What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought Costner's acting was horrible. Also, didn't like the tornado scene. Mainly, because I can't help but compare it to the STM scene where Pa Kent kicked the bucket. MoS didn't pull at my heart strings there very much. I guess because we knew it was coming from knowing Supes history, I don't know?

Zod's battle at the end had amazing special effects. Just seemed a little drawn out as it seemed no one was accomplishing anything other than destroying a city.
 
Not bleed the color so much. And really bring down the lens flares and back lighting. This is the only movie I've ever seen were they were constantly noticeable to me. When he was hovering, surrendering to the military his head bobbed and the sun blocked him from view. Seriously???

And cut way down on the handheld, and the TV closeup lighting/framing too.
 
Another of my wish list is:

After Lois calls superman as clark, both of them feel nervous that his secret gonna be discovered. Then Martha runs out n tells lois that clark isnt at home. She then looks at his \S/shield n calls clark as superman!!! Thanking him for saving her life. Lois follows immediately n calls him superman. Then clark gives us a funny face for not getting used to be called as superman.
 
-A day after the world discovered the existence of alien life (which is threatening us), Clarks goes to talk to a priest and...THE CHURCH IS EMPTY. I guess in that situation it will be packed of desperate people.

-The script recognize the diversity of languages in the world but, still, two different planets have the same language (english)

-Learning to fly: it reminded me of The Greatest American Hero, in a bad sense.

-Zod plans: he tells Kal his exacts plans: "hey, we will kill all the human race in order to refund Krypton, so, you know, we need that codex of yours. By the way, I killed your father". I mean, Zod knows Kal has spent 33 years with the humans, it´s kind of probable he likes them. Couldn´t he just tell Kal a lie: "We need that codex cause our people is dying".

-I don´t understand how the hell Superman´s uniform is on Kara´s ancient ship. Its introductions was anticlimatic.

-When Clark finds his cousin´s ship and flies away, he leaves Lois Lane unconscious in the snow in the middle of the night, supposedly at a temperature of minus 40 degrees C (i think): she wakes up the next morning like nothing, and is found by the helicopter. Come one...

-Also, that ****ing pen drive that works with every kryptonian ship, even if they were built at different ages (thousands of years, actually). Kryptonian technology doesn´t evolve? Their machines and sistems don´t caducate?
 
I have a complaint: Superman's alpha-male chest hair, poking up like wild foilage out of the top of his costume. It was eerily distracting in IMAX high definition, and I kept thinking "Don Draper Superman." Manscape those suckers!

HA HA HA. I had forgotten, but yes. WTF, chest hair showing right there.
 
Hollywood basically took the original Chris Reeve movie, dolled it up like a ****e, and put it out on the street to turn tricks. That's pretty much my only complaint.
 
Hollywood basically took the original Chris Reeve movie, dolled it up like a ****e, and put it out on the street to turn tricks. That's pretty much my only complaint.

U hate MOS?
 
Hollywood basically took the original Chris Reeve movie, dolled it up like a ****e, and put it out on the street to turn tricks. That's pretty much my only complaint.

There are enough references to the Donner movies to deny they paid attention to them.
 
I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought Costner's acting was horrible. Also, didn't like the tornado scene. Mainly, because I can't help but compare it to the STM scene where Pa Kent kicked the bucket. MoS didn't pull at my heart strings there very much. I guess because we knew it was coming from knowing Supes history, I don't know?

Zod's battle at the end had amazing special effects. Just seemed a little drawn out as it seemed no one was accomplishing anything other than destroying a city.

I disagree with you on Costner's acting. But I agree with the tornado scene. It was trying to create moral conflict when the "right" choice was obvious.
And yes, the heart attack was more effective, because nothing could be done to save Kent.
 
Wasn't a whole lot I would complain about or nit pick too much.
-Tornado scene
-Lois/Supes love story
-Perry, Jenny, and bald guy scene(Jenny was trapped, was awkward)
-Pacing/editing was off, felt slow and sloppy at times.
-Not enough Faora :hrt:
-Clark showing up at cemetery in the baseball cap scene, he just looked stupid.
Other than that it was a decent movie imo, and better than IM3 and TDKR.
 
I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought Costner's acting was horrible. Also, didn't like the tornado scene. Mainly, because I can't help but compare it to the STM scene where Pa Kent kicked the bucket. MoS didn't pull at my heart strings there very much. I guess because we knew it was coming from knowing Supes history, I don't know?

How do you compare the two? To me they're like night and day, they're used to teach Clark 2 different lessons. in SM1, the lesson was that there are some things even Superman can't change, but in MoS Clark learned the price of his inaction. I suppose it's really up to the viewer to decide which lesson is more valuable. For me the MoS version definitely blew me away more than "heart attack...dead". All the emotion in that death came from its aftermath rather than how it happened.
 
While I find things that I would have written in every movie I watch and it is certainly true for this movie, there is only a couple of things I would change. Have the family that Superman save, thank him and walk out into the streets with him. Cavill did an amazing job of reacting to killing Zod and I believe seeing him walk out and really have a chance to see the devastation would be amazing. I would have still had the scene after the fight ended but would have added a bit more to it. The general would be a great character to have mention the collateral damage to Superman. I can hear Superman responding much like he did at the end of Superman II, "It won't happen again."

I think the handling of Zod's remains has the potential to be a significant element of the sequel. Given that MOS draws so heavily on Byrne era Superman, I can see Lex using the corpse in man interesting ways in terms of his dealing with Superman

As a writer, I will say that other than how expansive the action scenes were, this was on e of the leanest films I have ever seen which I think is one of the consistent criticisms of the film. I have the feeling that there isn't really a lot of deleted scenes for this movie but that there are many little moments cut out of the scenes that we already have that would have made a huge pacing difference.
 
Last edited:
Hollywood basically took the original Chris Reeve movie, dolled it up like a ****e, and put it out on the street to turn tricks. That's pretty much my only complaint.

I disagree with your view there but i have to say i enjoyed this comment lol.
 
So I was trying to put into words how I feel about this film, when another poster asked me what Superman stands for to me.

This is what I came up with:

'Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down.' - Grant Morrison

I think that's a pretty good starting point.

I grew up without a Dad around. And you know that way that a lot of kids look up to their Dad's like they are Supermen? Well I guess that's how I felt about Superman.

He is good, brave, kind, intelligent, authoritative, and someone to look up to because he has a moral code that is unwavering.

There is something consistent about him. He will never let us down. He always shows up just in the nick of time. He always beats the bad guy, and he always does it in a way that doesn't mean compromising what he stands for, and what he's trying to teach the rest of the world to act like.

What does he stand for?

Knowing and sticking to what you believe in. Standing up and fighting for your dream even when your just one man and it'll take years if ever to get there. Never loosing sight of how much good and beauty there is out there, and how much kindness there is in the human spirit.

And because this man was someone I was looking up to like a Dad, those are all the things that I try aspire too. Those are the things that I respect in other people.

I guess that's why it's devestating to me that an entire generation of kids just doesnt have that.

And they could have...
 
Last edited:
So I was trying to put into words how I feel about this film, when another poster asked me what Superman stands for to me.

This is what I came up with:

'Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down.' - Grant Morrison

I think that's a pretty good starting point.

I grew up without a Dad around. And you know that way that a lot of kids look up to their Dad's like they are Supermen? Well I guess that's how I felt about Superman.

He is good, brave, kind, intelligent, authoritative, and someone to look up to because he has a moral code that is unwavering.

There is something consistent about him. He will never let us down. He always shows up just in the nick of time. He always beats the bad guy, and he always does it in a way that doesn't mean compromising what he stands for, and what he's trying to teach the rest of the world to act like.

What does he stand for?

Knowing and sticking to what you believe in. Standing up and fighting for your dream even when your just one man and it'll take years if ever to get there. Never loosing sight of how much good and beauty there is out there, and how much kindness there is in the human spirit.

And because this man was someone I was looking up to like a Dad, those are all the things that I try aspire too. Those are the things that I respect in other people.

I guess that's why it's devestating to me that an entire generation of kids just doesnt have that.

And they could have...

What a load of crap. Here's what I like about Superman:

Dude can fly. Hard, fast.

Dude can beat up almost anybody.

Uses his powers for good, even when it isn't easy. Cuz it isn't always easy.

Heat vision. Awesome.

Cape. Billowing, beautiful, scarlet cape.

I don't love Superman because he's a righteous role model who always makes the morally correct choice. That kind of Superman gives me spiritual and intellectual indigestion. He's actually a sanctimonious prick. The kind who blows out people's cigarettes because he doesn't respect their right to make the bad choice, or he doesn't even try to understand the weakness that leads people to make bad choices. Then he says 'Lois, I never lie', even though his whole damn life is a concealment of his own true identity from the world, and yes, from the very woman he is promising never to lie to.

I want a Superman like the one in Man of Steel. One whose unique position requires him to make difficult, even impossible choices. One who isn't afraid to make those choices, even when he might have been wrong. His reaction to killing Zod shows how dismayed he was by what he did.

You don't have to be perfect - you don't have to be the kind that 'would never let us down' - in order to be a beacon of hope. In fact, perfection rarely inspires hope. More often it inspires disbelief, envy, or suspicion. Superman can inspire not only in spite of being wrong sometimes, but maybe most of all in how he responds to making mistakes. Because his mistakes are super, too, right? How does he respond? Does he get back on the proverbial horse, make the necessary adjustments, try to learn and do it better next time around? That's what makes him, or anyone, a hero.

One that I could actually believe in.
 
Wow that's a misguided representation of the character.

That's Superman for the Michael Bay generation. Punch bad guys through buildings, watching the buildings fall and ignoring them in order to keep punching the bad guy.

Let's be honest, nothing Superman did in that film seemed specifically tense. Sure, his facial muscles went all wobbly with the gravity from time to time but be it due to bad cinematography, bad storytelling or badly cued music, none of it felt even close to difficult. Kind of like all the Transformers films made.

I'd throw Roland Emmerich under the same bus but the truth is that he actually creates relatively riveting action sequences where the stakes are high and difficult choices need to be made. Man of Steel? Keep punching through buildings and ignore the innocent civilians put in danger. They'll sort themselves out.
 
I don't really get all of the complaints about the destruction in the action scenes. First of all we have superpowered beings fighting each other so of course thing are going to be destroyed. As far as Superman not caring, he was in a fight for his life it is not like he was using civilians as shields or something. The whole reason for fighting Zod was to protect people from him. Of course part of the issue is that a lot people want to see cool destruction just for the look of it. So I am sure sometimes the plot takes a back seat to trying to deliver what the audience wants. The way some people react around here it is like they really killed people in these scenes, it is a movie. I also think part of the problem is Superman is so ingrained into pop culture beyond comics, cartoons and movies and is considered the grand daddy of all of the other superheros that some just need to tear him down. I do think the movie could have been edited down less. The rumored original Snyder cut of +/- 3 hours would be even better I think, but they don't like to make movies to long because of the short attention spans of todays youth. I also would love a linear story instead of flashbacks but again no one wants to wait for the action. Everyone complained about the King Kong remake for it's long running time and time to we got to see Kong. For me my trilogy would be the first movie Krypton with it ending with the rocket leaving. Second movie Kents finding Kal and growing up in smallville and traveling the world ending with getting the suit and the last movie Superman year one. Pipe dream I know.
 
I wanted more Costner. Anything he was in, he stole the show.
 
That's Superman for the Michael Bay generation
Therein lies the problem. Older fans want more from these movies than cool looking video games. The younger guys seem to be happy with that. I can talk about frame compostition in the MOS vs SR thread until Im blue in the face. Very few people are going to agree with me.. Who cares about boring framing, placement, lighting, background information, etc when you have cool stuff like Superman flying at 200 miles a hour while punching Zod.

Its easy to shrug off hopefuldreamers post as nonsense, but decades ago, you didnt have a endless supply of Superman stuff. There werent movies, and video games, and new cartonns and interpretations every 5 years.

You have a plastic toy figure and the comic books. Thats it.

I said this before and Ill say it again.. the action stuff is swell and all, but what made me fall in love with these superheroes were the characters.

Characterization matters.

'Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down.' - Grant Morrison
BTW its easy to scoff at this, but America was very different place at the time of Supermans creation.
 
Last edited:
I said this before and Ill say it again.. the action stuff is swell and all, but what made me fall in love with these superheroes were the characters.
Me too. But I thought Clark and Lois were awesome characters in this movie. And Zod and Jor-El were miles better characters than in the '78/'80 movies. Jonathan, alas, was far worse in this one. Lara was marginally better in this one. I liked Perry, but he was given too little to do.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty much it. People want video game sequences now from the looks of it. Fine. But that's not my Superman. Taking modern interpretations and a revamped interpretation into context I loved the film until he fought Faora and Nam-Ek. From there on it was disaster porn.

If Superman's fighting the bad guys he needs to be shown still putting everything on the line to save the people of his adopted homeworld. Because when he does, it will cost him the fight. It will, without a shadow of a doubt, truly ground him. Because he can't be everywhere.

But if he's just shown to ignore his enemy or ignore people in danger, then he's not Superman. He's just another guy in a cape no matter what's gone on before since in that moment, the film fails to convince you that he is Superman. It's where this film failed.

Initially I thought a zany fan-edit along the lines of Watchmen : Midnight could save the film and transform its third act into something worthy of the first two-thirds of the movie, but the truth is that you can't insert the key conflict mentioned above.

I just hope it's something they'll address in the sequels. If not, it's just a guy in a cape. It's not Superman.
 
Therein lies the problem. Older fans want more from these movies than cool looking video games. The younger guys seem to be happy with that. I can talk about frame compostition in the MOS vs SR thread until Im blue in the face. Very few people are going to agree with me.. Who cares about boring framing, placement, lighting, background information, etc when you have cool stuff like Superman flying at 200 miles a hour while punching Zod.

Its easy to shrug off hopefuldreamers post as nonsense, but decades ago, you didnt have a endless supply of Superman stuff. There werent movies, and video games, and new cartonns and interpretations every 5 years.

You have a plastic toy figure and the comic books. Thats it.

I said this before and Ill say it again.. the action stuff is swell and all, but what made me fall in love with these superheroes were the characters.

Characterization matters.

[/B] BTW its easy to scoff at this, but America was very different place at the time of Supermans creation.

Thanks. I agree with all of that.

And I think having studied things like english lit, film studies, and creative writing, you can't help but be thrown off by what you consider an incredibly badly constructed story and a few major issues in the way it was filmed.

Besides, I don't know how my post can be considered nonsense. I was talking about my PERSONAL experience with the character, and how that effected my emotional response to the film.
 
But that's the cool omfg explosion fans' way of discounting your personal opinion.

Didn't you know? There's nothing special anymore about truth, justice and the American way. It's replaced with wanton destruction for the sake of it.
 
The opening scene on Krypton was amazing (though I thought it was stupid to show the nude baby so many times. Wrap him in a blanket, he's travelling through space), the final battles were incredible. But the middle of the film seemed choppy. They went from event to event to event in an instant with no progression or proper editing. It was like being told a story by a 3rd grader in all short sentences. "I went to the mall. I bought a shirt. It was on sale. I had Chinese food. I drove home." It just felt too fast and uninteresting.

And yes, Kevin Costner wasn't very good in this film. And yes, the tornado scene was awful, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"