• 166 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited 4 months, 28 days ago

Poll: Avengers or Man of Steel? (168 votes)

Avengers 59%
Man of Steel 35%
Both, I simply cannot decide 6%

I don't think this has been done, so I'll do it anyway. Both films have holes in it, yet both were largely enjoyable. Ratings and box office aside, which film did you like more and why?

#101 Edited by Fallschirmjager (17498 posts) - - Show Bio

@maximizer said:

@fallschirmjager: Avengers dealt with 4 characters from separate franchises. Snyder/Goyer couldn't even introduce and handle Lois, who is basically MoS' version of Hawkeye :P

And lol, MoS' story was just as generic. I personally think they executed it better, though.

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.

#102 Posted by TheSmallvillefan12 (186 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#103 Posted by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#104 Posted by G_leno (1005 posts) - - Show Bio

@lateralus:

1.) I am, that's what he was arguing in the beginning of the movie. Zod believed him, that's why Zod told him to join him.

2.) The origin says Jor-El and Lara die on Krypton. That's what they did.

3.) I hate Lois Lane...

4.) They came to Earth for Kal-El.

6.) When Superman wakes up on the ship, he is met with the a light in his eyes that implies sun light. He passed out because the solar radiation robbed him of his powers and the atmosphere became too heavy for him.

7.) It's called planning ahead.

Also, the suit was in ship because it was Kara's ship.

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

#105 Posted by Jphu8414 (3730 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#106 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: I don't really care if you don't like MoS, but if you're hating on the musical score you are insane. That score is one of Hans' best since Lion King imo. Its absolutely blows any other CBM film away.

Music was beautiful, I can't understand why someone would...or could hate it.

#107 Posted by The Stegman (24384 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#108 Posted by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@g_leno said:

@superguy1591 said:

@lateralus:

1.) I am, that's what he was arguing in the beginning of the movie. Zod believed him, that's why Zod told him to join him.

2.) The origin says Jor-El and Lara die on Krypton. That's what they did.

3.) I hate Lois Lane...

4.) They came to Earth for Kal-El.

6.) When Superman wakes up on the ship, he is met with the a light in his eyes that implies sun light. He passed out because the solar radiation robbed him of his powers and the atmosphere became too heavy for him.

7.) It's called planning ahead.

Also, the suit was in ship because it was Kara's ship.

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

#109 Posted by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#110 Posted by youknowwhattodo (1143 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#111 Edited by leonkarlen123 (4462 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#112 Posted by Fallschirmjager (17498 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager said:

@i_like_swords: I don't really care if you don't like MoS, but if you're hating on the musical score you are insane. That score is one of Hans' best since Lion King imo. Its absolutely blows any other CBM film away.

Music was beautiful, I can't understand why someone would...or could hate it.

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.

#113 Posted by The Stegman (24384 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_stegman said:

@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 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.

#114 Edited by reaverlation (15842 posts) - - Show Bio

MoS.

#115 Posted by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08 said:

@the_stegman said:

@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 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.

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.

#116 Posted by The Stegman (24384 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#117 Edited by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#118 Posted by MetalJimmor (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it is the other side. I think you guys want to like the movie soooo much because it is Superman that you forgive the plot hole per minute film. And how am I supposed to feel a sense of urgency when the characters in the movie do not? That family never felt the sense of urgency to run....they decided to inch closer to a corner. Like I have said before, even Mark Waid (who wrote Superman Birthright) said he did not wish to watch the movie again. Think about that. This is a guy who is getting to watch some things he has directly inspired on the big screen and doesn't think it is worth at least 1 more re watch?

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.

#119 Edited by ULTRAstarkiller (6174 posts) - - Show Bio

Avengers easily

Online
#120 Edited by Lateralus (1725 posts) - - Show Bio



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.

#121 Edited by DarthAznable (6953 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#122 Posted by Maximizer (104 posts) - - Show Bio

@maximizer said:

@fallschirmjager: Avengers dealt with 4 characters from separate franchises. Snyder/Goyer couldn't even introduce and handle Lois, who is basically MoS' version of Hawkeye :P

And lol, MoS' story was just as generic. I personally think they executed it better, though.

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.

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

#123 Posted by Maximizer (104 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#124 Edited by FearTheLiving (3097 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#125 Posted by MetalJimmor (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#126 Edited by Pokeysteve (8300 posts) - - Show Bio

@lateralus said:

@pokeysteve said:

Easily Man of Steel. I still don't understand what these "holes" are that everyone speaks of. Avengers had too many happy coincidences to be taken seriously. Not as bad as Rises though. Both Man of Steel and Avengers are two of my top 3 favorite CBMs. Just got done watching Avengers a few hours ago actually haha. Netflix needs to get on that s**t with Man of Steel.

These are just some of the plot holes this movie has.

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?

Were they supposed to let him hang around for killing their planets greatest scientist?

  • Hell, why didn't Jor-El just use the ship that he sent Zod on to leave the planet with his family?

I think Clark asks his conciousness that. He said it was their fate or something. Sort of like how captains go down with their ships.

  • Lois Lane is really Wonder Woman (can withstand arctic night time temperatures in a light winter jacket,

This is a good one that makes you raise an eyebrow once you notice it haha suspense of disbelief is the only answer. Black Widow didn't get her arm torn off grabbing onto a speeding space ship. Lois should be okay in a fuzzy jacket. it's the wind that gets you anyways and she was inside the tunnel getting attacked. Segway into........

  • Kryptonian laser blasts affect her less than actual Kryptonians.

Clark can control strength of his heat vision. This is shown when he cuts the beam in half but doesn't burn through the door knob as a kid.

  • shows up at just the right time when Supes snaps Zod's neck....),

They saw him crash into the building and it wasn't far away. A better question is where the hell is Perry and the other two. Who wouldn't want to go check that out.

  • Why terraform Earth and not a vacant planet such as Mars or Venus?,

Revenge. Zod was pissed at Lara and hissed a bunch of threats at him. They probably went there to get him and thought hey this place is pretty sweet.

  • How is Clark employed by the military early in the film? I am guessing he is a master forger (which he probably forged a journalistic background to get hired at The Daily Planet at the end of the movie),

This is part suspense of disbelief and part he's Superman. Imagine what he could do with those abilities. I wish they would have explained that at least a little more though.

  • Why was Clark's suit on a scout ship that crashed on Earth hundreds of thousands of years before Clark landed on Earth?

This has a few answers as well. 1) The S is his family's crest. Could have been an ancestor that went there. 2) The ship could have made it on the spot. 3) The prequel comic shows that that was Kara in the opened pod in the makeshift fortress. I like 2.

  • 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.

#127 Edited by marvelfan123 (461 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#128 Posted by deaditegonzo (3686 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#129 Edited by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08 said:

@wolverine08 said:

Avengers wrecks.

I shall expound on my choice. I pick Avengers because it simply accomplished what it set do to, be the connecting piece among multiple franchises much better than what Man of Steel was trying to accomplish, modernize Superman for this age. I often here that Avengers didn't have much in the form of character development, but what did you expect? Avenger was supposed to be the connecting piece in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Movies like Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, etc. were all the movies that were supposed to flesh out the aforementioned characters, not the Avengers. The character interactions between the Avengers and seeing Captain America try readjust to the modern world were enough character development for me on that front. In the end, the movie was able to connect the pieces of the MCU seamlessly and it felt like a comic book straight out of the pages. It accomplished what it wanted, and I have to give it props for that.

Man of Steel on the other hand, was going for a completely different thing from Avengers in that they were trying to set up and develop a specific character, and they kind of just fell on their faces. IMO, Zack Snyder and David Goyer just got too caught up in trying to run away from stereotypes like Superman being a boyscout that they just started trying to hard at a certain point. One moment that sticks out for me was the end of the movie when after Superman dumped a satellite and flew away, a female soldier commented on "He's kinda hot." Just a laughably forced attempt at showing us how "hip" and cool this new Superman is. Other problems I had with the movie is that it just took itself too seriously at certain points with Superman being a savior, the insinuations towards Jesus Christ, him being an act of God, etc. The movie was trying so hard to be epic that the expository dialogue made the characters feel like they were damn robots instead of actual human beings. The flashback style attempts at trying to get us to feel for Clark also had their hits and misses. I still WTF whenever I watch Pal Kent let himself get killed just for us to feel sorry for Clark and when Clark's mother tries to help him get past his superpower's drawbacks, and again, speaks in forced "epic" dialogue that no one would speak to a young child with. Superman breaking Zod's neck and subsequently screaming at the top of his lungs along with Lois counseling him felt like yet again, another attempt for us to feel for this Superman. The movies attempt at modernizing Superman just made the entire feel cold, and like Batman with a Superman costume, and just missed the entire point of Superman in general. It was like the production crew was afraid to adapt Superman or something. I'm not even going to touch on the action much because that's been done to death, but the visuals kind of got boring throughout the final battle with all the bouncing off of each other, flying through buildings, etc. The final battle itself was devoid of any actual meaning and just featured Zack Snyder's visuals, but visuals, no matter how good can't be satisfying with a fight that means absolutely nothing.

So yeah, I have to go with Avengers.

#130 Posted by MonsterStomp (17935 posts) - - Show Bio
#131 Edited by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@monsterstomp said:

@wolverine08: What a proud dude.

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

#132 Posted by Rebel_Leader1 (556 posts) - - Show Bio

Avengers by far but I love both films.

#133 Edited by Lone_Wolf_and_Cub (5055 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#134 Posted by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

I absolutely love when people try an say Marvel movies are made for kids. Totally grasping at straws in hopes of try 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.

#135 Posted by youknowwhattodo (1143 posts) - - Show Bio

I absolutely love when people try an say Marvel movies are made for kids. Totally grasping at straws in hopes of try 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

#136 Posted by LimpoyzLoan (1646 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#137 Edited by MaccyD (4053 posts) - - Show Bio

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...

#138 Posted by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd said:

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!

#139 Posted by DarthAznable (6953 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#140 Edited by deaditegonzo (3686 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#141 Posted by DarthAznable (6953 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#142 Posted by Skyfire (752 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#143 Edited by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#144 Posted by Cloakx14 (3068 posts) - - Show Bio

Mos.

#145 Posted by THEOCITYLEGEND (1208 posts) - - Show Bio

Avengers

#146 Posted by hart7668 (2294 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#147 Edited by Wolverine08 (42239 posts) - - Show Bio

@hart7668 said:

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

#148 Posted by PowerHerc (83782 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#149 Posted by DarthAznable (6953 posts) - - Show Bio

@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).

#150 Posted by jstndmnd (1009 posts) - - Show Bio

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.