Jackskeleton

You keep using that word 'good', I do not think it means what you think it means

Dragon Tattoo

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xqI3a4vBpxU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Paul_SD

That earlier treatment has some viable ideas, especially in regards to the set-up on Krypton.
But it also has a lot of rote, you can see them coming a mile off, cliches (covering the inauguration of the bullet train and something of course, goes wrong).

As someone who is growing to dislike MoS even more as time passes, the problems for me with it boil down to things that often could have been changed dramatically in tone with just a few simple revisions.
Everybody going into this film seemed to want to see Superman punch something. But Superman is a defensive character- a protector. He's not an offensive rampaging brute. If you are going to show him stooping to that level, however warranted that might be in context, you need to bookend that with
a) him resisting that as much as possible until a key event causes it
b) when that episode is over, see him rendered visibly circumspect over it.

For "a" that could have been simply showing him trying to be defensively protecting as many of the people in Smallville as possible for that battle. Submitting to being a punching bag in an effort to get as many people to safety as possible.
In Metropolis, he should have been shown trying to draw Zod away from the city at every opportunity possible- crash into a remote mountain, drive him to the bottom of the sea- anywhere to get the battle away from a populated area. And he should have still gotten in several defensive moves (protecting people from falling debris, etc) . One or two buildings destroyed in Metropolis would have been plenty to get the impact of a super battle across. Having 3/4 of the skyline turned to ruins is simply empty disaster porn.
Jonathon Kent needed to be re-thought as well. His "moral lessons" to Clark were as murky and incoherent as the themes playing out on the idiotic Ferry boat scene in TDK.

You wouldn't have needed to make many wholesale changes to this material to have made it more palatable to fans of the property who now feel justifiably off-put by the way it was handled. You could have kept the same sets, costumes, characters, major acts, set-pieces, etc. It's what happens with and within those where this film goes horribly wrong.
Instead of waving Clark off during the tornado, how about just giving him another equally important task to do so that he can't save both parties? Maybe that could have been the lesson he took from his father's death- that you can't save everyone, and sometimes you have to make a hard choice.
That would have at least tied in a little better with his inability to save everyone in the climax.
But as it exists in the finished film, he doesn't attempt to protect and save anyone during the slug fest. And worse- after the battle is over he makes out with lois with the burned out corpse of the city in the background. How inspiring.
Douchebags. Just like little children who have discovered a box of matches or their fathers porn collection, they need some more thoughtful, grown up supervision for the next film.

Solid Snake

Goddamn was Reeve so charming. I've never really thought about the whole poem thing. I guess I just pay more attention to what they're doing. That and I don't watch it as often. The movie is pretty ingrained in my mind. If the poem bit was taken out and most of the visual was kept. Probably would have come off better now. Still magical and romantic bit for them. Man. He really rocked it.

whotony

Saw the movie the other day and had a very strong opinion of my feelings on it.

Now after reading this 1200 post, 29 page thread I now know that after reading dragon Tattaoo's soon to be 100 posts on it I have rethought my opinion.

Dragon has completely changed my mind and I can confidently say that this is the worst movie ever made.

Thanks Dragon Tattoo.

Super X

Dragon Tattoo

for affecting you.

Feel me inside you, gestating in your soul.

whotony

Oh dear god.

Super X

Moving to mature...

Dragon Tattoo

fujishig

I can't say I'm thrilled that the sequel will have Superman dealing with real world problems like world hunger. I just don't think that ever turns out well and we get stuff like the nuclear disarmament from the previous movie. Ugh.

I don't remember exactly what happened in the Byrne treatment, but how does killing Zod create his code against killing? Like I said earlier, if anything it should teach him to kill right away (once the opposition fails to listen to reason)because he could save so many more lives doing so.

Can a proponent of the film explain what Jonathan Kent's moral message was supposed to be to Clark? It still seems like he basically told him to let people die and keep his secret at all costs to protect himself. Which is kinda the opposite of what you'd expect. I did like Waid's reasoning that not saving Jonathan was a way for Clark to show that he was listening to his dad, especially after his fight, though I still hated the execution of that scene.

Earth is extremely lucky that despite being raised as a recluse, with humanity all around him potentially hating him if he ever showed his true self, somehow Superman still sided with us. I guess Lois being trustworthy and cute helped.

As far as the Doomsday comics thing, it's been a long time but I seem to remember Superman trying to divert him from Metropolis.

mhg83

I saw MOS earlier this morning. Voted "It was Great". I went in knowing how long it was but never felt long to me. Great acting all around with some of the best special effects I've ever seen. That first time he fly's was spectacular. I thought the ending dragged on a bit but other than that very well paced.

As for

You guys must have Nostalgia eyes for that movie. That looks like a piece of shit! I did see Superman 2 and that was a pain to sit through. Can't imagine the original being any better.

Pizza

You're right. I should have said "great."
Seriously, I've greatly enjoyed reading the hot debates and passionate opinions from both sides.

GoldenJCJ

Judging by this thread MoS is the greatest movie ever made!

This thread has become such a train wreck, I'm not even sure Donner's Superman laying his body across the tracks could save it.

Super X

Dragon Tattoo

It's not worth watching, believe me (unless you're in the mood for a few laughs). I suffered through it a few months ago.

GoldenJCJ

At this point who could blame him?!

moviefan2k4

Well, the second film went through many, many problems, which significantly affected its tone. The first is much more of a love story, with comedic gags and action bits thrown in on occasion. The so-called "Donner Cut" of the second is more in line with the first, but still suffers because it was never properly finished.

CertifiedTHX

Must admit, after experiencing the movie, I was expecting to come here and find all sorts of glowing reviews. What I found instead genuinely surprised me. I've been stunned by the level of discontent. I've also been shaking my head at the personal insults hurled back and forth. Yes, I know this is the Internet, and attacking each other for having opinions is par for the course. That doesn't make it respectable. And when we engage in behavior like that, no one wins. It's just ugly.

Anyway, Man of Steel was one of two movies I was most eager to see this year, the other being Star Trek Into Darkness. Very much enjoyed Trek, but Cumberbatch's true identity and the none-too-subtle references to Star Trek II at the end left me bemused and a little disappointed. I was hoping Man of Steel would deliver the goods.

As it happened, it delivered them in spades. Several people in the audience applauded when the credits began, and I joined them. Loved it. The cast, the story, and especially the new vision of the Superman mythology. The old has been done many times. Everyone knows it, everyone knows what to expect. Snyder takes nothing away from that. Donner's original is a classic, and will always be.

I was a big fan of Superman Returns. I loved how Singer continued the story begun in 1978. But it had its problems: Luthor's plan made no sense, and was little more than a rehash of the California earthquake plot. Bosworth spent most of her time looking sullen, and there was no chemistry between her and Routh. And was it really necessary to show that one of the Pomeranians had eaten the other? That wasn't funny, it was just gross.

Man of Steel was great from beginning to end. Maybe there was a moment here and there that could have been done better, but it was, overall, a marvelous new beginning.

The biggest criticism I've seen in this thread is the devastation in Metropolis during the fight at the end, and about how Kal El showed no care for the untold thousands of people who were dying in the maelstrom. The main point being that once the World Engine was destroyed, Zod's mission had failed. And then, in a fit of vengeance, Kal El became his lone target. At that point, Kal should have left the city, drawing Zod away with him, and they could have beaten each other to hell and back in an unpopulated area.

The counter argument centers on the idea that Zod was still out for human blood even after his mission had failed. The key to the one-on-one battle over Metropolis is what Zod said to Kal after the World Engine was destroyed-- when all hope for a new Krypton was lost, and there was nothing left for him but to wreck havoc on earth: "I'm going to make them suffer, Kal. These humans you adopted. I will take them all from you, one by one." Had I been in Kal's shoes-- er, boots-- and Zod had said that to me, running away from a city full of those humans Zod had pledged to kill might not be my first instinct.

Besides, strictly from a cinematic point of view, given the complaints about the lack of action in Superman Returns, I have to think that if Kal had lured him away from the city to do battle in some remote location, the spectacle wouldn't have had anywhere near the punch (no pun intended) that it did amongst the skyscrapers. And audiences probably would have felt cheated out of something more epic, something with higher stakes and bigger consequences.

And then there's Kal El killing Zod, and the argument that Superman doesn't kill. Well, the thread has already established that Superman does, and has, killed, in the comics and the movies. Also, this isn't the light, romanticized version of the character presented by Donner and Reeve. This is an edgier, harder, contemporary interpretation, so you have to expect that things are going to be different.

Kal El did not want to kill Zod. He begged him to stop his rampage. He did everything he could to stop him. Like the Terminator, Zod would never stop. Not until everyone was dead. He was going to fry that family huddled in the corner in Grand Central Station, and there was nothing Kal El could say that would change that. He had mere seconds, and he did what he had to do.

And it broke him. His wail of agony after Zod's body fell to the ground was all I needed to see that killing was not in his nature, and having to do so tortured him. I felt his pain in that moment, and Lois consoling him was the perfect concluding touch.

Some of you have said the movie had no heart. I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. For you, it had no heart. You felt nothing watching it. For me: Martha helps Clark focus his mind and center himself following his first experience of super vision. The school bus bully mellows and shows sympathy for Clark after his rescue. The conversation between Jonathan and Clark in the barn when he shows him the craft that brought him to earth. The relationship between Kal El and Lois Lane, especially at the end. I thought the story was handled with great care, and I felt plenty of heart.

Bottom line: I was ready for a new take on Superman, I got a new take on Superman, and I wasn't disappointed. I had an amazing time, and I'm ready for more.

Not that this will change any minds, and not that anyone's mind needs to be changed. I just think this article presents a perceptive answer to the controversy:

http://www.craveonline.com/film/arti...el-controversy

--THX

Ranger

Saw it today. Theater was PACKED and people clapped at the end.

I thought it was good mostly because of the cast and story. I didn't like the action that much, kind of over the top. I think the action was done better in Returns. I wasn't very impressed with Krypton. I guess nothing will top the original.

I think some people didn't like it because there wasn't much humor. I understand that complaint even though I don't think a Superman movie needs to have humor.

islandclaws

Which version of Returns did you see? Mine had none of this "action" you speak of.

Paul_SD

I agree audiences would have felt cheated. Hell, I probably would have felt cheated as well. I know I did back in '81 when the city fight was undercut so often with bad slapstick. But as I argued earlier, it wouldn't have taken much to make many peoples problems with this moot. All it needed was Superman engaging enthusiastically at first, only to see how much damage he's doing- show him trying to save some groups of people- and then take the fight elsewhere. That way you get some spectacle, you see Superman as aware of the effects this is having on innocent civilians, and you see his concerns for their safety in his actions. Seriously, I'm talking about 3 minutes of total screen time to accomplish this.
As it is, very little to next to nothing he does merits the military supporting him at the end. Their rationale could have very well have been "he just wants to soft rule over us all by himself- that's why he killed/removed all the others. Is life under one super powerful despot really going to be any better?"

Well as far as the movie goes, you already said it- the tone was lighter and more romantic. Throwing Zod into frozen water surrounding a magic castle, is very much a 'silver age' way to neutralize the villains threat. Death is implied, but off screen and hardly conclusive, especially in regards to a fantasy property.
And as far as the comics go- yeah. That's why I lost interest in the big two publishers post '86. I loved Byrne on X-men and FF, but pretty much hated his take on Superman. and what followed sounded even worse. But if you grew up when 'event' comics were the ones where the heroes are crippled, or fatally beaten to a pulp...yeah, MoS is the movie that is going to fit your value system. Not just moral values, but artistic ones as well.

And it's fully undercut a few minutes later by bad ass Superman telling the military "I'm doing this my way. If you have a problem with that, fuck you. Have a nice day."
Also, as was said a few pages back- the story bends to the writers will. They wanted Superman to kill Zod, so they crafted the scenes to fit that narrative. Had they wanted Superman to find an interesting, plausible way for him to remove his threat without ending his life- they would have done that.

yup...all the heart the movie offered was all in the trailers. I re-watched a couple of them last night and got a few chills again, despite knowing that the film doesn't come close to delivering on those stirring beats.

Brack

Kal-El offered his help, but on his own terms.

Nowhere in there inplies my way or the highway.

He didn't want to be spied on. He's an "American" and likes his right to privacy. Why should Earthlings/US ever have the feeling that Kal-El can be their lapdog or secret weapon?

He destroyed that $12 million dollar satellite to make a point. That's a drop in the bucket for the Pentagon, considering how much they spend in a day's time.

Why do the writers have to go out of their way to have Kal-El not kill Zod? The scene and result made perfect sense if you take into account everything that happened. Zod was only going to get stronger and be more of a threat. You have a problem with Zod's death, an evil person, but find fault in Kal-El for "letting" thousands die? How ironic.

Kal-El had nothing of value to lure away the Kryptonians from Metropolis. What could Kal-El possibly do? Based on the set up, Kal-El did his best. He had no time to worry about saving random people of Metropolis when the human race was about to be extinct.

Also, why is it only Kal-El who had to worry about the citizens of Metrpolis? Why were no major cities evacuated to more remote areas?

Spottedfeather

It's not that we have Nostalgia eyes for the 1978 movie. Of course even the best of movies has bad parts. But it's just that the good parts of the 1978 movie are better than the good parts, few they are, are done so much better than the mess of Man Of Steel.

Why So Blu?

And this is exactly the point that's been made over and over, but the hurt Donnor fanboys, (yeah, like the Donnor fanboys were even born when those flicks came out (sounds more like hipster nostalgia to me)) are complaining about. If Supes would have lured Zod to some unpopulated shithole the film would have grounded to a halt and it would have been another bore like Superman Returns, Superman 4, and parts of Superman 3 were.