Bio not provided
@Contrabardus @sefy76 @Batmandrew Oh Snap!
1 year, 4 months ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman
@sefy76 @jparlee321 My apologies, I was wrong in saying you did not read comics. It would be fairer to say you are not as well versed in them, and therefore dont have a true understanding of the character.
Kirk Alyn and George Reeves were television programs, not source material. So again, you are basing your understanding of the character off of these, and they are not very credible.
Sefy I was talking about Contrabardus and his original point, not this article. I have never commented on CGI of the film, I have been defending certain aspects of the film that you and others have been negatively commenting on, for example your ideas of murder and genocide.
I have admitted to flaws in the film, such as there not being visible damage from battles on the characters, the scene with Jonathan Kent saying "maybe", or how Jonathan Kent dies. So I am in fact unbiased in my points on this film, and am only defending certain merits of the film you find problems with.
I enjoyed the film not because of the CGI, with a 220 million dollar budget id hope the CGI is good. Unlike previous films, I really enjoyed this one. Before MOS, I never had an appreciation for the character. I enjoyed how we finally had an action packed Superman; ill be honest that was the first thing on my checklist with this film. There is nothing wrong with that, we needed to see a little more super powers from the most powerful comic book hero.
In addition, it had heart and hope especially within the character. His acts of heroism before he dons the cape really give us an idea of what this guy is about. I like how he has a reason why he doesnt kill, because he has done it and does not justify doing it, because it was so destructive to his morality.
You hit the nail right on the head. I think honestly the people who should be judging MOS in terms of its truth to the original character, are the ones who have read the comics (source material), and understand all the ways he has been portrayed over the years.
Sefy you have clearly stated you dont read comics, and therefore are basing your understanding of Superman off of the Donner films. Its great if you like the portrayal, and your reasons for liking it are valid, but constantly putting down MOS and others (calling them dark people) isnt going to make your case. The fact is, neither you or I for that matter really should not be saying this movie is or isnt true to the original character, because we dont have an understanding of the source material.
And Sefy if we are talking numbers, this is the most successful superman movie yet. So yeah you're right, numbers dont lie. Dropping from 1 to 3 isnt actually surprising considering the movies it had to compete with (MU, WWZ, etc). Iron Man 3 did so well only because of riding on Avengers success. Look at the numbers for the first 2 Iron Man films, they have never done that good.
@sefy76 @jparlee321 The point of discussion was comparing MOS to the Donner films, which you were arguing against. You have already made several unwarranted statements about why you didnt like MOS, we get it already. I am not going to keep arguing the same thing over with you, its agree to disagree.
My point in regards to what you said to Contrabardus, was that you were singing praises for the Donner film with no criticism, and couldnt stop tearing down MOS. Further, that makes you sound incredibly biased and therefore less credible.
People who are honest can point out the faults in both versions, and break down the movie effectively to determine what worked and didnt work in the film. You on the other hand would rather keep saying the same thing over and over hoping people understand what you mean (we get the "POS" thing by the way, dont need to read it again).
Its great that you finally pointed out some criticisms, but too little too late. You only pointed them out because you were challenged to.
MOS was a success, because of the money it made; despite any reasoning for this you try to throw out (like a lot people saw it once and they made money off them), the truth is there is a large majority of fans of MOS. Not even looking at the money it made, you can speculate the number of fans by comments they made, the gathering at the recent Comic Con who were all cheering on Zach Snyder, the list goes on.
This film did well, because its budget was 225 million, and it made over 600 million, that is a huge success. What MOS suffers from, is the fact there is a huge divide between people who loved it and people who hated, theres really no in between. There are so many fans of so many different portrayals of Superman, its hard to make one that appeals to everyone.
Its fine if you didnt like it, but you cant judge the merit of its success just because you didnt like, or your hypothesis of why it earned a lot of money.
@sefy76 @Contrabardus Sefy you are obviously very biased towards this film due to your undying love of the Donner films. You have absolutely nothing critical to say about the Donner films, and please dont say its because "theres nothing to criticize". MOS does have flaws, but so does the Donner versions. Contrabardus equally criticized MOS just as he did the Reeves films, making his argument far more sound. Im sorry, but nothing you have said holds weight, because you are completely biased and solely focused on tearing down MOS, only because you are so obsessed with the Donner films. If you cant be balanced in your criticisms, or form legitimate arguments, people are going to have a hard time taking your comments seriously.
@trans8010 @ty19c I actually never thought of this, you make a good point. I mean I dont know about the knocking out thing, but you are right it doesnt make sense when Superman is battling Zod or the other Kryptonians for that matter that there isnt even a tear in his suit, or some type of bruising. I guess I never really paid attention to it before but that is a flaw in the movie.
It is not legally murder. If we were to put Superman on trial in a real world setting, I think we ALL KNOW that this case would get thrown out by a jury. Worst case scenario, man slaughter.
Lets say he could have knocked him out (which obviously he cant given how many punches Zod had taken already and was still awake), what then? Its still a HUGE risk to have Zod around. Earth (humans) would have nothing in the world that could hold someone like Zod because they have never dealt with anyone like Zod. Even if they could come up with something, it would take forever to build and I am pretty sure Zod would wake up by then.
Your argument is flawed from every angle here, as leaving Zod alive puts the entire earth at risk. Superman although not wanting to do it, sacrificied his morality to protect earth. Murder has some sort of personal gain or personal attachment to the act, there was nothing personal about what Superman did, he did it for the greater good. Therefore, this WAS NOT MURDER.
@Rogersjyg I would say that if MOS appealed to everyone, or was as successful as Avengers, they could go ahead with this plan. However there were a lot of people not happy with the fact that Clark did not get more character development (I was ok with it only because it was an origin film), this film relied on visiting Clark's past and a very short timeline in the present, not allowing for a lot more development for the character. Therefore, we need a sequel solely focused on this character and rounding him out as a hero. You cannot do that with a major character like Batman, for the simple reason they HAVE TO focus on him just as much. He is too iconic to not have a solid portrayal in this film, especially considering how much people liked Nolan's Batman, this new one has big shoes to fill. Because of this, one of these characters are not going to be fully developed, and that is just ashame. All they have to do is be patient, take time with the characters and films.
I get that and all, but then its inappropriate to call it a Superman sequel. I mean whether you liked MOS or not, or rather agreed with the take on his origin or not, the character still needs lots of development. It bothers me because first they say they meant to show a naive Superman in MOS and would develop him in future sequels, but how can that be done if they are doing a duel character film with Batman? Even if they had waited til a 3rd sequel to intro Batman (which would give more time for people to reduce their Hype over the Dark Knight Series) woulf have been better. I just think Superman needs more solo time, especially considering how new this adaptation is.
My opinion on DC's plans is that they dont need to rush this to keep up with Marvel. They are trying so hard to get a Justice League film out that quality may be sacrificed.
@trans8010 Ugh, unfortunately I may agree with you on this one. They still have too much work to do on the MOS character without the distraction on introducing Batman. Frig this bugs me!! WHY!!!!! There is soooo much more that needs to be done with Superman, he needs more development and experience first before just throwing the Dark Knight in there. The creators are falling under the pressure of Avengers and trying to speed everything up, Batman is too iconic to just throw into a Superman movie as a minor character. He either needed a reboot or just Christian Bales Batman (I prefer the latter).
The only think I would say on a side note about Iron Man 3, is that it kinda rode the "Avengers Success" wave. I mean look at the numbers compared to its prequels, an Iron Man movie has never done that good. My prediction is that every marvel movie (connected to Avengers) is probably going to do amazing.
I was pretty upset with Iron Man 3, just because it really did not follow the original "extremis" story arc (not at all actually), and ruined a very popular villain. I understand they wanted to show what Tony was capable without the suit, but did they have to do it for most of the film? Even when he was in the suit it didnt work.
I guess I bring this up because a lot of people are in an upheaval about how MOS betrayed everything in the original comics but honestly so did this movie, no one seems to care as much though.
Actually Superman's body aged quite normally in the film and every other portrayal I have seen of him. You are also speaking of Kryptonian embryos as if they were the same as human ones, they arent. These embryos were non living, and had been so for 20000 years and not because of your theory on Superman having a slow aging process. He didnt kill the Kryptonian race, he just simply didnt bring it back, there is a big difference.
Further, why would he bring them back? He just found out about them, why would he have any emotional ties to them? In his mind, he is human through and through, of course he chose saving humans rather than bringing back kryptonians, especially if it meant wiping out the human race.
Krypton did have its chance many times, and destroyed their own race due to negligence. Also, given what Clark had seen by Zod and the others, why would he risk bringing back his race and hoping they would co-exist peacefully with humans? He probably wouldnt use the codex to determine their destiny, as he probably believes in free will like his father.
Therefore, if he grows a bunch of super powered beings on Earth just like him, obviously there are going to be some who are villainous, putting earth in greater danger. He made the logical choice not bringing them back.
Personally, it would be a very boring sequel if we saw Superman become Mr. Scientist and trying to bring back his race, and be realistic, no one wants to see that.
"You just don't believe in the goodness in people, unless there is an ulterior motive or darkness in them"
That is not a general statement there pal. Saying "you" is directly implied at the person, good attempt at a cop out though.
Yup, Genocide is the murder or attempted murder of an entire race. Which involves an action by the person committing it with a premeditated reason for doing so. Zod fits this perfectly; he does not care about the human race, believes his is superior and therefore tries to wipe them all out. That is genocide. Superman destroying the genesis chamber filled with lets face it, non living embryos is not genocide. (non living because they havent developed for 20000 years). Him not creating life is not murdering, do you have any educated comments to make?
"After all, if you go and cheer for murder, what do you care if someone commits genocide against some country"
These are just a couple good examples of you throwing out accusations about people you dont even know, claiming they cheer for murder because they have a different opinion than you. You can dish it out but cant take it eh?
Fact is, your argument about genocide is flawed. Like Gabadabba said below, not creating life is not the same as taking it. There is no way around it, its a fact.
I am actually starting to think you are clinically insane. Umm, the Kryptonian race is fictional, its a movie there drama queen. Also I was speaking of embryos within the context of this movie, being that yes they were embryos, but not like human embryos that actually develop into human beings. These embryos are bread differently and only become something more by way of the codex, dont put words in my mouth.
Therefore, these embryos are really nothing but, you guessed it 20000 year old embryos. Lastly to sum up, you wouldnt know good story telling if it bit you in the a double snakes. A trial for Zod? Oh I would love to see how that would turn out! Do I even need to explain how that would turn out?
Its bad enough that you actually think Superman is genocidal in this movie, but just to make yourself sound even more uncredible, you go further to say if Zod kills everyone, its ok, its "survival of the fittest". Bit of a double standard dont you think? You actually are trying desperately to make an unsuccessful case for Clark being genocidal, but have no problem overlooking the obvious villain who has already killed thousands, borderline genocide.
Seriously how many more comments are we going to recieve from you at the nuthouse?
Lets say for kicks though Clark got rid of Zod and saved the Genesis Chamber. What then? What would you like him to do? Spend his life figuring out how to extract the codex from himself (which there was no tech to do that), grow himself a hell a lot of kids, and have all these super powered beings share (or not share) the Earth with humans?
I mean use your head a little, be realistic. They were 20000 year old embryos, nothing more and were never going to be anything more, unless Zod had his way and grew a bunch of monsters like him hell bent on killing every human.
My point is this, you care about this only to the extent that you think it furthers your ludicrous point about Clark being a genocidal maniac.
Because you are one of the same individuals who keeps throwing around the word "murder" and does not seem to know the definition, so no I have no idea what you or Sefy are talking about when you say genocide as well.
The Kryptonian race (minus Clark, Zod, and the others) perished along with the planet. The Genesis Chamber contained embryos that had been just that for 20000 years (age of the scout ship), they are nothing more than that without being developed by the codex.
Superman made a choice to protect the billions of innocence on Earth rather than let Zod carry out his plan to wipe everyone out (ahem, GENOCIDE) just so he could reboot his race, which oh yeah involved killing Clark to extract the codex. Hmmm I gotta say I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes.
I actually agree with you on the scene where his dad says "maybe" to him not saving the kids. It was a very controversial scene and I am not sure whether the creators simply put it in there to "stir the pot" among audiences.
I think they were trying to show that his father was conflicted while saying that, like he knows Clark did the right thing by saving the kids but at the same time was looking at the bigger picture to Clark's destiny. Unfortunately, this was not shown very clearly in this scene which made it unnecessary. Of course Clark made the right choice in saving those kids, there was no maybe about it.
But that also says something about the character, that he has this undying urge to help people. Despite what his parents say, he chooses to risk revealing himself because he knows he has the power to save people and he should.
I think his earth parents are encouraging him to find his purpose instead of directly guiding him to be a hero in this film. It is Jor-El who encourages him to don the cape and save mankind.
His parents do help him come to terms with who he is and what he can do, however they cannot direct his path as a hero. That is a choice he needs to make on his own, and he cannot become the perfect hero over night.
A hero needs to progress on his own based off of mistakes and choices they make. No one can train you to be a hero; Clark develops as a hero by taking the values he learned from his earth parents and embarking on his own.
Superman is not god which implies he is perfect. He is human and therefore will make mistakes. This does not mean however that he still cannot be the shining light people have described him to be. I dont look up to "perfect beings" because frankly they dont exist, and that goes for fictional characters as well.
I am inspired by people who despite everything they may have done or whatever they go through, can rise above and overcome their challenges. Who can say to me, "these are the hardships i went through, and here is how I overcame them and became a better person".
His parents didnt try to make him fearful of what he could do, they helped to learn how to control not only his powers, but how he used them.
A perfect example of John Kent instilling good morals in Clark was when the group of boys were picking on him. Without his parents direction, he may have fought back and accidentally killed those boys. But he used self control because his parents raised him better than that. Even John Kent afterwards said in regards to revenge "would that have made you feel better?" This shows John wanted Clark to use his powers not for vengeance, but for helping others.
Also in every other version I have seen, his parents always while raising him instructed that he not reveal himself or his powers. The reason they did this remains constant in this movie, because the world wouldnt be ready for him, that they would try to capture him or put him in danger. I think John Kent was also holding Clark back because Clark needed to find out where he came from and what his purpose was.
@sefy76 @jparlee321 That is where you miss my point. I dont have to reduce anything as far as what you claimed he did, because it simply wasnt there. I am not giving him excuses, because I dont have to; there is nothing to excuse. I understand why he HAD to kill Zod and the creators intentions for having him do so.
@sefy76 @jparlee321 Are you kidding me? Are you that dramatic and short sighted to actually use those as your examples? You are seriously not even worth debating with. You are simply creating problems about the movie that dont even exist, and dramatizing them to the extreme. I am not even going to bother with you and your uncredible points.
I dont understand why you keep throwing murder around about this character, he doesnt "murder" anyone. Murder is premeditated by someone for some personal reason. When does that occur in this movie? On top of that, how on earth does he commit genocide? I think you are being a bit over dramatic about this movie bud.
I also think using the word "murder" is completely inappropriate; murder is premeditated by the individual who decides to kill someone else for some aforementioned reason. (look up the definition) People who have thrown this around about this character should choose their words more carefully.
This Superman never wanted to kill anyone nor had motive at any time to do so. Innocent people died from collateral damage in this film, not by the hands of Superman, that is not murder. Him killing Zod was not murder, he was protecting another family who was completely innocent, somethhing that happens in law enforcement all the time.
It comes down to what you prefer. A lot of people like this version of Superman because of the idea that he doesnt just put on a cape and automatically become a flawless individual. Its a fresh take on the character and it was intentional to portray him this way. Snyder said himself that (I am paraphrasing here a little) it doesnt make sense that for some ambiguous reason Superman doesnt kill, it is more realistic that some major event happens that causes him to adopt that principle.
It really doesnt matter to me how perfect he was shown in the comics, he is human and we as humans learn and develop through our mistakes. We define ourselves by our past and the decisions we make, for example none of us can say "I will never kill anyone for any reason", because we have never been pushed to that limit. I know there are people who do not like this take on Superman, and I appreciate their opinion on it however there are a lot of people who do like it.
No, that is not the writers, directors, or editors fault, that is simply your opinion. If there was a consensus among the audience stating "I dont care about the characters and didnt like this superman", then you can start pointing fingers.
The fact is, there is a huge divide between audiences who enjoyed the movie and those who didnt. There are critics who loved the movie and others who didnt. This means that the creators of this film did something right that did appeal to a large number of audiences, and what it really came down to was at an individual level and what that individual was hoping for in a Superman film.
I was hoping for a more action packed Superman and they delivered with MOS. I also liked how they took a fresh take on the character and humanized him a bit more. I enjoyed how they developed the character by exploring his past, and then showing us within a very short timeline in the present how he dealt with being a hero defeating one of the hardest enemies he will ever face, with mistakes along the way.
Its a great way to reboot the character, by introducing such major events (like Zod) as his starting point as a hero, and then seeing how he progresses in sequels. Again this is what I took away from the film, I respect the fact that you did not feel the same way.
You speak of Superman mythology as if it has only been protrayed in one way. I will admit I have never read a Superman comic, however I think I am fair in saying the character has been interpreted in a few different ways. Snyder decided to do a different take on the character, and to me this portrayal makes sense. I have never understood Superman as a hero (in film and tv) because of his ambiguity. Moreover, why does he have a no killing principle? Why is he able to always be the bigger person? The reasons for him being this way have never been apparent from what I have seen, and for that reason I have found the character to be kind of boring.
This portrayal of Superman is realistic in the sense that he is HUMAN. He was raised by humans, and grew up with humans, therefore he should act human. For him to just become this "perfect hero" overnight does not make sense growing up in the world he grew up in. Showing him making mistakes and being human is incredibly important to his development in sequels. If you enjoy Donner's films I can appreciate that, for me however they never gave me a reason to care about the character, because I couldnt relate to him.
Some people dont like this movie because they are not used to seeing such a naive superman, but appreciate the fact that this is him literally donning the cape within a matter of days, this is the youngest Superman we have seen on film yet.
@sefy76 @jparlee321 That is where your credibility ends, when you are so dead set against this film that you go as far as saying the people who made it loath the character. Sorry but if you are going to throw out wild assumptions that even the people made the film hate the character, you dont have a leg to stand on. You sound like you have no pride or joy.
@sefy76 @jparlee321 From what I have read, it was a 62.3% drop after the first week. The fact is, it is doing great at the box office, that cannot be desputed. Is there a huge divide between people who love it and people who hate it? Absolutely. Its still a popular film.
A scumbag full of self loathing for his entire race? I think that is a bit dramatic dude, and not even close to the character. He didnt "loath" his race, he didnt even know about them until he found the ship. If you think he is an awful character for deciding to protect the human race he grew up with from a villain hell bent on killing them in order to bring back his, I dont think I am the one with darkness in me. He had no reason to bring back the Krytopnian race, especially at the cost of Earth. On top of that, given the actions of Zod and the other Kryptonians, can you blame him?
Yes if it was just him screaming for no reason then there would be no reflection. However again, if you use some common sense and put into context that he was screaming out of horror over what he did, that is a form reflection. As a viewer, I dont need him to engage in some sort of dialogue explaining how horrible he feels, he conveyed that very clearly to me in his reaction. Also, characterization was present in this film, especially for Clark. His characterization was yes acheived through exploring his past and flashbacks, however that is appropriate in an origin story, and in the timeline we are dealing with. The present Clark we see is shown over a very short time period, so we are not going to see a lot more character development and honestly we dont need to. I know there is a huge divide on this particular point, some wanted more character development while others were fine with their understanding of the character, and wanted to see that character in more action. I think you and I represent both sides of this point lol
It wasnt a 70% ticket drop after its first week. Its already guaranteed to be the second highest grossing movie this year behind Iron Man 3, and has already surpassed expectations at the box office by almost crossing 300 million domestically. Its on track to be right behind (maybe even beat) Iron Man 3 before it leaves theatres, as it is only in week 4 and Iron Man was out for 10 weeks. Im sorry but this does not represent a 70% ticket drop, and also proves there are a lot of people who love this protrayal of Superman on film.
Also when people say realistic, we are talking contemporary. Meaning it is a film for these times and everything that is going on in the world. When people reference Superman Returns in comparison, they are talking about how it trys to ride the Donner wagon, instead of being contemporary.
As far as Clark being a light for the world, it doesnt happen over night (literally), its an origin film and therefore we are veiwing his mistakes that make him the hero we know.
@trans8010 @jparlee321 ALSO, just because they dont show him reflecting as you say (even though he had a pretty big moment of reflection when he screamed after killing Zod), does not mean he didnt feel bad about what he did. As audiences I think we are smart enough ourselves to assume this character is not a sociopath and did not enjoy having to kill Zod. I personally dont need producers or writers putting out detailed scenes ensuring we know the character feels sad about what he did. To try and point out that they didnt do that is just being over critical of the movie. Just use common sense and you may enjoy the film a bit more.
@trans8010 @jparlee321 Basically what you are saying is that nothing is going to please you. Calling it "damage control by WB" is a cop out and you know that. Now I believe this was their intention with the character, but lets say you're right, that they are just saying this now for "damage control". Does it matter? If that was the case, it only shows how much they DO CARE about the character and the fans opinions and are listening to what audiences want, instead of just going their own way about it. Heck I might even prefer that, given they knew going into making this they were not going to please everyone. Therefore they put MOS out there, listen to feedback and ensure they keep that feedback in mind when doing a sequel. No matter how you look at it, its GOOD NEWS for everyone, so stop being so critical anf pessimistic.
@MarioHerbert @sefy76 @AndrewSimmons Well Said.
This means for those outraged at this portrayal of Superman, maybe this will help you understand why Snyder and Goyer portrayed him this way. IT MAKES SENSE in an origin story, especially one with a short timeline of major events. It may not be what we are used to in a comic book film, but try to be open minded and understand that in order for Superman to become the hero we know and love, he NEEDS TO MAKE MISTAKES. What Snyder said in that article shows us that they are going to develop the character further.
I have been originally saying that Snyder and Goyer accidentally portrayed Superman as being wreckless in this film, that it just happened to work in an origin story. Interestingly enough, I was very very wrong and this is great news for those looking forward to sequels. They intended to have Superman as a naive hero in this film, one who makes mistakes in order to progress. Instead of some type of ambiguous reason for not killing, they had him kill Zod at the end so he could adopt the principle, because that makes a lot more sense. Dont believe it? Check out the link to this article, and start reading after the first couple paragraphs. http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/17/man-of-steel-christopher-nolan-opposed-the-ending-dc-comics-advised-on-it/
@TinyTempa @jparlee321 I think there are people out there who understand that point, the unfortunate thing is that Superman has been portrayed in so many different ways via film, television, print, and therefore there are many different fans of each portrayal (especially Donner fans). Its sad too because the inevitable point is no one will ever make a Superman film everyone will like, because there are too many incarnations to compare it to. Avengers was so popular and had no division because critics and audiences alike have nothing really to compare it to. Some may debate this using the example of the Dark Knight trilogy compared to older films, but lets face it, it was the second film of that trilogy that really made it so epic. There was profound criticism over "The Dark Knight Rises".
I dont think it is fair to say he was not heroic because of his actions during the big battles. He may have been wreckless at certain points due to his inexperience as a hero and certainly let his emotion trump logic (like tackling Zod upon threatening his mother), however in the end he saved earth and humanity which is heroic.
I think what everyone forgets is that he has literally taken up the mantle of hero over the span of a couple days, and battling one of the hardest foes he will ever face as his starting point. He is not going to do what an experienced Superman would do, considering he is human first and foremost (leaving biology out of it).
Also if we are considering his heroism, every scene counts including the oil rig, school bus, etc. Yes these scenes are unrelated to the actual battles, however in the larger picture of Clark's heroism they are just as important.
I agree with you, Superman was wreckless/careless in this film in some scenes, like the one you said where he accidentally drew the battle into Smallville. My point is and has been that for an origin story, and looking at the very short timeline in this film where Clark finds his purpose, portraying the character this way works. I think looking at the timeline is especially important, because when you think about it Clark did not find out his true purpose (finding the scout ship and learning where he came from) until only a couple days before Zod invaded. He had to make a choice very quickly on whether he was going to be the hero Earth needed.
Becoming a hero doesnt happen overnight, it takes time and a few mistakes need to be made. Therefore, Clark acting irrationally after seeing his mother being threatened and engaging Zod out of anger makes sense. Because of this, he made a mistake and drew the battle into Smallville. Him killing Zod needed to happen, because he needed to be pushed to his limits in order to develop the no killing principle (see my post a bit above on this no killing principle).
Having said, I dont think Goyer and Snyder portrayed him this way on purpose, it just inadvertantly worked. Right now, this film makes sense to me, however if in the sequel they do not make Clark less careless or portray him still as a naive hero, then this film (the first one) has failed in this regard, although I still enjoyed it lol
@MichaelRTrice @jparlee321 I see what your saying, the film certainly does break the conventions of comic book movies in this area. It may not be for everyone, however for me it was refreshing. I mean its not like he was a brawler the whole time, there were instances of him taking the time to save human lives. I think you are right about Goyer and Snyder about it being unintentional, but inadvertantly it also kinda worked in terms of grounding the character. Remember he isnt the heroic Superman we all know and love yet, he is really just starting out. As long as they take the time to make him less careless in the sequel, I think Man of Steel will be validated.
I really think people are digging deep here when they say things such as "this superman has no empathy or care for human life" and use examples from the film such as crashing into a gas station or not saving people from falling debris. Can you honestly tell me that in every fight scene Superman should stop mid battle and be like "I better make sure no people are getting hurt. I mean these bad guys might keep killing others but they can wait". That is totally stupid and unrealistic! Also, everyone is digging for these negative examples trying to prove their point about his lack of empathy, and ignoring the positive examples that really show how much he does care about human life. In the smallville fight scene, he saved human lives mid fight with the other Kryptonians. He saved the workers lives on the oil rig not because he had to, but because he could. That is what makes a hero, stepping out of the realm of what you are supposed to do, because you can and no one else will. Clark didnt have to save Earth from Zod, but he had the power to do it when no one else did.
The problem with everyones argument that he should have been saving lives during his battle or protecting innocence, is that they dont look at the flipside. He is battling villains who are killing humans, so you cant have it both ways. You either deal with those villains for the greater good (and the world engine that is killing thousands), or you waste time scanning the area to ensure other people are safe and not getting killed from collateral damage. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways, that is completely unreasonable to put anyone on that kind of pedestal. It does not make sense for any hero to do that, and completely the wrong way to portray Superman.
Blood hungry power mad being? Fearful for peoples lives? I really think you are stretching a bit there. Superman didnt kill anyone in the movie (besides Zod). Zod was the one who started killing people, and most of the casualties occurred when he used the world engine. I am sick and tired of people commenting that this Superman was dark and didnt care about human lives, because he crashed into some buildings. You cannot quantify if any human lives were in fact lost. On top of that, why would he focus his power and time trying to stop the other Kryptonians in Metropolis where the biggest threat was the world engine killing thousands of innocence? And most importantly, he may be biologically alien, but he was raised as a human from birth. Did he act irrational? Yes. Was he even wreckless defending his mother? Absolutely. Why? HE IS HUMAN. He is also thrown into his role as a hero when Zod comes, making him inexperienced. The character needs time to develop before people start ranting about whether he accurately depicts a true Superman. We will get that in a sequel, but this is an origin story, take it for what it is.
I will agree with you on the Dark Knight, it certainly rises above any other comic book movie in terms of acting. But that puts it in a league of its own, I would group MOS in terms of its level of acting with films such as Iron Man or the Spiderman films (minus the 3rd Spiderman film). They dont exceed our expectations but they deliver enough so the characters are believable. Since when does meeting audience expectations mean mediocre level acting?
I believe my analysis is reasonable like you said. I am not being superficial by saying things like "this film was the best ever!" or "the acting is unlike anything I have seen", I am being reasonable by saying the film had great acting, some actors were better than others.
Critics have their merits, however sometimes they over analyze elements and under rate films and I think that is the case here with MOS. An honest review of this film is that it delivers in action sequences, but does not find an equal balance with other elements. That being said, the elements such as plot, character development, and acting are good enough to carry the film forward, despite being overshadowed by the large action sequences and special effects.
Oscar material? First off, just because I say the acting was great does not mean I think its oscar worthy. Its a comic book movie, not a drama genre where the expectation would be oscar level acting. If I were to compare the acting in MOS, I would compare to most other comic book films, appropriate for the style of film. When I say the actors made the characters believable, I mean just that and that is all we need in a film like this. I do not believe the consensus thinks the acting was terrible or mediocre, I think the consensus (from other reviews/comments I have read) believe the problem with this film was the amount of action trumping character development and lack of balance.
Also, actors not sounding scripted is great acting. If you can, so to speak, convince an audience you are the character you are portraying, than you are doing a great job. I welcome you to challenge me on that, because I do not think you can honestly say these actors were not believable in their roles. So here is a challenge for you, what more do you want than that? What exactly did you want the actors to do differently to surpass your assessment of "mediocre acting"?
Stop being so pretentious; you might think you're the voice of reason and that everyone agrees with you, but thats just your arrogance. If he thinks Man of Steel had great acting, thats his take on the film.
"Please dont overreach"? Give me a break. As if you are the authority on this film's merit, and that you think its only merits were action and special effects. On top of that you assume everyone thinks the same thing. Just to throw my two sense in on the acting, it was great because the actors made the characters believable, not like people just reading a script.
Verdict? Although my first choice for MOS would be a good balance between action, plot, character depth/development, I was fine with how it turned out. No, there was not a whole lot of development for Cavill's present character (it wasnt absent though), but at least by having younger representations we had a good understanding of the present character. I was excited to see a Superman film where we could witness the full power of Superman and what he is capable of.
In saying that, I do not want this same focus in a sequel. Why? I had my fill of action with MOS, it was enjoyable and satisfied my thirst, so to speak. Like the transition we saw in Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, Man of Steel needs the same treatment, balance. We need to see an equal amount of emphasis placed on character depth, plot, and action. Man of Steel was a great film and a good building block for sequels; they have a chance to make it so much better in a sequel, lets hope they do so.
Its a video btw.