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

[Human Torch]

Well after giving the movie a second viewing, here are my thoughts on what could've been changed:

• The tone; more specifically, it could've stood to be softened. I'm not asking for a rehash of the Donner/Reeve classic, but a modern Superman movie can be done without an end product more humorless than the Dark Knight trilogy.
• The dialogue and one liners. "It all goes downhill..." "Dicksplash." Terrio is a very welcome addition to the team behind Dawn of Justice.
• The codex. This plot device provides unnecessary bloat to Superman's origins.
• The editing. At times it feels amateurish.
• The cinematography. Less shaky cams, and less zoom-ins please.
• The music. Zimmer is an incredible composer, but his work on this movie isn't one of his best, let alone worthy of Superman. The Superman theme itself starts off promising, but doesn't really go anywhere. I was hoping Zimmer would abandon the minimalist approach he took to the Dark Knight trilogy, but it still lingers. Plus it feels like 75% of the score is either in C-major or C-minor.

In the end, Man of Steel is ambitious, but ultimately just serviceable. Just because a movie tries to soar high, or stimulate meaningful conversation (which I don't understand but some people think this movie succeeds at that), doesn't make it superior to its contemporaries, especially when aspects of the production design leave things to be desired.

I didn't have as much problem with the music,but agreed on all points.

 

[Nemeres]

Well after giving the movie a second viewing, here are my thoughts on what could've been changed:

• The tone; more specifically, it could've stood to be softened. I'm not asking for a rehash of the Donner/Reeve classic, but a modern Superman movie can be done without an end product more humorless than the Dark Knight trilogy.
• The dialogue and one liners. "It all goes downhill..." "Dicksplash." Terrio is a very welcome addition to the team behind Dawn of Justice.
• The codex. This plot device provides unnecessary bloat to Superman's origins.
• The editing. At times it feels amateurish.
• The cinematography. Less shaky cams, and less zoom-ins please.
• The music. Zimmer is an incredible composer, but his work on this movie isn't one of his best, let alone worthy of Superman. The Superman theme itself starts off promising, but doesn't really go anywhere. I was hoping Zimmer would abandon the minimalist approach he took to the Dark Knight trilogy, but it still lingers. Plus it feels like 75% of the score is either in C-major or C-minor.

In the end, Man of Steel is ambitious, but ultimately just serviceable. Just because a movie tries to soar high, or stimulate meaningful conversation (which I don't understand but some people think this movie succeeds at that), doesn't make it superior to its contemporaries, especially when aspects of the production design leave things to be desired.

Spot on about the tone. And the codex thing, such a cluttering, dead weight piece of plot nonsense.

Although to be honest, "dicksplash" did make me chuckle.

 

[Batmannerism]

Kara Zor-El was the pilot of that scout ship - all this is explained in the prequel comic. If you haven't read it, that's understandable that you wouldn't get where the suit came from.

Also, when Clark inserts the House of El command key into that ship and 'fires it up," Jor-El's sentience then inhabits the craft and controls all the systems.

To honestly think for even one second that the ship wouldn't then be capable of providing a suit for Kal is just crazy. It wouldn't be a "war suit" like the other suits, it wouldn't necessarily be designed as battle armor either - Jor-El has already made it abundantly clear as we all know that Kal is nearly invulnerable here on Earth under our younger yellow sun.

Having him wear suits similar to the ones Zod and his cohorts wear (because they were traveling in space at times when they're on other alien worlds inspecting the old colonial outposts) would be somewhat ridiculous. It would also be unreasonable to think that they never ever found themselves under another yellow sun someplace out there beyond our heavens, and had the same reaction by gaining some strength and other abilities.

House of El command key inserted into a scout ship sent out by House of El members and even piloted by a member of the House of El = Kal gets his suit as expected.

It's not that tough to understand (but you gotta read the prequel comic to get it, that much is certain).

Dude, I struggle to understand why people even need the suit explained, ( given that the ship came from a planet so advanced that it could open doorways into hyperspace, people could copy their personalities into small metal objects) but also that the main character can fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes.

If you can suspend disbelief on stuff like that, the ship being able to manufacture a suit for Kal doesn't seem too far fetched. It's like....the interstellar travel, flying and laser beams are okay, but a specially designed suit inside a space ship, now that''s too much ?

I don't disrespect people's opinions, and if that bugged some people, that's fine - but I still don't understand why.

cheers.

(BTW Man of Steel, I admit not perfect, but then no film is. MOS was still 100% awesome, a great new direction for Superman in the 21st Century).

 

[Steamteck]

I didn't like that we are supposed to believe that Zod was prevented from killing the family because Superman had him in some sort of headlock. Ummm...all Zod had to was move his eyes he didn't need to turn his head!

Seemed to me Zod was doing it slowly to force Superman to kill him now that he felt he was defeated or close to it.

 

[Batmannerism]

Seemed to me Zod was doing it slowly to force Superman to kill him now that he felt he was defeated or close to it.

Good call. I'm quite convinced Zod went into that fight with a death-wish,
which he expressly states.

As for turning his head and other arguments about what Superman could have done instead....none of them have been convincing solutions to the dilemma Supes faced. In the end he did what he had to do.
Some people hate the writers for putting him in that position, but I think it makes him a better character, that he was able to make a hard choice.

People chuckle in flicks like the Expendables when some character shoots a bad guy dead, and then cracks a one-liner, but when Superman kills someone it's just wrong ? Obviously it was a big deal for Supes to do that. Yeah, maybe the movie should have followed that up a bit more, but regardless that scene still works IMO.

 

[iambranded]

im watching it now.......i liked the movie...it was pretty decent as it was when i watched it in theaters ...but geeezzz i think Superman crashing into buildings and more buildings... im thinking he kills a bunch of people in there also....

 

[Batmannerism]

im watching it now.......i liked the movie...it was pretty decent as it was when i watched it in theaters ...but geeezzz i think Superman crashing into buildings and more buildings... im thinking he kills a bunch of people in there also....

Respect your opinion, but gotta disagree with you there dude.

In Superman's defence he gets thrown through a bunch of buildings by Zod. It's not like he either decided to plow through them, or was just being careless (unlike the grain silos or the gas station, now that was a bit reckless, although not legally reckless -don't worry about it , long story) If you watch the start of the fight, they're over the buildings, it's Zod who takes it down into the city.

If you really want to complain about killing innocents in that film, think about what happened during the Smallville fight, when the army copters and jets opened fire with cannons and missiles on the main street. Where do you think all the ricocheting rounds went, or those that just missed ? Into the buildings where the people were hiding.

If anyone killed a lot of people in Metropolis it was the evil Kryptonians with their gravity beam which flattened whole city blocks, and the armed forces who opened up with missiles at a target that was directly above the city (and when the missiles get deflected down into the city, do they stop shooting ? No. They decide they have to get closer ! )

It just seems weird to be all "oh no Superman probably killed some people when he got thrown through those buildings" but not "Holy **** ! Zod and his goons just wiped out a ton of people" especially when we see Faora spectacularly murder a platoon of soldiers right in front of us. I kind of like that Superman was less than perfect, but also the fights were pretty intense.

Just IMO of course, and glad you thought the film was decent.

 

[WBwins]

The fact so many people came out of the movie with the misconception that "Superman killed a lot of people" is a fault of themovie,it was filmed in such a way that gave this wrong impression.
Same thing with Jonathan kent being a dick

 

[Batmannerism]

The fact so many people came out of the movie with the misconception that "Superman killed a lot of people" is a fault of themovie,it was filmed in such a way that gave this wrong impression.
Same thing with Jonathan kent being a dick

Really ?

That's an interesting suggestion, I think you have a point ther. I don't agree with you entirely, but it's still an interesting thought. I didn't come out thinking that Superman had killed anyone except Zod. Sure it was a radical departure from previous Superman films, which were mildly goofy ( I mean, in Superman II where Zod threatens people, we all remember Christopher Reeve trying to keep a straight face while shouting "THE PEOPLE !"

My theory is that the media and various pundits have misrepresented the film. If you watch the Honest Trailers "how to fix Man of Steel 2" you get Nick Mundy (not my favourite reviewer anyway) losing his mind and yelling about stuff that actually didn't happen in the film. I think it's a bit rich for Grant MOrrison to complain about Superman having to kill Zod, when he's written some of the most ultra-violent comics out there.

The other big perception some people seem to have come away with is that Superman didn't save anyone (maybe because he didn't get a cat out of a tree, or rescue an airplane -which is kind of a Superman staple).

No he didn't save anyone.....well except the busload of kids, Lois Lane on 3 occasions, his mom, the oil rig workers, the helicopter gunner, the family in the train station and the entire human population of the Earth....

Again this is about perception. You might be onto something, maybe because of the way it was filmed, and the darker tone, people didn't notice.
But I think has far more to do with the impression that people formed (rightly or wrongly) rather than the substance of the film - and IMO the critical response contributed to that impression (which is why one of the chief Editors at Rotten Tomatoes was stunned by the division among critics).

 

[Steamteck]

The fact so many people came out of the movie with the misconception that "Superman killed a lot of people" is a fault of themovie,it was filmed in such a way that gave this wrong impression.
Same thing with Jonathan kent being a dick

Apparently you may have something there but not for me. To the degree that I can't imagine folks are talking about the same movie I saw. It seemed pretty clear to me what was happening.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Sorry if this has already been discussed a lot... I haven't been on the forums much lately.

I've been giving it a lot of thought recently, and it's been bugging me, so I thought i'd discuss it here

I think that one of the biggest problems I have with the film is how they handled one character...

Jonathon Kent

In the majority of interpretations I have come to know and love, Jonathon Kent is the man that Clark gets the TRUE strength of Superman from. And I don't mean his bravery.

He sees how much his father believes in what some might call the 'little things' - politeness, hard work, kindness to strangers, giving your neighbors a helping hand, always aspiring to be honest etc - and he aspires to be that kind of man.

In Smallville, Jonathon Kent is a well liked and respected man BECAUSE of all those qualities. He is approachable and reasonable and most importantly of all... he sees the best in people.

And he teaches Clark to see the best in people.

I don't feel at all like that's what we got in this film.

I mean, i'm not saying they showed Jonathon Kent to be a bad person. He was quiet, seemed to keep himself to himself, very private. He was never aggressive or anything... in fact, he just seemed pensive all the time.

But in MOS, they showed a child who was raised in fear. A child who was repeatedly reminded he had a huge burden of a destiny and it was much more important that anything else... including other children's lives!

A child who was so conditioned by this fear, so brainwashed by it... and so desperate for his Dad's approval (which it seemed like he rarely got because the focus was on the future and not the present)... that he felt the only option was to let him DIE right in front of him to show him was being a 'good son'...

Which is IMO, messed up enough in itself.

But then you have the guy whose grown up thinking that his Dad's death is all his fault, and all the fault of an unaccepting world that's just too full of suspicion and greed to accept him. That the only thing he can try and do with his adolescent-adult years is to spend them in solitude, with no friends or connections, moving from place to place trying to find out where he is from... just so that all that guilt and confusion might have a reason behind it.

And that to me, is closer to Batman than Superman.

The Clark Kent I know... the one that was raised by the loving and hopeful Jonathon and Martha Kent, would have saved his Dad. Despite what his Dad wanted.

Because it is physically not within him to let someone die for his secret when it is in his power to stop it. IT IS PHYSICALLY NOT IN HIM!

I don't care how many conversations they have had about Jonathon's theory of a hypothetical future in which the world will suddenly be ready... The fact is, in this film there is absolutely NO CHANGE in the world or in people, from the moment where he let's his dad die 'because we're not ready' - to the moment he reveals himself to the world. It would have been the exact same reaction. People have not changed in the slightest or become somehow more ready.

So not only is his theory kind of thin at best, and a very poor basis for a child to allow his father to die... it is actually PROVEN incorrect later in the film.

I mean, seriously, did Clark not have a moment where he thought 'Oh man... I think Dad was wrong... I think people are handling this okay... maybe he didn't need to die'.

I won't go into how I feel about the actual set up of the rescue (as personally I think the whole thing was illogical because there was PLENTY of time for Clark to nip in and grab that dog with no risk of exposure).

But I will say, that the downright sad portrayal of Jonathan Kent in this film is the very first thing I would change.

I mean, I'd change that before i'd change the neck snap. And I felt pretty strongly about the neck snap.

But in my eyes, in a world in which Jonathon Kent was a character full of light instead of doom and gloom, Clark might not have seemed so depressed. And the movie itself, not so depressing.

 

[SlamAdams]

Except for his final moment, I liked how they portrayed Jonathan Kent. He wasn't simply a mouthpiece for classic, blue collar, middle America morality, but he was scared for his son. I thought they portrayed his struggle nicely between raising Clark to be the best he can be and the fear and protectiveness that I think would come naturally to a father who's child is so impossibly gifted. It was one of the few things I actually liked about the movie.

 

[WBwins]

Agree Hopeful dreamer on Jonathan kent though I liked the movie regardless.The Top 5 things I think needed to be changed in the movie were

1.NOT Making Superman the cause of the Invasion
2.Jonathan kent
3.Editing
4.Showing the world needing Superman
5.Showing the worlds reaction during Zods invasion(Not after like in BVS)

 

[Batmannerism]

Agree Hopeful dreamer on Jonathan kent though I liked the movie regardless.The Top 5 things I think needed to be changed in the movie were

1.NOT Making Superman the cause of the Invasion
2.Jonathan kent
3.Editing
4.Showing the world needing Superman
5.Showing the worlds reaction during Zods invasion(Not after like in BVS)

Dude, I respect your opinion but disagree with you.

1. Superman wasn't the cause of the invasion. He was the reason Zod arrived on Earth, but the reason for the invasion was that after Zod arrived he to wipe out humanity and rebuild krypton via genocide. The reason for that was because Zod was a crazy son of a *****.

2. Disagree with you, sort of. I think the Tornado scene could have been handled better. I think Costner was amazing in the "You're the answer son" scene. What they should have done was used Dylan Spraybury in the Tornado scene, rather than Henry Cavill - that would have made it seem a bit more logical that Clark wouldn't save his dad.
Personally, I think Pa Kent's death should have been a little different - and one of the best things about his death in Superman the movie, is that it shows that there are limits on Superman's powers (e.g. he can't beat death itself.....well he can't raise the dead).

3. The only editing that bugged me was the shaky cam in the Krypton council scene, otherwise I thought it was top notch.

4. Given that Superman saved a lot of people in the film, including the entire human race.....at which point a character actually says "He did it. He saved us." Well, I think they pretty much established that when the world needed him, he came through.

5. yeah, that I agree with you on that. A one or two minute scene after Zod's death would have made a big difference. I think the drone scene should have come between the final flashback (at Pa Kent's grave) and "Welcome to the Planet" . Definitely shouldn't have left this for the sequel, although I'm sure it will appear as a plot point in B v S.

But honestly, it didn't diminish the film for me. Cheers.

 

[the last son]

Someone made a great point. The Jonathan Kent death scene would've been a lot more effective getting the kid actor to play Clark during that scene. Cavill I guess was playing a teen, but he looks 25, so it makes it harder to accept him just watching his dad die. Getting that young teen would have really pulled your heart strings and make you understand listening to your dad.

 

[Hypestyle]

.... I'd give the film an A-.

Regarding characters- Jimmy is missed (Lois is taking her own photos! meta commentary on journalism jobs today!) -- I think that the blogger guy could have been made into Jimmy.

Lana and Pete are rendered irrelevant to Clark's backstory. Definitely there's no "Superboy" era to speak of. Of course, there's 10 years of Smallville, so I guess the filmmakers figured it would be pointless to go there and give him a super-career as a teen.

There was no public crisis that Superman helped out with before the Zod invasion. The invasion-- and the destruction of much of downtown Metropolis-- was basically his introduction to the general public. A victory, yes, but extremely Pyrrhic.

It's unclear what happened to one of the kryptonian scout ships.

 

[Dr.]

I mean, i'm not saying they showed Jonathan Kent to be a bad person. He was quiet, seemed to keep himself to himself, very private. He was never aggressive or anything... in fact, he just seemed pensive all the time.

But in MOS, they showed a child who was raised in fear. A child who was repeatedly reminded he had a huge burden of a destiny and it was much more important that anything else... including other children's lives!

A child who was so conditioned by this fear, so brainwashed by it... and so desperate for his Dad's approval (which it seemed like he rarely got because the focus was on the future and not the present)... that he felt the only option was to let him DIE right in front of him to show him was being a 'good son'...

By way of establishing a certain “serious” tone, the flashbacks focused on key dramatic milestones of Clark’s development. As such, any lighter moments weren’t given much representation. But I would suggest that these moments could at least be inferred. For instance, we see a cutesy photo of Jonathan and Clark at a school science fair. And when Clark returns from his travels, there’s a warm reunion between mother and son - strongly suggesting a happy relationship and home life. Finally, we do have one actual scene - at the end of the movie - where young Clark is posing in his “cape” to the amusement of his parents. Now some may have wished for more vignettes like these. But even as is, it’s a big stretch (imo) to characterize Clark’s childhood as “raised in fear” or “brainwashed” or "desperate."

 

[Batmannerism]

By way of establishing a certain “serious” tone, the flashbacks focused on key dramatic milestones of Clark’s development. As such, any lighter moments weren’t given much representation. But I would suggest that these moments could at least be inferred. For instance, we see a cutesy photo of Jonathan and Clark at a school science fair. And when Clark returns from his travels, there’s a warm reunion between mother and son - strongly suggesting a happy relationship and home life. Finally, we do have one actual scene - at the end of the movie - where young Clark is posing in his “cape” to the amusement of his parents. Now some may have wished for more vignettes like these. But even as is, it’s a big stretch (imo) to characterize Clark’s childhood as “raised in fear” or “brainwashed” or "desperate."

I agree. I think many have overlooked the significance of Clark and Martha's reunions after his "itinerant manual labourer" phase. And nice use of the word "vignettes." It's a word that one rarely comes across in common parlance, good way to work it in !

 

[C. Lee]

By way of establishing a certain “serious” tone, the flashbacks focused on key dramatic milestones of Clark’s development. As such, any lighter moments weren’t given much representation. But I would suggest that these moments could at least be inferred. For instance, we see a cutesy photo of Jonathan and Clark at a school science fair.

Things are "inferred" from what you see and hear....and what people and see and hear are not light joyful moments with his family...but fear and a child afraid of not getting his father's approval.

And when Clark returns from his travels, there’s a warm reunion between mother and son - strongly suggesting a happy relationship and home life.

Until he announces to her with a giant grin on his face that "I found my parents."....to me, that wasn't warm...that is a slap in the face.

Finally, we do have one actual scene - at the end of the movie - where young Clark is posing in his “cape” to the amusement of his parents.

Yeah....posing in his cape (at around age 8) that he has no knowledge of and doesn't even find until he is 33 years old.

 

[Curt424]

I liked Man of Steel, well the fight scenes and graphics, but it was lacking a lot, and they messed up a few things, I think. First, and most importantly, they should have went in chronological order of events and elaborated more on Superman's development. They went from the beginning,his birth to when he was an adult, living and working from one place to another,already saving people(with no care of who sees what he can do), instantly. That and the fact that they never really go into his childhood are the two things that made me kind of hate the movie, until he discovers his origin and takes on the superman persona, but even then, it goes straight from there to confronting Zod and his army. I, also, hated the whole power-zapping kryptonian atmosphere thing. It didn't make sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't it was true to the comics (ofcourse, not much was) but I wouldn't have cared if they would've just put more story into it, as I said in the beginning.

 

[Batmannerism]

Until he announces to her with a giant grin on his face that "I found my parents."....to me, that wasn't warm...that is a slap in the face.
.

It's a fair call if you didn't like the film, MOS had a few weaknesses, but IMO that scene wasn't one of them.
I've seen it quite a few times, and the only thing Diane Lane (as Ma Kent) displays is joy that her adopted son has finally found some answers - answers that have eluded him his entire life up until now.

It's the second time scene in which we see Cavill really smiling as Clark (the first being when he learns to fly) and is a turning point for the character. In fact all of his scenes with Lane are pretty warm.

It's interesting that you didn't take that from the scene, as it's not a common complaint - usually the complaints are about the destruction or pacing or too many Jesus metaphors etc.

I respect your opinion, different people see things differently, but can't agree with you there.

 

[Dr.]

Yeah....posing in his cape (at around age 8) that he has no knowledge of and doesn't even find until he is 33 years old.

Exactly how young Clark developed his prescient affinity for capes is a separate issue. (Perhaps he had just seen a swashbuckling movie. According to Goyer, he had a vague “genetic memory” of his people and their sartorial preferences.) In any case, it represents a charming episode from Clark’s childhood. And it (along with the other indicators I mentioned) makes a “raised in fear”/etc. interpretation of the material extremely dubious.

 

[Curt424]

Can someone refresh my memory, but how was the Army able to acquire Kal-El's spacecraft again?

1) Did Superman bring it to their base? Did the army dig it up from the Kent's farmhouse?

Can't remember the scene where the Army gets a hold of it.

2) Also, when Fiora was looking for the Codex but didn't find it, did she hurl Kal-El's spacecraft out of the barn or did she just jump out of it?

She jumped out of it after she peeled his ship open

 

[antonydelfini]

Sorry if this has already been discussed a lot... I haven't been on the forums much lately.

I've been giving it a lot of thought recently, and it's been bugging me, so I thought i'd discuss it here

I think that one of the biggest problems I have with the film is how they handled one character...

Jonathon Kent

In the majority of interpretations I have come to know and love, Jonathon Kent is the man that Clark gets the TRUE strength of Superman from. And I don't mean his bravery.

He sees how much his father believes in what some might call the 'little things' - politeness, hard work, kindness to strangers, giving your neighbors a helping hand, always aspiring to be honest etc - and he aspires to be that kind of man.

In Smallville, Jonathon Kent is a well liked and respected man BECAUSE of all those qualities. He is approachable and reasonable and most importantly of all... he sees the best in people.

And he teaches Clark to see the best in people.

I don't feel at all like that's what we got in this film.

I mean, i'm not saying they showed Jonathon Kent to be a bad person. He was quiet, seemed to keep himself to himself, very private. He was never aggressive or anything... in fact, he just seemed pensive all the time.

But in MOS, they showed a child who was raised in fear. A child who was repeatedly reminded he had a huge burden of a destiny and it was much more important that anything else... including other children's lives!

A child who was so conditioned by this fear, so brainwashed by it... and so desperate for his Dad's approval (which it seemed like he rarely got because the focus was on the future and not the present)... that he felt the only option was to let him DIE right in front of him to show him was being a 'good son'...

Which is IMO, messed up enough in itself.

But then you have the guy whose grown up thinking that his Dad's death is all his fault, and all the fault of an unaccepting world that's just too full of suspicion and greed to accept him. That the only thing he can try and do with his adolescent-adult years is to spend them in solitude, with no friends or connections, moving from place to place trying to find out where he is from... just so that all that guilt and confusion might have a reason behind it.

And that to me, is closer to Batman than Superman.

The Clark Kent I know... the one that was raised by the loving and hopeful Jonathon and Martha Kent, would have saved his Dad. Despite what his Dad wanted.

Because it is physically not within him to let someone die for his secret when it is in his power to stop it. IT IS PHYSICALLY NOT IN HIM!

I don't care how many conversations they have had about Jonathon's theory of a hypothetical future in which the world will suddenly be ready... The fact is, in this film there is absolutely NO CHANGE in the world or in people, from the moment where he let's his dad die 'because we're not ready' - to the moment he reveals himself to the world. It would have been the exact same reaction. People have not changed in the slightest or become somehow more ready.

So not only is his theory kind of thin at best, and a very poor basis for a child to allow his father to die... it is actually PROVEN incorrect later in the film.

I mean, seriously, did Clark not have a moment where he thought 'Oh man... I think Dad was wrong... I think people are handling this okay... maybe he didn't need to die'.

I won't go into how I feel about the actual set up of the rescue (as personally I think the whole thing was illogical because there was PLENTY of time for Clark to nip in and grab that dog with no risk of exposure).

But I will say, that the downright sad portrayal of Jonathan Kent in this film is the very first thing I would change.

I mean, I'd change that before i'd change the neck snap. And I felt pretty strongly about the neck snap.

But in my eyes, in a world in which Jonathon Kent was a character full of light instead of doom and gloom, Clark might not have seemed so depressed. And the movie itself, not so depressing.

That post is a thing of beauty. And to end the post with pages from All-Star Superman, wow.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

1. Underpants. The suit doesn't look right without them!

2. Superman kills Zod.

Or, if Snyder wanted Superman to kill somebody, why couldn't it have been an accident? He could squeeze his neck too hard, punch him too hard...blabla. "Oops, he's dead...I must be more careful from now on." But I guess it's "kewler" with Fatalities.

3. Make up your mind, movie:

- Clark is told to hide his powers, and lets his stupid nihilist father die.

- But suddenly, he saves people on the oil rig.

- Then he quits his job because some jerks spilled beer on him (maybe it's his kryptonite in this one), in a situation where it's okay to fight back. No one would suspect anything if he threw those guys out.

- But then destroys the guy's truck. It makes the bar scene a bit pointless.

4. The unnecessary destruction at the end, especially the Metropolis fight. I lost interest when building after building fell, things blew up etc. Boring as hell. Punch, punch, punch...smash...punch!

I get the feeling that Snyder wanted to make Miracleman/Marvelman or Watchmen 2 instead. I'm surprised he didn't add a scene where Superman picks up a car full of people and hurls it at Zod.

"He saved us all" (shot of burning city, smoke and death everywhere). She's probably inhaled too much dust.

And why is everything okay again at the end? Did they rebuild the city? Is this supposed to be ten years later?

5. Depressing tone. No humor. Some fans of the movie say "no, there's a lot of fun and lighthearted stuff in it". They use the following scenes as examples:

- Lois Lane needs to tinkle.
- The fat kid says "Dicksplash".
- Superman is happy the first time he flies.
- He's kind of hot.

Other fans admit that it's pretty joyless, but they say it's good. "Humor equals camp! They shouldn't imitate stupid Marvel. I hate Marvel and I hope they burn in hell!!!"

6. They killed Professor Hamilton in the first movie!

7. Silver age dialogue in a "dark and gritty" movie. "You're a monster, Zod...and I'm going to stop you!" What's next?

Clark: "You're a dog, Krypto, and I'm going to pet you!"

Batman: "You took forty cakes, Lex...and that's terrible!"

But there are some positive things about the movie as well. The music is very good.