "realism".
And yes, some of those things ARE Superman. Read a few more comics.
You wanna go for realism? Show an equally active humanity. That's realism. Don't portray them as a group of helpless monkeys who just run from a doomsday device or stand there looking shocked as a gravitational anomaly eats them up. It's ****ing stupid. It goes for scale but forgets the minutiae like every other blockbuster and then still tries to ram home philosophical topics and ideals concerning the saving of humanity as a species.
They didn't. They showed the humans who could do something...doing something, via the sequences with Lois, Hamilton, and Colonel Hardy and his soldiers.
It's got an artistic and quasi-dramatic feel to the relationship between Clark and his two sets of parents, but then it throws all that out the window in the favour of cheap thrills through explosions. Yeah. No. But I guess all this will be tackled in the sequel! For the first hour or so anyway. Then it will give way to some doomsday device designed by Luthor/Brainiac/Darkseid that requires explosions and buildings to be destroyed for the remainder of the film.
No it doesn't throw it out the window. It does what most stories do. It raises the stakes as we go along, and we see rising action and a climax. The film does not abandon those concepts, either. It ties his two parentages together with the scene where Ma Kent tells Clark "He saw it." The dream of the Kents meeting the dream of the El's.
There is no reason to believe the Clark/Lois romance. They meet, they have a two minute conversation and that is supposed to establish some deep bond? It was almost as if the writers were relying on the idea of Lois Lane and Clark Kent being together, doing the work for them, rather than developing the romance.
It's a budding romance, not a fully developed one yet. And there's as much reason to believe their romance/friendship emerging as much as any romance friendship, especially in film. The reasons they respect each other are fairly apparent. The chemistry is obvious. And they've helped each other out, and been through Hell together several times by the end of the film.
Hmm, what else sticks out to me? The Perry/bald guy/Jenny Olsen subplot was ridiculous. It felt so shoehorned in. It felt like a way to kill time in the second act and try to give the viewer an emotional stake in the over-the-top, Transformers-esque action, but to me, it just came off as a cheap way to use 9/11 to pull on people's heart strings and since Perry/bald guy/Jenny Olsen weren't really well developed, I didn't give a damn about their plight so the stakes weren't raised.
You mean the scene where the filmmakers pretty much showcase the idea of "hope" and not leaving those who are suffering alone? That amongst the people fleeing, there were these two men who stopped to give hope to someone who was suffering and terrified?
From emo-child Supe to the heavy handed Messiah metaphor (film writers really need to move on from Donner's Jesus characterization and into the more modern Byrne approach), I just didn't care for the characterization.
I didn't think it was really that heavy handed, given the scale of the concepts being discussed. This isn't really leftover Donner influence. It's comic book influence. Superman has had Moses/Jesus elements for a long time.
I suppose my biggest gripe is, it didn't really seem like a Superman movie. Too many elements that make Superman into Superman were missing. Metropolis didn't even feel like a location in the movie, but rather just a generic place where Snyder could invoke 9/11 allegories. Metropolis should've been a character in the film unto itself, much like Gotham was in BB and TDK. It wasn't. It was just a hollow shell of destruction.
That's a definitely issue I had with the film. Metropolis just really isn't given much development as a city. Granted, it is technically just another city on Earth at this point since Clark doesn't live there, and we certainly got to see a decent amount of it...
Jesus Christ this movie lacked subtlety.
No. It very much didn't lack subtlety. Though it certainly wasn't all subtle, there were some great subtleties in this film. Maybe you just didn't see them?
Clark is sinking in the ocean after saving nubs...WHY IS THERE A ****ing WHALE AND A BABY WHALE?
Hmm...dunno. Try thinking about subtle reasons why that imagery might have been used.
The entire destruction of Metropolis where Clark and Lois kiss on the ashes of millions dead.
Metropolis isn't destroyed entirely. And the whole point of that scene is that they have a tender moment amidst so much destruction. That they find comfort in each other.
Why did Superman fly all the way to drymounting Brazil when he was right there next to the main machine that powers the terraforming machine?
Because the main machine was guarded by superpowered Kryptonians.
The flashbacks had no connection to what was going on it was stupid.
Simply not true.
Definitely not true.
No one gives a crap about any of the Bugle cast.
Yup, since the Bugle cast wasn't in this film. That's Spider-Man's cast.
Millions and millions of people die.
Maybe. We don't know for sure. What are you basing this on? Why is this a bad thing in the context of the film?
Superman kills Zod when all he had to do was idk...turn his body slightly?
He couldn't. He couldn't even turn Zod's head since Zod didn't want him to. Film makes this pretty clear.
I don't have a clue why would Clark play with a cape around the neck in a world where superheroes don't exist (as he is to be the very first one).
Umm
capes aren't something only superheroes have worn. Capes were around long before Superman. Knights, other heroes like Zorro...
Death and destruction isn't a problem if it actually FEELS like death and destruction. Here it just felt like CGI stuff falling over with no emotional context to any of it.
Except for all those terrified people...
It's a PG13 movie. You can't exactly show blood and guts everywhere.
I really find it very interesting how two people can watch this movie and have completely opposite reactions to it. Some people loved the over the top action and thought the plot was moving. Others thought it was all way overblown, that the plot was stupid, and that there was zero character development.
I don't find it that interesting, to be honest. As usual around here, I think it's a case of people not being honest about what the film contains a lot of the time. Much of the time, if they didn't like it, they invent what they figure are legitimate reasons not to. If they didn't like or understand the dialogue or some of the story, it must be because it was bad, poorly executed, etc, even if that's not necessarily the case.
It's not a brilliant movie,but it is a fairly well written, well-structured and well executed series of concepts. There was definitely some character development.
No offense to anyone who loved it, power to you. But I just don't understand how anyone could watch this film and say it was a good movie.
Because objectively, it was. Especially in comparison to other movies of its genre and type.
The tentacle monster I just thought was more overdesigned hollywood baloney. 
" moment.
