Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Variety)   Didn't like "Man of Steel"? It's not Zack Snyder's fault, it's yours for clinging to Christopher Reeve's Superman   (variety.com) divider line 257
    More: Dumbass, Christopher Reeves, Zack Snyder, Superman, massive damage, Jeremy Irons  
•       •       •

2315 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 21 Apr 2014 at 8:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-21 09:58:19 AM  
No, Man of Steel sucked because the script was terrible.  I hear a lot of people defending Man of Steel from various criticisms, but I have never heard of a reason the movie was actually good.  What did you like about Man of Steel, because I don't know of anything it did right.

/Seriously, who the fark thought turning the dad into a paranoid nutcase then killing him off in the dumbest way possible was a good idea?
 
2014-04-21 09:59:40 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Mad_Radhu: There's really not any major complaint that isn't covered in the script,

I shall qualify my questions with the standard "No really, I liked the movie despite these things" defense.

1. WHERE. ARE. ALL. THE. DEAD. PEOPLE?  I mean they took down umpteen skyscrapers and there was ZERO collateral damage? Really?

2. So Pa Kent is 20 feet from a tornado and isn;t being sucked off the ground? SURRRRRRRRRRRRE.

3. That and the fact that there are plenty of OTHER scenes where no one is reacting to the CGI. Especiallty when Supes, Lois and the Army dude from Dollhouse™ are all meeting and all of the soliders have their guns trained on Supes. He liftsoff and ALL OF THEM JUST KEEP LOOKING FORWARD LIKE HE IS THERE for another 15 seconds.

All of these things take me out of the movie.


Okay, forgot about the Pa Kent scene. That was pretty terrible.

As for the dead bodies, they established pretty well in the scene where Perry White and the guy from House of Cards are trying to rescue the intern that people were dying left and right. The movie couldn't really show the corpses and keep PG-13, but it was implied that upteen thousands were getting crushed by the World Engine doing its thing.

Again, it really seemed like Superman was fighting for his life, so he didn't have as much control over if they were flying through skyscrapers or not. Most of the time Zod was the one hurling Supes through the buildings or knocking them down.
 
2014-04-21 10:00:10 AM  

scottydoesntknow: My biggest complaint was the stupid explanation for the 'S' on his chest. I know it was taken from some of the more modern comics, but that shiat doesn't mean 'Hope', It means Superman.


Funny thing about that.  A guy I work with HATES superman, tolerates Batman, but can't stand any of the Marvel movies.  (He doesn't like the whole superhero trope, to be honest).  That being said, he found the whole "that isn't a 'S'" thing from the trailer to be believable; he didn't like the idea that a guy from another civilization would suddenly adopt our language).  For me I thought it was kind of silly (maybe that's what the 'S' means).  I liked the movie just fine, the best IMO, since the Donner Cut of Superman II, about the same as the original release of Superman 2, but not as good as the the original Superman with Reeve.
 
2014-04-21 10:02:09 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: The problem isn't Chris Reeves.  It's Superman: perfect heroes are boring as hell.  Aeneas was boring, and his story is saved only by the gods farking with him.

If you want an interesting (super)hero, you want someone flawed.  Some one like Odysseus.  Someone broken like Bruce Wayne.

Captain America should be boring, too, but they did such a good job when they reintroduced him in the comics that he's much more a modern hero, a flawed hero, than Superman can ever be.


But a big complaint about the movie is Snyder did make Superman into a flawed character, it's just a flawed character that already exists in the DC comic/movie universe.

The movie had a lot of potential like many people have said. A lot of the things that Snyder added could make for a darker, more conflicted Last Son of Krypton than we're used to. The problems with the movie ultimately boil down to finding moments unsatisfying (Pa Kent's death coming off ridiculously forced giving how drawn out it was paced and that the damn dog was saved first to set it up), his behavior uncharacteristic even with the darker tone (how Superman chose to fight Zod with maximum collateral damage even ignoring what Zod does in the fight), and the decision not to explore the killing of Zod (something that could lead to the angst and internal conflict Snyder obviously wants Supes to have) in favor of having everyone celebrate a happy ending at the end. All you need is a 20 second clip of Superman admitting to Lois that he can't help but feel this victory is somewhat bittersweet, that he's going to take some time to process what went down but that he thinks he'll be alright and force a smile. Nope, it's yell after the kill, then everyone lives happily ever after until any sequel where it might be addressed.
 
2014-04-21 10:02:35 AM  

RyansPrivates: imfallen_angel: RyansPrivates: So if he doesn't what did he do at to Zod at the end of the theatrical release of Superman II?

You mean the part where he strip them of their powers and have them picked up by the local authorities? (then flies off with Lois back to Metropolis where he wipes her memories)

Not the emboldend piece.  The theatrical release didn't have that tacked on PC to make palatable for TV. In the theatrical release they get thrown down a trench to (presumably) their deaths.  And they are powerless at the time.


buntz: imfallen_angel: You mean the part where he strip them of their powers and have them picked up by the local authorities?

wasn't in the theatrical release, therefore I don't accept it as "canon"

In the movie WE saw, he threw them in a dark, possibly bottomless, pit.

Unless we're too assume he has some mattresses down there


I was much younger when this movie came out, but I still figured that he pushed them down the hole to some sort of "jail" so to deal with them later... either the fortress had a "jail" or he'd get them later.

But regardless, there is a bit of a difference in pushing three tugs down a ice slide and snapping their neck.

But the snapping of the neck in Man of Steel was fine by me, if anything it might have been the only part of the whole movie where he really needed to face the reality of his position of being the "hero".
 
2014-04-21 10:03:18 AM  
"The thing I was surprised about in response to Superman was how everyone clings to the Christopher Reeve version of Superman."

That's your task as a director... make everyone forget about the CR version.

He does make a good point about the destruction and violence, however. Comic fanboys are always talking about sticking with "canon", but when they do it in this movie everyone freaks out saying Superman would never do that.
 
2014-04-21 10:03:42 AM  

EyeballKid: Perhaps Snyder should put out a press release, tweet something, make some effort to tell everybody waiting for a Superman like the one they remember from the 80s, or even from the 90s sitcom, that the plotlines now are of headier substance than in the past. Nevertheless, those disenfranchised few should hold on, best they can, as I think Snyder will take their concerns for the franchise to concern, he hasn't dropped them, forgotten them, or anything. But, a storyline like that of the most recent film was too heavy, even for Superman to lift.


There was nothing more intellectual about Man of Steel. Less optimistic, more misanthropic, lacking in a sense of humor and the ridiculous, sure; but that's not a lack of ardent shallowness, but rather ardent shallowness pointed in a different direction. Also the presentation of female characters in the film bugged me, though I can't exactly put my finger on why(that they always seemed to be there merely to be saved? That their parts seemed to revolve entirely around male characters? Shooting Jor's death to make it come after his wife drew his attention away from Zod seemed pretty unnecessary, too. I don't know, Synder's treatment of women felt skeezy to me).

I will amend my earlier post a bit by agreeing that Cavil(and the young Kal actors) did do a good job with the material he had, though. His scene in the interrogation chamber was excellent.
 
2014-04-21 10:09:01 AM  

Dimensio: imfallen_angel: Superman's power are from the sun, not the air he breathes, etc.

As I understand, recent DC Comics retcons have Kryptonian abilities being a result both of yellow sunlight exposure and the atmosphere of Earth.


Good thing that he didn't land in China then... he'd have super lung cancer by twelve.

Well, at some point they need to stop with the retcons... seriously. if you need to reestablish the origins and rules or the heros over and over so to make it fit the new and epic fashion of the day, it's just terrible writing.

Just kill the character off and create a new one already.
 
2014-04-21 10:11:09 AM  
Man of Steel was basically a cartoon, and as such, I enjoyed it. It had some nice setpieces, cool fight scenes, and Amy Adams's ass. I didn't feel it necessary to look deeper than that.
 
2014-04-21 10:13:55 AM  

imfallen_angel: Dimensio: imfallen_angel: Superman's power are from the sun, not the air he breathes, etc.

As I understand, recent DC Comics retcons have Kryptonian abilities being a result both of yellow sunlight exposure and the atmosphere of Earth.

Good thing that he didn't land in China then... he'd have super lung cancer by twelve.

Well, at some point they need to stop with the retcons... seriously. if you need to reestablish the origins and rules or the heros over and over so to make it fit the new and epic fashion of the day, it's just terrible writing.

Just kill the character off and create a new one already.


One of the reasons Captain America works is because they took the 1940s super patriot and put him in today's world.  They didn't change what made him a hero.  They changed his surroundings and focus on what it takes for him to stay true to that ideal of the 1940s.  Batman is similar, in that they take this broken rich kid and let him do it his way.  When his way is illegal, he struggles with the morality of it and ultimately decides that he needs to be outside the law.  Superman is the ideal "American Way of Justice" guy.  He is the ultimate do it by the books hero.  This movie throws all that away and turns him into a kid with lots of doubts about what he is supposed to do...and at the same time makes him completely indestructible and untouchable by human standards...totally alien.
 
2014-04-21 10:14:24 AM  
Frank Miller didn't make Superman go dark.

How is Frank Miller able to grasp this point of character and Zack Snyder isn't?  It's like it's opposite day.
 
2014-04-21 10:17:18 AM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: Confabulat: Man of Steel was a better Superman movie than any of the Reeve flicks. They are embarrassing to watch in 2014.

Sorry, but no. Man of Steel was ok, but it failed to make me care about a single character in the movie. Pa Kent dies, meh. Ma Kent get's threatened, oh well. Lois's life is in danger, so what? Hell I found myself barely caring about Supes, much less anyone else in the flick. The characters just seemed flat to me.


I cared about Lois' ass.
 
2014-04-21 10:21:55 AM  

snowshovel: Mad_Radhu: K3rmy: Christopher Reeve's Superman was cognizant enough to take the fight OUTSIDE OF THE CITY so that innocents did not get hurt while he was fighting Zod and his minions.

Yeah, Zod and his minions were playing rope a dope with Superman all though the fight scenes. Keep in mind that although Superman is stronger than the Kryptonians, he was fighting seasoned soldiers bred for battle while he hadn't even thrown a punch against a person before due to this strength (as the movie reminded us of when they showed the scene of Clark getting bullied as a kid and holding back).

Which is why the end fight scene at the end was so awful. The more talented fighter (Zod) should've have squashed the guy who had less-than-0% fighting experience at the point when Zod decides to not hold back any punches since the movie showed them to be pretty at equal strength at that time...regardless of all the mumbo-jumbo talk the movie said about Clark's 30 years of being on the planet. Or Zod should've been showing using that vast amount of military strategy to his advantage. Or something.

Remember, that born-to-be-a-nebbish-scientist Ka-El almost beat Zod in a fist fight at the start of the movie. It's almost as if Snyder sets up an interesting world of idea, but then at some point he goes "It's cool punchy-kicky time! Let's throw away all of those awesome ideas!"

Then again, Zod could just be a lousy fighter regardless of his genetic upbringing.

I don't know, sure, Superman 2 is in a time capsule of when it was made, but resolution of how Superman beats Zod just feels a lot more interesting, where Superman realizes that Zod and himself really can't beat each other up to a win, so he uses his knowledge of people around him and finds a clever solution (by using Luthor's underhandedness). I kind of wish that that's the way MoS would've ended, with Clark using some bit of his 30 years of human knowledge to win the battle, instead of simply taking the easy story-telling way out of "I break your neck like a chicken bone."

The weirdest part of MoS is how completely joyless and un-fun the movie is. For all of it's faults, Superman Returns has more fun and wonder in this 1:30 scene than the entire MoS movie:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJ_VSQrW4Y

//and yes, superman logo cellophane trap is stupid


The sequence where Kal learns to fly had a lot of joy in it.
 
2014-04-21 10:30:06 AM  
I'm totally fine with them not using the John Williams Superman March in the movie... but would it not have been perfect music for the end of the movie?
 
2014-04-21 10:30:17 AM  
Look, all you people defending the death and destruction because it's justified in the script are missing the freaking point!  The script did not just appear one day like some divine missive and they were helpless to do anything about it - it was written and re-written to become exactly what it was.  If there was no way to avoid the destruction of Metropolis, if there was no other possible solution except for Superman to kill, it's because the writers made it that way.   That's the problem with the movie.  Completely deliberately, they created a Superman movie where there was massive loss of life and property damage while the hero either couldn't or didn't (depending on how lenient you're willing to be) do anything to stop it, and which culminated in him deliberately taking a life.  The fact that the script was constructed such that "he couldn't do anything else" (if you so believe) is exactly the point.  If you get to that point in your Superman script, and you really, really, can't think of any other way out except death, destruction and darkness, you need to back and start rewriting because you have royally screwed it up.

I'm not saying it needs to be quite as campy as the Christopher Reeves movies, but I shouldn't leave a Superman movie feeling like I need grief counselling for Christ's sake.  For a guy whose symbol supposedly means "hope", he sure didn't do much to inspire any.
 
2014-04-21 10:31:31 AM  

llortcM_yllort: No, Man of Steel sucked because the script was terrible.  I hear a lot of people defending Man of Steel from various criticisms, but I have never heard of a reason the movie was actually good.  What did you like about Man of Steel, because I don't know of anything it did right.

/Seriously, who the fark thought turning the dad into a paranoid nutcase then killing him off in the dumbest way possible was a good idea?


Zach Snyder, who outside of movie openings (and The 300) sucks.
 
2014-04-21 10:32:21 AM  
Nah Zach, I didn't like it because the story was a mess of contradictions and plot holes and the Kryptonians as a whole seemed so pants on head retarded that it's amazing their race was ever able to survive in the first place.  shiat blew up real nice though.
 
2014-04-21 10:34:36 AM  

scottydoesntknow: My biggest complaint was the stupid explanation for the 'S' on his chest. I know it was taken from some of the more modern comics, but that shiat doesn't mean 'Hope', It means Superman.


The notion (weirdly, it came from Brando) in the original Donner Superman was that the chest symbols were clan or family symbols, which is why Brando's character's symbol is also an "S".

So even they recognized it's not an "S", it's something from a completely alien culture that just happens to look like an "S".  I'm sure there's a term for that in linguistics.
 
2014-04-21 10:36:56 AM  
Man of Steel was awesome. I enjoyed watching it. It's not perfect, by any means, but after the Bryan Singer movie, I was asking for more scenes of Superman standing up against an enemy as powerful as he is, and that's exactly what I got.

People complain about Superman being too perfect and having no flaws, but the second a movie presents a Superman with flaws, people go into nerdsplosions. It just goes to show, you can't please us comic book geeks as a community, and that if there's one thing we love, it's being pissed off at stuff when just a slight adjustment could lead to us really enjoying it.
 
2014-04-21 10:40:16 AM  

buntz: Dwight_Yeast: Someone broken like Bruce Wayne
Hate this argument too. Poor kid was an orphan. Lots of other superheroes have MUCH worse lives. Much worse childhoods. Sure it's devastating that he saw his parents killed. But c'mon..... is that justification for this whole life? He still grew up in the lap of luxury. Not like his parents were killed so he was forced to live on the streets and forced to turn into this Batman character.


Some of the most interesting people in the world (both good and bad) are obsessed by one thing.  Those who are born to great wealth are able to indulge these obsessions while those who are not have to either find a way to make their obsessions pay or to keep them as a hobby.

One of the things I find interesting about Batman/Bruce Wayne is that he's still a really interesting, really layered character in spite of all his wealth.  Usually, giving a character unlimited wealth makes them boring, like Daddy Warbucks or Richie Rich.
 
2014-04-21 10:40:30 AM  
Pa Kent's unusual tone and thoughts are pretty much required for a Superman movie in the 21st century. He's a good man at his core, evidenced by his actions saving people during the tornado. He does, however, place protecting his fallen alien son from the omnipresent government and a fearful world above all else. Consider his perspective on his life's events, he married Martha and they had no kids of their own. They find Kal and, as said in the movie, they expect the government to arrive and take him but no one ever did. No child of his own, but one is provided for he and Martha by the stars, and you think he wouldn't consider EVERY option possible to protect it?

He raised Kal right. He never hid from Kal the truth that ultimately Kal would have to choose who to be. What is more solid, the untested "you must be good because I raised you to be good" philosophy of old or the development from early on in life of the notion that being good requires actively CHOOSING to be good?

/love the movie
//modernized Superman mythos for the silver screen
 
2014-04-21 10:45:28 AM  
Man of Steel was obviously better that Superman III or IV (which, I admit, isn't saying much) and I guess I enjoyed it enough...but I saw Superman I the other day, and there is just something about it that works. Was it more innocent? Sure. But that was part of its "gee whiz" charm. It was a superhero movie that aimed at both parents AND children. Man of Steel cannot say the same. It was gloomier, more violent, more serious...

Look, here's the thing that both DC and Chris Nolan don't get (his fingerprints were all over Man of Steel, even if he didn't direct): movies about superheroes are supposed to be FUN. Sure, Dark Knight Rises made a billion dollars, but let's be honest: wasn't most of that residual goodwill left over from Dark Knight? And again, let's be honest: would anyone have cared nearly as much about Dark Knight if Heath Ledger wasn't in it? Outside of him, that was an overlong, over-depressing film. Why so serious?

Dark Knight Rises came out the same summer as, and got beaten by, The Avengers, and there is one reason for this: THE AVENGERS WAS MORE FUN. That movie, as well as most Marvel films, understood that superhero movies are goofy almost by definition. The Avengers picked up that ball and ran with it. I have rarely had more fun watching a movie, and I was never into comic books. Summer movies are supposed to be FUN. Chris Nolan's films may be well-written and well-made, but they are not fun. Now, I get that with Batman. That whole thing has always been kind of moody. But when they did that to Superman, I was annoyed. Zack Snyder is exactly right...I AM clinging the Reeve films...largely because the first two were way better.
 
2014-04-21 10:47:16 AM  
No it's Zach's because that end fight scene was laughable.
Even a farking satellite falls on the city because fighting wasn't enough.

Superman has always been about Hope. Even MoS said it, but there was none.
If you lived on Earth when this Superman arrived, you'd just be sitting around waiting for him to destroy your city from a second hand villain.

/BTW. Kevin Costner. Dumbest. Death scene. Ever.
 
2014-04-21 10:53:38 AM  
My biggest complaint.
Writing disappointment is easy.
Writing hope is hard.
They took the easy, lazy way out.
 
2014-04-21 11:00:55 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: I'm sure there's a term for that in linguistics.


False Friends
 
2014-04-21 11:05:13 AM  

Mad_Radhu: K3rmy: Christopher Reeve's Superman was cognizant enough to take the fight OUTSIDE OF THE CITY so that innocents did not get hurt while he was fighting Zod and his minions.

Yeah, Zod and his minions were playing rope a dope with Superman all though the fight scenes. Keep in mind that although Superman is stronger than the Kryptonians, he was fighting seasoned soldiers bred for battle while he hadn't even thrown a punch against a person before due to this strength (as the movie reminded us of when they showed the scene of Clark getting bullied as a kid and holding back). The only time he really brought the fight to a city was when he lost his shiat when Zod threatened Martha and he hurled him into Smallville. All during the Metropolis fight, Superman was either on the other side of the world trying to disable the World Engine, or was struggling to gain any kind of control of the fight. It was an origin story, so a young and inexperienced Superman isn't going to quickly gain the upper hand.

I rewatched it a couple of times recently on HBO and it really holds together well from a plotting standpoint. There's really not any major complaint that isn't covered in the script, aside from why the Kryptonians would bother changing the environment of Earth to be more like Krypton if it will make them weaker.


Except the in the Smallville battle, there are MILES of cornfields right next to them.  Superman flies over them to get to the Kryptonians.  He throws them into a gas station, dozens of buildings--even a friggin' train depot.  Throw them into the miles of farmland, you idiot!

And Metropolis is right on the water.  A huge ocean to go fight over.  Nah, I think I'll just throw a few more buildings on the guy.  The one time the fight gets taken out of the city, they end up in space and STILL manage to do damage.  (Mind you, while still being able to breathe perfectly fine.  Neither can stand the other's atmosphere for prolonged periods but space?  Oh, no problem there.)

There's no rationale for the extent of damage done in either battle.  It's just Zack Snyder channeling his inner Michael Bay.
 
2014-04-21 11:05:20 AM  

Hebalo: The sequence where Kal learns to fly had a lot of joy in it.


That was a very small sequence in the middle of a long, largely dreary movie.  The movie needed much more of that.

Owangotang: Pa Kent's unusual tone and thoughts are pretty much required for a Superman movie in the 21st century. He's a good man at his core, evidenced by his actions saving people during the tornado.


Yeah, that part didn't bother me the way it did some people, mainly because the delivery on "...maybe" made it clear he was very conflicted and knew it wasn't the right answer, but he just didn't have a better one.  For the first time, his greatest fear was on the verge of becoming a reality, and he was terrified for the life and safety of his son.  He knew Clark couldn't let all those kids die, but he also couldn't -- yet -- bring himself to accept the idea that Clark should put himself at risk.  Up until that point it hadn't been an issue - the priority was on keeping the secret and in doing so, keeping Clark safe.  The situation where Clark had to choose between revealing himself and letting people die hadn't come up before.  And like most parents, he was slow to realize his son was growing up and he hadn't yet come around to the idea that he needed to stop trying to protect Clark as a child and start teaching him how to use his powers wisely as an adult.
 
2014-04-21 11:08:58 AM  

James Rieper: Frank Miller didn't make Superman go dark.

How is Frank Miller able to grasp this point of character and Zack Snyder isn't?  It's like it's opposite day.


Screw Miller. Miller's Superman in The Dark Knight Returns is the ultimate example of someone treating Supes as the ultimate boy scout. Superman is treated as an unquestioning tool of those in power, the good little soldier who only decides not to kill Batman and instead pretend to fall for Batman's faked death because of their history and because Batman convinces him that he needs to question authority.

Superman has never accepted laws or authorities who he feels are not acting on behalf of the people supposedly served by them and has killed when pushed to a point he feels it is necessary. Snyder's Superman is problematic at times, but Miller's caricature is much worse.
 
2014-04-21 11:16:05 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Never has a headline been more accurate.


This.
 
2014-04-21 11:17:31 AM  
I really like MoS.  I didn't get to watch it and read all the hate and when I finally saw it. It became one of my favorite super hero movies of all time.

I caught it again on HBO recently and liked it even more.

I can't wait for the next movie and hope one day to get a decent GL movie too.

Although, I'll still watch the Ryan renoulds one of I see it on every once in awhile.

The second GL had the possibility to be greatish, ok good-ish.
 
2014-04-21 11:23:13 AM  

chewielouie: ToastmasterGeneral: Confabulat: Man of Steel was a better Superman movie than any of the Reeve flicks. They are embarrassing to watch in 2014.

Yep.

Good for nostalgia only.

Yes, and Peter Jackson's King Kong was better than the 1933 version. You kids today, it takes more than splosions to make a good movie. Sorry, but Batman was 100% correct, "Man of Steel . . . was uninspiring."


Oh, I was the original Superman movies' target audience, and greatly loved them as a kid.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're highly dated, and flawed movies.

Christopher Reeve does a great job as Superman.  He's fine in the bumbling Kent role, but I've always found that to be a pointless portrayal.  If the only reason for Clark Kent is to be a klutzy disguise, then why not give up on him, entirely?  Clark Kent doesn't need to be dashing, but he needs to be an actual character, and not just a disguise.  That's who Kal-El grew up as.  That's why he wants to help the humans.

As for the non-explosion movies:  the first one is clearly the best, but not with much.  Hackman's Luthor is a fairly ridiculous villan, but there's not much there.  Lex doesn't have superpowers, so his main threat is his intellect, and yet the only interaction between the main villian and the hero is one brief meeting with a hidden rock in a lead box?  And then ne pulls the James Bond villian, elaborate-death-scene-that-I'm-totally-going-to-leave-you-alone move.  Then the real main tension is whether Superman's fast enough to get to both missiles in time.  He isn't.  Except, then the deus ex machina of him being much faster, so that he could reverse time.  It was a good movie for what it was, but it doesn't hold up.

Superman II - Uh, better villans, intriguing concepts, but Lester's campiness ruins whatever might've made it the better movie.  Highly unwatchable scenes.  Though, Reeve's "Oh, I've been working out" and then knowing look to the camera almost makes it worth it.

Superman III - Superman vs. Clark is intriguing.  The rest of the movie is beyond dated.  Superman missile video game interface with Pac Man sound effects?  Next.

Superman IV - Nuclear Man?  Nuclear Man.

In closing, the originals do not hold up well at all.

But I will give you, the Hishe bits are hilarious.  Hilarious, because he's Batman.
 
2014-04-21 11:25:22 AM  

Grungehamster: James Rieper: Frank Miller didn't make Superman go dark.

How is Frank Miller able to grasp this point of character and Zack Snyder isn't?  It's like it's opposite day.

Screw Miller. Miller's Superman in The Dark Knight Returns is the ultimate example of someone treating Supes as the ultimate boy scout. Superman is treated as an unquestioning tool of those in power, the good little soldier who only decides not to kill Batman and instead pretend to fall for Batman's faked death because of their history and because Batman convinces him that he needs to question authority.

Superman has never accepted laws or authorities who he feels are not acting on behalf of the people supposedly served by them and has killed when pushed to a point he feels it is necessary. Snyder's Superman is problematic at times, but Miller's caricature is much worse.


That's the point.  Superman adheres to his principles.  Miller makes fun of that stance for the obvious reasons, but he gets that is a core component of this character.

I'd disagree with the presentation of Superman as "unquestioning" there though.  That's why when Batman starts pushing Superman's buttons, it hurts.
 
2014-04-21 11:30:56 AM  

Mugato: Judging a 34 year old movie by its visuals is retarded.


Yes, it is.  And that's the point.
Idiots today can't do anything but that, they have no idea what makes a good story. They can't fathom anything that doesn't include 90% crappy CGI.

Reeves Superman was, and is, liked because he portrays the actual character.
The "new" superman movies lack an audience not because he's "realistic", it's because he sucks.
There is nothing, at all, of Superman in MoS. Nothing.

Things become Icons for a reason.
If you then change those things, people are no linger going to like it.
It's not hard to understand.  Snyder is probably even capable of understanding it, though he would have to pull his head out and try to think.
 
2014-04-21 11:38:02 AM  
It was the shakey-cam.

That's why the movie suck so farking hard.

Who filmed it, Michael J. Fox?
 
2014-04-21 11:41:42 AM  

buntz: imfallen_angel: You mean the part where he strip them of their powers and have them picked up by the local authorities?

wasn't in the theatrical release, therefore I don't accept it as "canon"

In the movie WE saw, he threw them in a dark, possibly bottomless, pit.

Unless we're too assume he has some mattresses down there


You didn't know? Superman was constructing a theme park down there and he was just testing it with Zod and the rest. That was a Goonies style fun slide.
 
2014-04-21 11:48:37 AM  

ferretman: I liked it.....but then anything, even Superman III, would be better than the abortion that was 'Superman Returns'.


What's funny is Returns was made for the nostalgia crowd, which is precisely why it sucked.  Snyders film had its issues but at least he was willing to go in a new direction and I enjoyed a lot more than I thought I would.
 
2014-04-21 12:03:40 PM  
tobaccotimeline.files.wordpress.com

img2.timeinc.net

Haters gonna hate.
 
2014-04-21 12:20:32 PM  

Sybarite: These two were my favorite part.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 245x143]

[31.media.tumblr.com image 245x143]


Antje Traue can kick my ass any day she wants.

www.nylonguysmag.com
 
2014-04-21 12:23:38 PM  
Christopher Reeves was better in Somewhere in Time and Deathtrap.

Man of Steel was great. I don't know why at least one Kryptonian didn't snark that Clark was just wearing his underwear.  Nobody is talking about that as far as I know.
 
2014-04-21 12:26:34 PM  

Heron: hey were embarrassing to watch when they were made. Man of Steel was still terrible though; got's nothing to do with Reeve or the older movies. The writing was dumb; the philosophy was not just dumb and wrong but actively bad; the acting was wooden; and the attempt to make the Supes property "edgy", "angsty", and "dark" was unnecessary and frankly misses the entire point of the character. Changing Superman from an earnest, hardworking achiever deeply involved in his(adopted) community and with a heart so big he went into journalism so he could fight in print the injustices he can't legally punch to bits, into a Nietzschean loner demi-god detached from human society and sent purposely to awe humanity into submission undermines not only what makes Supes great and the message he was always written to convey, but also transforms his father from a far-sighted, lone moral voice against the excesses and arrogance of the Kyptonian elite into a mere proponent of their galaxy-wide outrages and chauvinistic racism by different means.

Man of Steel just completely misses the point, repeatedly. The CG for the action sequences was pretty sweet though.


Great post. Too bad its wrong. The Nietzschean loner Demigod is what I WANT to see. Its the only way the character is interesting. No one wants to see a "big blue boyscout", as bats calls him.

Also, Chris Reeve DOES appear in the movie when he's flying up to the world machine. Its only a frame or 10. He's there though...and it was touching.

/needs to be watched fram by frame...then its obvious.
 
2014-04-21 12:31:12 PM  

Fano: He's not the Superman of All-Star Superman or Justice League, so his argument is invalid.

Paging PiptheTroll, noted Supermanologist to supesplain to the director.


I have a confession to make. My name is Pip_the_Troll and I'm a Man of Steel Apologist.

Or at least I was.

I did enjoy the movie and there were some parts of it I felt were really great. But as a whole... I don't have it in me to defend it anymore. They say time heals all wounds, but it hasn't healed this one. That movie was such a let down.

I had a shocking revelation recently. Somehow, I'd totally missed the "Adventures of Superman" series that just ended. It simply didn't show up on my radar - prolly because I've been avoiding most of DC since the nu-52 crap.

Oh my God, is that a great series. Nearly every single issue is a beautifully crafted love letter to Superman.

Everybody says it's hard to write Superman stories because he's so powerful and such a good guy. As the learned gentleman pointed out above, superheroes need to be flawed. They're better when they're 'broken', like Batman.

I call bullshiat.

You can write amazing stories for Superman. You just need to understand the character.

Consider one of the aforementioned "Adventures of Superman" issues.

Superman saves a guy that deliberately throws himself off a building, wearing a Superman tshirt. He later saves the same guy throwing himself off a bridge. He comes to discover that this nutjob is part of something called "The Church of Superman", a blog started by a kid and exploited by her parents for money. Now there's hundreds of these people standing on buildings all over Metropolis. All getting ready to throw themselves off as a form of worship - to prove that Superman is a god when he saves them. He begs and pleads with them, tells them he's not a god and he can't save them all. They don't believe them. So he arranges to have himself beaten bloody by a fake Metallo created by Star Labs so they would lose their faith in his ability to save them all. They look down at him from their perches, broken and bloody and step down, saving themselves.

That's Superman.
 
2014-04-21 12:34:07 PM  
Man of Steel was crap. If Clark went to talk to his holodad after Zod showed up instead of the priest, he would have learned that the Codex was in his cells and how to use his pod to send the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone. MoS is the kind of movie where a man who never threw a punch in his life can beat Krypton's top general in a fight and a reporter can gun down genetically-bred soldiers without breaking a sweat.
 
2014-04-21 12:37:08 PM  
ExcedrinHeadache:

People complain about Superman being too perfect and having no flaws, but the second a movie presents a Superman with flaws, people go into nerdsplosions.

I think those are two different groups of people, though.
 
2014-04-21 12:43:48 PM  

Owangotang: Pa Kent's unusual tone and thoughts are pretty much required for a Superman movie in the 21st century. He's a good man at his core, evidenced by his actions saving people during the tornado. He does, however, place protecting his fallen alien son from the omnipresent government and a fearful world above all else. Consider his perspective on his life's events, he married Martha and they had no kids of their own. They find Kal and, as said in the movie, they expect the government to arrive and take him but no one ever did. No child of his own, but one is provided for he and Martha by the stars, and you think he wouldn't consider EVERY option possible to protect it?

He raised Kal right. He never hid from Kal the truth that ultimately Kal would have to choose who to be. What is more solid, the untested "you must be good because I raised you to be good" philosophy of old or the development from early on in life of the notion that being good requires actively CHOOSING to be good?


THIS... as evidenced in the scene when Clark goes to talk to the preacher. The backdrop is a stained glass window image of Christ nailed to a cross.  Humans don't treat their heroes well.
 
2014-04-21 12:46:36 PM  
I laughed out loud during certain parts of the "fight scene" in Man of Steel because of the sheer audacity and stupidity of it.  The moment when he gets thrown through a train, which promptly explodes, was the height of silliness, and, like The Avengers, the newest wave of explosion porn, where audiences don't really need to think about why th--  POW!  KABANG! KABOOM!
 
2014-04-21 01:00:19 PM  
Remember when Superman stole those clothes, and when he ruined that trucker's livelihood and destroyed his property in broad daylight without anyone noticing?  I'm all for changing stuff around, getting dark, serious, real, flawed, ect.

But the nerd in me draws the line at Pa Kent's advice.


Pa Kent is never going to answer "maybe" to the question "Should Clark stand by and let innocent people die in order to protect his own self interests?"
 
2014-04-21 01:03:07 PM  

Sybarite: These two were my favorite part.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 245x143]

[31.media.tumblr.com image 245x143]


yep

mjones73: Antje Traue can kick my ass any day she wants.


amen


The true star of MOS:

img838.imageshack.us
 
2014-04-21 01:05:07 PM  
Yep, pretty much. I never liked Donner's version, and I loved Man of Steel.
 
2014-04-21 01:05:43 PM  

thatguyoverthere70: Remember when Superman stole those clothes, and when he ruined that trucker's livelihood and destroyed his property in broad daylight without anyone noticing?  I'm all for changing stuff around, getting dark, serious, real, flawed, ect.

But the nerd in me draws the line at Pa Kent's advice.

Pa Kent is never going to answer "maybe" to the question "Should Clark stand by and let innocent people die in order to protect his own self interests?"


I had trouble with that as well. But then he goes running to help during the tornado. I'm guessing Papa Kent was just trying to get his son to think about it, and then come to the answer himself.
 
2014-04-21 01:08:26 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Mad_Radhu: There's really not any major complaint that isn't covered in the script,

I shall qualify my questions with the standard "No really, I liked the movie despite these things" defense.

1. WHERE. ARE. ALL. THE. DEAD. PEOPLE?  I mean they took down umpteen skyscrapers and there was ZERO collateral damage? Really?

2. So Pa Kent is 20 feet from a tornado and isn;t being sucked off the ground? SURRRRRRRRRRRRE.

3. That and the fact that there are plenty of OTHER scenes where no one is reacting to the CGI. Especiallty when Supes, Lois and the Army dude from Dollhouse™ are all meeting and all of the soliders have their guns trained on Supes. He liftsoff and ALL OF THEM JUST KEEP LOOKING FORWARD LIKE HE IS THERE for another 15 seconds.

All of these things take me out of the movie.


You forgot the fact that the US Government is spending millions of dollars in trying to find out who Superman is when they have radar records of a Kryptonian ship landing in Smallville, more specifically at the Kent home. Military intelligence might be an oxymoron, but it's not that farking blind.

Also, Zach Snyder needs to STFU. You want to see a Superman/Overpowered Villain fight in Metropolis done right? Watch the final episode of Justice league Unlimited, 'Destroyer', where Superman takes on Darkseid and its only a few thousand times better action and more dramatic than 'Man of Steel'.

/[Fighting Darkseid] That man [Batman] won't quit so long as he can draw breath.  None of my teammates will. Me? I've got a  different problem.  [Punches Darkseid through the wall] I feel like I live in a world made of  cardboardAlways taking care not to break something, to break someoneNever allowing myself to lose control, even for a moment, or someone could die.  [Punches Darkseid again] But you can take it, can't you, big man? What we have here is a rare opportunity for me to  cut loose, and show you  just how powerful I really am.[Punches Darkseid across the city with a single blow]
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report