The problems with Man of Steel...in pictures!

Obviously the movie has been out for a while now and everyone has their opinions. This isn't intended to persuade anyone.

I just thought I would take some caps from the movie of scenes where I thought there were issues, and explain why.

Why is the codex, one of the most valuable things on Krypton, in the form of a broken skull? The symbolism does not make sense, and it doesn't make sense for an advanced society to do this.
This isn't a complaint I hold, although I did read it and while nitpicky, I thought it was interesting. Clark has no misgivings about stealing clothes.Does he need them that badly? Could he not ask? As I said I don't m ind, but an interesting observation.
Yes Clark, Maybe you should have let those kids die to protect your secret identity. Your secret identity is worth more than the lives of several children. Some fine moral guidance from Pa Kent.
Destroying a man’s livelihood because he was a jerk and threw beer on him and hit him. It was funny sure...but not fitting with the character of Superman.
Where did this ship go?! After he got his costume, the ship was never seen again! It certainly could have been useful to talk to Jor El again and get some advice.
This is the command key where a COPY of Jor El was uploaded from. Which means a copy of Jor El still exists in the ship that was never seen again.
A minor gripe, but I don't like the costume at all. I don't like the lack of a red belt or something to breakup the blue...but that isn't the issue. The issue is that the red and blue are depressing shades. Superman should be bright and inspiring...something this movie didn't even attempt to be.
Pa Kent being a needless martyr. This was possible the films stupidest moment. It served no purpose and was unnecessary. Pa Kent could have died, but it could have served a purpose, this really didn't.
The religious symbolism in this movie was unnecessary and to me out of place. More to the point, why didn't he go back to his ship and talk to Jor El?
I get that he is angry that Zod threatened his mother. That's no excuse to fly Zod through several buildings filled with people, and then fight him in this populated area. Especially after traveling through miles of unpopulated land.
Still in the populated area. two experienced military Kryptonians coming. Let's fight! Instead of you know, flying away.
This is not the Jor El program being destroyed. It is a COPY of the Jor El program being destroyed.
Destroying the world former is a fantastic goal. Destroying the one killing people in Metropolis instead of the one over the Indian Ocean would have been an even better idea.
Lets fight some more, even though the city is already in shambles. Even though Superman can fly and Zod can't, he doesn't use that to his advantage. Zod can't fly, piledrive him into the darkside of the moon or something before he can.
Dodging a tanker instead of you know..stopping it. Allowing it to crash into the building and explode and probably kill some more people. This kind of thing is a bigger issue than killing Zod...the lack of concern over collateral damage.
I don't have so much of a problem with the killing, although it was unnecessary. There were certainly other ways out of that situation, and it is indefensible to claim otherwise. The other issue is with people who claim that he knows not to kill now, and in future situations he won't. Well, that's admitting there is always another way, making this kill unnecessary in the first place.
Snyder and /or Goyer could have really learned a thing or too from Tom Taylor, the writer of Injustice. He get's the character even while turning him into a ruthless killing dictator.

137 Comments
139 Comments
  • 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Saint_Wildcard

Posted by RDClip

So a nitpick thread with pictures then?

Posted by MuyJingo

@rdclip: Some are nitpicks...some are serious problems that make the movie a disappointment.

Posted by The Stegman

Yeah, none of those are major problems...my major gripe is the bad pacing the film had.

Edited by MuyJingo

Yeah a lot of the same rehashed nitpicky complaints here. I get that this Superman isn't identical to his comic counterpart (or the reeve superman that everybody clings to) but really, no movie version of a character is. Nolan's Batman is called Nolans Batman because it is NOLANS BATMAN. You know he basically killed two people, and was nowhere near as dedicated to the mantle as his comic counterpart. He was also a little whiny. Does this sound like Batman to you? But no, nobody gets frustrated....yet they do when it comes to Superman....sounds like a double standard to me. This is Snyders Superman, deal with it. And I think the change to his character is quite interesting and will make for some good stories down the road. I'm quite excited to see how he deals with the fallout of his fight with Zod.

I have a bigger problem with Nolan Batman than Nolan Superman. Nolan Batman isn't Batman at all in my book. He isn't overtly intelligent, knwoeldgable, has no detective aspect to the character and isn't that great at martiala rts...possibly because of his ridiculous costume prohibiting his movement.

As for NolanSuperman...The problem is that this incarnation of the character had little in common with every other incarnation.

I'm talking serials, Bruce Timm Animated series, Fleischer cartoons, Lois and Clark, Smallville, Donner movies, Singers movie, the comics, silverage, pre crisis, post crisis, new52 etc.

In *every* other incarnation, the character cared about people before himself, before stopping the bad guy. Saving lives and making sure people were not hurt was his biggest priority.

That aspect of the character was absent from movie. I'm not talking about him killing Zod, which isn't what I have a problem with, but the needless destruction he helped facilitate.

Ramming Zod through various stores full of people, throwing Zod through buildings, prolonging the fight...a perfect example is when Zod throws a truck at him and he flies over it letting it crash into the people behind him. Superman would have caught it and placed it down....

I don't think it's being nitpicky. Everytime I watch that movie I see consistently a character who wants to stop the bad guy, not to save people as his priority. Which is what Snyder and Goyer are going for...that's their concept of Superman.

Superman is meant to be inspiring. That isn't something said lightly...it's THE most important aspect of the character. When you have a broody superman dressed in a moody blue that isn't trying to be the best he can be, isn't valuing life above all else...then you've lost sight of the character.

It's a shame too, because the movie seemed like it was going in the right direction with all the talk about Superman showing us the way....

Edited by Extremis

@muyjingo: thank you for this. MoS is so overrated by fanboys.

Posted by Outside_85

Running the through by numbers:

  1. It's a skull, clearly ancient by the looks of it, and the Kryptonian civilization lasted for 100.000 years. It's most likely a product from a much earlier time of a society that's depicted as set in stone. They have it because it's always been that way.
  2. He is trying to dissapear once more, if he appeared barely dressed somewhere and asked for clothes he would leave tracks. Now it's just some old clothes thats gone missing.
  3. He said 'maybe'.
  4. And what would the character of Superman allowed him to do in this situation?
  5. Ship was seen several times later on. Got his suit from it, had Kryptons and his own past explained in it, finally Zod commandeered it, deleted Jor-El and headed back to his fellows with it because of the Genesis Chambers it contained, where it was eventually shot down by Superman before it could shoot the plane carrying his own rock pod.
  6. Ship crashed and burned... after Jor-El was deleted.
  7. Suit wasn't meant to be flamboyant on Krypton, which it might be considering the suit Jor-El and all the others wear are much darker.
  8. It explained why Kal didn't appear as Superman before his early to mid twenties, which Zod mentioned in his transmission was not understood by him and his comrades.
  9. There is All-Star Superman for you, maybe Kingdom Come. And perhaps he just wanted a real person to talk to and not a simulation.
  10. Do you really think he is thinking all that much about where he is going at that stage? Would you?
  11. Yes, fly away, and leave the town for the two military-trained Kryptonians to destroy at their leisure.
  12. The other two versions remain as an uploaded program in the prison ship and in the key that was left behind on it, both having been destroyed before that.
  13. And you saw how well a direct assault on the prison ship went as long as it was working with the world engine and they needed something much bigger and slower moving to get close to that. Plus they didn't seem to have any idea if the world engine would keep going if the ship was destroyed.
  14. It only took minutes for Zod to gain his Zen and start flying, piledriving him into the moon would only be a momentary solution.
  15. And which side of the tanker would you have him stop? If he gets in the way of one, the other keeps moving. If he remains standing still, the tanks will still rupture and explode like they did when they hit the concrete wall behind them.
  16. Claiming there was another way out of that fight than killing Zod is being ignorant of what is possible within the movie. There is no prison on Earth than can hold Zod, Superman can't permanently keep him in a headlock until the end of time, no Kryptonite, no Phantom Projector. How else do you stop what is otherwise unstoppable?

Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse

A hate thread with pictures doesn't stop it from being a hate thread.

Posted by PeppeyHare

I don't really care about any of these "problems".

Posted by Fallschirmjager

@extremis said:

@muyjingo: thank you for this. MoS is so overrated by fanboys.

Guess what? All film is subjective. Period. Your opinion on any movie is no more valid that anyone else's or any movie.

And considering half these images are explained if you just watch the movie, its not even a very good hate thread.

Sorry if this is some kind of revelation for you.

Posted by Wolverine08

Meh.

Online
Edited by Extremis
Edited by Dragonborn_CT

Not to say this movie is without genuine problems like pacing with flashbacks, but a good chunk of these pictures were nitpicks.

Edited by Fallschirmjager

@muyjingo: You need to watch the movie again, because half of your images explain themselves if you pay attention

  1. The item which holds the DNA for all life being in the form of a skull doesn't make sense?
  2. This portion of the movie Clark is lost and wandering around the world. He isn't himself. Is that really so hard to see? Characters are allowed to grow you know.
  3. Given that his existence changes humanity's history forever, yes, it isn't as simple as black and white. Nothing in this world is.
  4. He wasn't Superman yet. This is a origin story.
  5. Classic example of fail. This ship is seen several times. Clark talks to Jor-El on it, gets his suit on it. Zod steal its later and it is destroyed.
  6. See 5. That ship was destroyed. If you're going to bash a movie, at least pretend like you paid attention.
  7. Your opinion.
  8. It wasn't pointless, once again you failed to actually pay attention. Pa's message to Clark was "You have to decide what kind of man you want to become because you want to change the world" Prior to his death Clark was acting like an immature 17/18 year old (like all 17/18 year olds) he wasn't ready and Pa sacrificed himself to keep that secret.
  9. If you can't see the religious comparisons to Superman - even before the movie was released, you don't pay attention well (which is obvious all ready)
  10. He just got his cape a few hours ago and shit hit the fan. He is inexperienced. He didn't have 10 years of mentoring by Jor-El like Reeves did.
  11. see 10.
  12. see 5.
  13. They had to do both. If they didn't disrupt the beams they couldn't use the phantom zone device. And its not like the Humans want to step back and put their fate in someone else. They were soldiers capable of fighting. They wanted to help.
  14. again...hasn't even been Superman for 24 hours and Zod is a better fighter.
  15. There was no one in that building that we saw.
  16. No there wasn't. There is no kryptonite and no man made prison that holds them. Zod had succumb to madness at that point and wasn't going to stop until one of them died. He even told Superman that half way through the fight

over all this hate thread gets 1/10, most of your so called problems answer themselves if you pay attention to the movie. Overall you lack perspectiv and understand on so many levels.

Edited by MuyJingo

@outside_85: OK, Lets run through the numbers.

  1. Your argument is it is this way because it has always been this way. The skull contains the encoded DNA of children yet to be born. I would guess by the time they got to the point technologically where they could understand genetics to that level, they probably would have stopped using skull symbolism like that.
  2. Yeah, like I said I don't really have a problem with it. Just thought it was interesting.
  3. Exactly. He said Maybe. That's a problem.
  4. Turn the other cheek.
  5. You seem to have missed my point. After he got his suit from it, then it was never seen again. The ship left the army base, Clark talked with dad and got a suit...then the ship was never utilized again. And no, Zod never commandeered it. Not sure why you would think that.
  6. Different ship, different copy of Jor El.
  7. I don't care about the in universe explanation for the suit. I care that objectively, out of universe, the suit is dark and uninspiring.
  8. First, Clark didn't appear as Superman until 33. And no. Just no. Pa Kent dying did nothing to justify Clark becoming Superman at a later stage. Clark became Superman at a later stage because he coincidentally came across the ship...at a later stage.
  9. Not sure why you're referencing those comics. We're talking about the movie. And maybe he did want a real person to talk to. Well, too bad. It would have made far, far more sense to talk to Jor El.
  10. I wouldn't react like that. The guy is 33. You think he would have learned some self-control by that age, especially with those powers. Sorry, but killing a bunch of innocent bystanders because his mom was threatened isn't a great excuse.
  11. Nonsense. They wanted Clark. What makes you think they would just start randomly destroying the town?
  12. Well, you contradict yourself here. If you think the ship Zod was on is the same one Clark was on, then there would be less one version. As it wasn't the same ship, Clarks ship and the Jor El program should be intact.
  13. The plan was for Clark to destroy one world machine while the scientists use their plan to destroy the other. I'm saying both should have been focused on destroying the world machine that was taking lives, and deal with the one that wasn't after. Priorities.
  14. That isn't quite true. In the very last battle yes, it took about 10 minutes. Even so, who knows if he would have been able to fly without sunlight or earths atmosphere?
  15. Again, nonsense. He is easily strong enough to have caught it and placed it down.
  16. It's not ignorance, not at all. It's that people who insist there was no other way lack imagination and therefore an argument. You don't like him being stuck on the moon or a further out planet, fine. If he had talked to Jor El earlier, instead of the priest, Jor El could have devised something. That's completely in line with everything we saw in the film.
  17. There is always another way.

I don't lack perspective, many of the things if explained are not justified. Overall your reply gets 1/10, as you lack perspective and simply rationalize away the problems.

Edited by UltimateSMfan

You obviously didn't watch the Man of Steel live fan event that took place a couple of hours ago did you? Its probably up somewhere to view, go watch that.

My two cents- Looking at this as a die hard comic book fan, aspects of the movie are hard to like. Seeing it as a huge Invasion sci-fi story with this man with powers in the thick of it trying to stop armageddon, Its a good movie.

P.S- Just skimmed through the OP before so after really reading it...ya your complaints aren't even valid if you just watched the film properly.

Edited by MuyJingo

@fallschirmjager: No, they are not explained, and if they are it doesn't justify them.

Secondly, film can be evaluated objectively. It's why a well reasoned and thought out critique of a film is generally worth more than some schmoe saying he didn't like it.

I also think it's a bit strong to call this a hate thread. I didn't hate the movie, I just found it disappointing considering what it could have been.

Posted by Extremis
Edited by Fallschirmjager

@muyjingo: lol.

That fact that you said that only proves you know nothing about film.

Film is art. It cannot be measured in any way.

Film critics don't measure a film, they just give their opinions on.

There is nothing to measure. Nothing to quantify.

Their opinions are no more valid that anyone's.

Posted by Extremis

@fallschirmjager: @fallschirmjager: art doesn't have to be some quantifiable number like math to be able to make well reasoned decisions on. We can look at filmmaking from objective stances. In a sense it is measuring.

Maybe you can't differentiate between the level of artistry between the Mona Lisa and one of your old finger paintings, but some people can. Same can be said for films.

Edited by Fallschirmjager

@extremis: Measure it for me then.

I'll wait.

Bottom line: You can't tell people what will or won't entertain them. I think parody movies like "Vampires Suck" are stupid. I know people who think they are funny. Doesn't mean I'm wrong and their right, because there is no way to measure it.

Edited by ArturoCalaKayVee

Oh my God I am so sick of these "why Man of Steel was bad" threads that I just had to come in here and complain just to get that +1 comment.

Posted by MuyJingo

@muyjingo: lol.

That fact that you said that only proves you know nothing about film.

Film is art. It cannot be measured in any way.

Film critics don't measure a film, they just give their opinions on.

There is nothing to measure. Nothing to quantify.

Their opinions are no more valid that anyone's.

Actually, you're just showing your ignorance. I know quite a lot about film.

Just because something is art, does not mean it can not be evaluated objectively.

It only means it is harder, and the objective evaluation is not as meaningful in other fields.

Lighting, direction, cinematography, casting, set design, costume design, number of acts and progression, script... these are just some of the things that can be evaluated and compared objectively.

Saying art transcends objective criticism because it's "art" is a tired, useless and flawed argument. It's generally something crappy artists cling to.

Edited by Extremis

@fallschirmjager: it's not math. I can't just simply provide a number. But you can use reason, be learned about the craft and make objective observations based on that knowledge. Do you really need me to explain how a person uses proper reasoning? How old are you yo?

Edited by Marionettegeist

Some of these reasons I understand (Pa Kent's death scene was pretty dumb), and some of these are pretty ridiculous (why was the codex shaped like a skull? Why does it matter?). Just so you know though Zack Snyder actually did state the reason why (though not in the film where, once again, it didn't actually matter.). It actually is a skull, taken from the oldest Kryptonian ever discovered, from which they extract original Kryptonian DNA in its purest form, ie. before mutations could occur (I presume).

Edited by Fallschirmjager

@muyjingo: No, they can't. Because what 1 person sees isn't the same as what another person sees.

You cannot tell someone what, how and if they will or won't like something.

All critics do is given their opinions. Nothing more.

Moreover, none of your points complained about the so called objectives of a film that can be measured. In fact you even go out of your way to say they are your opinions, because they in fact are.

I can't tell you what movie entertains you or doesn't. I can't tell you what sounds good to your ears when you listen to a song. I can't tell you what makes you laugh or doesn't.

Entertainment is subjective.

Posted by k4tzm4n

Just fyi, Snyder spoke a good deal on the Codex in today's Man of Steel Q & A.

Staff
Posted by Extremis

@fallschirmjager: I've talked with you before and you always seem to misunderstand subjective experience with objective reasoning.

Edited by Fallschirmjager

@extremis said:

@fallschirmjager: it's not math. I can't just simply provide a number. But you can use reason, be learned about the craft and make objective observations based on that knowledge. Do you really need me to explain how a person uses proper reasoning? How old are you yo?

@extremis said:

@fallschirmjager: I've talked with you before and you always seem to misunderstand subjective experience with objective reasoning.

I'm confused? lol.

You are trying to argue that someone liking something or not liking something can be measured or quantified.

You can't measure how funny a joke is or how good a song sounds, or how entertained someone is when they watch a movie.

Just because a critic knows more about film that you, doesn't mean you aren't allowed to like it if they don't.

Moreover, for all the so-called things you can apparently quantify, I haven't seen 1 person complaining about something that is objective. Everything people cry about is opinionated.

"I didn't like Superman killing' - opinion

"I didn't like Superman ignoring collateral damage" - opinion.

and so on and so forth

And that is the bottom line.

Edited by SandMan_

Since when do you care about Superman? Never seen like that before.

Edited by Extremis

@fallschirmjager: well you obviously are confused because no one is saying a person can tell you not to like something.

An you keep bringing up "measuring". Stop that. No one is measuring anything in a literal sense.

Posted by AllStarSuperman

my only problem was Pa Kent

/Thread

Online
Posted by SandMan_

*you like that. Seriously if you didn't like it, there is always Avengers to see. Besides, some of these I can understand, while the other are stupid.

Edited by Extremis

@allstarsuperman: so let's end the thread because you've spoken? Nice try man :p

Posted by Fallschirmjager

@extremis: This whole thing started with your claim "MoS is overrated"

And I told you, you can't say how much someone likes or doesn't like a film, because its all opinionated. MoS isn't overrated, no film is. You can like it, you can not like it. That's it.

So, yeah. Not confused.

Edited by SandMan_

I really dislike the Pa Kent death scene and the Flashback pacing, and the shaky cam. There is another way? Not in this movie. The other way sucked Faora and the other kryptonian.

Edited by Extremis

@fallschirmjager: so A person can only like or not like a film and say nothing more about it because you say so? You're a moron, I'm sorry but you are seriously a ridiculous hypocrite. You're saying it's all opinion based then insist my opinion is wrong because you say so.

You are indeed a very confused individual.

And this didn't start with my opinion, it started with you replying To me with nonsense because you don't like that some people knowledgeable about film say MoS sucksx

Posted by SandMan_

This movie is really something. It has people that don't like Superman talking about it.

You do realize they needed to take out the one in the Indian Ocean to stop the one in Metropolis....I think Jax-Ux told Zod that. I think Snyder said 5000 people died in the movie. A resolution would have been nice yeah....but whatever. Stop beating a dead horse.

Edited by HumanRocket

I loved MoS no complaints (:

Edited by Fallschirmjager

@extremis: LOLOLOLOLOL

Where did I say your opinion is wrong?

If you don't like the movie fine, but that doesn't mean you're right and people who like it are wrong. That is what I've been saying this whole time.

Posted by MuyJingo

@fallschirmjager: You're wrong, and seem to have ignored my previous post.

Let me put it this way. Gone with the Wind, Citizen Cane and Casablanca are all objectively better films than Wild Hogs, Disaster Movie and Terminator 4.

Regardless if you or I disagree, our subjective opinions are irrelevant.

As for the thread, they are my opinions. All of the problems I have are dismissed with the claim that it's a new take on Superman, as that is what is used to excuse all the differences. To me though, subjectively, the differences are sufficient to distort the character.

Posted by Extremis
Posted by k4tzm4n

@sandman_ said:

I really dislike the Pa Kent death scene and the Flashback pacing, and the shaky cam. There is another way? Not in this movie. The other way sucked Faora and the other kryptonian.

The only time I thought the camera work was distracting was when Lois was running in the alley. Aside from that, never bothered me at all.

Staff
Edited by SandMan_

This is getting out of hands, but it's fun to see.

Edited by MuyJingo

@dctv3363 said:

Some of these reasons I understand (Pa Kent's death scene was pretty dumb), and some of these are pretty ridiculous (why was the codex shaped like a skull? Why does it matter?). Just so you know though Zack Snyder actually did state the reason why (though not in the film where, once again, it didn't actually matter.). It actually is a skull, taken from the oldest Kryptonian ever discovered, from which they extract original Kryptonian DNA in its purest form, ie. before mutations could occur (I presume).

Then that's a good reason. The film would have been better for it if they had noted that somehow.

"I didn't like Superman killing' - opinion

"I didn't like Superman ignoring collateral damage" - opinion.

and so on and so forth

And that is the bottom line.

That's because of the phrasing you chose.

"Superman killing is out of character"

"There were alternatives to killing Zod"

"Superman causing and not caring about collateral damage is out of character"

These are objective claims that can be evaluated and investigated by looking to the source material....all 75 years of it.

Of course, people then disagree over whether or not it matters using the "new take" excuse...so nothing is really accomplished and in the end, even after objective evaluation, conclusions will be subjective.

Edited by k4tzm4n

@extremis: Remember that time people could discuss movies without personally attacking someone who disagrees ? Yeah, let's pretend we're adults and do that, shall we?

Staff
Edited by Fallschirmjager

@extremis said:

@fallschirmjager: the movie is overrated. Deal you fanboy scum

lol. and at last his true self emerges. Whatever. I'm done with you. Enjoy your high horse.

@muyjingo said:

@fallschirmjager: You're wrong, and seem to have ignored my previous post.

Let me put it this way. Gone with the Wind, Citizen Cane and Casablanca are all objectively better films than Wild Hogs, Disaster Movie and Terminator 4.

Regardless if you or I disagree, our subjective opinions are irrelevant.

As for the thread, they are my opinions. All of the problems I have are dismissed with the claim that it's a new take on Superman, as that is what is used to excuse all the differences. To me though, subjectively, the differences are sufficient to distort the character.

How are they objectively better? You can't tell me what I enjoy no more than I can tell you what you enjoy. Or anyone else. There is no way to quantify enjoyment and that is what films are made for: enjoyment.

Not all of your points. Several of them were incorrect, such as the scenes you missed with the scout ship. You claimed it never showed up again, when it did in fact several times.

When you had an opinion such as: I don't like the suit. I address it as such. Its your opinion, its fine. In fact I sort of agree with you in that it was a tad dark and needed a red belt.

Posted by MuyJingo

@k4tzm4n:

I have not personally attacked anyone and had no intention of doing so.

  • 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3