Man of Steel review - WITH SPOILERS

[B-Lister]

Speaking to Fox Business Channel, Grae Drake, editor of Rotten Tomatoes, expressed dismay over the critical reception, saying “As much as I love and respect our critics at Rotten Tomatoes, I’ve got to say I am shocked. Listen, the movie’s not perfect but…I just cannot fathom it. It was a good movie, you guys.”

Agreed. Superman was both Super and Heroic.

[huedell]

Agreed. Superman was both Super and Heroic.

Unfortunately for this "Grae Drake" editor guy, Superman not living up to the "hero" part of the term "super hero" was far from the only thing dwelled upon by the many "Man Of Steel" questioning critics across the country.
If only it was as simple as addressing Max Landis' killer insightful youtube video statement on MAN OF STEEL (and superhero movies today).

[B-Lister]

You have your opinion, I have mine. It is my opinion that there is only one worthy Superman movie and it's still in theaters.

Your mileage may vary.

[huedell]

You have your opinion, I have mine. It is my opinion that there is only one worthy Superman movie and it's still in theaters.

Your mileage may vary.

Actually, my post had nothing to do with that...

...it's just that you referenced Max Landis' video post's sentiment, while the many Rotten Tomatoes critics' reviews that Drake is referencing have nothing to do with Landis' video. Drake'd be lucky if it did, as it seems his co-workers had many additional reasons why MAN OF STEEL didn't feel quite right.

Now, if he had more guys like *you* associated with RT's sources fir reviews, he'd be stoked, apparently.

[B-Lister]

Well, while I loved it and would not change a thing, there are some valid concerns mixed with the pervasive "it's not what I remember so I have to hate it on general principle" complaints typical of fanboy reviews.

It would be self serving and disingenuous of me to want those concerns silenced.

Regardless, the critics could not keep butts out of seats, and the film is undeniably a hit with the masses, and that's what really matters in the end.

[Thor]

Well, while I loved it and would not change a thing, there are some valid concerns mixed with the pervasive "it's not what I remember so I have to hate it on general principle" complaints typical of fanboy reviews.

It would be self serving and disingenuous of me to want those concerns silenced.

Regardless, the critics could not keep butts out of seats, and the film is undeniably a hit with the masses, and that's what really matters in the end.

I could not have said it better.

[MIB41]

Well, while I loved it and would not change a thing, there are some valid concerns mixed with the pervasive "it's not what I remember so I have to hate it on general principle" complaints typical of fanboy reviews.

I think the bias of one era over the other is more applicable to you. You've been bashing the Reeves film (and it's fans) since this new one came out. I'm sorry you can't see past the technology of your own era and appreciate the effort of previous films. I could when I was a kid. But that's your deficit. The primary debate has been about what it can make in relation to that original box office. And for all the fist pumping about what this film is doing OVERSEAS, it's only doing marginal business here at home in relation to it's budget and marketing costs. It's acting very much like a front loaded film. The truth is, it need's the foreign gross to pull a profit. And even with that, it's just now starting to go into the black. But the film itself is not bad. I think we have a new Superman and I'm GLAD. We need this to open up the DC universe. But let's keep things in perspective. Fans owe a huge debt of gratitude to the foreign markets for helping this film get where it's at. Those are just the facts. All the flag waving will not make this film the "mega-hit" diehards want it to be. It's in line to do Amazing Spiderman numbers worldwide. No surprise there.

[B-Lister]

Once again, your strawman tactics invalidate your argument and give weight to mine.

Thank you for making it so easy.

The numbers speak for themselves. I love how the fact that this film you deem so unworthy is a hit, that even when faced with that fact, you have to argue about where it made the money, as if it mattered.

[huedell]

Once again, your strawman tactics invalidate your argument and give weight to mine.

Thank you for making it so easy.

The numbers speak for themselves. I love how the fact that this film you deem so unworthy is a hit, that even when faced with that fact, you have to argue about where it made the money, as if it mattered.

What are you? A studio head posting on a geek message board?

In the words of Thor's above post: MIB41 "couldn't have said it better".

The overseas market represents the demographic that can be much easier manipulated, and with the right FX budget and calculated dispersment throughout the film, would make any film that took a risk of losing the soul of the movie into a hit: financially.
If that's your version of a "success", then most here would not want to be a part of that. We are, after all, superhero fans... not studio heads.

This way of debating invalidates your triumph and shows how flimsy the "it's not what I remember so I have to hate it on general principle" theory really is.

These critics are doing much more than holding on to nostalgia (admittedly nostalgia plays a part). They, more importantly are remembering what the Superman character used to be... what he used to stand for...
before this era of "guaranteed overseas dollars via serious chaotic consistent action at the risk of losing the heart and soul of a movie" came into play.

You're judging this movie more on what audiences want today because it's easy to turn a blind eye to an essence from an era you were not a part of.
Us older folks are split on how much or how little we enjoy MAN OF STEEL, but we all have one thing in common: We are from an era that much closer to heart of what Superman is.
It's much easier for us to understand where Superman came from and where he's going.

MIB41's: "I think the bias of one era over the other is more applicable to you" hit the nail on the head and drove it into the ground.

It's okay to enjoy the new movie. But ya gotta know WHY you're enjoying it. Younger people today are transforming into an overseas market mentality. To keep the essence of any given character or of a solid movie in general, you have to keep the evils of that overseas mentality at bay. It's only healthy if ou care about the emotional weight of a movie.

[B-Lister]

Wait, what part of flying around the world to reverse time, pulling a cellophane S off his chest ot mind erasing with a kiss is 'true to the original essence of the character?' I really can't wait to hear the rationale.

While you're at it, tell me what wasn't true to character about MOS. please, I am dying to read this.

[huedell]

Wait, what part of flying around the world to reverse time, pulling a cellophane S off his chest ot mind erasing with a kiss is 'true to the original essence of the character?' I really can't wait to hear the rationale.

While you're at it, tell me what wasn't true to character about MOS. please, I am dying to read this.

But the replies can be and HAVE been defined so simply, already scattered by Museum members throughout this thread and other MAN OF STEEL related posts on this site.

"MOS" Supes is more unnecessarily dark in personality, and in the world that he inhabits than the way Supes has been portrayed throughout history. Dang, Batman's interaction with the child in TDK had more light-hearted interaction than anything you could find in MOS. What does THAT tell you? The newer darker Batman is now being one-upped in that tone by the new Superman? And, incidentally, you don't need a bumbling corny villain or a pie in the face to make a movie more light-hearted. You just need some MOMENTS, man. And a Superman movie needs quite a few of them.

I admit that sometimes I am in the minority that sees the similarities of Silver Age Superman light-heartedness in the Reeve films more deeply than just about anyone else. As cheesy as the cellophane "S" seemed to some people, I thought it was a clever effect and not a stupid looking failure of a weapon. Publically, it has been proven to be a "fail". So, I'll give ya that one, even though I thought it was a strategic way for Supes to buy time with the threatening Non (that looked cool onscreen). And I thought it VERY Silver Age.

The "reversing time" thing isn't even a goofy concept, as it's a very powerful man playing with the laws of physics... The memory-erasing kiss? Now THAT (without an onscreen explanation of the kiss happening alongside some kind of super-hypnosis) is a wacky, (if not cornball) idea. But it was fun/nice enough in a movie with more strengths than weaknesses. I didn't like either the time reversal OR the kiss, not because they were cheesy, but because they seemed liked forced answers to major plot point/story problems.... but the light-hearted TONE was just fine, and germane to the character.

But the REAL issue at stake here is your question of what was true or NOT true to the character in the movies overall... and I say it's the stuff that's MISSING from MOS that is more important to focus on. You can always ADD something to the character and, likely, compromise the character a lot less than if you were TAKING AWAY something from it.

And THIS is where we get messy with Man Of Steel.

If you'd like to read the stuff other than the light-hearted tone and personality of Supes that was MISSING from MOS, then look at previous posts in the Museum about the perception of Supes having more of a connection with Metropolis citizens. These posts reference Supes choosing to battle onwards in the city while many were devastated and killed. That in itself would be somewhat palatable, I guess. But to not have a moment where Superman acknowledged this tragedy (especially after showing him caring SO much about a mere three people during his last fight with Zod). It's just so outta phase with the character's hyper-sensitive humanity-geared character.

God forbid the overseas audience profit margin was threated by a 10 second slower paced, quitter scene or scene moment that showed a bit of that lacking humanity that a Superman movie so deeply needs. But, no, getting more Osaka citizens and 15 year old American boys that shop at Hot Topic is becoming more of a focus these days.

[B-Lister]

First off, I want to thank you for keeping it civil, huedell.

I also am glad you see many of my points as valid, that said, reversing the rotation of the earth as a solution sets a bad precedent. Why can't he do that to fix every problem?

The PZ criminals escape? No problem, let's reverse time and make sure they don't!

[huedell]

First off, I want to thank you for keeping it civil, huedell.

I also am glad you see many of my points as valid, that said, reversing the rotation of the earth as a solution sets a bad precedent. Why can't he do that to fix every problem?

The PZ criminals escape? No problem, let's reverse time and make sure they don't!

Well, it's the "death of Lois" aspect that I think is key to Supes making that decision...

But that rationalization aside, that plot point cop out "fix-all solution" is why I too, personally, do not like that part.... however, it was pretty easy for the majority of 1978 onwards moviegoers and critics to accept such a "hand of God" solution in a film that overwhelmingly captured the soul of the 'Superman" character.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, there's nothing particularly "cornball" about a superhuman playing with physics... in other words: it ain't a "magic kiss". And, lastly, Superman playing with a variation on time travel happened to be a logical ORGANIC extent to a character already known for superhuman strength and speed and was being played with in the 1970s comics because it was indeed an "addition" to the character, yet within the lines of the progression of the character.

As said before... it's easier to ADD things to a character and still keep it intact than it is taking AWAY from the character and getting the same result.

P.S. I always try to come off polite & civil here... and I apologize if I don't.

[fallensaviour]

Alright just watced it and I have to say......I liked it...The first time I saw it and it was called Superman II.
I'm just saying it seemed like a remake of supes 2 adding in the Romulans from the star trek remake a few years ago.
More than once I found myself a little bored.

[B-Lister]

Okay Huedell, what do you think MOS 'takes away' from the character?

Granted, he is not the Silver Age Superman by any means, but I feel the film portrays him pretty faithfully to the current depiction.

And if that is the case, then anything that was taken away was probably the result of an editorial mandate long before the transition from page to screen.

I saw a lot of John Byrne in the film.