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

[Wolvieboy17]

Also so sloppily handled how immediately after that flashback, Clark basically just re iterates ALL the subtext of that scene.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't think this film was as bad as people are making it out to be. It was definitely flawed but not terrible.

For me, the hardest thing to accept was that it didn't FEEL like a superhero movie. It felt like a sci-fi action movie. Thinking back to Batman Begins though, large parts of that didn't really feel like a superhero movie either. It was more about the Man begind the legend of Batman.

So for me, the main flaw is that I don't think this approach necessarily works for Superman. He is supposed to be THE superhero, the quintessential one. I dont want to see a conflicted, tortured loner, at least not to that extent. I want to see someone who rises above it all... I don't think it's the fact that he's an outcast that makes him interesting... I think it's the fact that Supes is an alien, one of the last of his race, who dedicates his WHOLE existence to protecting an entire planet. There is so much potential to explore the psyche of someone doing that, someone who tries to 'save everyone'.

Man of Steel didn't focus on that, in fact it seemed to teach weird morals... That for the greater good, it's okay for people to die if it saves more. The Superman I know wouldn't have let Johnathon Kent die.... He would have IGNORED him and saved him anyway. It would have been a great character moment, to explain to the audience exactly where Supes stands. Superman is the hero who doesn't pick and choose what events are worthy of him, he's the hero who tries to save everyone.

Completely agree. It was missing something.

I think the reason that TDKR is my favourite over all the trilogy is that it has this enormous sense of triumph. When Bruce rose from the pit by embracing the very demons that had been plaguing him the entire span of the three movies, and understanding the true power of fear... it just hit me.

There is no triumph in this film, there is only 'realism' as Snyder and Goyer understand the term.

Superman should kill cause it's more realistic. The world should be so terrified and unprepared to find out there is an alien on the planet, that Jonathon Kent should die for it etc etc.

And yet there were totally unrealistic in how events actually transpired within the film, or how certain characters reacted to situations.

It all results in a movie that seems like it's half trying to make certain points, but never embellishing on them.

It's empty of any 'message', and disagree with me if you want, but I think all the best superhero stories have a clear message.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

To to create any Marvel vs DC tensions, but he needed to be more like Captain America in the marvel films, as this character who would do whatever it takes and never give up.

I mean, was the moral that Clark learnt from his father REALLY that it's okay to sacrifice the few for the good of the many? WTF kind of lesson is that? And in that case, they sacrificed Johnathon Kent to save a bloody dog... That whole scene was ridiculous.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I feel like the "message" of Man of Steel is that heroism has a cost, from Hardy's and Jon's sacrifice, to Superman's sense of innocence being taken away by doing his deed, to Jor-El fighting to allow free will among his offspring.

Which is a bit heavy for an origin, IMHO.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Saw it yesterday. Gets 9/10 from me. Could be 10 if not for 3 things.

1. I will never understand how in the world they thought that just by saving a puppy from the car and then just waiting for no reason for the tornado would be an epic and emotional death for Jonathan while Clark could have saved him easily. They could have handle this better in so many ways. Maybe Clark was saving someone else and couldn't reach in time for his father or something like that.

2. Cliched alien invasion . Skyline, Battleship, TF3, Battle LA, a few movies come to my mind from the recent years. Why not start small to give room for more character development and introduction of this new franchise. The alien invasion and the multiple Kryptonians concept seems more appropriate for a sequel to me.

3. Jor El walking and talking as if he never died in a planet in another galaxy. Yeah it was his conscience uploaded to a high advanced AI computer but still it felt weird and fake being an exact clone of the real person. Kal El's tragedy is that he lost his biological parents and he will never be able to see them again in full form walking and talking to him like real persons. Keep it an AI voice or a faint hologram so that the tragedy remains intact.

 

[Mjölnir]

Or may retroactively like the movie more as was the case with Batman Begin (IMHO) a very overrated movie but is looked upon more favourably after the superb TDK.

For me I don't look back on Batman Begins favorably (I liked it when I first saw it) because the sequels were better but because I think that was the best one when it came to making me care about Batman. I was less interested in the protagonist in the two sequels (doesn't mean it's bad, just different). Although I may forget some things since it's been quite a while since I last saw it I remember it as the most solidly written of the three.

 

[StarvingArtist]

^ I feel like the "message" of Man of Steel is that heroism has a cost, from Hardy's and Jon's sacrifice, to Superman's sense of innocence being taken away by doing his deed, to Jor-El fighting to allow free will among his offspring.

Which is a bit heavy for an origin, IMHO.

It's because shock and awe (and idiocy) are what sells movie tickets these days, not intelligent storytelling.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

For me I don't look back on Batman Begins favorably (I liked it when I first saw it) because the sequels were better but because I think that was the best one when it came to making me care about Batman. I was less interested in the protagonist in the two sequels (doesn't mean it's bad, just different). Although I may forget some things since it's been quite a while since I last saw it I remember it as the most solidly written of the three.

I feel like BB has the best narrative style. TDK has this weirdly slow "talky" style when it's not frenetic. TDKR has this bottlenecked pacing, like a rollercoaster.

I'm not fond of MOS' narrative style, but I consider it a movie response to Superman Returns.

Honestly, I think MOS should have taken a hint from Iron Man (and it seemed to during the flying scene) as an origin narrative, character driven to the core.

 

[BlueLantern]

Iron Man was fantastic. It was about Tony Stark whilst **** around him just happened. It felt spontaneous and it was good. Even Batman Begins didn't hit those heights.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The thing about Iron Man is it never lost track of character. Batman Begins gave the story a silly plot to allow the character to have something to do, while Iron Man merely interacted in Gulmira (a character piece, because it ultimately is kind of a side-mission) while the conspiracy brewed around him. When all is said and done, it leads into a climax that is overextended and less than thrilling, but all the moments up until that final sequence work, more or less.

I'm not saying try to copy everything that Iron-Man did, just see what made Iron Man great. Goyer confused a sense of theme with a sense of character.

Batman Begins isn't great because it has interesting themes (which it does, but I think they are overstated), but because it showed an extended look leading up to the man donning the mask and his interactions with Alfred.

And then the film becomes action oriented and less effective, given Nolan's limited ability at creating good fights.

 

[BlueLantern]

He really is pretty incapable at shooting intimate action. Both the Bruce/Bane fights were so odd. The first one without music felt like some off kilter underground wrestling bash and the latter was just a few punches and then crazy Bats voice ending the scene.

 

[STARMAN]

I like the first Batman/Bane battle. But yeah, it's not Nolan's strength.

Some final battles feel anticlimactic. While others feel like they never end.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"WHERE'S DA TRIGGERW!"

Nolan does good chase scenes though, and okay shootemup action. Maybe he should do a cop movie.

 

[BlueLantern]

I think Batman Begins probably had the best fight choreography of the lot all being said and done. Considering the weight behind the Dark Knight Rises' sequences, I think they were underwhelming. Hardy's presence that kept the first one going along with the dialogue. Nolan's strength is scale as opposed to close quarters fights.

 

[The Batman]

Regarding IM, Everything up to Gulmira and Tony vs the fighter planes was absolutely perfect. But that last act with Iron Monger kinda took the sails out of it.

As for BB, everything up till Batman interrogating flass was perfect. I know people don't like much of the third act, but I enjoyed it more than I did much of the Iron Monger stuff. The fight scenes are choppy, but the car chase was a good scene, IMO.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yeah, I agree with BlueLantern about BB's fight choreography. While I feel like BB has the worst FILMED action, the bits you can see show hi-kicks, believable enough punches, and even some rolls and body slams.

 

[BlueLantern]

I've always thought that in terms of origin films that Begins had the most fluid final act. It added up and didn't just feel like the obligatory throw-down.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The writing. Mute the film and you'll see how dull the climax is

 

[BlueLantern]

Haha, I watch films for the writing. Spectacle is cool but if a character arc and story is satisfyingly concluded I couldn't give a hoot if it just cuts past the action.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ With me, I have this "why can't you have it all?" mentality.

A great example of strong editing, camerawork, writing, AND action is the fight with Red Grant in the second James Bond movie.

 

[mclay18]

My complaints stem mostly from technical aspects. I'm fine with a handheld aesthetic but there needed to be more Steadicam... David Yates utilized the handheld approach in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 but he balanced it with some nice steady shots. (And the overall camerawork was fantastic as a result.) Zack Snyder could've taken that approach more.

Also, the infamous quick zoom during the action sequence bit that Joss Whedon patented in Firefly and JJ Abrams ripped off for both ST movies... there's too much of that in MOS. Especially the final Superman/Zod fight in Metropolis.

And a big detractor was Zimmer's score. I would've tossed that and gone for a more bold orchestral approach with a different composer. I would've hired the trifecta of Lolita Ritmanis, Michael McCuistion and Kristopher Carter to score this film -- since Shirley Walker is no longer with us -- and they would've done something special.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yeah. I feel like Hans Zimmer gets so much work that he's running out of inspiration.

And I'm not a hater. I consider the Lion King to be one of the best scores ever written. Prince of Egypt is also an incredible work of art.

I even feel like MOS has a strong main theme. But Hans tends to makes things loud, rather than musically interesting.

 

[BlueLantern]

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.

 

[Rock Sexton]

In a couple years time when we get an actual good Superman film people will look back on Man of Steel with less than favorable eyes I believe.

Did you do a review?

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

u gotta watch it again to decide.
are they really problems to you??? or because you are not get used to this kinda treatment.

I actually watched it 3 times . Still have no clue.