@Khev, well, your post is appreciated accept that for me the Tornado scene is great and a highlight of the film. SO as long as we can agree to disagree in a respectful way. I've no issues.
If you want me to defend why I do like that particularly scene in pretty much every aspect I'll gladly do so. But not if the response is going to be "you're just a raving fanboy". Not that you particularly would give me that response per se, but just in general. Equating any defence of something with fanboyism is as ridiculous as equating any offence with hating.
I found it extremely easy to love man of steel, the only problems I have with it is that the ending is sloppy (and though not an issue for myself, I can see why it became desensitising to people). The omission of a scene acknowledging the destruction of Metropolis and laying out a setup for that to be dealt with in the next film is a very simple yet very impactful flaw. Hell General Swanwick could've at least mentioned it and the cut from Zod's death straight to that scene is ridiculously blunt. However the tornado scene is brilliant imo, because it let's Clarke feel the way all humans would feel. He will carry that with him for the rest of his life to remind him what it means to be powerless and to respect the consequences of his own power. It teaches him the true pain of humanity and I like that level of emotion. I love Man of Steel for its depiction of Jon Kent because there's finally someone who acknowledges what a massive impact the discovery of a being like superman could have. Maybe it's because I myself am not American, and am very aware of the fact that my country will never have much of a say in world politics. And so Superman is to outside countries essentially a weapon America possesses. Superman is basically a unique sentient atomic bomb with regards to what he could do to other nations with it. And it doesn't matter if Clarke is good, or if WE know Clarke is good. The point of Jon is that others, others outside America but presumably also inside (Oh hey look its jesse eisenberg), might respond negatively to his very existence and that it could harm a lot of people because they might disagree, violently, on what to do with Superman. What if other nations decide that a preemptive strike against america in order to destroy superman as a power threat to them is being acted upon? How many livs could be lost in a conflict just over superman's existence and the threat he exerts.
As for the destruction in man of steel, as I said, if this film, MoS2, doesn't deal with that subject THAT is the point where I will turn on Snyder and say, okay dude, you gotta pick this up now (and I am confident he will). But within the context of part 1 Superman not being able to contain the violence of Zod is not a flaw of the film imo it's the exact point of it. They gave Superman an arc that's blatantly unfinished. And he's clearly NOT Superman at the end of Man of Steel. But that's actually what I love about it, because it's a setup. And it implies a journey to come in where we will see him become that hero. I understand why some don't like Man of Steel because of it, and that it's not Superman, maybe not Superman in any real way, but it's not a flaw of the film. It's the point of it. You can either appreciate that point or not. And I mean I know plenty of people who have BECOME Superman fans because of man of steel, because they now feel him as more relatable. So having acknowledged that I too see technical flaws with the film, especially toward the end, I genuinely feel MoS is one of the best in its genre. And easily the best reboot I've ever seen for anything. And if you disagree that's fine I have no issues with that. But my position is not outrageous nor unreasonable many people agree overall.
And ftr, if Snyder doesn't live up to what I hope with BvS (which I still refer to as MoS2) THAN I will join the side that's angry over collateral damage. But in interviews with snyder and goyer I'm so far confident he will.
Applaud your post man. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but I respect your position.
Let me see... I do genuinely dislike RDJ's act in his solo Iron Man films, but I would never say I hate it. I think The Hobbit trilogy comes close as a recent example, because I adore LotR and I feel Jackson is undoing everything the original LotR did for the genre. But I mean, hating? I hate twilight... maybe? In that I cannot stand anything about it. I just don't like the word hate, it's like, I can ignore it, so why would I hate it? I hate things that genuinely impact and ruin my life such as a car accident or being broke or whatever. A film can't do that. It's too easy to ignore it's existence for me to genuinely mount feelings of hate for it. There are films of characters I'd loathe, but to genuinely say I hate it, kinda hard for me to justify.
But if you wanna equate loathing to hating than let's keep the Hobbit trilogy as my example. And I readily admit that among friends I do really make fun of it. And in general film related areas, forums, podcast, I do love it when people do that, and I will suck up when people mock man of steel.
But I would NEVER consciously go to a place that's meant to gather people interested in specifically the Hobbit just to spit in their faces about it or vent my anger. I don't begrudge people their Hobbit movies. I'd genuinely feel bad about myself if I did. There has to be a public place where fans of something can discuss their topics without being bothered by people's outright hate for it. And I don't care what it is. Even if it's uwe boll movies.
