Poll: Man of Steel; Why the hatred?

[NihilSinLulz]

You can have fun with these superhero/swashbuckle-sci-fi-fantasy movies, they can be good fun. I really don't understand why any of these can be really better or worse than the rest, save a few odd exceptions like Dark City (that one was not based off of something, coincidence?)...they all have plot holes, characters behaving like out-of-character-idiots to further the story, touch some interesting philosophical questions with a very light feather and have plenty of boom, gloom and even more boom. Star Wars/Trek, Pirates of the Carribean, Thor, Spider-Man, Batman...they all have one important thing in common - interesting at the surface, shallow at the core. I am not seeing how the new Superman stands out from this crowd.

The first two Superman movies and the majority of the DC animated movies featuring Superman were great movies onto themselves, with great structure, characterization, and catharsis.

Man of Steel was just bad. Its writing was bad. Its cinematography was bad. Its action scenes were bad. Its plot was bad. Its pacing was bad. Its characterization was bad. Its directing was god awful.

 

[MatsVS]

Honestly I'm just sooooooo fucking sick of comic book films at this point. It seems every other AAA action flick to come out of Hollywood has to star some moron in a rubber suit, and people keep perpetuating this nonsense by praising rubbish like the newest Thor film, or Iron Man 3. Often the same people who are rightly trash talking Transformers and such, yet seem utterly blind to the dissonance here.

So yeah, Man of Steel was trash, but it's a product of our broken culture so its only sin, really, is being slightly dumber than the average film.

Go watch 'Synecdoche, New York', people.

 

[King Aragorn]

Transformers can't be compared to superhero films, they just can't. No matter how bad they get, they're still more than fancy explosions, even the crappy ones like Iron-Man 3. Comic books are the new Greek myths of our culture in the sense that the have so much potential because of how much interpretations you can get out of them, how many things you can do and the ideas you can use, it's a very wide playing field which coincidentally has brand power behind it.
I think it's even more ''backwards'' to dismiss superhero films as stupid action flicks just because instead of a bunch of gangsters going at it, it has a person dressing up as a Bat.

I also feel that you're not giving those movies enough credit, @nutshell .
I mean I won't act as all of them are postmodern masterpieces rivaling Blade Runner but they aren't all just shiny effects, there is legitimate meat and interesting ideas behind many of those movies and films.

 

[nuttshell]

The first two Superman movies and the majority of the DC animated movies featuring Superman were great movies onto themselves, with great structure, characterization, and catharsis.

I watched those when I was very little, I remember pretty much nothing. I may rewatch them again.

Man of Steel was just bad. Its writing was bad. Its cinematography was bad. Its action scenes were bad. Its plot was bad. Its pacing was bad. Its characterization was bad. Its directing was god awful.

As I said, I don't see how MoS is any more worse than Thor 1/2, Star Wars/Trek reboots etc. I enjoyed a few scenes in it like I enjoyed a few scenes from them all - they were all mostly fights or pretty backgrounds.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I don't understand all the hate for it. I mean, I don't even like Superman and I still thought it was a decent movie.

 

[nuttshell]

Transformers can't be compared to superhero films, they just can't. No matter how bad they get, they're still more than fancy explosions, even the crappy ones like Iron-Man 3. Comic books are the new Greek myths of our culture in the sense that the have so much potential because of how much interpretations you can get out of them, how many things you can do and the ideas you can use, it's a very wide playing field which coincidentally has brand power behind it.
I think it's even more ''backwards'' to dismiss superhero films as stupid action flicks just because instead of a bunch of gangsters going at it, it has a person dressing up as a Bat.

I also feel that you're not giving those movies enough credit, @nutshell .
I mean I won't act as all of them are postmodern masterpieces rivaling Blade Runner but they aren't all just shiny effects, there is legitimate meat and interesting ideas behind many of those movies and films.

I tried to watch Transformers 1 and 2 till the end two times both and I failed. Of course, there are worse movies than the movies I critisized, after all, I watched all Iron Mans, both Thors, Captain America, etc. from beginning to end and I enjoyed some of them and yes, there is some "loldeep" stuff there but it is still underreaching.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

The first two Superman movies and the majority of the DC animated movies featuring Superman were great movies onto themselves, with great structure, characterization, and catharsis.

I watched those when I was very little, I remember pretty much nothing. I may rewatch them again.

Man of Steel was just bad. Its writing was bad. Its cinematography was bad. Its action scenes were bad. Its plot was bad. Its pacing was bad. Its characterization was bad. Its directing was god awful.

As I said, I don't see how MoS is any more worse than Thor 1/2, Star Wars/Trek reboots etc. I enjoyed a few scenes in it like I enjoyed a few scenes from them all - they were all mostly fights or pretty backgrounds.

I think the main difference is that the movies you mentioned were intended to simply be popcorn flicks. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the explosions sort of affair. They were meant to satisfy your id and make your inner child cheer a little.

Man of Steel had a slow burn structure and introduced things such as destiny, free will, genocide, humanism, and Messianic allegory. It tried to be about something. The problem is that its director confused 'try' with 'accomplished' and did absolutely nothing with those themes and story elements other than muck around and be smug at the audience (the church scene being the most obvious example).

An equivalent film with the central theme of principle vs. necessity would be Under the Red Hood. Below is that film's ending and an excellent example of how to end it right, without an idiotic action to make the film 'epic'

Be warned that tha video contains MAJOR spoilers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kscfb9XzPs

 

[MatsVS]

Transformers can't be compared to superhero films, they just can't. No matter how bad they get, they're still more than fancy explosions, even the crappy ones like Iron-Man 3. Comic books are the new Greek myths of our culture in the sense that the have so much potential because of how much interpretations you can get out of them, how many things you can do and the ideas you can use, it's a very wide playing field which coincidentally has brand power behind it.
I think it's even more ''backwards'' to dismiss superhero films as stupid action flicks just because instead of a bunch of gangsters going at it, it has a person dressing up as a Bat.

There's loads of interesting things to be done with the format, for sure. Loads of interesting things HAS been done with the format. There is also such a thing as saturation, artistic fatigue, and being actually exclusive in its market presence. It's as if there is no room left for anything else these days, which is super frustrating.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Superman killed Zod and was totally okay with it. Him killing Zod isn't the problem. Fast forwarding straight to him dicking around with the military and making it look like it had no effect on him at all was what was horrible.

I was able to forgive everything except this.

There was small glimmer of hope that there might have been some rare Superman character development going on.
"Superman killed a guy, holy shit. This has to have a great impact on the story." Big ooolll'd nope. I'm hoping the next movie focuses on it a lot more. But I really doubt it.

 

[King Aragorn]

Superman killed Zod and was totally okay with it. Him killing Zod isn't the problem. Fast forwarding straight to him dicking around with the military and making it look like it had no effect on him at all was what was horrible.

I was able to forgive everything except this.

There was small glimmer of hope that there might have been some rare Superman character development going on.
"Superman killed a guy, holy shit. This has to have a great impact on the story." Big ooolll'd nope. I'm hoping the next movie focuses on it a lot more. But I really doubt it.

I'm on the same note. That ''he's so hot'' joke just so, so killed the mood. If anything the movie should have cut to the credits then and there with the neck snap and it would have been a more satisfying conclusion.

 

[Butterfly]

Felt like the cheapest, most soulless bumblefuck of an action movie I've seen in a while, and I've enjoyed many soulless bumblefuck action movies in recent times. It was just... cringy, I guess.

8.5/10

 

[King Aragorn]

A cringy movie earns a 8.6/10?

 

[nuttshell]

I think the main difference is that the movies you mentioned were intended to simply be popcorn flicks...Man of Steel had a slow burn structure and introduced things such as destiny, free will, genocide, humanism, and Messianic allegory. It tried to be about something. The problem is that its director confused 'try' with 'accomplished' and did absolutely nothing with those themes and story elements other than muck around and be smug at the audience...

Almost, if not all of the movies I mentioned, also "tried" to be about "something" in a similar fashion like MoS.

An equivalent film with the central theme of principle vs. necessity would be Under the Red Hood.

I didn't hear of that one, I will watch it completely without spoiling it now when I have the time. If it's any good, thanks in advance.

 

[Rooster893]

I absolutely loved the movie. Maybe I'm just not fit to be a critic, but I loved everything about the movie. Sure, there were things that could have been better, like the over-the-top destruction in the Superman vs. Zod battle, but at the same time, I liked it, since I think that's what would REALLY happen if two aliens with godlike power clashed in a fragile, urban environment. So, yeah, I loved it... ESPECIALLY the theme.

<youtube=LaxqxfpSzMQ>

The scene where he steps out of the Fortress of Solitude, wearing the suit and cape with a look of inner peace on his face, while Jor-El's words are spoken to us, was an amazing sight. And when he put his fist on the ice... it was powerful. For me, at least.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

Superman killed Zod and was totally okay with it. Him killing Zod isn't the problem. Fast forwarding straight to him dicking around with the military and making it look like it had no effect on him at all was what was horrible.

I was able to forgive everything except this.

There was small glimmer of hope that there might have been some rare Superman character development going on.
"Superman killed a guy, holy shit. This has to have a great impact on the story." Big ooolll'd nope. I'm hoping the next movie focuses on it a lot more. But I really doubt it.

Superman has killed in stories before and there's been times where Superman's had to cross a line to do what he feels is right. The thing is everytime he does it it's a big deal. Even the plot of Gods Among Us or Kingdom Come came entirely from what would happen if Superman broke his own code. But here he just kind of got sad for a second and then seemed to shrug it off.

Not to mention it was never stated that he shouldn't or wouldn't kill. Besides, its not like he had a problem when he was blowing up Smallville and Metropolis...

 

[Hawk eye1466]

Personally I think it just didn't really gel with my vision of Superman.

Superman is a compassionate god living amongst men, he empathises and cares for us so much that he wants to help us and use his powers to alleviate all the problems that we have, which means rescuing people from floods, earthquakes, fires, getting cats from trees etc.

But he sees better than anyone that the main problems humanity faces are ones we create ourselves: War, Genocide, Crime, Greed, Racism, Slavery, Extortion, Hate, Murder.

He is a man of infinite physical strength, but his greatest fight is against the ideological selfishness ingrained in human society. A foe he cannot punch, or intimidate to change. His biggest nemesis is the very minds of the people he wants to save, and he cannot forcibly change it with all the strength in the universe.

All he can do is become a symbol. A symbol of hope, of goodness, of charity, righteousness, humility and kindness, to lead by example and try to drag us out of the mire we have trapped ourselves in.
And still he watches the world turn as it always did, and nothing new appears under the sun. The old Tyrants are overthrown by the freedom fighters, who use their freedom to become tyrants in their turn. The bullied goes out and becomes a bully. The rich and comfortable exploit and steal from those less fortunate to give themselves just a little more. The sun rises, and the sun sets, and nothing of humanity has changed.

I love the dilemma of Superman. He is a man desperately trying to save a world that is wilfully killing itself right before his very eyes, and the people that cry for help one day are the ones causing pain the next. You don't need a super powered villain to fight superman, you just need someone full of irrational hate, who refuses to change, who has no empathy or care for his fellow man. That man can just by his refusal to yield make Superman face the reality that maybe he is ultimately failing to change us. Maybe we are beyond help, and he is only prolonging the pain, because eventually he will die, he's invincible, but not immortal, and one day the world won't have Superman to save itself from itself, and on that day WE will destroy humanity: Not Zod, not Darkseid, not Doomsday, but our own selfish hate will doom us unless he can change our entire way of thinking, unless he can make all of humanity see that they don't need to fight each other, that empathy and care are the best way to live.

So far, he has failed to achieve this, and his biggest reminder is the constant gloating of the most unnecessarily selfish and hateful man of them all. Lex Luthor.

That's my Superman. That's what I want a Superman movie to explore. So far that hasn't happened yet.

Well he said it better than I could have, this is pretty much what I think of superman and if they actually made a film about that it'd be incredibly interesting.

 

[Jarrod Rowlette]

I had two problems with this movie. The first was the way it could beautifully illustrate something without any dialogue, and then for filler, explain it in just dialogue. The other was the breaking of the Cardinal Rule of Superman.

 

[JimB]

I'm amazed by people who criticize Man of Steel for its one Jesus reference and forced, not-in-any-way believable romance angle but think the first Matrix was brilliant.

There are many more than one such reference. During the scene on the oil rig when Kal-El catches falling I-beams, the camera is angled to make it look like he is carrying a cross on his back; his age is the same as Jesus's during most Biblical references to him; in the church, a stained glass image of Jesus is pointing at Kal-El; when the hologram of the ghost of Jor-El frees Kal-El from the ship, Kal-El floats out into space with his arms extended to his sides as in the same pose as a crucified Jesus. There are probably others I have forgotten.

If someone wants to come on here and say "Yes, Man of Steel was crap, and so were the Dark Knight, the Matrix, and all previous Superman movies," then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong and Man of Steel was crap. Until then, I'll maintain my position that Man of Steel's flaws were forgivable.

You are allowed to decide for yourself what flaws you will forgive. I am allowed to decide for myself what flaws I will forgive. So is everyone else, and speaking only for myself, I am not at all willing to trade that right to you in exchange for you agreeing with me that a movie is bad. That is a bad deal.

 

[Tono Makt]

I wanted to like Man of Steel, but I came away with five major issues. Two of which are my perception of Superman, two of which is integral to the Plot, and one which is really nitpicky.

Plot:

1) The conflict in the movie was between Zod and Jor-El. Not Zod and Kal-El, aka Clark Kent aka Superman. In some ways it may seem to be like the conflict between Bruce Wayne and Ra's al Ghul - Ra's al Ghul wants to destroy Gotham but Batman stands in the way, but Batman Begins spent the entire first half of the movie building up the relationship between Henri Ducard (Ra's al Ghul) and Bruce Wayne before the final battle in Gotham. Because the this, there needed to be more build up of Superman and why he's defending Earth.

2) The build up of Clark Kent was underwhelming. It seemed like the writers were expecting that the audience would fill in the blanks and just go with Clark Kent deciding to save Earth because that's just what Superman does. After the great job that Batman Begins did with creating Bruce Wayne BEFORE Batman and seeing that Christopher Nolan was on the Man of Steel team, there was an expectation that we were going to get something on a par with that origin story for Superman. And we didn't get it. This may be an unfair expectation and an unfair criticism, but it's out there.

Personal:

1) I like the idea of Lois Lane being so focused on Superman that she doesn't have time for Clark Kent. That she doesn't know that Superman = Clark Kent. Yes, the "Glasses on/Glasses off" is dumb, but there are other ways to do it. I also like it being difficult for Lois to find out that Clark = Superman. I don't like how they handed the whole relationship between Lois and Clark in the movie.

2) The characterization of Jonathan Kent and Clark Kent rub me the wrong way. Both are too cynical, too pessimistic and too selfish for me, and this depiction of Clark Kent strikes me as more a move to turn Superman into a jaded All-Powerful opponent in a future Justice League movie. "Clark... you just let them all die!" "Yes. (MacGuffin X) was more important than the lives of a few tourists." (paraphrased reference: Clark Kent: "Should I have just let them die then?" Pa Kent: "Yes. No. I don't know.")

Nitpicky:

1) Why did the Kryptonian Evil Doctor have a German accent? Also, the two Kryptonians Superman fought in Smallville, did they have Russian accents? I'd have to watch the scenes again to be sure, but I know the Doctor had a German accent.

 

[King Aragorn]

I'm amazed by people who criticize MOS for its plot holes and irrelevant flashbacks but think The Dark Knight was brilliant.

I'm amazed by people who criticize MOS for its ONE Jesus reference and forced, not-in-any-way believable romance angle but think the first Matrix was brilliant.

I'm amazed by people who criticize MOS for any reason at all without bringing up the far bigger and more numerous problems in the previous Superman movies (TIME. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY)

If someone wants to come on here and say "Yes, MOS was crap, and so were TDK, the Matrix, and all previous Superman movies", then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong and MOS was crap. Until then, I'll maintain my position that MOS's flaws were forgivable.

The difference is flashbacks were used properly in The Dark Knight trilogy, they didn't feel jumbled up and made into random cuts inbetween scenes when the CGI guy needed a break. Also TDK didn't have any real plot holes, compared to MoS with the huge mass abortion one being very contradicting to what was stated earlier in the film, specially considering the fact that it's never delved into thus leading us to believe it's just bad writing.