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

[Crimson King]

He's been Superman for like a few days. He's allowed to make mistakes.

The reaction from people here is quite telling. Here is this alien being who has put himself out there in the line of fire to save the world and the thanks he gets is "with his powers, why doesn't he help rebuild Metropolis?".

That's what construction workers are for. You want Superman to do their jobs too? People didn't expect The Avengers to rebuild NY, did they.

They did, actually. One of the things I didn't like about MoS was that the wanton destruction and deaths of hundreds of thousands (probably more like millions, globally) was swept under the rug. No mention at all. In Avengers, they had the montage of news clips. Mixed in with the "Yay! Avengers!" people were some that said they were afraid of them. A senator asked why the Avengers weren't paying for the destruction they caused. It's a small thing, but necessary, and MoS should have had it.

 

[Marvin]

They did, actually. One of the things I didn't like about MoS was that the wanton destruction and deaths of hundreds of thousands (probably more like millions, globally) was swept under the rug. No mention at all. In Avengers, they had the montage of news clips. Mixed in with the "Yay! Avengers!" people were some that said they were afraid of them. A senator asked why the Avengers weren't paying for the destruction they caused. It's a small thing, but necessary, and MoS should have had it.

Why?

And more to the point, wouldn't it just be a regurgitation of what's come before numerous times? Shouldn't all these movies have one then? At the end of every superhero movie that takes place in the day time, there is a bookend with TV interviews from civilians, and if not, it won't feel right...

I'm just curious why it's needed.

 

[Autonet]

Snyder tells us this is going to be a movie where we see how the world would react to Superman and it's going to be realistic and serious. I expected a mention of it when you declare that at least.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Why?

And more to the point, wouldn't it just be a regurgitation of what's come before numerous times? Shouldn't all these movies have one then? At the end of every superhero movie that takes place in the day time, there is a bookend with TV interviews from civilians, and if not, it won't feel right...

I'm just curious why it's needed.

So Superman is not viewed just as some guy who threw spaceships all over Metropolis but was perceived as someone who saved them.

 

[Crimson King]

Why?

And more to the point, wouldn't it just be a regurgitation of what's come before numerous times? Shouldn't all these movies have one then? At the end of every superhero movie that takes place in the day time, there is a bookend with TV interviews from civilians, and if not, it won't feel right...

I'm just curious why it's needed.

Because there's a level of destruction here that goes beyond the norm, don't you think? It was the same in Avengers.

For all the harping that Goyer did about the "realism" of his take, this felt like an obvious mistake. If you're trying to show what it would be like if Superman actually showed up on Earth, don't wuss out at the finish line. Actually deal with it.

 

[restlessdreams]

Now I'm sure this has been beaten to death but I figure I might as well put my two cents in.

1) Level of destruction: I had an issue with this just because it seemed like through all of the fights superman did not care at all what he destroyed or how many people he might have killed. He fights in smallville on the main street knowing that there are people all the buildings around him. I feel like he should have tried to move the fight some where else. Just like the end fight which was really cool to watch Superman punched Zod through buildings causing them to fall. (I have seen some people compare it to The Avengers and all I have to say is this, in the Avengers they tried to keep the damage to a few blocks.)

2) General Zod and his ships; I was never felt like he was all that threatening. He seemed to be always getting beat up by Superman or his farther. His sidekick I felt was better than him when it came to fighting Superman. I also don't get why Zod didn't use his ships to attack the plane at the end of the movie or superman through the whole film.

3) Killing Zod; I hated this part of the film, it nearly ruined the movie for me. I felt like Superman was less of hero for killing Zod. I kinda saw the end scene in MOS in the same light as the end scene from The Dark Knight. Both scenes had the hero having to save people from the villain. Yet Batman was able to save the people and not kill the Joker. Yet Superman couldn't do the same, it just made me feel like Superman was not as great as a hero as Batman.

Still it was a great fun movie to watch and I'm sure everyone can find something to complain about in movies those were just the ones that stuck with me.

 

[Autonet]

I agree. Zod never won a fist fight. If he kicked the **** out of Jor-El it would've helped that. Faora outshined him there and she shouldn't have.

 

[Marvin]

3) Killing Zod; I hated this part of the film, it nearly ruined the movie for me. I felt like Superman was less of hero for killing Zod. I kinda saw the end scene in MOS in the same light as the end scene from The Dark Knight. Both scenes had the hero having to save people from the villain. Yet Batman was able to save the people and not kill the Joker. Yet Superman couldn't do the same, it just made me feel like Superman was not as great as a hero as Batman.

Still it was a great fun movie to watch and I'm sure everyone can find something to complain about in movies those were just the ones that stuck with me.

A better, fairer, more accurate comparison(yet not quite) might be Harvey Dent.
Seeing as how there were on site hostages.

Glad you enjoyed the movie. I did too.

 

[InJustice]

Seems like most of Clark's classmates from Smallville can put two and two together as well and know Supes identity. Unless we are to believe they are simple rubes who couldn't figure it out, especially when a reporter was wandering around asking about him.

Maybe the writers should just ditch the whole Clark Kent identity all together. Just make it about Superman.

The film did imply that Clark's older classmates like Pete Ross knows who Clark really is. But at the same time, I feel like Smallville would protect him because of the good deed(s) he's done for them. I mean we did see Ross develop from a bully into a grateful person, even helping Clark back up.

If the writers ditched Clark...you're asking for a crap load of fan outrage plus what would Superman do when he's not needed? Sit in his Fortress, drink beer and watch football? Doesn't really make sense to make it 100% Superman.

 

[Marvin]

Because there's a level of destruction here that goes beyond the norm, don't you think? It was the same in Avengers.

For all the harping that Goyer did about the "realism" of his take, this felt like an obvious mistake. If you're trying to show what it would be like if Superman actually showed up on Earth, don't wuss out at the finish line. Actually deal with it.

I personally find it cliche at this point(having looked up the spidey 1 scene). But I suppose it would serve it's purpose. Perhaps play it when clarks in the Daily planet news room at the end, maybe he walks and stop by a monitor.

If the motivation is realism that I can see it, if the motivation is that it's what these types of movies are "supposed" to have I personally don't agree.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I guess. Now they take 3 movies to explain what they used to do in 1.

But, but, but...the movies are so much BETTER now!



Yeah, it's the truth. The Amazing Spider-Man is very guilty of this. Just laziness on the part of the writer/director. Batman begins felt like a complete standalone movie. You saw his progression/evolution throughout the film. In MoS and TASM, there's not much there...


In terms of my complaints or what I'd like to see done differently: Everything felt too rushed, the pacing was off and the over-reliance on flashbacks didn't help (I really felt it would have made a huge difference if they showed the narrative in a linear fashion).

It never feels like there's any time to breathe and to get to know the characters for a while- which is essential if you want the audience to care about them/feel something for them.

 

[Hcmarvel]

Funny little nit-pick. Please don't think this is a serious complaint. But something a friend picked up on:

At the end, when Pa Kent is looking at young Clark with the DYI cape and the dog.

It's a great shot.

But, who in the world is Clark pretending to be? The idea of a superhero with a cape was invented by Siegel and Shuster...when they created Superman.

Was Clark pretending to be the Cowardly Lion once he gets the royal cape? Or Snow White? Funny little thing I thought.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Funny little nit-pick. Please don't think this is a serious complaint. But something a friend picked up on:

At the end, when Pa Kent is looking at young Clark with the DYI cape and the dog.

It's a great shot.

But, who in the world is Clark pretending to be? The idea of a superhero with a cape was invented by Siegel and Shuster...when they created Superman.

Was Clark pretending to be the Cowardly Lion once he gets the royal cape? Or Snow White? Funny little thing I thought.

But the idea of heroic figures with Capes has literally been around for thousands of years. From ancient gods, or half gods like Hercules, to Knights, to more modern heroes like Zorro.

S&S certainly didn't create the heroic figure wearing a cape motif. That's been a part of our culture for a very, very long time.

 

[KalMart]

Funny little nit-pick. Please don't think this is a serious complaint. But something a friend picked up on:

At the end, when Pa Kent is looking at young Clark with the DYI cape and the dog.

It's a great shot.

But, who in the world is Clark pretending to be? The idea of a superhero with a cape was invented by Siegel and Shuster...when they created Superman.

Was Clark pretending to be the Cowardly Lion once he gets the royal cape? Or Snow White? Funny little thing I thought.

Old Roman centurians...or maybe the mascot of the Smallvile Spartans, or John Carter of Mars. Was probably more coincidental for them than specifically prophetic in the actual story.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Old Roman centurians...or maybe the mascot of the Smallvile Spartans, or John Carter of Mars. Was probably more coincidental for them than specifically prophetic in the actual story.

Yep. Mascots, Knights, or the more modern heroes like Zorro. Could have been anything like that.

 

[Marvin]

Yep. Mascots, Knights, or the more modern heroes like Zorro. Could have been anything like that.

Like us, he grew up with the donner films.
-don't think he was all too impressed with MOS...

 

[The Question]

For me, the problems with the film all come down to the direction.

The pacing character building moments were rushed through, we weren't given enough room in them to breath and to really get to know the characters and feel what they're going through.

A lot of the transitions from one scene to another were very jarring. The transition from Superman and Lois in the interrogation room and the two of them in the dessert comes to mind.

The moments of humor and fun were executed poorly and fell flat.

The fight scenes went on way too long and were too over the top. Because the character building scenes were rushed through, there wasn't enough of an emotional investment for us to care during the fights, and the moments in between the action scenes didn't take any time to acknowledge the gravity of the destruction and loss of life that had taken place.

The actors performances left a bit to be desired as well, and seeing as most of the actors in the film are fairly talented and have given good performances before, I've got to chalk that up to the direction.

The performances were fine, the script was fine, but I really don't think Zak Snyder is a very good director.

What would I have done differently? I would have hired a different director.

 

[Marvin]

For me, the problems with the film all come down to the direction.

The pacing character building moments were rushed through, we weren't given enough room in them to breath and to really get to know the characters and feel what they're going through.

A lot of the transitions from one scene to another were very jarring. The transition from Superman and Lois in the interrogation room and the two of them in the dessert comes to mind.

The moments of humor and fun were executed poorly and fell flat.

The fight scenes went on way too long and were too over the top. Because the character building scenes were rushed through, there wasn't enough of an emotional investment for us to care during the fights, and the moments in between the action scenes didn't take any time to acknowledge the gravity of the destruction and loss of life that had taken place.

The actors performances left a bit to be desired as well, and seeing as most of the actors in the film are fairly talented and have given good performances before, I've got to chalk that up to the direction.

The performances were fine, the script was fine, but I really don't think Zak Snyder is a very good director.

What would I have done differently? I would have hired a different director.

All this talk of Zack, curious, what were your thoughts on him going in if I may ask.

And not to start anything, but read each point of your review/thoughts again but this time try imagining it's avengers, it's when doing that, that I personally see all the relative accomplishments of this film. But that's me. I suppose not all films are striving for the same things.

 

[KalMart]

For me, the problems with the film all come down to the direction.

The pacing character building moments were rushed through, we weren't given enough room in them to breath and to really get to know the characters and feel what they're going through.

A lot of the transitions from one scene to another were very jarring. The transition from Superman and Lois in the interrogation room and the two of them in the dessert comes to mind.

The moments of humor and fun were executed poorly and fell flat.

The fight scenes went on way too long and were too over the top. Because the character building scenes were rushed through, there wasn't enough of an emotional investment for us to care during the fights, and the moments in between the action scenes didn't take any time to acknowledge the gravity of the destruction and loss of life that had taken place.

The actors performances left a bit to be desired as well, and seeing as most of the actors in the film are fairly talented and have given good performances before, I've got to chalk that up to the direction.

The performances were fine, the script was fine, but I really don't think Zak Snyder is a very good director.

What would I have done differently? I would have hired a different director.

I agree, basically...or would have preferred that he made "Zack Snyder's Superman", than him trying to be more realistic/gritty/toned down to match more Nolan-ish sensibilities.

 

[KalMart]

All this talk of Zack, curious, what were your thoughts on him going in if I may ask.

I'm not Q, but these were basically my concerns, that somehow stylistically Nolan and Snyder are so different that the two sides would kind of hurt eachother and clash. Like I wouldn't pick Burton to do a Scorcese production. The hope was that they'd compliment or combine strengths, so to speak, but I don't really see that happening very well in MOS. I would probably have preferred Cauron.

 

[The Question]

All this talk of Zack, curious, what were your thoughts on him going in if I may ask.

My thoughts going in were that I do not care for Zak Snyder as a director. The only Zak Snyder movie I liked was 300. 300 was a big dumb action movie and I think that's as far as his strengths as a director go. I did not like Watchmen, and I did not see all of Sucker Punch but I disliked what I saw. When I heard he was going to direct Man of Steel I was deeply concerned, but the trailers looked really good and I knew Chris Nolan was producing and he and David Goyer were writing so I was hoping that Nolan's influence would keep Snyder's excess in check and maybe push him along the path of making a better film.

This turned out to not be the case.

And not to start anything, but read each point of your review/thoughts again but this time try imagining it's avengers, it's when doing that, that I personally see all the relative accomplishments of this film. But that's me. I suppose not all films are striving for the same things.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

 

[Marvin]

I agree, basically...or would have preferred that he made "Zack Snyder's Superman", than him trying to be more realistic/gritty/toned down to match more Nolan-ish sensibilities.

That's a pretty interesting take.
I might agree.

 

[Marvin]

My thoughts going in were that I do not care for Zak Snyder as a director. The only Zak Snyder movie I liked was 300. 300 was a big dumb action movie and I think that's as far as his strengths as a director go. I did not like Watchmen, and I did not see all of Sucker Punch but I disliked what I saw. When I heard he was going to direct Man of Steel I was deeply concerned, but the trailers looked really good and I knew Chris Nolan was producing and he and David Goyer were writing so I was hoping that Nolan's influence would keep Snyder's excess in check and maybe push him along the path of making a better film.

This turned out to not be the case.

I see.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I mean to say your specific points pretty much iterate my thoughts on avengers relative to this film.

 

[The Question]

I mean to say your specific points pretty much iterate my thoughts on avengers relative to this film.

I'm still unclear. Are you saying that The Avengers was guilty of the criticisms I made and Man of Steel was not, or are you saying that The Avengers did not do any of the things I accused Man of Steel of, or are you saying something else altogether?

 

[Marvin]

I'm still unclear. Are you saying that The Avengers was guilty of the criticisms I made and Man of Steel was not, or are you saying that The Avengers did not do any of the things I accused Man of Steel of, or are you saying something else altogether?

Avengers was guilty and Mos less so.
No film is perfect however.

When you say

The pacing character building moments were rushed through, we weren't given enough room in them to breath and to really get to know the characters and feel what they're going through.

More Avengers than Mos to me.