Superman: Man of Steel Catch All

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Kurrelgyre wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:

But the kicker:

Spoiler:

Superman doesn't kill.

Spoiler:

You're right, which is one of the reasons it caused him so much anguish. He couldn't hold onto him forever, and at that point Zod was no longer targeting him and just causing collateral human damage, he was about to target humans directly, and right in front of him.

Spoiler:

That and he was killing off one of the last of his own race. That would be a hard thing to swallow. He choose between humans and his own scpeices and it almost broke him except for Lois.

That was exactly how I read it.

ianunderhill wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Having not read the thread, I'm gonna bet this is another big budget action film based on a long-standing property that I thought was just fine and pisses off longtime fans. Just like every other movie this year. Am I close? *goes to read*

So far you're wrong, actually. At least when it comes to this thread.

It doesn't even seem like it's taking critical lumps. As in, "From film critics." And that's spanning between ordinary film critics and the ones who focus a bit more on genre pictures. I keep seeing these references to it being horribly received in a lot of places I look, but the reviews seem overwhelmingly positive for a superhero flick. How am I missing this alleged copious bad-mouthing when I'm just this side of actively seeking it out?!

Huh? It's 56% on RottenTomatoes. Barely rotten, but still rotten.

I can't imagine seeing this in theaters. You guys are giving a lot of positive buzz, so that I might consider it at the $2 theater.

But just a few years ago... here's a guy who did some great comic book movies, Bryan Singer, and well X-Men was good, X2 was great, and so we'll get him to do Superman and do it right, and it will be so awesome... and it absolutely sucked. It's a complete waste of time.

And here we are again, with a successful director, and producer of Batman films both, and they promise they'll do it right. I feel like the old "fool me once, fool me twice" saying applies here. I can't in good conscience go see it.

Here's a review that sums it up for me.

Spoilers: http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

The TLDR version: "Utterly joyless."

PaladinTom wrote:

Good point. Still didn't work for me. Felt gratuitous and overly violent.

And no, I don't really follow the comics. Although I did read Earth One, which I thought was better than this.

Honestly, I really loved that part. It was the only surprise. Blockbuster movies are so predictable nowadays.

I can't imagine seeing this in theaters. You guys are giving a lot of positive buzz, so that I might consider it at the $2 theater.

I can't imagine not seeing this in a theater again. Probably IMAX. As much as I'll enjoy the (hopefully) extended cut blu-ray when it comes out, the visuals were made for a big screen.

PaladinTom wrote:

Here's a review that sums it up for me.

Spoilers: http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

The TLDR version: "Utterly joyless."

It's not entirely joyless, though.

Oh, was the 3D messed up on Krypton for other people? I was seeing triple and there were flashes of black as though I were blinking. If it'd continued I would have had to leave the theater, but as soon as they got off Krypton everything was fine.

Stele wrote:

Huh? It's 56% on RottenTomatoes. Barely rotten, but still rotten.

Huh. Well, that's what I get for skimming reviews on a Friday, instead of relying on the aggregate scoring thing. Honestly, I hadn't seen a single review trashing it among the many I read and was surprised by that.

Ballotechnic wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Oh, was the 3D messed up on Krypton for other people? I was seeing triple and there were flashes of black as though I were blinking. If it'd continued I would have had to leave the theater, but as soon as they got off Krypton everything was fine.

Me too. Unless you can see it IMAX 3D, I wouldn't bother.

It was in IMAX 3D. The person I went with said the same, as I thought maybe the issue was due to my normal glasses.

I need to see the movie again in order to verify some of my thoughts, but here are some of my thoughts on the issues people pointed out.

Spoiler:

1.)Why did Superman go to the other side of the world and not Metropolis to destroy the machine? Because he could get there faster than a cargo plane. It takes a long time time to fly a plane to the other side of the world, Superman could be there in moments. That non withstanding, they were using his ship to knock the Kryptonians back to the phantom zone so by necessity, the humans had to target that machine.

2.) Superman does not kill. As was pointed out before, he very much killed Zod and co in Superman II when he [spoilers :)] threw them, powerless mind you, into an icy crevasse in the Fortress of Solitude. MoS was more brutal about it, but he was really on his last legs.

3.) Collateral damage. This is a tough one. My take was that Zod new Superman's Achilles heel was his connection to people. The Krypton lady, Fedora(?), even told him they'd kill millions if he continued resisting. This Zod wasn't the Terrance Stamp Zod who was content to just knock people off their feet with wind. I honestly felt that Supes retreated, Zod would have pressed the attack on now completely defenseless civilians. He didn't want to rule them, he wanted to wipe them out. While pursuing greater sense of realism, Snyder and co took off the gloves to show you what impact of these power houses conflict would really look like.

Even if my observations are correct however, I can understand why the scale of the thing might be very difficult to swallow. The aftermath of all this however could lay a tremendous foundation for subsequent Superman and JLA movies.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Oh, was the 3D messed up on Krypton for other people? I was seeing triple and there were flashes of black as though I were blinking. If it'd continued I would have had to leave the theater, but as soon as they got off Krypton everything was fine.

Me too. Unless you can see it IMAX 3D, I wouldn't bother.

EDIT:
I found this interesting article, which is in fact hugely spoiler-y.

Spoiler:

What Would You have Superman Do? (and what has he done I might add)

Honestly, what I find pretty amazing re-watching that Superman 2 clip is just how casually Superman and Lois kill Zod and co. I didn't really remember it that way but it comes off as very...nonchalant.

DSGamer wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I can still see that. At least tens of thousands of people just died, and who knows what the environmental ramifications will be. Lex will have plenty of justifications for distrusting Superman, as well as supporters who do as well. I think that there will definitely be ways to make a well-motivated and relatable Lex Luthor. There is also going to be plenty of Krypton hardware and technology scattered around for him to use.

One of Lex Luthor's main motivations in the comics later on is that he sees Superman as a threat to the safety of Earth. In a comic book where galaxy-wide events occur weekly this is a bit silly. But this movie nailed the reality of what it would be like if "first contact" happened in this fashion. Someone like Lex Luthor would see Superman as a threat to his interests and honestly as a threat to Earth. There would be more motivation there than real estate.

I think in this setting, Lex has plenty of motivation--I more meant what does an action sequence with Lex as the bad guy look like. I guess he builds a lot of robots, or something.

A small, further thought on the end:

Spoiler:

That act as given more gravitas and reaction from Superman than I think I've seen in any other comic movie. Granted, usually gravity does the deed to the villain...but the hero helps.

Saw it today on the IMAX. I'm left kind of in the middle. Overall I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hit my top 5 superhero movies of the recent years.

One thing that annoyed me:

Spoiler:

Basically half the movie seemed to revolve around souped up (pun!) USB keys as main plot devices. Using them to turn stuff on, transport Jor El's consciousness, develop solutions, drama about not getting it inserted correctly, etc. That scene with the DARPA guy pushing it in on the plane at the end somehow reminded me of Jeff Goldblum using a Mac to end the aliens in Independence Day. I know it wasn't the same thing, but that's what popped in my head.

Kurrelgyre wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:

Here's a review that sums it up for me.

Spoilers: http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

The TLDR version: "Utterly joyless."

It's not entirely joyless, though.

Once, that I recall:

Spoiler:

When he first learns to fly.

One thing I did like was the nods to other Supermen:

Spoiler:

I'm pretty sure the first closeup of him flying included the same sound when George Reeve's Superman flew on television. Also, the Kryptonian computer simulation of how Kal came to Earth showed the crystal pod from Superman: The Movie.

That's about all the fun I got out of the film.

One other thing I liked

Spoiler:

How much they showed him hitchhiking before he came into his powers. Really showed him as a humble human at his core.

I don't get why people are complaining that it's joyless. It is joyless, I just don't see it as a problem.

Saw it. Loved it. I am not going to spoiler tag it up. But I am on the thumbs-up side of the fence.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I don't get why people are complaining that it's joyless. It is joyless, I just don't see it as a problem.

I agree. It was not a happy movie. It's full of loss and tragedy when you think about it. Sure there is honor and right versus wrong junctions here and there. But not much joy.

Heretk wrote:

Saw it. Loved it. I am not going to spoiler tag it up. But I am on the thumbs-up side of the fence.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I don't get why people are complaining that it's joyless. It is joyless, I just don't see it as a problem.

I agree. It was not a happy movie. It's full of loss and tragedy when you think about it. Sure there is honor and right versus wrong junctions here and there. But not much joy.

Not that the thread needs another review, but here's my take. I think the movie was as good as it could have been considering the script and director. I wouldn't consider Zach Snyder a successful director by any means- he's made of movies or remakes that I wanted to be really good, but I was typically disappointed (Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead).

The movie was too long in my opinion by at least an hour and a half. All the jump cuts and flying combat was repetitive after the first half hour, I didn't need to see more of it. Superman's backstory really deserved more fleshing out than it got (ala Batman Begins), but I did think the story of Clark's internal struggle of whether or not to use his powers pretty interesting. It just never really panned out.

This was probably the weakest superhero movie I've seen recently (I haven't seen Iron Man 3). If this is meant to be the kickoff to a potential Justice League cycle ala Marvel's Avengers cycle, they're definitely starting off on the wrong foot. Given the way they were handled, I can't see Batman or Superman supporting a Justice League movie. The Batman trilogy was too succesful and strong on its on, and Superman needed to be a lot stronger in to establish a base to build on.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

I love it, but I seem to be pretty easy to please with movies this summer so far.

Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, Star Trek, Fast 6... loved them all. Hoping to keep the streak alive with Monsters U this weekend!

My two cents on the overall tone of the film. I don't think that you can say this film was joyless. The DC films so far (mainly the Batman trilogy) have a weight and seriousness to them that I think works in best in that universe. There's a pace and levity to Marvel and their characters that work really well in their films and I think it would have been a mistake for them the Man of Steel filmmakers to mimic ( and one of the main reasons I think we got just an awful Green Lantern film).

This was a quieter and more introspective Superman, which I really enjoyed. I think the "realism" they tried to capture was someone who's had to hide his true self his entire life. Man of Steel struck a balance between feeling the weight of Superman's responsibility to watch over humanity but I also felt like I got to go along for the ride of discovering Supes abilities with him.

Blind_Evil wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Oh, was the 3D messed up on Krypton for other people? I was seeing triple and there were flashes of black as though I were blinking. If it'd continued I would have had to leave the theater, but as soon as they got off Krypton everything was fine.

Me too. Unless you can see it IMAX 3D, I wouldn't bother.

It was in IMAX 3D. The person I went with said the same, as I thought maybe the issue was due to my normal glasses.

i did the IMAX 3d showing and had my normal glasses on without any side effects.

I thought the movie was okay. The fight scenes at the end definitely dragged on for me. The first fight scene was awesome.

Anyways, the "He's hot" joke was really out of place, tacky and quite lame. No one laughed in the theatre/ They made most of the movie with a serious edge and that's all they can come up with as a joke?

Iron Man 3 was better.

ranalin wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Oh, was the 3D messed up on Krypton for other people? I was seeing triple and there were flashes of black as though I were blinking. If it'd continued I would have had to leave the theater, but as soon as they got off Krypton everything was fine.

Me too. Unless you can see it IMAX 3D, I wouldn't bother.

It was in IMAX 3D. The person I went with said the same, as I thought maybe the issue was due to my normal glasses.

i did the IMAX 3d showing and had my normal glasses on without any side effects.

Here in Nashville, they had IMAX and then IMAX 3D as different showings. Same price.

I really disliked this movie. I had such high hopes. Too much REPETITIVE violence that was just there for the CGI budget. Movie felt like a polar opposite to the trailers, which I really, really enjoyed. I wish the trailer director had directed the movie.

It did have Zach Snyder disease.

The answer is to pretend that the long repetitive scenes of violence were merely there to point out that this kind of pandering to the lowest common denominator is a bad thing. Just pretend it has a deeper meaning.

I actually thought most of the violence in this film was pretty well-justified. It all served to drive the point home that Superman can't just beat up the bad guys. Each of the Kryptonians are more or less evenly matched with him, and they outnumber him significantly. The longer he fights them, the more damage he does to the world he is trying to protect.

Spoiler:

Specifically, I think the final showdown with Zod was necessary in order to really sell Superman's decision to kill him. He couldn't stop Zod any other way, and failing to stop him would just cause even more death and destruction.

I also think the fights did a good job of illustrating just how powerful Superman really is. A lot of people complain that Superman is TOO powerful, and that makes him some sort of boring deus ex machina. I've always thought that it was his most interesting flaw. There's a quote from a JLU episode that sums it up pretty well:

Superman wrote:

Me? I've got a different problem. I feel like I live in a world made of cardboard. Always taking constant care not to break something. To break someone. Never allowing myself to lose control, even for a moment, or someone could die.

The fights in the movie show this. He's trying to save the world but he's doing almost as much damage as the people trying to destroy it, and the knowledge of that weighs on his conscience.

Spoiler:

Which is another reason why the death of Zod is so powerful. Zod represents the worst that Superman could become - all that power, with no conscience or restraint. And yet, in order to put an end to Zod's evil he has to embrace a small part of it by breaking his own moral code and taking a life.

I'm with muttonchop.

Weren't those things already shown in Superman II, the fight in the middle of Metropolis?

Outnumbered 3 to 1, and Zod figures out that Superman's "weakness" is protecting the people, so they start attacking them specifically. And then Superman runs away and lures the enemy to a fight on his home territory, away from that.

Spoiler:

Except this Zod's goal wasn't to conquer, it was to turn the planet into a New Krypton. The only thing that really changed as the plot went on was the destruction of humanity transitioning from being a byproduct of that goal to being the goal itself. There's no home territory at that point because Zod was already where he wanted to be. Retreating would have just left everyone in Metropolis defenseless.

Stele wrote:

Weren't those things already shown in Superman II, the fight in the middle of Metropolis?

Outnumbered 3 to 1, and Zod figures out that Superman's "weakness" is protecting the people, so they start attacking them specifically. And then Superman runs away and lures the enemy to a fight on his home territory, away from that.

Spoiler:

At what point does he attempt to draw them off? Obviously he has to destroy the World Engine first. Until then time is on Zod's side, he'd like nothing more that to retain the planet, kill everyone, and fight against Superman when they are weaker and their advanced weapons and armor will tip the balance more.

By the time Superman broke the World Engine I think Zod already had the Nursery Ship, so the only thing left he had that Zod would want are his cells. If Superman tried to lure them somewhere else wouldn't Zod have just said "ok, we'll just kill 100 people every second until you surrender".

Even if Superman had successfully stolen the Nursery Ship and ran for it, so he had two things they wanted, wouldn't Zod's reaction have been the same.

Superman's actions were fine, it was Zod that was the idiot.

If I was Zod:
"Kal El, thank Krypton we've finally found you, and the signal you sent out was from a Nursery Ship! That and the codex you have is all we need to start a new Krypton!

So no one seems to be using this second planet here, it's poisonous, but we have a World Engine so that's cool, and its even closer to this wicked awesome sun. Do you think the humans would mind if we moved in? We'll give them advanced tech and kick start their space program. Hell, we could even give them weapons tech if it makes them feel more comfortable, because in this system we are invincible Gods with nothing to fear.

Honestly we're just super grateful that our race isn't doomed, and we're willing to do everything in our power to make sure this works out.

I mean, if they really don't want us to live here I guess that's ok, we do have a ship with a hyper drive in it, if you could let us have the Nursery Ship and sit here for a quick medical operation we'll be out of here in no time, you could come with us if you'd like, we'd love to have you. Heck, if you don't want to leave that smoking hot red head she's invited too."

Good points, Yonder. Aside from the obvious (big budget action movies demand lots of conflict) I can think of a couple of reasons.

Spoiler:

#1 - The world engine fails on some worlds? Some exposition might have cleared this up as obviously many colonies failed. Why was that, btw?

#2 - The fact that Kryptonians are breed "Brave New World" style to fit certain roles, maybe Zod couldn't see the diplomatic path or had no inclination to even try it. Once again something that deserved more exposition.

The more I think about that the more I wish movie 1 was about Krypton only.