I can't really comment to the No Right Answer argument this week, because I never bothered to see Burton's Planet of the Apes. But I did see Man of Steel, and while I totally agree that movie completely sucks taint... I don't really get the arguments against it Chris used. Mostly because I couldn't get that "deep" into the story presented by that movie. I never could ask myself if Jon Kent was confusing his son about his identity, if Superman was party to too much destruction, if the Jesus allegory was too heavy handed, about tornadocide, or the necksnap. I never found myself questioning any of those things.
Because ALL I was thinking was, "WHY IS THE CAMERA STILL SHAKING?" All movie. For all 146 minutes.
Well, not all. It made a little sense during the Krypton scenes. The planet was unstable and about to blow up. I was willing to let that go. But then they get to Earth, camera still bouncing around like a superball in a dryer. I was still kind of willing to accept it. This part of the story is little Clark's perspective... he's still trying to adjust and that's a little visual clue. A stretch but I'm willing to allow it. But a gimick like shaky-cam only has any kind of meaning if it contrasts with another more conventional shot. So, since the movie never let go of its irritating shaky-cam, there's only 2 rational explanations. 1: this is supposedly a "found footage" movie? That makes no sense, who the hell found the Krypton scenes? That makes no sense, leading to 2: low budget "indie" films are popular despite not being able to afford good rigging and a dolly truck or two. So the shaky-cam in MoS is pretention to an "arty, indie" style of film that MoS is obviously NOT. That's gotta be it, it's all that makes any kind of sense. Either that or the post-prod editor was using the shaky-cam button as a coaster while editing.