Man of Steel

[thecolorsblend]

Saw it twice. Loved it both times.

A lot of the Prima-Donners are all butt-hurt that this isn't a retread (or better yet a sequel!) to Donner. Fvck off. If some "big fan" only knows Superman from two or three trade paperbacks, an episode or two of STAS and the Donner stuff, this movie probably will leave them out in the cold and I'm glad about it.

There was humor in the movie. "Careful with those bags, they're heavy", "Nice suit, son", "That's what they're calling him, Superman", etc. No, it's not Richard Pryor skiing down the side of a building but I still thought those lines were amusing.

For the first time since 1983, Superman is now a viable film franchise. It's curb-stomped Singerman, Batman Begins, The Amazing Spider-Man, any Marvel Studios film that doesn't include Iron Man and tons of other movies (and if it wasn't for some insane competition the past few weeks, I'm positive it would've beaten the piss out of the first Iron Man because it was tracking to do so). It's the most successful reboot film ever, the casting choices were uniformly great and Snyder has done a lot to ease the pain of Singerman.

This isn't more of Richard Donner's "protector" bull$#!+. This Superman will beat your ass if you deserve it. There's more action any five minutes of MOS than there was in the entirety of Singerman. That alone makes it all worthwhile.

Yeah, there was collateral damage in the film. He's Superman, not SuperGod. Part of his objective is enabling mankind. There's a reason returning the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone rested primarily on the army and those civilians rather than directly on Superman. Superman isn't necessarily there to fix all their problems for them. He's supposed to inspire them as much as anything. They need to stand up. Now and then they need help doing so, and that is where Superman comes in. He's supposed to be their inspiration and champion, not their nanny, "god" or anything else.

Oh, and another thing? If he'd bailed out of the fight with the Kryptonians everytime he needed to rescue somebody, he never would've been in the fight and while he was gone, the Kryptonians would've found other things/people to smash. Superman went where he was needed most. I have no problem with his actions and I don't care if anybody else did. Sorry but I don't trust anybody else's viewpoint of Superman. When you've spent over three-quarters of your life reading his comics, let me know. Until then, you've got no cred with me.

Superman killed Zod. Strictly speaking, I've regarded Superman's no kill policy as more of an ideal than anything. The people most bothered by Zod's death in MOS seem perfectly okay with Superman killing Zod in Superman II (take your deleted scenes outside, nobody cares; if it's not in the movie, it didn't fvcking happen), Singerman killing Kumar and Keyser Soze's other thugs or other things. But I guess if you blare the Williams march in the background loud enough, "fans" can overlook anything. And once again, they can fvck off.

Is this the Superman movie I wanted right now? Not really. I would've preferred a science-fairy tale like the Silver and Bronze Age comics were. I don't think realism will ever be a perfect match. You have a freebie with Zod but sooner or later you're going to need to introduce other costumed supervillains for Superman to duke it out with. And, in a realistic setting, then what do you do? But since my Silver Age-lite type film is unlikely to ever be made, I can live with Man of Steel.

Guys, BE HAPPY!!! It can factually be said that the new Superman movie has outgrossed the new Spider-Man movie! Who among us would've predicted that back in 2007?

Viva Snyder! Viva Cavill!

[The Laughing Fish]

^ What a colorful reply.  Glad you enjoyed, I thought it was WAY better than Batman Begins as well (which honestly isn't that hard to do), although I still liked movies such as Thor, CATFA and The Avengers better, but each to his own. I have a feeling that if they're careful and don't rush things, the sequel will be even better.

If the Donner Superman fans annoy you about the no-kill policy, I wonder what do you think of those Nolan Batman fans who still believe Batman never killed anyone, yet they actually have a problem with Superman killing Zod? Delusional fools like them drive me up the wall, to the point of having a Mel Gibson-style rage at their blindness and stupidity.

[Azrael]

Off topic, but I like Madonna's attitude. She knows how to rile people up and empower herself. Not really caring what other people think, having a particular sense of humour, doing what she wants etc.

Off topic, but her success is her weapon.

[thecolorsblend]

^ What a colorful reply. 

Glad you approve.

I thought it was WAY better than Batman Begins as well (which honestly isn't that hard to do),

I think BB is actually decent in retrospect. Not great but enjoyable.

If the Donner Superman fans annoy you about the no-kill policy,

Actually, that's not it. I just don't like the moving targets they set up. My attitude is whoever I'm debating can pick the test or standard or whatever but let's apply it evenly to everything. No need for a double standard; one will do fine.

I wonder what do you think of those Nolan Batman fans who still believe Batman never killed anyone, yet they actually have a problem with Superman killing Zod?

My answer is "Superman didn't kill Zod; he just chose to not let Zod live". It's about as logical as the idiotic excuse Batman used in BB.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think BB is actually decent in retrospect. Not great but enjoyable.

I thought apart from Michael Caine and Gary Oldman there is nothing redeemable about that film. It suffers from boring, constant exposition and it is just a poorly made movie overall (subpar acting, TERRIBLE editing and action sequences - by far the worst I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie). At least Man of Steel did have a great cast and it was well-made; which is something I've always admired about Zack Snyder - even if you don't like his movie at least he will make it look good. And like I said, at least Superman doesn't say "I want to become an incorruptible symbol", and then proceeds to destroy the city like Batman did. And I was worried how the word 'hope' would be repeated like 'fear' was in BB but thankfully that wasn't the case.

Actually, that's not it. I just don't like the moving targets they set up. My attitude is whoever I'm debating can pick the test or standard or whatever but let's apply it evenly to everything. No need for a double standard; one will do fine.

Unfortunately I've noticed this myself, the double standard is widespread and many people actually lack critical thought. But I still believe that Nolan Batman fans who somehow disregarded that Batman broke his code many times throughout the three movies are way more delusional than anyone who simply prefers Donner's god-like take on Superman.

My answer is "Superman didn't kill Zod; he just chose to not let Zod live". It's about as logical as the idiotic excuse Batman used in BB.

Agreed.

[johnnygobbs]

I liked Superman lecturing the General on the use of drones at the end of the film and the theme of the US learning to accept outsiders/'alien' civilisations on their shores.  Hopefully you enjoyed these aspects too colors. 

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Saw it twice. Loved it both times.


Enjoyed it too. Best Superman film since Superman II (although I do happen to like Superman III still).


A lot of the Prima-Donners are all butt-hurt that this isn't a retread (or better yet a sequel!) to Donner. Fvck off. If some "big fan" only knows Superman from two or three trade paperbacks, an episode or two of STAS and the Donner stuff, this movie probably will leave them out in the cold and I'm glad about it.

There was humor in the movie. "Careful with those bags, they're heavy", "Nice suit, son", "That's what they're calling him, Superman", etc. No, it's not Richard Pryor skiing down the side of a building but I still thought those lines were amusing.


The humor was disappointing. I can see exactly what critics were saying and they are right. I did chuckle when Clark turned the guy's truck inside out. I thought it was a nice nod (steal perhaps?) from the revenge match at the Diner from Reeve's II. But there were more awkward moments like "I just think he's kinda hot"....urgh. If that's your kinda humor fair do's. It felt like a juvenile college script to me. I can't really identify any more humor from the movie now thinking about it. I much prefer Otis attempting his hot air balloon escape. The "wide selection" speech of the Sheriff and his deputy and even Zod's frustration lines like "These humans are beginning to bore me!" lol It's silly and wonderfully so and adds to my entertainment. So I could tell this new script was hardly by the writer of The Godfather, screwball seventies comedies like What's up Doc? or say James Bond's Live and Let Die but hey this can be forgiven. The humor needs sharpening next time. It's only David S Goyer after all.


For the first time since 1983, Superman is now a viable film franchise. It's curb-stomped Singerman, Batman Begins, The Amazing Spider-Man, any Marvel Studios film that doesn't include Iron Man and tons of other movies (and if it wasn't for some insane competition the past few weeks, I'm positive it would've beaten the piss out of the first Iron Man because it was tracking to do so). It's the most successful reboot film ever, the casting choices were uniformly great and Snyder has done a lot to ease the pain of Singerman.

This isn't more of Richard Donner's "protector" bull$#!+. This Superman will beat your ass if you deserve it. There's more action any five minutes of MOS than there was in the entirety of Singerman. That alone makes it all worthwhile.


Tons more action in fact! And about as less heart to it's characters as there are hairs on Lex Luthor's head I'm afraid. They seemed to have done the opposite this time to Bryan Singer: pile on the action, less of the spirit he did. And paid a slight price for it. The Reeve films had more to them than popcorn slugfests especially the original movie. They had both. Look at the flying scene between Clark and Lois. It may be too long and as a kid my least favourite scene from the movie, but it perfectly established that relationship that's essential in Superman. And did so in an entertaining way by showing off some breathtaking flying stunts. Cavill and Adams had no such moments. There wasn't the time for it when Mr Snyder wants to smash over hundreds of buildings to compete with The Avengers. I didn't see why they would even WANT to love each other lol It was all just that this script demands it. Ironically the one moment that did look romantic was the scene (clearly stolen from Superman Returns!) where they hover and glide down in a spiral towards the ground in Smallville. Bryan Singer must have given Snyder some pointers there for that best described "ooze" of a connection lol Critics spotted all this instantly in the new one. You can't have too much of one or the other and so Man of Steel to me is merely as mistaken as Singer's now in it's action department.


Yeah, there was collateral damage in the film. He's Superman, not SuperGod. Part of his objective is enabling mankind. There's a reason returning the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone rested primarily on the army and those civilians rather than directly on Superman. Superman isn't necessarily there to fix all their problems for them. He's supposed to inspire them as much as anything. They need to stand up. Now and then they need help doing so, and that is where Superman comes in. He's supposed to be their inspiration and champion, not their nanny, "god" or anything else.


Having seen Superman II in which a mere 3 Kryptonians had the power to bring a planet to it's knees and pretty much humiliate the human races forces in the process I was a bit taken aback in this film to now have a whole army of them and yet they were pretty ineffectual. I didn't buy at all how the humans were able to fight back against them when they have the power to pull tanks apart. The threat of a million Phantom Zoners seemed so miniscule in contrast to II. That planet should not have been left in orbit. I thought it was far too ambitious giving Zod an army. Why don't they just all pile into Superman? Problem solved. With having just 3 in the second movie I felt there was a still genuine threat, a chance Superman could be overwhelmed and much more focus than having millions of evil Kryptonians off somewhere not getting involved in dealing with Superman.



Oh, and another thing? If he'd bailed out of the fight with the Kryptonians everytime he needed to rescue somebody, he never would've been in the fight and while he was gone, the Kryptonians would've found other things/people to smash. Superman went where he was needed most. I have no problem with his actions and I don't care if anybody else did. Sorry but I don't trust anybody else's viewpoint of Superman. When you've spent over three-quarters of your life reading his comics, let me know. Until then, you've got no cred with me.



You seem a bit tetchy here. Maybe you'd like a statue of yourself next to Supes advocating how vast your knowledge is? lol Superman, like all comic characters in my opinion, is a character that can be for anyone and everyone. Not an exclusive club of comics nerds. If that were entirely the case nobody would give two craps about him frankly and why as fans would we want that to happen? We want him to be a broad character. And just cos you've read "three-quarters of life reading his books" doesn't give you automatic authority over his character anymore than I have or a three year old discovering him for the first time. It's a big melting pot of ideas from comics writers to tv show and movie people boiling in their own takes as well as the public who have their expectations. What's with the stupid aggressive attitude??


Superman killed Zod. Strictly speaking, I've regarded Superman's no kill policy as more of an ideal than anything. The people most bothered by Zod's death in MOS seem perfectly okay with Superman killing Zod in Superman II (take your deleted scenes outside, nobody cares; if it's not in the movie, it didn't fvcking happen), Singerman killing Kumar and Keyser Soze's other thugs or other things. But I guess if you blare the Williams march in the background loud enough, "fans" can overlook anything. And once again, they can fvck off.



Never had a problem with Chris Reeve killing. People forget he also "kills" himself, the Evil Superman. By strangling. In such a violent moment I think it's far worse than the snapping of Zod's neck in fact. And the guy only straightened the tower of Pisa for goodness sake lol As a kid I always thought when Zod fell into the depths of the Fortress of Solitude he had somehow been sent back to the Phantom Zone. Surely the place had technology capable of inter-acting with it. It's Kryptonian technology after all. If Superman really did kill them they kinda deserved it for the murders of men like those astronauts.
On the subject of the Williams music I did sadly overlook the credits for Man of Steel. It was just so dull sounding and repetitive I couldn't keep my ass still to stay and read frankly. Had the Williams music been playing there may have been a universal urge. When I saw Superman Returns the cinema audience actually remained until the Williams music stopped playing and then got up and left. In Man of Steel it cleared out within a minute except for little ol me. So I thought might as well get myself a pint too lol

Is this the Superman movie I wanted right now? Not really. I would've preferred a science-fairy tale like the Silver and Bronze Age comics were. I don't think realism will ever be a perfect match. You have a freebie with Zod but sooner or later you're going to need to introduce other costumed supervillains for Superman to duke it out with. And, in a realistic setting, then what do you do? But since my Silver Age-lite type film is unlikely to ever be made, I can live with Man of Steel.

Guys, BE HAPPY!!! It can factually be said that the new Superman movie has outgrossed the new Spider-Man movie! Who among us would've predicted that back in 2007?

Viva Snyder! Viva Cavill!

[thecolorsblend]

The humor was disappointing. I can see exactly what critics were saying and they are right. I did chuckle when Clark turned the guy's truck inside out. I thought it was a nice nod (steal perhaps?) from the revenge match at the Diner from Reeve's II.

I thought it was a nod to Smallville, where Clark does something kind of similar to someone's pickup truck. That moment in MOS rang a bit false for me because I couldn't imagine that Clark would ruin someone's livelihood that way. It's small potatoes but worth noting.

But there were more awkward moments like "I just think he's kinda hot"....urgh. If that's your kinda humor fair do's. It felt like a juvenile college script to me. I can't really identify any more humor from the movie now thinking about it. I much prefer Otis attempting his hot air balloon escape. The "wide selection" speech of the Sheriff and his deputy and even Zod's frustration lines like "These humans are beginning to bore me!" lol It's silly and wonderfully so and adds to my entertainment. So I could tell this new script was hardly by the writer of The Godfather, screwball seventies comedies like What's up Doc? or say James Bond's Live and Let Die but hey this can be forgiven. The humor needs sharpening next time. It's only David S Goyer after all.

Eh. Stuff like that is the movie acknowledging the following that Cavill has from other stuff. Is it for me? No. But it doesn't really bug me too much either.

Tons more action in fact! And about as less heart to it's characters as there are hairs on Lex Luthor's head I'm afraid. They seemed to have done the opposite this time to Bryan Singer: pile on the action, less of the spirit he did. And paid a slight price for it. The Reeve films had more to them than popcorn slugfests especially the original movie. They had both. Look at the flying scene between Clark and Lois. It may be too long and as a kid my least favourite scene from the movie, but it perfectly established that relationship that's essential in Superman. And did so in an entertaining way by showing off some breathtaking flying stunts. Cavill and Adams had no such moments. There wasn't the time for it when Mr Snyder wants to smash over hundreds of buildings to compete with The Avengers. I didn't see why they would even WANT to love each other lol It was all just that this script demands it. Ironically the one moment that did look romantic was the scene (clearly stolen from Superman Returns!) where they hover and glide down in a spiral towards the ground in Smallville. Bryan Singer must have given Snyder some pointers there for that best described "ooze" of a connection lol Critics spotted all this instantly in the new one. You can't have too much of one or the other and so Man of Steel to me is merely as mistaken as Singer's now in it's action department.

After Singerman, the consensus was that we all wanted more action. Snyder gave that to us. I won't complain.

Having seen Superman II in which a mere 3 Kryptonians had the power to bring a planet to it's knees and pretty much humiliate the human races forces in the process I was a bit taken aback in this film to now have a whole army of them and yet they were pretty ineffectual. I didn't buy at all how the humans were able to fight back against them when they have the power to pull tanks apart. The threat of a million Phantom Zoners seemed so miniscule in contrast to II. That planet should not have been left in orbit. I thought it was far too ambitious giving Zod an army. Why don't they just all pile into Superman? Problem solved. With having just 3 in the second movie I felt there was a still genuine threat, a chance Superman could be overwhelmed and much more focus than having millions of evil Kryptonians off somewhere not getting involved in dealing with Superman.

The movie pretty clearly sets up that they don't have mastery over their powers, or even a really solid understanding of what they are. They also never really spread out around the world either. Under the circumstances, I can understand how Superman managed to keep the upper hand.

You seem a bit tetchy here. Maybe you'd like a statue of yourself next to Supes advocating how vast your knowledge is? lol Superman, like all comic characters in my opinion, is a character that can be for anyone and everyone. Not an exclusive club of comics nerds. If that were entirely the case nobody would give two craps about him frankly and why as fans would we want that to happen? We want him to be a broad character. And just cos you've read "three-quarters of life reading his books" doesn't give you automatic authority over his character anymore than I have or a three year old discovering him for the first time. It's a big melting pot of ideas from comics writers to tv show and movie people boiling in their own takes as well as the public who have their expectations. What's with the stupid aggressive attitude??

Because, as I said, I'm sick and tired of someone whose sole knowledge of Superman comes from Richard Donner telling me "how things ought to be".

[johnnygobbs]

You seem a bit tetchy here. Maybe you'd like a statue of yourself next to Supes advocating how vast your knowledge is? lol Superman, like all comic characters in my opinion, is a character that can be for anyone and everyone. Not an exclusive club of comics nerds. If that were entirely the case nobody would give two craps about him frankly and why as fans would we want that to happen? We want him to be a broad character. And just cos you've read "three-quarters of life reading his books" doesn't give you automatic authority over his character anymore than I have or a three year old discovering him for the first time. It's a big melting pot of ideas from comics writers to tv show and movie people boiling in their own takes as well as the public who have their expectations. What's with the stupid aggressive attitude??

Exactly.  This is the problem I have with a lot of the hardcore Nolan fanboys who keep putting the Burton Batman films down because they 'know the character better than anyone else' and consider Batman '89 and Batman Returns an invalid interpretation because 'Burton took liberties with the comic-books'. 

Who cares as long as the films work on their own terms?

Anyway, it's disappointing and ironic that some posters who have previously been quite robust in standing up to the know-it-all nerds (read 'Nolanites') who were constantly carping about the Burton Batman films are now doing something similar with respect to the earlier Superman films.

[thecolorsblend]

Um, I'm standing up to the exact same mentality on the Superman side... and using my better-than-average knowledge of Superman comics to justify it. Really, the only difference here is my schadenfreude at their distress over MOS rebooting Superman and moving away from the Donner stuff. They're losing their minds over it and I couldn't be happier. I even couched my praise with the acknowledgement that MOS is far from my ideal Superman while recognizing that my ideal Superman isn't likely to ever be seen on the big screen.

On top of all that, now that the Nolanverse has faded into history, I've gone on the record saying I'm done with bashing on Nolan. The movies are done, some kind of reboot is inevitable so we can all move on now. Whining about it now isn't going to accomplish much except make a bunch of immature forum drama where there doesn't really need to be any.