Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel'

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

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

Ha, that's funny! But I would assume most people with any common sense would think that. But then again, audiences think they still like these boring action scenes choreographed like a "let's take turns" RPG role-playing magic game (which was even done in the Superman vs Zod and co in Superman 2). If people are concerned with the "reality" of Superman not being able to save everyone, the "reality" is that the negative occurrences (Zod and co killing innocents as well as a Earth destruction machine activated) don't wait in a queue for each occurrence to happen - it happens all at once.

[jamesdevil]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

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

Instead of deciding before you go into a film what your idealized vision would be, allow the creators to share their vision with you.

Good rule of thumb for any film.

[unsung122212]

With regards to the destruction and death toll:

[Show spoiler] I can actually see the fight in smallville resulting in little to no civilian casualties. Yes, we see Kal and Faora being thrown through walls, but no necessarily demolishing them, besides the wheat tower thing at the beginning when Zod throws Kal into downtown smallville. We see buildings with holes like a car drove thru them, but this doesn't mean people died. Also, the Metropolis fight, the only time when Kal was in Metropolis was after most of the destruction, like 95%, had occurred from the world engine and the military jets shooting missiles and crashing into buildings. The only damage one could blame superman is when he causes the scout ship to crash and then final fight with Zod. These last two things were no more than 8 mins in the film. By that the gravity being fluxed and destroying the city could be responsible for most of the causalites. So, really just how many deaths could superman be blamed for while he himself was fighting the kryptonians. Building falling down occurred before Supes made it to Metropolis.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Exactly.



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.

The problem with the "Superman doesn't have time to think about anything but the fight", is that the writers don't convey that. Would have taken two seconds to show Superman try and save someone, but have Zod use that moment of weakness to pulverize him.

But even with that, it was moments like Superman kissing Lois at Ground Zero that were just big WTF moments. It was like Supes had zero empathy. Does he look around with tears in his eyes at the destruction of his country? Nope. He is too busy making out. Seriously, WTF?!

But as I've said all along, I really feel the writers were too caught up in displaying the strength of Superman that they forgot to display his heart.

[Dispatch Ninja]

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.

I would argue that saving and protecting people was the central core of this version of superman. He saves the kids on the bus, the oil rig workers, a soldier, lois,

[Show spoiler]a family at the end.

He definitely cares about saving people. Even lois says something to clark at the gravesite along these lines:

"But that would mean you would have to stop helping/saving people, and I sense that's not an option for you"

[jamesdevil]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

The problem with the "Superman doesn't have time to think about anything but the fight", is that the writers don't convey that

Except that the stakes are laid out plainly. The destruction of the planet. We shouldn't need hand holding as an audience after that. It would have been needless exposition.

[Afrobean]

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.

I really liked the way they played the dynamic of Superman and Captain Marvel in the animated Justice League show. Superman is usually the "boy scout", but Captain Marvel had that sort of naive idealism, while Superman came across somehow as a jaded cynic... and Superman was ultimately right. And they did this without any out of character behavior. They made Captain Marvel the boy scout and let Superman play the role of the cynic.

Was Superman ever ACTUALLY like that though? A "boy scout", I mean. In his debut, he was a brutal vigilante, willing to break the law to do what he thought was right. In the silver age, he's famous for being a "superdick", constantly treating his friends badly in wacky ways. In the modern age, he's been affected with darkness, having to kill Doomsday and spending a period of time essentially dead himself before coming back rocking long hair. Along the way, he was even portrayed as a misguided puppet of the government in The Dark Knight Returns. When was he this idealized boy scout though? Even in the Reeve films he frequently acted selfishly, especially where it came to Lois. I mean, he tried to give up his powers so that he could be with Lois 24/7 without feeling guilty about wasting his abilities. There are a few places in the Reeve film where he puts up the front of being the boy scout, but if you pay attention, you'd see that he's not really like that. Even in the two dimensional Reeve films, he has more depth than that. I honestly can't even think of any adaptation that has any artistic merit which paints Superman as a flat "boy scout". Smallville, Lois & Clark, Superman the animated series, etc., all give at least a little bit of an edge, a little bit of depth and pathos.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I really liked the way they played the dynamic of Superman and Captain Marvel in the animated Justice League show. Superman is usually the "boy scout", but Captain Marvel had that sort of naive idealism, while Superman came across somehow as a jaded cynic... and Superman was ultimately right. And they did this without any out of character behavior. They made Captain Marvel the boy scout and let Superman play the role of the cynic.

Was Superman ever ACTUALLY like that though? A "boy scout", I mean. In his debut, he was a brutal vigilante, willing to break the law to do what he thought was right. In the silver age, he's famous for being a "superdick", constantly treating his friends badly in wacky ways. In the modern age, he's been affected with darkness, having to kill Doomsday and spending a period of time essentially dead himself before coming back rocking long hair. Along the way, he was even portrayed as a misguided puppet of the government in The Dark Knight Returns. When was he this idealized boy scout though? Even in the Reeve films he frequently acted selfishly, especially where it came to Lois. I mean, he tried to give up his powers so that he could be with Lois 24/7 without feeling guilty about wasting his abilities. There are a few places in the Reeve film where he puts up the front of being the boy scout, but if you pay attention, you'd see that he's not really like that. Even in the two dimensional Reeve films, he has more depth than that. I honestly can't even think of any adaptation that has any artistic merit which paints Superman as a flat "boy scout". Smallville, Lois & Clark, Superman the animated series, etc., all give at least a little bit of an edge, a little bit of depth and pathos.

Excellent points - i couldn't agree more!

Everyone thinks they know Superman just because Superman is probably the most well-known superhero all over the world. But the whole world being aware of a comic book superhero is different from knowing the actual character. Even before I started reading the Superman comic books or watching the Superman animated show/Justice League Unlimited show, I perceived Superman as "Mr. Generic Superhero who only does the right thing and doesn't kill bad guys." It's the equivalent of thinking "Wonder Woman = Female Superman, Flash = really fast guy, Spiderman = high school kid with superpowers who is funny, Batman = superhero with no powers, doesn't kill with guns, and parents were killed, Joker = bad guy who dresses like clown". These basic two-dimensional characteristics are the way that many people perceive these superheroes to be. So people get their expectations disappointed when any of these characters are interpreted seriously and when the screenwriters actually develop their comic book characteristics or give them depth (with these characteristics/behavior/depth sprinkled through tons and tons of comic book issues).

As Afrobean has said, read the damn comic book and you'll see that the Cavill Superman is the most accurate movie Superman as the way he's been presented in years and years of comic books. If you want to watch a Superman that's a representation of the Superman "we don't really know" aka "Mr. Generic Superhero", then go watch the Christopher Reeve movies.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Excellent points - i couldn't agree more!

Everyone thinks they know Superman just because Superman is probably the most well-known superhero all over the world. But the whole world being aware of a comic book superhero is different from knowing the actual character. Even before I started reading the Superman comic books or watching the Superman animated show/Justice League Unlimited show, I perceived Superman as "Mr. Generic Superhero who only does the right thing and doesn't kill bad guys." It's the equivalent of thinking "Wonder Woman = Female Superman, Flash = really fast guy, Spiderman = high school kid with superpowers who is funny, Batman = superhero with no powers, doesn't kill with guns, and parents were killed, Joker = bad guy who dresses like clown". These basic two-dimensional characteristics are the way that many people perceive these superheroes to be. So people get their expectations disappointed when any of these characters are interpreted seriously and when the screenwriters actually develop their comic book characteristics or give them depth (with these characteristics/behavior/depth sprinkled through tons and tons of comic book issues).

As Afrobean has said, read the damn comic book and you'll see that the Cavill Superman is the most accurate movie Superman as the way he's been presented in years and years of comic books. If you want to watch a Superman that's a representation of the Superman "we don't really know" aka "Mr. Generic Superhero", then go watch the Christopher Reeve movies.

Wow, LOL. That's what I've been telling people. Henry Cavill IS the son of Jor-El and Pa Kent. He absolutely nailed the character and I'd be beyond ecstatic if he picked up an Oscar nod for it. I just wish the next films were already here, Snyder has my interest in Superman at an all-time high and it doesn't help that I have the patience of a 2 year old which is probably why I've already seen this film 4 times in theatres.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by bluearth

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?

Some of the reasons why, is because-
1st- Its a superhero movie
2nd- Its got a lot of action(towards the end) that can fry your brain!
3rd- Its Chris Nolan as producer!
4th- Its got a Great Cast!
5th- The anticipation and expectations, which alone pulls crowd, especially Superman fans!

If it was so great either, it wouldn't fall from its first position after the first week. The Dark Knight didn't, because it was a truly Great movie, where more or less everything worked! And I am not one to compare MOS with STM, because they are very different, and belong to different eras and styles of filmmaking.

The film still had great moments, no doubt! But it failed, (in my eyes at least) to be the Super film it promised to be! It was shallow and the depth in the story and character was uneven and scattered. Once Zod entered the city, the movie transformed into a Michael Bay torture-fest!
I sincerely hope they tone down the chaotic violence in the sequel (and I want one), and concentrate more on the characters and in connecting the parts of the story to make it feel like a whole, rather than disconnected!
This is why we like The Dark Knight, not just because Heath Ledger was Great, but because the story was so connected and the branchings so seamless, that you never could get out of the movie! Chris Nolan made us involved in a story as active participants, trying to figure out the next move of the Joker, it kept us in tenterhooks. Man of Steel never could engage me in that extensive way, apart from a few scattered scenes.
In the first half, any single scene they showed Clark in was succeeded by a flashback, which felt forced and not natural! This is because the flashbacks kept coming at regular intervals!
Anyway, as I said, I didn't hate the movie! I certainly enjoyed it in parts, and was very inspired by the message of hope! That's Man of Steel's Strength-
The Hope!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

Does he look around with tears in his eyes at the destruction of his country? Nope. He is too busy making out. Seriously, WTF?!

But as I've said all along, I really feel the writers were too caught up in displaying the strength of Superman that they forgot to display his heart.

Yes this bugged me a lot. The only time we see tears rolling from his cheeks is when he kills ZOD! There was never a "so much power, and I couldn't save so many people" moment! We only see his emotions regarding his family members, not when its about common innocent citizens! I'm sure he cared, but the filmmakers failed to show or deal with that aspect!

Look at Daniel Radcliffe in Deathly Hallows Part 2, when he enters the great hall and sees so many people dead, because of him! He feels for them and retires away to an ampty room. David Yates knew that they had to SHOW, that he cared, that he was heartbroken!
But Zack Snyder failed to show that! Its his lack!

[Batman1980]

I felt like this Superman had the weight of the world on his shoulders, shown by his acts to save people, both as a child and as a man. Just because he wasn't crying while he was fighting in Metropolis doesn't mean he wasn't in pain. Snyder will make it a focal point of the sequel but I imagine that still won't be good enough for the people who wanted Superman to be more emo in this movie.

[Yoku]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Yes this bugged me a lot. The only time we see tears rolling from his cheeks is when he kills ZOD! There was never a "so much power, and I couldn't save so many people" moment! We only see his emotions regarding his family members, not when its about common innocent citizens! I'm sure he cared, but the filmmakers failed to show or deal with that aspect!

Look at Daniel Radcliffe in Deathly Hallows Part 2, when he enters the great hall and sees so many people dead, because of him! He feels for them and retires away to an ampty room. David Yates knew that they had to SHOW, that he cared, that he was heartbroken!But Zack Snyder failed to show that! Its his lack!

He cried when he couldn't use his powers to save his father. If he had done the same thing after the destruction, i am sure there wouldv'e been complaints about being repetitive.
David Yates showed it because he read the scene in the book.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Just because he wasn't crying while he was fighting in Metropolis doesn't mean he wasn't in pain. Snyder will make it a focal point of the sequel but I imagine that still won't be good enough for the people who wanted Superman to be more emo in this movie.

Originally Posted by Yoku

He cried when he couldn't use his powers to save his father. If he had done the same thing after the destruction, I am sure there would've been complaints about being repetitive.
David Yates showed it because he read the scene in the book.

I know he cried(screamed sort of) when he couldn't save Jonathan or when he had to kill ZOD(which I have no problem against), but he didn't need to scream like that to be repetitive, just moist-eyes and a saddened face, scanning the destroyed remnants of Metropolis, would have been enough, just a few seconds!
It would have made many appreciate the pain within him, after all he is a man(regardless of his origin)!
The thing that separates Superman from many of the other dark heroes, is his emotional vulnerability! That's why choices are very difficult for him. That conflict wasn't as obvious!

[Dorklord]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Some of the reasons why, is because-
1st- Its a superhero movie
2nd- Its got a lot of action(towards the end) that can fry your brain!
3rd- Its Chris Nolan as producer!
4th- Its got a Great Cast!
5th- The anticipation and expectations, which alone pulls crowd, especially Superman fans!

If it was so great either, it wouldn't fall from its first position after the first week. The Dark Knight didn't, because it was a truly Great movie, where more or less everything worked! And I am not one to compare MOS with STM, because they are very different, and belong to different eras and styles of filmmaking.

The film still had great moments, no doubt! But it failed, (in my eyes at least) to be the Super film it promised to be! It was shallow and the depth in the story and character was uneven and scattered. Once Zod entered the city, the movie transformed into a Michael Bay torture-fest!
I sincerely hope they tone down the chaotic violence in the sequel (and I want one), and concentrate more on the characters and in connecting the parts of the story to make it feel like a whole, rather than disconnected!
This is why we like The Dark Knight, not just because Heath Ledger was Great, but because the story was so connected and the branchings so seamless, that you never could get out of the movie! Chris Nolan made us involved in a story as active participants, trying to figure out the next move of the Joker, it kept us in tenterhooks. Man of Steel never could engage me in that extensive way, apart from a few scattered scenes.
In the first half, any single scene they showed Clark in was succeeded by a flashback, which felt forced and not natural! This is because the flashbacks kept coming at regular intervals!
Anyway, as I said, I didn't hate the movie! I certainly enjoyed it in parts, and was very inspired by the message of hope! That's Man of Steel's Strength-
The Hope!

I'm glad you found some worth in the movie... but you do realize that money numbers aside... more people (the majority) really enjoyed the film and didn't find the faults that you found in it. Most people I know personally... really liked it... or loved it. Add that in with the poll here... and the numbers on others sites... and this film was a success all the way around. I know some really really 'hate' that fact. But... it's still a fact.

[Dorklord]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

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.

+1 Exactly. Bravo Sir!

The planet is about to be wiped out. Let me say that again... the WHOLE PLANET... as in all of mankind. Besides Superman is still only one entity... he can only be in one place a at time and despite the awful destruction and carnage going on in Metropolis... he's still new to the superhero game and quite outnumbered and overwhelmed. Dear Lord... he did the best he could do... and still ended up saving the whole planet to boot. I'm sorry but these wacko thoughts and ramblings of "he didn't care about the people of Metropolis" are simply nitpicky goofy bizarre.

[Drewbee87]

http://www.hottoys.com.hk/productDet...?productID=183

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by Dorklord

I'm glad you found some worth in the movie... but you do realize that money numbers aside... more people (the majority) really enjoyed the film and didn't find the faults that you found in it. Most people I know personally... really liked it... or loved it. Add that in with the poll here... and the numbers on others sites... and this film was a success all the way around. I know some really really 'hate' that fact. But... it's still a fact.

+1 most people I know liked it a lot, I was suprised a lot of my female friends enjoyed it to, whereas they were bored in the avengers.

I think MOS has a wider audience appeal. in Hindsight I like it more now than when I first saw it. (although I liked it then too)

[Sgt Hicks]

It is too much destruction and demolition in this movie. I was exhausted after the tenth building, it was destroyed by Kal and Zod.
It´s a pity, because the characters and whose introduction and their changing are staged quiet interesting. That was fun.

But once more drags down an oversized CGI-salad, the good conditions in the cinematic area.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by beadelf

+1 most people I know liked it a lot, I was suprised a lot of my female friends enjoyed it to, whereas they were bored in the avengers.

I think MOS has a wider audience appeal. in Hindsight I like it more now than when I first saw it. (although I liked it then too)

because Cavill is hot and girls also like Amy Adams, and overall the story is much more emotional and relatable than in The Avengers.