Poll: Man of Steel; Why the hatred?
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I liked it. I walked out of the movie theater feeling so excited and awe struck. I believe everyone is mixing their personal feelings about how Superman "Should be" with how he was represented in the movie. Personally I believe that when you make an adaptation of something, that there should be changes. Basically I enjoy an imperfect Superman. The idea that Superman was "Perfect" to begin with always struck an eerie cord with me. As it does with Lex Luthor and Batman in the comics. Superman often comes off as perfect but there are so many things that prove to the contrary and there always have been. I'm pretty sure we could find contradictions in every superman ever put on screen. Many of the complaints seem very nit-picky.
It was a decent movie, but a terrible Superman movie.
Lots of things in the movie just didn't make any sense.
Superman doesn't act at all like Superman. Doesn't save his father, kills Zod, lets thousands of people die as he fights in Metropolis, etc etc etc
This stuff is of ABSOLUTE importance to any Superman movie.
Superman doesn't really have any technical weaknesses aside from Kryptonite. Superman's actual weakness is his unbending need to save EVERYONE. His weaknesses is that even though he's Superman he CAN'T save everyone. When he fails it wrecks him.
Superman is DC's shining symbol of hope. That movie failed to come close to representing that. The closest it got was "eh...I guess we'll trust this guy, because we don't really have a choice"
I personally liked it from the perspective of the shear spectacle of it, but by any other metric it was almost as stupid as The Dark Knight Rises.
The movie's one big accomplishment was figuring out how to make a live-action Dragon Ball Z movie.
Lots of things in the movie just didn't make any sense.
Superman doesn't act at all like Superman. Doesn't save his father, kills Zod, lets thousands of people die as he fights in Metropolis, etc etc etc
This stuff is of ABSOLUTE importance to any Superman movie.
Superman doesn't really have any technical weaknesses aside from Kryptonite. Superman's actual weakness is his unbending need to save EVERYONE. His weaknesses is that even though he's Superman he CAN'T save everyone. When he fails it wrecks him.
Superman is DC's shining symbol of hope. That movie failed to come close to representing that. The closest it got was "eh...I guess we'll trust this guy, because we don't really have a choice"
I personally liked it from the perspective of the shear spectacle of it, but by any other metric it was almost as stupid as The Dark Knight Rises.
The movie's one big accomplishment was figuring out how to make a live-action Dragon Ball Z movie.
Papa Kent didn't suggest he had to let the kids die, it was just hs way of saying that he doesn't know what to do, that he's conflicted and it's also a moment of acknowledgement that he can't keep the secret silenced for long. I really don't think he meant drown all of them.
Off topic here, but that reminds me of why I consider myself a terrible person to see movies with. I've became quite the critical bastard during the past three years, so I often end up Captain Buzzkill when some asks about my opinion about a movie that we just watched and they enjoyed, since more often than not I didn't and even when I do enjoy said movie I'll point out problems that no one else notices or cares about.tippy2k2 said:The more I think about it, the more I think that this is one of the "against" that people have brought up that I do agree with and I'm kind of surprised I didn't notice it. I was a Film Minor in school so a lot of the movie things that normies don't notice wave their hands and yell "LOOK AT MEEEEE!" in my face during the movie. I don't know if it was since I was watching it at home (I was making chili for ze Superbowl so I paused the movie repeatedly) or what but I get where that's coming from.V da Mighty Taco said:
The poll is looking neat and partially confirms what I thought (or at least my bias allowed me to say that it confirms what I thought)
The vote seems to be pretty much split like and hate but the people that liked it thought it was good to alright but the people who don't like it really really don't like it (therefore are much more likely to speak up).
In other words: WOOHOO FOR THE CYNIC CLUB!!!!!! XD
Nathaniel Grey said:
I really think this video explains why all the hate and nitpicking happens.
Marvel is more of a soap opera where you can change a characters story and motive each week or month for drama and readers wouldn't dwell on it too much. But DC itself, they made there characters more grounded with a moral code they stick by and don't change. Would you image the hate if Nolan decided to do a bait and switch with the Joker and make him "Gary"? Fans of Batman will be OUTRAGED.
I agree it's gotten to a personal level with those who like those DC character which is why I always ask, how come Marvel fans don't have such an outrage (apart from Iron Man 3) when several changes are made? I don't mind you take the movie personal that's fine because I would be the same if a movie I was really hyped about seeing, turned into a massive shit box because they missed out so much. MovieBob took the movie way way waaaaaaay to personally even before it came out and many times said the same thing, "I wanted this, I wanted that and so forth".
Yes I may add the Jesus thing was a bit much but then again, Superman was portrayed as that since it's first creation so I guess that didn't change.
Because Marvel's changes aren't stupid.Paradox SuXcess said:
Even the Mandarin is a 50:50 case.
It was brilliant, but I see why people were mad....but it's possible he IS actually the Mandarin after all.
DC's decisions in both comics and movies are just frequently stupid.
DC animated, the Arkham games and Arrow are just about the only things DC gets right.
The Mandarin killed a movie bordering on mediocre and made it flat out bad. Making Iron-Man a stupid comedy made it feel more like a parody of what Iron-Man movie should be over an actual Iron-Man movie.
Also so far in the live action universe, Batman was pretty faithful to it's source material and MoS was more of a catalyst than anything. Batman vs Supes seems to be going all the wrong directions though.
Also so far in the live action universe, Batman was pretty faithful to it's source material and MoS was more of a catalyst than anything. Batman vs Supes seems to be going all the wrong directions though.
Seriously?Nathaniel Grey said:
I am being a butthurt fan again? Well, not in those words, of course, but you pretty much said the same thing. Would you mind elaborating on how exactly I thought Superman should be like? Go ahead - you seem pretty good at reading my thoughts without even bothering to read the thread, so please - indulge me. What else am I a fan and not a fan of, I wander - I seem to be unaware myself.DoPo said:
I was bored, frustrated or just angry during my viewing.
There's almost no levity, character development starts half-way in one scene and then abruptly cuts to something completely different. Which meant there's no "burn in" time for the consequences of character actions. Probably because they had to make more room for those ridiculously over-long CGI action scenes.
The closest moments we get to ANY of the actors being able to give an actual performance in this hastily cut ADD clipshow, is the talk between Louis and Clark, some of Jor-El's bits, and...nothing else.
Oh, and the goddamn product placement in what I assumed was a fully-funded summer action film done by a reknowned studio.
Hollywood: If you're going to try to create a movie that's meant to be taken seriously both as a story and as a work, don't cop a play out of Michael Bay's book because that's exactly what the product placement in the action scenes reminded me of; a shitty Michael Bay film.
When you advertise to me in a film I already PAID to see, you cheapen my experience; you cheapen my ticket.
I make it a point to avoid engaging businesses whose goods/services were placed in a movie for exactly that.
And it was a LOOOONG ass sit. Holy fuck was it BAD.
I just remember standing outside our cars with the group I saw it with (about 9 others), and NOBODY had anything good to say about it. (mix of comic fans and non-comic fans) We just ranted about the trainwreck for a good 25 minutes.
Fuck Man of Steel. What a fucking polished turd...
There's almost no levity, character development starts half-way in one scene and then abruptly cuts to something completely different. Which meant there's no "burn in" time for the consequences of character actions. Probably because they had to make more room for those ridiculously over-long CGI action scenes.
The closest moments we get to ANY of the actors being able to give an actual performance in this hastily cut ADD clipshow, is the talk between Louis and Clark, some of Jor-El's bits, and...nothing else.
First, Kent Sr's morals were disjointed, while his attitude bipolar. One scene he's talking about how Clark is going to change the world, and the next he's telling him to NEVER do so. I get that he's scared and confused. He knows the problem is out of his league. Fear of the unknown is supposed to be a major theme of the film....But it wasn't until his FANTASTICALLY RETARDED DEATH that I actively started hating Man of Steel.
The Infamous Tornado Scene.
This scene; more than any other, made me cringe. It made me want to leave the goddamn theater, drive to California and kick the writer so hard in the balls that he'd be choking on his own sperm for the next week.
I'm a meteorologist and storm chaser; and everything in that scene was just fucking wrong and stupid. From the reasons Pa Kent died, to the directions he gave to "save" people from the tornado.
For DECADES here in the states, the National Weather Service has asserted to the public:
DO NOT, *EVER* HIDE UNDER AN OVERPASS WHEN YOU'RE NEAR A TORNADO.
Why?
Because unlike downpours/downdrafts pouring over a bridge which have primarily vertical components of motion, rotating tornadic winds always have a strong horizontal component. Squeeze that component into a narrow horizontal corridor, however briefly, and it will speed up greatly; just like sticking your thumb on a garden hose (it's Bernoulli Force).
Not only does the already fastest-winds-on-the-planet get faster, they attain a focused direction and nearly all tornadoes are throwing debris around. Imagine one of those cars getting slung under the pass at 250 MPH; human salsa.
And that assumes the tornado doesn't just collide with the overpass and collapse it right on top of the stupid hicks.
So everyone bailing out of their cars to pile under the overpass? That would probably cause severe injury or death in real life, unless the tornado double-backed (which is possible). The best place to go would be in the ditch.
And then there's Pa Kent's contributions to the scene...
One: He died saving a dog. Two: SOLELY to prove a very stupid point to his son. Three: HE FAILED TO PROVE HIS POINT.
Or maybe that *was* the point: That papa Kent was trying to tell his son that he's just a complete fucking idiot.
The Infamous Tornado Scene.
This scene; more than any other, made me cringe. It made me want to leave the goddamn theater, drive to California and kick the writer so hard in the balls that he'd be choking on his own sperm for the next week.
I'm a meteorologist and storm chaser; and everything in that scene was just fucking wrong and stupid. From the reasons Pa Kent died, to the directions he gave to "save" people from the tornado.
For DECADES here in the states, the National Weather Service has asserted to the public:
DO NOT, *EVER* HIDE UNDER AN OVERPASS WHEN YOU'RE NEAR A TORNADO.
Why?
Because unlike downpours/downdrafts pouring over a bridge which have primarily vertical components of motion, rotating tornadic winds always have a strong horizontal component. Squeeze that component into a narrow horizontal corridor, however briefly, and it will speed up greatly; just like sticking your thumb on a garden hose (it's Bernoulli Force).
Not only does the already fastest-winds-on-the-planet get faster, they attain a focused direction and nearly all tornadoes are throwing debris around. Imagine one of those cars getting slung under the pass at 250 MPH; human salsa.
And that assumes the tornado doesn't just collide with the overpass and collapse it right on top of the stupid hicks.
So everyone bailing out of their cars to pile under the overpass? That would probably cause severe injury or death in real life, unless the tornado double-backed (which is possible). The best place to go would be in the ditch.
And then there's Pa Kent's contributions to the scene...
One: He died saving a dog. Two: SOLELY to prove a very stupid point to his son. Three: HE FAILED TO PROVE HIS POINT.
Or maybe that *was* the point: That papa Kent was trying to tell his son that he's just a complete fucking idiot.
OK. I get Zod. He's pragmatic to a fault.
But why does he choose to remake Earth into New Krypton, other than "Because we need a plot where Supes saves the Earth"?
Krypton is established as a highly advanced space-faring civilization with colonies and Kryptonian-Terraformers.
(Nevermind the whole issue for why all the Kryptonians moved back to Krypton and instituted population control)
Y'know, THE SAME TERRAFORMERS ZOD IS USING ON THE EARTH. Once Zod has the the Kryptonian Legacy ship, he has ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO MURDER BILLIONS OF HUMANS except "Because plot. Because evil."
Actually no, it's even more stupid than that.
Consider this: Superman not only adapted to but benefited greatly from living on Earth, WHY CHANGE EARTH INTO KRYPTON AT ALL??? Earth is even BETTER for the Kryptonian species than Krypton was! They have incredible powers and nearly endless endurance on Earth which. Zod adapts to Earth in a matter of HOURS.
And don't tell me Zod was rigidly adhering to Kryptonian tradition or his orders to preserve Krypton or some crap because Zod ALSO embraces and utilizes his greatly enhanced abilities on Earth.
But why does he choose to remake Earth into New Krypton, other than "Because we need a plot where Supes saves the Earth"?
Krypton is established as a highly advanced space-faring civilization with colonies and Kryptonian-Terraformers.
(Nevermind the whole issue for why all the Kryptonians moved back to Krypton and instituted population control)
Y'know, THE SAME TERRAFORMERS ZOD IS USING ON THE EARTH. Once Zod has the the Kryptonian Legacy ship, he has ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO MURDER BILLIONS OF HUMANS except "Because plot. Because evil."
Actually no, it's even more stupid than that.
Consider this: Superman not only adapted to but benefited greatly from living on Earth, WHY CHANGE EARTH INTO KRYPTON AT ALL??? Earth is even BETTER for the Kryptonian species than Krypton was! They have incredible powers and nearly endless endurance on Earth which. Zod adapts to Earth in a matter of HOURS.
And don't tell me Zod was rigidly adhering to Kryptonian tradition or his orders to preserve Krypton or some crap because Zod ALSO embraces and utilizes his greatly enhanced abilities on Earth.
Oh, and the goddamn product placement in what I assumed was a fully-funded summer action film done by a reknowned studio.
Hollywood: If you're going to try to create a movie that's meant to be taken seriously both as a story and as a work, don't cop a play out of Michael Bay's book because that's exactly what the product placement in the action scenes reminded me of; a shitty Michael Bay film.
When you advertise to me in a film I already PAID to see, you cheapen my experience; you cheapen my ticket.
I make it a point to avoid engaging businesses whose goods/services were placed in a movie for exactly that.
And it was a LOOOONG ass sit. Holy fuck was it BAD.
I just remember standing outside our cars with the group I saw it with (about 9 others), and NOBODY had anything good to say about it. (mix of comic fans and non-comic fans) We just ranted about the trainwreck for a good 25 minutes.
Fuck Man of Steel. What a fucking polished turd...
It was ok.
Full disclosure: I love comics, but I've never read any Superman because frankly I find the whole concept of the character boring. I've seen most of the older movies at one point or another in my childhood and didn't like them much for the same reason.
So basically, I have no investment in the character/universe and went in expecting to be bored to tears. I wouldn't have bothered seeing it, but it was for a date so I just went along with it.
[sub][sub]In case anyone's wondering, the movie was the best thing about the date. There wasn't a second one[/sub][/sub]
For those reasons, I was massively pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a decent-looking, big dumb action movie. It wasn't a particularly good film, but it held my attention and I had fun watching it. It made me slightly curious about future Superman movies, even.
But as I said, my expectations and levels of apathy could not have been much lower going into it, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Or perhaps I am, if you're looking for an "outside" perspective
Full disclosure: I love comics, but I've never read any Superman because frankly I find the whole concept of the character boring. I've seen most of the older movies at one point or another in my childhood and didn't like them much for the same reason.
So basically, I have no investment in the character/universe and went in expecting to be bored to tears. I wouldn't have bothered seeing it, but it was for a date so I just went along with it.
[sub][sub]In case anyone's wondering, the movie was the best thing about the date. There wasn't a second one
[/sub][/sub]For those reasons, I was massively pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a decent-looking, big dumb action movie. It wasn't a particularly good film, but it held my attention and I had fun watching it. It made me slightly curious about future Superman movies, even.
But as I said, my expectations and levels of apathy could not have been much lower going into it, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Or perhaps I am, if you're looking for an "outside" perspective
I came out of that movie being incredibly happy that I had finally seen an awesome live-action Dragonball Z movie.
As a superman movie?! Nah.
Dark. Grim. No heart. Going for the obvious cliches and so on... Some fighting scenes got a bit repetitive, plot holes, aaaah it was just a mess.
As a superman movie?! Nah.
Dark. Grim. No heart. Going for the obvious cliches and so on... Some fighting scenes got a bit repetitive, plot holes, aaaah it was just a mess.
It was bad on so many levels... gaping plot holes and a lack of dialogue being the two biggest ones. You could probably put the entire movie's dialogue in a 10 min video. Dialogue in movies is usually the primary way we (the audience) gets to know the characters and CARE about them. I didn't care about any of the characters, I know this was supposed to be a story about Superman and his discovery (at least it was portrayed that way) but things just happened and then Superman was supposed to know who he was. I feel there was a lot of assumption going on, Superman is a big pop culture character and everyone really knows what he is about, so they just threw some nice looking CGI in there and let us tell the story from our cultural knowledge. Why should I care about Superman, or Louis Lane, or even hate Zod for that matter?
Pretty much all the dialogue was designed to spell something out for the audience, most of which seemed awkward in it's verbally silent landscape.
As for plot holes... there are a ton of them. The easiest one to spot though is to track that little decal in the shape of the Superman symbol. Keep track of that throughout the film, you will find it in several different places at once, which completely undercuts its importance (and logic).
Super hero movies don't need a super in depth plot, but having a plot with motives that make sense is needed. Man of Steel looked nice, but that is all it is, a nice set of special effects.
Pretty much all the dialogue was designed to spell something out for the audience, most of which seemed awkward in it's verbally silent landscape.
As for plot holes... there are a ton of them. The easiest one to spot though is to track that little decal in the shape of the Superman symbol. Keep track of that throughout the film, you will find it in several different places at once, which completely undercuts its importance (and logic).
Super hero movies don't need a super in depth plot, but having a plot with motives that make sense is needed. Man of Steel looked nice, but that is all it is, a nice set of special effects.
The whole thing was an interesting experience for me. I didn't like the movie, but then I knew I wouldn't like it going in, for multiple reasons. I don't like movies, I feel they are inferior in my own tastes of media. If I had to make a list it'd be games>books>tv shows(HBO)>music>movies. I just don't get anything from them anymore, they don't move me except in ways that make me uncomfortable. I hate going to theaters where there is always a chance some external force can ruin my experience and end up wasting my money.Atmos Duality said:
I saw the film and ended up kinda unsettled (not really mad, persay) about all the Jesus allegory (even though I knew that was basically what Superman was) and the ad placement. To be honest, I don't see why videogames need to be fighting to be recognized as art alongside the likes of movies when we have stuff like this as examples of movies. It's pretty disgusting. But the violence and ultimate shallowness of the plot was almost insulting. Normally I hate talking like I take media so personally, when especially it isn't the case with something where I was so detached like with this film. But the whole nonsense of Papa Kent and Jor el espousing their ideals, only for superman to end up pleasing neither of them was just retarded. People can talk about the zeitgeist all they want, but there comes a time when too much is too much. When you have moms walking out with their kids, and asking their fathers "was that too violent?" you missed on a big demographic. Also, when the ahem "butthurt comic books nerds" are walking away trashing your film, you know, that juicy succulent nostalgia crowd that made of 50%- 66% of the target demographic... you done fucked up. BIG TIME. There is something to be said about the dark eddy nature of these films being targeted at 28-35 year old misanthropes. It's unfortunate.
To put this in perspective, the only movies other than MoS I saw this summer were Pacific Rim, and MLP: Equestria Girls. Equestria Girls opened on the same weekend as MoS. Despite my enjoying the film, it had problems. Its ending was a combination of a Deus Ex Machina, Gainax ending, and Anticlimax. Yeah, and I still thought it was a better overall film than Man of Steel.
I really don't get how this movie was too violent, or even really edgy or dark? if anything compared to the likes of Batman which was a major success with all sorts of demographics, this was relatively tame. If people went in expecting something along the lines of Saturday morning cartoons or 60's comics then that's far out of touch with what it is today. This movie's missteps for the most part seem purely on the artistic levels over demographic levels.
It sucked cos there was 90 mins of him doing boring stuff in Smallville (which we already had 10 dam seasons of) before he actually started fighting Zod.
The original (two) Superman movies were superior by far. Sure they were cheesy, but at least there was actual chraterization and coherence there. The one thing I did like was Micheal Shannon as Zod. The best fight in the film was between Shannon's acting and the ass of a script he was handed.
Anyways, my problems with the film are numerous but here some examples,
http://blip.tv/renegadecut/44-the-trouble-with-man-of-steel-6692267
Anyways, my problems with the film are numerous but here some examples,
http://blip.tv/renegadecut/44-the-trouble-with-man-of-steel-6692267
I haven't seen it, but the more I've heard about it, the less I want to see it.
Speaking as someone who was exposed to Superman through the DC Animated Universe and the 1940's cartoon shorts, I've always seen Superman as a superhero with a strictly upbeat, idealistic tone to him and his stories.
I kept hearing that Man of Steel has been going by the dark and gritty tone that the Dark Knight trilogy has been going for, which I found difficult to swallow, that would be like making Mario a Gears of War clone, wouldn't it?
At least with Batman, as long as the setting stays in Gotham City, the grimdark elements fit because Batman by design is a superhero with dark elements to him that would make a story with cynical and dark elements fit well.
But putting grimdark elements on Superman? Please tell me this, my fellow escapist, if you liked Man of Steel, tell me what you liked about Superman BEFORE even hearing about Man of Steel?
Also, really, I fail to see any appeal making the DC Universe dark and gritty anywhere outside Batman. 'Cause seriously, we're talking about a world where little kids and turn into superheroes by shout 'Shazam!', there's an invisible city of super-intelligent gorillas somewhere in Africa, and moments where Earth gets invaded by FREAKING. ALIEN. STARFISH!
Really, how does anyone find appear in making the DC Universe gritty and dark when it's filled to the brim with stuff like that?
Speaking as someone who was exposed to Superman through the DC Animated Universe and the 1940's cartoon shorts, I've always seen Superman as a superhero with a strictly upbeat, idealistic tone to him and his stories.
I kept hearing that Man of Steel has been going by the dark and gritty tone that the Dark Knight trilogy has been going for, which I found difficult to swallow, that would be like making Mario a Gears of War clone, wouldn't it?
At least with Batman, as long as the setting stays in Gotham City, the grimdark elements fit because Batman by design is a superhero with dark elements to him that would make a story with cynical and dark elements fit well.
But putting grimdark elements on Superman? Please tell me this, my fellow escapist, if you liked Man of Steel, tell me what you liked about Superman BEFORE even hearing about Man of Steel?
Also, really, I fail to see any appeal making the DC Universe dark and gritty anywhere outside Batman. 'Cause seriously, we're talking about a world where little kids and turn into superheroes by shout 'Shazam!', there's an invisible city of super-intelligent gorillas somewhere in Africa, and moments where Earth gets invaded by FREAKING. ALIEN. STARFISH!
Really, how does anyone find appear in making the DC Universe gritty and dark when it's filled to the brim with stuff like that?
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.
Comic books in general have been more dark and moody since the 90's, it's really nothing new for the universe. The thing is though not every character can be made dark, which you are right about. The thing is though I didn't really find MoS to be so dark. The problem is people went in comparing to Superman 1/II, all three movies come from vastly different eras and each has vastly different interpretations/views of a character that changes and flip flops all the time.
In the end though it all lies in the execution. I do think trying to make everything moody and dark is stupid, because not every story is like Batman which is set up to be dark and moody, but you don't have to go either extreme camp or extreme gritty, there is a middle ground somewhere that could work for Superman.
In the end though it all lies in the execution. I do think trying to make everything moody and dark is stupid, because not every story is like Batman which is set up to be dark and moody, but you don't have to go either extreme camp or extreme gritty, there is a middle ground somewhere that could work for Superman.
I also found Russel Crowe as Jor-El pretty great. It's hard for me to envision someone other than him in the role now, to be honest. Actually most of the actors were pretty good, or atleast the main ones that aren't Louis. Shannon was great, Crowe was great and Henry was great as Superman.NihilSinLulz said: