Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel'

[Buddy Ackerman]

Toddly, thanks for that. I didn't have the same experience with the film that you did (it's a solid 4/5 for me) but I loved reading it, especially regarding the passion/nostalgia for 'motion pictures' and how that affected your viewing. It's a feeling I can empathise with and, even if I didn't have it with Man of Steel, know what it feels like and you nailed it.

[Batman1980]

Toddly, I do believe that was the first time I've ever agreed 100% with one of your posts. So many people slamming Zack Snyder's best ever Superman movie and why? Well some of them legitimately dislike Snyder's style of film-making and I can respect that. Others though, the ones that refuse to accept this version of him, which to me is the closest we've gotten to a true adaptation of Superman to the big screen, those ones bother me a bit. Oh well, I absolutely loved it and I imagine I always will.

[Irrob]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Just saw the film today for the first time. This is a 5 out of 5 star superhero movie. I can't even remember the last time I was so upset with most critics. Here are my thoughts:

If an art-house film from directors like Jean-Luc Goddard, David Lynch, or Wong Kar Wai gets ripped apart for a lack of story, nonexistant character development, poor dialogue, and unbalanced structure, the criticism is ignored and is probably even considered more respectfully pretentious because no one else "gets" these films and its exclusive connection to these types of films are regarded in top 100 film lists and are continuously praised by critics. For some reason, it's "not accepable" to reavulate films over a period of time (it's critic-review peer pressure more or less). Pretentious films seem to be immune from being dated or re-graded. If you don't "get the film," it's because you can't understand the film and its supposed multiple meanings or symbolisms, and anyway you just don't get that the movie is overall an "experience of cinema." So once again, if an art-house film has lacking basics (story, acting, cast chemistry, structure, etc.), the criticism of these basic elements can be ignored, no matter how much one can nitpick it apart....but for some strange reason, a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster film doesn't get that free pass. Sure it's impressive to make an impressive movie with a low budget, but an extremely expensive big-budget blockbuster film has every right to be graded on experience too. Just because more money was spent (or wasted, however you want to look at it), it doesn't mean that the mainstream film should have more pressure than a low-budget cheap film. There are awesome low-budget movies and expensive big-budget films that can give an experience.

I understand that not everyone can like a film, but Man of Steel is a motion picture experience. Not only mainstream movies are manufactured nowadays, but also art-house films (To the Wonder, recently). Most movies released every weekend are pretty entertaining but are still nonetheless "meh movies" (Iron Man 3). With technology making things "easier" (more digital and less on film, more CGI and less old school special effects), movies do seem more manufactured now. So there are very few films nowadays that feel like a good old-fashioned motion picture (think Spielberg of the 1980s and early 90s). Because movies are so manufactured nowadays (generic photoshopped posters don't help as well), so many B-movies from the 1980s are now considered "classics" because it was the decade before the late 1990s that started making manufactured films. Motion picture basically equals "magical movie experience." We all know that Superman the Movie, Star Wars, Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. were considered motion picture experiences. What were the recent motion picture experiences? The Matrix was a motion picture. Avatar was a motion picture. The Artist was a motion picture. The two new Star Trek films were motion pictures. The Nolan Batmans were motion pictures...and now Man of Steel (along with Star Trek Into Darkness). A movie like Silver Linings Playbook is a good movie with a great story and plenty of character development, but it's no memorable motion picture. It's just going to be another "Terms of Endearment"-type film - popular during its time but pretty much forgettable over time.

So, yes Man of Steel can be nitpicked for its supposed lack of story, too much action, and not being a clone of slapstick Donner Superman, and sure, there are people that don't like the film, but Man of Steel is still a superhero masterpiece motion picture. Man of Steel ties with the Nolan Batmans as being the best superhero movies ever made. I have enjoyed all the Superman flicks over the years (I hated Superman Returns and Superman 4 when I saw them in the theaters, but I can now appreciate both of them. I used to think Superman 3 was good but now it's pretty awful besides having some of the best scenes (drunk Supes versus Clark Kent). I was never a fan of Superman in the comic books or the cartoon (he's only bad-ass in final episode of Justice League Unlimited). For anyone who's seen how Superman has evolved the past 50 years, there is old school klutzy Clark Kent "golly gee, let me save your cat" Superman (as perfectly adapted by Richard Donner) and there's also serious Clark Kent Superman (as perfectly adapted by Zach Snyder). How can people ignore these two types of Supermen, I just don't get when the two totally different Batmans exist and are accepted as the two different types - early "Gee wiz, Robin" Batman (in the early comics, in the show, and in first movie), and then Batman got all dark in the 1970s.

Superhero movies just keep on getting better and better (1st starting with Blade, 2nd with X-men, 3rd X-men 2, 4th Spiderman, 5th Hellboy, 6th Spider-Man 2, 7th Batman Begins, 8th Iron Man, 9th The Dark Knight, 10th The Avengers, and now 11th Man of Steel.

After watching Man of Steel today and tearing up throughout the whole film (as I do when I see a non-generic, any-genre film that reminds me of motion pictures of the past), I also teared up a bit at the end of the movie because of the criticism it got by critics and user reviews. It has every right to be ripped apart, but I personally thought it was a perfect superhero film and a perfect adaptation of Superman. All the negative stuff that I read (lack of soul, no humor, shaky cam, running into tornado, too much action, neck snap) not only didn't bug me as I expected it to bug me, but all these aspects were just fine. I hate shaky cam, absolutely hate it, but the direction was a work of art - no headaches at all (as I did with the Bourne films). Every element in the film touched me - from the acting, to the action, to the awesome flow of the film (shortest 2+ hour movie I've seen all year). There was more humor in this film than the Batman flicks, tons of people chuckling. The lack of humor criticism is the most outlandish criticism I've heard about Man of Steel. I think it may have to do with the combination of these two strange expectations:
1. Richard Donner's Superman: Superman is old school Superman in the 1970s version. And one of the key points that no one has really made is that if this movie was re-evaluated by critics all over again (meaning, forget that this movie "was an experience in the 1970s), this film could be nitpicked to death just like Man of Steel. Man of Steel is an adaption of more recent Superman comics (post-1970s) - simple as that!
2. Iron Man: Iron Man was the movie to kickstart the Avengers. Iron Man is funny with tons of one-liners. Superman is not Iron Man. People are expecting Man of Steel to kick-start the Justice League movie in the same way that Iron Man did with The Avengers. Man of Steel is a perfect kick-start. Superman is not Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man.

Another weird aspect is complaining about the massive destruction? Has anyone seen a movie since Will Smith's Independence Day? These types of films are all the same - there is collateral damage all the time. It's a movie, not real life. Superman can't save everyone. He couldn't even save Lois Lane from an earthquake in the first film without doing the time reversal trick? And if Superman the Movie was re-evaluated today in which the critic had to ignore its "1970s charm or what an experience it was," do you really think the "time reversal" trick ending would be acceptable in a screenplay? Hell no. So once again, this is a comic book superhero movie - yes, it's going to have massive destruction and buildings falling down. It's visually awesome and not disturbing (and I lived in NYC during 9/11).

I could go on and on praising everything about this movie but it doesn't really matter. The main point is that Man of Steel was a movie that reminded me of films from the past - a real motion picture. If I were in charge of DC's next movies, I would just let Snyder direct them all since he's an expert on putting comic books - 300, Watchmen and now Superman - perfectly on screen.

For a comic book movie, this movie scores a 5 out of 5, especially impressive that Snyder has made the first down-to-earth, interesting, likable Superman out of all the mediums (comic books, cartoons, old movies).

Nice to see another departure from "This movie sucked" or "ermahgerd it's da best ever!" Your post is very thoughtfully measured. I enjoyed reading it.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Themyscira

[/spoiler]

HAHA, Where's my Oscar? Speaking of Oscars, this film should take all the technical Oscar awards and maybe for music. Besides the awesome score, Man of Steel had the best creative use of sound in that terraforming anti-gravity machine that pounded cars and buildings up and down - that was chilling...best alien sound since the alien ship BAWWW sounds in War of the Worlds.

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Toddly, thanks for that. I didn't have the same experience with the film that you did (it's a solid 4/5 for me) but I loved reading it, especially regarding the passion/nostalgia for 'motion pictures' and how that affected your viewing. It's a feeling I can empathise with and, even if I didn't have it with Man of Steel, know what it feels like and you nailed it.

Thanks, which is why all the nitpicking doesn't really matter. When a movie reaches "old school motion picture" level, it doesn't really matter if there are faults in the story, because it's achieved "experience" status. The people nitpicking about Superman being mean, not joking around, killing, or not saving people is just weird for so many reasons:

1. Even though the Richard Donner Superman killed in a G-rated way or left it up to our imaginations, it doesn't even matter because MAN OF STEEL Superman is not old school Superman. The people complaining that Cavill's Superman does not resemble Superman is because he doesn't resemble old school Superman (in which the Donner character is based on). It's like complaining that Christian Bale did not act like Adam West in the Nolan Batman flicks. Has anyone read Superman comics for the past 40 years? I'm not even a huge comic book fan, but I've read a few of the recent popular Superman graphic novels that came out post-1970 and he doesn't act like Donner (old school) Superman. The only one I can think of where he acts "old school" was in the Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman.

2. The Avengers destroyed a city too and all I remember was Hawkeye helping people out of a bus and Captain America helping people held hostage. So if the tone of the movie is full of one-liners, that makes the destruction of a city and off-screen collateral damage okay? I don't remember anyone complaining about all the people that died in the buildings that Hulk wrecked. I don't remember anyone complaining about all the Loki/alien zapping of city folk.

3. People complaining that "it was unlike Superman to do this and that." Isn't this an origin story? The dude was a rookie and the movie showed Superman training to become who he was....Oh yeah, people are forgetting that Richard Donner's Superman had Superboy transform into a man instantly. It takes time to learn how to be "a man." Where was the evolution of Superman's character in Donner's film? He transformed instantly from insecure teenager to confident smirky George Clooney. That's the whole freaking purpose of the movie - not the terraforming or the bad guy's plans. How can people think there was no story? This movie was about "trust, parenting, growing up, bullies, etc." It's the story underneath that counts here.

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Toddly, I do believe that was the first time I've ever agreed 100% with one of your posts. So many people slamming Zack Snyder's best ever Superman movie and why? Well some of them legitimately dislike Snyder's style of film-making and I can respect that. Others though, the ones that refuse to accept this version of him, which to me is the closest we've gotten to a true adaptation of Superman to the big screen, those ones bother me a bit. Oh well, I absolutely loved it and I imagine I always will.

haha, thanks! I agree - I just don't get these people that are in denial of another version of Superman EVEN IN THE COMICS! Once again, critics here seem to be in denial that Superman's character evolved in the comic books the same way Batman did in the comic books. I don't remember, but were there critics of Tim Burton's Batman saying "Michael Keaton's Batman does not resemble the Batman we all know (aka Adam West)."

Originally Posted by Irrob

Nice to see another departure from "This movie sucked" or "ermahgerd it's da best ever!" Your post is very thoughtfully measured. I enjoyed reading it.

thanks, i'm still in shock how the critics are getting away with attacking this film, especially the ones that know nothing about Superman when they compare and contrast this one with Donner's version. I would like those critics to honestly review Donner's Superman again.

Movie critics are in denial of their reoccurring characteristic of having extra love for the films they saw in their youth, which can impair judgment when reviewing newer films, especially reboots, sequels, or remakes of their precious films that blew their minds during childhood.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

HAHA, Where's my Oscar? Speaking of Oscars, this film should take all the technical Oscar awards and maybe for music. Besides the awesome score, Man of Steel had the best creative use of sound in that terraforming anti-gravity machine that pounded cars and buildings up and down - that was chilling...best alien sound since the alien ship BAWWW sounds in War of the Worlds.



Thanks, which is why all the nitpicking doesn't really matter. When a movie reaches "old school motion picture" level, it doesn't really matter if there are faults in the story, because it's achieved "experience" status. The people nitpicking about Superman being mean, not joking around, killing, or not saving people is just weird for so many reasons:

1. Even though the Richard Donner Superman killed in a G-rated way or left it up to our imaginations, it doesn't even matter because MAN OF STEEL Superman is not old school Superman. The people complaining that Cavill's Superman does not resemble Superman is because he doesn't resemble old school Superman (in which the Donner character is based on). It's like complaining that Christian Bale did not act like Adam West in the Nolan Batman flicks. Has anyone read Superman comics for the past 40 years? I'm not even a huge comic book fan, but I've read a few of the recent popular Superman graphic novels that came out post-1970 and he doesn't act like Donner (old school) Superman. The only one I can think of where he acts "old school" was in the Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman.

2. The Avengers destroyed a city too and all I remember was Hawkeye helping people out of a bus and Captain America helping people held hostage. So if the tone of the movie is full of one-liners, that makes the destruction of a city and off-screen collateral damage okay? I don't remember anyone complaining about all the people that died in the buildings that Hulk wrecked. I don't remember anyone complaining about all the Loki/alien zapping of city folk.

3. People complaining that "it was unlike Superman to do this and that." Isn't this an origin story? The dude was a rookie and the movie showed Superman training to become who he was....Oh yeah, people are forgetting that Richard Donner's Superman had Superboy transform into a man instantly. It takes time to learn how to be "a man." Where was the evolution of Superman's character in Donner's film? He transformed instantly from insecure teenager to confident smirky George Clooney. That's the whole freaking purpose of the movie - not the terraforming or the bad guy's plans. How can people think there was no story? This movie was about "trust, parenting, growing up, bullies, etc." It's the story underneath that counts here.



haha, thanks! I agree - I just don't get these people that are in denial of another version of Superman EVEN IN THE COMICS! Once again, critics here seem to be in denial that Superman's character evolved in the comic books the same way Batman did in the comic books. I don't remember, but were there critics of Tim Burton's Batman saying "Michael Keaton's Batman does not resemble the Batman we all know (aka Adam West)."



thanks, i'm still in shock how the critics are getting away with attacking this film, especially the ones that know nothing about Superman when they compare and contrast this one with Donner's version. I would like those critics to honestly review Donner's Superman again.

Movie critics are in denial of their reoccurring characteristic of having extra love for the films they saw in their youth, which can impair judgment when reviewing newer films, especially reboots, sequels, or remakes of their precious films that blew their minds during childhood.

Some of them are actually mad that the House of El emblem represents hope, no it's an S. Well it also stands for the House of El and if Snyder wants that to represent hope, bully on you guys. Some of them wanted it to be campier, it's Snyder, he doesn't really do unnecessary camp or make jokes all the time. 30 minute final fight between Zod and Superman? Didn't feel like one to me but of COURSE it leveled most of a city. It's two freaking Kryptonians in a fight to the death in a major city, it's going to be devastating. Also, his decision to kill Zod? A, he HAS killed before and B, as far as I can tell, they're going to use it as his reason to never want to kill again going forward. Works for me.

[bluearth]

The final battle wasnt 30 minutes long. Zod and Superman fought for just 5 minutes. It may have felt like 30 minutes to those who were extremely disconnected from the film.

Its funny because the Smallville fight is only about 5 minutes too.

In all fairnes many critics did bash the ending fight of The Incredible Hulk (2008). It seems they cannot grasp the spectacle of such powerful beings fighting eachother. If its not dumbed down to a human, live action stuntman level, for example the fight between Superman and the Kryptonians in Superman II, then they simply cant accept what they're seeing. At that point it becomes like a videogame to them and they disconnect from the film. If you never watched any of the animated TV shows or read the comics I guess that can happen.

toddly6666 talked about how fast the movie flew by. I agree. But there are others who said it felt like 9 hours long, and and that they nodded off at times. I just dont get it, its like we watched two different movies. The Tree of Life is one of the most intensely boring and slow moving movies I have ever seen, yet the critics loved it

[bestever23]

I made this for critics who say there's too much mindless action lol

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by bestever23

I made this for critics who say there's too much mindless action lol

It's Kryptonians pounding on each other, while Kal-El may have the human equivalent of a genius level intellect and an eidetic memory, that's not what people go to a Superman movie to see. They go to see Superman pound bad guys, unless it's a human like Lex Luthor.

[bestever23]

I know but critics think its a all out fight fest lol it's a great sci fi movie that builds to the action.

[ChiefSequatchie]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Just saw the film today for the first time. This is a 5 out of 5 star superhero movie. I can't even remember the last time I was so upset with most critics. Here are my thoughts:
1. Richard Donner's Superman: Superman is old school Superman in the 1970s version. And one of the key points that no one has really made is that if this movie was re-evaluated by critics all over again (meaning, forget that this movie "was an experience in the 1970s), this film could be nitpicked to death just like Man of Steel. Man of Steel is an adaption of more recent Superman comics (post-1970s) - simple as that!
2. Iron Man: Iron Man was the movie to kickstart the Avengers. Iron Man is funny with tons of one-liners. Superman is not Iron Man. People are expecting Man of Steel to kick-start the Justice League movie in the same way that Iron Man did with The Avengers. Man of Steel is a perfect kick-start. Superman is not Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man.

Another weird aspect is complaining about the massive destruction? Has anyone seen a movie since Will Smith's Independence Day? These types of films are all the same - there is collateral damage all the time. It's a movie, not real life. Superman can't save everyone. He couldn't even save Lois Lane from an earthquake in the first film without doing the time reversal trick? And if Superman the Movie was re-evaluated today in which the critic had to ignore its "1970s charm or what an experience it was," do you really think the "time reversal" trick ending would be acceptable in a screenplay? Hell no. So once again, this is a comic book superhero movie - yes, it's going to have massive destruction and buildings falling down. It's visually awesome and not disturbing (and I lived in NYC during 9/11).

Boom! Great review!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

[Show spoiler]Just saw the film today for the first time. This is a 5 out of 5 star superhero movie. I can't even remember the last time I was so upset with most critics. Here are my thoughts:

If an art-house film from directors like Jean-Luc Goddard, David Lynch, or Wong Kar Wai gets ripped apart for a lack of story, nonexistant character development, poor dialogue, and unbalanced structure, the criticism is ignored and is probably even considered more respectfully pretentious because no one else "gets" these films and its exclusive connection to these types of films are regarded in top 100 film lists and are continuously praised by critics. For some reason, it's "not accepable" to reavulate films over a period of time (it's critic-review peer pressure more or less). Pretentious films seem to be immune from being dated or re-graded. If you don't "get the film," it's because you can't understand the film and its supposed multiple meanings or symbolisms, and anyway you just don't get that the movie is overall an "experience of cinema." So once again, if an art-house film has lacking basics (story, acting, cast chemistry, structure, etc.), the criticism of these basic elements can be ignored, no matter how much one can nitpick it apart....but for some strange reason, a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster film doesn't get that free pass. Sure it's impressive to make an impressive movie with a low budget, but an extremely expensive big-budget blockbuster film has every right to be graded on experience too. Just because more money was spent (or wasted, however you want to look at it), it doesn't mean that the mainstream film should have more pressure than a low-budget cheap film. There are awesome low-budget movies and expensive big-budget films that can give an experience.

I understand that not everyone can like a film, but Man of Steel is a motion picture experience. Not only mainstream movies are manufactured nowadays, but also art-house films (To the Wonder, recently). Most movies released every weekend are pretty entertaining but are still nonetheless "meh movies" (Iron Man 3). With technology making things "easier" (more digital and less on film, more CGI and less old school special effects), movies do seem more manufactured now. So there are very few films nowadays that feel like a good old-fashioned motion picture (think Spielberg of the 1980s and early 90s). Because movies are so manufactured nowadays (generic photoshopped posters don't help as well), so many B-movies from the 1980s are now considered "classics" because it was the decade before the late 1990s that started making manufactured films. Motion picture basically equals "magical movie experience." We all know that Superman the Movie, Star Wars, Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. were considered motion picture experiences. What were the recent motion picture experiences? The Matrix was a motion picture. Avatar was a motion picture. The Artist was a motion picture. The two new Star Trek films were motion pictures. The Nolan Batmans were motion pictures...and now Man of Steel (along with Star Trek Into Darkness so far this year). A movie like Silver Linings Playbook is a good movie with a great story and plenty of character development, but it's no memorable motion picture. It's just going to be another "Terms of Endearment"-type film - popular during its time but pretty much forgettable over time.

So, yes Man of Steel can be nitpicked for its supposed lack of story, too much action, and not being a clone of slapstick Donner Superman, and sure, there are people that don't like the film, but Man of Steel is still a superhero masterpiece motion picture. Man of Steel ties with the Nolan Batmans as being the best superhero movies ever made. I have enjoyed all the Superman flicks over the years (I hated Superman Returns and Superman 4 when I saw them in the theaters, but I can now appreciate both of them. I used to think Superman 3 was good but now it's pretty awful besides having some of the best scenes (drunk Supes versus Clark Kent). I was never a fan of Superman in the comic books or the cartoon (he's only bad-ass in final episode of Justice League Unlimited). For anyone who's seen how Superman has evolved the past 50 years, there is old school klutzy Clark Kent "golly gee, let me save your cat" Superman (as perfectly adapted by Richard Donner) and there's also serious Clark Kent Superman (as perfectly adapted by Zach Snyder). How can people ignore these two types of Supermen, I just don't get when the two totally different Batmans exist and are accepted as the two different types - early "Gee wiz, Robin" Batman (in the early comics, in the show, and in first movie), and then Batman got all dark in the 1970s.

Superhero movies just keep on getting better and better (1st starting with Blade, 2nd with X-men, 3rd X-men 2, 4th Spiderman, 5th Hellboy, 6th Spider-Man 2, 7th Batman Begins, 8th Iron Man, 9th The Dark Knight, 10th The Avengers, and now 11th Man of Steel.

After watching Man of Steel today and tearing up throughout the whole film (as I do when I see a non-generic, any-genre film that reminds me of motion pictures of the past), I also teared up a bit at the end of the movie because of the criticism it got by critics and user reviews. It has every right to be ripped apart, but I personally thought it was a perfect superhero film and a perfect adaptation of Superman. All the negative stuff that I read (lack of soul, no humor, shaky cam, running into tornado, too much action, neck snap) not only didn't bug me as I expected it to bug me, but all these aspects were just fine. I hate shaky cam, absolutely hate it, but the direction was a work of art - no headaches at all (as I did with the Bourne films). Every element in the film touched me - from the acting, to the action, to the awesome flow of the film (shortest 2+ hour movie I've seen all year). There was more humor in this film than the Batman flicks, tons of people chuckling. The lack of humor criticism is the most outlandish criticism I've heard about Man of Steel. I think it may have to do with the combination of these two strange expectations:
1. Richard Donner's Superman: Superman is old school Superman in the 1970s version. And one of the key points that no one has really made is that if this movie was re-evaluated by critics all over again (meaning, forget that this movie "was an experience in the 1970s), this film could be nitpicked to death just like Man of Steel. Man of Steel is an adaption of more recent Superman comics (post-1970s) - simple as that!
2. Iron Man: Iron Man was the movie to kickstart the Avengers. Iron Man is funny with tons of one-liners. Superman is not Iron Man. People are expecting Man of Steel to kick-start the Justice League movie in the same way that Iron Man did with The Avengers. Man of Steel is a perfect kick-start. Superman is not Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man.

Another weird aspect is complaining about the massive destruction? Has anyone seen a movie since Will Smith's Independence Day? These types of films are all the same - there is collateral damage all the time. It's a movie, not real life. Superman can't save everyone. He couldn't even save Lois Lane from an earthquake in the first film without doing the time reversal trick? And if Superman the Movie was re-evaluated today in which the critic had to ignore its "1970s charm or what an experience it was," do you really think the "time reversal" trick ending would be acceptable in a screenplay? Hell no. So once again, this is a comic book superhero movie - yes, it's going to have massive destruction and buildings falling down. It's visually awesome and not disturbing (and I lived in NYC during 9/11).

I could go on and on praising everything about this movie but it doesn't really matter. The main point is that Man of Steel was a movie that reminded me of films from the past - a real motion picture. If I were in charge of DC's next movies, I would just let Snyder direct them all since he's an expert on putting comic books - 300, Watchmen and now Superman - perfectly on screen.

For a comic book movie, this movie scores a 5 out of 5, especially impressive that Snyder has made the first down-to-earth, interesting, likable Superman out of all the mediums (comic books, cartoons, old movies

).

[ChiefSequatchie]

Originally Posted by ChiefSequatchie

How is someone saying this movie isn't doing well? There were only 11 films that topped the $200 Million (Domestic) mark last year (2012).

If Man of Steel closed after yesterdays earnings it would put it as the #9 overall film last year! All the films listed had at least 5 to 6 months at the Box Office! MOS $116 opening would have put it as the 5th best opening of 2012.

If we are still comparing MOS to IM3. Since yesterday was MOS 14 day at the BO....

In its 14th day MOS did ($4,112,073) compared to IM3 ($3,296,807)!

Now I didn't expect it to really compete with IM3 because it was the wrap-up film of a very successful franchise!

It has blew by "Into Darkness" & "Fast 6"! After making over $6 Mill. Friday it needs less than a $1 Mill. to top "Oz" and move into 2nd behind "IM3"

[MattW]

Hurry up Blu-ray of Man of Steel. I'm getting all versions.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by bestever23

I know but critics think its a all out fight fest lol it's a great sci fi movie that builds to the action.

Ya if your not looking it's pretty much a slug fest, but it's an AWESOME slug fest.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by ChiefSequatchie

It has blew by "Into Darkness" & "Fast 6"! After making over $6 Mill. Friday it needs less than a $1 Mill. to top "Oz" and move into 2nd behind "IM3"

It's possibly going to end up as the movie that makes the second most $ in 2013 and it's already the most successful Superman movie ever which is quite an accomplishment. Really hoping for Avengers type numbers for the sequel so DC gets more serious about bringing their characters to the big screen.

[King Troll]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

It's possibly going to end up as the movie that makes the second most $ in 2013 and it's already the most successful Superman movie ever which is quite an accomplishment. Really hoping for Avengers type numbers for the sequel so DC gets more serious about bringing their characters to the big screen.

Did you forget about hunger games?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by King Troll

Did you forget about hunger games?

Catching Fire will most likely make some serious cheddar BUT I anticipate at least half of that coming in 2014 so the $ it makes this year will most likely not be more than Man of Steel.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by bestever23

I made this for critics who say there's too much mindless action lol

The thing is, the movie is over 2:20.

50+ minutes of repetitive action gets very old. I just hate how Snyder shoots action too

Carry on...

[chris_sc77]

Monsters u. May beat it. Depends on how much despicable me 2 bites into its earnings. And hobbits 2 will almost certainly beat it also

[Smackthatbird]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The thing is, the movie is over 2:20.

50+ minutes of repetitive action gets very old. I just hate how Snyder shoots action too

Carry on...

Yeah, I wouldn't have minded all of the action, but I can't stand Snyder's action shooting, either. That's what killed it for me, mainly.