To all the people complaining about joylessness, in a movie where an alien race with superpowers invades your home and are trying to TERRAFORM your planet, I can't expect the people to be randomly singing happy happy joy joy, and I honestly don't want them to.
Escape to the Movies: Man of Steel
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just got back from seeing the movie (I watched the review before watching it), and I have to say: I didn't see anything you said was a failing in the film. Quite the opposite in fact, what you saw as failings, I saw as minor gripes that absolutely don't hurt the film, even in the slightest.
I mean, seriously, You're entirely wrong, and truthfully, I think you went into the film expecting it to be the original, and when you saw that it didn't live up to your expectations, you nit-picked the hell out of it.
This film and the original are two entirely different films, each made to entertain the respective times they were made (Had the original been made now, it would be considered a bomb).
/rant
I mean, seriously, You're entirely wrong, and truthfully, I think you went into the film expecting it to be the original, and when you saw that it didn't live up to your expectations, you nit-picked the hell out of it.
This film and the original are two entirely different films, each made to entertain the respective times they were made (Had the original been made now, it would be considered a bomb).
/rant
It may not have been your superman but do you not realize superman has been re-envisioned dozens of times? This version is just another one.mattttherman3 said:
Sick of reviews which are far more about the author than the film itself. Similarly, I am sick of reviewers who spend so much effort speaking for the motivations of artists they have never met nor spoken to. Who knows how much Goyer and Nolan 'understand Superman'? There's an assumption there, Bob, that it is YOU who truly understands, yet that is something without any objective meaning. I don't care what you believe to be the film makers' motivations and understanding, nor do I care for your 'protest-too-much' theory on which maturity level coincides with the liking of this film.
Wow! Way to cut and prune my post to take it out of context. But yeah the dialog between characters is kind of not what it should be. I understand it's a comic book movie. But by this point in time I would hope that the actual lines written for the characters take more from modern writing than from the Golden Age. The script does the job. It communicates the needed information. But that's about it. It's nowhere near Transformers or Star Wars Prequels levels of bad. But nobody is gonna win any awards for these words. And I don't care if you are telling a serrious story or not. Stories are told through character moments. Warmth and Charm and interplay. Even in darker or revisionist comic book movies. Things like the interplay between Batman and Alfred. Things that humanize the characters. For the most part they forgot this here. Let me put it this way. The two warmest most charming characters in this movie. The two that the audience is most able to interrelate to are Russel Crowe and Kevin Costner. This is not necesarily a really bad thing, as the two turn in great performances, but still think about that for a minute. Crowe and Costner.RolandOfGilead said:
As far as the not knowing Superman, and that he has been re-invented too many times. Sorry but yeah I do know Supes. I also know that outside of a few Elseworlds stories (and the recent Injustice video game) there are a few character traits that stretch accross every single interpretation. One big one is one that he shares with Batman.
MAJOR SPOILER
Yeah, before you mention it, I have read Superman #22 from back in the 80's. I understand that this is basically the same scene. I understand the action taken. But that should NOT have been part of the characters re-introduction. That entire conflict of morals vs necessities of reality only works if you have taken the time to fully establish that the character by their nature will not take a life, even normally to protect others. They will always find another way. That old Zod story was the one time where Superman could not find another way and felt he had to take a life. But that story had deeper impact. The fallout from it carried through Superman stories for several years. Whereas tonight I was sitting in a theater. I happened to be seated next to two small children, around 7 and 9 or so. The looks on their faces when Superman allowed someone to die, His own father, were shocked. The looks when he pulled a Wolverine move on Zod kind of said it all. The scene itself was fine. It would have been a powerful scene and a truly shocking moment... in the second or third movie. Once the character was established. But it felt completely and utterly wrong in this one. So much so that it changed the core nature of the character. That's my opinion on it. Yours may vary.
But really what is the core motivation of Supes in this one? "Save the people you like?" "Don't kill unless it is collateral damage?" "Don't worry insurance will take care of that?" I mean really, in this movie he saved A. a bus full of school kids. and B. Lois Lane. Everyone else either fended for themselves or died in assorted horrible ways.
I understand that they were looking for some new and interesting character dynamics. They did bring some decent elements to the story. Much of the origin stuff was just perfection. The Krypton scenes were the best we have ever seen. Comic or Movie. They seemed to blend all the various backstories together. The distrustfulness of humanity over Supermans alien nature was an interesting take on it and worked well for the most part, except the whole "Let people die to keep hidden" just felt wrong for Superman and Pa Kent. The sacrificing himself to protect the sons identity was one thing, but the "Maybe you should have let a busful of kids die" just seemed a bit awkward. Not horrible. I could see the conflict that Costner was bringing to it. Just not quite hitting the right note is all.
But really what is the core motivation of Supes in this one? "Save the people you like?" "Don't kill unless it is collateral damage?" "Don't worry insurance will take care of that?" I mean really, in this movie he saved A. a bus full of school kids. and B. Lois Lane. Everyone else either fended for themselves or died in assorted horrible ways.
I understand that they were looking for some new and interesting character dynamics. They did bring some decent elements to the story. Much of the origin stuff was just perfection. The Krypton scenes were the best we have ever seen. Comic or Movie. They seemed to blend all the various backstories together. The distrustfulness of humanity over Supermans alien nature was an interesting take on it and worked well for the most part, except the whole "Let people die to keep hidden" just felt wrong for Superman and Pa Kent. The sacrificing himself to protect the sons identity was one thing, but the "Maybe you should have let a busful of kids die" just seemed a bit awkward. Not horrible. I could see the conflict that Costner was bringing to it. Just not quite hitting the right note is all.
The problem here is that you interpret straight as default and gay as a variation.misterprickly said:
What does being straight add to Green Lantern's character?
I'm watching the film tomorrow with a friend, so I'm just glad that Bob didn't spoil anything.
I'll rate the film when I see it.
What does being white or straight add to Green Lantern's character?
I'll rate the film when I see it.
The problem here is that you interpret straight as default and gay as a variation.misterprickly said:
What does being white or straight add to Green Lantern's character?
The movie was amazing. Ignore Bob on this, he's simply continuing his jihad against Nolan.
He is being willfully obtuse in summarizing the movie:
"Brooding teenager?" - No. Demigod that's aware of his powers, and is grappling with an identity crisis in superbly acted scenes.
"Chemistry"- I don't think this word means what Bob thinks it means. I hate to border on the personal...but I hope people are aware that people don't have to be in full romantic love to kiss right? Besides being too very attractive individuals, the enormity of the situation (LITERALLY SAVING THE WORLD) makes it a powerful moment.
"Derrrp I dun get the eugenics derrrp I hate when Nolan explains stuffz to meh" - This point is just repeatedly demonstrating that Nolan and crew play this game at a much higher level than Bob can be counted on to comprehend.
The entire eugenics angle was a reference to Plato's republic (Young Clark is even shown reading it). It famously argues for a deterministic, fascist, absolutist world as a form of utopia, where your role is predetermined to be either a warrior, a worker, or a philosopher (3, as reflected in the noble lie of 3 kinds of 'inherent worth', 3 parts of your mind, and the 3 levels of humanity raised in a hierarchy from your head, to your heart, to your appetites).
Plato's world, as did Krypton, offered Utopia in exchange for an explicit rejection of democracy. Nolan who never hides his left wing politics from his work, rejects this view, in has Kal-El "take a leap of faith" with humanity. Superman is clear that "you will never control me", and rejects hierarchy.
For reviewers like Bob, who have a far more authoritarian politics (his support for drone bombings and defense of the CIA), this message is a problem, so of course, it gets ignored in his review.
As was pointed out earlier, Plato's determinism also explained the storylines. Zod did what he did, because that's what he was supposed to do, and ultimately, the authoritarian scheme failed because Superman was a wrench in the machine, an unplanned contingency, an unknown unknown - the deathknell of all authoritarian power grabs.
It's a great combination of efficient story telling, and substance.
__________
The rest of Bob's criticisms are pure weaksauce. The film features plenty of well timed levity, plenty of the Superman universe (lexcorp). It's an amazing spectacle, and THE movie of the Summer.
He is being willfully obtuse in summarizing the movie:
"Brooding teenager?" - No. Demigod that's aware of his powers, and is grappling with an identity crisis in superbly acted scenes.
"Chemistry"- I don't think this word means what Bob thinks it means. I hate to border on the personal...but I hope people are aware that people don't have to be in full romantic love to kiss right? Besides being too very attractive individuals, the enormity of the situation (LITERALLY SAVING THE WORLD) makes it a powerful moment.
"Derrrp I dun get the eugenics derrrp I hate when Nolan explains stuffz to meh" - This point is just repeatedly demonstrating that Nolan and crew play this game at a much higher level than Bob can be counted on to comprehend.
The entire eugenics angle was a reference to Plato's republic (Young Clark is even shown reading it). It famously argues for a deterministic, fascist, absolutist world as a form of utopia, where your role is predetermined to be either a warrior, a worker, or a philosopher (3, as reflected in the noble lie of 3 kinds of 'inherent worth', 3 parts of your mind, and the 3 levels of humanity raised in a hierarchy from your head, to your heart, to your appetites).
Plato's world, as did Krypton, offered Utopia in exchange for an explicit rejection of democracy. Nolan who never hides his left wing politics from his work, rejects this view, in has Kal-El "take a leap of faith" with humanity. Superman is clear that "you will never control me", and rejects hierarchy.
For reviewers like Bob, who have a far more authoritarian politics (his support for drone bombings and defense of the CIA), this message is a problem, so of course, it gets ignored in his review.
As was pointed out earlier, Plato's determinism also explained the storylines. Zod did what he did, because that's what he was supposed to do, and ultimately, the authoritarian scheme failed because Superman was a wrench in the machine, an unplanned contingency, an unknown unknown - the deathknell of all authoritarian power grabs.
It's a great combination of efficient story telling, and substance.
__________
The rest of Bob's criticisms are pure weaksauce. The film features plenty of well timed levity, plenty of the Superman universe (lexcorp). It's an amazing spectacle, and THE movie of the Summer.
I liked it. I really liked it. I kinda see the concerns that Bob had, but, I disagree that they were serious problems. I really like the issues that faefrost had, and I agree with him, but, I don't feel that those are as big of deals as he/she is making them out to be. Sort of, you won the race, but, you could improve your form, sort of a thing. I also have enjoyed Roland's evangelizing. In short, I recommend it. Is it a perfect movie? No. Is it a damn good movie, and a damn good Superman movie? Yes. Feel free to disagree.
First off, I don't think this was a bad movie. I have to say, go see it. So long as you're not so deeply entrenched in your own well established vision of what superman -has- to be, that -any- deviation will send you into a frothing nerd rage, you'll be entertained.
And yes, I do agree that there were some problems with the film.
The opening scenes once off Krypton all come off as extremely cold and unwelcoming, and, while this is fine in general, not having it paced or broken up is really off putting. More fit for a survival-horror film, perhaps.
I also do agree that there could have been more focus on rallying around Superman as an ideal by the general populace. There were numerous places and opportunities for this, and they passed by without incident. Seeing the citizens or soldiers who Superman just saved do something other than run, hide, or just -not- try to shoot the guy saving their lives would have helped leverage some of that "heart" that was missing. Maybe not a Spiderman saves the Train like scene, but definitely more than what we got.
This, however, ties into a problem that really falls apart as the movie goes on, and that's scope.
It's not a problem with size, mind you - there's enough action based destruction to make Michael Bay fall to his knees weeping. No, the problem is, is that Zod's depicted as a global scale threat, but that's never given much of a worthy, global response. No, we can't have the military sealing Superman's thunder, but when Zod basically drops his pants and moons all of mankind, you'd think they'd send in more than a single squadron of fighter jets.
And, if the threat is really "all mankind will die", then we start onto the nuclear path, which... honestly, that was the one part of the entire movie which felt like it didn't have the level of realism or intelligence the director was going for. They scaled the scope of the movie up too high, and failed to deliver on the follow through.
Lane is a disappointment, but I guess that's because I'm more used to a more cynical, "tough girl" type depiction, where as this one is a bit softer. She feels like, yeah, she'll argue and she'll snap at you, but she's not going to knee you in the balls or anything. I always pictured Lane as a tough talking news jockey, but this one slid more away from that - not a scream-y damsel in distress, mind you, but not particularly interesting or compelling.
The rest of the Daily Planet is... I suppose underwhelming, but come on - do we really want to waste time exposing Lois' day job when we can be fighting super space nazis? I think the subject really got more of a role than it needed. Plus how they ultimately tie in Clark's involvement to it is looked as in a very canny manner.
Other than that, though, the movie does a wonderful job of displaying Superman in a way that doesn't reek of camp and silliness. I know Movie Bob complained about a lack of heart, but really, I'll take the gritty, realism take of this over diluted, Batman and Robin-esque cheese fest any day. Yes, it could get almost needlessly dark at times, but that really helped leverage the drama being attempted in ways it really couldn't have it this was your grandpa's Superman.
Further, I can't agree with the reaction to the "needless additions" complained about either. These aren't midichlorians - they don't particularly ruin or detract from what's already there. The "McGuffin" complained about actually has a great deal of exposition and rationing behind it, and tying Superman directly to Zod's in the manner they did really serves to give the story a more personal motivation from all parties involved than just "what a coincidence". It was a smart angle to take, and really made Zod into more than just another wind-up evil dictator.
In the end, the movie works a lot more than it doesn't, not just visually, but plotwise as well, going far deeper and being more mature than one would ever expect a story of this subject matter could be. Yes, it could do some things better, but that shouldn't stop you from seeing it.
It won't redefine cinema. It probably won't redefine the hardwired, preconceived notions of what and who superman is to the most diehard of fans. But it will entertain you, it will be worth your time, and you will not regret seeing it.
And yes, I do agree that there were some problems with the film.
The opening scenes once off Krypton all come off as extremely cold and unwelcoming, and, while this is fine in general, not having it paced or broken up is really off putting. More fit for a survival-horror film, perhaps.
I also do agree that there could have been more focus on rallying around Superman as an ideal by the general populace. There were numerous places and opportunities for this, and they passed by without incident. Seeing the citizens or soldiers who Superman just saved do something other than run, hide, or just -not- try to shoot the guy saving their lives would have helped leverage some of that "heart" that was missing. Maybe not a Spiderman saves the Train like scene, but definitely more than what we got.
This, however, ties into a problem that really falls apart as the movie goes on, and that's scope.
It's not a problem with size, mind you - there's enough action based destruction to make Michael Bay fall to his knees weeping. No, the problem is, is that Zod's depicted as a global scale threat, but that's never given much of a worthy, global response. No, we can't have the military sealing Superman's thunder, but when Zod basically drops his pants and moons all of mankind, you'd think they'd send in more than a single squadron of fighter jets.
And, if the threat is really "all mankind will die", then we start onto the nuclear path, which... honestly, that was the one part of the entire movie which felt like it didn't have the level of realism or intelligence the director was going for. They scaled the scope of the movie up too high, and failed to deliver on the follow through.
Lane is a disappointment, but I guess that's because I'm more used to a more cynical, "tough girl" type depiction, where as this one is a bit softer. She feels like, yeah, she'll argue and she'll snap at you, but she's not going to knee you in the balls or anything. I always pictured Lane as a tough talking news jockey, but this one slid more away from that - not a scream-y damsel in distress, mind you, but not particularly interesting or compelling.
The rest of the Daily Planet is... I suppose underwhelming, but come on - do we really want to waste time exposing Lois' day job when we can be fighting super space nazis? I think the subject really got more of a role than it needed. Plus how they ultimately tie in Clark's involvement to it is looked as in a very canny manner.
Other than that, though, the movie does a wonderful job of displaying Superman in a way that doesn't reek of camp and silliness. I know Movie Bob complained about a lack of heart, but really, I'll take the gritty, realism take of this over diluted, Batman and Robin-esque cheese fest any day. Yes, it could get almost needlessly dark at times, but that really helped leverage the drama being attempted in ways it really couldn't have it this was your grandpa's Superman.
Further, I can't agree with the reaction to the "needless additions" complained about either. These aren't midichlorians - they don't particularly ruin or detract from what's already there. The "McGuffin" complained about actually has a great deal of exposition and rationing behind it, and tying Superman directly to Zod's in the manner they did really serves to give the story a more personal motivation from all parties involved than just "what a coincidence". It was a smart angle to take, and really made Zod into more than just another wind-up evil dictator.
In the end, the movie works a lot more than it doesn't, not just visually, but plotwise as well, going far deeper and being more mature than one would ever expect a story of this subject matter could be. Yes, it could do some things better, but that shouldn't stop you from seeing it.
It won't redefine cinema. It probably won't redefine the hardwired, preconceived notions of what and who superman is to the most diehard of fans. But it will entertain you, it will be worth your time, and you will not regret seeing it.
Six Shooter, you're fun. I think you have many points right, and I didn't quite catch the meaning of the Plato reference when I watched it. However, I worry that you're an idiot. Your comments are needlessly inflammatory, and your sense of political landscape is weird as hell
In short, I probably agree with your positions on the film, but, I think your needless and mistaken attacks on Nolan and Bob only hinder your points.
I'm going to take my own leap here and assume that left wing politics maps with the Democratic Party in the Unites States. Also, I'm going to argue that the stance of that party is (generalized) one of pacifism and egalitarianism. As such, I don't believe that Nolan is a left wing writer at all. His famous Dark Knight Trilogy is of a super rich protagonist becoming a vigilante, (because he's better and above the law), who uses a clear allegory for the Patriot Act (cellphone radar) and who's big final battle is against the misused spirit of populism (Bane's Communist Revolution). I'm sorry, The Dark Knight Trilogy is obviously and inherently conservatice.SixShooter said:
Also, what? I need quotes for this. While, I do believe Bob is probably rather liberal, (movie buff in Boston, MA), I was unaware of his political leanings being pro surveillance. It seems as though you're making a blatant ad hominem attack to defend why he ignored (didn't notice) the aspects of the story that you cared about politically (and that I cared about). Show your work.SixShooter said:
In short, I probably agree with your positions on the film, but, I think your needless and mistaken attacks on Nolan and Bob only hinder your points.
I'm slightly disappointed with the reception. I wasn't expecting a film adaptation of Superman to trip on the rock of being too complicated but at least I can look forward to amazing fight scenes. I also didn't expect there to be no chemistry since Zack Snyder can make hip replacement surgery look sexy.
I'm feeling somewhat defensive. I enjoyed the film, and I think that, while it did have some clunky parts, it was overall well done. I specifically avoided any spoiler material and went in armed with only a vague hope that it would be fun and competent film. I wasn't disappointed.
Long and short of it, good movie. Go see it.
Long and short of it, good movie. Go see it.
Please Bob, we both know tebow's ass is planted firmly on the pine for the season and will rarely get up. Your brown haired pretty boy Goodel co- uh... quarterback will still lead the pats to wherever they're going to go and make it all the more painfully obvious that they'll totally implode when he's too old to give Goodel the lipservice.
Anyway, I guess is good the superman movie will likely do well, puts us one step closer to a justice league movie a la the avengers type deal (though I doubt that will happen).
Anyway, I guess is good the superman movie will likely do well, puts us one step closer to a justice league movie a la the avengers type deal (though I doubt that will happen).
The big problem is they DIDN'T make an origins story. They made a Man of Steel 2 or even 3. An origins story needs to be smaller and focused on the character and his development. In the squeals you can do the big actions scenes with the character you now established. They went straight to those big action scenes and left out the character building. This movie really really really needed to be smaller and quieter. Focus on superman growing up human coming into his powers and facing a minor threat to show the building of his powers. Braniac could have been good here, starting off week and growing in power with Clark having to learn his new powers and stop him before he gets too strong. Zod is a beast that should have been in 2 or 3 to really challenge him. Now what are they going to do for Man of Steel 2? Sequels are always bigger, and they've already used the 'death of entire human race' card.
Oh and they could have learned more form DBZ. At no point did I believe Zod and superman were actually hurting each other. At least in dbz they have damage indication, torn clothing, cuts, bruises, blood. At the end of the fight, Superman looked as fresh as he did at the start, his hair wasn't even mussed.
While it looked cool, it really took away any impact.
Oh and they could have learned more form DBZ. At no point did I believe Zod and superman were actually hurting each other. At least in dbz they have damage indication, torn clothing, cuts, bruises, blood. At the end of the fight, Superman looked as fresh as he did at the start, his hair wasn't even mussed.
While it looked cool, it really took away any impact.
It's not the tone or lack of humour that annoyed me
It's not the 'not staying true to the comics' that annoyed me (because I have not read any)
.....
It was just a very very poor movie. The story, the way the plot advanced, the character development. It was all broken.
Bob says there were good performances but it amounted to nothing because there was barely any build up or context to it.
When Zod is screaming 'I will find him', he just sounded like a madman. When superman finally meets his dad's hologram I felt nothing...it was just loosely connected to a flashback where the topic of his real parents came up once.
And I didn't even realise there was supposed to be a 'Superman doesn't kill' theme but thinking back to it now, apparently a 10 year old Clark not punching a bully and early twenties Clark not snapping a rude customer in half was supposed to connect to that final Zod scene. He just came off as passive aggressive.
I'm not even going to get started with the nonsensical plot, even if you buy all the throw-away one liner techno babble to justify every random event. 'we converted the something drive into a hyper drive', 'a distress beacon came on- you led us here!'
Here;s the thing..stupid stuff happened in Avengers...but that was a fun up-tone movie, Man of Steel was serious and it made even less sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too
It's not the 'not staying true to the comics' that annoyed me (because I have not read any)
.....
It was just a very very poor movie. The story, the way the plot advanced, the character development. It was all broken.
Bob says there were good performances but it amounted to nothing because there was barely any build up or context to it.
When Zod is screaming 'I will find him', he just sounded like a madman. When superman finally meets his dad's hologram I felt nothing...it was just loosely connected to a flashback where the topic of his real parents came up once.
And I didn't even realise there was supposed to be a 'Superman doesn't kill' theme but thinking back to it now, apparently a 10 year old Clark not punching a bully and early twenties Clark not snapping a rude customer in half was supposed to connect to that final Zod scene. He just came off as passive aggressive.
I'm not even going to get started with the nonsensical plot, even if you buy all the throw-away one liner techno babble to justify every random event. 'we converted the something drive into a hyper drive', 'a distress beacon came on- you led us here!'
Here;s the thing..stupid stuff happened in Avengers...but that was a fun up-tone movie, Man of Steel was serious and it made even less sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too