Man of Steel
Options
Comments
-
2 n a half hours smh These pretentious ass directors ? me.
But the first hour n a half was dope, good backstories. The parts dealin w/ Krypton were boring though. The movie was at its best when he was Clark Kent.
The last hour. Booooooring. How many times do i need to see2 indesctructable mfers raaaam into each other, knockin down buildings. That ? was a snoozefest. I HATE cliche action scenes
Honestly i liked the stories about how diff people would see what he could do at a young age, like urban legends. It felt the most realistic.
Ultimately i think this movie's biggest flaw is the fact they HAVE to stick to the script to appease the nerds. As other people have noted, the Superman story itself will never be highly interesting. Not real enough.
If i'm one the people affiliated with the last Superman series, i'm thinkin to myself: Wait, so this is way better than what we did?... It really isnt
Huh? How many times have you ever seen that in a movie? Hell, one of the complaints lobbied at the movie is that the last action scene was pretty much unprecedented in the level of carnage and destruction that took place. -
sdotcarter111 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
They weren't really overpowering him. They were outfighting him. Remember all of the Kryptonians were elite warriors. Superman was a really powerful but untrained fighter. The other Kryptonians clearly weren't as powerful as him. Zod was the only one of them that could even fly and use heat vision, and that was only after he allowed himself to absorb sunlight straight, and even then he wasn't as good with any of that stuff as Superman.
But they were though. At one point Faora was just beasting him like a child, straight up face to face overpowering. They put that warrior stuff in to retroactively have it make sense, lets not act like the kryptonians was out there doing bruce lee ? . Superman even fly right into her and pretty much bounced off. It made little sense, but like I said i'm not trippin over it. Better that than he just can backhand everybody and the movie is over.
Put that on the last HOUR of The Avengers?
I put that all over Avengers.
Most of the last hour of Avengers was Iron Man flying away from ? , and a montage of the rest of the Avengers taking out the space soldiers. Hulk smashed the one snake ship, and he and Thor did some damage to another, but the sheer scale of destruction and brutality was nowhere near the last half hour of Man of Steel. That was Dragonball Z in movie form, with the destruction of an entire city, an entire town/county, and global scale chaos. At no point in Avengers was anybody getting punched through buildings at mach 2.
I'm not saying it was a better movie than Avengers. But nothing like that last 30 of MoS has ever been done on screen, battle-wise, in a comic book movie. And nothing in Avengers as a one-on-one battle even approached 1/10th of Supes vs Zod or Supes vs Faora and the big ? .
That was what it looks like when gods clash on earth.
they put that warrior stuff in there because zod and his regime were renegade soldiers he's not called general zod for nothing. they would know some form of hand to hand combat -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »2 n a half hours smh These pretentious ass directors ? me.
But the first hour n a half was dope, good backstories. The parts dealin w/ Krypton were boring though. The movie was at its best when he was Clark Kent.
The last hour. Booooooring. How many times do i need to see2 indesctructable mfers raaaam into each other, knockin down buildings. That ? was a snoozefest. I HATE cliche action scenes
Honestly i liked the stories about how diff people would see what he could do at a young age, like urban legends. It felt the most realistic.
Ultimately i think this movie's biggest flaw is the fact they HAVE to stick to the script to appease the nerds. As other people have noted, the Superman story itself will never be highly interesting. Not real enough.
If i'm one the people affiliated with the last Superman series, i'm thinkin to myself: Wait, so this is way better than what we did?... It really isnt
Huh? How many times have you ever seen that in a movie? Hell, one of the complaints lobbied at the movie is that the last action scene was pretty much unprecedented in the level of carnage and destruction that took place.
Cliche meaning 'Ok, story is out of the way, now lets have them do hand to hand combat for an hour' zzzzzz
The ramming into each other repeatedly was a straight bore.
But again, i'm not big on elaborate, LONG, ending fight scenes. Too cliche
-
the Superman story itself will never be highly interesting. Not real enough.
This is so ridiculous. So Middle Earth stories were never highly interesting because they weren't real enough too?
A Superman story is only as good as the writer's imagination. Just because Hollywood writers don't really get the character and what makes him interesting doesn't make it impossible. There are dozens of comic book stories that prove otherwise. -
soul rattler wrote: »
Critics need to realize that he didn't become Superman when he put on the suit. He became Superman when he realized what Zod was up to and took a stance against it. His moral stance against murder and collateral damage didn't come from his parents, they flat out wanted him to blend in and not freak people out. He has to learn that he can't be a no-holds-barred brawler if he's going to be Earth's protector. He learned that lesson and it will show in the sequel.
The bold is a red flag for anybody familiar with the comic book Superman. Now I know what the problem people like Mark Waid had with this movie really is.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »2 n a half hours smh These pretentious ass directors ? me.
But the first hour n a half was dope, good backstories. The parts dealin w/ Krypton were boring though. The movie was at its best when he was Clark Kent.
The last hour. Booooooring. How many times do i need to see2 indesctructable mfers raaaam into each other, knockin down buildings. That ? was a snoozefest. I HATE cliche action scenes
Honestly i liked the stories about how diff people would see what he could do at a young age, like urban legends. It felt the most realistic.
Ultimately i think this movie's biggest flaw is the fact they HAVE to stick to the script to appease the nerds. As other people have noted, the Superman story itself will never be highly interesting. Not real enough.
If i'm one the people affiliated with the last Superman series, i'm thinkin to myself: Wait, so this is way better than what we did?... It really isnt
Huh? How many times have you ever seen that in a movie? Hell, one of the complaints lobbied at the movie is that the last action scene was pretty much unprecedented in the level of carnage and destruction that took place.
Cliche meaning 'Ok, story is out of the way, now lets have them do hand to hand combat for an hour' zzzzzz
The ramming into each other repeatedly was a straight bore.
But again, i'm not big on elaborate, LONG, ending fight scenes. Too cliche
I get what you're saying. But nobody gives a ? about that being cliche. Good action is good action. If you don't like ending fight scenes, that's cool. I love them, especially those that are completely different from anything we've ever seen. -
Action is all about context and execution. The Matrix Reloaded had really ? action because it was overblown with no real narrative purpose and very shallow set ups (why should I care about these people chasing the keymaker when I barely know who the keymaker even is?). Just an effects showcase with no real soul to it and it made a lot of those scenes boring no matter how technically impressive.
Where as The Matrix had incredibly memorable action because there were real stakes & great set ups narrative wise behind a lot of the best action scenes in that movie (we care about Neo rescuing Morpheus because we grew to care about Morpheus throughout the movie by that point). So we walked away impressed with more than just the effects. They were very visceral and got us emotionally involved.
One of my issues with The Avengers amongst many and why I didn't like it was that the 3rd act felt like complete fluff because we didn't even know who the villains really were. So there was no real threat level during the big action showcase. I didn't feel anything for anybody because the villains didn't even have a personality or real identity. They were random CGI creations getting tossed around left and right. Not once did I feel suspense like they could actually be a threat to The Avengers at all like Smith with Neo by the end of The Matrix to go back to that example and it made a great deal of it really boring and empty.
Crafting a great action set piece is an artform. It's more than just displaying cool ? and explosions. It needs purpose to weight it down and help it resonate. This is why Transformers was a really bad movie to me despite people telling me it was only worth watching for the action. It wasn't even worth watching for that and it's why I skipped the sequels entirely. Strong action setpieces is an area where Snyder tends to excel at from what I've seen from him so far (everything but MOS). So I have hope that I will connect with this movie's action scenes. We'll see in a couple of days. -
Listen for a origin movie it was great to me I can understand why some people wouldn't like it it's definitely not perfect but like others have said they are just building him up so he will become more of the protect innocents at all costs this was his first time doing something like this he is the first superhero pretty much
-
One of my issues with The Avengers amongst many and why I didn't like it was that the 3rd act felt like complete fluff because we didn't even know who the villains really were. So there was no real threat level during the big action showcase. I didn't feel anything for anybody because the villains didn't even have personality. They were random CGI creations getting tossed around. Not once did I feel suspense like they could actually be a threat to The Avengers at all like Smith with Neo by the end of The Matrix to go back to that example and it made a great deal of it really boring and empty.
Crafting a great action set piece is an artform. It's more than just displaying cool ? and explosions. It needs purpose to weight it down and help it resonate. This is why Transformers was a really bad movie to me despite people telling me it was only worth watching for the action. It wasn't even worth watching for that and it's why I skipped the sequels entirely. Strong action setpieces is an area where Snyder tends to excel at from what I've seen from him so far (everything but MOS). So I have hope that I will connect with this movie's action scenes. We'll see in a couple of days.
Sorry, but this is a poor criticism. You knew who the villain was. It was Loki. The aliens were just a tool. They weren't supposed to have a personality. They were essentially just a big weapon being employed by Loki. How does and alien army complete with huge robotic dragon things not have have a real threat level? You're just being contrary if you're going to make it seem like the Avengers movie didn't do a good job of building up the threat that the aliens posed. Since when is an alien armada waiting to invade not an obvious threat. If anything, I felt the opposite of you. You say you didn't feel like they were a threat to the Avengers. I didn't see how the Avengers could possibly defeat that army without something cheesy happening. I was pleasantly surprised by the way they executed it in the end.
-
Loki was the villain in Thor. Loki was not the real villain of The Avengers. They didn't fight against Loki at the end. The actual villain was the leader of the alien race that we saw talk in about one scene if I remember. Loki just played his role as the ? of mischief like he's supposed to.
It was an alien army with a robotic dragon? so ? what. It's a threat level on a shallow basis. I have no idea who this alien army even is and therefore I don't give a ? . I had an inkling of who Darth Vader, the T-1000 and Agent Smith were by the end of their respective movies. So there was a great level of suspense during the Death Star sequence, subway fight sequence and chase leading to the factory stand off for me. I felt involved and I really did feel like the stakes where high because the threat level had been clearly defined throughout their respective movies. They didn't just seemingly pop out of nowhere because "hey we need some bad guys to be taken down".
-
the Superman story itself will never be highly interesting. Not real enough.
This is so ridiculous. So Middle Earth stories were never highly interesting because they weren't real enough too?
A Superman story is only as good as the writer's imagination. Just because Hollywood writers don't really get the character and what makes him interesting doesn't make it impossible. There are dozens of comic book stories that prove otherwise.
I'm comparing it to the elephant in the room: Batman
Its just imo, but i belive it 100% that the success and themes of the Batman trilogy (realism, believeability in a super hero movie, character development, mental demons, depth, etc.) is what got people hype about Man of Steel
Why else would people get amped up for a reboot barely 10 yrs after the last? It was the humanity element of a super hero
Man of Steel had plenty of those elements, (i.e. the father/son talks), but when all that was over and they had to stick to the script? It turned right back into the other dozens of Superman movies. Please tell me where im lyin... -
it's the story....
the story makes the movie.....let's be real.. these comic books don't be come popular and become stuff of legend because of the action and the effects...
the animated series don't become success because of the action and the effects
these characters are so popular in today's culture, because their stories drew in millions and millions of followers...
people fell inlove (nh) with the characters of Superman, batman, spiderman, the hulk, wolverine...because of their stories......the stories were creative, and compelling...timeless....
so when movies come out that just focus on action and effects and neglect the story that made the hero popuar int he first place... the movie isn't going to impress.....
if you wanna do an action and effects movie...just do some ? with a different story...
but if you're gonna do a comic book hero movie..then you damn well better tell a comic book hero story.... -
the Superman story itself will never be highly interesting. Not real enough.
This is so ridiculous. So Middle Earth stories were never highly interesting because they weren't real enough too?
A Superman story is only as good as the writer's imagination. Just because Hollywood writers don't really get the character and what makes him interesting doesn't make it impossible. There are dozens of comic book stories that prove otherwise.
I'm comparing it to the elephant in the room: Batman
Its just imo, but i belive it 100% that the success and themes of the Batman trilogy (realism, believeability in a super hero movie, character development, mental demons, depth, etc.) is what got people hype about Man of Steel
Why else would people get amped up for a reboot barely 10 yrs after the last? It was the humanity element of a super hero
Man of Steel had plenty of those elements, (i.e. the father/son talks), but when all that was over and they had to stick to the script? It turned right back into the other dozens of Superman movies. Please tell me where im lyin...
Superman The Movie had everything you're talking about which is why it was such a huge inspiration to Nolan's Batman vision. It's also over 30 years old but nevertheless in the context of it's time frame no other movie did it better. This is why it's the godfather of superhero movies. The sequels missed the point but that first movie stands strong to this day because it had great content all throughout. Great drama and character development, a memorable villain, a believable world with it's own set of rules etc.
Haven't seen MoS yet so I can't comment on that but as I said before a Superman story is only as good as the writer's imagination. If it failed at any of that it lays on David Goyer's shoulders. TBF I only really liked one of Nolan's Batman movies and found the other 2 to be alright at best and I'm probably the biggest Batman comic book fan you'd find on this board.
David Goyer had too much forced pathos and misunderstanding of character fundamentals in his Batman Begins script and that movie left me dry for the most part because of it. Cramming exposition into the mouths of different characters is not depth. It's laziness and obnoxious. A way to try to make it seem important but instead it comes across as cheesy and hacknyed because it's not believable. People don't talk in expository speeches all the time even in comic books. He tends to always forget the main rule of scriptwriting "show don't tell" because cinema is first and foremost a form of visual storytelling.
So I could see how he could have possibly repeated that with Superman. Goyer is one of those writers who doesn't really know how to research what he writes about thoroughly enough to craft a believable narrative that doesn't feel by the numbers. He also doesn't really know how to touch on thematics without rushing through them like they were on a list where he was just checking them off so that he could say they were even there.
Which takes me back to what I said earlier. Just because Hollywood writers (keywords) don't really get the character and what makes him interesting doesn't make it impossible. I challenge anybody to read Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow or Action Comics #775 and tell me Superman can't be highly interesting and "real". -
Loki was the villain in Thor. Loki was not the real villain of The Avengers. They didn't fight against Loki at the end. The actual villain was the leader of the alien race that we saw talk in about one scene if I remember. Loki just played his role as the ? of mischief like he's supposed to.
It was an alien army with a robotic dragon? so ? what. It's a threat level on a shallow basis. I have no idea who this alien army even is and therefore I don't give a ? . I had an inkling of who Darth Vader, the T-1000 and Agent Smith were by the end of their respective movies. So there was a great level of suspense during the Death Star sequence, subway fight sequence and chase leading to the factory stand off for me. I felt involved and I really did feel like the stakes where high because the threat level had been clearly defined throughout their respective movies. They didn't just seemingly pop out of nowhere because "hey we need some bad guys to be taken down".
No, Loki was the villain of the Avengers. Yes, at the end, we find out Thanos is the one pulling the strings, so ultimately, he may be the "Big Bad" of the Avengers franchise, but as far as this particular movie went, Loki was the villain. And again, the aliens were just a tool. Loki was the "threat" that you're looking for. It was established that he was a megalomaniac that wanted to rule the realms. It was established that the tesseract was an artifact of great power that could be very problematic in the wrong hands. We saw Loki outmaneuver the heroes throughout the movie, so we knew exactly how bad things could get if he got his way. The aliens were simply the method by which is threat was realized. I fail to see how an invasion force that was supposed to be capable of conquering the globe is a shallow threat. We knew that Loki with the tesseract could be a problem for the world as a whole, and we saw that it was true.
It's cool if you didn't like the movie, but your argument is silly. For example, you didn't know any more about Vader after the end of the first Star Wars than you knew about Loki at the end of the Avengers. Both of those guys are the visible enemies in their respective movies. Both of them have their own superpowers but are ultimately dangerous because they are backed by armies. You may know more about Vader than you do about Thanos, but they didn't play comparable roles in their movies. Thanos would be more analgous to the Emperor, and you knew next to nothing about the Emperor after the first movie. You have to watch the whole trilogy to understand who the Emperor is, and seeing as how this is supposed to be a trilogy too, you have to allow them that same courtesy for Thanos.
-
I wasn't talking about Thanos and his end credit cameo I was talking about this guy
I won't get into an elaborate discussion on The Avengers because the truth is I only saw that movie once and barely remember it by now and have no interest in discussing it cause I don't like to spend time talking about things I didn't enjoy, especially if I don't even remember it. -
@broddie just see the movie first and go in with a damn open mind man lol translating comics to the big screen isn't the easiest thing to do. Its difficult with superman who hasn't even been consistent because so many different versions have appeared over the years and even now this man of steel is loosely based off new 52 and others just give it a chance.
-
@broddie just see the movie first and go in with a damn open mind man lol translating comics to the big screen isn't the easiest thing to do. Its difficult with superman who hasn't even been consistent because so many different versions have appeared over the years and even now this man of steel is loosely based off new 52 and others just give it a chance.
I am going into it with an open mind. I've said it time and time again I'm not expecting "My Superman" I'm expecting to see Goyer and Snyder's Superman because this is what it is. Adaptation doesn't mean direct translation. I know what I'm getting into when I watch an adaptation.
All I could hope for is something that is faithful to the themes of their respective source material. Like Silence of the Lambs for example is pretty different from the book it's based on in many respect but stayed true to a lot of the themes of the novel quite well and was a great movie.
A History of Violence which is a comic book adaptation like MoS is as different as night from day when compared to it's source material. However it also stayed true to a lot of the themes of that story and used them up in engaging and interesting ways narratively which is what made it a good movie.
I'm talking about other Superman related ? in this thread not just this movie. All I said about this movie is if it failed in any way it is down to the screenwriter's competence and if they failed to understand certain fundamentals consistent with previous iterations of Superman I could see why some fans were turned off.
-
Cavill was a good superman. Critics going on about him being so serious are missing the point. Its part of the superman pathos. He's an alien....not like anyone on earth...he isnt and shouldnt be smiley and unicorns. Imagine the trauma of his childhood as his abilities manifested. Cavill is able to really portray that well.
Even my 10 year old niece who seen Avengers and man of steel she like man of steel more cause she felt the movie was more serious the villain was more defined. -
I see what broddie is saying. It's the difference between "villian" and "antagonist". Loki was an antagonist, a lieutenant of sorts, serving someone else's greater purpose. That's a nuance about movie series that alot of people get hung up on. They treat every movie like it's the finale and get upset if things aren't completely explained.
The fact that Loki will be supposedly recruited by Thor to help in Avengers 2 proves that he was simply an antagonizer and not a villian. Hopefully, if Thanos' role is reprised, we will see him as the true villian of the Avengers series. -
soul rattler wrote: »I see what broddie is saying. It's the difference between "villian" and "antagonist". Loki was an antagonist, a lieutenant of sorts, serving someone else's greater purpose. That's a nuance about movie series that alot of people get hung up on. They treat every movie like it's the finale and get upset if things aren't completely explained.
The fact that Loki will be supposedly recruited by Thor to help in Avengers 2 proves that he was simply an antagonizer and not a villian. Hopefully, if Thanos' role is reprised, we will see him as the true villian of the Avengers series.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. You don't revoke a characters villain status because you see in a 30 second cut scene at the end of the movie that they are working for someone else. Everything we see done in the movie was done by Loki. All Thanos and his henchman did was provide the army. It was Loki that stole the tesseract, weakened Shield and the Avengers while implementing his plan, and led the army in the invasion. Him not being the ultimate "Big Bad" in an extended storyline doesn't mean he wasn't the villain in this one piece of that storyline.
And because a villain is turned in a future story doesn't mean he wasn't a villain in a previous story. Vegeta was a villain in the Saiyan saga. He was a villain in the Frieza saga. He was neutral in the Cell saga. And he showed traits of villainy and heroism in the Buu saga with heroism ultimately winning out. Just because at the end of the series he's a bona fide hero doesn't mean he wan't just as purely a villain in the Saiyan saga. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »I see what broddie is saying. It's the difference between "villian" and "antagonist". Loki was an antagonist, a lieutenant of sorts, serving someone else's greater purpose. That's a nuance about movie series that alot of people get hung up on. They treat every movie like it's the finale and get upset if things aren't completely explained.
The fact that Loki will be supposedly recruited by Thor to help in Avengers 2 proves that he was simply an antagonizer and not a villian. Hopefully, if Thanos' role is reprised, we will see him as the true villian of the Avengers series.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. You don't revoke a characters villain status because you see in a 30 second cut scene at the end of the movie that they are working for someone else. Everything we see done in the movie was done by Loki. All Thanos and his henchman did was provide the army. It was Loki that stole the tesseract, weakened Shield and the Avengers while implementing his plan, and led the army in the invasion. Him not being the ultimate "Big Bad" in an extended storyline doesn't mean he wasn't the villain in this one piece of that storyline.
And because a villain is turned in a future story doesn't mean he wasn't a villain in a previous story. Vegeta was a villain in the Saiyan saga. He was a villain in the Frieza saga. He was neutral in the Cell saga. And he showed traits of villainy and heroism in the Buu saga with heroism ultimately winning out. Just because at the end of the series he's a bona fide hero doesn't mean he wan't just as purely a villain in the Saiyan saga.
Vegeta was shown to be more of an enigma than a villian. He explicitly identified himself as just Freiza's lil ? , AFTER we were told of Freiza's existance and rank over others. Vegeta went from pure antagonist to anti-hero. It's a matter of being patient enough to let the storyline unfold. -
Cavill was a good superman. Critics going on about him being so serious are missing the point. Its part of the superman pathos. He's an alien....not like anyone on earth...he isnt and shouldnt be smiley and unicorns. Imagine the trauma of his childhood as his abilities manifested. Cavill is able to really portray that well.
Not to mention the frustration u would have from holding back your entire lufe -
*life
-
it's the story....
the story makes the movie.....let's be real.. these comic books don't be come popular and become stuff of legend because of the action and the effects...
the animated series don't become success because of the action and the effects
these characters are so popular in today's culture, because their stories drew in millions and millions of followers...
people fell inlove (nh) with the characters of Superman, batman, spiderman, the hulk, wolverine...because of their stories......the stories were creative, and compelling...timeless....
so when movies come out that just focus on action and effects and neglect the story that made the hero popuar int he first place... the movie isn't going to impress.....
if you wanna do an action and effects movie...just do some ? with a different story...
but if you're gonna do a comic book hero movie..then you damn well better tell a comic book hero story....
this about sums up my issues with the movie. Im not the normal movie watcher that hollywood is aiming for, the popcorn generation aka ? in this thread(also the same ? who say a game of thrones episode is boring because there was no action)
I like action..who doesn't like action? But i also like story. Movies with dope stories are fun to me.
This superman was basically the Michael bay transformers movie of the super hero genre. Ignore character development and make things go boom. -
it's the story....
the story makes the movie.....let's be real.. these comic books don't be come popular and become stuff of legend because of the action and the effects...
the animated series don't become success because of the action and the effects
these characters are so popular in today's culture, because their stories drew in millions and millions of followers...
people fell inlove (nh) with the characters of Superman, batman, spiderman, the hulk, wolverine...because of their stories......the stories were creative, and compelling...timeless....
so when movies come out that just focus on action and effects and neglect the story that made the hero popuar int he first place... the movie isn't going to impress.....
if you wanna do an action and effects movie...just do some ? with a different story...
but if you're gonna do a comic book hero movie..then you damn well better tell a comic book hero story....
Exactly. I didnt hate the movie, but i will say it was a waste to do a reboot (TEN YEARS LATER!) if you're not gonna provide a new and fresh angle to the STORY and main character.
Christopher Nolan opened that lane for these oddly believable, flawed, mental-baggage having super heroes, and its amazing.
Man of Steel drove in that lane, then, to appease the many people who seem to like it, gave you bullshyt action and special effects. Now its nothing more than a typical summer blockbuster, rather than somethng new to the genre like i was expecting
