Poll: Man of Steel; Why the hatred?

[JimB]

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.

The church scene is the only one of those that's actually a Jesus reference.

No, they all are. Those things did not happen by accident. People were paid a lot of money to make those things happen. Writers had to determine Kal-El's age and then script dialogue to exposit it; props and effects had to be created for the I-beams, and a crew had to spend time setting up the camera to be beneath Henry Cavill and pointing up at an angle that would create the illusion that something whose weight was in front of him was at a downward angle behind him; people had to rig a harness to make him float out into space, and when the actor held his arms out to the side, the director had to coach him on how to do it right. Further, they almost definitely did multiple takes of all of these things. They were included with a purpose.

I just don't understand your basis for dismissing these things.

 

[Galletea]

I absolutely loved it. Personally, I thought it was one of the best superhero movies we've gotten, on par with "The Avengers".

See I hate Whedon's Avengers too, but that wasn't the question so I'll swallow my fury and get back to Superman.

My biggest problem with it was the lack of character development. There were too many characters that are significant to Superman to put into one movie and expect to create some kind of feeling towards them all. Lois is souless and has no time to really be anything other than generic feisty heroine, and Martha and Jonathan barely have a personality between them, they spout their wisdom and disappear, so it is hard to care about what happens to them. Same with Perry White, he's there just for the sake of being there, a character who's name we know, but again, hard to care about him more than any of the extras.
Secondly there seems to be a necessity for massive cgi heavy fights in these films. It's like they don't have the content for a two hour movie so they fill it out with 45 minutes of explosions and falling skyscrapers and giant metal tentacle things.
It all felt forced, as if it had to encompass everything about Superman and couldn't really develop any idea fully because of that.
Russell Crowe was ok though.

 

[KazeAizen]

Because all the "die hard" fans thought it wasn't what Superman should be.

That and Man of Steel seem to be on most of the people of this forums worst movies of 2013. They're not bad movies (even IM3. Even thought I just can't stand RDJ). All the "fans" are just butthurt because it wasn't exactly what they wanted.

It's like using the argument that Avatar was a shit film because the story was unoriginal. Just because it wasn't original or copied the source material scene for scene doesn't make it a bad film.

Agreed. I don't shower Avatar with as much love as some people but you'll never catch me calling it a bad film. Its perfectly serviceable. I just think its a bit overrated personally.

I think what the fans wanted was some kind of golden or silver age Superman. If they do go lighter though they'll just look more like Marvel. You can go "dark" per say even if the superhero in question usually isn't. If you can still get across what the character is I think it can work. I look at MoS as strictly an origin story. Where as Batman in Begins was an origin story as well about half way through the movie he had gained his "symbol of the night status" people feared him and called him "The Batman". Supes in this movie didn't get his "symbol" status. It was just his origin and it set up enough that if handled correctly in the future movies we can get the Superman that people want with a new twist.

I'm looking forward to World's Finest. Even more so now with all the WTF casting they've done but save for Gal Godot its a pretty legit cast. I've never seen a Fast and Furious movie so I don't know how Gal does in them but hey you must be doing something right I suppose if your character has managed to stay alive for 7 movies in an action franchise.

Man of Steel was a flawed film but its strengths and possibilities make up for them in my mind. Its also a better DBZ movie than the actual DB movie that came out. (Though I don't necessarily hate that movie but that's another story all together)

 

[DoPo]

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.

Can't quote the exact words, but when talking about giving Superman over to Zod, it was pretty much referred to as him being ready to die for the humanity's sins. So yeah - way more than one.

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)

Oh goodie - you are complaining about the single most defining feature of the Superman movies that is constantly being picked on all the time right down to this day by pretty much anybody who cares to mention Superman 2. So how is this working out for you then?

 

[SycoMantis91]

A lot has to do with the image. It's basically the Dmc: Devil May Cry of the series. It's clearly pandering to the younger audience with a fairer skinned, mopey Superman, and it feels very disingenuous. The action was fairly entertaining, and the plot/dialog was very lazy and sometimes totally nonsensical. I don't hate it per say, put it's not a good movie. Honestly, I haven't seen one live-action Superhero movie these last few years that got me as hard as most people. Captain America was horribly boring, Thor was good action broken up too much by trying to make him a romantic figure (but given his love interest, I can't blame him), all the Iron Man and Batman movies are good and enjoyable but not amazing, and The Avengers was above average with some neat affects, and Hulk hurling that hammer was epic.

 

[KazeAizen]

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.

You see Zack actually explained that in an interview. He doesn't believe in this kind of "Meta" story telling. Established "rules" for characters that the audience inherently knows but the character or story themselves don't explain the rules. I found it ballsy but I understood.

Zod was never going to stop and since this is the first time a supervillain had appeared in their world. No special jails or prisons built specifically for containing them. Thus unless Superman wasn't constantly by Zod's side knocking him unconscious they were screwed. Therefore Superman really didn't have any other choice.

 

[geminipop22]

There were just a lot of conceptual problems in this movie that stuck out horribly, and everyone has a different opinion on how to represent 'hope,' but on some level I can't help but think that the writer/director/producer ( the holy trinity ) didn't really 'get it.'

For one, we don't get to understand who Clark is, and what his motivations are. Why is he helping? Oh, because he has to. But what about his feelings? Does he, himself, dwell on any of it without some other character telling the audience what he should be feeling?

Second, he doesn't pass himself off as something the audience should be inspired by. If you pay attention, he does a lot of really questionable things when none of the rest of the cast of characters isn't watching. For example, we're told that the kryptonian ship that his space dad AI gives him even more exposition on, is holding a cloning facility. Something that could resurrect his entire species. Later on in the movie, Zod steals the ship, Superman flies in, and without a single word starts 'chargin his lazor.' Zod pleads with him to stop, and Superman responds with 'Krypton had it's chance.' Way to be an inspiring figure of hope and goodness by damning your species based on the 'crimes' of a dead kryptonian counsel and a guy you never made the effort to communicate or reason with period ( Zod himself ).

The washed out colors. This might be considered nitpicky, but it made it too easy for everything to bleed together.

Product placement. Did we really need to see the great big SEARS as he pulls himself out of the wreckage? Really takes away from any emotions your trying to convey when SEARS YOU MUST BUY FROM SEARS is shoved in your face.

Plot holes. There were a tremendous amount of these, too many to actually list, but the biggest and most pointed seem to be :
- Why doesn't Clark/Superman once attempt to talk/reason with Zod? Hasn't he been told repeatedly to find the good in all things? Like... five times or something?
- Why does Zod recover from the 'atmosphere problem' so fast? Didn't he say it'd take years?
- Why did Clark/Superman go to a priest for no reason, and not go to his space dad AI Russel Crowe when Zod threatens the Earth. I mean, let's be entirely honest this scene cribs from Boondock Saints ( the scene where Whillem Dafoe goes to the church when drunk ).

Pa Kent as a character isn't all that bad, I can see where people would draw problems with the 'let kids drown on a bus' thing, because it's honestly a question with no right answer, and as a father he has to try to answer to something he's never dealt with before. However, the motivation of his death being some big thing to Clark could've been communicated a lot better had he say, fallen from a really high building or got caught in a nasty car crash with Clark nearby and the car almost about to explode. The 'Can't have an animal be harmed in a movie' trope is painful... 'Gotta save Boomer!'

Oh, and the Jesus Symbolism. It could've been far far more subtly, a lot more subtly. It felt like someone in the holy trinity meetings of writer, director, and producer all sat down with some comic books of Superman and all went, ' so there's jesus alegory in this character right? 'yeah' okay, let's play that up.'

Finally, the death of Zod. I'll be entirely honest, I expected Zod to die. My panties didn't get into a bunch about that. What did get my panties in a bunch was the 'emotional moment' he had when he killed Zod. There are a lot of problems with this. It feels rushed, it makes no sense, how is he suddenly feeling bad about killing Zod -now- when all this time he's been actively trying to 'stop' Zod but ... explain again to me how he's planning on 'stopping' Zod? What method? What process? Did he at any point -think- about the plan to stop the World Engine? Did he feel -anything- for the kryptonians he was actively participating in -KILLING- with the 'blackhole?' Did they matter to him? And then, let's be honest, after he drove Zod insane by destroying the cloning machine, he only now feels bad for having killed Zod? And then Lois Lane shows up out of no-where ( and she's a pile of problems in and of herself, 'let's have a big 'make-out session while floating down to the ground surrounded by the falling ashes of -DEAD PEOPLE-' ), and we end the movie with some quips about the price of predator drones and superman's butt. Classy.

So, yeah, TL;DR, didn't overly -hate- the movie, but I can't like it because it's too... bleh.

 

[hermes]

It was better than Superman 3, 4 and Returns. I will give it that.

Other than that, the reason people hate it is because it has breaks from the idea of Superman. It is dark, edgy and gloomy. Superman only smiles a single time in the entire movie...

Johnathan Kent writing was terrible. In their pursuit to make it look like the opposite of Jor-El (who is altruistic and spiritual), they turned it into a villain (selfish and pragmatic), to the point he instructs Clark to let a bus full of kids drown before risking being exposed by some of them.

I am among the people that feels Adams appeal as Lois Lane is non-existent.

Overall, it just looked like no one enjoyed being there.

 

[tzimize]

It was the best of the Superman movies so far, but not by much, and that's a pretty low bar to begin with. Its flaws were forgivable and shit got blowed up real good.

I'd put it between "okay" and "good".

Personally I like a LOT better both Superman The Movie and Superman Returns.

They both encompass in a MUCH better way what Superman should be. In Man of Steel, superman might as well have been a US marine. Sure, he's "at odds" with the military, but only insofar as to show them he's not theirs to command.

His fights are more or less without thought for the surroundings and the final scene where he kills Zod is the polar opposite of what Superman should be.

Superman is an extremely boring superhero. He is extremely powerful (to the point that nothing can really be a threat to him if we consider him to have at least a BIT of intelligence) and he has no "dark passanger" like Bruce Waynes paranoia.

The most interesting thing about Superman (if you want to study him as a character instead of having him smash buildings) is that he IS in fact an alien and is completely separate from humanity. This, combined with Clark Kent being sort of Supermans critique on humanity (I fail to remember who pointed that out to me) is what can be used to make him interesting.

The only other thing he has to do, is be a great example. In short, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CuJ08nwJpA

This little trailer is the PERFECT image of what Superman should be. He should be the one who always does the right thing. He should be the one that always tries to find the peaceful solution. Who gives people a second chance. Who makes us be better than what we thought we could be. THAT is his most important superpower. The power to show us exactly how far we could go if we aim for his standards.

Man of Steel...MEH. The way they handled him was doomed to fail imo. Sure, if Zod was thrown into the phantom zone again that would be stupid as well, since Zod was clearly the superior strategist and should know his technology a lot better than Supes. By killing Zod they MAY set up the character arc for Supes that molds him into what he should be...but I doubt they can pull it off, and we still have to deal with Man of Steel as a stand-alone set-up movie.

Thinking about the next Man of steel/Batman...Batman actually might come off as the GOOD guy in that duo. He has not killed anyone as far as I can remember. Imagine that. Batman being the "nice one". Its WROOOOOOOOOOOONG.

If Superman is willing to go to the extent to take a life, nothing is stopping him from continuing down the rod to becoming earths supreme ruler. Because "he knows best". Or "he has to protect us from ourselves".


Captcha: Goody two shoes. EVEN YOU GET IT CAPTCHA! THATS SUPERMAN!

PS: Sure, the effects were brilliant and the action pretty awesome but so was Pacific Rims, and that was a fucking train-wreck of a movie.

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.

You see Zack actually explained that in an interview. He doesn't believe in this kind of "Meta" story telling. Established "rules" for characters that the audience inherently knows but the character or story themselves don't explain the rules. I found it ballsy but I understood.

Zod was never going to stop and since this is the first time a supervillain had appeared in their world. No special jails or prisons built specifically for containing them. Thus unless Superman wasn't constantly by Zod's side knocking him unconscious they were screwed. Therefore Superman really didn't have any other choice.

This is absolute bullshit (what Zack says). If he wants to tell a story where the character does something fundamentally different than what the actual character would ever do, he should write a story about ANOTHER CHARACTER.

The entire point of telling a story about a specific character is to USE that character. If you're going to change him fundamentally....MAKE UP SOMEONE ELSE.

Its like saying: So, I got this idea for a new batman movie. Lets get rid of the gadgets, they are so old. Also, his parents dont die. He grows up in a happy home and hey, lets make him a twin for laughs. What if he's a soldier instead of a superhero? Or a soldier IN SPACE!

Thats not Batman! Why are you making that story! Make a new character!

 

[DoPo]

Oh goodie - you are complaining about the single most defining feature of the Superman movies that is constantly being picked on all the time right down to this day by pretty much anybody who cares to mention Superman 2. So how is this working out for you then?

It's not JUST that. There's other stuff too. The whole "render objects weightless just by touching them instead of having actual super strength" thing is a good example.

Which is also the most oft cited example of "comic book physics". So I don't get your point - people aren't complaining about...the things they...complain the...most about? You can see how confusing this sounds, right?

No, they all are. Those things did not happen by accident. People were paid a lot of money to make those things happen. Writers had to determine Kal-El's age and then script dialogue to exposit it; props and effects had to be created for the I-beams, and a crew had to spend time setting up the camera to be beneath Henry Cavill and pointing up at an angle that would create the illusion that something whose weight was in front of him was at a downward angle behind him; people had to rig a harness to make him float out into space, and when the actor held his arms out to the side, the director had to coach him on how to do it right. Further, they almost definitely did multiple takes of all of these things. They were included with a purpose.

I just don't understand your basis for dismissing these things.

My basis for dismissing them is that not a single one of them has anything to do with Jesus

And this is an outright lie, of course. How exactly can you say in a straight face that a dude that is 33 years old and ready to die for humanity is NOT a thinly veiled allegory for Jesus is beyond me. Thing that is reinforced by Jesus-y imagery, too. The only way to make it more obvious would be if people started seeing Superman's face on toast.

 

[King Aragorn]

Yep i'm completely serious. The one people go on about, the Harvey Dent one and how they didn't just throw that shit at Joker, there was a huge public scene made out of the whole ordeal, it was at a different time and Joker was found by the SWAT team. The whole ferry thing? it would be an obvious cover up, but Batman? people would have bought it.

Also when it comes to breaking the cardinal rule: that isn't a bad thing, it's actually a good thing. Superman does break his rule in some stories, and it's a big deal. Entire story arcs are made out of that one event, but the problem here is how the aftermath of the neck snap is handled.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

Yep i'm completely serious. The one people go on about, the Harvey Dent one and how they didn't just throw that shit at Joker, there was a huge public scene made out of the whole ordeal, it was at a different time and Joker was found by the SWAT team. The whole ferry thing? it would be an obvious cover up, but Batman? people would have bought it.

Also when it comes to breaking the cardinal rule: that isn't a bad thing, it's actually a good thing. Superman does break his rule in some stories, and it's a big deal. Entire story arcs are made out of that one event, but the problem here is how the aftermath of the neck snap is handled.

What most people forget is that Superman broke his 'cardinal rule' when he fought Zod and friends in the original movie (the Donner cut makes it more obvious) and it wasn't a big deal or even mentioned. He's also unapologetically killed all sorts of other enemies, even in the cartoon series. He only doesn't kill human enemies because they'd fall under U.S jurisdiction.

 

[JimB]

I just don't understand your basis for dismissing these things.

My basis for dismissing them is that not a single one of them has anything to do with Jesus.

Okay, I'll bite. What do they have to do with, then?

 

[xshadowscreamx]

I liked the movie, I did don't think it was that grim, I have seen plenty of grim movies like 'martyrs'. There was always hope in this movie. My points are pretty much angry joes points.

 

[DoPo]

I just don't understand your basis for dismissing these things.

My basis for dismissing them is that not a single one of them has anything to do with Jesus.

Okay, I'll bite. What do they have to do with, then?

Duh, isn't the answer obvious? It's "not-Jesus". They are all references to not-Jesus. And you know what the name of not-Jesus is? The antichrist. So yes - it is clearly evident now - Superman is Satan. What did you thing the S on his chest stands for?

 

[JimB]

I just don't understand your basis for dismissing these things.

My basis for dismissing them is that not a single one of them has anything to do with Jesus.

Okay, I'll bite. What do they have to do with, then?

Duh, isn't the answer obvious? It's "not-Jesus". They are all references to not-Jesus. And you know what the name of not-Jesus is? The Antichrist. So yes--it is clearly evident now--Superman is Satan. What did you think the S on his chest stands for?

That's funny, and I'm actually going to use that joke the next time I get a chance, but I'd still like to hear if Doublegee has an actual answer other than "Nope!"

 

[KazeAizen]

it definitely sunk an otherwise good movie Frozen

Opinions will be opinions but honestly your going to try and discredit Frozen? Disney's greatest triumph since The Lion King? I think you are selling that one short. I'm not responding to your next reply.

 

[Zontar]

The Lion King sucks WAAAAY more than people want to admit...

THANK YOU. Every time I try to tell someone this I keep getting flak. People talk about how great that movie is all the time without giving any actual reasons why. Hell, have you see the reactions people who make reviews that are negative about it are? You'd think it was a religion or something.

 

[JimB]

I'm curious to know, what are your complaints against the Lion King? Apart from hating "Hakuna Matata" with every fiber of my being and thinking it was really unfortunate they cast two different white people to play Simba, I quite like it.

 

[Meinos Kaen]

Huuu, why isn't there an option to say 'I saw it and I hated it'? This way you make it sound like only people who did not see it could hate Man of Steel. Believe, it's not like that.