Man of Steel - *Spoilers*

[atp]

Jun 21, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -5 ye5man said:

I still do not like the idea of JK telling Clark "maybe" he should have let those kids drown in the bus.

me too.

he should have said "yes definitely".

those kids were cunts.

[EnriqueH]

Maybe I need to see the movie again, but poor kids!

[atp]

How come we see Jor-El telling Clark to guide humanity and give us hope, and we see him in the full Superman suit, ready to take on his mission...

...but then when Lois finds him at the graveyard, he still doesn't want anyone to know he exists?

What was the point of getting him in the suit and flying if he still wants to stay hidden?

[crazy_asian_man]

It's a shame there wasn't an old man in Metropolis raising a walking stick over his head. That would have stopped all the buildings from collapsing.

Can't believe it took me a while to get this reference.

[crazy_asian_man]

As a SUPERMAN movie, I truly must say that, in my opinion, this well-crafted, often engaging, visually stunning film, misses the mark. Here's why. In the world of superhero films, what makes Superman stand out from all the others is for me, summed up in two words, JOYFUL WONDER. Superman is an escape to ANOTHER WORLD, and I don't mean Krypton. It's a world where a man can fly. Where the bad guys are bad and the good guys are good. It's a simple world where we stand up and cheer when our hero rescues Lois Lane or when the villain gets his comeuppance. And whenever Superman takes off into the sky, we take off with him, as the joyous heroic music takes us higher and higher! We watch as the cliffhanger is set up, and then wait for that MOMENT when Superman appears and goes streaking across the sky to save the day. MOS, while offering glimmers of potential, here and there, never seemed to deliver, in this regard.

As the MOS film-makers explained, this film was an attempt to give Superman the same "grounded in reality" feel as the Dark Knight films. While I appreciate what Nolan accomplished with Batman and can understand why Warners would turn to him as the best choice to similarly resuscitate Superman, there's an inherent problem with this approach. The idea of grounding Superman in reality seems to be completely at odds with everything that makes Superman SUPERMAN! In a sense, just the two words "grounding Superman" seem to be paradoxical. And that paradox was felt immediately by me in the first two seconds of MOS...

I can't speak for everybody, but I know I speak for many when I say that when I watch the beginning of a Superman film, I want to feel the anticipation of an EXCITING ADVENTURE! I want goosebumps. I want to see those credits soar across the screen while I journey through space. I don't wish to hear the sounds of a woman in labor. The same way many complained about SR opening in a dark mansion, that's how I felt with MOS opening with the pains of childbirth. Batman? Np. Thor? Sure. But NOT SUPERMAN. Further, I don't wish to hear Lois Lane talk about comparing dicks. Just a little too crass for SUPERMAN. A subtle nod to adult viewers, from time to time, can be cute ("How big are you- How TALL are you?"), but this was not appropriate for Superman, IMO.

Also, in contrast to darker epics such as Batman and others, Superman is about BRIGHTNESS and COLOR. The overabundance of metallic grey and silver made the movie at times feel more like ALIEN than Superman.

I agree with this idea halfway--- Superman I think can live in a dark world that feels more like ours, but he himself I don't think needs to be dark. Geoff Johns' "Secret Origins' I think strikes just the right balance- whereas its odd/sad that his buddy Goyer tilted it to a point where the character seems to have a life as dark as Wolverine.
At least the Singer version didn't dismiss (or suggest) the positive moments of Superman's world.

On a general note, I just can't shake the feeling that perhaps Superman, in order to really feel like SUPERMAN, has to remain RETRO, to some degree. I think of Indiana Jones. For me, Indy is inextricably woven together with a certain time period, and just wouldn't play in 2013. Heck, even moving him into the 50's didn't work for me, let alone trying to advance him into modern day. But to expand on this further, Indy isn't Indy without the Raiders March or the fedora or the whip or the historical, yet fantastic element of the artifact he's attempting to recover. I don't think Indy and REALITY go together. Even when Lucas tried to blend fantasy and reality together with a SCI-FI approach in Crystal Skull, it just felt OFF, somehow. I know I'm not the only one who felt that way.

Perhaps, in a similar way, SUPERMAN needs to be its own world, where 911 never happened, where justice isn't a naive notion, and where good and evil are clear concepts. Maybe Supes doesn't quite feel right without all the members of the "family", present and accounted for, just as they were in the classic comics. Perhaps these elements are part of what defines a Superman film, and without them, while still being compelling, spell-binding, and entertaining, the movie fails to be JOYFULLY WONDROUS. Without them, the feeling of escaping to another, more innocent world, is lost. Without them, we're left with a BRILLIANT action movie, indeed a great SUPERHERO movie, but not a truly satisfying SUPERMAN movie.

Again, I see what you're saying, but agree with you halfway, again.
I think there were good ideas in Indy IV- and it might have worked in the 50's, but the choice to go darker with it into scifi was the mistake, not the choice to age him.... and COULD play in 2013.

Audiences I think (and I'm guilty of this, too) feel that they know for sure what they want- but I sometimes forget how daring Star Wars was/is (initially) on first arrival, and the time in which it came out. Films like "Death Wish", "Jaws", and "French Connection" were the rage, not a kids' scifi. For all his creative sins, George Lucas should always get credit for being a maverick (and well, he does, but) in putting out films that were considered sure to be disasters--- because on paper they seemed ridiculous or something that the audience would never want to see. It went against the grain of most expectations (For sure, no studios wanted to touch it).... as would a 'positive' Superman film nowadays I think-

If there was a hopeful Superman film that was BRIGHT and COLORFUL and all the rest-

Maybe there's a filmmaker out there who COULD figure it out and solve the puzzle.

Before Robocop came out, I thought it was going to be ridiculous and had zero interest in seeing it, just based on the idea. Upon seeing it, I was shocked at how wrong I was.

I don't think optimism needs to die in Superman films, or that audiences post-Watergate or post-9/11 or post-Holocaust wouldn't be able to connect to it--- but it needs the right writer/filmmaker to figure it out.

((*More and more Richard Donner really seems to be the right guy to have brought Superman to the bigscreen because his personality is such that almost always 'refuses unhappy endings'. (Doesn't explain "Omen", but that was a great film.)

I was fine with SR's sad Superman--- because he was going through a grief process, that he was getting through by the end. In MOS, though, his character seems tormented and miserable for almost all of his life. and he kills someone. Not exactly a feel good movie, despite an interesting scifi angle to it.

I do find it odd that SR (for some- a few good friends included in that) is considered 'not a Superman movie' because of its darkness, but MOS he gets a pass on the darkness because of the (admittedly) very cool action and awesome visuals and he actually hits something.))

[Metallo]

Jun 22, 2013 9:38:36 GMT -5 atp said:

How come we see Jor-El telling Clark to guide humanity and give us hope, and we see him in the full Superman suit, ready to take on his mission...

...but then when Lois finds him at the graveyard, he still doesn't want anyone to know he exists?

What was the point of getting him in the suit and flying if he still wants to stay hidden?

I'm sorry but one problem I had with with MOS is it always talked so much about hope. Well why didn't they show him inspiring more hope? Jenny crawls out of rubble and is like he saved us? Yep. All three people on that soundstage street.

Instead of talking about it (hope) show it.

[crazy_asian_man]

I'm sorry but one problem I had with with MOS is it always talked so much about hope. Well why didn't they show him inspiring more hope? Jenny crawls out of rubble and is like he saved us? Yep. All three people on that soundstage street.

Instead of talking about it (hope) show it.

Agreed. Goyer just didn't/doesn't quite know how to write those type of scenes... or moments.
If you go through all of the first season of "Blade", (where he was showrunner), or many of the other films where he was a screenwriter for, outside of the Nolan Batman films, you'd be hard-pressed to find ONE moment that felt uplifting or inspiring .... or really care about any of the characters.

[Jor-L5150]

[crazy_asian_man]

Jun 22, 2013 13:58:44 GMT -5 Jor-L5150 said:

[Jack Tripper]

I've seen the movie twice and Clark saving the kids in the bus is the only scene that made me tear up a little both times.

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2013 13:58:44 GMT -5 Jor-L5150 said:

Brilliant

Also when he got targeted by the trucker he took it out on his truck, he had the decency to avoid beating a mortal with his super powers

[Jor-L5150]

Every superman needs an asshole trucker to jack up.

[Metallo]

Jun 22, 2013 13:58:44 GMT -5 Jor-L5150 said:

Yup. And nothing says romance like a lifeless awkward kiss while surrounded by thousands buried under rubble.

[Deleted]

He could have been balls deep in Lois while Houston was being destroyed

[Metallo]

At least he wasn't the guy punching somebody through Houston's buildings. Just imagine Zod going from the courthouse to the outhouse!

[Deleted]

Nah he was too busy climaxing while others suffered

He did punch Non through a skyscraper though

[crazy_asian_man]

And nothing says romance like a lifeless awkward kiss while surrounded by thousands buried under rubble.

Oh, exactly. The actors might have been acting in front of a green screen, but if they knew what background was behind them--- you'd think ONE actor would go: "hey, wait a minute. If we're going for REALITY here....."

[Metallo]

Ah yes the "grounded in the real world approach" which everybody in charge of the film conveniently forgot when it suited them.

[Deleted]

It didn't do Batman any harm. Was MOS supposed to be 'realistic' in the same way? I was never sure, or if by realism they simply meant the idea of the world reacting to Superman like a threat and an imposter.

[Metallo]

Problem is Kris we never SAW enough of the worlds reaction to Superman. Especially at times when the story needed it to be more compelling.

And the Nolan's Batman films were just better made films. That made up for some of the oversights. If the same quality had gone into MOS its flaws wouldn't be as glaring.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2013 11:41:54 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Problem is Kris we never SAW enough of the worlds reaction to Superman. Especially at times when the story needed it to be more compelling.

And the Nolan's Batman films were just better made films. That made up for some of the oversights. If the same quality had gone into MOS its flaws wouldn't be as glaring.

I'd agree with that, aside from The Dark Knight Rises which for me was a bit of a mess at times.

But yeah, now that the dust has settled I really think they made a stupid mistake not actually having Superman rescue more people. They seemingly got too caught up in the cries of 'please let him throw a punch' and forgot that Superman is supposed to do other things too.

One thing I will say is this, when you think about it he's not even really Superman till the end of the film when he talks to the general and his manner and tone is more like Superman, before that he's just the alien people are suspicious about.

[crazy_asian_man]

I'd agree with that, aside from The Dark Knight Rises which for me was a bit of a mess at times.

But yeah, now that the dust has settled I really think they made a stupid mistake not actually having Superman rescue more people. They seemingly got too caught up in the cries of 'please let him throw a punch' and forgot that Superman is supposed to do other things too.

I think if this movie was a Superman ripoff and not Superman per se (Maybe the character 'Supreme' or such), then the response to some of his behavior wouldn't be thrown off so much.... similar to SR where Superman had a kid and a number of people felt it wasn't really the character because of that.

In any case- it'll be interesting to see what happens (if it happens) with a sequel. Raimi has said that he himself wasn't 100% happy with the first one, but it was a learning curve, and the second one was better. X-men 2 is better than X1, curious how a second one will/would come off, most importantly how they further establish just WHO they feel Superman is as a character.

[monkeymagic]

My review, having (at last seen the film) is below. Feel free to nitpick.

The film opening on Krypton, I can see why they are trying to ‘divorce’ this version of Superman from what has come before. However this version of Krypton looks too much like it’s from Avatar or the Star Wars prequels. General Zod and company bursting in, I liked how it was somewhat explained later in the film the reasons for his actions. Jor-El getting stabbed, I have to say that was a surprise to me, but his speech to Kal-El was a bit ‘short’. I know Crowe is not an actor of Brando’s stature but for someone who is bidding farewell to their child, I was expecting to have something a little bit longer.

Also the vessels being fired off Krypton, how comes everything is ‘rocket propelled’? Krypton being an advanced society I thought that they’d use some other form of technology. But I did like the line in the film about the metal not being on the periodic table. The phantom zone was an interesting change; I was expecting them to be shoved into a vortex similar to the 1950’s comics. I agree with the comments that the shaky camera wasn’t a good idea, the steady camera shots make it easier to see what is going on.

The switching of going between past and present, I felt that it worked. But I can understand people who would have preferred a more ‘linear’ approach to the story telling. The teenage Clark to me looked very similar to Tom Welling. I was amused by how he held back when being pushed around by the gang who then dispersed when they saw Jonathan Kent. During the first rescue when the school bus went into the river, I would not have rescued Pete Ross.

The death of Jonathan, I agree with people that it made little sense for Clark not to rescue him. In the heat of the moment I somehow doubt that people would’ve been that bothered about Clark showing what he can do. But I suppose it does give a bit of weight and poignancy to the scene. Especially as Clark saying to Jonathan ‘You’re not my dad’…. The part where he stood up to the trucker was in my opinion very funny. I liked how it looked initially like Clark was walking away, but got his revenge by smashing up the truck over a pole.

The scenes of where Clark is learning to fly, a bit reminiscent of the original Spider-Man film when Peter Parker is trying to get his webbing to work. I liked how they showed that he had to discover how to fly and it wasn’t perfect 1st time. In some ways it made me think of Supergirl when she discovers she can fly and then is soaring through the air. Lois aboard Zod’s vessel and her return to Earth in the pod, this I assume is Man of Steel’s version of the ‘helicopter rescue’.

General Zod, as I already stated, I thought it was a good touch how they had Jor-El explain Zod’s motivations. Rather than him just being a megalomaniac like Terrance Stamp’s General Zod. By this I mean that the character is fleshed out a bit more, than being the villain for the sake of it. The fight between Superman and General Zod, had Donner been able to finish ‘Superman 2’, I get the feeling this is what the Metropolis Battle would have looked like. I know that many have voiced concern that Superman broke Zod’s neck but in the context of the film it worked and he had very little choice in the matter. Superman also seemed genuinely upset when it happened as well.

Overall I thought that it was better than Superman Returns and a worthy successor to the Christopher Reeve films. This is not to say that Superman Returns was crap, It wasn’t but this is a good change and break from what has gone before. Although I did feel there were subtle nods to previous live action versions and this includes Supergirl. The wobbly camera shot at times aside, my only other gripe was when Superman brought the ‘spy satellite’ back to Earth. My gripe is why it they feel the need to have the film make ‘America’ so important and ignore the rest of the planet. I perceive it would have been better had the line been they perceive Superman to be a potential world threat than one country. Also the emphasis on steeping the film in the real world a good idea but lacking the humour that makes the Marvel films fun to watch. I can also see during the bit with the white lighting how Henry Cavill looked like Christopher Reeve. He makes a good Superman, long may his reign continue. I look forwards to what they do with the sequel.

[ye5man]

The death of Jonathan, I agree with people that it made little sense for Clark not to rescue him.

In the original cut, he winked and said "I'll be alright Clarky!"

[ChrisM]

Jun 24, 2013 9:56:31 GMT -5 ye5man said:

The death of Jonathan, I agree with people that it made little sense for Clark not to rescue him.

In the original cut, he winked and said "I'll be alright Clarky!"