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

[The Question]

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

When you say

More Avengers than Mos to me.

I really don't see that at all. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. Avengers was much better paced and spent much more time with the character development than Man of Steel did. The character building scenes in Man of Steel just flew by without giving the audience a moment to breath. Avengers stayed with them just long enough to keep the movie flowing while still giving the audience the room to get a feel for the characters.

 

[KalMart]

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

When you say

More Avengers than Mos to me.

If I may comment, aside from Avengers having better rhythm throughout IMO, the movie doesn't quite ask for the same sort of emotional investment from the viewer as MOS does, just for the nature of their stories. It's in that sort of thing that timing/pacing and rhythm are crucial especially in a movie that is going to hit you with a lot of action later on. The deeper personal stories for each of the Avengers were pretty much already told before too, so in comparison the movie 'hit the ground running' moreso.

However, movies like BB, Spiderman, Xmen and Iron man all did have the same 'task' ahead, and all did it with better pacing/movement and sense of immersion than MOS, IMO. I think those are fairer comparisons, and unfortunately, MOS comes up short of each....and conseqeuntly, it detaches one even more from the big action when it does come.

 

[blumatic]

I really don't see that at all. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. Avengers was much better paced and spent much more time with the character development than Man of Steel did. The character building scenes in Man of Steel just flew by without giving the audience a moment to breath. Avengers stayed with them just long enough to keep the movie flowing while still giving the audience the room to get a feel for the characters.

I just want to know, who's character did you want developed in an origin film. To me in Avengers they benefitted so much from the prior movies. I was already preconditioned to their stories. All of them had only small time frames to get shine. It was well done. But if this was a stand alone movie without any of the prior movies it would have taken me a few viewing to really understand each heroes' place in the movie. Avengers pace in character development was very quick and very expository.

In Man of Steel I didnt see anything fly by. Kal, Joe EL, Zod, Jonathan and Martha got plenty of shine. They efficiently explained how each of their relationship is with Clark.

 

[The Question]

I just want to know, who's character did you want developed in an origin film. To me in Avengers they benefitted so much from the prior movies. I was already preconditioned to their stories. All of them had only small time frames to get shine. It was well done. But if this was a stand alone movie without any of the prior movies it would have taken me a few viewing to really understand each heroes' place in the movie. Avengers pace in character development was very quick and very expository.

In Man of Steel I didnt see anything fly by. Kal, Joe EL, Zod, Jonathan and Martha got plenty of shine. They efficiently explained how each of their relationship is with Clark.

All of the characters you just mentioned, with Clark, Lois, and pretty much the whole supporting cast.

The problem wasn't that there was no character development, the problem wasn't that any one character didn't get enough screen time, the problem was that the character building scenes went by too fast. The movie did not take it's time to present those scenes. The pacing of those scenes was way too fast. They would start, we would get through the necessary information, and then we would move on to the next scene. There weren't moments of silence, moments of transition to allow the words that were just said to sink in, or for the established location or characters to really click with the audience. The audience wasn't given any moments in the character building scenes to breath and get accustomed to the characters. It felt like the director was rushing through those scenes just to get them over with.

Even though The Avengers already had their characters, for the most part, established in earlier films, they still didn't have that problem. They still had beats for the audience to sit back and say "okay, that just happened," and really tune in to what the characters were feeling. Man of Steel didn't have that.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

He keeps insisting upon invoking Marvel movies to illustrate some kind of point. Pay no attention to it.

 

[The Batman]

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

This is exactly my problem with movies like Man of Steel, Amazing Spider Man, and Green Lantern.

Superman The Movie and Spider Man 1 actually feel complete compared to their reboots. If they never had a sequel to those original movies, it would've been ok, because that one movie told you everything you needed to know. Its the same thing with Star Wars.

 

[metaphysician]

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.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

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 yes. It's like he read so many Superman comic books.

 

[The Guard]

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.

You mention that the scenes weren't allowed to breathe...this is less a personal issue with Zach Snyder as a filmmaker, and more, I've noticed, an issue of modern editing/filmmaking. The transitional sequences/moments are becoming a thing of the past. Chris Nolan is just as guilty of this as Snyder was in MAN OF STEEL, and this is probably, along with pacing, the main weakness in Nolan's films. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some Nolan influence to the pacing in MAN OF STEEL, to be honest.

Curious as to how many viewings you've had of MOS, as I found the pacing didn't feel so jarring on a second viewing, and the scenes actually breathed pretty well, with a few exceptions.

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

In what sense?

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.

Now wait a second...first you say that the performances left a bit to be desired as well, then you say the performances were fine?

Directing actors is one of Snyder's strong suits, and MAN OF STEEL is no different.

 

[Marvin]

He keeps insisting upon invoking Marvel movies to illustrate some kind of point. Pay no attention to it.

I thought it was a fair point.
But I forgot about the list of movies that can and cannot be brought up for comparison in this thread according to the unwritten code.

Next time I'll know better, forget about cbm comparisons it's all about the law dramas and war documentaries from now on.(sarcastic smilely)

 

[Marvin]

This is exactly my problem with movies like Man of Steel, Amazing Spider Man, and Green Lantern.

Superman The Movie and Spider Man 1 actually feel complete compared to their reboots. If they never had a sequel to those original movies, it would've been ok, because that one movie told you everything you needed to know. Its the same thing with Star Wars.

How do you figure?
What's missing from MOS as a story that needs a sequel?

Moreover what do you make of all that Zod stuff in the original film?
I keep being told that the first and second were supposed to be one film of some sort.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

How do you figure?
What's missing from MOS as a story that needs a sequel?

The world never knew Superman existed and saved them. Just a few did.

Clark's identity is known by a lot of people and it's not hard to track him to Smallville. We don't have a clue how he pretends to go on as Superman and Clark and not be exposed. Plus, Clark's "disguise" is more ineffective than ever before and we don't have a clue how he pretends to make it work. But we know he has to.

Moreover what do you make of all that Zod stuff in the original film?
I keep being told that the first and second were supposed to be one film of some sort.

Well, Zod and co being sent to the Phantom Zone didn't need further explanation. It made a point about Krypton's society, its mores, values, its way to see and preserve life.

 

[Marvin]

You mention that the scenes weren't allowed to breathe...this is less a personal issue with Zach Snyder as a filmmaker, and more, I've noticed, an issue of modern editing/filmmaking. The transitional sequences/moments are becoming a thing of the past. Chris Nolan is just as guilty of this as Snyder was in MAN OF STEEL, and this is probably, along with pacing, the main weakness in Nolan's films. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some Nolan influence to the pacing in MAN OF STEEL, to be honest.

I would say I noticed this is Prestige/Inception and Begins, can be jarring at first.
One of the differences between Begins and MoS, is at the time, no one, comic book readers and more importantly film goers had no concrete knowledge or preconceptions about batman's secret origins.

One would think Superman's seemingly overdone origin would lend itself to unconventional editing. However it's diving people. Some due to the experience and some do to the execution alone. Either way I expect a TDK like straight forward turn in the next film.

 

[Dispatch Ninja]

My only two complaints are the choppy editing in the first half and pa kent's death scene. Other than that I really loved the movie.

 

[Marvin]

The world never knew Superman existed and saved them. Just a few did.

Clark's identity is known by a lot of people and it's not hard to track him to Smallville. We don't have a clue how he pretends to go on as Superman and Clark and not be exposed. Plus, Clark's "disguise" is more ineffective than ever before and we don't have a clue how he pretends to make it work. But we know he has to.

As a self contained story(if you never knew who superman was and just walked into the theater), I personally think it did fine. As for whether or not his Kent disguise "will work" or not, I thought the film made that clear at the end. Do you need more scenes of this classic trope in action to be sure? I would akin it the original STM, the movie could have ended with clarks first arrival at the planet and I wouldn't have questioned if the disguise was going to work.

You raise an interesting point about all the people that might know the truth though. Makes things interesting. I do think that if the world was full of meta's it would make things easier to accept.

Curious though, who do you think knows Clarks identity? I was under the impression that it was only his thankful buddy and that possible lang girl and their parents?

Well, Zod and co being sent to the Phantom Zone didn't need further explanation. It made a point about Krypton's society, its mores, values, its way to see and preserve life.

I can see how you take that away. For me personally there are other things I would have rather learned about Krypton.
I was pretty curious about all those promises Zod makes about Jor EL's son though.

 

[KalMart]

You mention that the scenes weren't allowed to breathe...this is less a personal issue with Zach Snyder as a filmmaker, and more, I've noticed, an issue of modern editing/filmmaking. The transitional sequences/moments are becoming a thing of the past. Chris Nolan is just as guilty of this as Snyder was in MAN OF STEEL, and this is probably, along with pacing, the main weakness in Nolan's films. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some Nolan influence to the pacing in MAN OF STEEL, to be honest..

I don't quite agree unless we're maybe talking very recently with a pretty small sample...namely MOS and TDKR. I don't feel that movies like Xmen 1-2, BB/TDK, Iron Man 1-2, and Spiderman 1-2 suffered from it. In fact, there are a lot of popular movies that I don't feel have the odd sense of off-rrhythm that much of this movie had. So in that respect, no I don't see this 'following the trend', I see it particularly having pacing and rhythm problems...and that being the biggest contributor to the feeling by some that the film is 'cold' or somewhat disconnected. As a film editor, it's one of the biggest concerns we face. I agree that this may be a growing issue with Nolan films as again, TDKR also had a feeling of being overstuffed, both too long and rushed at the same time (dead giveaway for pacing issues), and telling you more than it was letting you feel.

But when it comes to this, it's not just the editing...it's very often how it was shot/composed and a director who's trying to shoehorn as much information in at the expense of flow. So as also been discussed before, perhaps a director with a better knack for 'poetry' could have smoothed out some of the bumpy paths along the way. When it comes to pacing, I really believe that it is a shortcoming, and only that, of this film...and not an intended stylistic thing or a the new norm, etc. It's like a drummer not keeping correct time...and that feels odd in any era.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

As a self contained story(if you never knew who superman was and just walked into the theater), I personally think it did fine.

The important part being "if you never knew who Superman is." And I agree with that. Now, the problem is that nobody goes to see this movie without having known or at least heard who Superman is.

As for whether or not his Kent disguise "will work" or not, I thought the film made that clear at the end. Do you need more scenes of this classic trope in action to be sure? I would akin it the original STM, the movie could have ended with clarks first arrival at the planet and I wouldn't have questioned if the disguise was going to work.

You raise an interesting point about all the people that might know the truth though. Makes things interesting. I do think that if the world was full of meta's it would make things easier to accept.

Actually in MOS we didn't get anything pother than Clark wears glasses. And glasses that, as never before, are completely useless at the moment of disguising his face. I get that Lois knows who he is (which to me is already bad), but I don't know if anybody else that has seen or will see Superman will be fooled by this poor disguise. Lois is far from being the only one who needs (needed) to be fooled in the past.

Curious though, who do you think knows Clarks identity? I was under the impression that it was only his thankful buddy and that possible lang girl and their parents?

Well, all of Clark's schoolmates know about it. I'm sure the ones in the school bus didn't just go home. Their families know, and probably more than just their families. Small town, religious people claiming it was an act of God. We even saw some other bullies trying to get him fight back just to see what would happen. And if that is not enough, Lois had little problem tracking Clark to his very home. On top, the army knows he lives in Kansas.

I can see how you take that away. For me personally there are other things I would have rather learned about Krypton.
I was pretty curious about all those promises Zod makes about Jor EL's son though.

Sure, but you can see the rest of the movie and Zod's promise is not a scenario that needed further explanation. Although I would have liked the movie ending the way it was originally scripted.

 

[spider-neil]

http://blip.tv/redlettermedia/episode-6605916

Really rips into this movie.

I will disagree with one aspect though, my problem with Superman was that he didn't seem to care about the destruction not that he was able to stop the destruction.
How could he have stopped the destruction of Metropolis for instance?
The World Engine would still have destroyed the area.

If Superman had said 'If you want the Codex let's take this fight to the moon!', 'some' Kryptonians have followed him but that would still leave the World Engine.

Here's a question, why did Jor-El imprint the Codex on his son?
I disagree that Jor-El knew the Kryptonians would escape and follow Kal to Earth but as a scientist you'd have to think he was smart enough to know with out the power of Krypton (which is about to explode) to power the prison then the prisoners would escape.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Upon my second viewing (which solidified the movie as a 9/10 for me) I did get a clearer image of what I didn't like.

The worst line in the movie for me: "I think that only applies if you are kissing a human," is damn near cringe-worthy. But even the best CBM's have silly lines like that.

As much as I don't care what Superman destroyed during the fight with Zod, I don't understand why he destroyed that $12 million surveillance drone at the end. He's supposed to be helping mankind not inflating the national budget.

Even understanding why and accepting that it should happen, the tornado death is still tough to watch. Not emotionally, but logically. Its like "WHY!"



As you can see, nothing major. But it's stuff like that and a couple bits of lacking potential that keep it from the 10/10 spot. But beyond that my second viewing showed me several things that prove/disprove or otherwise explain why certain things happened in Man of Steel.

"Why did they send Zod and his disciples to the PZ when Krypton was exploding?" Because the council are full of idiots. Their liberal bureaucracy and ignorant naivete was their ultimate undoing. They knew Zod broke their laws but what to do about the planet exploding, they were unable to come to a conclusion that required real decision-making. Probably due to the way they were born.

"Why did he go to the Indian Ocean first? Boo hoo hoo." Because the World Engine was going to continue tearing up the earths gravitational field without destroying the Indian Ocean portion first. They couldnt get close enough to drop the phantom bomb and take out Black Zero without him destroying that one first.

 

[spider-neil]

Scenes that would have really helped my viewing experience.

1. Jor-El telling Kal about the World Engine ahead of time and then Superman going to the military and telling them to evacuate the city.
That way at least when the ridiculous amount of collateral damage happens you (the audience) can fool yourself that those buildings and cars are empty.

2. Superman begging the Kryptonians not to hurt anyone, obviously going to fall on deaf ears but you'd at least get that scene where Superman is acting like he gives a **** about people.

3. An extended scene of city wide mass mourning with Superman at the head of the procession.

Not enough time for this scenes? Well CUT SOME THE FORTY MINUTE FINAL FIGHT.

 

[BlueLantern]

How about Jor-El's AI maybe actually being intelligent and telling Clark 'Hey, you know I mentioned Zod staging a coup and being relegated to the Phantom Zone? Yeah, he might be free now since Krypton blew up. I should know. I designed the ship he's on. Beware.'

 

[spider-neil]

How about Jor-El's AI maybe actually being intelligent and telling Clark 'Hey, you know I mentioned Zod staging a coup and being relegated to the Phantom Zone? Yeah, he might be free now since Krypton blew up. I should know. I designed the ship he's on. Beware.'

Ha ha t:

Actually I get the impression that neither the council or Jor-El knew that a lack of power would cause a prison break. And they class themselves as advanced. Ha ha.

 

[Rev]

I can see where some had issues with the pacing, editing and lack of expisition regarding plot points but I was able to make connections based on what was shown. Granted, I am looking forward to reading the movie adaptation to see if some of our complaints were more fleshed out.

 

[BlueLantern]

Ha ha t:

Actually I get the impression that neither the council or Jor-El knew that a lack of power would cause a prison break. And they class themselves as advanced. Ha ha.

Seems like every dialogue in the film should have an asterisk next to it that implies such dialogue might wrong or an exaggeration.

Zod says Jor-El was Krypton's foremost scientist but didn't have the brain to think 'what if the phantom projector is destroyed and runs out of power?'

 

[spider-neil]

Seems like every dialogue in the film should have an asterisk next to it that implies such dialogue might wrong or an exaggeration.

Zod says Jor-El was Krypton's foremost scientist but didn't have the brain to think 'what if the phantom projector is destroyed and runs out of power?'

You would have thought the genetically engineered electricians would have given the council and Jor-El a heads up.