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
    More: Dumbass, Christopher Reeves, Zack Snyder, Superman, massive damage, Jeremy Irons  
•       •       •

2323 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 21 Apr 2014 at 8:57 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-21 09:23:27 AM  
8 votes:
Sorry Zack, but his moment from Superman II, had far more "fark yeah, it is on!" then your entire movie.
4.bp.blogspot.com
2014-04-21 09:09:30 AM  
5 votes:

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.
2014-04-21 09:47:00 AM  
4 votes:

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


They 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.
2014-04-21 09:27:43 AM  
4 votes:
Except that nobody is complainibg about Henry Cavill's performance. He did a great job with the material he was given.

Just like Reeve did.
2014-04-21 05:58:21 AM  
4 votes:
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.
2014-04-21 11:30:56 AM  
3 votes:

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 09:58:19 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:40:18 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-04-21 09:10:45 AM  
3 votes:
Man of Steel had a good movie inside of it. There was just enough of it present that I could see its shape: As a child, Superman struggles to cope with his powers and his parents' (especially his father's) desire to keep those powers hidden in order to protect him. His father dies in a way that makes him feel guilty for fighting his father all those years about whether to hide his powers and as a result he retreats from the world and strictly follows his father's wishes as penance.

The arrival of Zod forces him into a journey of self-discovery and, ultimately, acceptance of who he is in order for him to emerge just in time as the hero the world needs. His younger years are told in flashback culminating in the big reveal about the death of his father to explain why Superman is the slightly misanthropic but still well-meaning wreck he is at the beginning of the film, after which he decides to move forward and become the person he's meant to be in the present.

You could make a decent movie with that outline. Unfortunately, they needed massive edits because the movie was way too long for the amount of content they had, and they bungled a few critical scenes for that plot to have any weight.
2014-04-21 09:01:33 AM  
3 votes:

basemetal: Or...........superhero flicks have been way over done and everyone is bored with them.


Captain America 2 would like a word with you ($586M worldwide).

Mediocre superhero flicks have been way over done, and DC just can't seem to figure out what to do with its property.

Love 'em or hate 'em, Marvel figured out a formula and it's working very well.
2014-04-21 08:37:09 AM  
3 votes:
Or...........superhero flicks have been way over done and everyone is bored with them.
2014-04-21 01:00:19 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:53:38 AM  
2 votes:
My biggest complaint.
Writing disappointment is easy.
Writing hope is hard.
They took the easy, lazy way out.
2014-04-21 10:32:21 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:57:45 AM  
2 votes:

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
2014-04-21 09:50:23 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-04-21 09:28:15 AM  
2 votes:

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."
2014-04-21 09:26:47 AM  
2 votes:

Mad_Radhu: (as the movie reminded us of when they showed the scene of Clark getting bullied as a kid and holding back)


And in S2 he goes back after getting back his powers and kicks that trucker's ass. That never sat right with me.
2014-04-21 09:26:32 AM  
2 votes:
I liked it.....but then anything, even Superman III, would be better than the abortion that was 'Superman Returns'.
2014-04-21 09:24:43 AM  
2 votes:
I went in to Man of Steel with really, really low expectations, so I ended up enjoying it.
2014-04-21 09:17:40 AM  
2 votes:

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.


Watch the movie again.  The fight was  after the world machine destroyed a good share of Metropolis.  Oh and if Superman didn't fight Zod in Metropolis, Zod would have continued down his desired path of killing people regardless, after the world machine had been destroyed.  Exactly what should have Superman done?  Stood outside the city and watched Zod kill people?  That way, in your mind, Superman wouldn't have been there and not been responsible?
2014-04-21 09:02:11 AM  
2 votes:
Man of Steel was a better Superman movie than any of the Reeve flicks. They are embarrassing to watch in 2014.
2014-04-21 08:39:11 AM  
2 votes:
Um, no.

www.doctormacro.com

When I was a child, this would come on verrrrry early on Sunday mornings.
2014-04-21 07:18:47 AM  
2 votes:
Not enough kneeling before Zod. Besides that, it was fine.
2014-04-21 06:47:41 AM  
2 votes:
New Superman drinks old Superman's milkshake.
2014-04-22 05:18:25 AM  
1 vote:

CTZanderman: And in all fairness, the number of times the Marvel heroes rescue people who aren't their love interests or their partner is pretty low.


Well, just from memory...

In Iron Man, Iron Man saves a village of people he's never met from terrorists, then saves a pilot he's never met who he accidentally endangers on the way home.

In Captain America, Cap rescues thousands of POWs from Hydra during WWII.

In Thor, Thor destroys the Bifrost to save Frost Giants, who aren't just people he doesn't know, but his mortal enemies.

In Iron Man 2, Iron man repeatedly put himself in danger to protect people he doesn't know in the final battle.

In Avengers, Cap, Black Widow, and Hawkeye all spend a bunch of time evacuating civilians while the aliens are attacking. And Cap saves someone's life when loki is about to kill them in the bow down scene.

In Iron Man 3, there is the whole bit where Tony save everyone falling out of the plane.

In Thor 2, Thor literally saves every single living thing in every universe. So, yeah.

In Cap 2, Cap puts himself and all his friends on the line to stop the murder of 20 million people. I don't think Cap knows 20 million people.

Which covers every MCU movie other than Hulk, which I don't remember much about.

Seriously, you are just wrong.
2014-04-22 12:10:23 AM  
1 vote:
"gritty" westerns dont work because, wtf??

tell that to Sergio Leone , Samuel Peckinpa...or Clint Eastwood. (not just for "Unforgiven" but Josey Wales and Pale Rider) and HBOs Deadwood would have been sooo much more successful had it been all Hayes code polyanna...riiight.
2014-04-21 11:14:28 PM  
1 vote:

Sobekneferu: 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.

This. I was just talking the other day about why Westerns went out of fashion, and the same things that drove them out make Superman no longer a fashionable character. Nowadays we like heroes who are dealing with their own problems, maybe in addition to helping others but they still have issues or flaws of their own. In the past this wasn't so.
Then, with Westerns, people tried for a while to make them gritty and filled with flawed characters but it really doesn't work, because that's not what Westerns were supposed to be about and doing this just disappoints the Western fans.


Yes, Unforgiven is a terrible western hated by western fans...
2014-04-21 10:46:40 PM  
1 vote:
Zack Snyder lost himself up inside his own asshole with Sucker Punch. Never been more embarrassed for a writer/director in my life.
2014-04-21 09:45:06 PM  
1 vote:
Don't get mad at everyone who noticed you made a Batman movie staring Superman
2014-04-21 09:04:25 PM  
1 vote:

Rwa2play: Fano: Rwa2play: RyansPrivates: scottydoesntknow: Superman vs. The Elite is another great one. He shows what would happen if he didn't care about collateral damage and goes full anti-hero./"I finally get it. Thank you... I made the mistake of treating you people like, people. Now, I understand better... I understand now what the world wants, what it NEEDS. The world needs people in charge, willing to put the animals DOWN!"

Oh yes. Loved that and All-Star superman, watched them both on the same weekend.

/and welcome to my DC Animated fans favorites list...

Those two features showed me that DCA "get it" and whoever's in charge of DCE doesn't get one fark of the characters.

"the Elite" is fantastic at showing us why asking superman to be dark and edgy is like telling Frank Miller that All star Batman and Robin is fundamentally what we want.

"Is that Superman?" "Not anymore."

I had heard about "What's so funny about..." but that story was amazing to see as an animated feature.  All-Star Superman as well; two stories that showed us that Superman can be a badass hero.

That and his beatdown of Darkseid at the end of JLU.


Superman can issue some fine rebukes: Allstar: "You could have saved the world anytime, Luthor, if it had really mattered to you." I find that one to be the Yang to Red Son Luthor's ultimate FU to Authoritarian Superman's Yin.
2014-04-21 07:27:06 PM  
1 vote:
Mad_Radhu

I rewatched it a couple of times recently on HBO and it really holds together well from a plotting standpoint.
Next time watch it sans beer / pot brownies.
2014-04-21 06:13:14 PM  
1 vote:

Some 'Splainin' To Do: noheadphones: What's funny is the movies everyone loses their minds gushing over(Avengers, Dark Knight) are also riddled with gaping plot holes.  The only thing more annoying than fanboi rage is selective fanboi rage.


It's because the characters are better-the actors are better-and the writing is better.  People want good performances, and will forgive some plot holes, as long as there is a beginning and end.

I'd say that this is evidence for my thesis that people habitually assign way too much importance to plotting when reviewing movies.

You're absolutely right that the other things -- the narrative, the acting, the dialog, and so forth -- are the things that really make or break a film. The plot of a movie is just the skeleton; everything else is the flesh that animates it and gives it character.

By that very point, though, I find criticism that focus on plot points to be off target. I suspect that when people attack plot points in movies (and  every movie has plot holes, kids), it's really a way of rationalizing the facts that they didn't like it. I think that their irritation with the plot is the effect of them not liking a movie, not the cause.


and it was people like yourself that Mike Judge was lampooning with the "Ass the Movie" segment of Idocricy.
2014-04-21 06:13:05 PM  
1 vote:

Rwa2play: RyansPrivates: scottydoesntknow: Superman vs. The Elite is another great one. He shows what would happen if he didn't care about collateral damage and goes full anti-hero./"I finally get it. Thank you... I made the mistake of treating you people like, people. Now, I understand better... I understand now what the world wants, what it NEEDS. The world needs people in charge, willing to put the animals DOWN!"

Oh yes. Loved that and All-Star superman, watched them both on the same weekend.

/and welcome to my DC Animated fans favorites list...

Those two features showed me that DCA "get it" and whoever's in charge of DCE doesn't get one fark of the characters.


I have to agree with that statement. MoS and Dark Knight Rises both have shown to me that DC doesn't understand their characters in the movies. As generally well done as Nolan's series was, the way things played out showed that they wanted 'realism' more than 'Batman.'

I will leave the details out for the moment, but it does show why Marvel's been doing so well without quite as many complaints: They understand the characters a lot more and stay true to the general premise.
2014-04-21 06:03:14 PM  
1 vote:

RyansPrivates: RoyFokker'sGhost: 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  cardboard.  Always taking care not to break something, to break someone.  Never 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 a ...


Captain Marvel calling him out in Clash also applies here: "and you, you were more than a hero. I idolized you. I wanted to BE you. Whenever i was out there, facing down the bad guys, i'd think 'what would Superman do?' Now I know. ...I've fought my share of of pretty nasty bad guys, but I never had to act the way they did to win a fight. I always found another way. I guess I'm saying I like being a hero, a symbol. And that's why I'm quitting the Justice League. You don't act like heroes anymore."
2014-04-21 05:36:31 PM  
1 vote:

Flappyhead: 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.


No, "Returns" sucked because it forgot what made the original movies so fun and so good for families. It was more like the Nolan films in that is was darker and more mean-spirited. Gene Hackman always made it look like being "the greatest criminal mind of our time" was so much fun. Kevin Spacey just yelled at everybody and didn't seem to be enjoying himself at all. When the cast isn't having fun, neither is the audience. That's too bad, too, because Brandon Routh was PERFECT as Superman. They honestly should have given him his job back for "Man of Steel". Henry Cavill is fine, but Routh was better. It is freaky how much he looked like Reeve. But "Returns" was too dark and moody. It just wasn't any fun.
2014-04-21 04:46:39 PM  
1 vote:

noheadphones: What's funny is the movies everyone loses their minds gushing over(Avengers, Dark Knight) are also riddled with gaping plot holes.  The only thing more annoying than fanboi rage is selective fanboi rage.


It's because the characters are better-the actors are better-and the writing is better.  People want good performances, and will forgive some plot holes, as long as there is a beginning and end.


I'd say that this is evidence for my thesis that people habitually assign way too much importance to plotting when reviewing movies.

You're absolutely right that the other things -- the narrative, the acting, the dialog, and so forth -- are the things that really make or break a film. The plot of a movie is just the skeleton; everything else is the flesh that animates it and gives it character.

By that very point, though, I find criticism that focus on plot points to be off target. I suspect that when people attack plot points in movies (and  every movie has plot holes, kids), it's really a way of rationalizing the facts that they didn't like it. I think that their irritation with the plot is the effect of them not liking a movie, not the cause.
2014-04-21 04:38:48 PM  
1 vote:

Flappyhead: Stratohead:

pretty much THIS... they at least keep consistent within their own internal logic.  They don't introduce elements into the plot to justify some other nonsensical point, only to have either ignore it, or create and even more retarded rationalization ...  MoS starts out with a big hole...and just keeps digging deeper and deeper.


You mean like in Avengers when the movie opens with one of their agents getting possessed and they don't think to maybe change the IFF in order to keep him from getting near their airship?  Or the scientist who is completely under Lokis control building a failsafe into a staff he never touches?  Or Loki getting captured so he could unleash the Hulk and escape because he knew the Hulk would be there and he wanted to get caught so he could just escape and so on?  The film is still enjoyable but as I said, it also has a lot of inconsistencies that don't hold up very well.


No. Loki planned to be captured to serve as a distraction. Barton and Selvig were assembling the components to build the portal generator and they used the distraction to finish it and set the device up on Stark Tower. Loki also got his staff on the Helicarrier, where it started to mess with the heroes' minds and, later, allowed Barton to track down the invisible ship and nearly knock it out of the sky.
2014-04-21 02:32:50 PM  
1 vote:
Whatever you think of Man of Steel, you have to admit that Kevin Costner's death scene was one of the most ridiculous, hilarious deaths ever filmed.

Singer's Superman flick was kinda goofy, but was an all around better movie.

Reeve all the way-the guy could act, and balanced the characteristics of human and hero perfectly.  Cavill can't act.


//couple years later the world knows who Superman is.
2014-04-21 01:33:40 PM  
1 vote:
Face it.
If you hated Donner's first two and loved Man of Steel, you don't know who Superman was and never really cared or read comics.
You can say I'm wrong, but I'm not.
2014-04-21 01:15:27 PM  
1 vote:
Mad_Radhu:I rewatched it a couple of times recently on HBO and it really holds together well from a plotting standpoint.

No it doesn't.

Why?

Because you had to watch it 5 farking times, that's why.

The movie was 1 1/2 hours of invincible asshats throwing each other through buildings and then for no real good reason, they hop on a ship and fly away. Rinse repeat.

All of the exploding shiat gave me a headache. This coming from a guy that does 3D particle VFX for a living.
2014-04-21 01:14:32 PM  
1 vote:

jjorsett: I liked the Man of Steel movie better. I thought its plotline and character motivations were a lot more coherent than the original films.


I'm guessing you enjoy driving massively large trucks through Grand Canyon sized holes in much the same way this film plows through its enormous plot holes, the 7th fleet takes on your mom.


/Seriously..."Man of Steel" is moronic.
2014-04-21 01:08:26 PM  
1 vote:

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]
2014-04-21 12:46:36 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:31:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:23:38 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:38:02 AM  
1 vote:
It was the shakey-cam.

That's why the movie suck so farking hard.

Who filmed it, Michael J. Fox?
2014-04-21 11:25:22 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:23:13 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:05:13 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:40:30 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:36:56 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:34:36 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:30:17 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:14:24 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:11:09 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:03:42 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:03:18 AM  
1 vote:
"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 09:57:23 AM  
1 vote:

buntz: 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.


He was traumatized, blamed himself (he made them leave the Theatre), he became obsessed with the crimes that's happening all the time in Gotham.

When you consider that so many Farkers appear traumatized over the most denign thing, are outraged over the stupidest things and rant on Fark like it's their life's mission... yeah, I'd say that watching your parents be killed in front of you in a way that you blame yourself, will break something in your psyche.
2014-04-21 09:52:07 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2014-04-21 09:50:58 AM  
1 vote:

buntz: Also, why does Ursa flinch when the snake bites her?  She's super now!  She wouldn't have even felt it!!  That's the kind of thing that would get TORN APART on the internet these days.


I thought of that before. It probably just startled her. She wasn't used to being indestructible yet.
2014-04-21 09:50:00 AM  
1 vote:

smerfnablin: superman doesnt kill people

I hate this argument.  This is making the article's point.  Forget you know ANYTHING about Superman.  This is a NEW story.  Everything is new.  It's the first time you've heard of Superman.  THIS Superman killed someone.  And he was so upset about it, because he clearly didn't want to but had no choice, that maybe NOW his rule will be "I won't kill people every again"
Maybe this is where his code comes from?  

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.
2014-04-21 09:50:00 AM  
1 vote:
For me it was a question of they say one thing, do another, such as

Freezing cold, you'll die after a couple of minutes of exposure.. so Lois Lane goes out in this cold and has no problem whatsoever, wearing a flimsy coat.

No powers in the ship... the atmosphere from Krypton? but yet a small breach and he's instantly fine (considering that he does get to breather any "earth air").

It's just those little things that really messed up... Superman's power are from the sun, not the air he breathes, etc.

They kept messing things up like that which contradicts one thing after another.. if you're going to make a big deal about something, stick with it, don't change or invalidate it in the next scene to basically "Deus ex Machina" everything.
2014-04-21 09:49:54 AM  
1 vote:
These two were my favorite part.

31.media.tumblr.com

31.media.tumblr.com
2014-04-21 09:44:36 AM  
1 vote:

smerfnablin: 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.

THIS x10

How many thousands of people were killed just so Snyder could have a cool backdrop for his fight scene?

Real superman would have gone outside of the city and *SPOILER* superman doesnt kill people...

/unless you count ripping that hooker in half like a phone book


So if he doesn't what did he do at to Zod at the end of the theatrical release of Superman II?
2014-04-21 09:40:25 AM  
1 vote:

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.


THIS x10

How many thousands of people were killed just so Snyder could have a cool backdrop for his fight scene?

Real superman would have gone outside of the city and *SPOILER* superman doesnt kill people...

/unless you count ripping that hooker in half like a phone book
2014-04-21 09:38:19 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-04-21 09:34:11 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2014-04-21 09:32:40 AM  
1 vote:
I didn't care for Man of Steel because it was directed like a combination Levi's commercial/video game cutscene.
2014-04-21 09:32:36 AM  
1 vote:

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.


I get the argument that Superman was forced to fight in the city because he was barely on equal terms with Zod and his crew and couldn't dictate the terms of the battle, and that he was new/inexperienced so he couldn't outmaneuver him. My problem is that he's just as willing to destroy buildings by throwing Zod through them and blowing up property while ignoring all the people fleeing in terror ("It was safe! Everyone probably evacuated the buildings!" my ass). If he was seen minimizing/mitigating the damage of the fight it would go a long way to actually satisfying a lot of nerd complaints about that fight. Then at the end, after what was probably hundreds killed in the fight so far, suddenly one family being in danger is what drives Superman to kill Zod? And then after his initial scream we cut immediately to everyone happy that the threat is gone and NOBODY discusses what just happened?
2014-04-21 09:31:48 AM  
1 vote:

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."


Judging a 34 year old movie by its visuals is retarded.
2014-04-21 09:29:15 AM  
1 vote:
Man of Steel is a good flick, holds up with the others in this day and age, and has the proper tone. Haters are just regurgitating shiat they hear on the Internet. Like someone said above, I re watched it on HBO, and none of the usual criticisms of this movie really hold any weight....and especially DERP METROPOLIS one. To quote the girl (whatever her name was) "when you save one, we'll kill a million"

(or something close to that). so yeah....no...he had to fight in the city.
2014-04-21 09:27:37 AM  
1 vote:

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.


In Superman II, they destroyed a good chunk of Metropolis before the fight was taken to the Fortress of Solitude. Plus, in that movie, Zod's only motivation was to fight Superman.

In Man of Steel, Superman had to stop the World Machine from killing humanity. He had to fight Zod and his folks to make that possible, and getting them to go to another venue doesn't seem feasible, when their job was to stand by and protect the World Machine.
2014-04-21 09:21:56 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-04-21 09:18:51 AM  
1 vote:
Giving Pa Kent schizophrenia was a bold choice. I'll give him that.
2014-04-21 09:12:43 AM  
1 vote:
Never has a headline been more accurate.
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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