Man of Steel - Superman movie has a director

[Fortress_Maximus]

ah. ok that certainly is one way to creatively present it. thanks.

[areaseven]

Zod Reviews Man of Steel

[Mog]

Got to watch the film today.

It's solid and has its moments. But I can see where it can be meh or disappoint some folks. The whole

scout ship scenes with Superman getting his suit and everything else were a bit of a stretch

but whatever.

And after reading the posts here, I now understand why a bunch of Kryptonians going at it would result in a buttload of destruction. But after awhile, the massive wanton destruction became a bit repetitive and too desensitizing for me personally. I mean if Supes cares so much about humans why didn't he

try to drag Zod to a less populated area and just go at it there?

Minor nit on my part.

However, the dad parts worked for me (freakin' Kevin Costner, Americana, and father-son relationships ).

And I liked how they tried to make Superman more relatable, showing how his super-senses and him having to constantly hold back wasn't exactly the easiest thing growing up. His "I grew up in Kansas" line also put a sh*t-eating grin on my face.

Lastly,

what happened to Professor Hamilton at the end? Was he sucked into the black hole/Phantom Zone too? That would suck if that's the case, seeing how well the DC Animated Universe used the character over the years.

[myk]

Well, the amount of destruction had me thinking in the end:

What? How is there a Daily Planet to go back to after all of that destruction? Based on the ruination that ensued in the end battles I thought the world had ended. But whatever. Additionally, I would say that Superman didn't try to relocate the battle with the Kryptonians because they wouldn't have let him do that; they know that one of Kal's weaknesses was his affinity for mankind, just as in Superman II...

[Negotiator]

Well, the amount of destruction had me thinking in the end:

What? How is there a Daily Planet to go back to after all of that destruction? Based on the ruination that ensued in the end battles I thought the world had ended. But whatever. Additionally, I would say that Superman didn't try to relocate the battle with the Kryptonians because they wouldn't have let him do that; they know that one of Kal's weaknesses was his affinity for mankind, just as in Superman II...

and to add...

Zod is a soldier, I don't think he'd fall for that. He also just wanted to kill humans at that point so more destruction on top of Kal caring for all the humans was a + for him.

[areaseven]

I thought Zimmer's score was okay. Clark, on the other hand...

[Hoptimus]

Yes agreed on all points. I also thought Zod was horribly miscast myself.

Saw Man of Steel last nignt and it was okay. It's not the great Superman movie I've been waiting for, but at least it was better than Returns. The non-linear structure didn't bother me, but I felt seriously unengaged by the film. I also felt they did not deliver on the promise of making Superman relevant. They started it in the film and had a great hook for doing so, but again I never engaged. The script needed a lot of work, especially the dialogue which made so many of the scenes fall flat. I found the performances fine from all around, but the dead dialogue definitely hurt all involved (even Crowe). The only time I truly became emotionally invested was Superman's final action against General Zod, which was a wholly unexpected moment with a really powerful delivery from Cavill. I did like the presentation of the Superman powers very much, especially the problems of dealing with them as they manifested in his youth. This movie does a fantastic job of showing Superman in all his glory and I loved the new suit, which meshes wonderfully with the established Kryptonian costumes earlier in the movie.

The super fighting in the film was quite a blast. We've never seen super-powered battle quite like this before. However, I will say the action dragged on for too many lengthy scenes and felt really over-indulgent, especially without the emotional engagment to back them up or give them weight. Compare these action sequences to those in The Avengers and the lack of investment in the characters involved (and the lack of good dialogue) becomes painfully aparent. Another thing that also bothered me greatly was the production design of the Kryptonian technology. Nearly everything there felt visually lifted from other sci-fi films, particularly The Matrix movies. If I once again compare this film by contrasting it to a medicore modern sci-fi movie like Oblivion, you can see how Man of Steel lacks anything as visually interesting as the production design of Kosinki's otherwise forgettable film.

Man of Steel is a 3 out of 5 for me. Entertaining enough and packed with action, but not enough character or relevance to make it anything worth revisiting.

[CoryHolmes]

I saw it. I loved the hell out of it. The music, the acting, the feeling it left me with... Dammit, I don't like Superman and this was a fabulous movie.

It's also the first movie I've been in where the audience applauded when the closing credits started. It freaking rocks.

(then again, I like Robotech and Daredevil so my opinion is obviously skewed a bit... )

[mpchi]

I am very suprised at how diversed the opinion about this film, and how low it scored at Rottontomatoes among the critics. While some say its edited very jumpy, I like the non-linear storytelling and flashbacks (otherwise it would feel 'been there done that' if they follow too close to previous films and shows). The back stories got both myself and my wife with teary eyes a few times, which I found very rare among superhero films. Lois Lane is also a lot smarter and thoughtful than the version we saw in previous films. But I do feel that a tad more romance build-up between her and Superman would be nice. And I do feel that the action towards the end felt a bit overloaded (maybe they can shorten the tentacle fight and focus on the last fight alone). But still gotta give them props on doing actions scenes like never done before, with such big scale of destruction and demonstration of power (makes the threat in Avengers like a cake walk). After seeing the general reactions to the film, I got curious and searched a few lengthy podcasts online reviewing the film and some with interviews with Zach Snyder & David Goyer on why they made decisions and did things the way they do, answering a lot of questions and giving reasons to why or what kind of a story they are trying to tell. In the end, I know I like this film a lot (very emotional), but now I appreciate it even more knowing some of the creative choices made behind it. And those very choices may have made some viewers uncomfortable to accept this version of Superman, even though they were very thoughtful takes on the film, rather than a shallow take on a well know character that many viewers mistook it to be. It has quite a bit of deeper themes throughout.

I felt that Man Of Steel may not be as well rounded and structured as the Nolan's Batman films or Avengers, but it hit some very emotional notes and action spectacles that surpasses those in some. Maybe not the best superhero movie people are hoping for, but very highly recommended for those that has an open mind for a very new take on Superman.

Edited June 18, 2013 by mpchi

[Mr March]

Yes agreed on all points. I also thought Zod was horribly miscast myself.

Thanks, but I'm not sure I agree with miscasting Zod. Michael Shannon was as good as anyone else in the film, but I will agree with you that the dialog in this film made his portrayl suffer. Perhaps more than the other cast members this weak script hit him hardest because the lines were such poorly constructed, melodramatic filth. I will say he looked quite bulked-up for this role, which added to his already impressive height.

[areaseven]

As I mentioned on my small review a few pages back, Michael Shannon's portrayal of General Zod was all about brute force. All he wanted was the complete dominance of the Kryptonian race at the absolute cost of everyone else. In addition, he just didn't have any memorable lines other than "I will find him!". Thus, we end up with a lackluster villain.

If you look back at Superman I-II, Terence Stamp nailed the role perfectly with just pure arrogance and charisma. Why resort to complete annihilation when you can simply rule the human population and play mind games with Supes while you're at it? And aside from his iconic, "Kneel before Zod!" catchphrase, his lines were perfectly written - regardless of which version of Superman II you prefer. And this is why Stamp's portrayal of General Zod is one of the greatest movie villains of all-time.

[CoryHolmes]

One thing I like about this film is how accurately they portray the Hero's Journey. I like watching Clark trying to find himself, walking the Earth for safety and yet still compelled to do the right thing because... well... he's Clark Kent. But in order to become Superman, Clark needed to find Kal-El and create a balance between his human and alien sides.

Ultimately I found the story of Clark Kent to be far more engrossing than the impressive fight scenes. But that part still rocked.

Also? Fiora is

Edited June 19, 2013 by CoryHolmes

[hutch]

Loved it.

Camera work totally reminded me of BSG.

Edited June 19, 2013 by hutch

[mpchi]

As I mentioned on my small review a few pages back, Michael Shannon's portrayal of General Zod was all about brute force. All he wanted was the complete dominance of the Kryptonian race at the absolute cost of everyone else. In addition, he just didn't have any memorable lines other than "I will find him!". Thus, we end up with a lackluster villain.

If you look back at Superman I-II, Terence Stamp nailed the role perfectly with just pure arrogance and charisma. Why resort to complete annihilation when you can simply rule the human population and play mind games with Supes while you're at it? And aside from his iconic, "Kneel before Zod!" catchphrase, his lines were perfectly written - regardless of which version of Superman II you prefer. And this is why Stamp's portrayal of General Zod is one of the greatest movie villains of all-time.

I disagree to an extend. I re-watched Superman II the day after I watched Man of Steel, and the movie just doesn't hold up well at all. Zod's portrayal is quite comical in that film. He wants to conquer just because he is bad. He has his charm, especially at his time. But many of his lines, eye rolls, and scenes are not as menancing as you pointed out anymore. In MOS, Zod's personality & action is very tied-in to his genes and his background. He is genetically engineered to be a soldier. So he always think and act as a soldier, and always put Krypton's well being in front of anything else, and all his actions falls right in place if you think of it, til the very end. Less of a cookie cutter villain that just want to rule the world. Though I do feel that Zod in MOS didn't turn out to be a very iconic villain, be it the script or Michael Shannon's portrayal. Pretty good to get the job done IMHO, but not "best super villain I've ever seen" material.

[CoryHolmes]

I'd like to know more about the workouts the two lead actors went through to get into Hero Shape. Kinda reminds me of the transformation Chris Hemsworth went through to become Thor

[David Hingtgen]

I'd like to know more about the workouts the two lead actors went through to get into Hero Shape. Kinda reminds me of the transformation Chris Hemsworth went through to become Thor

Here ya go:

[myk]

In regards to the story, I found myself agreeing with Zod's intentions. He sought to save what was left of the Kryptonian race even though, as he puts it, he should have done it years ago, implying that he allowed decadent and disconnected rulers to bring about the ruin of their race.

Some people accused 'Shannon of being a bug-eyed, screaming maniac during his portrayal of Zod, and I respectfully disagree. He was forceful and determined, and I did not detect an ounce of bug-eyed megalomania at all. If you want bug-eyed megalomania, check out Raul Julia in the last performance of his life as M. Bison in Street Fighter; talk about ridiculous...

[Negotiator]

One thing I like about this film is how accurately they portray the Hero's Journey. I like watching Clark trying to find himself, walking the Earth for safety and yet still compelled to do the right thing because... well... he's Clark Kent. But in order to become Superman, Clark needed to find Kal-El and create a balance between his human and alien sides.

Ultimately I found the story of Clark Kent to be far more engrossing than the impressive fight scenes. But that part still rocked.

Also? Fiora is

she was hot in pandorum

I would accept her as a wonder woman too. She's got strong features. I don't care if she's only 5'6.5.

[anime52k8]

she was hot in pandorum

I would accept her as a wonder woman too. She's got strong features. I don't care if she's only 5'6.5.

Wow, I was beginning to thing I was the only person who actually remembered that movie.

[Agent ONE]

Here ya go:

As a guy who knows something about this subject I have to say its a pretty good video. There are better ways to train, but this will get someone 90% there.

[Duke Togo]

This movie was a goddamned mess. While entertaining, it's certainly not what I would call "good."

Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with the problems it has, so I won't even try.

[myk]

Wow, I was beginning to thing I was the only person who actually remembered that movie.

She was GORGEOUS in Pandorum.

This movie was a goddamned mess. While entertaining, it's certainly not what I would call "good."

Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with the problems it has, so I won't even try.

Humor me/us. I always appreciate other points of view...

[Duke Togo]

Humor me/us. I always appreciate other points of view...

Most of the dialog is forgettable, and generally mediocre to bad. The story is all over the place, and has Trek reboot-sized plot holes. Frankly, its shallow and uninspired. There is no flow to the film, and the jumping around in the timeline is only slightly less jarring by the Shaky-Cam 9000 Deluxe they filmed this thing with. To call the score underwhelming is being kind, and it never once soars the way it needs to. And the fight scenes go on way too long and are overblown.

The fight in the city elicited laughs in the theater I saw it in (which was largely filled) every time another building got taken out. Just ridiculous.

[Duke Togo]

The best part of this movie were the trailers. I want to see the movie they promised.

[myk]

I agree with the time-line jumping and the destruction porn, which doesn't really hold true to Superman's desire to save every human life; in the original Superman 2 isn't that why he retreated from Zod and his friends in the city? I thought the product placement was ridiculous with IHOP and 7/11 but I didn't let it get to me. Some people claimed the relationship between Clark and Lois felt rushed, forced and not deep enough but what were they expecting to see them do? Dinner, a movie, some hand holding and then penetration? I dunno, I liked it, but again MOS appealed to me on a personal level...

[Agent ONE]

...The story is all over the place, and has Trek reboot-sized plot holes. ...

There were holes in the plot!?

[Dynaman]

I liked the time hopping, I don't think I could have kept awake through another Superman growing up sequence. The flashbacks made the background bearable.

The 79 (or so) Zod was a doofus compared to this one, a cardboard cutout bad guy. The fights in this one did last too long but at least they did not look cheesy - like the ones in Superman 2 (FX just were not up to the job back then)

[EXO]

I felt like the plot holes in Star trek were easier to let go because the pacing was a lot better. But there were so many slow moments in MoS where everyone in the audence just looked at each other with the WTF face.

Really Clark? This is the one time you'll obey your dad about not showing off your superhuman strength?

Hey Clark, while you're beating up Zod, you just left your mom with a dozen other alien bad guys.

Lois... thanks for bringing the army over to my front porch.

General STILL doesn't know who Superman is? Ask the guys that went to his house!

And why are we still using the Superman nickname? The aliens blasted Cal El's name in every language around the world. It's the one thing they burned into everyone's brain before they even knew what he looked like.

And of course Superman's plan to save the planet allows for a few thousand casualties and billions of dollars in destruction.

I thought Henry Cavill was ok, but there were 2 really important things about Chris Reeves Superman that was important to the character. One was when his dad died of natural death, it was the one thing that his superhuman strength couldn't handle. The other thing was that no matter how much they made fun of meek nerdy Clark Kent, he always just took it with a smirk because HE was the one that was in on the joke, maybe that was one of the things Pa Kent taught him. But this guy looked like he was about to snap every time. I could've accepted the fact that he could have turned out a super villain instead.

[RD Blade]

I totally agree. I think the one lesson he took from Pa Costner was "Hide. And if the thought of revealing your powers should cross your mind...hide even harder."

[Major Focker]

EXO pretty much summed it up for me.

as i said earlier, i liked the Tekken moves, but the destructive city battle would've been ok if they a) it wasn't so drawn out b) they somehow showed it couldn't be helped that they had to fight in the city c) supes had to rescue a few citizens every now and then to show he at least cared and was mindful of the destruction

plus they forgot to show the scene where Fiora was undoing the zips on her legs and arms

i'm probably in the minority, but i thought Superman Returns was a better movie. at the very least it had more heart, rather than angst.

i'm also wondering whether the difference in the portrayal of Supes childhood is a reflection of our times, then and now.

[myk]

I always thought Superman Returns was a respectable movie, and I appreciate it as a "different" interpretation of Superman/Clark Kent that's more in tune with the classic Christopher Reeves performance....

[Gakken85]

I think the main problem with this movie is that it's kind of a clash of two worlds. Their are the people who feel superman is an ideal. Truth. Justice, and the American way. A bright sun god and a symbol of the best of humanity (See Grant Morrison's All Star Superman).

And then their are newer fans who have only grown up with deconstructionism. All the attempts to make Superman "relevant" have been fun trips, but they mean nothing without the gold standard of the character. From Frank Millar's Superman in the Dark Knight Returns, to The Soviet Superman of Red Son, and things like Superior by Mark Millar. Entire generations have grown up with Superman not really being Superman, and they want this dark gritty take on something that was never dark and Gritty.

I think the movie is trying its best to reconcile these two types of cultural Supermans, but due to all the technical flaws in the storytelling and the lack of any real focus other than destruction, the movie falls short of what it could have been. All the Soul and Joy of Superman was sucked out with the color and thrown to the wolves.

Problems with the story:

1. Technology and science in this movie was all over the place. They had the power to create small black holes and cryosleep pods, but they couldn't conserve enough energy to keep their society running properly? EVEN with multiple planets to draw resources from? They never explained why their "empire" just stopped working. Is it even that important? No. But if the death of the planet makes no sense, your mind just writes it off as bullshit and you don't care, and thus you care less about Superman.

Also, if radiation is what makes Supes, Super-powered, then a change in gravity and atmospherics wouldn't steal his power like it did on Zod's spaceships. Not to mention the sun is just outside the ship and the ship has windows.

Also, if the gravtron ray thing steals his powers... how could he fly through the planet right inside it's beam. I didn't even care at that point.

2. Lois lane was pointless. Which is fine. I could care less about the love story side of Superman. It's been played to death, and overbearing for decades, but she really was souless and just an exposition piece. She didn't even look like a Lois Lane to me either.

3. Superman was just too bulky. Part of what makes him fantastic is that he is a muscular, yet lean guy who can do amazing feats of strength. Clark isn't the hulk, or even Thor. He is a really big guy. He would have had a farm boys physique. Lean muscle from repetitious moves like shucking hay, or plowing earth. Superman looked like a roided gym rat. Just didn't work for me. But it's a minor complaint. I know cultures change and looks change, so I understand that they have to keep up with the times.


Superficial problems:

1. The suit looked like Spider-man beat up all the tailors on Krypton and forced them to copy his outfit. It was terrible and, again - too dark.

2. Too much armor. I mentioned that I hated this before the movie came out.. but yeah this didn't even remotely look like a super-hero movie and it had no real visual style of it's own.

3. Visually it was just too... gray. My eyes felt strained the whole time watching this movie, and it was really frustrating to pay for a movie and feel like you're watching a cam rip because the director likes super dark filters. This isn't Fight Club, for frakks sake.

4. The religious symbolism was almost insulting and I didn't like it. BUT I understand why Zack used it. It's a shot-hand for saying that superman is a Demi-god, and that is a concept a lot of people aren't familiar with after the decades of shows like Lois and Clark.

Things I liked:

1. The action was fantastic and crazy. I've always wanted a more epic scale with Superman. It was fun to see all the crazy violence and destruction.. but I think they went way too far with it. This did feel like a Hulk movie where the destruction was so over the top. Also, Superman didn't seem to have any concern for innocent people or all the destruction he was causing. He took out two cities with no attempt to remove himself from population centers.

2. Zod had motivations that made sense and the actor did a good job. He reminded me of a crazed Roman dictator, and that's a good thing. The ONLY moment during this movie where I felt like cheering was when he lost his crappy armor, which is sad.

3. As for the armor, I did like the clear visors. Clever way to show the actors faces.


To sum up, this movie is only watchable because the action is so over-the-top, that it becomes a spectacle. I have to agree with RedLetterMedia, that this is an alien invasion movie, and not a super-hero film.

There was nothing inspirational, heroic, or engaging about this film. I wanted to feel like I did when I was a kid and Superman inspired me. I got that for a few seconds when they showed him as a child playing with his dog, but this was right after 1000's of people died.

I guess, and I hope, that the next one will be more true to form. Maybe this one is just Superman learning to be Superman, and that's why it was so dark and grim.

I love dark and grim, for the record. Just not for Superman.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Gakken85

[myk]

I think the main problem with this movie is that it's kind of a clash of two worlds. Their are the people who feel superman is an ideal. Truth. Justice, and the American way. A bright sun god and a symbol of the best of humanity (See Grant Morrison's All Star Superman).

And then their are newer fans who have only grown up with deconstructionism. All the attempts to make Superman "relevant" have been fun trips, but they mean nothing without the gold standard of the character. From Frank Millar's Superman in the Dark Knight Returns, to The Soviet Superman of Red Son, and things like Superior by Mark Millar. Entire generations have grown up with Superman not really being Superman, and they want this dark gritty take on something that was never dark and Gritty.

I think the movie is trying its best to reconcile these two types of cultural Supermans, but due to all the technical flaws in the storytelling and the lack of any real focus other than destruction, the movie falls short of what it could have been. All the Soul and Joy of Superman was sucked out with the color and thrown to the wolves.

Problems with the story:

1. Technology and science in this movie was all over the place. They had the power to create small black holes and cryosleep pods, but they couldn't conserve enough energy to keep their society running properly? EVEN with multiple planets to draw resources from? They never explained why their "empire" just stopped working. Is it even that important? No. But if the death of the planet makes no sense, your mind just writes it off as bullshit and you don't care, and thus you care less about Superman.

Also, if radiation is what makes Supes, Super-powered, then a change in gravity and atmospherics wouldn't steal his power like it did on Zod's spaceships. Not to mention the sun is just outside the ship and the ship has windows.

Also, if the gravtron ray thing steals his powers... how could he fly through the planet right inside it's beam. I didn't even care at that point.

2. Lois lane was pointless. Which is fine. I could care less about the love story side of Superman. It's been played to death, and overbearing for decades, but she really was souless and just an exposition piece. She didn't even look like a Lois Lane to me either.

3. Superman was just too bulky. Part of what makes him fantastic is that he is a muscular, yet lean guy who can do amazing feats of strength. Clark isn't the hulk, or even Thor. He is a really big guy. He would have had a farm boys physique. Lean muscle from repetitious moves like shucking hay, or plowing earth. Superman looked like a roided gym rat. Just didn't work for me. But it's a minor complaint. I know cultures change and looks change, so I understand that they have to keep up with the times.

Superficial problems:

1. The suit looked like Spider-man beat up all the tailors on Krypton and forced them to copy his outfit. It was terrible and, again - too dark.

2. Too much armor. I mentioned that I hated this before the movie came out.. but yeah this didn't even remotely look like a super-hero movie and it had no real visual style of it's own.

3. Visually it was just too... gray. My eyes felt strained the whole time watching this movie, and it was really frustrating to pay for a movie and feel like you're watching a cam rip because the director likes super dark filters. This isn't Fight Club, for frakks sake.

Things I liked:

1. The action was fantastic and crazy. I've always wanted a more epic scale with Superman. It was fun to see all the crazy violence and destruction.. but I think they went way too far with it. This did feel like a Hulk movie where the destruction was so over the top. Also, Superman didn't seem to have any concern for innocent people or all the destruction he was causing. He took out two cities with no attempt to remove himself from population centers.

2. Zod had motivations that made sense and the actor did a good job. He reminded me of a crazed Roman dictator, and that's a good thing. The ONLY moment during this movie where I felt like cheering was when he lost his crappy armor, which is sad.

3. As for the armor, I did like the clear visors. Clever way to show the actors faces.

To sum up, this movie is only watchable because the action is so over-the-top, that it becomes a spectacle. I have to agree with RedLetterMedia, that this is an alien invasion movie, and not a super-hero film.

There was nothing inspirational, heroic, or engaging about this film. I wanted to feel like I did when I was a kid and Superman inspired me. I got that for a few seconds when they showed him as a child playing with his dog, but this was right after 1000's of people died.

I guess, and I hope, that the next one will be more true to form. Maybe this one is just Superman learning to be Superman, and that's why it was so dark and grim.

I love dark and grim, for the record. Just not for Superman.

You bring up a great point about the deconstructionist's point of view.

Fewer people care about truth, justice and the "American" way these days, so to keep Superman aligned with those ideals may have alienated the "deconstructionists" point of view, which consequently why MOS had such a dark, gritty, grey feel to it IMO.

As for the Kryptonian technology being unable to save them, that's a contradiction that's bothered me since the original. I haven't seen that movie in ages but I remember an advanced race of superbeing that for "some reason" weren't able to save their own lives.

The "Lois thing" has always bothered me, whether we're talking about Superman past or present. I mean, I think if I had such abilities, with the world and the galaxy as my playground to literally do with as I see fit I suspect the last thing I would do is fall for a girl but; I would spend all of that free time moving mountains or flying around the planet or something.........again, Superman is just a fantasy of human beings so a romance is inevitable anyway.

I actually didn't think Cavill was too buff-he looked.....healthy to me, and not overly developed, but that's just my opinion, I guess.

Much like other stories that are being told with numerous volumes or sequels in mind, like this one, I typically find that first editions like MOS are somewhat lacking but rectify themselves in the future. The only movies I can think of off hand that unfortunately didn't get better with age is Ironman, Blade and.......Fast and Furious...

[Gakken85]

You can argue that fewer people care... but you look at things like the NSA program. I think people do care and want the country to be a certain way, and I think Superman would be a great way to capture those feelings.

Going back to what made our country great, and having Superman show some of that off.

I don't want to get political or anything, but yeah, I think the gritty superman is just writers who are too lazy to update the story for today. Grant Morrison was able to do it properly, but nobody else that I know of.

[Negotiator]

This film garnered absolutes in love or hate. I think I love it because sups never left me through out the years. I've been into DC characters and still watch JL, JLU, YJ, etc about every other week. I've seen all the DC animated movies. I have not delved too much into comics except for batman stuff. So by that info, they have shown a lot of sides of superman with really great stories. The blue boyscout is old news to me.

In this film, Clark did not know how to be a superman. He's learning and I appreciate the seriousness of an alien being picked on all his life and not being allowed to smash your face in. Sure it could have been edited better, but I also appreciate the chances that Zack takes.

Bryan Singer made the safe superman which was almost a direct copy of superman 1, look what happened there. I walked out of that movie liking it, but a little bit underwhelmed because I'm tired of Lex trying to gain property, and he has a kid...what? Lois and Clark got cancelled for that crap (sort of). I've always wanted to see a live action battle in the city and I got it.

People saying it was soulless or robotic... I don't get it because I felt the emotion.

In the end, I think half the people wanted what they've already seen or the last memory they had of sups was in the 80's.

I could go on and on, but in fairness I can understand some of the arguments against and some I just disagree with. We're not gonna chance each other's minds anyway.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Negotiator