Finally saw Man of Steel tonight

[Hector]

I think this sums up a lot of gaping holes in logic.

Hilarious!!!

[Hedji]

In 1978 or 2013, we really need more optimist entertainment done well. We don't need a morose makeover of formally optimistic entertainment. (Star Trek, Superman).

Thank you! YES!

[Earth 2 Chris]

I would have liked a less cynical, dour telling, but I knew better than to expect that from Goyer, Nolan and Synder. As it's own animal, I enjoyed the film. I'd personally like to see a lighter treatment, but I think they did a good job with the direction they chose to go in.

Chris

[MIB41]

Here's a good article on the latest from Snyder directing Superman VS Batman. Interesting bits to consider.

http://www.zergnet.com/o/108186/1

[Mego Magyar]

Having Superman flying around waving at crowds and rescuing kittens from trees worked fine in 1978 because it was a more innocent time. I just don't feel that type of treatment works today, but that doesn't mean it didn't work then, or that it was wrong in any way.

But I think that's what the point of Superman is - he is the beacon of light, the hope, the big blue boyscout. You don't have to have him rescuing kittens but he isn't a dark character. It should matter whether it 1939. 1978 or 2013 Superman should always be the best of the best, the hero that even other heroes look up to as the example of true goodness and to turn him into a dark and brooding character is doing the legacy a disservice.

I didn't see this in the theater and am glad I didn't waste my money but it was worth 1 watching - I also feel the same about Star Trek, Into Darkness. Now Thor 2 is different, I went to see that the other day and it was very good.

It's funny, DC seems to be better at doing there heroes on tv ( Arrow is awesome ) but not to good at the movies and it's looking like Marvel is just the opposite ( I totally forgot about SHIELD this week ).

[Figuremod73]

Personally, I rather have the heroes as they were written in the 1970's, on the screen with the updated special effects. I would have been much more excited to see the latest Batman or Superman flicks that way.

I'm just not impressed with Nolan and companies take but it made money so the studio continues to allow them to do what they want.

[ctc]

>I rather have the heroes as they were written in the 1970's

That's a tricky one though. Remember the early 70's were pretty dark, and the later 70's were pretty light. The early part of the decade was a lot like now; the Big Two had an audience of older readers, and were trying to appeal to them, even though they were dying off and moving on. By the later part of the deacade you had a boom in superhero merchandaising, which was typically aimed at kids, so there was a kiddening down of the comics.

>I think that's what the point of Superman is - he is the beacon of light, the hope, the big blue boyscout.

Usually. The original one used to straight up drop you in the ocean. I think Superman's tricky 'cos his ever escallating power level made it harder to rationalize him to a non-climatized audience. Batman has mass appeal 'cos je's a dude with gadgets. We've seen that a lot over the years, and even though he displays inhuman levels of competence and durability every action hero since "Commando" has done the same, so it's easier for a general, non-comic fan audience to swallow. Moving the moon is too cartoony for most folks.

Which is why I think folks ascribe his "gooder than goodness" to the realm of goofy, improbable and unappealing. It's not the character's personality that's the problem; it's that the personality gets wrapped up in all the other stuff that bothers them. So to counter that, the producers need to add some edge. Hell; they did that with the 70's Superman. The first one showed the death of Lois, the second one was all about sex. The current one has property damage like the '78 film but doesn't go for the magic revrse time bit; they just overlook it 'cos that sort of thing is easy for a Shwarzennegerian audience to accept. (Plus; the old one probably needed some kind of magic save, given the general "comics is fer kids!" attitude of the day.)

>but it made money so the studio continues to allow them to do what they want

....and it made money because people wanted to see it. Which means the idea that Superman NEEDS some sort of edge might be correct. Or it might be that everyone goes to see everything any more, and the point is inconsequential. But it'd be fiscally irresponsible for the studio to experiment.

Don C.

[Figuremod73]

With Nolans version of Batman, it has more to do with his approach, I think. For instance, I remember groaning and shaking my head when I saw the Batmobile.

I liked Superman Returns better than the new one (if only that kid hadnt been written in it)

[ctc]

So;

I finally got around to seeing “Man of Steel.” I wasn’t originally in a hurry to see it, but my curiosity was piqued by the reviews and commentaries I’ve read. It almost felt like people were TRYING to like this film....

Overall I don’t think it’s a good film. It’s not HORRIBLE; but it’s not very good. It suffers from the two big problems that a lot of nerdly films do:

-It’s real familiar. Not just because it’s ANOTHER slightly different take on Superman’s origin; but because every scene, every line, every design feels cribbed from somewhere else. From the Eldar attacking Gallifrey in the beginning, to the Kryptonian/Pandora winged dragons and birthing chamber, the Space Jockey power armour Zod’s troops wear, the numerous “homages” to Superman 2.... none of it felt really new.

-It’s incredibly overwrought. There’s an attempt to add weight to every scene, every line, every event.... and the result is a mishmosh of very unnatural feeling scenes. We’re TOLD what’s dramatic, but it doesn’t feel that way. Nobody talks the way people actually do, nobody draws any conclusion based an a discernable line of thought.... it’s kinda just stuff happening. To that end, there’s a tendency to “fill in the blanks;” adding backstory to explain things and answer questions that have come up over the years. But in doing so, they add NEW questions, and the film has a habit of dismantling in one scene stuff they established one or two prior. Or adding a LOT of extraneous material to the story.

Some specifics:

- They added the idea that Kryptonians had explored the galaxy, but when the end is nigh, only Superdad has a working ship, or apparently the capacity to build new ones.... even though we see a whole schload of superscience, including a prison turned into an intergalactic space vessel. Why didn’t Superdad build a family size ship? Why didn’t more folks build them? There seemed to be some time between the rebellion and the end.

- So.... the SDF-Krypton had crashed on Earth thousands of years earlier? Is this a “chariots of the gods” kind of thing? A coincidence? Maybe the latter, given how rampant coincidence was in this film.

- Hey! Superdad has one of them little robobuddies like Booster Gold from “Brave and Bold!”

-Obi-Wan Superdad bothered me. Not only did it cheapen the idea of Supes being the last survivor (sort of....) But he became one of them nigh-powerful plot devices. (If Obi-Wan Superdad could cut off corridors and manipulate the life support on Zod’s ship during Lois’ escape why didn’t he just isolate and kill all the bad guys right there?)

- Superman killing Zod didn’t bother me. It seemed like an act of desperation, and he seemed bothered by it. What I thought questionable was all the guys LOIS killed on the way out of the ship.... including one guy she just straight-up shot in the face, gangster style.

-Pa Kent really bothered me. More than anything I think this is the change that most conflicted with the idea behind Superman. Instead of being an upright, honest individual Pa is kind of a selfish wuss. Rather than inspiring Clark he seems more of an obstacle. In most versions of the character it’s this forthright, unassuming upbringing that makes Clark Superman. In this one Pa is James Dean’s dad from “Rebel Without a Cause.” He’s also a dumbass, given his death scene. (Don’t run or anything, Pa!) Of course, we never actually SEE him die, OR a body.... so maybe he comes back with powers in the next film.

-ENOUGH WITH THE McGUFFINS!!!! Also, why does every movie superhero have to fight tentacles?

-The property damage didn’t throw me as much as I was expecting. It’s pretty standard action movie stuff. Although by the time the second big confrontation came around I was sort of hoping it would end and they’d get back to the story.

-Weird bit: I kept waiting for Colonel SVU to ask “where did the Kryptonian touch you?”

Don C.

[jds1911a1]

Thanks CTC I have even less desire to see it now. And that isn't sarcasm It just reaffirms that my 2 hours will be better spent watching something else

[ctc]

>It just reaffirms that my 2 hours will be better spent watching something else

Two and a half.... That bothered me too; it's like.... an hour too long.

Don C.

[enyawd72]

Thanks CTC I have even less desire to see it now. And that isn't sarcasm It just reaffirms that my 2 hours will be better spent watching something else

I disagree with just about everything CTC said. I absolutely loved it and I'm a die-hard Marvel guy. The runtime just flew by. Henry Cavill is my new favorite Superman, and I even liked Michael Shannon's General Zod better. He actually had a reason for what he was doing and believe he was saving his people, instead of just being evil for the heck of it. I encourage you to watch it and make up your own mind.

[jimsmegos]

Saw it recently. Didn't like it. Outside of what others have already mentioned my biggest gripes are the terrible dialog and the poor edits between scenes.

[RickD]

Makes me wonder why individuals find it is necessary to analyze every single scene in a movie, when it is for entertainment purposes only

That seems more exhausting then watching a 2 hour movie.

it was entertaining and Superman kicked *ss as he should!

[Random Axe]

This version of Superman is different than EVERY one ever produced on film or television since his creation. Snyder/Nolan/WB set out to make a Kal-El who is partly ashamed of his powers (thanks Pa Kent) and is morally unsure of himself. Allowing the dude in the diner to sexually harrass the waitress and then causing significant damage to the guy's rig and then leaving without a trace is not the Superman or Clark Kent I know nor does anyone know. In their attempts to modernize Superman by giving him a contemporary, brooding attitude they totally forgot that, when you break this down to it's simplest level, they are making a film about an alien in a blue suit with a red cape who flies. Only the unholy film trinity that made this movie could completely miss the point of the character this badly. Michael Bay, M Night Shamalan, George Lucas, Speilberg, Tarrantino, Schumacher, Emerich, Stiller, Berg and countless other directors wouldn't have efffffed up the character this bad. What defines Superman is that he sees his powers as a gift to the world, and it's his duty to protect his home. Man of Steel shows us a Superman who hid his powers under cover of annonymity, guilt and fear of being rejected by humanity.

This wasn't a terrible movie, I don't want to give that impression. It is, however, a unique take on a character that didn't need a new take. One aspect of life that transcends through all times, cultures, generations, races and religions is the power of good versus evil. This film blurred those lines between Supes and Zod. That never should have happened.