The Big Picture: The Big Letdown

[Dastardly]

The Big Letdown

MovieBob gives us a spoiler laden glimpse as to why Man of Steel was a letdown.

Watch Video

I still have to disagree, in a way.

I'm not disappointed by this movie, because I don't view it as done badly. I view it as incomplete. And I think that's by design.

Most Superman movies, or superhero movies for that matter, try to get the origin story done in the first movie. The second movie then "challenges everything we know" about that hero, and the third movie is some big showdown that firmly establishes our hero's supremacy after his "greatest challenge ever." (And then the greedy fourth movie does something stupid and ridiculous)

In this case, though, I think the folks behind this movie recognize that Superman large is origin story. After he's established, everything is either just "being Superman," or it's outlandish attempts to provide believable threats to the guy who has all the superpowers. So, with that in mind, I think they're eschewing the traditional trilogy structure.

I think what we're getting is a three-part origin story. It's not super interesting to watch Superman spend two movies just... being Superman. Being super strong and super noble and super kind and super "good." He's boring at that point. Yet all the Superman material seems to rush to that point -- "Yeah, yeah, Krypton, farm, Metropolis, SUPERMAN!!!"

We're being given a longer, more detailed view of how Superman became those things. In this first movie, we're seeing the first few parts of Joseph Campbell's monomyth, the Departure: the call and the refusal, as Clark wrestles with hiding his powers and avoiding the world... while secretly saving it here and there.

And then we see the "supernatural aid" step, when he begins to dig up information about his past. This leads to the "crossing the first threshold" phase, when he reveals himself and steps up to fight Zod... but then we find ourselves in the "belly of the whale" phase -- something occurs that is going to set Clark (now Superman) up for his metamorphosis. He kills Zod.

Superman doesn't kill. Not the Superman we know now. It's just a thing he doesn't do, because... reasons. Well, now we're seeing deeper into that. He doesn't kill, because he did once, and it happened to be one of the last surviving members of his entire species, and it's a burden he carries with them.

Superman is, at least in large part, a set of principles with a set of powers. Usually, the powers get all the focus and the principles are just assumed. Now we're getting to see him earn those principles, and the conviction that would make them truly super principles.

And that's all. That's where we're left at the end of this movie -- Superman is ready for the next phase, but not entering it yet. He isn't entirely Superman yet, as his origin story is not yet complete. This isn't like the Dark Knight Trilogy -- the rise and fall of a hero. This is just an extended rise. Give it time.

 

[LazyAza]

I definitely agree with Bob, while their were "elements" and "parts" of this movie I really enjoyed they were all the superficial "this looks cool" stuff and almost nothing regarding story, characters, plot, dialogue, whatever was done in anyway that was competent. This wasn't a SuperMan movie, it was gloomy angry man fights other gloomy angry man the movie. It's DragonballZ without the heart, PowerRangers without the camp. A big cgi and special effects budget doesn't make up for complete failure in all other departments. The bayformer movies demonstrate this better than any other modern big budget movie series and I'd easily throw man o stupid in to their category as well. A film based on material it doesn't understand at all with a cynical awful opinion of its various elements and not caring at all for what made it good.

 

[Kittyhawk]

I usually agree with Bob. However, not this time. I no longer care for its surely by now written in stone that impossible princess fanboys will never be pleased, so next time DC just don't bother doing any movies. Like a film one minute, dislike it the next because it misses your high expectations up on your Superman cloud. You know what, most of the people who watched MoS, didn't give two f**ks about comic book bs minutiae, they just wanted to be entertained and that's what many got.

Don't know about others but I enjoyed MoS. It filled the summer nicely for me alongside Pacific Rim. The DBZ style fights were cool and great referencing, since DBZ is nothing but a japanese retelling of Superman/Journey to the East tale anyway. Why do people find it so hard to just kick back and enjoy a film, than questioning and nitpicking? Its all this same bs fanboy nitpicking that's also winding up the Ben Affleck/Batman stuff. Kinda sick of it all.

Sometimes, fans of anything can whine and moan too much. Get the crows out to pick at the carcass, that we all built up and fattened up in MoS before the kill. If that's the case, then we never deserved MoS being made at all. You want it your way, then go shoot and make your own Superman films.

Perhaps its also a case of DC comic fans abuse with stories, over many years that got some so bitter, that anything different than their Superman ideal feels like nothing they can adjust to.

 

[MarsProbe]

Now, I'll use the following quote, but this goes to all who are sharing this sentiment in the above comments:

the harping on the same movies over and over again is sort of making him harder and harder to watch.

Then don't.

These videos are a way for Bob to share his personal opinion, a fact he makes sure to mention often in the videos themselves.

All of you, complaining about his opinions or fixations being grating... Why are you watching his videos then?

Because if he has every right to harp on his fixations over and over again then we have every right to harp on this stupid redundant complaining over and over again.

Yes but if you don't like the guy discussing his opinions then why watch a show specifically for him to discusshis opinions. It's like going into a pizza place and then complaining about the lack of chinese food.

Because maybe you want to expose yourself to some opinions that differ from your own, to see where other people are coming from. Even though somebody like Bob may be totally wrong about the recent Star Trek movies (Bob is totally wrong about the recent Star Trek movies) it's still interesting to find our why they're wrong. Also, wouldn't going into a pizza eatery and then complaining about the lack of chinese food be more akin to watching an opinion filled video such as this and then complaining that Bob didn't spend enough time talking about the supercontinents? I know when I go into a video about why a particular film is lacking (also wahjjabramsisruiningeverythingwah) I'm gong to be sorely disappointed if I don't get the potted history of Earths continental drift.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I liked the film, I know it has some problems, but it was an origin film and I have found most of them have trouble finding their feet. In the next film, if they have him learn from his mistakes in the first, then you could have a really good sequel.

Spoiler: I know it was mentioned in the video, but just in case.

Him killing Zod seemed like something painful to him, the battle was long and hard against a foe who was trained to be a fighter as well. I get the impression he felt it was either kill him or he'd lose due to exhaustion, that family would die and then he probably would have too.

 

[JimB]

I like how a city being destroyed is suddenly 9/11 symbolism.

You're missing the point. Buildings falling down amid clouds of dust while people topple from the windows to fall hundreds of feet to their deaths just ahead of the collapsing masonry is what makes it 9/11 symbolism.

 

[daxterx2005]

got you book bob, enjoying it thus far.

 

[CroutonsOfDeath]

Decent episode, but I will admit I was kind of hoping for a new topic this week. You've talked about this flick enough I think. If you dedicate another episode or article about it, you'll officially be beating a dead horse methinks.

 

[Pyrian]

Batman and Superman movies live and die not on Batman or Superman, but on their villains. And Zod was absolutely fantastic in Man of Steel. If Superman wasn't quite what you wanted - who cares? In these films, it's the bad guy.

This is in complete contrast to, say, the Iron Man movies, where the main character is interesting and the only villain worth mentioning was a red herring.

 

[Yuuki]

By the end of Man Of Steel I had just lost all interest with the sheer scale of all the destruction that Superman vs Zodd's fight was causing. I would be willing to bet THOUSANDS died as a result of so many buildings getting toppled/collapsed, and then Superman finally decides to kill Zod (you know, something he could have done at the very beginning) to save a family of 4 people. 4 people! I just can't get over that, sorry.

All Superman does in Man Of Steel is roar like a bear and punch things i.e. If that's all people wanted then I guess they'll be satisfied. But all that talk about "symbol of hope" etc from his original parents turned out to mean absolutely nothing, showing flashbacks of his childhood meant nothing, it all boiled down to an hour of watching big structures getting smashed. No charisma, no humor, no nothing.

Whoever was impressed by Man Of Steel, your standards are pretty low.

 

[Jabbawocky]

Don't worry people Amazing Spider-Man 2 comes out next summer. We'll be able to see how Bob doesn't like that film series all over again, just because it doesn't match the version of the character he likes.

 

[PunkRex]

Man of Steel is great.

Great characters.
Great score.
Great action.
Great visuals.
Great art style.

Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

I didn't know what to expect from the film so I went in and thought it was amazing, 3rd favourite superhero movie EVER. Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers, because when you get down to it, Man of Steel inspired me, it felt inspiring and said some really interesting and deep things about society in general.

Food for thought: Clark is reading Plato's Republic at one point in the film, this subtley links into the "failure" of Kypton as a Platonian society in the film, exemplified by Zod. Very clever stuff. But obviously no, it needed brighter colours and more comedy so it was a failure!!

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Look man, the film wasn't that bad, Movie Bob said as much.

It had alot of good stuff but the first Spiderman film did the whole 'how normal folk react' better without needing a bunch of brooding shots of the MC just drifting there, be it in space or the ocean.

The characters were sort of 50/50 for me. Zod was great, I loved him at the end when he had nothing left and just went bat shit on Superman but his awesome was offset by Jon Kent and his constant 'wut?' philosophy. Cavil did a good job but the rest of the cast barely got a word in, which is fine, it's his movie but alot of the time they could have used to flesh them out seemed squandered on yet another lonely shot of Superman. Yes, we get it, he feels different and cut off from everyone else.

The action was pretty good, it's nice to have a film going for realism without shaky cam but it zoomed in WAY to close.

The score was good, no duh it's Hans Zimmer but I don't remember any individual pieces like I did 'Elysium' or 'Time'.

The visuals I have no quarm with, Snyders stuff always looks good, despite me tiring of the lonely shots of Superman they always looked great.

And the art style was really interesting to, the design of Kryton was pretty cool as was all their gear and tech, granted we never got more than a quick glimpse of most of it and maybe the audience could have had abit of time to relate and get to know Kal-El as he learn't about it but not the end of the world... at least until the terra-forming manchine arrives.

The reason i'm going on is that alot of 'Man of Steel' fans seem to have this idea that because the movie tried so hard to be deep and meaningful it's some how better than alot of, for example, Marvels stuff which largly just seems to be enjoying itself. Hell, I agree to some extent, it annoyed me when people were constantly complaining that it just didn't seem to be very comic book and that it should have had more fun, as you said 'we have the Avengers already' if DC wants to try going for the deeper route than thats fine but this doesn't mean that Marvels films have nothing outside of the fun stuff.

Saying 'Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers' comes across as real aloof and just kind of bitter.

Superman man was good but there's more to depth than a bunch of slow shots at nice angles.

What you said about the Plato ref was interesting though, I had real beef with that when I first saw it in the film, like they were trying to show how much better he was than us with some shallow visual but you say it was actually referancing the ideals of the characters, so I guess I was wrong there.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

All I really got from this and Linkara's recap of Man of Steel and basically everyone's recap of Man of Steel that was a huge comic fan was that they didn't like Superman's portrayal of it.

... Honestly, I can see where they're coming from, but only as a person who might be a fan of a specific character/franchise and doesn't want to see it bastardized or handled in such a manner that it doesn't resemble its source material. Subjectively, I can't stand Halo 4 because I feel that the way it took the Halo franchise is contrary to literally everything that was established about it up to that point, in both characters, setting, and gameplay, but objectively, it's alright. Its gameplay, while a bit broken, is still pretty polished and enjoyable, and a fan of Halo 4 who knows a lot more about the new Forerunner lore than I do explained some of the murkier aspects and gave me more of an appreciation for 343i's work. However, I still have disdain for Halo 4.

Why? Because it's not the Halo 4 I wanted. It's not the Halo I wanted. It's the same with MovieBob, Linkara, and most other people that have gripes with Man of Steel not from a technical aspect, but from its writing and its direction. This is a good effort from everyone involved, but this isn't their Superman, and it's essentially a betrayal to what they love. They can't be objective about it because it goes against everything they love.

And, unlike Linkara, at least MovieBob goes over the things that Man of Steel did right and he does try to be objective about it, even though you can still see a hint of bias in his analysis of it. That's just it, though; he can't separate his bias from it because this matters a lot to him, more than the more casual viewer. A lot of people walked away from Man of Steel happy because they can accept the changes to the Superman mythos, something that these critics can't.

To explain this in a manner that more people might understand, imagine if that old Super Mario Bros. Movie, the one that basically didn't resemble the games at all, was legitimately good. Like, it had Oscar-worthy acting and its special effects and cinematography made Star Wars and Space Odyssey: 2001 blush, but everything it changed was STILL changed. Objectively, it'd be a fantastic film, but you guys probably wouldn't like it because it wasn't Mario anymore. It changed so much and went in such a different, jarring direction that, even though it's one of the greatest things since canned bread, you simply can't like it because it's simply not the Mario you're familiar with. And people that don't know shit about Mario will love the film, simply because they don't have that inherent bias that others have.

And there's really no changing it. I just hope, though, that MovieBob will get over it, since it's starting to get repetitive here.

 

[zumbledum]

heh good ol bob , showing us again the full breadth of the meaning opinions are like arseholes , our own tend to be important to us and others dont really want yours shoved in their faces.

this site could really do with a movie reviewer or critic so tired of bob's personal diatribes on everything that isnt made to his enshrined ideal.

 

[duchaked]

I don't think it was a let down. I actually felt a lot more from this movie than say...Amazing Spider-Man. I thought that movie was an actual let down in that I really didn't want to see more from the characters and their world, but after MoS I was like wow...okay I want to see more of this.

But they're gonna be putting Batman in the next one so I was like never mind haha...

 

[ellers07]

Man of Steel is great.

Great characters.
Great score.
Great action.
Great visuals.
Great art style.

Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

I didn't know what to expect from the film so I went in and thought it was amazing, 3rd favourite superhero movie EVER. Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers, because when you get down to it, Man of Steel inspired me, it felt inspiring and said some really interesting and deep things about society in general.

Food for thought: Clark is reading Plato's Republic at one point in the film, this subtley links into the "failure" of Kypton as a Platonian society in the film, exemplified by Zod. Very clever stuff. But obviously no, it needed brighter colours and more comedy so it was a failure!!

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Thank you!

I was beginning to think I had seen a different movie than everyone else. Man of Steel was a very good movie. If there are certain aspects that Bob or someone else didn't care for, I get that. If it wasn't what someone had envisioned it should be, that's fine, but to dismiss it completely seems unfair. It reintroduced the character in a new way and finally escaped from the shadow of the Christopher Reeve films. It left us in a place that could make for some great films in the future.

For me, Iron Man 3 was the bigger let down. It was a good movie, but I was disappointed by the treatment of the Mandarin. Now don't get me wrong, Kingsley played it well and it was amusing in its own right, but it wasn't the Mandarin. I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed by Marvel sacrificing one of its characters like that. Up to this point, they've been so respectful (as much as they can in a movie) of their characters and I hope this isn't a new trend for them.

I generally agree with Bob or I can at least see where he's coming from, but Man of Steel, I think he's way off the mark.

 

[Lilani]

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Nowhere in this video did Bob even bring up the Avengers. This was all about DC and its recent failures.

And as a person who is unfamiliar with the source material of both the Marvel and DC universes, I have to say Man of Steel is incredibly shallow in what it presented. At the end of all the Marvel movies, I feel like I understood the characters. I got why Tony Stark was Iron Man. I got why Rogers was Captain America. I got why Thor was Thor, I got why Romanov was the Black Widow, I got why Barton was Hawkeye.

Note I'm saying why, not how. At the end of Man of Steel, I understood how he was Superman, but I didn't know why. There wasn't a character there. I feel like they were going somewhere with his whole childhood of having to deal with lots of noises and such, but all of that perceived empathy and self-sacrifice they tried to imbue in him was completely absent in the final act. All that collateral damage, all those people killed in the wake of their fight, and he didn't even try to lead them away to a more remote location. He was supposed to be some sort of embodiment of all humanity should be, yet he himself forgot all about that in favor of finishing up his fistfight.

That made no sense to me. And at the end when he killed Zod, it didn't even occur to me that he would find that to be such a problem. Again, I knew next to nothing about Superman going into this movie. I had no idea he was so against killing his enemies. So when Zod dies, I was just wondering why Supes was so torn up about it. For a moment, I wondered if it was all the carnage around him finally sinking in. It wasn't until later when I watched Bob's review that I realized killing wasn't something he normally did.

I also felt like Lois's presence was completely unnecessary. Hell I can't even remember what exactly she contributed to the film's events--is there anything that literally wouldn't have happened without her? I mean, when she spots him in that glacier, he was already there. All she did was witness what happened on that ship, she didn't actually contribute anything. And then when she's locked up with him in that military base, the things he said to her he could have said to anyone else. In fact, he probably would have said them to anyone else, because he was completely in control of the situation. She doesn't do anything to help him that couldn't have been accomplished by anyone else, she doesn't aid in any amount of character development, all she seems to do is trigger exposition. She talks to Supes because someone needs to get him to talk about himself. She talks to his mother because someone needs to get her to talk about Supes. Her presence could have been replaced by a few flashbacks and a couple of military interrogators.

If there's another lesson to be learned by the Avengers here, it's that Man of Steel didn't use everything it put out on the table. In the Avengers, everybody is there for a reason, and everybody has an influence on the story's outcome. I was a bit disappointed that Natalie Portman didn't appear in the Avengers, especially since Pepper got at least a few moments on screen, but later I realized she didn't really have to be there, and that's where the film's strength was. It was dealing with a lot of strong characters, but it made sure every one of them got used. And in order for that to happen, there couldn't be any unnecessary characters to hold them down.

Lois and the Daily Planet crew were only there because it was decided they couldn't have a Superman film without them, so they kept them in there. But the story was not structured around their presence, they amounted to little more than window dressing. And it's not that they couldn't have found some way for them to influence the story, they just didn't. It apparently wasn't high enough on their priority list, somehow they decided that simply having them exist within the world was "good enough." Having the Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers movie isn't awesome because the Black Widow and Hawkeye are members of the Avengers. It's awesome because they're in the movie, and they do awesome stuff.

So that's my general problem with Man of Steel. The film didn't do anything meaningfully or consistently enough for me to feel like I understand Clark Kent or Kal El by the end of it. Whatever points it set itself up to make were sabotaged later by other parts of the film.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I will give Man of Steel one thing in how it changed the (cinematic) version of the character: it decoupled Superman from America (albeit in very blunt matter).

As I noted long ago on this site [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.178046-More-Dark-Knight-Talent-Arrives-to-Save-Superman#5148153], the image of Superman as the embodiment of America's moral and strengths means that a movie in the vein of the original comic or prior movies just wouldn't work in a world where people look at the US as coming down from decades of partying and arrogance. The earnestness that Bob wants to see doesn't represent the US today, now suspicious of its own power and what it has become.

Do I think they could have done it in a better manner than having him literally chuck a drone at a general in an obviously tacked-on scene? Of course, but they at least tried.

Which is pretty much where I sit. I liked Man of Steel, and I honestly wasn't expecting the happy-go-lucky tone of the 50's original or the Adventure Camp leanings of the Animated Universe series. I didn't need Comics-verse Superman's increasingly convoluted storyline either - so Man of Steel was largely what I was expecting it to be. It has its flaws, of course (such as how quickly the whole Lois Lane issue is brushed under the rug and the annoying call-backs to Christian iconography) but it still is my favourite portrayal of the character to date. I'll also admit that it's a great technical deconstruction of the character - but not so much a compelling origin story.

I can't always agree with Bob, after all.

 

[deathzero021]

Ugh I really hope this is the end of this. This video says nothing new about the movie that he himself hasn't already said. I get it, you didn't like it, so what? You already released enough videos about this. I think that's enough. It doesn't matter that I completely agree, I just can't stand repetition.

 

[Jacco]

Zach Snyder looks like Mark Ruffalo.

Also, David Goyer is a hack and I blame him for this movie being what it was.