Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

[jye4ever]

Well, Green Lantern did save the world from a big blob of cat puke.

The movie didn't even have a world, it was just Coast city.

**** em, let them all die by cat puke.

 

[krewe555]

The only time Ryan Reynolds belongs in a Justice League movie is when Ryan Reynolds is starring as the clump of dirt underneath Batman's boots.

 

[daikkenaurora]

Saw the Man of Steel.... It needed more build up. The movie just didnt have enough foreplay.

 

[VS1976]

Saw the movie today and its pretty damn good. The CGI is fantastic. Notice the shaky camera on some scenes and wish it wasn't. Notice there is a lot of product placement (franchises) like Ihop, 7-11 and Sears etc.

I thought HC was made to play Superman. Great cast also and I really like KEvin Costner part.

I give it 9/10

 

[a-dev]

Watching Superman II tonight. Superman giving up his powers, the 'why' he does it, it just doesn't make sense. Especially that he does it for Lois, Lois who fell in love with Superman - not plain ol' Clark. It makes no sense that she would let him do it for her own self-interested reasons or for the world. There wasn't even a debate about what him giving up his powers could mean and the repercussions it would have. Plus why does Lara say it can't be reversed? It can, and is not long after. Quite easily apparently and with no attempt to explain how.

Effects and the execution of set-pieces get dated in time and that's understandable but this is something that seems silly to me no matter when the film was made.

Have you seen the Richard Donner cut?

Ah. All becomes clear why you asked this. I watched the Donner cut tonight and it does address at least the how he gets his powers back and kinda goes into a bit more of why he wants rid of them in the first place. Doesn't explain why Lois lets him go ahead with it though. The films up to that point make every effort to show that she only has Superman on the brain, not Clark Kent. She should have wanted him to keep his powers for her own shallow reasons.

That said the Donner cut - which I had seen, just not in a couple of years and not so soon after a viewing of the original - is wwwayyy better than the theatrical version. It does remove some of the silliness. Unfortunately it inserts the time-reversal thing at the end...which again makes no sense whatsoever and is a major cop-out.

First of all, the original movie remains unchanged - it too has the time reversal at the end. But in the short documentary about the restoration of the Donner cut in the DVD extras they say they want people to view this Donner cut as the true companion to the first film. So....Superman reverses time in both films? Is reversing time is his solution to everything? Plus....why have I just watched all of this in the first place when everything was able to be undone so easily. Truly this was the most stupid idea they could possibly have come up with.

It also creates a problem in Donner's cut - with Superman's time reversal nothing that happens in the film ends up happening - all the way as far back as Zod and company being freed from the Phantom Zone. Presumably then the depowered Clark's encounter with the thug in the diner bar didn't happen....so when Clark goes back there right at the end to get his funny payback...shouldn't that guy not have the slightest clue who Clark is or have any memory of the earlier events? So as far he ought to be concerned this guy with glasses has just started a fight with him totally out of the blue.

Or perhaps I'm not understanding this plot device correctly...

And apparently the reason they reinserted that crap was because, unlike in the Lester version, they didn't want Lois to kiss Clark. Only Superman......okayyyy, that being a stupid reason to put in arguably one of the most stupid plot devices in film history aside, it goes right back to why in the hell would Lois allow Superman to give up his powers for her. She wanted Superman, not Clark.

So I wish they hadn't done the time-reversal gimmick again. Other than that it was a much improved Superman II.

 

[jye4ever]

Ah. All becomes clear why you asked this. I watched the Donner cut tonight and it does address at least the how he gets his powers back and kinda goes into a bit more of why he wants rid of them in the first place. Doesn't explain why Lois lets him go ahead with it though. The films up to that point make every effort to show that she only has Superman on the brain, not Clark Kent. She should have wanted him to keep his powers for her own shallow reasons.

That said the Donner cut - which I had seen, just not in a couple of years and not so soon after a viewing of the original - is wwwayyy better than the theatrical version. It does remove some of the silliness. Unfortunately it inserts the time-reversal thing at the end...which again makes no sense whatsoever and is a major cop-out.

First of all, the original movie remains unchanged - it too has the time reversal at the end. But in the short documentary about the restoration of the Donner cut in the DVD extras they say they want people to view this Donner cut as the true companion to the first film. So....Superman reverses time in both films? Is reversing time is his solution to everything? Plus....why have I just watched all of this in the first place when everything was able to be undone so easily. Truly this was the most stupid idea they could possibly have come up with.

It also creates a problem in Donner's cut - with Superman's time reversal nothing that happens in the film ends up happening - all the way as far back as Zod and company being freed from the Phantom Zone. Presumably then the depowered Clark's encounter with the thug in the diner bar didn't happen....so when Clark goes back there right at the end to get his funny payback...shouldn't that guy not have the slightest clue who Clark is or have any memory of the earlier events? So as far he ought to be concerned this guy with glasses has just started a fight with him totally out of the blue.

Or perhaps I'm not understanding this plot device correctly...

And apparently the reason they reinserted that crap was because, unlike in the Lester version, they didn't want Lois to kiss Clark. Only Superman......okayyyy, that being a stupid reason to put in arguably one of the most stupid plot devices in film history aside, it goes right back to why in the hell would Lois allow Superman to give up his powers for her. She wanted Superman, not Clark.

So I wish they hadn't done the time-reversal gimmick again. Other than that it was a much improved Superman II.

The spinning of the earth wasn't supposed to occur at the end of 1, it was always meant for 2.

Donner doesn't consider the ending of 1 his real ending.

Donner hates the super kiss that is capable of wiping memory.

The only part were Lester's version is superior is with the kiss because it only changes Lois instead of the total elimination of everything that came before.

Yeah, it's a silly kiss, but at least the battle counted and the truck driver scene still makes sense.

I also like the Lester cut scene with Superman returning the american flag.

But the Marlon Brando "Son becomes the father" Kryptonian prophecy is much better than the Lester cut

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Ah. All becomes clear why you asked this. I watched the Donner cut tonight and it does address at least the how he gets his powers back and kinda goes into a bit more of why he wants rid of them in the first place. Doesn't explain why Lois lets him go ahead with it though. The films up to that point make every effort to show that she only has Superman on the brain, not Clark Kent. She should have wanted him to keep his powers for her own shallow reasons.

That said the Donner cut - which I had seen, just not in a couple of years and not so soon after a viewing of the original - is wwwayyy better than the theatrical version. It does remove some of the silliness. Unfortunately it inserts the time-reversal thing at the end...which again makes no sense whatsoever and is a major cop-out.

First of all, the original movie remains unchanged - it too has the time reversal at the end. But in the short documentary about the restoration of the Donner cut in the DVD extras they say they want people to view this Donner cut as the true companion to the first film. So....Superman reverses time in both films? Is reversing time is his solution to everything? Plus....why have I just watched all of this in the first place when everything was able to be undone so easily. Truly this was the most stupid idea they could possibly have come up with.

It also creates a problem in Donner's cut - with Superman's time reversal nothing that happens in the film ends up happening - all the way as far back as Zod and company being freed from the Phantom Zone. Presumably then the depowered Clark's encounter with the thug in the diner bar didn't happen....so when Clark goes back there right at the end to get his funny payback...shouldn't that guy not have the slightest clue who Clark is or have any memory of the earlier events? So as far he ought to be concerned this guy with glasses has just started a fight with him totally out of the blue.

Or perhaps I'm not understanding this plot device correctly...

And apparently the reason they reinserted that crap was because, unlike in the Lester version, they didn't want Lois to kiss Clark. Only Superman......okayyyy, that being a stupid reason to put in arguably one of the most stupid plot devices in film history aside, it goes right back to why in the hell would Lois allow Superman to give up his powers for her. She wanted Superman, not Clark.

So I wish they hadn't done the time-reversal gimmick again. Other than that it was a much improved Superman II.

I feel the "Definitive Cut" of SUPERMAN II is somewhere in between the theatrical and Donner cuts. Use the overall tone and Brando footage from the Donner version, but keep the Paris sequences, Niagra Falls Lois rescue/reveal and use the kiss ending from the theatrical. This way it still works as a standalone film, a sequel, and feels like a complete movie.

 

[jye4ever]

I feel the "Definitive Cut" of SUPERMAN II is somewhere in between the theatrical and Donner cuts. Use the overall tone and Brando footage from the Donner version, but keep the Paris sequences, Niagra Falls Lois rescue/reveal and use the kiss ending from the theatrical. This way it still works as a standalone film, a sequel, and feels like a complete movie.

Sounds like a good compromise solution, but I still prefer the rocket over the elevator nuke though.

 

[King Darkness]

Well, Green Lantern did save the world from a big blob of cat puke.

I thought that was a big blob of cat poo

 

[a-dev]

I feel the "Definitive Cut" of SUPERMAN II is somewhere in between the theatrical and Donner cuts. Use the overall tone and Brando footage from the Donner version, but keep the Paris sequences, Niagra Falls Lois rescue/reveal and use the kiss ending from the theatrical. This way it still works as a standalone film, a sequel, and feels like a complete movie.

Sounds like a good compromise solution, but I still prefer the rocket over the elevator nuke though.

The kiss is silly but no where near as silly or as much of a mind***k as the time-reversal crap. They should have left the kiss ending in but from what I gathered Donner was/is too resentful of anything Lester did and there was a bunch of other Lester stuff he would have liked to remove but couldn't because it would have impacted too much on the overall story.

So for me it would be the Donner cut overall but yeah maybe the Niagra falls Lois rescue and truth reveal and the memory wiping kiss from Lesters version.

 

[chewblacca]

I would agree the whole turning back the world thing and mind wiping kiss was pretty dumb. I remember as a kid and watching both times and thinking, WTF?????

 

[karamazov80]

As a kid, I never questioned the logic to these movies.

 

[chewblacca]

Back then there was the force, the wrath of God from a golden box, and aliens visiting earth and eating Reese's Peices. So I guess it was easier to believe that you could wipe away memories with just a kiss.

 

[Devil_666]

I thought that was a big blob of cat poo

No, that's what the movie WAS.

 

[IrishJedi]

Specs forthcoming soon...

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Specs forthcoming soon...

The bottom one looks cool, but it wouldn't fit on the shelf.
I hope Zach does the same commentary thing he did for Watchmen. I lforget what they called it, but I loved how it interfaced with the movie, and always brought you back to the point you were watching.

 

[chewblacca]

Will this be the theatrical or extended. Will there even be an extnded version? If so Ill wait for that. Reading the book and the story is a lot more clearer, and seems to present itself better.

 

[karamazov80]

I really hope this is one of those that has a "director's cut" that makes the movie work better.

 

[The Josh]

Specs forthcoming soon...

That's pretty slick. Ill probably double dip on this movie and get both a regular cut (which was superb) and get any kid of extended cut (which I expect will be even better).

 

[Johnny Utah]

I hope there's a mammoth making of, Charlie De Lauzirika style. I'm mates with him on Facebook, top bloke. Featurettes on the costumes, effects, casting, score, and a top commentary with Zack.