TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 4

I was surprised by how the Clark flashbacks and past scenes were handled, things would come and go way too fast. We went from krypton in the past, to earth, to 20 something years later, to Clark's past, etc. Just choose a place to start and go from there.

The film needed space to breath, i enjoyed the 2nd half due to the action scenes but that camera zoom in movement used through the entire film was damn annoying.

Yeah I felt the same.

And when you think about it, they tried to cram in a whole bunch of action into the 1st half too.

I mean, they crammed in the oil rig scene, the bus crash and the tornado scene within the time they spent exploring the past too...

It's no wonder I don't feel they really achieved depth of character.
 
As extreme as his opinion is conveyed, he's not wrong.

So now opinions are fact? Did you really just say that? Yes, yes you did.

BlueLantern said:
The writing was ridiculously contrived in the film and was pretty much the biggest issue I had with the film.

You forgot to put in your opinion there.
 
I thought the flashback of Jonathan with young Clark just after showing his death was quite poignant. I liked that. Nor did I have an issue with the 'action' of saving the bus and evacuating the oil rig. Both scenes were quite short anyway.
 
You forgot to put in your opinion there.

Don't be ridiculous.

You do not have to write 'In my opinion' before absolutely everything you say on this forum, just to please antagonistic posters like yourself.

It's a discussion forum. We are all talking about our opinion. :whatever:
 
I thought the flashback of Jonathan with young Clark just after showing his death was quite poignant. I liked that. Nor did I have an issue with the 'action' of saving the bus and evacuating the oil rig. Both scenes were quite short anyway.

It's their short length that's the problem though. Having even the flashbacks be really short action scenes that jump straight into things with sometimes only a couple of lines beforehand, meant that they lacked time for many (if any) natural moments of interaction or actual character exploration.
 
Well it sure as hell wouldn't hurt at times. I mean, someone posted the other day that they're basically an expert on movies and reviews because they watch 60+ movies a month, sometimes several movies a day - I mean, really? Watching movies makes a person an expert on them? I've been watching movies since the early 1970s, seen thousands upon thousands of them and I wouldn't dare in my wildest dreams make such a claim, it's patently ridiculous.

People hate the movie, people hate the writing, people love the movie, people live the writing, it's almost an even split at this point. They bash, we defend, we praise, they tear down, and so on.

But it's nice to know when someone is expressing an opinion since as I pointed out a few days ago, the only true experts on this movie would be Snyder, Goyer, Nolan, and the cast and crew, and I'm pretty damned sure they're all very happy with it and consider it their best work.

Who is anyone else to say they're wrong?
 
So now opinions are fact? Did you really just say that? Yes, yes you did.



You forgot to put in your opinion there.

Unless someone claims something to be an outright fact it is just their opinion and they shouldn't need to state it as such. Just a little something I picked up in English class that you may want to brush up on.
 
I can see what you mean. Perhaps because I'm a casual Supe fan I didn't really have a serious reaction to these critiques. I thought the flashbacks would weigh the film down too much, but I actually quite like them. Bus rescue - plays into Jonathan's opinion of remaining secret and Clark's dilemma of what to do in the future. Oil rig - the mysterious saviour roaming the world. Tornado - regardless of one's opinion, the basis is Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose himself ala his "maybe" convo. I thought it was a decent balance of themes and pacing, however simple they may be.
 
I think criticisms are fine if they're valid so I'll try to counter some of these:

Ok so Lois is right outside when it is dark and has been advised it is cold..minus 40 and still manages to catch Clark at the precise moment he is about to stroll to the ship. And how come Clark found this ship

Lois was obviously an independent, proactive investigative journalist who did her own thing. She was there to find out things and that's what she was doing. It wasn't easy to spot Clark. They both went out when it was quiet, when the others weren't around and could look at the ship -they thought- alone.

Terraforming the planet..the most stupid thing ever. The kryptonians could adapt in a few hours to the earth so why lose your time on this.

Zod wanted to re-create his home planet, Krypton. They way it was and how his people lived on it. People who colonise tend to bring their way of life to that colonised place, not live like the indigenous population. He was also bred this way, to fight for his planet.


Why is lois everywhere. what purpose did she serve on the ship at the request of ZOD..if not more convenient writing. Why did clark brink his S dark crystal with him to the mother ship again???

Zod knew Lois was the journalist who knew who Kal-El was and where he was. This was broadcast for him to pick up. She gave him the info. he required (by probing her mind) while she was on the ship ie. that Kal-El was from Smallville. So he went to the Kent farm and interrogated Martha Kent.

Clark always carried this key with him since he got it. We see he even has it around his neck during the oil rig rescue.


Superman can't breathe on a krytonian ship...how can he in space?
He didn't spend an extended period of time in space. He can fly quite quickly.


But you got to admire a civilization that has colonies and can find time to imprison dissidents but don't even have a few interstellar ships to save people.

The space program shut down on Krypton because of civil war, of political infighting. Their technology was advanced, but aging. The ships they did have were old and pieced together from their glory days of interstellar space travel.

why did the colonies dies again? Oh yeah..life can exist only on Earth and Krypton in the whole universe. so if Krypton is gone..colonies follow too. what nonsense is that. Aren't colonies supposed to be self sustaining?

They became cut off from Krypton, whose society was collapsing. They were going to barren, harsh environments that required a lot to terraform and sustain.


Why send your son to shelter during a tornado..oh convenient scene here..dad had to die and clark had to watch. what stopped him .He always got away with lesser things so to speak and now his dad's life was on the line and he stood and watch. Wow...talk about inducting an artificial scene for useless drama for nothing.

It's what his Dad wanted. You may not agree but, Jonathan did believe that and even sacrificed his life to protect his son. He died as anyone would have in that situation- without a "Superman" saving them.


oh man I could talk all day about the nonsense I had to swallow with this movie. Glad I did not pay to see this movie

Unless you got a free pass to see it, it doesn't sound like you were that enthused or motivated to see it, or like it, in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I can see what you mean. Perhaps because I'm a casual Supe fan I didn't really have a serious reaction to these critiques. I thought the flashbacks would weigh the film down too much, but I actually quite like them. Bus rescue - plays into Jonathan's opinion of remaining secret and Clark's dilemma of what to do in the future. Oil rig - the mysterious saviour roaming the world. Tornado - regardless of one's opinion, the basis is Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose himself ala his "maybe" convo. I thought it was a decent balance of themes and pacing, however simple they may be.
For me it was actually the oposite, i thought the flashbacks were going to be very good, it left me disapointed by how they were handled.
So now opinions are fact? Did you really just say that? Yes, yes you did.



You forgot to put in your opinion there.
Opinion is a diferente thing than judging the quality of a movie, it doesn't have to be good for me to enjoy it, i liked Transformers 3 and chronicles of riddick, but i'm not going to defend that they were good movies.
 
I do think there are a few conveniences in this film to get the plot going. I think Goyer needs to improve that aspect of the script for the sequel- not make the plot mechanics as obvious.
 
I do think there are a few conveniences in this film to get the plot going. I think Goyer needs to improve that aspect of the script for the sequel- not make the plot mechanics as obvious.

True. He is improving with each film tho
 
I disagree, i don't remembre his Batman films having this many conveniences.

Why fight, when u have guns? The final scenes of the people together with batman fighting with bane and his goons pissed me of so much!!! What am I watching??? Is it really a batman film???!!!
 
I enjoyed Man of Steel and thought it was very entertaining and definitely
action-packed – besides being totally re-booted, that alone was the big difference between
This Man of Steel and Bryan Stinger’s underwhelming 2006’ Superman Returns. I liked the upgrades to Superman, and the special effects and action scenes are the highlight of the entire film. It’s very fast paced and there was very little lengthy dialogue moments and there is no Lex Luther (Soop’s primary arch rival in comics) and i really like the script and plot of Zod and his soldiers in this one. But there were also a few obvious holes and peeves in it from my perspective.

This film gets off to a very fast start with Jorel and Laura (Superman’s father/mother) en route to the battle with villain General Zod,(who was played well
by actor Michael Shannon) The film doesn’t want to waste a lot of time with stretched
details of how/why the planet of Kryton is disintergrating and back and forth
dramatic debating argument between Jor-el and the high council.
In fact the film can’t wait to get General Zod’s instant rebellion and warfare going.

Unlike the Reeves/Kidder version of Supeman, I didn’t get anything out of the “romance” click of Superman and Lois Lane and their rather quick relationship seemed rather awkward, so it’s not going to draw any comparisons to Peter Parker/Mary Jane duo.

Some of the performances were well played but some was a mixed bag. Russell Crowe played a solid job as Jor-el, constantly playing significant spots in not only rebelling vs Zod, creating survival for his only child, and aiding and advising not only his son but a courageous Lois Lane through holograms star Henry Cavill was solid as Superman/Clark Kent but I didn’t get into Kevin Kosner much as Earth-father Johnathan Clark, in fact I thought it was odd thinking of what he advised young confused Clark Kent in response to him saving classmates’ lives but thought it was a bizarre twist in how Father Clarke tragically passed away vs the previous Superman films and the comic.

I also wasn’t impressed with Lawrence Fishburne as Daily Planet Bugle editor Perry White, it was a far cry from Jackie Cooper’s zany, quick tongue version – nor as a newspaper editor was he appealing as Spiderman’s JJ Jonah Jameson. I thought Fishburne’s version was bland and ordinary as they come and it puzzled me as a newspaper editor not wanting to get a huge selling story of Superman simply because he wanted to prevent a "public panic" .

Speaking of puzzling, I didn’t like the odd way of how the people of Earth was introduced to Superman by way of him instantly surrendering to General Zod instead of the Soop making public headlines from saving lives from horrific natural disasters, or stopping multiple crimes in it’s tracks en route to the public being in awed of him, before Zod appears out of thin air and not only do we immediately surrender Soop who the public has no knowledge of what he can do, or what “ crimes “he’s done to warrant an arrest, but offer no military resistance or inquiry upon Zod’s arrival ? What ? I even had to snicker at this and thought this was the only moment where the idea of Zod vs the military in 1977 version had an advantage over the 2013 version.

Another thing is this Superman version is 100% serious and absolutely ZERO sense of humor in it. No light moment anywhere. which is very unusual and a major difference between this film and other Superhero films. Also I just didn’t think they took enough time to Superman getting adjusted to his superpowers (such as we seen from Peter Parker getting clumsily adjusted to his newfound powers) we saw one very quick glimpse of him
adjusting to flight control but that was it.

As much as talk there was of General Zod, I actually got the biggest thrill of all action sequences from, Faora- Ul (played by actress Antje Traue) who was Zod’s top ranking soldier and wife. Not only did I think she was hot but her fighting sequences hand to hand battle with Superman was awesome and the absolute highlight of the entire film, IMO.
i enjoyed her scenes vs Superman more than anything.

Not only did I like the new Superman uniform but also like the battle uniform garmets and clear-face helmets that Zod and his soldiers possessed. But we got a glimpse of Superman’s Fortress of Solitude and his home defensive mechanicisms but what will blow you away and the highlight of the entire film is the brilliant CGI special effects, the flickering speedy Superman battle sequences, where you see heavy objects like diesels, buses, walls, military planes being tossed, entire buildings collapsing and constant explosions, and Krytonians flea-flash and flicker with lightning speed (moving like True Blood Vamps) and being knocked backed hundreds of feet upon impact. The finale battle with Zod is a moment for the morally good Superman in what he has to experience and is forced to do.

While I really did enjoy Man of Steel, and thought it was a pretty good film, but it’s not a classic to me – and it didn’t wow me, it didn’t make me want to eagerly and immediately see it again as I did the three great films of 2013 (ala "Olympus has Fallen", "Iron Man 3" and "Fast Furious 6") so while it was good, I can’t classified Man of Steel better or equal than either one of those films. On a scale of 1 to 10. I give Man of Steel a 7.5
 
The film's version of Perry White is actually one of the few things i liked, it wasn't an unforgetable performance but i did enjoy his scenes.
 
I disagree, i don't remembre his Batman films having this many conveniences.

My bad, should have read it better thought he was talking about Snyder.:doh:
 
People hate the movie, people hate the writing, people love the movie, people live the writing, it's almost an even split at this point. They bash, we defend, we praise, they tear down, and so on.

Why is a negative opinion bashing and tearing down, but a good opinion ISN'T overinflated fanboyism?

Learn to respect other peoples' opinions and grow up from the whole "hater" thing.
 
The film's version of Perry White is actually one of the few things i liked, it wasn't an unforgetable performance but i did enjoy his scenes.

What was there to enjoy? It was a glorified Lawrence Fishburne cameo. Honestly, I would've waited to put him in the sequel instead of the shortchanged treatment he got.
 
I enjoyed Fishbrune's Perry, but somehow I was put off when I saw he was wearing an earring. Sure, someone will come and tell me what's so wrong, old characters need to me modernized, etc. But I cannot see Perry wearing an earring.
 
I enjoyed Fishbrune's Perry, but somehow I was put off when I saw he was wearing an earring. Sure, someone will come and tell me what's so wrong, old characters need to me modernized, etc. But I cannot see Perry wearing an earring.

I'm thinking Fishburne had a clause in his contract that said he will only do the role if he can wear his 1990's diamond earing. Wondering if he tried getting them to go along with the Duran Duran feather earing first. LOL
 
Why?

So you can attempt to brainwash that person by counterpointing them death?

The poster doesn't need to cite specific examples. Their description was prettty well articulated. It wasn't just "Ohhhemgee it suckz!"

No, not at all Rock. I've never once in my time here attempted to rip someones opinion apart on any topic. I would have liked to see what specifically didn't enjoy about the film that's it. But thanks for assuming that because I wanted to see what someone else thinks on a topic and possibly discuss those things if I felt the same or differed on them that I'm only asking to purely attack them, class move there Rock.

By no means did I love this movie, I thought it was good not great and I posted my likes and dislikes a few pages back, I gave details to my feelings because I'd like others to chime in on them and either help me understand something I didn't or tell me their views on the same points. I like to see how one part of a movie can be seen so many different ways through other peoples individual viewings.
 
I don't think Perry was under written at all. He has a bigger part than I was expecting, also some people don't understand laying groundwork for bigger roles in sequels.
 
This was a review from Daniel at HISE.com. He liked the film but thought there some slight pacing issues at times. He also felt that some of the critics were trying to compare the film to their own vision of Superman or to the Donner films. What I would really like to know is what are they going to do when the make "How Man of Steel Should Have Ended"?
 
Why is a negative opinion bashing and tearing down, but a good opinion ISN'T overinflated fanboyism?

Learn to respect other peoples' opinions and grow up from the whole "hater" thing.

But but but it's in br0adband's TOS when he signed up to the Man of Steel fanclub that he had to be militant about his love for the film.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,535
Messages
21,755,288
Members
45,591
Latest member
MartyMcFly1985
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"