Avengers or Man of Steel?

The characters Avengers dealt with were all ready completely established in previous films. All Avengers did was throw them all in one movie and have them fight each other and then aliens. And as you jokingly put, they didn't even handle them all well. None of them had any development except Tony - and he really didn't get any development until after the fact (in IM3). Hulk's big development was "Oh I can't control msyelf" ... "oh now I can cos the 3rd act is here".

Not only that, but the one big reason they got over their differences was retconned. Coulson's death was literally the only meaningful event in that movie and they erased it. Compare that to Tony completely changing his ways and stopping weapons production or Cap exposing shield in IM1/TWS respectively. Those are meaningful events that change something. At this point Avengers was really just a stepping stone movie for eventually seeing Thanos.

MoS at least had a story about over-coming genetics, about Zod's fall from a mis-guided savoir to a soulless monster (btw how they handled Zod was criminally underrated). Clark also went from a guy with no purpose in life to facing his origins and eventually ready to accept the role as Superman by the end of the film.

The score by Hans was also F*cking amazing. Seriously, just listen to it. Its his best CBM by far. And the action? I've been waiting to see that type of super powered combat for years.

Agree to disagree if you want, but I loved the movie. If you didn't, whatever, hope you have other films you enjoy. Not really looking to get into a huge debate since its all subjective and everyone did a year ago.

Its too close to call for me. Both movies are really enjoyable and both have huge issues with them.

Problems with MOS: Too dark for a superman movie in my opinion. They didn't have to have him kill Zod.

Problems with Avengers: Should really be called "Iron Man & Friends". Everyone seems like they practice comedy in their spare time.

Captain America and Friends actually. Steve got the most screen time out of all the Avengers.

So, why is Superman not flying about in a thong backed swimsuit?

@g_leno: LOL, that's a really disturbing thought haha

The ship was commanded by her but that doesn't mean the suit was hers.

@wolverine08: I enjoyed the flashbacks though, they added to Clark's character. Most of Avengers was people bickering with Loki or the Avengers arguing with themselves. I know it shows that they don't get along at first, but geez.

I enjoyed some of the flashbacks like when Clark saved the bus full of school children, that I actually felt was somewhat powerful showing Superman doing good to people whom had treated him like dirt prior and when he was bullied beside the fence, but others like Pa Kent committing suicide and Ma Kent talking in oddly expository and epic way that no one would to try help Clark make sense of his powers just fell flat for me.

I guess I could understand how the bickering could seem to be overdone in Avengers, but IMO, it made sense considering that at that point and time, none of the Avengers were one the same page at all. Tony didn't really give a damn about the team in general, Thor was just pissed off wanting to find Loki, Banner more or less felt like a nuclear bomb within the range of innocents, Steve actually cared about the team, and Natasha was just doing what SHIELD ordered for her. With a team that was so.... disconnected, not jiving well should have happened.

I didn't like the score in MOS, it was overbearing, generic, unintelligent, repetitive and its tone was at odds with the message the movie was trying to convey. The best part of the score was played just at the credits but as a whole it was mediocre.

Man of Steel, imo was Avengers the worst Marvel movie made if we are outcounting Elektra and IM 3

But i gotta admit Hulk was awesome

My hype for ASM knowing Hans did the score is pretty high as well.

And I think I read the other day he is considering doing BvS as well, he just wants to sit down with Zack first and talk about what kind of Batman they're doing because he doesn't want to just rehash his scores for the TDK trilogy.

I liked all the flashbacks, Pa Kent's death (though I disagree with it, it's one of my flaws with the film) showed just how important Clark remaining secretive about his powers were, his father would rather die than have people find out about him. All of the flashbacks were quick and important (I don' tthink they took up more than 20 minutes all together).

And I understand the Avengers not getting along, with so many large egos, of course conflict would arise, but let's look at the scenes leading up to Banner Hulking out on the Helicarrier.

1. A very mediocre action sceen at the beginning with Loki vs SHIELD

2. A complete redo of the last scene in Cap, where he's hitting the punching bag

3. Tony being re-recruited for the Avengers

4. Banner and Scarlet Widow giving witticisms back and forth in that one country

5. Cap arguing with Loki

6. Loki arguing with Thanos' minion

7. Thor arguing with Loki

8. Iron Man arguing with Thor, which leds to a tussle

9. On Helicarrier, more arguing with everyone

10 Loki being pwned (in an argument) with Scarlet Widow

11. Hulk out (where the movie got good)

12. Final NY battle.

That's A LOT of arguing and set up for a film that's supposed to be the culmination of five other films. Don't get me wrong, I like Avengers, and it did what no other superhero flick has done before, but I liked MOS more.

MoS.

Well, lots of back and forth dialogue is a well known part of Joss Whendon's writing style, and I think it actually jived more for a superhero team. I'd say that a superhero team works best when there's constant interactions within the team, and can help the team grow along with moving along character development a bit. Ironically, something that comes to mind on that front was that Jonathan Hickman's current Avengers comic book run suffers from being too interpersonal. But I do agree that some parts of the movie lagged, especially the first twenty minutes with Loki stealing the Tesserac, etc. I get different opinions and such, but I can't just put Man of Steel over Avengers. I just think Avengers was able to pay more respect to the comic books it was basing it self on, and overall accomplish its mission as a movie. With Man of Steel, simply too much trying to modernize and make Superman's character cool to the point where the character of Superman was getting lost, too much epic expository dialogue that too away from the genuine feel the characters were supposed to have, a mediocre and somewhat annoying female love interest(Common stuff in comic book movies I suppose), hit and miss flashbacks which were supposed to be critical parts of trying to hard to be deep at times which at times created an overtly dark atmosphere for the movie in general, and I was honestly not overtly impressed by the villains either. I do find Michael Shannon's Zod to be a good modern interpretation, but I still don't get the praise Faora got. She was acted well, but what was so special about her? She's just a generic psychopath hell bent on protecting his/her society. What made her so genre bending? The fact that she was a female psychopath?

I do give the film credit at certain aspects though. Even though I do think Henry Cavil's Superman suffered from the modernization attempts, he did so potential for being an incredible Superman if he was simply written that way, the score was fantastic as expected coming from Hans Zimmer, and the side theme of someone choosing their destiny in life was honestly something that stuck with me(Probably should have been the main focus instead of Superman being Jesus), but ultimately, the flaws just stick out more for me than the pros at the end of the day.

@wolverine08: Nah, I understand you man, and I agree, although I like Cavil, he's Superman was a bit...wooden, he lacks the warm and likable feel that Superman is known for, though, I hope, now that he's been in the role of hero for a while, Superman will be better in the sequel. I liked Zod and Faora (I"m not in love with her, but her fight seen with Superman is among the best I've seen in a CBM). The reason I liked the film was we saw Clark's background, like I said, i liked the Flash backs, I think both Crowe and Costner killed it as Clark's dads, I really, REALLY liked the new Krypton, the action scenes were great, and Superman's "First Flight" made me giggle like a school girl. The film has problems, and I hope it is addressed in the sequel, but in terms of pure enjoyment, I like it more than Avengers, and I find it has a better repeat viewing experience, again, imo.

I actually forgot to praise that. That was actually a fairly good interpretation of Kryptonian society, and was actually something socially conscious in a thought provoking way.

On the contrary, Man of Steel was hit a lot harder critically because it had Superman in it. We as a culture put Superman to an insanely high standard, and any little flaw that would've been overlooked in any other movie was focused on and dissected to the point that a lot of critics decided it was an awful movie. Avengers had plot holes and huge plot conveniences left and right and a main villain who was literally made the butt of a joke, but people still praise it as the best movie ever made. It also doesn't help that Man of Steel was competing with Nostalgia via the Christopher Reeves movies. No one beats Nostalgia. Nostalgia is omnipotent.

Did you not watch that scene? The family was pinned between General Zod's heat vision and a pile of rubble. Running meant trying to run past the death beam and a stone wall, and they had no idea what was even going on. When is the last time you've seen heat beams shoot out of a guy's eyes? They were huddled together in a panic with no way to get out that didn't put them in even greater danger. Surprisingly, in a life or death situation, not everyone can calmly and rationally make life or death decisions when they are confronted with a scenario that, as far as they knew, wasn't even possible to be a scenario.

I know who Mark Waid is. Just because he wrote an excellent Superman book does not in any way mean that I have the same taste in movies as him. His opinion of the film means as much as anyone else's, but not more.

Avengers easily

Everyone else in the scene seems to have a sense of urgency....but the family is all like, hey let's become a plot device and have no sense of urgency.

Man of Steel. Avengers was overrated. I won't debate why because it'll be endless.

LMFAO not this again. The number of people that have had to send others to watch TIH (again) is beyond me.

MoS is overrated because people needed a follow-up (CBM) to compare to Avengers. I'm still laughing at those BO prediction days. The Wolverine is (VERY) overrated because people kept comparing it to the disasters of IM3 and Thor TDW.

Every year is going to be the same.

It's fine if you enjoy Man of Steel over Avengers, but the guys saying Avengers is the the worst Marvel movie, you seriously lose all credibility in my eyes.

@lateralus:

They look really, really confused by the two grown men exploding through the ceiling. The father has to make a double take because one guy is SHOOTING DEATH FROM HIS EYES and that isn't exactly normal. Then, once the severity of the completely not normal situation weighs in and they realize that this is actually happening, the family is huddling together desperately trying to shield their children from the freak of nature with fire shooting out of his face.

I feel the family behaved pretty normally. I'd like to see how you react when something that isn't suppose to be possible suddenly an unexpectedly happens and your life becomes endangered.

This is actually one of the better replies I've gotten to that question. I'll give you the gravity defying Lois but the rest have answers which I put in a spoiler box to save room.

• Why send Zod to the Phantom Zone when the planet and everyone on it is dying anyway?

• During the movie they explain that Clark's powers come from Earth's atmosphere (not the sun like in the comics)...so how can he breathe in space?
• Jor-El does mention the sun. "Earth's sun is younger and brighter than Krypton's was. Your cells have drunk in it's radiation strengthening your muscles, your skin, your senses. Earth's gravity is weak yet it's atmosphere more nourishing."They breathe and talk in space in the comics and cartoons. That's one most people have just let go.
• Why did Zod take Lois Lane on the ship?
• To scan her mind most likely. The same thing they did to Clark. She tells him they did the same to her. Knowledge is power.

Anymore questions just shoot em over.

**Edit: That posted all screwy. Just go with it haha.

Avengers, but in a close call since i liked both movies

@immortal777 said:

Man of Steel

Avengers felt like it was a movie made for kids. It wasn't serious at all it's filled with jokes with the heroes in situations that don't feel dire at all.

Same

@wolverine08: What a proud dude.

I'm the best there is, the best there ever was, and the best there ever will be!

Avengers by far but I love both films.

I absolutely love when people try an say Marvel movies are made for kids. Totally grasping at straws in hopes of tryIng to exude some false sense of superiority over people that enjoyed the Marvel movies. Let me know when DC has anything close to a cohesive universe an number 1 film franchise. The butthurt is strong in this thread.

+1

Would you rather get stabbed by a sword or two swords?

Love how people choose to point out the negative points of the opposite film, rather than the positives of their own...

Also, most of these "plot holes" have been explained/solved frequently...

Negativity is key!

Posting on about others butthurt...must be butthurt.

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of people who are really defensive in the Avengers camp. Avengers is winning 60 to 30, no need to be upset about other people's opinions.

@deaditegonzo: It mean it's true. Avengers was childish and honestly didn't come across as serious at all. The dialogue, the plot, and the characters were very campy and honestly a bit stale at some points. It felt generic and you could honestly guess what was gonna happen next. Characters themselves had about 0 development. There hardly anything memorable about it and I've seen it 3 times. Does this make t he movie bad? No. Not at all. As a comic book movie it's good, but as a whole it is sorely lacking. Man of Steel while it does have its flaws, genuinely as a straight up movie and story. It is very good and really delves into the main character (Clark). The flashbacks are one thing people complained about but it really showed you how his upbringing formed him into the man he was. The action scenes were a plus and I put them well over Avengers. It was a much deeper story and was told better. Not spoon fed to us. Also Marvel needs to really give Hawkeye some kind of spotlight.

Avengers didn't need character development, that's what the individual movies were for. There was a fair amount of development for Iron man and Cap anyway.

And as for the Hulk, Loki's sceptre and manipulation was what set him off on the helicarrier. Free of those he could control his transformations.

@skyfire: I'm not sure why people keep missing the point of the individual movies.

Mos.

Avengers

Man of Steel was, for me, more touching. I preferred it overall.

I like both but I prefer the Avengers because of the multiple major superhero interaction (battles and team-up).

@skyfire: You honestly shouldn't need that. And Hollywood can't even figure out who they want to use as Hulk so I'll never worry about him. The previous movies didn't have much development either minus Iron Man 1 and Cap(Cap had the best honestly).

Avengers was amazing, and so as MOS.

I voted for MOS because it showed DC can do more than just Batman (and we can all forget GL movie).

Whereas Avengers was awesome like all of marvels movies.