Man of Steel review - WITH SPOILERS

[Earth 2 Chris]

Wait, why hasn't Hector chimed in? Did he love it so much his head exploded, or did he realize you can't love a movie until you see it?

Chris

[Hector]

lol

I'll post my thoughts tomorrow on my computer, I only have access to my iPhone, and don't like post much through this bloody phone, lol.

[Brue]

mostly a repost from my facebook page:
Finally saw Man of Steel NO Spoilers. - I liked it. I didn't love it. Like most of today's films - it relied heavily on cgi action scenes rather than storytelling and cinematography. Cavill was good not great. Jonathan, Jorel, Lara, Lois, and Zod were all cast well. Martha and Perry were duds. No jimmy? The best Lois is Hatcher. The best Perry is John Hamilton. Best Martha- OToole. Best Jonathan- Glenn Ford. Best Zod- Stamp. Best Superman -Reeve and Reeves though Routh was great with a bad movie. Cavill is 3rd at best.

The dumbest part of the movie - jonathan going back for the dog. seriously. i love my animals and i listen very little to common sense, but when cars are actually being thrown by a tornado, i thow up a prayer for the dog and take cover. and he is supposedly wise -AND a farmer who would have had experience letting animals go. I get they were trying to show his convictions but tat was just plain stupid and it took me out of the film for a few minutes.

best part of the movie - the oil rig save.

[Hector]

Routh better than Cavill?

Routh was nothing more than a Chris Reeve lookalike and impersonator.

Cavill has the chiseled looks of the comic book Superman, Routh, well, a nerdier version of Chris Reeve.

Cavill is also a better actor than Routh.

Cavill is baddarse, the most powerful looking Supes of all times, this gunfight is not even close.

I do agree on the dog part though, but not only that, Pa Kent waiving off Clark for the attempted rescue, that was by far, my least favorite scene in the movie.

I also agree on Hatcher being the best Lois.

[Hector]

Don't care if there was a Jimmy Olsen or not, I don't go to see Superman because of a supporting character.

[Operation:Mego]

I hope they do fast track a sequel and get it out for summer or Christmas 2015. I don't see how Warners could get a DC film out for 2014, unless something has really been brewing behind the scenes or its a truly grounded project.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the studio is possibly planning to release the sequel in 2014. Znyder and Goyer have mentioned that Luthor will probably be appearing.

David S. Goyer talked about Lex appearing in the Man of Steel sequel and seeing him as a Bill Gates-like Lex that is probably worth 50, 60, 70 billion dollars. Zack Snyder talked about seeing a modern take of Lex as a combination of Richard Branson and Brad Pitt & with hair.

Don't care if there was a Jimmy Olsen or not, I don't go to see Superman because of a supporting character.

Yeah, I didn't mind Jimmy not appearing either. He'll probably be in the sequel, now that Clark's working at the Daily Planet.

[Hector]

Exactly.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I will admit that Pa Kent's death was a bit of a stretch. I think if he'd been saving a kid or something, we'd have forgiven the act more, although that would have made Clark feel worse for not acting. Brue makes a good point about a farmer being able to let an animal go.

I think the scene was important for actions later in the film (or at least occurring in the present), but on it's own it's divisive. This and the Zod resolution seem to be the most controversial aspects of the film.

Another thing that I think is lost on a lot of people is we don't know how far Clark's powers had developed at this point. Obviously, he hasn't flown as of yet. Perhaps the level his invulnerability isn't completely known. Any shadowy government agency could possibly take him away and cut him up in Jonathan's lifetime. We know they can't because of 75 years of stories, but the characters don't know this. A few lines about "we don't know what your limitations are" may have helped clear things up a bit.

[madmarva]

I think Pa Kent knew Clark wasn't mature enough at the time to deal with the ramifications of openly using his powers, by virtue of their discussion right before the storm hits. Later, Jor-el tells him, Clark he's ready After his hologram, ghost, essence...whatever teaches him in the Fortress. But was he? Considering all the collateral damage, maybe Clark wasn't, but if he hadn't stepped humanity surely would have perished on a worldwide scale.

Pa Kent's selfless to a fault. My guess is he thought he could make it back with the dog until he breaks his leg. And he's willing to die for his son because the destruction from that tornado isn't enough for him to reveal himself yet, or "the reason."

But yeah, it's a really clunky scene or it wouldn't ring so untrue to so many, but I doubt most that went to the film are sitting around deconstructing it and apologizing for it like we are on this board, Lol.

With Pa Kent's action, we can see where this Superman might have a tendency to leap before he looks or plans like J. Kent, which explains, to a degree, his poor decision making in the fight scenes.

Whether it was the intent of Goyer and Snyder or not, the film shows just how dangerous a being with those types of powers can be and it goes back to theme of self control that's always simmering in Superman stories. He has to walk on eggshells or someone or a lot of folks get hurt. Any unplanned action has far-reaching ramifications. His lack of experience shows by all the destruction. In the Smallville destruction scene, he warns people to take cover that it might be dangerous. Maybe he learns from his actions that he has to be more proactive in protecting people from threats rather than just stopping them.

I guess one thing the movie does show is why Superman needs to be a Boy Scout and Mr. Goody Two Shoes, because when he makes even the slightest mistake or miscalculation, the damage and consequences for humans are on a grand scale.

Again, I don't know if it was Snyder and Goyer's intent, but Clark's snap decision with Zod was ultimately Clark choosing nurture over nature. He didn't straddle the fence. He picked Earth over Krypton and Humans over Kryptonians. Or did he? Was it his intent to snap his neck and kill him, or was it an attempt to divert his eye beams and Clark not fully realizing his strength. I think it's the former.

But it was a quick decision, unlike in the comics when John Byrne had Superman execute the Phantom Zone villains with Kryptonite after they destroyed all life on the pocket universe Earth and vowed to do the same in Superman's dimension/reality. In the comics, it was a conscious, thought-out decision, but in the movie, it seems to be a split-second decision or gut reaction.

In the film, if it went to court, it could be argued as manslaughter, an act of war, an deadly act to protect the life of another or murder.

I read that Wall Steert Journal article, but I still doubt seriously Warner will have a sequel ready for 2014, even Christmas 2014. If a quality film can be done in that amount of time, I hope they get it done, but I wouldn't bet on it. MOS was originally planned for December 2012 and got pushed to this summer while still in production.

[MIB41]

I read that Wall Steert Journal article, but I still doubt seriously Warner will have a sequel ready for 2014, even Christmas 2014. If a quality film can be done in that amount of time, I hope they get it done, but I wouldn't bet on it. MOS was originally planned for December 2012 and got pushed to this summer while still in production.

I think a sequel that fast would be a huge mistake. MOS will likely not see a DVD release until Thanksgiving/Christmas. And to start advertising a new film before this last one has been properly circulated would be saturating interest. Plus, unless they already had some kind of pre-planning for this sequel including a script, sets needed, and designs all signed off on, it would be next to impossible to make a descent sequel in a year's time unless that film was already part of this last production. Sounds like the studio is trying to mimic the same production story as Superman: The Movie, where both I & II were worked on simultaneously.

[madmarva]

^Totally agree. Also Cavil is a good 15 to 20 pounds lighter now than he was for this film. I hope they train him up again because his physicality and presence really helped sell the character to me.

If they aren't going straight to a JLA film, I wouldn't mind seeing Flash or Wonder Woman or Aquaman or GL II before a MOS sequel, but I don't think they will take that chance.

[Earth 2 Chris]

But it was a quick decision, unlike in the comics when John Byrne had Superman execute the Phantom Zone villains with Kryptonite after they destroyed all life on the pocket universe Earth and vowed to do the same in Superman's dimension/reality. In the comics, it was a conscious, thought-out decision, but in the movie, it seems to be a split-second decision or gut reaction.

Yes, his execution of the three Phantom Zone villains was premeditated, definitely. I think back to what Roger Stern said in Michael Eury's Krypton Companion. In response to Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and Superman's breaking his vow of never taking a life, Stern didn't agree with Moore's resolution. He chalked Superman's action of killing Mxyzptlk in that story to that of a poilce sharpshooter taking out a gunman mowing down innocents, and I have to agree. I think the same applies here with Zod, and apparently Goyer, Nolan and Snyder are going to build on this to create Superman's code.

Something I think a lot of folks forget is, depending on which version you watch, Superman essentially killed Zod and company in Superman II. He picks up the non-powered Zod and throws him across the Fortress, and he then falls into a crevice, never to be seen again. Non tries to fly and falls to his apparent doom, and Lois punches Ursa and she falls similarly. In some cuts of the movie we see police arrive at the fortress (!), so we can assume if they lived, the non-powered Zoners were taken into custody. But in other cuts, Supes, Lois and apparently Lex fly away, and leave them to die of exposure. I think the neck-snap was more merciful.

Chris

[libby 1957dog]

im in the same camp as most who have seen the movie ,i liked it but im not sure yet if i love it ,my gut feeling is i will but will have to see it again to be sure ,anyway not sure if this concept art has been posted ,but it has a couple of suits with the trunks and a couple of interesting hair styles choices lol http://www.warrenmanser.com/www.warr..._ART.html#grid

[MIB41]

Something I think a lot of folks forget is, depending on which version you watch, Superman essentially killed Zod and company in Superman II. He picks up the non-powered Zod and throws him across the Fortress, and he then falls into a crevice, never to be seen again. Non tries to fly and falls to his apparent doom, and Lois punches Ursa and she falls similarly. In some cuts of the movie we see police arrive at the fortress (!), so we can assume if they lived, the non-powered Zoners were taken into custody. But in other cuts, Supes, Lois and apparently Lex fly away, and leave them to die of exposure. I think the neck-snap was more merciful.
Chris

I've always thought this death code was more of a "last resort" philosophy, instead of a zero tolerance rule. Too many villains have faced their demise at his hands for the latter to be true. So I didn't really see any shock value in Superman breaking Zod's neck. Of course in Superman II, I viewed the villains demise as your typical "gone for now" ending that so many arch villains have faced since the dawn of this genre. Without a body, there is only assumption. And through assumption, these villains usually return. So "kill" for me is too strong a term to describe the events in Superman II. To me, he defeated them. And that was about it.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I've always thought this death code was more of a "last resort" philosophy, instead of a zero tolerance rule.

Yeah, which is why I'm in Stern's camp on Moore's story. Superman kills Mxy, then robs the world of this gifts because he violated his code. It's a bit selfish when examined, and I'm glad this Superman didn't bow to his personal convictions and let innocents die. It clearly troubles him that he was forced to take a life, and apparently this point will be carried over in sequels.

Of course in Superman II, I viewed the villains demise as your typical "gone for now" ending that so many arch villains have faced since the dawn of this genre. Without a body, there is only assumption. And through assumption, these villains usually return. So "kill" for me is too strong a term to describe the events in Superman II. To me, he defeated them. And that was about it.

Yeah, I never really thought of him as murdering them, but where everyone is over-examining everything, if you go back to the classics, you find questionable stuff like this as well. Heck, George Reeves' Superman took out a couple that had discovered his secret identity. He took them to an icy mountain top and left them there while he went looking for food and shelter for them. While he was gone, they conveniently fell to their deaths...!!!!

Chris

Chris