What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

Fair enough, I thought the conversation was fine but each to their own.

*shrugs* What can I say, I wanted conversations that were more than fine.

Like Ra's and Bruce's conversations, or Alfred and Bruce's conversations. Or the exchange between Falcone and Bruce after the courthouse.

Powerful, meaningful, thoughtful and well written.
 
Ironic that Goyer wrote BB. He wrote it in seven weeks before turning it over to Nolan. I read Goyer's draft. It was excellent. I still think it's the best thing he ever wrote.
 
Ironic that Goyer wrote BB. He wrote it in seven weeks before turning it over to Nolan. I read Goyer's draft. It was excellent. I still think it's the best thing he ever wrote.

Same.

Which is why MOS is such a complete shock to me.

It doesn't even seem like it's by the same writer, other than a few noticeable quirks of his (like the repetition of lines, and slightly corny jokey dialogue in places).
 
Well if you've seen Goyer's other screenplays...
 
Well if you've seen Goyer's other screenplays...

I guess that was my big disadvantage. I hadn't seen much of the rest of his work, and the films I had seen i'd mostly forgotten them, other than ghost rider, which I always thought was intentionally bad because that was what was entertaining about it.

Besides, I thought Nolan's name being in the mix meant more than it eventually did.
 
*shrugs* What can I say, I wanted conversations that were more than fine.

Like Ra's and Bruce's conversations, or Alfred and Bruce's conversations. Or the exchange between Falcone and Bruce after the courthouse.

Powerful, meaningful, thoughtful and well written.

Fair enough, agree to disagree, hope you're happier with the sequel :up:
 
Anyways, my cons of the movie.

No other talk of other super heroes, or mentions or anything.

Not intended as a nitpick, but I did find it odd that there weren't any other superhero activity seeing that the planet was under attack, especially if MoS is meant to be the springboard for the DCU.
 
Not intended as a nitpick, but I did find it odd that there weren't any other superhero activity seeing that the planet was under attack, especially if MoS is meant to be the springboard for the DCU.

Superman is the first superhero so there's your answer
 
Hopeful dreamer is absolutely correct with his critique of the film. The dialogue was non stop cliches and dreadful. The story had no passion or emotion. It seems most here are filling the movie with their own preconceived emotional attachment to the characters as the dialogue did zero to create any. While they did spend a lot of time building Superman up, his interaction with others was so dull and boring that it failed to do so.

Why did the action stink? Because we care about no one in the film. We all know superman is in no danger, but what about that reporter stuck in the rubble. I was hoping she'd die just so this movie could have some life to it. It just went from plot point to cool action scene to another plot point and so on.

All the critics who disliked the film touched upon all of these issues. Are they all part of the conspiracy to dislike the movie? No. This movie is flawed, it's not as bad as SR but to pretend like its perfect is nothing short of delusional.

All this IMO of course.
 
The entire "world engine gravity terraforming" subplot could have easily been written away that would've allowed all of the film's other scenes more room to breathe. It was the overly compressed plot that made the whole thing feel like it is frantically ticking off boxes on the chronological spreadsheet without allowing the audience to connect with what was happening on screen.

Secondly, Man of Steel definitely could have used a more competent writer to polish up the screenplay and have sharper, more poignant dialogue rather corny lines, overused repetitive cliches (if Superman saving a falling person twice in a film is one too many, and he does it thrice in this one) endless Christ-allegories and overuse of the words "the world".

Also, the level (and imagery) of destruction and carnage, particularly in the climax of the film is a little too apocalyptic and disturbing for a Superman film. They really need to tone it down for the sequel if they intend to push the idea of Superman being a symbol of hope rather than unimaginable collateral damage.

As with all of Goyer's ideas, the central concept of General Zod's role in the story was an intriguing one, but its true potential (especially in terms of Shannon's talent) was wasted due to sloppy writing.
 
Well after just getting done seeing the movie for the first time I have to say I really enjoyed it. It was great to see Superman back on the big screen and even though early on I really hated on the movie during production (more hating on the involvement of Snyder more than anything else) I got to admit I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it.

The only thing I did not like about the movie was the pacing of the plot. The movie in my opinion moved along far too quickly. I wasnt a huge fan of Lois finding out Clark was an alien, Clark finding the ship, Clark finding out what his true identity was and then start being Superman all in a span of like 15 min.
 
I thought the sombre aspects of the score was great but it was too bombastic. A score should sometimes temper what's on the screen instead of adding to it.

I thought a lot of Hans' action music in MOS was really repetitive and got tiresome after a while (unlike his Batman work). Williams' work on Superman was bombastic but it wasn't repetitive, and it had some nice orchestrations that kept things interesting.

Imagine what John Ottman would've done with this movie... probably as good as his work on SR. I keep playing the Superman-rescues-Lois scenes from MOS with Ottman's music from SR in my head, and it works so much better.
 
The entire "world engine gravity terraforming" subplot could have easily been written away that would've allowed all of the film's other scenes more room to breathe. It was the overly compressed plot that made the whole thing feel like it is frantically ticking off boxes on the chronological spreadsheet without allowing the audience to connect with what was happening on screen.

Secondly, Man of Steel definitely could have used a more competent writer to polish up the screenplay and have sharper, more poignant dialogue rather corny lines, overused repetitive cliches (if Superman saving a falling person twice in a film is one too many, and he does it thrice in this one) endless Christ-allegories and overuse of the words "the world".

Also, the level (and imagery) of destruction and carnage, particularly in the climax of the film is a little too apocalyptic and disturbing for a Superman film. They really need to tone it down for the sequel if they intend to push the idea of Superman being a symbol of hope rather than unimaginable collateral damage.

As with all of Goyer's ideas, the central concept of General Zod's role in the story was an intriguing one, but its true potential (especially in terms of Shannon's talent) was wasted due to sloppy writing.

Hopeful dreamer is absolutely correct with his critique of the film. The dialogue was non stop cliches and dreadful. The story had no passion or emotion. It seems most here are filling the movie with their own preconceived emotional attachment to the characters as the dialogue did zero to create any. While they did spend a lot of time building Superman up, his interaction with others was so dull and boring that it failed to do so.

Why did the action stink? Because we care about no one in the film. We all know superman is in no danger, but what about that reporter stuck in the rubble. I was hoping she'd die just so this movie could have some life to it. It just went from plot point to cool action scene to another plot point and so on.

All the critics who disliked the film touched upon all of these issues. Are they all part of the conspiracy to dislike the movie? No. This movie is flawed, it's not as bad as SR but to pretend like its perfect is nothing short of delusional.

All this IMO of course.

Both of you guys really hit the nail on the head ...... at least as far as what my experience was like watching the movie.
 
I loved the Dark Knight when I first saw it but over the years whilst I do still love it I find it to be a film that's abit too long and I never fell in love with it like I did with Batman Begins.

It's hard for me to really "fall in love" with any of Nolan's Batman movies because I believe as a director he's just got too many imperfections.

But for me it's not even close. The nod has to go to The Dark Knight. It improved on the aspects of Batman Begins in almost every way imaginable.
 
Hopeful dreamer is absolutely correct with his critique of the film. The dialogue was non stop cliches and dreadful. The story had no passion or emotion. It seems most here are filling the movie with their own preconceived emotional attachment to the characters as the dialogue did zero to create any. While they did spend a lot of time building Superman up, his interaction with others was so dull and boring that it failed to do so.

Why did the action stink? Because we care about no one in the film. We all know superman is in no danger, but what about that reporter stuck in the rubble. I was hoping she'd die just so this movie could have some life to it. It just went from plot point to cool action scene to another plot point and so on.

All the critics who disliked the film touched upon all of these issues. Are they all part of the conspiracy to dislike the movie? No. This movie is flawed, it's not as bad as SR but to pretend like its perfect is nothing short of delusional.

All this IMO of course.

If its not as bad as Superman Returns, then why did the Superman Returns have a 20% higher approval rate from the critics? You seem to agree with the critics, so you agree with their 56% rotten tomatoes score?

Superman was in no danger? He was getting beat down pretty easily by Faora and Nam Ek and laid motionless several times in the film. He was also weakened by the World Engine, choked in its smog, etc etc. Superman Returns resorts to tired kryptonite in order to hurt him. We actually saw Superman bleed in this film. That alone is a huge step in making him appear vulnerable

Superman Returns has Superman taking bullets to the eyeball without flinching, at least here his neck snaps back
 
Last edited:
Snyder doesn't know subtlety and he doesn't know when to contradict his habits. He goes overboard and makes things excessive. Didn't need Superman to do a crucifixion pose, there were more than enough Jesus parallels. The subdued color filters did not work in every scene and should have been more varied. Snyder's camera work was too consistent and was more about the picture than the subject. He filmed too many scenes up close on the actors' faces that we don't get to see their body or the setting.

Snyder's decision to adding the Zod fight and his death is basically the most damning part that turned critics against the film. No wonder Nolan kept calling it a Snyder movie. He didn't plant his foot down despite being against the decision.

Lastly, the editing was too choppy and only cared about moving the plot. There were several great scenes but they never allowed them to sink in. WB/DC really needs to hire a secondary writer who has a great grasp of humor and drama. Goyer is a great plotter but is weak in those areas. Unfortunately, Snyder still hasn't learned nuance. I wish Darren Aronfosky directed the movie with Snyder as the art director.
 
Well after just getting done seeing the movie for the first time I have to say I really enjoyed it. It was great to see Superman back on the big screen and even though early on I really hated on the movie during production (more hating on the involvement of Snyder more than anything else) I got to admit I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it.

The only thing I did not like about the movie was the pacing of the plot. The movie in my opinion moved along far too quickly. I wasnt a huge fan of Lois finding out Clark was an alien, Clark finding the ship, Clark finding out what his true identity was and then start being Superman all in a span of like 15 min.

I was a hater too. :D
I think I share kinda same experience with you that the pacing was too quick and hard to digest everything. But it looks slower and perfect in the 2nd viewing. And you manage to pick up many details and you can feel their emotion truly.
 
Snyder doesn't know subtlety and he doesn't know when to contradict his habits. He goes overboard and makes things excessive. Didn't need Superman to do a crucifixion pose, there were more than enough Jesus parallels. The subdued color filters did not work in every scene and should have been more varied. Snyder's camera work was too consistent and was more about the picture than the subject. He filmed too many scenes up close on the actors' faces that we don't get to see their body or the setting.

Snyder's decision to adding the Zod fight and his death is basically the most damning part that turned critics against the film. No wonder Nolan kept calling it a Snyder movie. He didn't plant his foot down despite being against the decision.

Lastly, the editing was too choppy and only cared about moving the plot. There were several great scenes but they never allowed them to sink in. WB/DC really needs to hire a secondary writer who has a great grasp of humor and drama. Goyer is a great plotter but is weak in those areas. Unfortunately, Snyder still hasn't learned nuance. I wish Darren Aronfosky directed the movie with Snyder as the art director.

I think it was much more than Zod's death that turned the critics against this movie. And yes, Snyder doesn't know subtlety. I hope he goes. I've come to believe he will never direct a great film. I still don't see where people are getting the Goyer is a great ideas man either. All I saw were bad ideas one after another in MOS.
 
Interesting. Got a link to where you posted your analysis?

I don't remember which thread I put it in, but I did save it on my computer. I'll just re-post it here for you.

Having been eagerly anticipating a Superman movie for this generation I was delighted when news of a brand spanking new series was coming around, one devoid of anything related to the Christopher Reeve era. My expectations were somewhat reserved however when Zach Snyder was named director, but with Chris Nolan's name attached I was willing to give Snyder the benefit of the doubt once more. The result is a film that is most definitely mixed, equal parts of brilliance and mediocrity, of dullness and spectacle, of heart and brainlessness.

First things first the story has problems. In placing so much emphasis on the spectacle the film loses steam with an under developed and compressed journey for Clark. The opening on Krypton feels completely pointless and really does nothing more than get the film off to a bad start showing us not much other than some flashy visuals and some hollow emotional moments. The pointlessness of this sequence is emphasized when the hologram Jor-El shows Clark the history of Krypton meaning more time could have been spent building Clark journey instead of wasting time on his home planet. There's an underlying journey here that could easily have been explored a hell of a lot more but it's almost as if only 2 acts of a movie were written given the last act is essentially a short action film. One of the big themes I was hoping for was the Father-Son relationship but it never hit the highest it frankly should have.

The pacing in Clark story is just so off, one minute he's on an oil rig, the next he's in the Arctic finding his roots, then all of a sudden he's Superman, and before you know it Zod turns up and all hell breaks loose, all in the blink of an eye. What is so frustrating is there are really good scenes within this film, but they are presented to us in a way that doesn't do them justice. There is a genuine attempted to tell a Superman story that is full of depth and emotion but it never hits the heights it sets out to hit.

Cavill is good as Clark, but he is hampered by the story, I've long had a problem connecting to Superman as a character and sadly Cavill doesn't fix that problem, most of that however I don't put on his shoulders, with a better story he could very well have made a fantastic Superman, but ultimately the mark he's left isn't one that will be remembered in years to come. Amy Adams is good as always, and she does have chemistry with Cavill but their relationship doesn't reach its full potential. Michael Shannon as Zod is good, if a little over the top, Russell Crowe is good, as is Kevin Costner and Diane Lane for what little time they had. Antje Traue was without doubt the surprise package of the film.

Special effects wise there's nothing to complain about, the last hour is pure spectacle, beautiful to watch at times but also tedious in its length. The amount of destruction is the likes of which we've never seen in a superhero film yet it over stays it welcome, by the time Superman and Zod start duking it out much of the novelty has worn off and you're kinda wanting the end credits to start. That's not to say there aren't some great heart pounding moments, it's fantastic to see Superman throwing punches for once, but it's more a case of overkill than anything else, again more time could have been used to ensure the story had a more solid foundation than showing us another building collapsing.

Overall, it's hard not to be disappointed with this film, it's not quite sure if it's trying to be pure spectacle or an emotionally resonating journey of a man trying to find out who he is, in the end we get a muddle mix of both that has great moments intertwined with moments that are truly lacking. The film is ok and not nearly as bad as some have made it out to be, the criticisms labeled against it have been overblown, but I think it's because underneath the surface a really good film exists, in much better hands it could have been brilliant. As for Zach Snyder, all I can say is my fears for this film were justified, Snyder might have an eye for visuals, but his ability to tell an engaging story is sorely lacking.

6/10
 
I thought a lot of Hans' action music in MOS was really repetitive and got tiresome after a while...

Oh my God, yes. I got tired of hearing those same damn piano notes over and over and over again.
 
The point where everything went way more overboard than it already had was that unnecessary tentacle scene. I agree with Jeremy Jahns: why not just make it a struggle for Superman to destroy the World Engine because it's making Earth more like Krypton, not because the machine wants to snatch him out of the sky.
 
*shrugs* What can I say, I wanted conversations that were more than fine.

Like Ra's and Bruce's conversations, or Alfred and Bruce's conversations. Or the exchange between Falcone and Bruce after the courthouse.

Powerful, meaningful, thoughtful and well written.

I think you asking for too much. In Nolans Batman, those conversations were between mob bosses, cops, attorneys, judges, and the like in a big city. All with conflicting yet all understandable philosophies on power.

In Superman, especially in an origin, we talking about farmers, simple country folk (no offense to anyone). I can't see conversations being very dynamic.

Can anyone in the Superman lore wax poetic like Harvey about the similarities between Ceaser and Batman.

Only Lex Luthor so far in my mind. Maybe Zod but I feel a deep conversation could have happened if he was somehow interrogated like the Joker was.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"