Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

[RIDDICK]

Who's the third?

"Dork Rises" killed the Batman.

For the record I liked BB and TDK, they weren't great but had some incredible stuff.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

"Dork Rises" killed the Batman.

For the record I liked BB and TDK, they weren't great but had some incredible stuff.

I agree TDKR went off the rails and made some horrible creative decisions, but I still think it's well-made and entertaining if viewed as an Elseworlds/standalone movie. That's more than what I can say about MOS and ASM2.

 

[karamazov80]

I just read this:

https://www.outlawvern.com/2014/07/28/man-of-steel-gets-a-bum-rap/

While I don't like this film, he makes some great points IMO.

"Is MAN OF STEEL perfect? No. Are your children perfect? Hell no. . .Only DIE HARD is perfect."

Hard to argue with that one

 

[EVILFACE]

That's a lot of words. Should just tell folks to....

 

[SnakeDoctor]

That's a pretty brilliant review, actually. I approve.

I had several problems with MOS. None that destroyed the movie for me, though. I disliked the characterization and death of Jonathan Kent. I didn't like how Jor-El died. I thought it could've been shot brighter and more colorfully. Still bothers the hell out of me that Zod never uttered the words "Kneel before ..."

The standard, all-too-clever, complaint about the 'death' and destruction wasn't a problem for me, though. For all the reasons that guy said. The fight scenes were great.

SnakeDoc

 

[Tourist]

I think MOS, though flawed, is a brillant film and I cannot wait to see BVS.
I find it to be miles ahead of any Marvel movie, just like the DK trilogy before it.

Batman and Superman are the only two truly iconic superheroes.
As such people have their own version of "the real" Batman or Superman, based on their first exposure to these characters and their own predisposition.
Because of this they hold them to a higher standard than other comic book characters and can be very intransigent when it's not their version or understanding that is displayed on screen.
They forget that these characters are multiple and in a constant state of evolution.
When I see the reactions to various comic book movies it is clear that Batman and Superman get most of the scrutiny and unlike other CBM characters, they never get a free pass.
We project so much into them that these two have almost become religious figures.

 

[RIDDICK]

The sentence is:
MoS has an incredibly overdone script with broken concepts and pretentious tone smashed into already stupid "Superman: Earth One" story.

 

[GasparZizou]

I think MOS, though flawed, is a brillant film and I cannot wait to see BVS.
I find it to be miles ahead of any Marvel movie, just like the DK trilogy before it.

Batman and Superman are the only two truly iconic superheroes.
As such people have their own version of "the real" Batman or Superman, based on their first exposure to these characters and their own predisposition.
Because of this they hold them to a higher standard than other comic book characters and can be very intransigent when it's not their version or understanding that is displayed on screen.
They forget that these characters are multiple and in a constant state of evolution.
When I see the reactions to various comic book movies it is clear that Batman and Superman get most of the scrutiny and unlike other CBM characters, they never get a free pass.
We project so much into them that these two have almost become religious figures.

While I agree with you, I think the reason both Bats and Supes are so unfarily scrutinized along with other DC characters compared to Marvel ones.

It's cause DC characters barely changed over the years so they appear to be set in stone, and when someone goes to show they're not entirely perfect (just like the Marvel characters) everyone loses their minds.

Marvel characters constantly change over the years, from their costumes to their characterizations, and DC characters only changed their designs a couple years ago, and look how everyone is having such a hard time to accept them, even when the new 52 stories have been getting consistently better, Grant Morrison's Superman Origin is as good as any.

It goes down to the nature of the characters of each Comic book house, Marvel characters are inherently more human, flawed and therefore relatable, while DC characters are a pantheon of gods who are near perfect and their struggles are more philosophical rather than Marvel's characters pedestrian and every-day struggles.

So, between not changing much, the god-like nature of the DC characters, and DC fans being total dbags, it must be a nightmare for artists to handle those characters.

I still see people *****ing about the new 52 while explicitly admitting not reading it that's what the average DC "fan" is.

The sentence is:
MoS has an incredibly overdone script with broken concepts and pretentious tone smashed into already stupid "Superman: Earth One" story.

Wut lol no

 

[Tourist]

The sentence is:
MoS has an incredibly overdone script with broken concepts and pretentious tone smashed into already stupid "Superman: Earth One" story.

Riddickulous indeed.
Now go watch GOTG.

 

[rushmore223]

I never read a superhero comic in my life, I just judge the movie itself, based on it's own merits/detriments and whether I felt it succeeded at what it was trying to do and the story it was trying to tell.

Otherwise I'd be constantly comparing Batman to the campy TV series since that was my first exposure to Batman, and wonder why it was taking itself so seriously. But, no, I loved BB and TDK

Just because someone doesnt share your love for a movie, doesnt mean they are looking at it the wrong way.

 

[karamazov80]

It goes down to the nature of the characters of each Comic book house, Marvel characters are inherently more human, flawed and therefore relatable, while DC characters are a pantheon of gods who are near perfect and their struggles are more philosophical rather than Marvel's characters pedestrian and every-day struggles.

I wouldn't say that, considering my favorite DC comics run is Wolfman and Perez's New Teen Titans, which was chock full of drama and angst. And there is hardly a wackier, more dysfunctional team than the Doom Patrol. Speedy was a heroine addict in the '70s, while Green Arrow and Green Lantern were traveling the U.S. trying to better understand the various social problems of the time. Half of the Justice Society were just guys who worked out or had a fancy weapon. You seem to be referencing DC's golden/silver ages, where it is true characters like Superman didn't have many flaws. But as fun as many of those stories are, they weren't very well written, either. Characters were pretty generic, and personalities could be substituted for one another without anyone really noticing.

Having said that, probably my main issue with MOS was tone, which I felt was totally wrong for Superman. Understanding characters need to "evolve" or "devolve" in this case, there are constants about them that I feel shouldn't be messed around with, and for Superman a drab, depressing tone isn't something I can get behind. It would be like making the X-Men light and joyful.

 

[GasparZizou]

There's nothing wrong with the tone imo, people make it seem like it was really a depressing tone when it clearly isn't, melancholic at times maybe, but faaaar from depressing, it also had fun moments and jokes that people in the theater actually laughed at, it's just one of those complaints that some people went with even when there's nothing to support the claims, just like the usual "Superman destroyed Metropolis".

If you have a story where Superman struggles to fit in, of course there's going to be angsty moments.

I think people have been spoiled with the Marvel tone, which is sometimes borderline a sitcom in some movies, the GotG comicbook and the recent God of Thunder didn't have nearly as many jokes as the movies, people are starting to confuse funny with fun.

Having said that, the characters you mentioned haven't been properly introduced in the big screen, I'm talking about the A-listers here, the main JL roster...
People are as unfamiliar with the Doom patrol as they were with GotG.

And you mention how the characters weren't particularly well written back then, yet people still hold the characters to those standards.

But look what happened with Green Lantern, Reynolds actually played Hal closer to the source than RDJ played Stark, yet look at the hate Reynolds gets for the character.

 

[Tourist]

While I agree with you, I think the reason both Bats and Supes are so unfarily scrutinized along with other DC characters compared to Marvel ones.

It's cause DC characters barely changed over the years so they appear to be set in stone, and when someone goes to show they're not entirely perfect (just like the Marvel characters) everyone loses their minds.

Marvel characters constantly change over the years, from their costumes to their characterizations, and DC characters only changed their designs a couple years ago, and look how everyone is having such a hard time to accept them, even when the new 52 stories have been getting consistently better, Grant Morrison's Superman Origin is as good as any.

It goes down to the nature of the characters of each Comic book house, Marvel characters are inherently more human, flawed and therefore relatable, while DC characters are a pantheon of gods who are near perfect and their struggles are more philosophical rather than Marvel's characters pedestrian and every-day struggles.

Quite the opposite, DC's characters were the first to evolve and have been multiple almost since the beginning, that's always been DC's trademark!
You seem to only limit your understanding of these characters to your own reading.
Different generation grew up with different versions of the characters; Kane's (Finger's) Batman, Batman 66, Miller's Batman, Burton's Batman, Nolan's Batman, N52 Batman and I'm not even getting into the Multiverse (another DC trademark from early on).
These are different all Batmans at the core.
Same can be said of Superman (Siegel/Shuster, Superboy, Swan, Earth 2, Reeve, Byrne, Ross, Morrison, N52, MOS...) and most other major DC characters.
For Marvel it is a fairly recent thing.
There is one thing you got correctly, DC Characters such as Batman and Superman being created before WWII have been influenced by 19th century literature and pulp fiction and felt very old fashioned when compared to Marvel characters created in the early 60's with a modern mind set.
This also changed as DC worked to make their character more relatable and Marvel started to introduce multiplicity in their characters (not just costume or identity changes).
In some ways Marvel and DC characters are more alike today than ever before, as if they were trying to get to the same place.

 

[GasparZizou]

Quite the opposite, DC's characters were the first to evolve and have been multiple almost since the beginning, that's always been DC's trademark!
You seem to only limit your understanding of these characters to your own reading.
Different generation grew up with different versions of the characters; Kane's (Finger's) Batman, Batman 66, Miller's Batman, Burton's Batman, Nolan's Batman, N52 Batman and I'm not even getting into the Multiverse (another DC trademark from early on).
These are different all Batmans at the core.
Same can be said of Superman (Siegel/Shuster, Superboy, Swan, Earth 2, Reeve, Byrne, Ross, Morrison, N52, MOS...) and most other major DC characters.
For Marvel it is a fairly recent thing.

Not at all, both Superman and Batman have been the same since they were established, and even more so Superman, you mentioned different interpretations that ultimately portray the exact same character, with the exception of the 60's comics and TV show, Batman seldom changed at all.

Therefore, when you have Superman being just a tad tongue and cheek or a bit arrogant, you have people saying "oh he's a *********" and add to that that there are still people sobbing over the loss of the briefs with these 2 characters and you don't hear anyone complaining about Marvel characters losing the undies, that's how strange to change DC fans are.

While with exception to Spiderman, every other Marvel character has been changing constantly, starting with their outfits, look at the X-men, how many costumes they've had, the Avengers, etc etc.

There is one thing you got correctly, DC Characters such as Batman and Superman being created before WWII have been influenced by 19th century literature and pulp fiction and felt very old fashioned when compared to Marvel characters created in the early 60's with a modern mind set.
This also changed as DC worked to make their character more relatable and Marvel started to introduce multiplicity in their characters (not just costume or identity changes).
In some ways Marvel and DC characters are more alike today than ever before, as if they were trying to get to the same place.

Marvel and DC characters (the main ones) are completely different from each other, Superman and Batman deal with moral issues almost the entirety of the time and a big deal of their personal drama is based on those philosophical and moral issues, then you have characters like Wolverine who despite being a popular character from way back, he still deals with teenage, mundane and personal drama having to deal with all the youngsters as headmaster of the academy and such.

DC always seems to analyse society and humanity from above, while Marvel does from the ground.

 

[Tourist]

Not at all, both Superman and Batman have been the same since they were established, and even more so Superman, you mentioned different interpretations that ultimately portray the exact same character, with the exception of the 60's comics and TV show, Batman seldom changed at all.
...
While with exception to Spiderman, every other Marvel character has been changing constantly, starting with their outfits, look at the X-men, how many costumes they've had, the Avengers, etc etc.

I stopped reading after that.
You think different costume means different character or that Miller's Batman is the same as what came before.
I will not try to converse with you further on this subject, your comic book "culture" seems to consist mostly of stuff published in the past 10 or 15 years.
Maybe you are just young (nothing wrong with that), you mentioned in another thread that you are reading the Incal, I read it over 30 years ago.
It's not personal but I do not have the courage to go back to basics with you.
Cheers,

 

[GasparZizou]

Sigh, whatever.

You should bother and try to read better though, since I clearly said the costume changes are where the changes started, I didn't say the character change starts and ends with the outfit.

You're also wrong about my comicbook culture.

 

[karamazov80]

There's nothing wrong with the tone imo, people make it seem like it was really a depressing tone when it clearly isn't, melancholic at times maybe, but faaaar from depressing, it also had fun moments and jokes that people in the theater actually laughed at, it's just one of those complaints that some people went with even when there's nothing to support the claims, just like the usual "Superman destroyed Metropolis".

Well no, there was definitely a reason for my feelings there, which, by the way, are a subjective interpretation and not something objectively happening on the screen (such as whether or not Superman killed anyone). And as such can't be criticized in that way. "Joyless" was my gut response watching it, and leaving the theater, reinforced by the color de-saturation, strong overtones of guilt and angst, recurrent theme of death and decay, brutality in the action scenes, etc. The creative team making those decisions is fine though, considering their apparent objectives with the film. It just doesn't jibe with my interpretation of Superman. I don't really recall the jokes apart from Superman's little threat at the end re: the satellite, nor do I recall laughs from the audience (though I don't doubt that other jokes were there), but I don't blame them for that. WB/DC hasn't shown itself to be very good at funny, so they shouldn't focus on it. Look no further than your GL example. If Green Lantern was actually funny, maybe audiences would have enjoyed it more, as they enjoyed the genuinely funny Iron Man.

 

[GasparZizou]

Ok, you felt joyless, I can respect that, but I strongly disagree with the claims of Superman killing anyone other than Zod, there's just nothing to support that, at all, objectively speaking, if you think it was joyless well I can't argue with your feelings, but saying he destroyed metropolis, or was a mass murderer is something I won't take as anything else than a jest.

Other things I disagree with is the de-saturation claim, people say it like the movie was all grey, watch MoS and Iron Man side to side and tell me you see a big difference in color saturation, in fact, there's more color in the Smallville scene than in the Afghanistan scene in IM.

Yeah there was death in some scenes, like in the dream sequence, but were either hypothetical or scarce, like the skeleton found in the kryptonian pod, but those are only bits, minuscule compared to the 1st flight scene, when Clark gets home after discovering the ship, Jor-El and Lara saying goodbye to the baby, etc etc...

The brutality in the action scenes.... Well it's a Superman movie

And about GL not being genuinely funny, I don't see what makes GL not genuine and Stark genuine.

There are actually funny parts in GL, as there are in MoS, it just seems people have been spoiled with the predictable, in-your-face, sitcom dialogue.

-Jane: Is that how you normally look?
-Thor:More or less.
-Jane: It's a good look.

vs

-Ma Kent: Nice suit son.

I take Ma Kent any day of the week.

It just seems like people here have an unfair negative vision towards MoS and everything DC-related, if you ask me, with no good reason.

 

[spindrift]

This movie is polarizing to the nth degree- you either love it or hate it- and both sides aren't afraid to fight about it!

 

[chewblacca]

I think the worst part about Man of Steel is the fact that WB had so much faith in their greatest character that they had to put Batman in his next appearance. If they were so happy with how it turned out they would have given him a proper sequel. As it is now Man of Steel comes across as another way to revamp a new batman franchise. And please don't try and say that WB planned it this way because they didn't. They saw the money marvel made, compared it to the money Nolan batman made and what Man of Steel made. Realizing what marvel had done with the avengers WB realized that they had to do something so they decided to pair their two best characters together. The first problem was that Bale had enough of the suit and ears so they needs a big name to fill his boots. Ben Affleck. Then WB saw the money Avengers made and figured they should fast track a JL movie, but the New batman story had already been done by Goyer and principal production had already been done. Then Affleck the man hired to be their batman in all of this had a problem with the script. Do they keep Goyer and piss off their new Batman who had "hurt" himself or do they change the writer and expand their movie? Goyer is out, the writer of Argo is in and their once superhero team up movie is now the springboard for an entire new Justice League plan. While all this is going on Snyder mentions that killing Zod may not have been a good idea, and Goyer puts his foot in his mouth about his comic movie choices and his feelings on Man of Steel and the reception of his definition of a real Superman.