DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
At least Zod's not really just a down on his luck English actor.
Last edited:
Man of Steel Discussion (Spoilers)
- Thread starter TheManWithoutFear
- Start date
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
There were a lot of lukewarm or even negative reviews for Iron Man 3 from fans, but it was still a fun movie. Seriously, see it and make up your own mind. As I said the film has its problems, but nowhere near as many or as bad as people are making it out to be. It's also got a lot going for it, from great action, a decent storyline, interesting changes to the Superman mythos, and (in my opinion) the best portrayal of Clark Kent/Superman onscreen by Henry Cavill. The guy nails it, least in my opinion. Amy Adams' Lois is also probably the most like able and capable version of the character portrayed (far more so than Margot Kidder, the TV series version actress whose name I can't remember, and the one from Superman Returns whose name I also can't remember). And Michael Shannon is great, Kevin Costner is great, Russell Crowe is decent. Lots of strong performances. It's worth seeing in theaters, especially for the same of the action on the big screen. The performances won't be missed on the television at home, but the scope and kinetic energy of the action will certainly lose some luster on a TV versus a huge movie screen.
Zing! Poor Terrence.
Last edited:
Iron Man 3 was probably the worst movie I've ever paid to see. There was nothing fun about it. You aren't convincing me.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
I still don't get the hate for IM3. Did you not see Superman Returns in theaters? Because that was certainly worse than Iron Man 3 by a long shot, even if you hated Iron Man 3.
I didn't see Superman Returns in the theatre, no.
And while I didn't really care for Superman Returns, Iron Man 3 was much, much worse. The only comic movie worse than Iron Man 3 was Batman & Robin. It was terrible.
Superman Returns was really not that bad. I didn't see it for several years after it came out because I just didn't care anything about it.
Anyway, I will eventually see this, I'm just not going to spend a bunch of money to do so. The discussion around it is fascinating, though.
thee great one
Master of TOG-fu.
:sure:
What DiB and Bass said in previous posts.
This movie was also Zod's real estate plans with him having Earth. I also wanted to point out how much I loved Zod's broadcast. That was the only part of the movie that gave me chills. But it would have been so much better if it was set while Superman was active. The people that could turn on him because they are afraid of others with his powers or even the people who still stand behind him in spite of it.
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
Considering how many of you came to the defence of Green Lantern as being reasonably entertaining (which I still think it was), it's bizarre and depressing that you're all completely dismissing this.
It was an entertaining, efficient reboot that tried and failed to be a Superman version of Nolan's Batman films. There was a lot wrong with it, but there was a LOT right with it as well. And while it certainly could have used much more upbeat hopefulness, it nonetheless felt like a "Superman" film. It also had a really solid, stimulating sci-fi plot (more than I can say for Star Trek Into Darkness) and didn't just coast by on Superman brand-recognition and ****-and-ass shots.
That said, the film was far, FAR too dark and doesn't come close to embodying the heroic ideals and philosophies it could have and should have championed. In that respect, Christopher Reeve still comes out on top, wires and all.
The most disappointing thing about this film is that, yes, it's just an adequate reboot rather than the masterpiece it could have been. We wanted Superman Begins and we got The Amazing Super-Man. For me it doesn't have any glaring, offensive flaws it's just lacking in the kind of mesmerising x-factor that the old films (and The Dark Knight films and to an extent The Avengers, at least in a breezier sense) had. Nobody is likely to care about this film in ten years and it's unlikely to fill any young children full of wonder and magic and moral fibre. It's just an entertaining Summer film.
But I'd certainly give it a 7 or even a 7.5/10. It's a great template for a Superman series of films (especially compared to the relentlessly troubled Superman Returns) and I look forward to the already greenlit sequel.
It was an entertaining, efficient reboot that tried and failed to be a Superman version of Nolan's Batman films. There was a lot wrong with it, but there was a LOT right with it as well. And while it certainly could have used much more upbeat hopefulness, it nonetheless felt like a "Superman" film. It also had a really solid, stimulating sci-fi plot (more than I can say for Star Trek Into Darkness) and didn't just coast by on Superman brand-recognition and ****-and-ass shots.
That said, the film was far, FAR too dark and doesn't come close to embodying the heroic ideals and philosophies it could have and should have championed. In that respect, Christopher Reeve still comes out on top, wires and all.
The most disappointing thing about this film is that, yes, it's just an adequate reboot rather than the masterpiece it could have been. We wanted Superman Begins and we got The Amazing Super-Man. For me it doesn't have any glaring, offensive flaws it's just lacking in the kind of mesmerising x-factor that the old films (and The Dark Knight films and to an extent The Avengers, at least in a breezier sense) had. Nobody is likely to care about this film in ten years and it's unlikely to fill any young children full of wonder and magic and moral fibre. It's just an entertaining Summer film.
But I'd certainly give it a 7 or even a 7.5/10. It's a great template for a Superman series of films (especially compared to the relentlessly troubled Superman Returns) and I look forward to the already greenlit sequel.
Last edited:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Well said. As I've repeatedly said it does have its problems and shortcomings, but it is by no means a bad film. It's fun and interesting on many levels. And I do think Cavill was great as Superman, yes even better than Reeve (since his version, great as it was, was far too simplistic and one dimensional).
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Agreed. The box office total to date is $56 million, so it seems to be pointing to a $120ish million weekend haul. That's well ahead of what many were predicting. It looks likely that we get a sequel, and hopefully more DC films. Hopefully they can solve the issues that this film had in future films. All said, Man of Steel is a solid foundation for the DCU.
My friend wanted to see it, so I actually just got done seeing it a second time. I have to admit that I think I second viewing improved my opinion of it (not that I didn't like it to begin with, I thought it was pretty good). I think there's more humor in this than people give it credit for, and the flashbacks work a bit better. That said, there should have been more closure to him killing Zod. Overall, I think my grade would go from a B- to a B+.
Last edited:
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
While I usually always rely on Rotten Tomatoes as well, it's worth pointing out that despite the lukewarm critical reception it got there, it got an 'A-' score on Cinemascore and 8.3/10 on IMDb. As well as an 82% Audience Satisfaction score on Rotten Tomatoes.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Those are very solid scores. Nice.
Bass
Nexus of the World
Um... that weren't me.
Anyhow, my quick thoughts (which were all up on my twitter): It's okay.
The last hour of action is good, particularly the superhuman fights. I've never seen anything like that before, and it was extremely well done. Shannon was good as Zod, and Caville was good as Superman.
Costner's Pa Kent is the best Pa Kent we've ever had.
However, whatever power that scene had was lost because of the continuous flashbacks that were awful for three reasons: 1. The repeated exposition we already knew, 2. They sliced up the narrative of character motivation so it was impossible to feel empathy for anyone because we were continually trying to piece together what was going on, 3. It was a holdover from BATMAN BEGINS, which this film clearly just copies in a hope that, "Hey, it worked once".
I'll give examples of the first two:
1. The whole opening prologue on Krypton tells us exactly why Superman is on Earth, what happened to Zod, and everything else. So later on, when the background of Krypton's history is explained two more times, once by Jor-El and once by Zod, we are inherently bored by them telling us something we already saw. Especially since the whole question is, "What happened on Krypton?" For example, there is a point where Zod actually tells Superman he was sent to Earth to create a new Krypton. Superman and us know this is false because we've been told twice why Jor-El sent him to Earth. Surely, it would be better to keep that stuff concealed and give us a moment where we think Zod might actually be telling the truth. Imagine if we haven't seen Jor-El in the entire film, we haven't seen what happened on Krypton, only heard it second-hand from Zod, and then Superman finally meets the holographic Jor-El. It's writing 101; don't give the audience exposition before making them want to know that exposition.
2. So, that scene with Pa Kent, is excellent. It propels the entire emotional weight of the film, and makes sense of all of Superman's choices. However, by cryptically cutting back and forth through time and never showing it to us, for the first hour of the film, we can't help but wonder, "why is Superman acting this way?" We are intrigued but at the expense of emotional involvement. This means that when we do finally get an emotionally powerful scene, it carries a tenth of the power it should have had because we have no momentum of emotional narrative.
There are other problems. Everyone mentions how we don't get enough Smallville and Metropolis and they're right: the film has no victim. As a result, there is no danger, no stakes, and no excitement. It's boring. Add to that the undercutting of emotional involvement via the flashbacks and the whole thing is desperately lifeless. This is why, for example, Superman's final choice doesn't really work. Not because of what it is, but because we have no caring for the victim, we don't buy how far he goes to save anyone (especially since he's taken no pains to save anyone prior).
This is clearly because the filmmakers just don't like Superman. They spend the entire film trying to justify every little thing about him, rather than telling a Superman story. Something I felt was sort of the case with BATMAN BEGINS.
There's also numerous problems of complexity – one of the reasons the exposition is so forced is because the filmmakers couldn't tell what was and wasn't necessary. For example, there's no need for a second Kryptonian ship on Earth. In fact, it kinda makes the whole story make less sense (if it was a scout ship, why didn't Zod go to Earth earlier as he was checking out the outposts, and so on).
That said, there were some wonderful elements. The cast, the fight I mentioned, Pa Kent, the Daily Planet crew, Hamilton and the military, and I particularly liked the first contact situation with the Kryptonians showing up. It really wasn't bad. Just wasn't great or particularly good. It was better, for example, than STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (which was shoddy and made no sense).
But here, for me, is kind of the sum up of the problem.
It was the MIRACLEMAN movie we'll never see. Seriously, it's exactly what you'd expect the MIRACLEMAN movie to be. And it's not even a good MIRACLEMAN movie (but it's totally what we'd get from such an endeavour). Zod is Kid Miracleman. The rest requires a little bit of restructuring for specifics of the worlds, but it could rather easily have been the MIRACLEMAN film. Particularly the climax.
Which is why, it's not a great Superman film.
Much like HULK and THE INCREDIBLE HULK, I think if you take MAN OF STEEL and SUPERMAN RETURNS, you could probably make an excellent Superman film. There are elements of both of those movies that surpass SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.
Maybe the sequel, with Lex Luthor, will be like THE DARK KNIGHT. It has the foundations to do so.
This was certainly BATMAN BEGINS.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Bass said:
Actually, this is explained in the prequel comic for Man of Steel. That ship (an explorer/terraforming ship) launched from Krypton about 18,000 years before, and was captained by Kara Zor-El (Supergirl in the DC universe proper). It was supposed to go somewhere else, but a criminal stowaway diverted the ship while Kara and her crew were in hypersleep/cryo. The stowaway, Dev-Em, over the ten year journey to our star system (I assume they didn't have the wormhole tech seen when Clark's pod folds space to arrive in our solar system at the beginning of MoS at that point in time), woke up crew members one by one to use their fingerprints/DNA to access the parts of the ship food was stored and to change the destination to our solar system--which may have been an accident or not, can't remember, then killed those crew members one by one over a 10 year period. Kara was the last one awoken as they entered the solar system, and her and Dev-Em fought as the yellow light of the sun started bringing about their powers. The ship crashed into the ice. We see one person (either Kara or Dev-Em, it's never revealed) leave the ship and it flashes to present day, where the ship is noticed by scientists and sets in motion the Army dig we see in the movie. Clark is then seen on the fishing boat and it ends, leading directly into the film.
So it does kind of explain why Zod didn't know of Earth or its location, since it was discovered accidentally by Kara's ship, and once it's uncovered by the Army and Clark enters it and powers it up, it begins emitting the signal Zod used to find Earth. Earth was never a recorded outpost in Kryptonian records, essentially.
However, it's a failure on the film's part for not explaining or revealing that in the film itself (it only would've required a line or two from Zod).
This was my impression. Looking back I realize I come off as overly defensive of the film, but not because I thought it was Oscar worthy fare, but that I don't think it's deserving of the amount of flak it's received from some people here on the boards. It was a competent (mostly) and overall fun movie to watch that made some changes to the approach and mythos of the Superman story and succeeded more than it failed. I'd said it previously, but I liked the sci-fi aspect the film had.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's definitely getting too much flack.
Bass
Nexus of the World
I wasn't informed there was required reading. People complained SUPERMAN RETURNS had too much "required reading" when it was a sequel to the two previous Superman films that were liked. Obscure mini-comics do not a plot hole fill.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
They do say that Krypton has thousands and thousands of outposts. It's arguable, that Zod may having been going to the list of old outposts and just hadn't gotten to Earth yet. It's a stretch, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a plot hole.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
mike3717
Well-Known Member
Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
Mark Waid:
hahaha, amazing.
hahaha, amazing.
mike3717
Well-Known Member
Yeah this pretty much is the final nail in the coffin for me. I'll be waiting for this on netflix or something.
