Man of Steel

[The Dark Knight]

The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed.

Hmm. I haven't seen the movie yet but as said, I find this a worry. I've seen the clip of Superman tackling Zod, flying across a crop and then through a petrol station (likely with people in it) and then land in a Smallville street, about to endanger everyone with fisticuffs. Way to go Supes, you brought the fight to the public. You chose where this would go down. There's a dilemma with making a filmic spectacle but on the flipside making Supe look a bit silly and reckless.

When it concerns beings as powerful as Superman, it comes across as jerky and I don't know, more preventable. He has more influence over situations than people like Batman do, regardless of the opponent/s. Try and minimise the destruction caused instead of continually throwing Zod and company through buildings which people are inhabiting.

When it gets large scale like that it starts to make me uneasy. Especially if a movie's overall tone feels soulless and - then all of a sudden the two leads kiss with the remnants of the city in the background. Which comes off as feeling like token romance out of left field as well.

The movie wanted this large scale ruin for spectacle, but at least I recall there's a scene in Superman II where Superman shows concern and flies away from the city because he doesn't want to cause any serious damage to the people. Here he seems not to care terribly much. Just keeps throwing through those buildings...

If Luthor showed up in the sequel to rebuild the City - I'd largely find myself on his side to tell you the truth.

[The Laughing Fish]

The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed.

Hmm. I haven't seen the movie yet but as said, I find this a worry. I've seen the clip of Superman tackling Zod, flying across a crop and then through a petrol station (likely with people in it) and then land in a Smallville street, about to endanger everyone with fisticuffs. Way to go Supes, you brought the fight to the public. You chose where this would go down. There's a dilemma with making a filmic spectacle but on the flipside making Supe look a bit silly and reckless.

When it concerns beings as powerful as Superman, it comes across as jerky and I don't know, more preventable. He has more influence over situations than people like Batman do, regardless of the opponent/s. Try and minimise the destruction caused instead of continually throwing Zod and company through buildings which people are inhabiting.

When it gets large scale like that it starts to make me uneasy. Especially if a movie's overall tone feels soulless and - then all of a sudden the two leads kiss with the remnants of the city in the background. Which comes off as feeling like token romance out of left field as well.

The movie wanted this large scale ruin for spectacle, but at least I recall there's a scene in Superman II where Superman shows concern and flies away from the city because he doesn't want to cause any serious damage to the people. Here he seems not to care terribly much. Just keeps throwing through those buildings...

If Luthor showed up in the sequel to rebuild the City - I'd largely find myself on his side to tell you the truth.

Why the hell are Christopher Nolan and David Goyer so obsessed in making their superheroes look like reckless, devil-may-care douchebags? Are they trying to test the audience or something? When I saw Nolan's first two Batman films, all I thought was for a guy whose intention was to become a symbol of hope for people to aspire to, Batman really seems not to have any regard for human life at all.  I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the trend repeated for Superman, though if what gordonblue is saying is true, then this sounds worse than any of Batman's blunders in the recent trilogy. Oh well, looks like I'll have to turn my brain off as much as I possibly can if I'm going to enjoy this. 

[The Joker]

To be fair though, there was nothing that the Avengers could do to avoid the destruction of New York since the Chitauri and Loki was looking to invade at all costs.

And in all fairness, that scenario is similar to what Superman is faced with in Man of Steel. It's one kryptonian against many, and this film does anything but harken back to those Silver Age days (much like the Donner films did) where turning back time, or giving a big super kiss can fix things. If that's what some people wanted to see, sure, they'll be disappointed.

Though I do wonder if that reviewer had any problems with Batman destroying Gotham City every time he drove the Tumbler and Batpod in the first two Nolan movies?

Wouldn't be the first time something gets a pass, while another is heavily criticized. 

Didn't the end of the Avengers show that the response to their intervention was quite mixed?  Or maybe I'm thinking of the deleted scene where Maria Hill expresses her disgust to the politicians over the reign if destruction left in the Avengers' wake.

Can't tell you, since I've only watched Avengers once, and bits and pieces of it when it came out on blu ray. I can tell you that with Man of Steel, the public perception of Superman isn't really addressed to the extent of having common folk being interviewed and giving their opinions if that's what you're thinking. The military don't really view him as a threat like they did prior to Zod's invasion, but it's also shown they don't trust him as well. You'll see what I'm referring to when you see the film for yourself.

Also, isn't there a difference in MOS because I've read in some reviews that Zod and his minions were alerted to the existence of earth because of Kal El's presence on the planet?

Zod being alerted to Kal-El's whereabouts is more out of fortuity, which also results in his change from a traveling loner, into becoming Superman, and NOT due by his mere existence on earth. If that was the case, Zod would have arrived years earlier, and in all likelihood, would have succeeded in his plan.

[Kamdan]

The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed.

I'm going to bet you that the reconstruction of Metropolis is going to be handled by Lex Luthor and that's how he gets his positive public response.

If Luthor showed up in the sequel to rebuild the City - I'd largely find myself on his side to tell you the truth.

That's the idea.

[DocLathropBrown]

I was ambivalent about this movie... after the utter craptacular Superman Returns I gave up anticipation/interest for anything Superman. So it was with an unbiased mind I went into Man of Steel. I still love Donner's original, but don't care for any of the other films, literally. Not much has changed.

David Goyer crafts a film that's overwritten about small things, has a narrative that feels jumpy and hectic, some dialogue that's stilted (look at the Batman films he wrote... that's par for him), and seems devoid of real emotion even though the pretense of it exists.

Snyder is usually a capable director, but I sense Goyer's script and Nolan's hand involved reduces his direction to a seeming checklist of things each scene must get across. Like Nolan's Bat trilogy, the editing leads the actors/scene, not the other way around. The film's pace within its own scenes (not to mention the film overall) seems rushed. Kind of hard to describe, but the film, even when it's supposed to be a slow moment somehow feels ungenuine, like we're presented with the emotion but it isn't really there.

That's my biggest problem with the film: it lacks a fundamental heart. Which is logical since Nolan and Goyer are involved (and Snyder doesn't strike me as very deep personally). I'm not talking about humor or camp or a wink and a smile... what I'm talking about is a feeling of humanity. Every character except maybe Jor-El seems hollow like they only exist for their dilemma/dialogue and they don't have a thought in their head beyond that. It feels utterly meaningless and two-dimensional.

Moments that pushed against that was anything involving Superman interacting with the military, as that struck a chord and felt like the trustable hero who will still play by his own rules.

And I'll say it: there's TOO MUCH action. I never thought I'd say that, but MOS reeks of Avengers-envy. There's so much action that at a certain point, I didn't care anymore. It was too fast-paced and hyperactive that, instead of being wowed, I was busy processing it. Also, the ENTIRE film is filmed handheld, so there isn't a single shot that the camera isn't jerking around. That was probably my second biggest complaint.

The funny thing is... I can watch MOS over again. No problem. It's entertaining. I even loved all the changes to the canon, and the controversial finale was much applauded by me (I agree that Superman's a bit reckless, but that's part of the suspension of disbelief for me). But Superman Returns is so terrible that I can't stomach even the first scene.

But I think if you took the writing team of SR and Bryan Singer, and gave them this script to polish and let Singer direct... it'd be the perfect Superman movie. Singer has a fundamental heart that permeates with work and makes it feel like a regularly-paced, effective and meaningful movie. Snyder as we can tell from Suckerpunch (which is basically just a mindless male fantasy) is a hollow person. Also, not much a fan of the MOS score, but whatyagonnado?

4/10

[The Dark Knight]

Thanks for the review, Doc. I value your opinion a lot around here.

For what is meant to be such an iconic character, it seems Superman is more likely to suffer a dud than a success. His video game history is lousy. Speaking for myself, I care extremely little for the past Reeve movies and Superman Returns. So I'm not terribly surprised to see you give a 4/10 score.

[DocLathropBrown]

Thanks for the review, Doc. I value your opinion a lot around here.

For what is meant to be such an iconic character, it seems Superman is more likely to suffer a dud than a success. His video game history is lousy. Speaking for myself, I care extremely little for the past Reeve movies and Superman Returns. So I'm not terribly surprised to see you give a 4/10 score.

Feeling's mutual, TDK!

It's honestly because the character is with DC. That's the whole reason. DC as a publishing house has a history with Superman that is, frankly, crap. Crap that can be appreciated with humor, but honestly, Comet the Super Horse and Beppo the Super Monkey? Superman's comics were campy garbage until Byrne's reboot, IMO. The thing is, his history is too goofy and he's simply too powerful. Byrne fixed him, but the thing is, DC's fanbase seems to me to be generally too stuck in the past. People bitched and protested when Wonder Woman's hair was cut for a story arc, for God's sake!

So DC is afraid to alienate its fans, but its fans are too married to crap, so it's all too easy for Superman to be relegated to low quality material because they're afraid to do what's needed. I have a ton of ideas for a ground-up redo of Superman that are a bit more big than even what Bynre did. Maybe sometime I'll share.

To me, the only reason I ever got into Superman and the only reason I think he's even still around is Christopher Reeve. He's the only reason the first film worked for all time, and his subtle humanity brought so much to the character without fundamentally altering him that it's astounding. I prefer Dean Cain's Clark, truthfully, but Reeve's Superman was perfection. Whereas much of STM is dated now, Reeve grounds the film in a way that's everlasting. Impressive for a character who, by default in the comics, is like a piece of cardboard.

[The Dark Knight]

I have tried to warm to the character and have taken to Birthright, All Star Superman and a few others. It's ironic the best Superman stories tend to be on-shots and else worlds. I still have lingering issues with the character, though.

Superman's message seems to be if you don't have good parents you're screwed. I always had a problem with Superman's secret identity, too.

We can choose to suspend our disbelief, but it remains an elephant in the room. It's only a pair of glasses. Batman has a cowl and Spider-Man a full body suit - it could be anyone under there.

Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, who while sometimes adheres to a rich playboy act, nonetheless has a position of prestige and reputation. He's not going against his true nature in such a drastic way. Peter Parker is usually finding life hard but he doesn't have to adhere to any strict performance either. More or less he is who he is.

Superman commits himself to a disguise that simply would not work anyway (but for the story it does), and intentionally lessens his self worth. If being Superman means I have to endure such a life where I'm bumbling, stuttering and slouching, I'd be quitting the Daily Planet, freeing those mental shackles and chilling on the moon.

[johnnygobbs]

To me, the only reason I ever got into Superman and the only reason I think he's even still around is Christopher Reeve. He's the only reason the first film worked for all time, and his subtle humanity brought so much to the character without fundamentally altering him that it's astounding. I prefer Dean Cain's Clark, truthfully, but Reeve's Superman was perfection. Whereas much of STM is dated now, Reeve grounds the film in a way that's everlasting. Impressive for a character who, by default in the comics, is like a piece of cardboard.

Christopher Reeve made Superman for me.  Rarely has an actor been so perfectly cast in a role, let alone a comic-book part (Reeve did justice to every facet of the character including Kal El, his true personality, Superman, the public image of the super-hero, the bumbling façade of Clark Kent and even the 'evil' Superman in the otherwise maligned Superman 3).  No wonder Reeve found it so difficult to make his mark outside of Superman.  I feel that's more testament to the power of his definitive performance as Superman and the vast shadow it left than it is a reflection on his lack of range as an actor.

[DocLathropBrown]

I have tried to warm to the character and have taken to Birthright, All Star Superman and a few others. It's ironic the best Superman stories tend to be on-shots and else worlds. I still have lingering issues with the character, though.

Superman's message seems to be if you don't have good parents you're screwed. I always had a problem with Superman's secret identity, too.

We can choose to suspend our disbelief, but it remains an elephant in the room. It's only a pair of glasses. Batman has a cowl and Spider-Man a full body suit - it could be anyone under there.

Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, who while sometimes adheres to a rich playboy act, nonetheless has a position of prestige and reputation. He's not going against his true nature in such a drastic way. Peter Parker is usually finding life hard but he doesn't have to adhere to any strict performance either. More or less he is who he is.

Superman commits himself to a disguise that simply would not work anyway (but for the story it does), and intentionally lessens his self worth. If being Superman means I have to endure such a life where I'm bumbling, stuttering and slouching, I'd be quitting the Daily Planet, freeing those mental shackles and chilling on the moon.

You might want to check out Byrne's Superman run then, because he basically made a Marvel character out of Supes. He doesn't change much drastically, but the most significant and best change (aside from powering Supes WAYYYY down) was making Clark just a regular guy. It's that take on Clark that influenced Dean Cain's portrayal and Bruce Timm's. It makes perfect sense. He was raised as Clark. It's not like when he finds out about his true heritage, his personality changes and he's suddenly all boring and formal and Kryptonian.