Man of Steel

@k4tzm4n: I wholeheartedly agree. It seems that if you didn't love this movie you "didn't get it" and if you did like it "you're ignoring way too many flaws". I personally loved the movie, yes it has its flaws but to me the good vastly outweighs the bad. Some things come down to personal preference really, like the pacing of the film, it could've used some work but it didn't bother me nearly as much as it did to other people. And is it the best comic book movie ever? Objectively speaking: no, of course not, but it may be the best one for some people, and that's fine, that means they got a bigger enjoyment out of this film than they did from other great comic book films like TDK or Avengers.

And if someone didn't like the movie or even hated it, hey, that's their opinion and they have a right to express it. Maybe they don't care for Superman and couldn't get past the movie's flaws. Maybe they have a different idea of who Superman is and what he represents. Or maybe they just have a different taste in movies, who knows? People like and dislike films all the time, as long as we express our opinion in a respectful manner they're all just as valid.

I will say one thing, though: This movie has gotten people talking much more than Iron Man 3 and that's quite a feat on itself.

Comic Vine, I am disappoint. Some of the irrational comments I've seen are laughably ignorant. Claiming everyone who didn't like the film is this. Claiming anyone who loved the film is that. Grow up -- it's subjective content and your opinion isn't the final say on these matters. By all means, say what you want about the film, but when you start to belittle people on the opposite side of the opinion... well, all it does is invalidate your entire post and eliminate the potential for a productive conversation.

Naturally, some of you are being grand. So to those people: much love and keep up the pleasant and reasonable chats. I couldn't help but chime in on the absurd nature of some of the comments I've seen, though.

Are you offended? Elitism? Really? Where? I am honestly asking because your reaction to my words are just making the point of my responding to you that much more valid. If you do not like when someone questions you then perhaps say somethings that make better sense to the reader or less questionable. Everything you've said so far has been contradictions to your own claims of understanding/expectations. You cut a film short. Then when questioned as to why you, and some things pointed out, you further your contradiction, along with the point I was making to you. By your own words you state that you cannot look at Man of Steel with a open mind because you on still on the past adaptations of Superman. How exactly do you know what you truly dislike, let alone like anything about Man of Steel when you say you wanted this film to be something it was never even advertised to be like? Hell! Why even bother to see the film if you lack the open mind to at least embrace it on any open front?

As for Superman II. Don't BS me or anyone else. Everyone knows they died man.. . So cut the crap already. You went there with your love for these films, and while that's fine as I enjoyed them too. I was not the one who kept his/her contradiction going. That was you and you alone. It's not a big deal, but I didn't make you type your last response in that fashion either. So I am going to finish this out about Superman II and move on.

Did you notice how Lex in end didn't just vanish? What I am getting is this. Lex Luthor was the only villain left alive. This was made apparent as he didn't fall to his death/get killed by a re-powered Superman. Also if they didn't die (Which we all know they did) Then why wasn't there any mention or showing of them being returned to the Phantom Zone or some prison? Lets face they died. We all know it. Superman and Lois socked it to the bad guys. So on and so forth.

As for the over all bright colour tone and overuse of CG. Is this just an excuse? What the hell are you talking about? There is a grand growing number of films that abuse the hell of out CG and colour. Star Trek comes to mind. Resident Evil etc. I'm sorry pal, but Man of Steel does not fall in this category. All the fight scenes in the film were for the most part, (give or take a few things) was on par with the fight scenes done in the DC animated movies. I don't suppose you hate those as well if you've watched any of them? Of course there was destruction. How often does superman face a villain that doesn't border on epic havoc on some level? Are you really going to be this nit picky? I could see if all the CG was done with no sense of direction, but there was no misuse of it. (Man you must of really hated seeing Krypton then.) Especially not in the way you are trying to say. I could see if they did all of that and he wasn't going up against Kryptonian tech/not going up against Zod etc. How badly do you want this film to be before you went to see it?

At this rate I simply believe that you are not willing to take anything from the film as a result of as stated already. Your own personal bias. You've seen what works for you. Not what works as a whole. We all know what superman represents, but as you haven't noticed. Those values were throughout the whole film as a man/alien trying to understand them. Even when he killed Zod. You say you know Superman, yet are quick to turn a blind eye to those values you have such admiration for when retold in a way that could never be to your liking as you have also expressed. Bottom line. Some people can keep and open mind, others are so set in their ways it wouldn't matter if something was good despite being different or bad. It's all disappointment no matter what to them.

Last thing I am going to say to you before I move on from this and your posts. (Feel free to have last word as I won't be bothered.), is this. The inspiration you are seeking is there. Since this is an origin film meant to jump start a franchise. The film was about deciding his place in a world that wasn't his. Learning who he was and coming to terms with why he was sent to Earth. If this was a Spiderman film It would of ended with the mention of "With great power come great responsibility" but this isn't Spiderman. A larger dose of that inspiration you seem to be now bent on has only yet to come. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Bottom line I was left inspired from several perspectives. Mainly that Kel-El came to embrace his destiny and that it ended with him setting out to be that "Messiah" you wanted to see so badly, but couldn't get past your own wants to see in the film. This film is not flawless, but it sure as hell is a step in the right direction for a change.

“They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.” -C.S. Lewis

This is how I feel about the people criticizing it. Trying so hard to be smart that they missed all the depth and complexity that was on display. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and thats the one thing thats been really bothering me: the people who didnt like it wont accept that a lot of the people who did like it thought it was the best superhero film yet. If you didnt like it great, but dont tell me what I, or a lot of other people think. Consider this: there must be a reason so many people share the same opinion, isnt it possible you missed something, or didnt fully consider something that we all did? And of course the opposite is possible as well. But ive already seen it twice and plan on seeing it a third time tonight, I think im on the verge of being an unmatched expert on this film, haha.

So... maybe this is a great movie, or the best superhero movie for someone who doesn't know what superman is all about, for me it was a awful movie because is not superman for me, is a movie that use the name of superman but doesn't represent he.

i think that the critic made in the movie superman vs the elite or kingdom come is just exactly what is happening with this movie.

everyone is like alright he had to kill, he had no choice, this is a new take on superman, is a new era, he did kill before, he did kill in superman II the movie, etc, etc

yes that's exactly what the critic of the things i say first is, in superman vs the elite based on the What's so funny about truth, justice, and the American way? some new "heroes" appear applying the easy way, if something is bad you have to finish it, and the people is like "yes!!, cause superman is so nice but he never finish the problem" is seem like superman in this movie is the elite and your alright with it.

in kingdom come he is an outcast, dropout by the world cause they don't understand his ideals, of not killing and his way to do things, and all the heroes that appear as superman is gone, are all like doing fast and easy choices.

im 20 years old, im too young but i have seen many things about superman, and i haven't seen the old movies (1978....) complete. but i think that this movie is giving a bad name to superman, cause this movie will succeed or it seems like that, and every time in the future that they want to do a new movie, they will say this movie went great, and will say lets see what it got... lot of destruction, it has to be many destruction, lots of people dying everywhere, it has to show superman fighting every-time going through buildings full of people, and if the enemy is to powerful superman have to take the enemy himself cause there is no other way.

sad, cause i thought that superman was all about the message of hope, but in the movie there is not a real message, someone can tell me the message, the message that superman always tell us to be better persons, better HUMANS.

superman for me in this movie was pa kent, how sacrifice his life for saving people, for saving a dog and teaching a lesson to clark in the process, how the things are done.

but is like superman doesn't learn anything from that masterpiece of scene, is simple logic, the first he have to do is save the people, doesn't matter what happen with you, superman is pa kent, zod an co is the tornado, the dog are the humans "an inferior raze", is simple but is like they took that scene out of a comic book, and didn't understand the meaning, is that spirit of sacrifice, what is superman all about.

apart from that i think the movie has everything, great soundtrack, great cast, great acting, especially great effects, great dialogues, some memorable quotes, but is lacking the morality of superman in my personal opinion.

and one more thing, i apologize for my English im from Colombia and here we speak Spanish.

@rezn0ir:

You use that term "willing bias" quite a bit; between this and your last reply at least a dozen times. But what does that mean? It's right up there with "elitisim"; essentially a disparaging term for having standards, used by those who lack the will or knowledge to create their own. I've been a long time reader of Superman, and I've seen what works, and what doesn't work for the character. Essentially, Superman is a righteous Messiah for the space age, a being who represents the best of what we are and what we can be. I can think of no better example to represent standards. A mass produced action flick that's only appeal is rampant destruction, bright colors, a shit town of CG, and lots of wanton violence made for the sole purpose of box office gross is in direct opposition, even a bastardization, of what the character represents and is suppose to do: inspire us to be better.

Also, the pushing off the canyon at the end of Superman II is ambigous. Do they die? I don't know, and neither do you; but the fact that it's such a light hearted scene implies that there is no death involved. Not to mention the scene in the directors cut where they're clearly seen being incarcerated after the show down in the Fortress. Zod's death in Man of Steel leaves no ambiguity, it's dark and serious, and is obviously intended to be shocking

Let's not forget that in superman 2 that when Clark got his powers back he went back to the diner where a De-powered superman got his bum handed to him and proceeded to take revenge with his powers. That seems more out of character than the snap decision of killing zod. Oh how easily we forget.

The cbm that failed the most was im3 not man of steel. Marvel will keep churning out the fluff and those mediocre films will continue to get rave reviewers for being predictable funny and wholesome. Never stray or take the whole genre seriously. Just pump out the cookie cutter 3 part acts. Im3 didn't surprise me you could see the twist from a mile away or at least knew something was up. But with the neck snapper no one expected that no one and that's why it's such a polarizing film. And in the end better. Im3 was choppy with no characterization a predictable plot and a lame ending. With an even more lame villain. Not to mention a slap in the face to comic fans.

Just saw the movie...

flawless, well, maybe one flaw, there wasn't any ...

but I can get over it since it was so damn good, too bad about the damn baby crying throughout the majority of the film .........

All I got from this was that you found the film to be pretentious, and that from your last paragraph my assessment about your willingly bias based on the film not being what you wanted to be, being very accurate. Also to no surprise you're still hung up on previous adaptations of Superman. Again a willing bias. As such I am not sure how can dub the film pretentious as you put it. Thus only furthering the point I made.

Sadly this is the problem I have. You come off as having no desire to even truly consider this telling of Superman or any other beyond it. Also when you said that Superman never kills I cannot help but further express how I do not understand you. You cite the first two Donners films, Yet superman not only de-powered, out smarted Zod, Ursa, and Non in a peaceful manor. Thus winning!, but turned around and killed Zod in almost villain like fashion. Along with Lois joining in on the fun with smiles all around. He could have turned them in, locked them up etc. It was a pointless and unnecessary kill with no remorse. Yet somehow Zod in Man of Steel being killed off by way of a reason that made much more sense and gave more dynamic along with the rest of the film is Pretentious? At least in man of steel he felt remorse about having to kill Zod. You do realize that If we were going by those Superman films today, they would still be frozen corpses with Lois having committed unnecessary murder and being A-OK about it.. . And all that ended with a smile some humor, and some more humor. Gee that's not dark swept under the rug at all for 1977.

Here's your reminder in the link below. All and all. Jor-El would be saying "Umm WTH my son?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

When this movie ended I was filled with a sense of disappointment - there was way too much crammed into one movie, too much fighting, not enough story, way too much cheese factor and a terrible score. That being said, there WAS a lot of stuff that was awesome - over all however I give it a 'meh'

5 stars? I've heard some amateur complaints, but now that a viner (a fellow professional comic fan) has given it 5 stars, I know seeing it is the right thing to do.

The hollywood reporter just broke news that the man of steel just broke the june record opening with 125.1 million from the weekend.

I went into this film not knowing a whole lot about Superman. Sure i know the most common stuff that most fans of comics do and i have been leaning towards Marvel most of the time. I was amazed while watching this movie. The sense of movement they created was amazing. The story was also good and they didn't explain the origin in a linear fashion which i thought was nice. There where times when i questioned what was going on. Why was Kal beamed by that ray? Luckily nothing was left unanswered. This movie has done what Green Lantern failed at. It didn't introduce to many different elements.

A rule of thumb for every super hero movie should be to not have more than one villain in the first movie.

Just because it's a live action movie doesn't mean it has to be serious and pretentious. I suppose that's my biggest problem, not that it tried to be "realistic", but that it was so friggin' serious and pretentious. Cape comics can be cheesy, they can be undeveloped, but rarely ever are they pretentious (...at least that use to be the case). I guess I wanted something more like the Burton or the Donner films, still my favorite live action super hero adaptations, because they knew what they were, and were still full of fun, and light, fantasy elements, and, at no point, did they try to be gritty and serious.

And--bit of a side-note, just to set the record straight--as much as I love the first two Donners, I think the best adaptation of Supes on the screen is the Fleischer Bros cartoons, nothing will ever come close to those.

Yeah, it seems that if you voice any kind of legitimate, well thought, complaint, you're automatically some kind of terrible troll. It's all that "if you don't have anything nice to say" mentality.

@novi_homines: I kind of agree with you. I thought it was a good movie but far from the best cbm. I fell like people are exaggerating a bit. I mean better than The Dark Knight, hardly. I see why the critics didn't like the movie. But I can easily get over it because to me the good outweighs the bad.

@drphilter: Oh yeah sorry I was thinking about how similar the Daily Planet and the Daily Bugle were while typing it. haha

That's the internet. It's fueled by this "pack mentality", that if I see most people liking MoS, then I should too. It's pretty surprising. Everyone doesn't follow this, but i've seen so many people just blatantly ignore the issues the film has, and writes them off as small nitpicks. After i've seen the reactions of people here, as well as other sites, I began to think to myself that this is the exact reason critics exist. Some other viewers can't or won't, for whatever reason, objectively judge things. People have wanted a good superman movie for so long, and in a way this is the best one of this era. But that doesn't mean that its the best cbm, or anywhere even close. People have opinions, that I can accept. But when I try to point out an issue I have with the film, one that seems clear and respectable, its interesting seeing some brush it off as irrelevant. That goes farther than a simple rational opinion.

I really hope you meant Daily Planet :)

@drphilter: I like your post and I don't think the Daily Bugle is supposed to be important I think we are supposed to get a glimpse of them.

Well, I see what you mean regarding "whats wrong with a preconceived notion" and I guess that's just a debatable point. On one hand, I kind of agree, whoever we are whether we read Supes comics forever, recently, etc we all know and either love or hate the character. So preconceived notions are hard to avoid. On the other hand, I would say this is an attempt to reboot the character and tell a familiar story with some updated twists, so as much as possible I think trying to clear the slate, so to speak, isn't out of the question of reasonable requests. That said, it's really up to ourselves to do that or not. I often think that very point is what makes movies more enjoyable for me than I see the vast majority of other people. Great example is, ironically, Snyder's "Sucker Punch". I heard for weeks how terrible it was, etc etc, but I saw a single trailer, thought it seemed like a neat concept and I was able to really enjoy the movie. Was it groundbreaking storytelling or even filmmaking? No. But does film always have to be that? Can't it just sometimes be fun? Which is weird because I really loathed the ladder two Transformers flicks and people who like them say the same thing. I guess it's just how material is presented. (Though I take hotties in skimpy outfits over dirty beat up autobots any day, lol)

I guess I don't distinguish the difference between The Avengers battle and this one, even though this one was definitely more real world-esque. It was never a complaint about either film but I do remember thinking right after Iron Man woke up, "New York is f*****!" I hate the term real-world used in reference to movies because, they are movies, it's all fiction, there's nothing real world about anything in movies. Even David O'Russell pictures over exaggerate things for drama, so maybe that's a bit of disconnection on my part or why things don't bother me that way. I see them as mere artistic differences. Though, Marvel has always struck me as more or less friendly, so I thought both destruction scenes felt at home. I don't argue with the point of safety, though I would say Metropolis was ground zero for Zod and they weren't there to battle Superman, they were there to terraform. Now, I will say, after playing Injustice: Gods Among Us, it would have been pretty epic to see the fight span from Metropolis to the Fortress of Solitude (which was no longer there thanks to Zod, but at least perhaps the arctic) or try things with outrunning each other since Zod was new to flying and super speed, would have been cool and that is why this movie wasn't perfect because those were missed opportunities. I really just assumed, knowing there will be a sequel, that there were things in this move that will be addressed in the future films. (I mean can you imagine Batman lecturing and not fully trusting Superman because he did kill Zod? If we do get a World's Finest film, that would be amazing to play off in which case I will thank this movie everyday for letting that happen.)

It sucks that you didn't find joy in the movie, that is a perception thing. The moment when Ma Kent is at the school with Clark, pretty much any scene with Pa Kent and most scenes with Jor-El really got me into the movie not just for their sake but really helped me put myself in Clark's position and how crappy that's got to feel. I actually really felt for Chris Meloni's and Richard Schiff's character's and their fate more than I did Lois and that's not a dig on Lois, just I especially liked Meloni in this movie.

Yeah, they didn't give much to Perry White or Jenny Olson but why should we care about them? Cause they were innocent people, victims to a madman. I think we should care about them for the same reason Superman does, they are life, human, innocent. I didn't know anyone in any of the countless tragedies that have occurred the past decade plus, but I felt for each of them and their families all the same. I agree character development is important, but White and Olson weren't prominent characters. Prominent only because we know who they are and how they play into Superman's world as we have known it, but with in the context of the movie, they were simply just associates of Lois Lane. Well, they did play Perry up a bit and I really liked Laurence Fishburne in the role, suited him well.

I'll be honest, I didn't go into this film with high expectations even with everyone buzzing about the trailers.
This wasn't a good film. The plot was weak, the villain was weak and even the supporting cast was weak.
Cavill had a superb Superman but at no point did Zod feel like a threat, what with being punked by Jor-El five minutes in. There was no doubt that Superman would deal with him, and the inclusion of Lois Lane was one of the worst executed romances I've seen in a film period.

I came out of the cinema spelling out multiple plot holes or problems in my head, and whilst I'm not going to tirade and list them I will say that how people have came out stating this is a 5 star film is beyond me.

It's a typical Snyder film,and for that reason not worth revisiting.
Same as 300, same as Watchmen and the same as Sucker Punch.

I'd give it a 6/10 to be generous as I loved Cavill and Crowe but that is ONLY because I enjoyed the performance of those two.
I'd give it an easy 4/10 had those two not been involved.

@azura_thena:

Thank you! Particularly for the Pa Kent explanation. I don't get how people don't understand this. I guess if you can't understand that then a lot of this movie would be a mystery to people. I think that's sort of a problem with things. People think just because you CAN do something means you SHOULD. That's what Pa was trying to teach the whole time, restraint and being aware of these things at all times. Pa and Ma Kent love Clark very much but they also want to protect him from the world which is really sweet to me. It's not in fear of what would happen to Clark physically, obviously, but what would happen to him psychologically and they love their son and don't want him to go through that. I think whether or not you think humanity would accept him is irrelevant, the fact that his father was so adamant and believed it to be true transcends this. As you put it, he was respecting what were his father's last wishes. This was clear as day to me as I watched it. Really the odd similarities between Pa Kent and Jor-El were a really interesting factor for me, one I really liked.

In regards to people calling this movie "cold". This has been my biggest complaint and fear of the Marvel movies in general and specifically Iron Man. People love Downey and love the catch phrase heavy, quippy remarks, etc etc. I enjoy it in small doses, at least when dealing with a superhero flick. But that has become the expectation. I wrote a piece last year after Dark Knight Rises came out and there people really started to contrast the humor and light hearted fun of Avengers with the more serious tone of Dark Knight Rises. It bugs me that humor has to be so involved for people to like these movies because that is still part of the general audience and critics alike saying these movies can't be taken seriously. I grew up when Comic books were looked down upon much more than they are now, they were never adequate forms of story telling, they were always a joke, the ladder two Batman flicks only reinforced this way of thinking. Then we see movies like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Green Lantern and Superman returns that struggle with being funny, goofy and cutesy. I honestly believe there are parts in all of those movies that had great potential if the urge to inject comedy and a light hearted atmosphere weren't so prevalent. Being a hero, saving the world can and usually is more serious than fun, and in movies should be treated that way. I think when it's treated with humor and ease it sort of demeans the importance of what actually happens, on a deeper psychological level. Which in contrast makes The Dark Knight or Man of Steel seem cold and all that non-sense.

It really strikes me that people don't realize that it took this event for Clark to really be able to find that balance of him as Clark and him as Superman and I thought that is exactly what the ending of this movie pointed out. He was able to find who he was as Kal-el, Superman and Clark through this journey of a movie but it did require that journey. The journey of even being more aware of innocent byestandards in the future. I would actually really love to see him quit a fight to ensure the safety of someone, even if that makes him vulnerable to an attack, but this was him getting his footing. It would be incredibly cheap for him to just all of the sudden work that way. He goes from learning how to fly to all the sudden being this savior of everyone? That's not a bit of a stretch for anyone?

You can't have it both ways. This is why Superman is so hard to tell. You can't be that cheesy "Clark Kent *glasses off* Superman *glasses on* Clark Kent *glasses off* Superman" "It's a bird it's a plane..." and be taken seriously. I feel like this movie did everything people complained was lacking for Superman Returns, or wanted to see in Superman Returns and now people are complaining because they didn't have enough of those features. Furthermore considering that Superman Returns was technically the 5th installment in that storyline, so it had the benefit of being established, whereas this was breaking new ground for a new cinematic experience with the character.

I really hope the people who didn't enjoy this at least check it out on home video or something and give it another chance and even try to see certain things the way I did because I really do think it was a terrific movie. I honestly could have cared less about the action sequences. At this point in my life I feel like I can't really see anything new, so while they were fun and visually awesome, I really think this movie has more heart than what people give it credit for. It sucks that Mark Waid didn't like the movie and I also hope he gives it another shot. I am inclined to say because it wasn't exactly Birthright page for page, perhaps he is bias and perhaps deservedly so, he did give us probably one of the best Superman stories ever told. One thing I will say about Marvel is, phony or not, at least their guys are always supportive to press. I mean I didn't hear Garth Ennis come out about Punisher War Zone or Chris Claremont come out about Wolverine Origins. It actually kind of irritates me to know that Waid was so free to dish on the film because his influence is pretty prevalent. I know that's asking too much, but still. At first glance it seems like Waid isn't happy it didn't get made exactly the way he would have done it, so wasn't happy with it but I guess that could be said for anyone who doesn't like any movie, I know that is one of the first things I think about when I give a film a bad review, how would I have done it differently. Maybe they could enlist Waid's writing skills for Man of Steel 2, one of those put up or shut up situations.

Let me remind everyone that these are opinions we are dealing with. How I perceive Superman may not be how you perceive Superman. I can look at one scene and see and feel something entirely different. To say that someone's own opinion is incorrect, is an ignorant thing to say. I respect everyone's opinion on here that uses logic to back their reasoning behind liking or disliking the film.

@azura_thena I see where you are coming from and everything you said does make a lot of sense - it's just not how I perceive things. I WAS just nit-picking on those particular scenes, but I was making the point that those small things just added up for me.

My point about realism was this --- the more you try to place a movie in the "real world" and make the audience believe what is happening in it, the harder the job Is for the filmmakers. A comic book movie about a man who disguises himself with a pair of glasses is especially hard. The film makers have to either commit to complete realism or not at all. I just felt it wasn't a good fit to make a Superman movie into a gritty sci-fi tale.

I think my original review of the film should have went like this --- It's not the Superman I would like to see and it wasn't structured/written to my liking. And left it at that.

Quite a few people don't like my reasoning behind why I didn't like it, but on the flip side yes there are a lot who agree with me as well. Whoever said that you shouldn't care about what a well known comics creator's opinion is, was absolutely right. You shouldn't. I only care about my own feelings I had coming out of the movie. And that's all that matters.

Thanks.

i have to choose between star trek and this to watch on today

I'm just curious: Superman had the strength to snap a Kryptonian's neck, but no strength to simply fly him up, up, and away with that choke hold he had? Because he snapped Zod's neck rather easily.

I honestly don't understand you ^

No one asked you to quote Accept reality, but sense it's a live action film sadly there are going to be moments when films dabble on reality. After all it is the setting of the film. the idea of Superman in real life was kinda.. um. .. I don't know. Part of the whole point. What I don't get is why people are so bothered by the notion that he killed a guy. Yet most of you have played the game Injustice. The same thing goes for the countless tellings, via game (as I mentioned), comic, and animated film of superman be it prime, and or other variant earth versions/multivers of him that has in fact killed before on far worse terms. Yet for the strangest reason in this film Superman kills Zod and you people cry foul. Why? It seems like people were to busy wanting one thing and missing the points of the story. Should I have to explain them? I seriously hope not. I guess no one understood Zod or what he told Clark before their final fight. The film was great, Sure it can only improve as they make a second one. So far It sounds like you along with a great number of other posters forgot your sense of imagination/open mindedness when seeing this film.

Was Man of Steel terrible? No. Was it done right? For the most part yes.

Lastly. Your comic book hero was on screen. However when you want one thing and don't get it in the exact way you expected it it is only natural to ignore what was presented instead with a willing bias..

@azura_thena said:

@hiplobo:

The only issue that can be had when going into this movie with an inaccurate preconceived notion of who Superman is, is that you will miss everything about this film that did in fact do a good job in honoring the core of the character. I referenced the two mediums that are being used by those that did not like the movie to incorrectly slander this movie as a horrible offense to the character that is Superman. Both of my references point out the flaw in the accusation. I know you want to believe that Superman would never kill but that is not who Superman actually is. When he thought Lois died at Doomsday's hands and Superman was killing people in his attack on who he thought was Doomsday, he specifically said he didn't even care that people were dying because of his actions. He literally was aware of what he was doing and did not care at all. All he cared about was revenge. Superman is not infallible. He is not Christ. He is a flawed "human" being with human reactions to dangerous situations. He projects an image of perfection to the people he protects in his universe but you must take care not to become absorbed by the identity that he is trying to project or you completely miss the reality of who Superman is in the comics, which in my opinion means you miss a critical aspect to enjoying Superman beyond seeing how much he can lift.

I don't understand your problem with the realism. You are going to have to clarify that statement for me in order for me to address it to the best of my ability. Why was the destruction of part of the city a problem? Why was the kiss after they thought the battle was over a problem for you? Believe it or not, people do sometimes kiss when in, or after scary and/or harmful situations.

Lois finding Superman right after the fight with Zod seems like a bit of nitpicking to me. If that got to you, how do you ever enjoy any movie at all? They all use a bit of movie magic to compress time for the sake of plot. But if you need an in-canon explanation, it is entirely possible that their fight concluded within reasonable running distance. The same goes for your grievance for them landing in the city after flying into space. I am sure that if anyone came to you with trivialities like this over a movie that you had even a neutral stance on, you would likely find it hard to do anything but dismiss their opinion on the film entirely. Lois was identified as someone who was close to Superman and thus might have had information that the Kryptonians required. This was actually explained in the film.

I disagree with your opinion on the destruction in the comics being portrayed as fun or silly. I don't think that has ever been the norm in a Superman comic with regards to city-wide destruction. I can't remember every comic, so there may be some out there but I do remember many and none of them showed Superman skipping over dead bodies or doubling over in laughter right after.

If Superman flew away to a desert mid-battle, he would have flown there by himself while the Kryptonians continued to kill everyone around them. The Kryptonian armor did not grant them the ability of flight and it shielded them from the sun's radiation, which meant that none of them had the ability to follow him. Not only that but there was no need to follow him. He initially wasn't the reason they were in the city (and town for that matter) causing mayhem.

I again disagree with your point about requiring character development to care when they are dying. It was not that we were supposed to care that Jenny was about to die. It was that other characters came together to risk their lives to prevent her death and when that failed, to knowingly die with her. The struggle to prevent her death was what was important, not the character.

Bravo!

It's a comic book movie, a fantasy, I'm not suppose to have to "accept" reality when I go see it. Superman never kills and he always saves everyone; this is, at least one, of the things that makes him such an endearing character that has inspired people for generations. A realistic, brooding, representation who kills, even as a last resort, negates all of that and makes it a completely pointless characterization. It's the exact same problem I had with the Nolan Batman: too much reality. I want a comic book hero on screen, not a gritty, semi-realistic character study that has very vague resemblance to the source material.

I'll be honest with you, I didn't read your whole comment, just the first part...it's really long, and the first part is all I needed to read. Making a blockbuster doesn't translate to quality, it just means that your vision was dumb enough, or that you dumbed down your vision enough, to appeal to the idiotic masses, (*cough* present company included...I'm sure). Mark Waid's brilliant, Snyder and the Nolan family are hacks, that's why they're house hold names and he's not, 'nuff said.

P.S. I love that to you the antithesis of an action director, like Snyder, is Mamet (who wrote,not directed, Glengarry Glenn Ross, btw). Not Tarkovsky, or Dreyer, or Cocteau, but the creator of another HUGE box office success, but, that's the masses for you...okay so maybe I did read a bit more of your comment then the first part.

Who cares about what waid says? I don't. When was the last time he made a blockbuster. phucking never. You can hate it that's fine or you could like it. Bottom line it was better than anyone had anticipated and that this vision of supes isn't the donners vision or the singers, and that's the best part about it.

The biggest mindbender of this nerd rage to me, is the pissing and moaning about "oh there was too much action". WTF! Sow your vagina up right now before your insides fall out. Seriously! This is ridiculous, first off if that was too much STOP reading comics because there is soooo much action on every page (if you get a cape comics). Second, isn't that why you went in the first place. If you want David Mamet go watch Glen Gary Glen Ross, and stay as far away from this as possible so I don't have to hear your BS, that's the ABC of it. Third Zach Snyder directed this film. You all have been predisposed of his look and feel of his direction. While he may have the bombastic look of bay with a little more elegance you can't tell me with a straight face that you were blindsided by it, HOMEY DON'T PLAY THAT.

The most common divide by reviewers and fans is that he killed Zod thus making supes flawed, which is something a lot of people don't want to accept. The flack for this not being a donner superman film is unwarranted uncalled for and lazy reviewing.

I for one am happy they told this story and are serious about the hero. His story may have been condensed and not as fleshed out as many would like but I have no problem with it or it's tone. If this is the tone that comes with DC's shared universe of film, I'm beyond excited. As opposed to phase 601 of marvels "family" hero films. I'm not saying they're bad, I'm saying that Disney will never have the balls to attempt this kind of film for any of their IP's and the assembly line structure they have going leads to banality. If that's what you like hooray for you. You'll have decades of it with marvel and star wars for billions of summers to come.

What I want most of all is marvel to take their films more seriously and DC to lighten up a tad and have both meet in the middle. Do I wanna see ant man? Hell yea and black panther, strange the whole universe would be great. Same with DC. I want martian manhunter, aquaman and the kitchen sink. But what I don't want is the same safe movie everytime that is a bookend to another team up. Man of steel surprised me, not just the end but that WB had the guts to do it.

He seemed more disappointed than 'outrage' or 'hate', I just think he went into it willing to let many things slide, but finally leaving unsatisfied.

@veshark: I don't know man, I read his thrillbent review...dude sounded pretty pissed to me. He does say that it was a good scifi movie, he liked the look of Krypton and the characterization of Jonathan Kent, but then goes on to rip it apart as a comic book movie, which is, for all intents and purposes, what it is, and what it should have tried to live up to.

Yeah....that's inaccurate. Waid explicitly states that he enjoyed the first two-thirds of the movie. His primary dislike of the movie stems from the mass-destruction of the final battle, and Superman not being shown saving innocents. He doesn't even have an issue with the final Zod scene, it was mostly to do with the above. I would hardly call it 'outrage', that final third just left a really bad taste in his mouth and he views the movie as joyless and missing the point of Superman being a protector.

I'm not saying he loved the movie, but it's hardly 'nothing but contempt'.

Absolutely agree.

I believe the problem with the people who didn't like this film or the characterization of this Superman is that everyone has their own vision of Superman and this isn't what they wanted. Superman in Man of Steel was faced with reality, some people accepted it while others didn't.

Thank you! I'm glad someone said! Mark Waid, a great writer for Superman, and author of the incredible Kingdom Come, also former editor'n'chief of DC Comics had nothing but contempt for this film. I think it's interesting that the outrage of such a legend in the industry was not even mentioned in this review or anywhere else on comic vine, instead, it's all one sided praise.

Lol when did i gived 5/5 for im3?Lol......-Still think that you are out of your mind @k4tzm4n-.Thanks for reading.

@hiplobo:

The only issue that can be had when going into this movie with an inaccurate preconceived notion of who Superman is, is that you will miss everything about this film that did in fact do a good job in honoring the core of the character. I referenced the two mediums that are being used by those that did not like the movie to incorrectly slander this movie as a horrible offense to the character that is Superman. Both of my references point out the flaw in the accusation. I know you want to believe that Superman would never kill but that is not who Superman actually is. When he thought Lois died at Doomsday's hands and Superman was killing people in his attack on who he thought was Doomsday, he specifically said he didn't even care that people were dying because of his actions. He literally was aware of what he was doing and did not care at all. All he cared about was revenge. Superman is not infallible. He is not Christ. He is a flawed "human" being with human reactions to dangerous situations. He projects an image of perfection to the people he protects in his universe but you must take care not to become absorbed by the identity that he is trying to project or you completely miss the reality of who Superman is in the comics, which in my opinion means you miss a critical aspect to enjoying Superman beyond seeing how much he can lift.

I don't understand your problem with the realism. You are going to have to clarify that statement for me in order for me to address it to the best of my ability. Why was the destruction of part of the city a problem? Why was the kiss after they thought the battle was over a problem for you? Believe it or not, people do sometimes kiss when in, or after scary and/or harmful situations.

Lois finding Superman right after the fight with Zod seems like a bit of nitpicking to me. If that got to you, how do you ever enjoy any movie at all? They all use a bit of movie magic to compress time for the sake of plot. But if you need an in-canon explanation, it is entirely possible that their fight concluded within reasonable running distance. The same goes for your grievance for them landing in the city after flying into space. I am sure that if anyone came to you with trivialities like this over a movie that you had even a neutral stance on, you would likely find it hard to do anything but dismiss their opinion on the film entirely. Lois was identified as someone who was close to Superman and thus might have had information that the Kryptonians required. This was actually explained in the film.

I disagree with your opinion on the destruction in the comics being portrayed as fun or silly. I don't think that has ever been the norm in a Superman comic with regards to city-wide destruction. I can't remember every comic, so there may be some out there but I do remember many and none of them showed Superman skipping over dead bodies or doubling over in laughter right after.

If Superman flew away to a desert mid-battle, he would have flown there by himself while the Kryptonians continued to kill everyone around them. The Kryptonian armor did not grant them the ability of flight and it shielded them from the sun's radiation, which meant that none of them had the ability to follow him. Not only that but there was no need to follow him. He initially wasn't the reason they were in the city (and town for that matter) causing mayhem.

I again disagree with your point about requiring character development to care when they are dying. It was not that we were supposed to care that Jenny was about to die. It was that other characters came together to risk their lives to prevent her death and when that failed, to knowingly die with her. The struggle to prevent her death was what was important, not the character.

@the_stegman: @drayven: @sandman_: @supermansito: Thanks, all of you! <3

Finally! Someone else who's read Supergods! Not only did I love it! It inspired me to start working on my comic again; something I had given up many and many a year ago.

@docluthorvondoom: Agree with you Mr. Doom, Huge fan of Grant Morrison's. He has a great take on Superman... if anyone hasn't read Supergods his book about the history of comics, it's pretty awesome.

"We...imagined a champion, a thought-powered redeemer capable of saving the world. A made up Messiah...[but] we sold out! They had 500 experts lined up thinking in harmony to streamline the Superman brand for maximum cross-spectrum, wide platform appeal. They built a violent, troubled, faceless anti-hero, concealing a tragic secret life, a global marketing icon. Everybody wears its brand. It makes people feel part of something big and new and cool. Superman helps them forget the reality of their drab, obediant lives"

Grant Morrison, Action Comics # 9

This quote seems amazingly poignant after watching that mass-produced piece of garbage. Seriously, this movie was like all special effects, and fights. I think this had the least amount of dialogue of any movie I've ever seen. Also, do you never give a negative review?

Same. Its also a movie that relies on the action for its quality. The more times you watch it, the less the action seems awesome, resulting in a lower quality of the film over time.

I still cant get over the positive reviews of this film. Its like people watched it with their brains turned off. Theres just so much wrong with it, which I was willing to forgive right up until superman killed zod. Dont give this he had no choice crap, hes superman there are many things he couldve done to save those people besides killing zod. It was just lazy writing. Id give this film 2/5 stars. I really wanted to like it but sadly for me its the kind of movie that the more I think it about the worse it gets.

I know a lot of people are hating on this movie but I disagree with them. I thought Man of Steel was awesome. If you ever wanted to see a Superman fight ripped straight out of a comic book and put in a movie, this will not disappoint.

@rich711: If you can't recognize smack talk when you read it you're pretty thick. I don't know how you get fanboi out of my comment but the way you jumped all over it means I chose the correct bait. Luring the true fanbois out.

My gripe is with other artists who are not in the same field talking smack and that's what it was.

I have comics from almost every publisher and enjoy all. I also enjoy some of the movies that are based on them. Like 30 days of night the Burton batmans the first 2 Nolan batmans. And so on and so forth.

My theory is your a marvel fan who was so disgusted with IM3 that your only outlet is talking shit about this, a far superior film to try and make up the short comings of your beloved hot mess of a pile.

Like I said I like comics and comic book movies from both and all publishers. What I don't understand is the trance like state the marvel films have on anyone. Maybe no body has the stones to say that was not good in order to not rock the boat. All of their films have a gloss to them that can only be provided by Disney. They're almost campy with the comedy to the point that I could care less about any and all in the film. They're a cheap character of the comics. And the pg-13 ratings are for show. Maybe the first iron man could earn that rating. But the rest are just fluff. Culminating into the very average grossly overrated avengers.

So if DC has more serious films I'm all for that. Because my balls dropped over thirty years ago. If I wanted a toy commercial for a film, which is what a majority of marvel puts out them I'd also be high on their Koolaid. And I liked the avengers the first couple times I saw it.

well said, very well this is exactly how i felt. the crowd literally gasped and as the "damn", the "wow", even "no f*cking way" filled the theater you know it was done right.