Superman American Alien Is What Man of Steel Should Have Been
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.
Ah, I enjoyed the article and thanks for the heads-up about this new Superman series. I've have been meaning to get back into reading Superman comics and now I have a reason to do so.
It would have been interesting to think about what Man of Steel could have been had it gone this route compared to the grim version (Still an enjoyable movie in its own right). But that's what other forms of media are there for, to allow for different kinds of stories.
It would have been interesting to think about what Man of Steel could have been had it gone this route compared to the grim version (Still an enjoyable movie in its own right). But that's what other forms of media are there for, to allow for different kinds of stories.
Color me interested, I'll have to give this one a look. Especially since I prefer optimistic stories over the grim and depressing ones.
Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.IOwnTheSpire said:
Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.JCAll said:
Eh, this is just indicative of the two opposing views on comics. Some people think the hero aspect is boring, or at least just boorish. For some it lacks nuance or subtlety or "realness". Then you get to read rave reviews about what people who like the hero do not like so much. The thing about Clark Kent... he is boring. I don't personally find it interesting that he met these people before he or they were anything. I actually find it contrived, to be honest. It's intellectually dishonest to throw these things in there like that, as if his life as Clark Kent in the beginning would commonly see him interact with these other characters.
I'm not saying it's bad. But I do clearly stand on the pro-hero side. When I read about comics I don't care about realism. If you do, then I daresay superhero comics are not for you. There are lots of really well written and great stories involving hero that do not shirk the main aspect of the book. Read just about the entire Invincible series for this. Great writing about people with powers with real problems, relationship problems, problems with their parents or friends.
Also, to be clear, Man of Steel was about a guy who wanted to help people. Part of the story was that his father was so afraid for his son that it turned into him being afraid to help people. His father was so convinced that humanity was not ready for what he represented that he chose to die rather than be saved by his son. At no point was he in a position where he didn't want to help anyone, as a matter of fact we see him go out of his way to help people (such as people on a burning oil rig). That aspect was not lost on the movie, just presented in a different way.
I'm not saying it's bad. But I do clearly stand on the pro-hero side. When I read about comics I don't care about realism. If you do, then I daresay superhero comics are not for you. There are lots of really well written and great stories involving hero that do not shirk the main aspect of the book. Read just about the entire Invincible series for this. Great writing about people with powers with real problems, relationship problems, problems with their parents or friends.
Also, to be clear, Man of Steel was about a guy who wanted to help people. Part of the story was that his father was so afraid for his son that it turned into him being afraid to help people. His father was so convinced that humanity was not ready for what he represented that he chose to die rather than be saved by his son. At no point was he in a position where he didn't want to help anyone, as a matter of fact we see him go out of his way to help people (such as people on a burning oil rig). That aspect was not lost on the movie, just presented in a different way.
My thoughts exactly. And considering that the whole reason Man of Steel was what it was is because the last movie, Superman Returns, was criticized for having not enough action at all and being the same old, same old.IOwnTheSpire said:
Besides Man of Steel may have its flaws but it is certainly not the worse Superman thing ever.
Characterising people who put forward arguments for ways they would like to see their favourite franchises/characters treated as "change things because I say so" is such a ludicrous strawman it nearly defies comprehension. People making their tastes public can only ever be a good thing as it promotes discussion. You, on the other hand, appear to think filmmakers are on some sort of pedestal and essentially shouldn't be receiving negative feedback on their works; media, and especially an ongoing franchise, is not a hugbox, and criticising things like tone, style, and artistic direction are all perfectly valid. Calling it "arrogant" to express an opinion on how a franchise should be handled is absurd.IOwnTheSpire said:
Speaking of which, half of Man of Steel was dedicated to his origin story. Of the 6 Superman movies, that's 50% that have done his origin. Man of Steel didn't need to do it again.Samtemdo8 said:
OT; I'd like to blame Snyder for all of Man of Steel's faults (at the very least I can blame him for using the same crappy filter he uses in all his recent movies), but the thing is, he is probably under some very tight reigns by WB similarly to how Whedon was at Marvel.
Just read up on the critcisms of Superman Returns quoted directly from Wikipedia and you can understand exactly why Man of Steel is what it is especially when Man of Steel was accused of trying too much to be "Batman Begins version of Superman":008Zulu said:
However, Roger Ebert argued the film was a "glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating." He also felt that "Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman", surmising that he "may have been cast because he looks a little like Reeve".
Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle felt that Warner Bros. should have rebooted the series along the lines of Batman Begins. He also felt Bosworth, at 22 years old, was too young to portray Lois Lane, and the climax did not "match the potential of the tiring 154 minute long film"
Nobody said "because I said so". They've given very specific, detailed breakdowns of why the various story elements presented, and how they were used, were less than ideal for the story they were trying to tell.IOwnTheSpire said:
If you think someone giving a long, thought out, scene by scene breakdown of what flaws a particular film (any film) is basically them just being "butthurt", then you apparently don't agree with criticism at all. I mean, you do agree that we, as a society have the ability to judge what others do in our society, and explain why it was good/bad right?
Never said Returns was a good movie, only that MoS didn't need to dedicate half the movie to his origin story. Fifteen or twenty minutes would have been more than enough. Aside from the overly long dedication to the origin, my only other gripe with MoS is that crappy video filter Snyder loves using. Superman wears blue, not a shade of black.Samtemdo8 said:
For what it's worth, I felt that during my first reading, but the story found ways to make it believable and consistent.Baresark said:
Clark finds himself on a cruise ship filled with some of the wealthiest youths of the DCU - and considering how many comic book origin stories start with rich people experiencing a life-changing event, it makes sense Clark would rub shoulders with several recognizable names there.
Later on, he's able to use his connection to Oliver Queen from that trip to score major interviews among the Metropolis elite (including Luthor) which catapults him into Lois Lane-levels of journalistic superstardom.
Later on, he's able to use his connection to Oliver Queen from that trip to score major interviews among the Metropolis elite (including Luthor) which catapults him into Lois Lane-levels of journalistic superstardom.
As for the balance between "being a hero" and "being a real person", the comic definitely has both - it just leans a little more to the latter because that's an aspect of Superman which doesn't always get covered. Or when it does, it's usually in a "mature" gritty violence kind of way.
And you have never, ever done this to ANY movie at all?IOwnTheSpire said:
I will admit I am not a big fan of the recent Superman movies, and I have not even seen them. And before people get on my back, let me explain.
The Marvel hero movies have been fun. They, to me, are fun to watch, and fun to enjoy. But seeing Man of Steel's trailers did not make me want to watch it. While I found the idea interesting about Clark having doubts about his powers, the very dark "So I shouldn't have saved them?" felt like a leftover from a Batman script.
To me, Superman was a bringer of hope, not a bringer of mope which the movie seemed to be aiming at. And that's not a Superman I want to watch. The plot seemed a little off from what people have told me, and I just couldn't care.
When I saw the BS movie, I felt the regurgitation of the Man of Steel was strange, and when I saw the scenes where people were protesting Superman's presence, my first thought was "He single-handedly fought his own race to save you, and this is how you repay him?" That stuff flies with Batman, it is literally a part of his mythos, being the reason why Gotham will never improve in a meaningful way, but not the hero that entire alien races turn to for help.
But, seeing this American Alien comic idea, makes me wish that was the movie playing. DC seemed to be hitting the depressants and listening to too much emo music when writing their scripts. I want to be excited for Shazam, but given the 'grim and gritty' nature of their movies so far, makes me want to wash my hands of DC, which is a shame because they have some great characters. I just wish they treated them better as movie franchises.
People need to learn that Man of Steel isn't grim and gritty, it's serious, and there is a difference. The upcoming DC universe is not going to match everyone's preferences, and those who don't like their approach should just stay home. It's fine if you don't want to watch these films, but don't make judgments and assumptions about the filmmakers' intentions or methods of writing when you haven't seen the work itself.VoidWanderer said:
Oh, so it's "Making judgments on a film is fine as long as you understand it and why I like it, but if you can't see why it's actually good then you have no right to criticize something." Sure, that sounds fair.IOwnTheSpire said:
Read what I actually said. He admitted he hasn't seen MoS, therefore he's in no position to properly criticize it.TheVampwizimp said: