Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel'

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by pedromc69

Its weird this movies great and sucks at the same time i don't know how to explain it.

I think this video sums up a lot of the feelings of people who had issues with the movie.

Most people who had issues, basically had the same feeling towards the movie.

NSFW due to language.

http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKixEh0541k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

There is a part two to this, but I haven't watched it yet.

[krazeyeyez]

Finally saw this yesterday and left feeling amazed. Went in with high expectations and MOS didn't fail to exceed them. Easily my favorite of the summer and I can't wait to wear the bluray out. This was the superman flick I have been waiting for and hope they go the trilogy route. Would love if they kept lex out of it for once although probably never happen but would love to see brainiac and doomsday or darkseid as the villains this time.

[Stilgar20]

Saw this the day it came out and I got to say, it is the best Superman movie ever. Say what you will about Zack Snyder as a director but I thought he created a beautiful version of the Man of Steel. The visuals were stunning but what I enjoyed more than any other aspect is that the movie focused more on the Clark Kent aspect of Superman. Can't wait to see it again.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

I think this video sums up a lot of the feelings of people who had issues with the movie.

Most people who had issues, basically had the same feeling towards the movie.

NSFW due to language.

http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKixEh0541k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

There is a part two to this, but I haven't watched it yet.

That was really hard to watch. A collage of people who didnt like it trashing the movie? And I stopped watching when one of them suggested Superman be more of a boyscout. What an idiot. I could somewhat stand the endless kissing of Superman Return's butt in that video, but that went too far.

If it really is so bad, so boring, and as dumb as thoe people in that video claim, then why is it the second highest rated summer blockbuster movie on IMDB, only behind Stark Trek Into Darkness?

Obviously the haters are angry fanboys who didnt get their "boy scout" superman or whatever personalized variation existed in their head, and critics who were caught by surprise at how different the film was compared to others in the genre.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by bluearth

That was really hard to watch. A collage of people who didnt like it trashing the movie? And I stopped watching when one of them suggested Superman be more of a boyscout. What an idiot. I could somewhat stand the endless kissing of Superman Return's butt in that video, but that went too far.

If it really is so bad, so boring, and as dumb as thoe people in that video claim, then why is it the second highest rated summer blockbuster movie on IMDB, only behind Stark Trek Into Darkness?

Obviously the haters are angry fanboys who didnt get their "boy scout" superman or whatever personalized variation existed in their head, and critics who were caught by surprise at how different the film was compared to others in the genre.

I really don't understand why you take every criticism that is thrown at this film as a personal attack on your person. You can't take IMDb scores or user RT scores or Cinemascores as the end-all be-all law of film. If that was the case, and if Fast 6 is as bad as you say it is, it wouldn't have a 70% RT meter, or an 86% user approval with a rating of 4.2, or a 7.5 on IMDb. Or Iron Man 3, which you have also bashed, yet has a higher RT score than both Man of Steel or Fast 6, and a Cinemascore of A, compared to Man of Steel's A-. If somebody doesn't like your favorite film, so what? It doesn't make them an idiot for disliking it, and it doesn't make you an idiot for loving it. Again, divisive.

Also, I guarantee you the IMDb score for Man of Steel will continue to decline. I don't see it ever going below a 7, but it will decline the more people vote. It was around an 8.3 when the film first released.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

I really don't understand why you take every criticism that is thrown at this film as a personal attack on your person. You can't take IMDb scores or user RT scores or Cinemascores as the end-all be-all law of film. If that was the case, and if Fast 6 is as bad as you say it is, it wouldn't have a 70% RT meter, or an 86% user approval with a rating of 4.2, or a 7.5 on IMDb. Or Iron Man 3, which you have also bashed, yet has a higher RT score than both Man of Steel or Fast 6, and a Cinemascore of A, compared to Man of Steel's A-. If somebody doesn't like your favorite film, so what? It doesn't make them an idiot for disliking it, and it doesn't make you an idiot for loving it. Again, divisive.

You are an idiot when you go watch a movie about a character, who has been around for 75 years, who has been remade and rewritten and redone and reimagined over and over a thousand times, only to spaz out when you find out the character is changed yet again.

Watch the video. Its not disliking the film, its crapping all over it, while praising Superman Returns in the process. The reviewers in that video also talk down to those who like it. Its not suppose to upset me?

I happen to be in a small minority with my distaste for Fast 6. My dislike for the film goes deep, to the careless writing which I find very disrespectful to the audience. I never hated Iron Man 3, just thought it was extremely disposable and forgettable, yet you have Richard Roeper singing its praises while turning around and giving Man of Steel a C+.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

I really don't understand why you take every criticism that is thrown at this film as a personal attack on your person. You can't take IMDb scores or user RT scores or Cinemascores as the end-all be-all law of film. If that was the case, and if Fast 6 is as bad as you say it is, it wouldn't have a 70% RT meter, or an 86% user approval with a rating of 4.2, or a 7.5 on IMDb. Or Iron Man 3, which you have also bashed, yet has a higher RT score than both Man of Steel or Fast 6, and a Cinemascore of A, compared to Man of Steel's A-. If somebody doesn't like your favorite film, so what? It doesn't make them an idiot for disliking it, and it doesn't make you an idiot for loving it. Again, divisive.

Also, I guarantee you the IMDb score for Man of Steel will continue to decline. I don't see it ever going below a 7, but it will decline the more people vote. It was around an 8.3 when the film first released.

Despite your sensible, level-headed and much-needed contribution, this is still the worst thread on the entire site.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by bluearth

You are an idiot when you go watch a movie about a character, who has been around for 75 years, who has been remade and rewritten and redone and reimagined over and over a thousand times, only to spaz out when you find out the character is changed yet again.

Watch the video. Its not disliking the film, its crapping all over it, while praising Superman Returns in the process. The reviewers in that video also talk down to those who like it. Its not suppose to upset me?

I happen to be in a small minority with my distaste for Fast 6. My dislike for the film goes deep, to the careless writing which I find very disrespectful to the audience. I never hated Iron Man 3, just thought it was extremely disposable and forgettable, yet you have Richard Roeper singing its praises while turning around and giving Man of Steel a C+.

It doesn't make you an idiot when what has changed about the character are your favorite aspects of the character. Aspects that have generally been around for almost every incarnation. I did watch the video. They didn't like the movie. Again, so what? They prefer Superman Returns. So what? They find the writing of Man of Steel to be disrespectful, just as you find the writing of Fast 6 disrespectful. It doesn't make you right and them wrong, or vice versa. You're not going to convince people who didn't like it that the film is amazing, and they're not going to convince you that it's bad. The sooner you realize the film is one of the most subjective art forms out there, and the sooner you stop getting offended just because someone doesn't like your favorite art, the sooner you can start loving the art pieces that you love ever more. You'd be doing yourself a favor.

[DisneyWorld]

Originally Posted by Gate

Despite your sensible, level-headed and much-needed contribution, this is still the worst thread on the entire site.

+1

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

It doesn't make you an idiot when what has changed about the character are your favorite aspects of the character. Aspects that have generally been around for almost every incarnation. I did watch the video. They didn't like the movie. Again, so what? They prefer Superman Returns. So what? They find the writing of Man of Steel to be disrespectful, just as you find the writing of Fast 6 disrespectful. It doesn't make you right and them wrong, or vice versa. You're not going to convince people who didn't like it that the film is amazing, and they're not going to convince you that it's bad. The sooner you realize the film is one of the most subjective art forms out there, and the sooner you stop getting offended just because someone doesn't like your favorite art, the sooner you can start loving the art pieces that you love ever more. You'd be doing yourself a favor.

I dont need you to lecture me buddy. Conversation is over.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by bluearth

I dont need you to lecture me buddy. Conversation is over.

Lol have fun being angry at the MoS "haters".

[Blu Warrior]

Originally Posted by bluearth

Entertaining Video. It has one guy who hated it and one guy who loved it. I wish there were more reviews done like this, instead of just listening to one person hate on it or one person love on it.

How to Fix MAN OF STEEL 2 - YouTube

Why would you like reviews done like this? One is a fat foul-mouthed spaz and the other guy just tries too hard to make a point that the destuction and killing in this movie is justified. Neither are professional critics.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by Blu Warrior

Why would you like reviews done like this? One is a fat foul-mouthed spaz and the other guy just tries too hard to make a point that the destuction and killing in this movie is justified. Neither are professional critics.

I'm asking all reviews like this to have the same type of people reviewing it? Uh, no.

I just wish there were more reviews which featured someone who didnt like a movie and someone who liked it. That way, you get both takes, and you can hear a rebuttal from each side.

How is the destruction not justified? Have you ever seen Superman fight in the animated series? Dozens of skyscrapers and buildings can be quickly leveled. People are making the movie out to be something like Independence Day level of destruction. Its not.

[jamesdevil]

RE: The Destruction.

This being a continuing sticking point is slightly odd to me. I viewed it as completely in line with what the film was trying to convey. This is essentially Superman's first 'day' on the job. He is reckless. He is careless. He isn't the paradigm he will end up being. He doesn't have complete control over his abilities or how to manage it on this scale.

I thought all the action was conveying this (him continually getting just punished by the veteran and more skilled fighter, Faora). It's the first Superman anything where I really got a visceral sense of the speed that would exist in a 'real' Superman battle. One of the things that made the film work for me when everything before it never did.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

RE: The Destruction.

This being a continuing sticking point is slightly odd to me. I viewed it as completely in line with what the film was trying to convey. This is essentially Superman's first 'day' on the job. He is reckless. He is careless. He isn't the paradigm he will end up being. He doesn't have complete control over his abilities or how to manage it on this scale.

I thought all the action was conveying this (him continually getting just punished by the veteran and more skilled fighter, Faora). It's the first Superman anything where I really got a visceral sense of the speed that would exist in a 'real' Superman battle. One of the things that made the film work for me when everything before it never did.

I don't think people have a problem with the destruction itself, from what I've read. It is more that Superman doesn't seem to care about it. Not one look of anguish at the destruction that has been caused. But this is an issue with the writers. Obviously, saving and protecting people wasn't an aspect of Superman they felt was important enough to include - but for a lot of people, that is the most important part of Superman, his heart.

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

I don't think people have a problem with the destruction itself, from what I've read. It is more that Superman doesn't seem to care about it. Not one look of anguish at the destruction that has been caused. But this is an issue with the writers. Obviously, saving and protecting people wasn't an aspect of Superman they felt was important enough to include - but for a lot of people, that is the most important part of Superman, his heart.

yes sir! i agree.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

RE: The Destruction.

This being a continuing sticking point is slightly odd to me. I viewed it as completely in line with what the film was trying to convey. This is essentially Superman's first 'day' on the job. He is reckless. He is careless. He isn't the paradigm he will end up being. He doesn't have complete control over his abilities or how to manage it on this scale.

I thought all the action was conveying this (him continually getting just punished by the veteran and more skilled fighter, Faora). It's the first Superman anything where I really got a visceral sense of the speed that would exist in a 'real' Superman battle. One of the things that made the film work for me when everything before it never did.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

I don't think people have a problem with the destruction itself, from what I've read. It is more that Superman doesn't seem to care about it. Not one look of anguish at the destruction that has been caused. But this is an issue with the writers. Obviously, saving and protecting people wasn't an aspect of Superman they felt was important enough to include - but for a lot of people, that is the most important part of Superman, his heart.

Superman couldn't even take a breath to take a rest from his fight with Zod - the second he was flung through a building, Zod was already on his ass after getting back up. If we are going to nitpick a Hollywood action movie, what's going to make more sense:

1. Stopping the bad guys as soon as possible to prevent more Metropolis deaths.

Or

2. Taking breaks between fighting bad guys to save some people to only find out that the bad guys are killing more Metropolis folks in the meantime?

The Zod/Superman fight is basically an intimate rough brawl with a lot of crap in the way. This isn't your generic "Let's take turns punching each other" fight (like a wait-for-your-turn duel) where after every big punch knocks Zod down and while he's unconscious for a couple seconds, Superman is going to save some people in the spare time, which repeats over and over. The goal is to stop Zod, rather than have big battle moves with "people saving" during unconscious baddie knockdowns.

[Drewbee87]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Superman couldn't even take a breath to take a rest from his fight with Zod - the second he was flung through a building, Zod was already on his ass after getting back up. If we are going to nitpick a Hollywood action movie, what's going to make more sense:

1. Stopping the bad guys as soon as possible to prevent more Metropolis deaths.

Or

2. Taking breaks between fighting bad guys to save some people to only find out that the bad guys are killing more Metropolis folks in the meantime?

The Zod/Superman fight is basically an intimate rough brawl with a lot of crap in the way. This isn't your generic "Let's take turns punching each other" fight (like a wait-for-your-turn duel) where after every big punch knocks Zod down and while he's unconscious for a couple seconds, Superman is going to save some people in the spare time, which repeats over and over. The goal is to stop Zod, rather than have big battle moves with "people saving" during unconscious baddie knockdowns.

You just said pretty much the same as this member from superherohype said:

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Well, let's think about this for a minute.

If Superman had turned his attention away from Zod for even a second, what do you think would have happened?

Zod would have raced off, and killed a bunch of people.

Right?

So, basically, what I'm getting from you is that you felt the film wasn't even violent enough. You actually wanted to force Superman to feel the agony of going to save one person, and then being faced with the reality that his distraction cost the lives of many, many more.

Go get the novel. It might make you feel better. In the book, Clark is very angsty over the death toll, and tries to check for survivors as he's fighting.

And just so you know, Superman did not snap Zod's neck for "just one family". He snapped Zod's neck because he knew without a doubt that Zod was too dangerous to the people of earth. Not just four people...but 7 billion people.

I fail to see how Superman killing Zod (which he does in the comics too, so stop whining that he killed someone) was somehow Clark being heartless.

Just a general note to all fans of comic books:

If you go into a movie with preconceived notions of who and what you think the character should be, prepare to be disappointed.

The movies are not going to retell the same stories over and over. They are going to change the stories, they are going to change the characters, particularly to fit into our current circumstances.

Instead of deciding before you go into a film what your idealized vision would be, allow the creators to share their vision with you. You will be happier for it, and you may even learn to see your beloved characters from a totally new perspective.

[bluearth]

Its funny how the people defending the movie are considered the ones ruining this thread, when those who didnt like it come up with ridiculous premises out of thin air, such as Superman protecting or saving people wasnt included in the film.

Some people just want to hate on the movie because it was tailor made for them, so they exaggerate its shortcomings in effort to hide their bias or inability to accept a different take on the character and genre in general.

[jamesdevil]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

I don't think people have a problem with the destruction itself, from what I've read. It is more that Superman doesn't seem to care about it. Not one look of anguish at the destruction that has been caused. But this is an issue with the writers. Obviously, saving and protecting people wasn't an aspect of Superman they felt was important enough to include - but for a lot of people, that is the most important part of Superman, his heart.

He has tunnel vision. The threat is literally the destruction and enslavement of the entire planet, so thousands (or even millions) is preferable to everyone. It's an impossibility for him to be cautious or careful in that situation especially considering how 'green' he is.