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

[BH/HHH]

No thanks. I've seen enough.

Well I'm sure they're not just gonna cater to you,

 

[bluearth]

I'm going to respond to some criticisms this movie got. Not say these criticisms are wrong, because obviously alot of people didnt like them, just saying why they bothered me very little or not at all.

Superman killing Zod - Did not bother me one single bit. I know some people believe all Superheroes have this code where they cant kill. For starters, this isnt the comics. This is film. This is Zach Snyder, David Goyer and Christopher Nolan's version of Superman. Not killing is cheesy anyway. Police kill. The military kill. Are they not heroes? Seriously, people kill all the time in the United States protecting their home from an invader, but we're asking Superman not to kill the biggest threat to humans the Earth has ever seen?

Next, there is a big difference between Superman killing another superpowered individual and killing a human. For starters, Superman is working directly with the military. Obviously he has authority to kill Zod if he sees it fit. For crying out loud Osama Bin Laden did not receive a fair trial, he was shot dead on the spot because there were simply too many implications for keeping him alive.

How did the Donner Superman take care of Zod? He took him to a place where all his powers disappeared. Could he have done that in Man of Steel? If the Kryptonian ship was around, maybe. But would that be satisfying or remotely realistic? Even Donner had Zod thrown into an abyss to give the audience a satisfying conclusion. This is not Batman where villains have a hangout known as Arkham Asylum. A Zod alive on Earth but in captivity would have been a distraction for the rest of the movies to come.

But lets not forget the original ending to Superman II was that Superman reversed time again so the whole incident with Zod never happened. Is that more acceptable?

Superman's reaction to killing Zod at the end felt to me like a rookie cop killing his first criminal. Sometimes it could be part of the Job. The difference is Superman never had training like a cop. Just a few days earlier he was living the life of an average guy and suddenly he had to make the decision to kill someone. And not just anyone, but the last member of his race. So it tore at him.

What does this have to do with giving him a 'no killing' code. Again, no killing is cheesy and completely unrealistic. Iron Man kills all the time. Why does he not get any hate? Because people still see Superman as an overgrown boy scout?

There Was No or Little Humor - So what? Where you expecting to watch a comedy? I understand almost every comic book movie and animated movie nowadays has large doses of comedy, but why expect the same here? Because the Donner movies were silly?

Some say Superman is suppose to be light-hearted and funny. And if its not, then its a bad movie? Sorry I didnt know comedy decided whether a science fiction action movie would be fun to watch or not.

There was humor in the film. If you didnt notice it, or if it wasnt enough for you, well then too bad. If you want non stop laughs, preorder Iron Man 3. Let me know how that turns out for you.

There was Too Much Action and it was too repetitive - I dont understand this one either. The Smallville sequence was about 5 minutes long. The World engine sequence about 15 minutes. Zod vs Superman 5 minutes. Not counting the opening sequence of action, thats only 25 minutes of action in a 2 hour and 25 minute film.

As for it being repetitive, I've noticed alot of people saying this but I just dont see it. Maybe those who say it is repetitive havent seen Superman the Animated series fights that look and playout just like what you saw in the movie.

Superman Caused too much Damage and Did not do Enough Save People - For starters, the damage Superman did compared to Zod or the World Engine was tiny at best. Ever seen the Superman vs Doomsday movie? He slams Doomsday into the Ground in the middle of Metropolis which damages many buildings heavily.

But really what do you expect his first day on the job? He was wreckless a bit when he crashed Zod into the gas station and then Faora into the diner. But guess what, both times he was saving someone.

Superman spent his whole life holding back. Now hes forced to cut loose with his power to match the Kryptonians and he makes some mistakes. Thats to be expected. The animated Superman talks about how he has to hold back all the time or someone might get hurt. This Superman hasnt got that point yet.

As for not saving people, really? He saved Lois Lane 4 times. He saved the falling helicopter pilot. He saved the fighter jet pilot. He saved Colonel Hardy. He saved the oil rig workers. He saved the kids on the bus. He saved the family. He saved the world.

And theres some people who act like all that is left of Metropolis is ash. Thats not true at all. During the final fight with Zod they fly through the city and large sections of it are just fine. A website estimated the damage to Metropolis was only 4x worse then the Damage the Avengers did to New York City. 4x worse may sound bad, but again people basiclaly claimed the entire city was leveled. I think the death toll number was estimated at 300,000. So if 300,000 died in Man of Steel about 80,000 died in the Avengers. But did anybody talk about that at all?

 

[BlueLantern]

Hello there. You're launching a defense that has already been made and addressed. Scroll back and check it. It'll answer your questions.

 

[bluearth]

Hello there. You're launching a defense that has already been made and addressed. Scroll back and check it. It'll answer your questions.

Any questions I ask are rhetorical. If you dont like it you can just scroll past my post

 

[BlueLantern]

So hold on. You're asking rhetorical questions that ironically have answers to them. You're then implying that I don't like your post when in actual fact all I'm stating is that the discussion regarding those salient points has already been had. Furthermore you're asking me to ignore your post. Why post it then if you're so defensive about your points? They're valid arguments but they also have valid responses. Both sides of the discussion have been addressed before. That is all.

 

[Boy Scout]

Well I'm sure they're not just gonna cater to you,

Uh, okay. Nobody said they would. I was expressing my opinion, same as you.

 

[The Guard]

There’s an interesting phenomenon that appears to be going on here every so often. I don’t think some people were paying very close attention at all. In a couple of instances, people have said things like “I would have had it like this” and then ignoring that…why, that’s pretty much exactly what the film did.

For instance, people are talking about there being no buildup to the suit/flight sequence. The entire scene before, with Clark and Jor-El IS the build up. Him walking out of the fortress/ship is the payoff of that buildup, and the flight sequence is the escalated payoff.

And I know this has been beaten to death already, but the whole “Why didn’t Superman just fly away and the battle elsewhere” is just…will people…please, please, please stop saying that?

You cannot seriously think to critique a movie’s quality based on logic and then introduce such a silly idea as that, which has little to no logic in it.

In the Metropolis battle, Superman never had the upper hand. The idea that Zod would suddenly display a level of idiocy and just be tricked into doing what Superman wants him to is laughable, and I cannot believe people keep suggesting it. Zod wanted to kill people. If Superman had flown off, Zod would have killed people.

 

[Boy Scout]

There’s an interesting phenomenon that appears to be going on here every so often. I don’t think some people were paying very close attention at all. In a couple of instances, people have said things like “I would have had it like this” and then ignoring that…why, that’s pretty much exactly what the film did.

I think they mean they would've done it better. Which is a fair enough. You can't really say anything to that. What you can criticize, however, are whatever they have suggestions for making it "better".

For instance, people are talking about there being no buildup to the suit/flight sequence. The entire scene before, with Clark and Jor-El IS the build up. Him walking out of the fortress/ship is the payoff of that buildup, and the flight sequence is the escalated payoff.

It felt kind of anticlimactic to me. They were talking, we saw the suit, and then he was in it. That sounds like an out-of-context, intentionally generic description of how it went, but that's more or less what it felt like. Neither the reveal nor the suit-up felt impactful to me.

 

[kayos]

There’s an interesting phenomenon that appears to be going on here every so often. I don’t think some people were paying very close attention at all. In a couple of instances, people have said things like “I would have had it like this” and then ignoring that…why, that’s pretty much exactly what the film did.

For instance, people are talking about there being no buildup to the suit/flight sequence. The entire scene before, with Clark and Jor-El IS the build up. Him walking out of the fortress/ship is the payoff of that buildup, and the flight sequence is the escalated payoff.

I personally thought the suit reveal was wonderfully done. My interpretation of the entire sequence you described was Clark learning of his heritage and finally embracing that heritage by wearing the Kryptonian suit. I personally loved the symbolism of the moment.

 

[The Guard]

I thought it was great. Visually, thematically...those beautiful, simple moments followed by an explosive rush of flight training and soaring around the world...how does that get labeled anticlimactic?

I have no idea what people who were underwhelmed wanted there. A "suit up" sequence? A shot of Superman flying slow at the camera on wires inside the fortress?

 

[Cybermaxis]

One of my complaints (but not a big deal really) is that they showed the Daily Planet to be a relatively healthy Newspaper when in our real world print media is struggling. Would have been interesting if they found a way to show that in the movie's world.

 

[The Guard]

They didn't really show either way, did they?

 

[Boy Scout]

I thought it was great. Visually, thematically...those beautiful, simple moments followed by an explosive rush of flight training and soaring around the world...how does that get labeled anticlimactic?

Maybe this is something you just aren't capable of understanding. I mean, you obviously didn't have a problem with the way it was done, so the idea of it being underwhelming or anticlimactic probably isn't going to register with you.

None of that was meant offensively, so I apologize in advance if it comes off that way.

 

[Boy Scout]

One of my complaints (but not a big deal really) is that they showed the Daily Planet to be a relatively healthy Newspaper when in our real world print media is struggling. Would have been interesting if they found a way to show that in the movie's world.

Nah. I thought there a little too much DP as it was.

 

[sf2]

I'm going to respond to some criticisms this movie got. Not say these criticisms are wrong, because obviously alot of people didnt like them, just saying why they bothered me very little or not at all.

Superman killing Zod - Did not bother me one single bit. I know some people believe all Superheroes have this code where they cant kill. For starters, this isnt the comics. This is film. This is Zach Snyder, David Goyer and Christopher Nolan's version of Superman. Not killing is cheesy anyway. Police kill. The military kill. Are they not heroes? Seriously, people kill all the time in the United States protecting their home from an invader, but we're asking Superman not to kill the biggest threat to humans the Earth has ever seen?

Next, there is a big difference between Superman killing another superpowered individual and killing a human. For starters, Superman is working directly with the military. Obviously he has authority to kill Zod if he sees it fit. For crying out loud Osama Bin Laden did not receive a fair trial, he was shot dead on the spot because there were simply too many implications for keeping him alive.

How did the Donner Superman take care of Zod? He took him to a place where all his powers disappeared. Could he have done that in Man of Steel? If the Kryptonian ship was around, maybe. But would that be satisfying or remotely realistic? Even Donner had Zod thrown into an abyss to give the audience a satisfying conclusion. This is not Batman where villains have a hangout known as Arkham Asylum. A Zod alive on Earth but in captivity would have been a distraction for the rest of the movies to come.

But lets not forget the original ending to Superman II was that Superman reversed time again so the whole incident with Zod never happened. Is that more acceptable?

Superman's reaction to killing Zod at the end felt to me like a rookie cop killing his first criminal. Sometimes it could be part of the Job. The difference is Superman never had training like a cop. Just a few days earlier he was living the life of an average guy and suddenly he had to make the decision to kill someone. And not just anyone, but the last member of his race. So it tore at him.

What does this have to do with giving him a 'no killing' code. Again, no killing is cheesy and completely unrealistic. Iron Man kills all the time. Why does he not get any hate? Because people still see Superman as an overgrown boy scout?

There Was No or Little Humor - So what? Where you expecting to watch a comedy? I understand almost every comic book movie and animated movie nowadays has large doses of comedy, but why expect the same here? Because the Donner movies were silly?

Some say Superman is suppose to be light-hearted and funny. And if its not, then its a bad movie? Sorry I didnt know comedy decided whether a science fiction action movie would be fun to watch or not.

There was humor in the film. If you didnt notice it, or if it wasnt enough for you, well then too bad. If you want non stop laughs, preorder Iron Man 3. Let me know how that turns out for you.

There was Too Much Action and it was too repetitive - I dont understand this one either. The Smallville sequence was about 5 minutes long. The World engine sequence about 15 minutes. Zod vs Superman 5 minutes. Not counting the opening sequence of action, thats only 25 minutes of action in a 2 hour and 25 minute film.

As for it being repetitive, I've noticed alot of people saying this but I just dont see it. Maybe those who say it is repetitive havent seen Superman the Animated series fights that look and playout just like what you saw in the movie.

Superman Caused too much Damage and Did not do Enough Save People - For starters, the damage Superman did compared to Zod or the World Engine was tiny at best. Ever seen the Superman vs Doomsday movie? He slams Doomsday into the Ground in the middle of Metropolis which damages many buildings heavily.

But really what do you expect his first day on the job? He was wreckless a bit when he crashed Zod into the gas station and then Faora into the diner. But guess what, both times he was saving someone.

Superman spent his whole life holding back. Now hes forced to cut loose with his power to match the Kryptonians and he makes some mistakes. Thats to be expected. The animated Superman talks about how he has to hold back all the time or someone might get hurt. This Superman hasnt got that point yet.

As for not saving people, really? He saved Lois Lane 4 times. He saved the falling helicopter pilot. He saved the fighter jet pilot. He saved Colonel Hardy. He saved the oil rig workers. He saved the kids on the bus. He saved the family. He saved the world.

And theres some people who act like all that is left of Metropolis is ash. Thats not true at all. During the final fight with Zod they fly through the city and large sections of it are just fine. A website estimated the damage to Metropolis was only 4x worse then the Damage the Avengers did to New York City. 4x worse may sound bad, but again people basiclaly claimed the entire city was leveled. I think the death toll number was estimated at 300,000. So if 300,000 died in Man of Steel about 80,000 died in the Avengers. But did anybody talk about that at all?

bravo.

i hope the Mods would give this post a sticker like they did for the red underwear.
unfortunately, some of the Mods don't like MOS too... so they allow the trolls to go on and on.

 

[The Guard]

Maybe this is something you just aren't capable of understanding. I mean, you obviously didn't have a problem with the way it was done, so the idea of it being underwhelming or anticlimactic probably isn't going to register with you.

None of that was meant offensively, so I apologize in advance if it comes off that way.

Well, I saw the movie. The beautiful visuals, the music, the relevant summation to the previous sequence, I don't consider that anticlimactic.

Seeing as how no one has given an actual reason why it was anticlimactic in that sequence...no, I don't quite understand their point. They just keep saying that it was.

That's not a discussion of film elements, though. That's using a word.

 

[robot]

bravo.

i hope the Mods would give this post a sticker like they did for the red underwear.
unfortunately, some of the Mods don't like MOS too... so they allow the trolls to go on and on.

I noticed that one thing people don't understand is that trolls can go both ways.. the 'see no evil type', or the 'see all evil type'... (and only if they personally attack others... else, everyone's entitled to their opinions)

Just because someone has some issues with MOS doesn't mean they are trolls... I have said over and over again that i absolutely loved and enjoyed MOS 2, but I still thought there were flaws that took away some of my enjoyment of the movie...

And I can see the legitimate complains that many have... why? Because, not everyone enjoys movies the same way... and when we have so many that seems to agree with similar complains, there is something to it... To brush off other's complains is just as trollish...

 

[Boy Scout]

Well, I saw the movie. The beautiful visuals, the music, the relevant summation to the previous sequence, I don't consider that anticlimactic.

That's because you're you. What does it for you might not do it for someone else.

Seeing as how no one has given an actual reason why it was anticlimactic in that sequence...no, I don't quite understand their point. They just keep saying that it was.

What more do you need? It's pretty obvious that what you mentioned above didn't have the effect on them as it did on you. Why? Because they're different people and, for whatever reason, the film wasn't able to elicit that reaction from them. Why? I don't know. Maybe it felt rushed. Maybe what was shown wasn't enough to establish proper build-up. Examples of perfectly legitimate reasons. But of course you'd then go further and ask why they feel that way (sort of an unfair question) or what they would've done differently. Then they'll answer one or both of those questions; you'll disagree and insist that what was shown was sufficient; and you'll end up right back when you started. "Good", "bad", and "enough" are subjective. What might have been enough for you might not have been enough for another, and honestly, there's not much you can do to change that. Debate is fun and all, but it sounds like you're looking for an answer that'll prove beyond argument that the scenes in question were indeed anticlimactic or whatever.

 

[jmc]

It felt kind of anticlimactic to me. They were talking, we saw the suit, and then he was in it. That sounds like an out-of-context, intentionally generic description of how it went, but that's more or less what it felt like. Neither the reveal nor the suit-up felt impactful to me.

I wouldn't even say it was anticlimactic. It's just kinda happens. An anticlimax to me would involve a sense of build up, and I for one just never felt like there was a build up. It was was more or less just a 'here he is!' reveal. Like many things in this film the wrong areas were abbreviated. Opening sequence in Krypton more or less kills the movie for me right off the bat, it's a poor start and the film never really recovers from it.

 

[jmc]

What more do you need? It's pretty obvious that what you mentioned above didn't have the effect on them as it did on you. Why? Because they're different people and, for whatever reason, the film wasn't able to elicit that reaction from them. Why? I don't know. Maybe it felt rushed. Maybe what was shown wasn't enough to establish proper build-up. Examples of perfectly legitimate reasons. But of course you'd then go further and ask why they feel that way (sort of an unfair question) or what they would've done differently. Then they'll answer one or both of those questions; you'll disagree and insist that what was shown was sufficient; and you'll end up right back when you started. ''Good'', ''bad'', and ''enough'' are subjective. What might have been enough for you might not have been enough for another, and honestly, there's not much you can do to change that. Debate is fun and all, but it sounds like you're looking for an answer that'll prove beyond argument that the scenes in question were indeed anticlimactic or whatever.

To me the simple answer is that this films pacing is terrible. That's why it doesn't register the same (or frankly any) emotion.

 

[Boy Scout]

I wouldn't even say it was anticlimactic. It's just kinda happens. An anticlimax to me would involve a sense of build up, and I for one just never felt like there was a build up. It was was more or less just a 'here he is!' reveal. Like many things in this film the wrong areas were abbreviated. Opening sequence in Krypton more or less kills the movie for me right off the bat, it's a poor start and the film never really recovers from it.

To me the simple answer is that this films pacing is terrible. That's why it doesn't register the same (or frankly any) emotion.

Agreed.

 

[spider-neil]

I think defenders of MoS are missing the point a bit. You can defend the movie as is your right and our defence may be valid but the general audience got an IMPRESSION of things that were wrong with the movie;

General audience 'felt' that the fights went on forever
- you can clock the end battles at 25mins but it 'felt' like 40mins

General audience got the 'impression' that Superman didn't give a **** about people
- In one scene he flies Zod from a corn field TO THE CENTRE OF TOWN.
Telling people 'to stay in their homes' at that point is moot.

General audience 'felt' the movie was humourless
- You can't insert one joke and then claim the movie has humour.
No one said the movie is a comedy but I think the GA expect the hero to have a little fun especially if they have superpowers.

I'm not saying the general are right to say such things or fair to say such things but these are the sort of things they are saying. I've spoken to work colleagues who aren't comic book fans and these are the comments that have come up every time. Heck, I AM the comic book guy and this was certainly the impression of the movie I got on first viewing my opinion is changing on subsequent viewings but a lot of people are only seeing the movie ONCE.

 

[jmc]

My mother said the last hour felt like a video game, and I find it hard to disagree with her.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Right on.

MOS isn't a bad film (IMHO) but its flaws hamper the impact of the overall story

 

[Iron_Madrigal]

I think defenders of MoS are missing the point a bit. You can defend the movie as is your right and our defence may be valid but the general audience got an IMPRESSION of things that were wrong with the movie;

General audience 'felt' that the fights went on forever
- you can clock the end battles at 25mins but it 'felt' like 40mins

General audience got the 'impression' that Superman didn't give a **** about people
- In one scene he flies Zod from a corn field TO THE CENTRE OF TOWN.
Telling people 'to stay in their homes' at that point is moot.

General audience 'felt' the movie was humourless
- You can't insert one joke and then claim the movie has humour.
No one said the movie is a comedy but I think the GA expect the hero to have a little fun especially if they have superpowers.

I'm not saying the general are right to say such things or fair to say such things but these are the sort of things they are saying. I've spoken to work colleagues who aren't comic book fans and these are the comments that have come up every time. Heck, I AM the comic book guy and this was certainly the impression of the movie I got on first viewing my opinion is changing on subsequent viewings but a lot of people are only seeing the movie ONCE.

First time I saw the movie I was able to sit back and just be entertained. Second and third time those flaws started to stick out. It's really just a bad movie. Poorly written, poorly paced. It's Michael Bay's Superman.