Man of Steel - Superman movie has a director

[EXO]

I'm not a huge fan of the Avngers either, I thought it was fun and liked it better than Superman... but they are addressing NY in all the the continuations including The TV show. There's some sort of PTSD that gives Tony insomnia after the battle of New York in IM3. But that doesn't count either because it's not within the movie itself... Haven't seen Thor 2.

[myk]

I'm not a huge fan of the Avngers either, I thought it was fun and liked it better than Superman... but they are addressing NY in all the the continuations including The TV show. There's some sort of PTSD that gives Tony insomnia after the battle of New York in IM3. But that doesn't count either because it's not within the movie itself... Haven't seen Thor 2.

If there's discussion about New York in the t.v. show you'll have to excuse me as I haven't seen it. Then again, it's just "talk," and talk is cheap. What about these "consequences" that everyone keeps harping about?

I will grant you guys that Stark had to deal with PTSD in Ironman 3, but unless I'm misunderstanding everyone here there's still no instance of consequences in the form of public scrutiny brought directly upon the heads of the Avengers, Superman, etc. The PTSD is a "personal issue" as far as I'm concerned. Again, I really think the idea of "consequences" is a small point; VALID, for sure, but small IMO...

Edited November 18, 2013 by myk

[Twoducks]

So are you telling me that the Avengers answered for the destruction that they caused? Did Tony Stark "answer for it" in Iron Man 3? Did Thor "answer for it" in Thor 2? Those movies and others like them of course being nothing but filler between Avenger movies? Let's not forget there was also mass-destruction in those two movies as well but neither Stark or Thor faced any consequences for the destruction that they helped to cause YET AGAIN.

Did YOU watch the clip? It doesn't MATTER what the politician or what anyone else says because NONE of the Avengers or any of the members of SHIELD were brought under scrutiny or trial for what happened! There was NO justice brought upon by anyone for the destruction of the city. I'm guessing that the point that you keep trying to make is that you wanted someone in MOS to at least "comment" on the destruction that happened in the movie? Because there certainly weren't any repercussions or punishment on the heroes in either the Avengers, Thor or Ironman. I'll agree there were some "comments" though.

Clearly you and I see these movies VERY differently and we're just going to butt heads at this point...

And we go again to why the badly delivered plot of MoS shoots itself in the foot: MoS is done showing Supes destroying everything in some big flashy fistfight. The Avengers is done with the intent of showing them acting like heroes while doing their flashy fistfights. See the difference?

You are going at it as if the Avengers destroyed the city but they saved it. The consequence of their actions is that they saved the day and people are thankful for it. The world approves of the Avengers. In a few seconds we are showed all of this, and it is organic and logical since the makers of the film showed the Avengers saving these people in the middle of the fight. That is good story constructions without the need of talking heads to deliver exposition or “moments” that come out from nowhere.

We know crap ship about Superman's Earth at the end of the movie. They waste a good long sequence that could have been done in a few seconds to show that the military is nervous … yeah, who would have thought the military would be nervous of a demigod living in its borders…

For such a gritty moan fest they forget to answer the most important questions they put up. Does the world need a Superman? Who the hell knows! Going by the death caused by him, the in world citizens probably blame that faceless crazy alien that caused everything. That is really the only information they have at the end of the movie, everything else are just blind guesses. People that were in ground zero survived because they saved their own asses; they were inspired by no superman to raise over their fears to help their fellow humans. They did that on their own.

My point is that MoS has a weak script hammered down even more by bad filmaking. The director can't show why his characters act the way they do when it would have been easy to do so, even with all the plot holes.

The Marvel movies have elevated the brain matter of big superhero movies. Evidently they are not works of art, faaaaaaaar from it, but they show that quality can be found in a blockbuster. Badly delivered smoke like MoS crap on that and make it look like you only need flashy FX and being dark and gritty (just because) to sell tickets.

[badboy00z]

Nobody notices how fast they were able to rebuild the cities? At the end of MOS the impression that I got was that everything was fixed. Lol

[Knight26]

Consider this:

http://www.mstarz.com/articles/14635/20130618/man-steel-2013-spoilers-scientist-calculates-death-toll-financial-cost.htm

short form:

MoS total losses, human and financial:

129k Dead

250k MIA

1 Million Missing

Financial damage to infrastructure: $700 Billion in Damages, no mention of cleanup cost

Compare to the Avengers:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/avengers-damage-manhattan-would-cost-160-billion-322486

Financial Tole: $70 Billion in damages, $90B in clean up, total: $160B

No mention of death toll.

Looking simply at those numbers the financial damages in Avengers were 10% that of MoS, and we can assume that the death toll was similarly low. However given that there was an evacuation in the Avengers, my own calculations for damages and losses, for my Safety Engineer MS, and came up with similar numbers fro MoS. My own numbers for Avengers civilian deaths were (High end, assuming evacuations):

Dead: 20k

MIA: 40k

Injured: 150k

[Gakken85]

I agree with everything TwoDucks said.

The point isn't just that Supes kills Zod so violently, (and yes there is a big difference between pushing a guy off a smokey cliff where you can't see the bottom and the feeling of triumph in that scene, and snapping a guys neck in cold blood and screaming about how he didn't want to make the choice.) It is all the other events that lead up to that murder. If Superman agonized over the choice some... maybe while taking an ass beating, or giving some sort of conflicted emotion... it would be a totally different film.

I think what you people miss is that Superman is a man who can do anything, but he always does the right thing. The whole tone of the new film set Superman up as just a confused force of nature who is pissed off and emo about everything. The act of killing Zod isn't the main point, it's just the breaking point.

Superman could have subdued Zod, especially in that position. And he could have easily used all that random alien technology that just happen to be on Earth to put him in prison. Hell, The ship he came on was his "Prison", wasn't it? They fixed it up to travel around looking for Supes. And yes, the Donner Superman could have thrown Zod in prison too, but it was a totally different film from start to finish. It also doesn't excuse a shitty choice for this film, because that film had some plot holes.

But honestly, if they really made this bullocks ultimate choice to fight forever and never give up with limitless reserves of power... why isn't Superman smart enough to just kill him right away to save all those lives? If he knew he had no choice, why not make the choices 20 minutes earlier? It's not like he tried to talk him out of it. Again... no morals or themes about who Superman really IS... just two dudes wailing on each other.

I agree with Twoducks that it was just lazy writing. It's not a horrible film, but it's not a very good Superman film. It's a misuse of the character to satisfy the fanboy's notion of Nolan's Batman.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Gakken85

[Kanedas Bike]

*snip*

I agree with Twoducks that it was just lazy writing. It's not a horrible film, but it's not a very good Superman film. It's a misuse of the character to satisfy the fanboy's notion of Nolan's Batman.

It's certainly not a bad Superman film (and I still standby my .02 that it's the best Superman film made to date).

I agree that Superman didn't act very traditionally Superman-like with how the final act of the film was handled and the events in Metropolis. They also show that it was only a relatively small section of the city impacted by the World Engine and that the vast majority of the city was still intact - this during the final confrontation between Superman and Zod.

Traditional Superman would have had him go all out to minimize the collateral damage and death-toll vs. this depiction that showed a Superman not entirely attached to humanity and saving people only when/if it was convenient during the course of whatever engagement he was currently involved in.

For me two things to consider;

The comic source material this movie was based off of, I believe that there are Superman stories in comics that have him very much detached from humanity and not Mr. American as apple pie.

If the consequences (whatever that looks like) are addressed with perhaps Superman working to gain the worlds trust and/or how the world has reacted to his presence (embraced, rejected, ambivalence, etc.) post Man of Steel.

It's a good debate and again some criticism very much due, some not so much.

-b.

[badboy00z]

IMO Superman has very little concern about collateral/ property damage. This is just based on the Superman and JL TAS though. He crashes through roofs when arriving to save the day and creates another hole when leaving. Remember the fight between him and Captain Marvel at Lex Corp City? Sure the buildings weren't inhabited but he still brought them down without a care in the world. I freaking love that fight scene btw. Also I just realized this now but that fight scene has a part very similar to the fight in MOS. 2:54 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BJ1-trrgqc

Edited November 19, 2013 by badboy00z

[azrael]

IMO Superman has very little concern about collateral/ property damage. This is just based on the Superman and JL TAS though. He crashes through roofs when arriving to save the day and creates another hole when leaving. Remember the fight between him and Captain Marvel at Lex Corp City? Sure the buildings weren't inhabited but he still brought them down without a care in the world. I freaking love that fight scene btw. Also I just realized this now but that fight scene has a part very similar to the fight in MOS. 2:54 mark.

Rewatch any of Justice League or Justice League Unlimited or any of the animated series. Supes sure creates a lot of collateral damage when he has to use his powers against a similarly equal opponent. What do you think is gonna happen if they fight in an urban setting? He sent Darkseid through a number of buildings. Heck, Batman has to cause some collateral damage to Superman just to keep him from fighting back. So I can live with the level of destruction in this movie.

[CoryHolmes]

My personal take was that this was the experience which caused the aforementioned force of nature to grow and mature into the Superman we all know. This experience will teach him the folly of using his powers without consideration for the humans around him.

I still think it's the best Superman film ever, even including the first one.

[Dobber]

My personal take was that this was the experience which caused the aforementioned force of nature to grow and mature into the Superman we all know. This experience will teach him the folly of using his powers without consideration for the humans around him.

I still think it's the best Superman film ever, even including the first one.

Agreed.

Plus the alien technology couldn't be used to "jail" Zod. They have already shown that Kryptonions tech was just as "weak" to the yellow sun infused Kryptonians as earth structures are. Examples; Clark crushing the security droid that was attacking Lois, Clark blasting a whole in Zods mothership to escape, Supes flying through Zods shp and then using his heat vision to destroy it before he shot down the C-17.

Look, is it a perfect movie? No....none are, and if someone doesn't like it that's fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think some of the arguments used to trash the movie are unwarranted.

Plus, I don't get the he kills Zod in could blood when he is saving a family from being incinerated by a homicidal monster, but say crushing athe hand of a now human Zod and then throwing him into an abys is no big deal. Particularly when that film has a far more light hearted tone. At least MoS showed how it hurt Supes to make that choice. Superman II, he didn't even bat an eye.

Chris

[Gakken85]

Knocking holes in buildings... and knocking skyscrapers down is two different things.

The collateral damage isn't a huge issue for me, but all the people inside the buildings changes the equation. If he knocks somebody through a building somebody might get hurt, but if he topples a giant skyscraper thousands of people will die.

I really enjoyed the massive scale of the damage to a degree. I've always thought Superman needs a more epic scope in his battles, but his morals and powers need to come into play to protect the innocent.

Again, it comes down to lazy writing. Why not have Zod and Supes smash up a building, and then have Supes realize people are dying in his wake and fly the fight out to an industrial sector or something.

[Vifam7]

And we go again to why the badly delivered plot of MoS shoots itself in the foot: MoS is done showing Supes destroying everything in some big flashy fistfight. The Avengers is done with the intent of showing them acting like heroes while doing their flashy fistfights. See the difference?

You are going at it as if the Avengers destroyed the city but they saved it. The consequence of their actions is that they saved the day and people are thankful for it. The world approves of the Avengers. In a few seconds we are showed all of this, and it is organic and logical since the makers of the film showed the Avengers saving these people in the middle of the fight. That is good story constructions without the need of talking heads to deliver exposition or “moments” that come out from nowhere.

We know crap ship about Superman's Earth at the end of the movie. They waste a good long sequence that could have been done in a few seconds to show that the military is nervous … yeah, who would have thought the military would be nervous of a demigod living in its borders…

For such a gritty moan fest they forget to answer the most important questions they put up. Does the world need a Superman? Who the hell knows! Going by the death caused by him, the in world citizens probably blame that faceless crazy alien that caused everything. That is really the only information they have at the end of the movie, everything else are just blind guesses. People that were in ground zero survived because they saved their own asses; they were inspired by no superman to raise over their fears to help their fellow humans. They did that on their own.

My point is that MoS has a weak script hammered down even more by bad filmaking. The director can't show why his characters act the way they do when it would have been easy to do so, even with all the plot holes.

The Marvel movies have elevated the brain matter of big superhero movies. Evidently they are not works of art, faaaaaaaar from it, but they show that quality can be found in a blockbuster. Badly delivered smoke like MoS crap on that and make it look like you only need flashy FX and being dark and gritty (just because) to sell tickets.

Pretty much agree.

Although to be fair, I thought the first half of the movie (particularly the story of Clark Kent from boy to man) was very well done. IMO, it's a bit of a shame that what was well set up in the first half (Clark Kent's journey, Jor-el's message to him, he as a symbol of hope) was kinda lost once the fighting began.

And frankly I thought the fighting was boring. No tension or drama, just lots of flashy effects and destruction that went on and on and on. I had no problems with Superman killing General Zod. However, the final act of him snapping the neck felt rather lame after all the fighting and destruction that went on beforehand. I mean, it was Superman taking out the big bad superpowered boss. I was expecting something more grandiose (or more original, perhaps even clever like in Superman II) not something I've seen before in a Steven Seagal movie.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Vifam7

[Dobber]

I agree with that, in fact I found the length of the final battle/battles to be my biggest complaint with the movie, and can agree that with that much time being used why not show more effort being taken to protect people. Though, as CoryHolmes stated, this could be considered his BIG learning experience.

Chris

[Gakken85]

Also, too much shaky cam. There is a scene where young superman is talking to his dad and the camera is going nuts.... they are just talking ! haha

[Twoducks]

Want to have some laughs and see MoS analyzed from both points of view? Here it is:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/41449-man-of-steel

(The review ends at 40+ min, the rest is something else)

[DuelGundam2099]

I side with Angry Joe on most of the points, although NC has a point about the editing and zooming, both of which I found annoying.

Edited November 27, 2013 by DuelGundam2099

[Uxi]

Plus, I don't get the he kills Zod in could blood when he is saving a family from being incinerated by a homicidal monster, but say crushing athe hand of a now human Zod and then throwing him into an abys is no big deal. Particularly when that film has a far more light hearted tone. At least MoS showed how it hurt Supes to make that choice. Superman II, he didn't even bat an eye.

Chris

Eh, I always took Zod as imprisoned, not dead, in the theatrical cut of Superman II which makes it 100% opposite of snapping his neck.

at a Seagal move

Edited November 27, 2013 by Uxi

[areaseven]

[Kanedas Bike]

LOL - "I'm handsome, see".

Honestly one could make one of these "what's wrong with", "honest trailer", "how it should have ended" for just about every fiction ever created, but they sure are funny as hell to watch/read.

-b.

[taksraven]

LOL - "I'm handsome, see".

Honestly one could make one of these "what's wrong with", "honest trailer", "how it should have ended" for just about every fiction ever created, but they sure are funny as hell to watch/read.

-b.

Most of it is just frikking nerd nitpicking though, hardly much basis for valid criticisms. I put most of these in the category of "If you can do better, why aren't you a Hollywood director instead of just sitting in ya mums basement making *this* stuff.

The Prometheus "Honest trailer" was pretty valid though.....

[Kanedas Bike]

Most of it is just frikking nerd nitpicking though, hardly much basis for valid criticisms. I put most of these in the category of "If you can do better, why aren't you a Hollywood director instead of just sitting in ya mums basement making *this* stuff.

The Prometheus "Honest trailer" was pretty valid though.....

For sure, I guess it depends on someone's perspective on whether or not the commentary is nitpicking or valid feedback/criticism. And sometimes the product is so bad that even the most die-hard fan, or most forgiving viewer can't forgive it.

For me I just usually shake my head with the thought of "well that could have been better because of X, Y or Z" and try to move on.

And Man of Steel certainly had a few X, Y and Z issues but it wasn't Skyline (or whatever your choice of a truly sh!t movie might be) by any stretch of the imagination.

-b.

[areaseven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1AJyKJ4BCo