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

[spider-neil]

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.

If there is one thing this movie doesn't lack, it's exposition.

 

[BlueLantern]

In terms of plot holes and exposition, this film is guide book on how not to make a complex film. Everything is told, ignored and told again. And then there's **** spoken about that has parenthesis explaining that certain off-screen events might nullify said exposition or consequences of said scenes.

It's more annoyingly visible because the film tries so hard to be earnest, serious and realistic. If it was an irreverent film, I wouldn't care.

But because of this, they can't call immunity and say 'it's only a movie'.

 

[spider-neil]

In terms of plot holes and exposition, this film is guide book on how not to make a complex film. Everything is told, ignored and told again. And then there's **** spoken about that has parenthesis explaining that certain off-screen events might nullify said exposition or consequences of said scenes.

It's more annoyingly visible because the film tries so hard to be earnest, serious and realistic. If it was an irreverent film, I wouldn't care.

But because of this, they can't call immunity and say 'it's only a movie'.

Completely agree. For instance Jor-El explains what happened on Krypton to Kal-El after you see what happens on Krypton in the opening. You either show what happened on Krypton or explain what happened on Krypton but to do both is repetitive, redundant and wastes time.

 

[br0adband]

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

Because in spite of everything that Jonathan had taught Clark as a child and growing into a man, and even in spite of all the experiences that Clark had that we're not even aware of (we only see a few of them in MoS), the one lesson that Jonathan had to die for to teach Clark about is sacrifice for the greater good. While allowing Clark to save him would obviously leave him alive, it would also expose Clark's abilities (at least one of them, for sure) to others and make him a target even larger than the one he already was by some people thinking "There's something funny about that Clark Kent..."

Jonathan's sacrifice, at least to me, knowing that stopping Clark from saving him, would teach Clark that you have to do the right thing, especially when it's best for the greater good.

This translates directly into Clark's/Kal's decision to kill Zod: Clark has already seen someone die right in front of him because of his inaction (even though Jonathan told him to stop - he still chose to not act, it was his decision and his alone), and that inaction only cost one human life.

If he decided not to act against Zod and end it with an utter finality, it would have been a lot more than just one life (as if hundreds if not thousands of people hadn't already perished by that point in the movie because of the destruction in Metropolis, and maybe a few in Metropolis as well).

I still go back to my stance on the situation: Kal did what he had to do, for the greater good.

It's not a perfect movie or a perfect story, but it's human and that's what matters the most to me. I'm simply astonished that so many people have such an issue with "the death of Zod."

It's not like Superman died or anything.

 

[br0adband]

Completely agree. For instance Jor-El explains what happened on Krypton to Kal-El after you see what happens on Krypton in the opening. You either show what happened on Krypton or explain what happened on Krypton but to do both is repetitive, redundant and wastes time.

But Kal didn't know what happened on Krypton, and that matters so, we see it explained twice to some degree.

Is this really the kind of stuff people complain about? Seriously?

I made a comment on another board a few days ago that went something like this:

"In today's world you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If a director ends up explaining everything to the viewers, they'll come away with the attitude of 'I'm not stupid, I don't like it when the movie explains everything to me, like terraforming - I saw Wrath of Khan and Dr. Marcus explained it perfectly, I mean really...' or if a director doesn't explain everything and makes the movie in a way that allows the viewer to "fill in the blanks" to some degree the viewers will come back with 'Dammit why didn't they explain why <insert situation here>, that makes no sense to me, it was stupid."

Or the worst insult of all: "It was bad writing..." which immediately tells me most if not all people saying the same thing just don't comprehend storytelling to any degree whatsoever.

 

[BlueLantern]

But Kal didn't know what happened on Krypton, and that matters so, we see it explained twice to some degree.

I don't agree with that. There's plenty of times in films that the same information relayed to one character is going to be relayed to another.

You know what happens? The film cuts to a different scene as the repeated exposition begins.

Why? Because the character might not know the information, but the audience does, so we cut to something new.

Oh and bad writing means we're essentially idiots for not understanding a higher message? That's ********. The film's not written very well. There's no undertone to it that people don't 'get' or some deep theories that only get unearthed on second or third viewing. It's just not written well.

Skip the condescension next time because it's doing you no good in this situation.

 

[br0adband]

I don't agree with that. There's plenty of times in films that the same information relayed to one character is going to be relayed to another.

You know what happens? The film cuts to a different scene as the repeated exposition begins.

Why? Because the character might not know the information, but the audience does, so we cut to something new.

What I meant was it matters that Kal knows, not specifically the audience, because it matters to Kal to understand what was going on with Krypton before its destruction.

It's a given that the audience know some stuff, but if we don't absolutely know that a character knows a given piece of information we can't adequately get a grasp of why they eventually do some of if not most of the things they end up doing.

Also, there's a ton of info in the prequel comic that not everyone has seen or knows about and yet I've read a few thousand posts by people that - if they'd read the prequel comic - would have been answered for them and they'd never have asked the question in the first place.

Like I said, movie makers are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[BlueLantern]

What I meant was it matters that Kal knows, not specifically the audience, because it matters to Kal to understand what was going on with Krypton before its destruction.

It's a given that the audience know some stuff, but if we don't absolutely know that a character knows a given piece of information we can't adequately get a grasp of why they eventually do some of if not most of the things they end up doing.

I don't have a problem with that, but for people to say that there's a lack of exposition, that's not true.

To be honest I didn't have an issue with the repeat exposition though watching that scene go in and out of focus in 3D gave me a headache.

Secondly, like I mentioned, the fact that the AI Jor-El didn't realize that the Phantom Zone would've freed Zod and his friends is lazy.

 

[sf2]

Wasting ur time, broadband.
They r here to tell u how bad the movie is n not to listen to your opinion.

 

[br0adband]

So when do I get to see your heavily revised "This is how it should have been done" version of the MoS script 'cause it sure sounds to me like you've covered all the bases - even the headaches. t:

I don't do 3D movies for a variety of reasons (first and foremost: they suck) but I suppose some folks just aren't tolerant enough of all this newfangled technology.

Me? I'd rather just plug in and watch it that way but I suppose we're a few hundred years away from Cyberjacks, sadly.

 

[br0adband]

Wasting ur time, broadband.
They r here to tell u how bad the movie is n not to listen to your opinion.

Which is hilarious when you think about it because those/these people telling us how bad it is are expressing opinions and nothing more.

It's not like this place is loaded with Oscar winning screenplay writers or anything, I mean really.

Besides, it's discussion, even when one side is so obviously limited in scope it's still something to participate in.

 

[spider-neil]

What I meant was it matters that Kal knows, not specifically the audience, because it matters to Kal to understand what was going on with Krypton before its destruction.

It's a given that the audience know some stuff, but if we don't absolutely know that a character knows a given piece of information we can't adequately get a grasp of why they eventually do some of if not most of the things they end up doing.

Also, there's a ton of info in the prequel comic that not everyone has seen or knows about and yet I've read a few thousand posts by people that - if they'd read the prequel comic - would have been answered for them and they'd never have asked the question in the first place.

Like I said, movie makers are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It's funny you mention the Wrath of Khan because that is how you deliver exposition.

'Genesis device? What's that?'
And they show it.

Imagine if like MoS you saw the Genesis device change a planet and 'Then' saw that multi media demonstration when Kirk needed to know what the device does.

That is just one of the many times when exposition is used in MoS. Lois Lane is a walking talking exposition device. She LITERALLY appears when something needs explaining.

 

[The Question]

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 disagree. I never had those problems with any of the Christopher Nolan films I've seen.

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.

I've only seen in the once.

Of course the pacing is easier to follow with the second viewing, because you already know what's going to happen so it's not so much a matter of keeping up with it. The impression on the first viewing is pretty important, though.

In what sense?

I didn't think they were funny or fun. The movie had done such a poor job of developing the characters and making the audience like them up until that point that there wasn't enough emotional investment to really enjoy the thing with the truck or the awkward post-battle kiss at the end.

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?

That was a typo. I mean to type that the actors were fine, as in they're all talented and charismatic actors.

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

Again, I disagree. I've generally found the acting in the films of his I've seen to be pretty weak, even from actors who I know to be quite talented.

 

[spider-neil]

Wasting ur time, broadband.
They r here to tell u how bad the movie is n not to listen to your opinion.

There are things to like in this movie but there are pacing problems.
When movie needs to linger (for instance on Clark's life lessons) the movie zips past it and when redundancy needs to be cut (the final fight) the movie goes on and on and on. This movie running time is exactly the same as Superman: The Movie (coincidence, intentional?) and S:TM is paced far better than MoS.

 

[spider-neil]

The impression on the first viewing is pretty important, though.

Is it thought? I hated Blade Runner on first viewing.

 

[br0adband]

There are things to like in this movie but there are pacing problems.
When movie needs to linger (for instance on Clark's life lessons) the movie zips past it and when redundancy needs to be cut (the final fight) the movie goes on and on and on. This movie running time is exactly the same as Superman: The Movie (coincidence, intentional?) and S:TM is paced far better than MoS.

Regarding the pacing thing, I completely agree but here's something that a lot of people aren't quite grasping:

That's done on purpose, as stated by Zack Snyder and backed up by David S. Goyer in several interviews I've read and even heard so far. So why is it done like that?

Ever read a comic book? Where a lot of stuff that could last a page or two is happening, and then you turn a page and... well, a new panel, a completely different point of view, in a different place, and it's like for some reason the story just jumped to this new place and point of view.

Take for example Kal's travel to Earth - just as he's about to actually arrive here, literally as the pod is mere feet from the ground we ...

Cut to the fishing boat, as if we'd just turned the page and we're staring at a new panel with new content to further the story.

I'm seriously surprised that so many people aren't getting that particular aspect of how this movie is laid out, quite surprised indeed.

 

[The Question]

Regarding the pacing thing, I completely agree but here's something that a lot of people aren't quite grasping:

That's done on purpose, as stated by Zack Snyder and backed up by David S. Goyer in several interviews I've read and even heard so far. So why is it done like that?

Ever read a comic book? Where a lot of stuff that could last a page or two is happening, and then you turn a page and... well, a new panel, a completely different point of view, in a different place, and it's like for some reason the story just jumped to this new place and point of view.

Take for example Kal's travel to Earth - just as he's about to actually arrive here, literally as the pod is mere feet from the ground we ...

Cut to the fishing boat, as if we'd just turned the page and we're staring at a new panel with new content to further the story.

I'm seriously surprised that so many people aren't getting that particular aspect of how this movie is laid out, quite surprised indeed.

Movies aren't comic books, though.

 

[sf2]

There are things to like in this movie but there are pacing problems.
When movie needs to linger (for instance on Clark's life lessons) the movie zips past it and when redundancy needs to be cut (the final fight) the movie goes on and on and on. This movie running time is exactly the same as Superman: The Movie (coincidence, intentional?) and S:TM is paced far better than MoS.

STM n MOS r 2 different story. Or STM only told half of MOS story infact.

 

[spider-neil]

Movies aren't comic books, though.

You can skim a comic book, linger on a page or even a panel. Go back through the comic, skip pages. And so on...

A movie moves at 24 frames per second (unless you're Peter Jackson )

 

[Visualiza]

Wasting ur time, broadband.
They r here to tell u how bad the movie is n not to listen to your opinion.

Because that's exactly what's been happening here.

This is the complaints thread, after all; if you're expecting endless praise, you'll find an abundance of it everywhere but here.

 

[spider-neil]

STM n MOS r 2 different story. Or STM only told half of MOS story infact.

Did MoS need to show as much as they did? Where does this movie go from here? If Brainiac attacks then it is another alien attacking the city. I Think MoS bites off more than it can chew.

 

[br0adband]

Movies aren't comic books, though.

And your point being, what exactly? Both are visual mediums, both are used to tell a story, both generally have a beginning, middle, end kind of setup, and so on. There's no reason a comic book story can't be told in a visual style for a movie that has the same basic principles behind its construction and telling, none whatsoever.

 

[Visualiza]

Did MoS need to show as much as they did? Where does this movie go from here? If Brainiac attacks then it is another alien attacking the city. I Think MoS bites off more than it can chew.

Agreed. The plot was far too convoluted, yet there was very little attention to detail throughout the course of the film.

 

[The Question]

And your point being, what exactly? Both are visual mediums, both are used to tell a story, both generally have a beginning, middle, end kind of setup, and so on. There's no reason a comic book story can't be told in a visual style for a movie that has the same basic principles behind its construction and telling, none whatsoever.

Imma quote Spider Neil here:

You can skim a comic book, linger on a page or even a panel. Go back through the comic, skip pages. And so on...

A movie moves at 24 frames per second (unless you're Peter Jackson )

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Did MoS need to show as much as they did? Where does this movie go from here? If Brainiac attacks then it is another alien attacking the city. I Think MoS bites off more than it can chew.

Maybe. But I think we can rest assured that MoS2 won't star Brainiac. For exactly the reasons you mentioned (and Lex Luthor) but MoS3 might come full circle and show another Kryptonian threat (Brainiac). Just like TDKR brings Batman's origin back to the forefront with Talia and the League of Shadows.