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

[conan69]

I didnt like 300 or Sucker Punch, but did like Dawn of the Dead and Watchmen.

 

[JBElliott]

Snyder, Goyer and Nolan have turned Superman into just another grim and gritty superhero.

 

[Max Newlander]

I quite enjoyed 300 so Snyder does have character development in him or did he just take the comic and put it on the big screen without understanding the 'why'?

There were things that I thought he did well, the young Clark scenes were touching and heartfelt but just as you go to grab it the movie thrusts you into another action scene.

I think if Snyder wants to become a better director he should direct a drama so doesn't have the crutch of action to fall back on.

I will also say that better editing, I.e getting rid of repetitive action would help this movie a LOT.

I cannot rate Zack at all now, 300 was ok, but was there really character development? or was it not just 90mins of fancy, artistic looking slow-mo action? It certainly had style, and flair, and was unique for the time.

Some of MoS was good, the smallville scenes could have been fleshed out to be pretty brilliant. We need so much more origins (smallville) we needed to care more about adult Clark, we needed to be invested more.

I though some of the action was great too. I enjoyed the flying scenes.

The film missed two BIG THINGS for me that I was looking forward to.

1. Supermans introduction to the world.

2. A memorable and rousing theme/score.

Plot holes galore don't get me wrong, and many other things we have already spoke about made it overall not a very good movie, but this version of Superman still had the potential.. The epically OTT last 45mins really was the final straw though.

 

[BH/HHH]

Snyder, Goyer and Nolan have turned Superman into just another grim and gritty superhero.

Have you seen the movie? Superman is far from Grimm in this film, he's git all the characteristics of Superman, he's authoritive, he's charming, he's funny at times yet he gets serious when he has to.

 

[the last son]

Yes, this is the Superman I always wanted. The character wasn't grim, the situations around him were.

 

[jocal62]

So you're apologizing to people who didn't enjoy it because they analyzed it too much and yet you're on an internet forum to stomp home your opinion? Yup, that's rational.

People have problems with the film. I've watched it three times with different people and the feedback is the same. Great film until the character development gives way to collateral damage and disaster porn.

It briefly resumes its character development along the way but still doesn't retain the shining qualities that set it on the road to a truly wonderful Superman film.

That's MY opinion and maybe that of others. If you don't like it and prefer demeaning people by saying they're posing to look intelligent, well tough ****.

Where does my post say that I am apologizing for anybody? And, where did you get the idea that you are one of the film critics I was referring to?

I was referring to the film critics I read online, such as those at Yahoo and other sites, not to or about any member of this community. I don't see why you have to react such as you did, since you obviously enjoyed the movie and you obviously are a Superman fan, warts and all. Which means we're on the same side. Why then would you think I'm demeaning anybody? How about the critics who lambasted the movie, aren't they demeaning our taste as Superman fans?

But, if you feel that way, to each his own, fellow Superman fan...

 

[The Guard]

How did those scenes on Krypton make you feel? What could you tell about this civilization other than the fact that they're at war?

How did it make me feel? Awed. Humbled. Intrigued. Excited.

They weren’t at war, per se, not in the general sense. There was a surprise military coup of the council by Zod’s forces.

What can I tell about the civilization based on the film?

Well, they showed and told us a lot, so…

A lot.

-Incredibly advanced, somewhat artistic technology, with various sci-fi influences.

-Much of the technology itself was based around organic life. Note the similar design of the transport ship Zod uses to the wing structure of the creature Jor-
El was riding.

-Helper robots seem to be fairly common and rather advanced and multifaceted.

-They seem to have a caste system of sorts. Zod talked about genetically inferior bloodlines. Jor-El and Lara appeared to be a lord and lady, respectively. At the same time, Zod, Jor-El and other soldiers appeared to be similar to medieval knights in a sense.

-They’re arrogant and a bit reckless, a bit emotionally cold and shortsighted (close minded?) as a race.

-The nature of birth there suggests a utilitarian, somewhat sterile society. It also suggests that the emotional connection between parents and children may not necessarily be valued there as it is here, as children were grown, and had little to no choice in their destinies.

-The codex itself is an interesting concept. A central knowledge base, with information about all of Krypton's bloodlines and possible destinies.

-They obviously were once an exploratory society, but when this failed, turned their focus inward, to their apparent detriment.

-The endless debates referred to by Zod suggests an inept and possibly corrupt government.

-The film talks about Krypton exhausting its resources, so its similarities to Earth and its own issues with natural resources are apparent.

I mean, was that a serious question?

I really didn't think there was anything creative or original about Snyder's Krypton. It felt like something I've already seen in a Star Wars prequel. Weird tech, weird flying creatures, tons of things happening... but no character. There was no wonder.

I don’t know what to tell you. There’s a lot more to it than “weird stuff” to the concepts.

I mean, I guess if that’s all you got out of it…you missed a lot, and I don’t know what to tell you. I honestly don’t know what kind of “wonder” you wanted in this context. Can you elaborate?

And that is ultimately this movie's biggest problem. Things are told to you and things are shown to you, but it doesn't make you feel anything. And that is why there is no emotional investment in anything that's happening.

I don’t think any movie can make you feel something. You get what you put into it, and sometimes you relate to something and it touches you, and sometimes it doesn’t.

People that operate this way regarding art astound me sometimes.

Did they ever ask for her knowledge once she boarded the ship?

No. They extracted the information she had from her. Just like they did with Superman. Pretty much an advanced version of interrogation.

 

[Bran-El]

Included Kents finding Kal in the barn. Polished some of the dialogue. Added more character scenes to better break up the action. But that's just me nitpicking.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yes. I wonder if the scenes are gonna be in the UNRELEASED 3.5 hour cut?

 

[Iceman]

Included Kents finding Kal in the barn. Polished some of the dialogue. Added more character scenes to better break up the action. But that's just me nitpicking.

No, your nitpicking is fine. I think it's just things like this and getting the action balance right and a fair number of other minor things that stop this from being an almost perfect Superman film to me. It has all the ingredients for it, just not everything coming together as well as it could.

 

[Skrilla31]

I don’t think any movie can make you feel something. You get what you put into it, and sometimes you relate to something and it touches you, and sometimes it doesn’t.

How can you say that on a movie forum? I feel like that is such a gross misunderstanding of the nature and also the magic of film. You're wrong. If a movie can make you laugh and a movie can make you cry, then it can make you feel something. You didn't have those feelings until after you saw the movie.

It depends on the skill of the filmmaker. I don't know what to put into a movie before it starts. It's the job of the film to bring it out of me. I very much understand that the story of Clark Kent in this movie spiritually mirrors my own, but because of Snyder... I felt like a spectator instead of a journeyman. I didn't know what it felt like to be Superman. I shared in his none of pain, so therefore I couldn't share in any of his triumph.

A great director can you make feel a character's pain. But with Snyder and with Man Of Steel, it was all show and no feel. I'm sure I could tell you and a friend of yours the same joke, but one of you is going to tell it better. Well guess what, another filmmaker could have taken that same story and told it better.


DISCLAIMER: By the way I am also not insinuating that Goyer's writing was some genius level work before Snyder f'd it up. He's also to blame.

 

[kedrell]

While ultimately I liked the movie there are many things I would have changed. First thing on my mind at present is that I would have had the bad guys just be Zod and Faora. All the rest were useless and took away from their distinctiveness. FWIW, I thought Non in Supes2 was unnecessary as well. And I'd give Zod a reason for him to basically be saying it must be Earth that becomes New Krypton. Because as the film stands that's almost a Nero-in-ST1 level of nonsensical choice on Zod's part. And he doesn't have the "I'm crazy" excuse, poor as it is, to fall back on that Nero had. Zod isn't crazy at all. He's just dumb when the movie needs him to be.

 

[The Guard]

How can you say that on a movie forum? I feel like that is such a gross misunderstanding of the nature and also the magic of film. You're wrong. If a movie can make you laugh and a movie can make you cry, then it can make you feel something. You didn't have those feelings until after you saw the movie.

How can I say that? Because I understand the way the human brain processes art.

Emotions don't happen because a filmmaker sprinkled magic pixie dust onto a film that makes me cry, or because a filmmaker create dsome mathematical formula that caused me to have an emotion. Emotional reactions happen because you either have a personal connection to the moment, or you don't. There's no single, all encompassing "right" way to make a film that people can connect you.

The MOVIE doesn't provoke an emotional response alone. You taking IN the movie, absording it and assessing it based on your own personal experiences is what causes an emotional reaction to happen.

For instance...when I watch a romantic comedy, I don't get wrapped up in it, because I often don't identify with those kinds of movies. But some people do. They have real emotional reactions to what I often consider pandering crap. Because of their personal connection to those kinds of issues.

It depends on the skill of the filmmaker. I don't know what to put into a movie before it starts.

And this filmmaker presented a lot of what you're talking about with skill. No, you don't know what to put into a movie before it starts, but you should very well be able to invest something of yourself in thinking about the movie and what it means as it is happening, and while you are watching and experiencing it.

It's the job of the film to bring it out of me.

By the same token, it's your job, as an audience member, to allow the film to do so, by giving it a fair chance as a piece of art.

I very much understand that the story of Clark Kent in this movie spiritually mirrors my own, but because of Snyder... I felt like a spectator instead of a journeyman. I didn't know what it felt like to be Superman. I shared in his none of pain, so therefore I couldn't share in any of his triumph.

If you felt that way, I think it's ultimately because you chose not to. For whatever reason, you did not have a personal connection to this particular approach. But the movie gave you the opportunity to be there with Clark, as much as any movie of its kind has. Snyder puts you right there WITH Superman as he's learning to fly. He puts you WITH Superman as he's chasing Zod, as he's fighting the Kryptonians.

Maybe you just wanted to be told how to feel, and this movie didn't do that for you.

A great director can you make feel a character's pain. But with Snyder and with Man Of Steel, it was all show and no feel.

"All show and no feel"?

Simply not true about this movie.

 

[Skrilla31]

Emotions don't happen because a filmmaker sprinkled magic pixie dust onto a film that makes me cry, or because a filmmaker create dsome mathematical formula that caused me to have an emotion. Emotional reactions happen because you either have a personal connection to the moment, or you don't.

So a director does NOT have the ability to manipulate the viewer's emotional response? Okay. Gotcha. Sure thing. The use of sound and music, framing, editing, timing, transitioning, getting the right performance from an actor... all the things that aren't there in the script. It's all meaningless. Why do we need directors again?

Simply seeing a boy lose his father on screen is not enough to draw an emotional response. You have to build to the scene emotionally. Without the build, there is no payoff.

 

[The Guard]

No, the director has the ability to manipulate the elements of the film to produce an emotional response. But it's not as simple and one sided as that.

It takes two to tango. There has to be an investment from the audience member as well.

If you're referring to the loss of Pa Kent, they did build to the scene emotionally. I'm curious how you can argue they didn't.

 

[Skrilla31]

No, the director has the ability to manipulate the elements of the film to produce an emotional response. But it's not as simple and one sided as that.

It takes two to tango. There has to be an investment from the audience member as well.

Why do you keep insisting that there was no investment on my behalf? Do you have ANY idea how much I was looking forward to this film? How much I wanted to love it? Look at some of posts in the days leading up to the film. I was GUSHING over Snyder. I f'n LOVED Watchmen. I thought he'd the PERFECT director for this movie. I was wrong.

By your logic, I can make a short film right now about a boy losing his father and no matter what you are GUARANTEED to cry because that image alone resonates with you in a certain way. I could even play clown music in the background and shoot the father from the waist down so you don't see his face. Now if for whatever reason you don't cry after watching my movie, then it's YOUR fault somehow? Not mine? Lol. You sound like a filmmaker's wet dream. They get a pass no matter what.

If you're referring to the loss of Pa Kent, they did build to the scene emotionally. I'm curious how you can argue they didn't.

Because he was a one dimensional character who doesn't do a single thing but lecture, and whose dialogue was severely ham fisted. He doesn't have a presence in the movie because he's in it for a few minutes at best. And when we finally do say goodbye to his character from a narrative standpoint... he's reintroduced AGAIN in another flashback at an earlier point in Clark's life. AMATEUR storytelling.

 

[Hcmarvel]

Why did Zod want to terra form the Earth? Why not just make the Matrix Krypton Babies and have them all be super strong and be able to fly?

 

[Pickle-El]

Zod mentions not wanting to sit around and suffer for years as Kal-El did to adapt to the Earth Sun.

Terraforming was changing earth's atmosphere, much as Zod's ship did earlier. It was about making it easier for Kryptonians to adapt to their new surroundings.

 

[Skrilla31]

By the way something occurred to me as I just thought about Pa Kent. His character is all backwards. It was all he and Martha who instilled the values in Clark. This movie establishes kind of the opposite. In this movie, Clark is the one who has a natural inclination to show the world who he really is but Pa Kent encourages him not to. He tells him to bottle it in.

In reality, it should have been the other way around. Superman is the way he is because he was found by the Kents. That's where Superman gets his humanity from. Pa should have been the one who saw what his son had to offer the world and he should have been the one encouraging Clark to reveal himself.

Clark is the one who should be afraid to take the leap of faith. That would make his decision to become Superman and reveal himself to the world all the more satisfying. And how he has to live with that decision.

 

[sf2]

Why did Zod want to terra form the Earth? Why not just make the Matrix Krypton Babies and have them all be super strong and be able to fly?

no idea... maybe he is those old thinking that wanna restore everything.
let say your home was destroyed, do u wanna rebuild your home?

 

[sf2]

By the way something occurred to me as I just thought about Pa Kent. His character is all backwards. It was all he and Martha who instilled the values in Clark. This movie establishes kind of the opposite. In this movie, Clark is the one who has a natural inclination to show the world who he really is but Pa Kent encourages him not to. He tells him to bottle it in.

In reality, it should have been the other way around. Superman is the way he is because he was found by the Kents. That's where Superman gets his humanity from. Pa should have been the one who saw what his son had to offer the world and he should have been the one encouraging Clark to reveal himself.

Clark is the one who should be afraid to take the leap of faith. That would make his decision to become Superman and reveal himself to the world all the more satisfying. And how he has to live with that decision.

in reality???
should have been???
sorry that this movie isn't your story. that's all.

 

[Skrilla31]

Why would Pa Kent want his son to hide from who he is?

 

[Pickle-El]

Why would Pa Kent want his son to hide from who he is?

The Kents felt/feared that the US Goverment would take him away from them...

 

[kedrell]

Zod mentions not wanting to sit around and suffer for years as Kal-El did to adapt to the Earth Sun.

Terraforming was changing earth's atmosphere, much as Zod's ship did earlier. It was about making it easier for Kryptonians to adapt to their new surroundings.

It wasn't just changing earth's atmosphere. It was also increasing earth's mass so that the gravity would be extremely high like Krypton had. That's why everything close to the beam was getting flattened. So essentially it would be making the earth a place where only kryptonians could survive the extreme gravity. Basically rendering them powerless. Why he'd want that I don't know. Nor do I know why he was insisting that it be earth that was terra-formed. Why not pick a different planet that doesn't have a population and Superman who are willing to fight you and risk the success of bringing back your planet that's so important to you? It doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[kedrell]

no idea... maybe he is those old thinking that wanna restore everything.
let say your home was destroyed, do u wanna rebuild your home?

It doesn't explain why only Earth would do.