Man of Steel - *Spoilers*

[Deleted]

Clark in MOS mentioning he was 33 didn't help much...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[atp]

Oh well, at least they didn't superimpose Clark over a stained glass picture of Christ.

Oh wait...

[Deleted]

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[EnriqueH]

Jun 29, 2013 11:40:51 GMT -5 atp said:

Oh well, at least they didn't superimpose Clark over a stained glass picture of Christ.

Oh wait...

Well, I'm sure they didn't hire Snyder based on his subtlety.

[Deleted]

All we needed was a visit from Claude Henry Smoot.

I just noticed tonight, my second viewing, that Dr. Hamilton didn't make it out of the plane. He died. Didn't notice that the first time around. He didn't see it coming either, I guess, considering he was no where near Stabler when he decided to crash the plane ... with no survivors! (Sorry, had to pull a Bane.) I also noticed that in the dream sequence, Zod had a cape with his black bodysuit, while Superman's was dark blue, with a black crest and black cape. Made sense, as Jor-El's bodysuit was dark blue with a black crest.

I never had a trouble with all of Clark's flashbacks. I was never confused about where the story was in his lifeline. It worked in Batman Begins, it worked in the first act of Iron Man, and it works here. I think another linear origin would have dragged the pace of the movie down, just a bit.

And, I know I pointed it out when I transcribed the tie-in novel, but the family did not die at the end. Although a shit load of people did. I'll say this for the destruction: Yes, it was awful. In Avengers, an army swooped down. In Man of Steel, a giant machine was jackhammering the fucking ground. At the time, it seemed like all of Metropolis just got buttfucked. But in the one-on-one fight at the end, you notice Metropolis is a fucking huge city, and a lot of it wasn't touched. But, a lot of people died. I know there are arguments that the scene of the Daily Planet's evacuation was a microcosm, an example, of how many buildings did the same. But, let's face it. The World Trade Center tragedy showed that skyscrapers are not evacuated in minutes. It takes a few hours to move that many people in a limited number of stairwells or elevators. Plus, entire buildings fell on the people on the streets. Even if they did get out before the building came down, it came down on top of them soon after. Accept it. Lots and lots and lots of people died. No, Superman didn't save everyone. But that's why he's Superman, not Supergod.

Anyway, I really really enjoy this movie. I know there are flaws. No movie is completely perfect. But it's like what I said about TDKR ... despite the flaws, if I feel like I had a good time and can't wait to see it again, then I'm happy. It's what I wanted in a new film, in that we got a fresh take. I enjoyed the Donnerverse, but it ran out of steam. SR was a great way to send it out, for me at least. For a new series, Man of Steel is a good start, a good first act. Now that the origin is out of the way, hopefully the filmmakers can deliver a solid second entry.

[crazy_asian_man]

And, I know I pointed it out when I transcribed the tie-in novel, but the family did not die at the end. Although a shit load of people did. I'll say this for the destruction: Yes, it was awful. In Avengers, an army swooped down. In Man of Steel, a giant machine was jackhammering the fucking ground. At the time, it seemed like all of Metropolis just got buttfucked. But in the one-on-one fight at the end, you notice Metropolis is a fucking huge city, and a lot of it wasn't touched. But, a lot of people died. I know there are arguments that the scene of the Daily Planet's evacuation was a microcosm, an example, of how many buildings did the same. But, let's face it. The World Trade Center tragedy showed that skyscrapers are not evacuated in minutes. It takes a few hours to move that many people in a limited number of stairwells or elevators. Plus, entire buildings fell on the people on the streets. Even if they did get out before the building came down, it came down on top of them soon after. Accept it. Lots and lots and lots of people died. No, Superman didn't save everyone. But that's why he's Superman, not Supergod.

For me, I personally never had a problem with Superman saving everyone, but the way that it was all put together that felt incredibly sloppy. It just FEELS like he doesn't really care about what's going on. (The comics I give a pass on, because they're not going for the same level of reality as the film. )_

By contrast, Superman was caught up in SII during the fight, too- but even at the beginning of the fight (the rooftop confrontation), you see him looking down at the people when Zod is threatening him with a slab from the construction site.... and you GET that he's caught up in the fight, but that he is concerned about what's happening around him to the people. (MOS he is, too.... but the immediacy of putting a moment of Supes' concern right at the beginning could perhaps have changed the general impression that he was blind to the collateral damage/apathetic to it).

Anyhow- doesn't matter now, but it's easy to fix, (presumably) if Snyder ever changes his mind and releases/edits an extended version...

[atp]

Jun 30, 2013 0:56:46 GMT -5 @bamabrad said:

I also noticed that in the dream sequence, Zod had a cape with his black bodysuit, while Superman's was dark blue, with a black crest and black cape. Made sense, as Jor-El's bodysuit was dark blue with a black crest.
.

I think they made it black in that dream sequence to imply that Kal-El was going to become part of Zod's group.

By the way, does anyone else see a Soviet hammer and sickle in Zod's emblem?

[Metallo]

Jun 29, 2013 11:38:34 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

Clark in MOS mentioning he was 33 didn't help much...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

Did he really have to be 33? Jeez. For all the complaints Donner and Singer get over the Christ parallels even they didn't directly throw it in people's faces as hard as MOS. like ATP said the image of Jesus on the church behind him?

The average episode of JLU has better use of symbolism. Which I've found out as I watch the CADMUS arc.

[crazy_asian_man]

For all the complaints Donner and Singer get over the Christ parallels even they didn't directly throw it in people's faces as hard as MOS. like ATP said the image of Jesus on the church behind him?

There was an article talking about WB's marketing dept working in conjunction with Christian churches to sell MOS- wasn't sure if it was a joke or for real.
If so, it does feel a bit odd to mix Hollywood Blockbuster biz and Church.... particularly one where Superman kills and Lois has dialogue talking about dicks.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2013 13:54:28 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For all the complaints Donner and Singer get over the Christ parallels even they didn't directly throw it in people's faces as hard as MOS. like ATP said the image of Jesus on the church behind him?

There was an article talking about WB's marketing dept working in conjunction with Christian churches to sell MOS- wasn't sure if it was a joke or for real.
If so, it does feel a bit odd to mix Hollywood Blockbuster biz and Church.... particularly one where Superman kills and Lois has dialogue talking about dicks.

It's real. My uber-Christian sister-in-law thought she was going to use it to finally convert me. But I refuse to attend church unless there's James Brown music and people leaping 20 feet into the air. Then ... I'll see the light ... and put the band back together.

[atp]

How come Superman didn't say, "Excuse me" to Lois when the intercom buzzes him during the interrogation?

[crazy_asian_man]

It's real. My uber-Christian sister-in-law thought she was going to use it to finally convert me. But I refuse to attend church unless there's James Brown music and people leaping 20 feet into the air. Then ... I'll see the light ... and put the band back together.

I wonder if there's alternative cuts (with new footage) of MOS for different countries and different religions?
Apparently, there's a whole different cut of Iron Man 3 just for China.... maybe there are ones for MOS?...

[atp]

Here is how I would arrange the flashbacks in MoS.

1) Keep the school/world's too big flashback where it is.

2) Remove the school bus flashback and save for later. So in other words, go directly from Clark stealing the clothes to the part where he is working in the bar.

3) When the retard trucker pours beer on his head and he closes his eyes, cut to the bullying flashback where young Clark doesn't fight back. When Jonathan says, "Whoever that man is, he's going to change the world" cut back to Clark in the bar. He opens his eyes and the retard says, "Oh! There he is!".

4) In the arctic, once Clark discovers the buried spaceship, cut to the flashback where Jonathan Kent takes him to the cellar and shows him the ship that he arrived in. Once that scene is over and we see young Clark looking at the "S" on the key, cut back to the present.

5) Remove the tornado crap scene totally. It's a stupid scene, and we don't need to see how Jonathan dies at all. It's enough that we see his grave and know that he has died.

Instead, do this:
- Clark says, "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me, out of fear."
- Cut to the school bus rescue flashback.
- Stop the flashback where Clark says, "Is she right?" "Tell me!" (i.e. omit where he asks, "Did God do this to me"?)
- Cut back to the cemetery and have Clark say, "He was convinced that the world wasn't ready. What do you think?"

This sequencing would keep themes together.

[ChrisM]

Jun 29, 2013 11:08:33 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

It was all weirdly assembled the first time I saw it, I thought the editing was a mess, but now it's got a terrific unique flow.

The problem is, the average person who isn't a "die hard" is not going to think... hmm.. if I see it again it might flow better. That's why it's box office is just 'ok' at this point... repeat viewings make all the difference.


I don't care what film we're talking, you shouldn't have to see a film multiple times to get a proper read or make better sense of it. A really good film will hit the spot the first time.

[ChrisM]

Jul 1, 2013 2:08:19 GMT -5 atp said:

Here is how I would arrange the flashbacks in MoS.

1) Keep the school/world's too big flashback where it is.

2) Remove the school bus flashback and save for later. So in other words, go directly from Clark stealing the clothes to the part where he is working in the bar.

3) When the retard trucker pours beer on his head and he closes his eyes, cut to the bullying flashback where young Clark doesn't fight back. When Jonathan says, "Whoever that man is, he's going to change the world" cut back to Clark in the bar. He opens his eyes and the retard says, "Oh! There he is!".

4) In the arctic, once Clark discovers the buried spaceship, cut to the flashback where Jonathan Kent takes him to the cellar and shows him the ship that he arrived in. Once that scene is over and we see young Clark looking at the "S" on the key, cut back to the present.

5) Remove the tornado crap scene totally. It's a stupid scene, and we don't need to see how Jonathan dies at all. It's enough that we see his grave and know that he has died.

Instead, do this:
- Clark says, "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me, out of fear."
- Cut to the school bus rescue flashback.
- Stop the flashback where Clark says, "Is she right?" "Tell me!" (i.e. omit where he asks, "Did God do this to me"?)
- Cut back to the cemetery and have Clark say, "He was convinced that the world wasn't ready. What do you think?"

This sequencing would keep themes together.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree pretty much with all of those editorial changes. Flow would be more congruent, with a purpose if you will.

[ChrisM]

I think something that's kind of gotten lost in the discussion...

the writer's decision to make Jor-El's "spirit" a full-blown, full-bodied apparition that can operate the spaceship and actually intervene in current events.


It felt like it was a bit much, in that it robbed the impact of his death in the beginning of the film. If anything it feels like a more in-your-face Obi-Wan. I'm sure a big part of that choice was to give Crowe as much screen time as possible... but if that was their motivation, why not just flesh out Krypton's back story a little more instead of just using it as a set piece for explosions and dragonflies?

[EnriqueH]

Wait, wait.

Dr. Hamilton died?

[Metallo]

Jul 1, 2013 11:07:06 GMT -5 ChrisM said:

Jun 29, 2013 11:08:33 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

It was all weirdly assembled the first time I saw it, I thought the editing was a mess, but now it's got a terrific unique flow.

The problem is, the average person who isn't a "die hard" is not going to think... hmm.. if I see it again it might flow better. That's why it's box office is just 'ok' at this point... repeat viewings make all the difference.


I don't care what film we're talking, you shouldn't have to see a film multiple times to get a proper read or make better sense of it. A really good film will hit the spot the first time.

You shouldn't have to see a movie three times to understand it. Then again I'm sure that's what WB is hoping for with the box office take. I can understand missing some things here and there but you should only have to see a film once if the storytelling is well put together and execute. Snyder seemed to be more concerned with the action sequences and even in those storytelling went out the window. The action should serve and bolster up the story. Not suddenly separate from it the way it does in MOS.

The fact that so many fairly intelligent people on this board weren't sure if the family survived or not shows how piss poorly put together this film is at times. A whole huge point of the film hinged on their fates and they turned into such and afterthought that the film left people confused about what happened to them.

[atp]

Jul 1, 2013 11:28:42 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

Wait, wait.

Dr. Hamilton died?

Yes, and he wasn't too impressed that Col. Hardy unilaterally decided to kill him.

His last words were, "A good death is its own rewtard."

[Ollie W]

Jun 27, 2013 9:42:05 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Good review, Ollie

Thanks Metallo.

I went to see Man of Steel for the second time last night and like Superman Returns my enthusiasm for the picture dwindled on second viewing.

I still stand by my original review however I now found what I initially liked about the picture impressed me less so and what bothered me about the film troubled me even more.

Firstly let me say I am not a fan of the shaky camera work. I know why it is used and for some pictures it works quite well, but here it only serves to unsettle the audience which I don't think was it's intention.

Henry Cavill. I was singing his praises the first time around but now I found his performance to be lacking much substance. Some critics noted that he didn't do much more than look good, which I initially thought was very harsh but I can now see where they are coming from. Despite a lot of screen time Cavill doesn't have a lot to say. Most of the emotion comes through the flashbacks and when performing his great feats the action is at such a high intensity that there really isn't any room for performance.

This movie has given me even more appreciation for the Metropolis battle in Superman II. Sure it's clunky and a little slow but at least it's entertaining. With Man of Steel I just felt like I was being beaten over the head. How am I supposed to enjoy this when I know I'm just watching a computer simulated fight.

I know people expect a different level of action these days but real drama can be created using a combination of digital and practical effects and I wish the filmmakers had taken a route more in that direction.

Man of Steel isn't a Superman film in the classical sense both in terms of how the story is told but also in the material. Where's in Superman the Movie we had Superman being revealed to the word in an iconic scene where he rescues Lois from a helicopter, here we have him surrendering to the Military.

People complain, myself included about Superman Returns being largely devoid of joy but Man of Steel isn't much better.

I give it a 3 out of 5

[EnriqueH]

These last two movies want to make Superman something he's not.

He's a Boy Scout, but they want to make him Donnie Darko.

They tried doing it EMO and now they tried going all out action. Neither approach worked.

[Metallo]

Agreed. You can give Superman doubts fears and other relatable character elements without making him a silent stoic emotionally cut off loner. They're trying to make Superman a batman. But that's not who he is. While trying to make him relatable in the way fhey have they've made him yet another generic movie superhero. Xmen did the same type of stuff far better.

I keep going back to JLU. They did more to give Superman depth and making him flawed in any two episodes than MOS did in two hours. Even when it was his side and green arrows side arguing about the kind of power a group like the Justice League wields and if the government has a right to be afraid. And they did more with the implications of Superman killing Luthor in similar circumstances than MOS did. That other Superman had no choice either but on that show his actions were a huge story point. Like I said you build up to something like that and play off the aftermath

[ChrisM]

Jul 2, 2013 0:32:51 GMT -5 Ollie W said:

This movie has given me even more appreciation for the Metropolis battle in Superman II. Sure it's clunky and a little slow but at least it's entertaining. With Man of Steel I just felt like I was being beaten over the head. How am I supposed to enjoy this when I know I'm just watching a computer simulated fight.

I know people expect a different level of action these days but real drama can be created using a combination of digital and practical effects and I wish the filmmakers had taken a route more in that direction.

They might be able to get away with the video game fighting if they just slowed things down a bit. It's too fast, too up-close... too loud... it's an overload and the brain doesn't get a chance to absorb or digest... so in turn we really can't appreciate or invest in what's happening. It's like a hooker giving head while you're skydiving, you probably wouldn't even know she was down there until you landed.

Jul 2, 2013 0:32:51 GMT -5 Ollie W said:

People complain, myself included about Superman Returns being largely devoid of joy but Man of Steel isn't much better.

I blame cultural stereotypes. Joy means queer these days. If you're happy there's something wrong with you.

[Deleted]

I can understand why people think it's too fast Chris, but I suppose when you've got super powered beings with that speed it's going to be fast, that's something we didn't see much of in SII. There's one part in MOS I liked I'm betting most people didn't, it's when he's flying after Zod and making very quick turns round some buildings, it IS quite tricky to follow, but I thought it was kinda cool.

The funny thing is, Snyder could have made it easier to follow by using his old favourite, the slow mo cam. But the guy probably couldn't win either way because when he got the gig people were instantly complaining about how it would be all slow mo etc etc. But Perhaps the criticisms of Snyder from previous work scared him off from using a technique that might actually have been beneficial in some places with MOS.

One thing I hope he ditches for any sequel is the hand held shakey cam. It's just not for me, like Ollie said, I can understand why he used it, but I just don't like it and although it wasn't as distracting as I thought it would be, it did getting on my tits a little bit at times.

[SupermanUF]

Jul 2, 2013 8:17:43 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Agreed. You can give Superman doubts fears and other relatable character elements without making him a silent stoic emotionally cut off loner. They're trying to make Superman a batman. But that's not who he is. While trying to make him relatable in the way fhey have they've made him yet another generic movie superhero. Xmen did the same type of stuff far better.

He has ZERO "doubts and fears" once he puts on the suit. From the minute he takes flight, he just rolls up his sleeves and gets the job done. There is nothing "emotionally cut off loner" about him. He defends his mother's honor, saves Smallville, saves various soldiers, destroys the world engine, saves Metropolis as best he can, kisses the girl, etc etc. He has ZERO crisis of conscience once he becomes Superman, unlike what we got in SR or even Superman II. Talk about an "emotionally cut off loner!" Certain part of it is intrinsic to a character that is an ALIEN WHO LIVES ALONE AT THE NORTH POLE IN HIS FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, but MoS does one of the best jobs of portraying a Superman that, despite his alien nature, is very much human.

Jul 2, 2013 8:17:43 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I keep going back to JLU. They did more to give Superman depth and making him flawed in any two episodes than MOS did in two hours. Even when it was his side and green arrows side arguing about the kind of power a group like the Justice League wields and if the government has a right to be afraid. And they did more with the implications of Superman killing Luthor in similar circumstances than MOS did. That other Superman had no choice either but on that show his actions were a huge story point. Like I said you build up to something like that and play off the aftermath

Wait, you just said "they're trying to make Superman a batman, that's not who he is" but then you celebrate JLU for giving Superman "depth and making him flawed." LIke, say, Batman?