The end destruction is an unfortunate reality for two super aliens fighting in a populated area. Call it real, or modern or whatever.
I can easily assume that when Zods ship started doing its terraforming people would have begun evacuating. When Superman was getting thrown through buildings I didn't see them full of terrified office workers.
Avengers did the same thing. No one cried foul.
Problem is people hold Superman to a higher standard ( rightly or wrongly ), and I think that's why he's regarded as corny and outdated. He's not aloud to really modernize. When he does. People lose it.
For me to pretend that THAT many buildings could evacuate somewhere in that amount of time, and thus all that building destruction porn and falling debris (including all that Superman added to) is actually not modern. It is GI Joe cartoons where the guns are shot out of hands and every pilot parachutes to safety.
What is actually modern is cringing at all those destroyed buildings because, as a New Yorker of 14 years, I can't suspend my disbelief that all the people got to safety. Because even more than when I read comics with big fights in New York as a kid, I now have a sense of scale, and no how long it would take anyone to really get to safety. Which is why an overwhelming amount of CG building destruction porn (much more than in Avengers, which contained the geography of the fight to a specific neighborhood and, I think, didn't bring down any skyscrapers that I remember. Maybe one at the most?) felt out of place here. As did the budget-saving doc style shots of people running around covered in dust, World Trade Center style. Didn't need that in a Superman movie.
It took me right out of it that Superman's first priority wasn't getting Zod out of Metropolis to fight him somewhere else.
When the Batman of the Nolan trilogy cares more about the people of Gotham than Superman cares about the citizens of Smallville and Metropolis, then your Superman movie has tone problems.
And that is not a generational difference. That is a problem with the movie that is very right now in a way I wouldn't have thought of seeing the Donner movies as a kid. Putting aside the Donner movies, which I loved as a kid, but are too dated for me to watch as an adult. I would say that if this movie had a scene even half as hopeful and heroic as the airline rescue in 'Returns, I would have liked it a lot better.
As it was, this movie- like so much else these days- tried way too hard to just be another Transformers.
Oh well. As one young man in the theater I saw it in today put it at the end, "Boo! Marvel is the shit!"
When it comes to the movies of late, with the exception of the Nolan Batman movies, absolutely. This movie could have used a big does of the smarts, humor, and straight up heroism that Avengers had.
The end destruction is an unfortunate reality for two super aliens fighting in a populated area. Call it real, or modern or whatever.
Funny how he could always deal with that in the comics with less destruction than the movie served up. It's a reality within the film only if the writer serves it up that way.
Problem is people hold Superman to a higher standard ( rightly or wrongly ), and I think that's why he's regarded as corny and outdated. He's not aloud to really modernize. When he does. People lose it.
I don't see how holding anybody to a higher standard can be equated with being corny or outdated, or how not being held to that standard would be 'modern'. If that's really the equation, then something is truly wrong, and it's not with Superman.
"...everyone else in Zod’s army has been beaten and banished, but General Zod lives and so, of course, he and Superman duke it out in what, to everyone’s credit, is the very best super-hero fight I’ve ever seen, just a marvel of spectacle. But once more–and this is where I knew we were headed someplace really awful–once more, Superman showed not the slightest split-second of concern for the people around them. Particularly in this last sequence, his utter disregard for the collateral damage was just jaw-dropping as they just kept crashing through buildings full of survivors. I’m not suggesting he stop in the middle of a super-powered brawl to save a kitten from a tree, but even Brandon Routh thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate deadly falling debris after a sonic boom. From everything shown to us from the moment he put on the suit, Superman rarely if ever bothered to give the safety and welfare of the people around him one bit of thought."
That bothered me as well. I kept wondering throughout the fight and the battles why he wasn't doing more to protect the citizens. The most he seemed to do beyond catching one pilot (and Lois, repeatedly) was to yell to people to get off the streets, as if the buildings were somehow going to protect them from two rasslin' Kryptonians. Brick and steel and mortar were like paper to them. He was getting knocked around so much -- or else knocking his opponents around so much -- that he wasn't taking time to throw himself in front of the civilians to protect them with his body, or to whisk them away to a safe point. His mind was on the fight instead of on protecting the civilians.
I don't see how holding anybody to a higher standard can be equated with being corny or outdated, or how not being held to that standard would be 'modern'. If that's really the equation, then something is truly wrong, and it's not with Superman.
Heres the standard that Superman seems to be held to... He absolutely knows and does the exact right thing all the time.
It's a fantastic character trait to strive for. It's absolutely part of what makes him popular...but having Superman live up to that, all the time?...not sure about that.
I'm going to elaborate more with the review ep, but I loved the movie. I found the take on Superman to be interesting & more realistic.
I do have some issue with the death of Zod, but we've seen it in the Superman films before. Plus, much like Batman taking the blame for Dent's murders instead of blame the Joker, it made sense in the context of the movie.
I do have some issue with the death of Zod, but we've seen it in the Superman films before.
I'll take issue with that, if you're referring to Superman II.
True, the film heavily implies that he killed the Phantom Zone villains, but we never actually see it happen. They slide off the fortress walls into, we assume, the frozen wastes beneath. But the deaths are assumed, not confirmed.
Moreover, that wasn't the original plan. Richard Donner's original ending, added to the Director's Cut, was that Superman repeated his time-travel Earth-spin of the first movie to set time back to before the Phantom Zoners ever escaped their prison. So they weren't killed at all.
I do have some issue with the death of Zod, but we've seen it in the Superman films before.
I'll take issue with that, if you're referring to Superman II.
True, the film heavily implies that he killed the Phantom Zone villains, but we never actually see it happen. They slide off the fortress walls into, we assume, the frozen wastes beneath. But the deaths are assumed, not confirmed.
Moreover, that wasn't the original plan. Richard Donner's original ending, added to the Director's Cut, was that Superman repeated his time-travel Earth-spin of the first movie to set time back to before the Phantom Zoners ever escaped their prison. So they weren't killed at all.
Right on both counts, but I'm going to estimate non-geeks probably only saw the theatric version. And, implied or not, they still died. And didn't Superman kill the Nuclear Man?
Also, @chuck_melville, there's 2 scenes with nods Lex; the gas tanker & the semi that drops Kent off at the farm after he discovers his roots.
There's also a Wayne Enterprises satellite that gets destroyed.
I'd argue there was humor in the movie, but post saving the world. I mentioned it elsewhere, but maybe he becomes more happy now that he has his place in the world. No longer lost.
Zach Snyder finds a volume control that goes up to 12. A Chekhov gun appears in act 1 and doesn't go off in act 3. Giant robot type things hit other giant robotic type things. Christ Imagery again. 911 imagery was uncomfortable The kiss wasn't earned.
And...they...didn't...play...the...music. (or at least they hadn't by the time I got up and walked out of the credits)
That's the Donner-verse music, not this one. All new Superman theme
I'm curious if the people who have the biggest disdain for the movie are the diehard Superman fans, while the ones who are mostly okay with it casual fans.
I just saw it... Like it. Got my emotions involved, made me smile, gasp, nerd out and get a little verkumpt.. Worth seeing again. Nice to see Supes use his powers, unrestrained.
That is just my opinion. Yours may and will vary. But as you form it, how about it step back and review/criticize/analyze what the movie is and not what YOU expected to it be or even compared to OTHER movies. Its not the other movies, it is THIS movie. Judge it on its own merits, please. This written with no tone or snarkiness, just my own humble plea.
I'm curious if the people who have the biggest disdain for the movie are the diehard Superman fans, while the ones who are mostly okay with it casual fans.
M
Diehard fan in the sense of my love of what the character has and can be.
Died-hard fan when it comes to supporting any more of what the current regime is doing with him.
I'm just a few hours removed from seeing Man Of Steel and I loved it. I think it is a pitch perfect modernizing of the character. There are a few slight complaints I could make about the movie but thats not the reason for my post. Upon checking the forums to see what other people thought of the movie I noticed one of the major complaints/debates centered on Superman killing Zod. This might seem the obvious debate to be had after the movie but its actually an example of the changing direction of the entire comic book industry itself. These days on the forums and the CGS podcast itself it has become in vogue to trash DC at every opportunity. And while it is to be expected that having half as many hosts participate in the episodes would result in a lack of diverse opinion, it has reached a ridiculous point. Rarely an episode goes by without at least one host taking a moment to take another shot at DC. The same is true for the forums. And while most claim its the "editorial problems" thats ruining DC for them its actually the realization by the older, jaded comic book fans that most comic books aren't being made for them anymore. People like WetRats complaining that Superman doesn't kill is the perfect example of comic fans stuck in a comic book era fast becoming extinct. Gone are the days of the gee golly boy scout Superman. The biggest complaint I hear about Superman is that he is boring, he's never challenged. How do you remedy that? How do you modernize him? How do you make him compelling again? Well, one very good way to do that is have a scene where Superman makes an emotional, heat of the moment decision like the one to kill Zod. They humanized Superman. He was forced to make a tragic decision and immediately felt remorse. Few things are more human than having to live with actions we've taken, decisions we've made and that scene was perfectly in context with the rest of the movie which showed Superman choosing the human race over the Kryptonians. That scene alone added depth and tragedy to a character considered by many to be monotonous. This is the new DC. Yes, its darker and its polarizing. But DC is in the business of adding new fans. They didn't restart their whole line to appease fans of the old DCU, they are trying to grow and the way to do that is to attract new fans. Now obviously the idea is not to alienate all of your older fans, I'm sure they want the best of both worlds. But judging by what I've heard from the likes of Dan DiDio on Kevin Smith's Fatman On Batman podcast (which by the way these days is far superior to CGS) DC seems willing to lose a few old fans if that means gaining more new fans. And this new generation of comic book fans want more mature, darker stories. That is blatant by simply looking at whats currently popular and what sells. Saga is sexually explicit and more mature. The Walking Dead is violent and for adults. Batman is darker and definitely not for kids. DC is playing the long game here, creating a new more mature line, betting on a new generation of fans to support them. Sure, it could backfire on them but after 75 years DC needed to evolve and change with the times and like Faora says..."evolution always wins".
Interesting review. A lot I'd like to get into, but won't. A few things I'd like to bring up:
The part about "proper films" seems off. I know those are beloved by many, then again I've been hearing more & more people say they're okay, but not really Superman.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
How many complaint have there been over the years about Superman films revisiting the same themes with Luthor & never really see him battle an equal? We get it, then there are complaints about it. If it was a Brainiac, Bizarro, or Metallo instead of Zod would people be happier?
I would've been as disgusted if they played Williams' brilliant theme as I would've been if Batman Begins played Danny Elfman's theme. New start, new music. Playing that would've undercut the movie, not save it (in some eyes.). To be honest, I found the song "An Ideal of Hope" used in the trailers to be breathtaking & inspiring at the same time.
I'm curious if the people who have the biggest disdain for the movie are the diehard Superman fans, while the ones who are mostly okay with it casual fans.
M
Diehard fan in the sense of my love of what the character has and can be.
Died-hard fan when it comes to supporting any more of what the current regime is doing with him.
Interesting enough, I hope people keep all of this in mind the next time they frown upon me for saying the 60s Batman series sucks & isn't Batman!
I'm just a few hours removed from seeing Man Of Steel and I loved it. I think it is a pitch perfect modernizing of the character. There are a few slight complaints I could make about the movie but thats not the reason for my post. Upon checking the forums to see what other people thought of the movie I noticed one of the major complaints/debates centered on Superman killing Zod. This might seem the obvious debate to be had after the movie but its actually an example of the changing direction of the entire comic book industry itself. These days on the forums and the CGS podcast itself it has become in vogue to trash DC at every opportunity. And while it is to be expected that having half as many hosts participate in the episodes would result in a lack of diverse opinion, it has reached a ridiculous point. Rarely an episode goes by without at least one host taking a moment to take another shot at DC. The same is true for the forums. And while most claim its the "editorial problems" thats ruining DC for them its actually the realization by the older, jaded comic book fans that most comic books aren't being made for them anymore. People like WetRats complaining that Superman doesn't kill is the perfect example of comic fans stuck in a comic book era fast becoming extinct. Gone are the days of the gee golly boy scout Superman. The biggest complaint I hear about Superman is that he is boring, he's never challenged. How do you remedy that? How do you modernize him? How do you make him compelling again? Well, one very good way to do that is have a scene where Superman makes an emotional, heat of the moment decision like the one to kill Zod. They humanized Superman. He was forced to make a tragic decision and immediately felt remorse. Few things are more human than having to live with actions we've taken, decisions we've made and that scene was perfectly in context with the rest of the movie which showed Superman choosing the human race over the Kryptonians. That scene alone added depth and tragedy to a character considered by many to be monotonous. This is the new DC. Yes, its darker and its polarizing. But DC is in the business of adding new fans. They didn't restart their whole line to appease fans of the old DCU, they are trying to grow and the way to do that is to attract new fans. Now obviously the idea is not to alienate all of your older fans, I'm sure they want the best of both worlds. But judging by what I've heard from the likes of Dan DiDio on Kevin Smith's Fatman On Batman podcast (which by the way these days is far superior to CGS) DC seems willing to lose a few old fans if that means gaining more new fans. And this new generation of comic book fans want more mature, darker stories. That is blatant by simply looking at whats currently popular and what sells. Saga is sexually explicit and more mature. The Walking Dead is violent and for adults. Batman is darker and definitely not for kids. DC is playing the long game here, creating a new more mature line, betting on a new generation of fans to support them. Sure, it could backfire on them but after 75 years DC needed to evolve and change with the times and like Faora says..."evolution always wins".
If you're gonna call me out, at least use @Wetrats, so I can notice as I'm also stuck in an era where people know how to make a paragraph.
DC is not playing a long game, they're playing a desperate catch-up game, chasing trends and using gimmicks and stunts to prop up sales one month at at time. They have apparently chosen to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which, it would appear, they are doing.
"...everyone else in Zod’s army has been beaten and banished, but General Zod lives and so, of course, he and Superman duke it out in what, to everyone’s credit, is the very best super-hero fight I’ve ever seen, just a marvel of spectacle. But once more–and this is where I knew we were headed someplace really awful–once more, Superman showed not the slightest split-second of concern for the people around them. Particularly in this last sequence, his utter disregard for the collateral damage was just jaw-dropping as they just kept crashing through buildings full of survivors. I’m not suggesting he stop in the middle of a super-powered brawl to save a kitten from a tree, but even Brandon Routh thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate deadly falling debris after a sonic boom. From everything shown to us from the moment he put on the suit, Superman rarely if ever bothered to give the safety and welfare of the people around him one bit of thought."
That bothered me as well. I kept wondering throughout the fight and the battles why he wasn't doing more to protect the citizens. The most he seemed to do beyond catching one pilot (and Lois, repeatedly) was to yell to people to get off the streets, as if the buildings were somehow going to protect them from two rasslin' Kryptonians. Brick and steel and mortar were like paper to them. He was getting knocked around so much -- or else knocking his opponents around so much -- that he wasn't taking time to throw himself in front of the civilians to protect them with his body, or to whisk them away to a safe point. His mind was on the fight instead of on protecting the civilians.
I really liked the movie. I sympathize with Chuck and Wet Rats. I feel similarly about Dark Knight Rises. I have to concede its a well-made film, but the Batman/Bruce Wayne in it isn't my Batman. I agree that the film could have used a little more levity, but after the farce that the previous franchise became, including Superman Returns, I understand the pendulum swinging as far as it did in this direction. I also agree with both Matt's that I think you'll get a Superman more like what you are expecting in the next film. Where I think the film is being done a disservice, particularly by Waid in his blog post, is you're comparing Superman characters with different backgrounds and storybeats expecting the same result. I would argue Superman WAS trying to take the fight out of Smallville. Faora and Non just manhandled him to where he couldn't. This wasn't a Superman who has years of experience or was taught by a Jor-El hologram for what seemed like a decade in the 78 film. He discovers his heritage and his first real threat is a platoon of fellow Kryptonians who are all trained soldiers. Some of the reviews I've read it's almost the equivalent of expecting a search and rescue worker to dominate against a squad of Marines, it's just not going to happen, and that's the position Superman is in, in this film. Helping people evacuate from an oil rig, saving kids from drowning, does not prepare you for a fight of this scale. I thought I saw several instances where Superman tried to maneuver or take a Krptonian away, but then another one would stop him or as soon as they got the upper-hand, they would bring it back to a populated area. I read Waid's blog before seeing the film, and you could say it was in the name of spoilers, but I feel Waid completely misrepresented the story beat. Based on what Waid wrote, I was expecting Superman to break the neck of a beaten down Zod alone in the middle of a crater. What I saw was a Superman desperately trying to prevent a Zod from slaughtering a trapped and cornered family with his heat vision. This Superman did not have the years of experience behind it that the Superman of the Silver Age did, and he had to fight a much larger, much more dangerous foe upon his first outing then the Modern Age Superman or the previous film franchise. You can call it bad writing or bad characterization when it's not you cup of tea, but I think it's consistent and sound within the framework presented.
Interesting review. A lot I'd like to get into, but won't. A few things I'd like to bring up:
The part about "proper films" seems off. I know those are beloved by many, then again I've been hearing more & more people say they're okay, but not really Superman.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
How many complaint have there been over the years about Superman films revisiting the same themes with Luthor & never really see him battle an equal? We get it, then there are complaints about it. If it was a Brainiac, Bizarro, or Metallo instead of Zod would people be happier?
I would've been as disgusted if they played Williams' brilliant theme as I would've been if Batman Begins played Danny Elfman's theme. New start, new music. Playing that would've undercut the movie, not save it (in some eyes.). To be honest, I found the song "An Ideal of Hope" used in the trailers to be breathtaking & inspiring at the same time.
M
Good points. On my blog I worked my way through all the Superman films in preparation for Man of Steel and I did have problems with the repeated use of Luthor as a villain. I was quite happy to have him battle Zod and the other Phantom Zoners. I just would have liked to see Superman trying to take the fight away from populated areas more. As WetRats has pointed out he could have got them off the Smallville main street somehow.
I missed seeing Superman doing some of the more everyday stuff, blocking bullets, saving lives, catching a falling helicopter before it goes all Black Hawk Down. I also missed the humour. A couple of smiles wouldn't have hurt this movie.
And just to hear the merest nod to John Williams music would have been enough for me. That would have taken me right back to the wonder of those earlier movie theatre experiences. I remember someone on a podcast saying exactly that in their Superman Returns review.
*Matt mentioned Kal-El/Zod power levels. I've never gotten it straight how the yellow sun powers up Kryptonians. Is it like a battery with a charge up to 100% - after a few hours/weeks/years you reach 100% and then you're all basically equal. Is it an unlimited reservoir that with longer exposure will continue to increase. Has there been a definitive statement in comics? I think All-Star Superman had it as unlimited, but that was out of continuity.
I'm going off of Lois & Clark, so take from it what you will; Kal-El's body is a solar battery. He expends energy (ie uses his powers) & it slowly drains his battery. He's exposed to the sunlight & his body recharges. That's why in the Marvel v. DC, Superman & Hulk fought in a desert...open sunshine.
I have a theory that it takes time for his body to initially charge. So, say for example, he didn't get his heat vision right away because his body needed to absorb enough solar energy initially to produce that power.
I do have some issue with the death of Zod, but we've seen it in the Superman films before.
I'll take issue with that, if you're referring to Superman II.
True, the film heavily implies that he killed the Phantom Zone villains, but we never actually see it happen. They slide off the fortress walls into, we assume, the frozen wastes beneath. But the deaths are assumed, not confirmed.
Moreover, that wasn't the original plan. Richard Donner's original ending, added to the Director's Cut, was that Superman repeated his time-travel Earth-spin of the first movie to set time back to before the Phantom Zoners ever escaped their prison. So they weren't killed at all.
Right on both counts, but I'm going to estimate non-geeks probably only saw the theatric version. And, implied or not, they still died. And didn't Superman kill the Nuclear Man?
M
No, we don't know that they died. I sure never assumed so; I always assumed that he gathered them up off-camera and put them into custody, because that's what Superman does. It never really occurred to me until discussions (much later) that this might not have happened. I think it's more like a Rorsach test, in that each viewer defines the image shown differently. Frankly, I prefer mine, because Superman doesn't kill.
As for the Nuclear Man -- I honestly don't remember. I remember a lot of scenes from that film, but not the resolution. (A lot of the film is not worth remembering, honestly.) But my vague recollection was that the character wasn't really alive, like Bizarro. Am I mistaken about that?
No, we don't know that they died. I sure never assumed so; I always assumed that he gathered them up off-camera and put them into custody, because that's what Superman does. It never really occurred to me until discussions (much later) that this might not have happened. I think it's more like a Rorschach** test, in that each viewer defines the image shown differently. Frankly, I prefer mine, because Superman doesn't kill.
Thanks. Now I understand my complete puzzlement when @Matt was referring to Superman killing them before. I never assumed he'd killed them, it was inconceivable* to me that he would do so.
Unlike the explicit sound of cracking vertebrae.
*Insert Princess Bride quote of your choice here.
**How bad is my OCD when I correct typos in quotes?
How many complaint have there been over the years about Superman films revisiting the same themes with Luthor & never really see him battle an equal? We get it, then there are complaints about it. If it was a Brainiac, Bizarro, or Metallo instead of Zod would people be happier?
I would have been, because I've never liked Zod as an opponent. As often as they use Luthor, he is at least Superman's ideal opponent: arrogant, ingenious, obsessive, cruel and selfish. Zod has just been a boring boor of an old world tyrant translated to science fiction. I do think this new iteration of Zod was much, much better and I have far fewer complaints with him here -- but, yeah, I would have preferred seeing Brainiac or the Parasite for a change of pace.
Comments
What is actually modern is cringing at all those destroyed buildings because, as a New Yorker of 14 years, I can't suspend my disbelief that all the people got to safety. Because even more than when I read comics with big fights in New York as a kid, I now have a sense of scale, and no how long it would take anyone to really get to safety. Which is why an overwhelming amount of CG building destruction porn (much more than in Avengers, which contained the geography of the fight to a specific neighborhood and, I think, didn't bring down any skyscrapers that I remember. Maybe one at the most?) felt out of place here. As did the budget-saving doc style shots of people running around covered in dust, World Trade Center style. Didn't need that in a Superman movie.
It took me right out of it that Superman's first priority wasn't getting Zod out of Metropolis to fight him somewhere else.
When the Batman of the Nolan trilogy cares more about the people of Gotham than Superman cares about the citizens of Smallville and Metropolis, then your Superman movie has tone problems.
And that is not a generational difference. That is a problem with the movie that is very right now in a way I wouldn't have thought of seeing the Donner movies as a kid. Putting aside the Donner movies, which I loved as a kid, but are too dated for me to watch as an adult. I would say that if this movie had a scene even half as hopeful and heroic as the airline rescue in 'Returns, I would have liked it a lot better.
As it was, this movie- like so much else these days- tried way too hard to just be another Transformers.
Oh well. As one young man in the theater I saw it in today put it at the end, "Boo! Marvel is the shit!"
When it comes to the movies of late, with the exception of the Nolan Batman movies, absolutely. This movie could have used a big does of the smarts, humor, and straight up heroism that Avengers had.
"...everyone else in Zod’s army has been beaten and banished, but General Zod lives and so, of course, he and Superman duke it out in what, to everyone’s credit, is the very best super-hero fight I’ve ever seen, just a marvel of spectacle. But once more–and this is where I knew we were headed someplace really awful–once more, Superman showed not the slightest split-second of concern for the people around them. Particularly in this last sequence, his utter disregard for the collateral damage was just jaw-dropping as they just kept crashing through buildings full of survivors. I’m not suggesting he stop in the middle of a super-powered brawl to save a kitten from a tree, but even Brandon Routh thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate deadly falling debris after a sonic boom. From everything shown to us from the moment he put on the suit, Superman rarely if ever bothered to give the safety and welfare of the people around him one bit of thought."
That bothered me as well. I kept wondering throughout the fight and the battles why he wasn't doing more to protect the citizens. The most he seemed to do beyond catching one pilot (and Lois, repeatedly) was to yell to people to get off the streets, as if the buildings were somehow going to protect them from two rasslin' Kryptonians. Brick and steel and mortar were like paper to them. He was getting knocked around so much -- or else knocking his opponents around so much -- that he wasn't taking time to throw himself in front of the civilians to protect them with his body, or to whisk them away to a safe point. His mind was on the fight instead of on protecting the civilians.
It's a fantastic character trait to strive for. It's absolutely part of what makes him popular...but having Superman live up to that, all the time?...not sure about that.
This is a great article on the big controversy: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/14/hero-worship-the-complexity-of-man-of-steel
Oh well. I hope it does well. I'm not going to change anyones opinion.
I do have some issue with the death of Zod, but we've seen it in the Superman films before. Plus, much like Batman taking the blame for Dent's murders instead of blame the Joker, it made sense in the context of the movie.
M
True, the film heavily implies that he killed the Phantom Zone villains, but we never actually see it happen. They slide off the fortress walls into, we assume, the frozen wastes beneath. But the deaths are assumed, not confirmed.
Moreover, that wasn't the original plan. Richard Donner's original ending, added to the Director's Cut, was that Superman repeated his time-travel Earth-spin of the first movie to set time back to before the Phantom Zoners ever escaped their prison. So they weren't killed at all.
M
I think most people have seen this:
There's also a Wayne Enterprises satellite that gets destroyed.
I'd argue there was humor in the movie, but post saving the world. I mentioned it elsewhere, but maybe he becomes more happy now that he has his place in the world. No longer lost.
M
M
M
That is just my opinion. Yours may and will vary. But as you form it, how about it step back and review/criticize/analyze what the movie is and not what YOU expected to it be or even compared to OTHER movies. Its not the other movies, it is THIS movie. Judge it on its own merits, please. This written with no tone or snarkiness, just my own humble plea.
And I can't wait to see it again..
Died-hard fan when it comes to supporting any more of what the current regime is doing with him.
Avengers never forgot the human element.
The part about "proper films" seems off. I know those are beloved by many, then again I've been hearing more & more people say they're okay, but not really Superman.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
How many complaint have there been over the years about Superman films revisiting the same themes with Luthor & never really see him battle an equal? We get it, then there are complaints about it. If it was a Brainiac, Bizarro, or Metallo instead of Zod would people be happier?
I would've been as disgusted if they played Williams' brilliant theme as I would've been if Batman Begins played Danny Elfman's theme. New start, new music. Playing that would've undercut the movie, not save it (in some eyes.). To be honest, I found the song "An Ideal of Hope" used in the trailers to be breathtaking & inspiring at the same time.
M
M
M
If you're gonna call me out, at least use @Wetrats, so I can notice as I'm also stuck in an era where people know how to make a paragraph.
DC is not playing a long game, they're playing a desperate catch-up game, chasing trends and using gimmicks and stunts to prop up sales one month at at time. They have apparently chosen to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which, it would appear, they are doing.
I read Waid's blog before seeing the film, and you could say it was in the name of spoilers, but I feel Waid completely misrepresented the story beat. Based on what Waid wrote, I was expecting Superman to break the neck of a beaten down Zod alone in the middle of a crater. What I saw was a Superman desperately trying to prevent a Zod from slaughtering a trapped and cornered family with his heat vision.
This Superman did not have the years of experience behind it that the Superman of the Silver Age did, and he had to fight a much larger, much more dangerous foe upon his first outing then the Modern Age Superman or the previous film franchise. You can call it bad writing or bad characterization when it's not you cup of tea, but I think it's consistent and sound within the framework presented.
I missed seeing Superman doing some of the more everyday stuff, blocking bullets, saving lives, catching a falling helicopter before it goes all Black Hawk Down. I also missed the humour. A couple of smiles wouldn't have hurt this movie.
And just to hear the merest nod to John Williams music would have been enough for me. That would have taken me right back to the wonder of those earlier movie theatre experiences. I remember someone on a podcast saying exactly that in their Superman Returns review.
I have a theory that it takes time for his body to initially charge. So, say for example, he didn't get his heat vision right away because his body needed to absorb enough solar energy initially to produce that power.
M
As for the Nuclear Man -- I honestly don't remember. I remember a lot of scenes from that film, but not the resolution. (A lot of the film is not worth remembering, honestly.) But my vague recollection was that the character wasn't really alive, like Bizarro. Am I mistaken about that?
Unlike the explicit sound of cracking vertebrae.
*Insert Princess Bride quote of your choice here.
**How bad is my OCD when I correct typos in quotes?