MOS vs Superman Returns

#1 Posted by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

i cannot believe im actually about to ask this but are there people who actually think Superman Returns was better than MOS? I have had multiple people tell me they think Superman Returns is better. I even saw a review that blasted MOS and called people who didn't like Superman Returns "mouth breathers".....

#2 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7556 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked MOS better.

#3 Posted by DigbyKong (300 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel was badass, Superman returns came out of someones ass.

#4 Edited by batmannflash (6189 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman Returns had a stalker Superman who randomly had a son. Lois is married to some other guy and she still loves Clark. Even though Superman barely says a word throughout the movie. Lex Luthor is stupid because he thinks people would want to live on a giant rock that could cause cancer over time. Superman then faces the ultimate fight of the movie: a giant rock. He carries it all the way into space even though earlier in the movie he collapse just from the contact of it. Then we watch 10 minutes of him lying on a hospital bed. Superman is the strongest person on the planet and he never throws a punch even once.

Man of Steel had a Superman that beat up General Zod and got to fight against two Kryptonians at the same time. He actually talks in this movie. He doesn't creep on Lois and watch through her windows. General Zod was an infinitely better villain. Much more threatening. Man of Steel didn't have a single boring scene and showed great character depth for Clark.

#5 Posted by batmannflash (6189 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel was badass, Superman returns came out of someones ass.

#6 Edited by Wolverine08 (38675 posts) - - Show Bio

MOS wasn't incredible, but it was definitely better than Superman Returns. No question.

Online
#7 Posted by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

I absolutely lived MOS. I think it's the best comic book movie ever made personally.

#8 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1371 posts) - - Show Bio

MOS Definitely, returns was fine but more of a Love letter to the past. MOS is, so far, looking back over the past 10 years,the best Superhero(and Superman) movie i've seen.

#9 Posted by Yung ANcient One (4601 posts) - - Show Bio

I totally agree with BatsNFlash

I feel, and I said this before, that Superman Returns failed because it was a continuation/sequel of an ancient movie. I know it wasn't that old, but how are new comers suppose to care or follow the story Superman returns and nobody wants him around plus Lois romance/child was far too complicated. PLUS he carried an Island of Krytionite.... a rock can kill him but an Island of the stuff... No prob.

I think Superman Returns was a good movies for the fans who loved the previous Superman movies and where looking for more/ or looking for answers.

( + )

#10 Posted by RustyRoy (10941 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked Superman Returns more.

#11 Edited by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio
#12 Posted by RustyRoy (10941 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc said:

@rustyroy: Explain yourself

Why? You didn't ask Biteme-Fanboy to explain himself.

#13 Posted by batmannflash (6189 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy said:

@sog7dc said:

@rustyroy: Explain yourself

Why? You didn't ask Biteme-Fanboy to explain himself.

lollll

No but seriously. I'm interested in why you think Returns was better.

#14 Posted by RustyRoy (10941 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy said:

@sog7dc said:

@rustyroy: Explain yourself

Why? You didn't ask Biteme-Fanboy to explain himself.

lollll

No but seriously. I'm interested in why you think Returns was better.

I thought it had better pacing, editing, the story was interesting, it was the Superman I know(except maybe the stalking part), had a classic feel, most of the characters were well played except Lois, Luthor felt like a threat, people mostly dislike it because Superman didn't punch anyone but I didn't have any problem with that, I loved the plane crash scene, and Superman lifting a Island made of Kryptonite is the most badass thing done in a CBM. There are many more reasons. I know I'm in the minority but l love Superman Returns.

#15 Posted by MartianManhunterIsBetterThanCyborg (2213 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel

#16 Posted by batmannflash (6189 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy: I did like the movie, sort of. I just don't think it's close to MoS. I didn't like the pacing. I thought it went too slow, with an exception of only a few awesome scenes. It did have the classic feel but Superman didn't seem charismatic or happy. He just had an emotionless face and barely said anything. The plane crash scene and him saving the people in Metropolis was amazing. It didn't have that in MoS. But Superman lifting the island was a huge plothole. When he went on the island, just the coming close to it made him fall to the ground and become completely useless. However, when the plot needed him to be strong, he ended up lifting the whole freaking island of kryptonite into the sky!! How?! 10 minutes ago, he barely touched it and he couldn't do anything. Plus he had a large chunk of kryptonite stabbed in his stomach the whole time he was lifting the island. I have no problem with Superman being a little more resistant to Kryptonite, but it's inconsistent to what happened earlier.

#17 Posted by ColonelRunAway (369 posts) - - Show Bio

I used to hate Superman Returns, but... It tried. It honest to god tried. There was a genuine effort there to make a loyal adaptation of everything that Superman stands for, while simultaneously updating the mythos to challenge those ideas. All of it crashed and burned miserably, but dammit, it set the right bar.

Man of Steel just.

Just.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuuuuAAAAAAAAAGuuuuuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#18 Posted by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy: Because you were the first voice of dissent. I liked MOS like bitemfanboy did so I didn't feel compelled to ask him anything

#19 Posted by RustyRoy (10941 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmannflash: Yeah him lifting the Island was a big plot hole but every movie has them, and I'm not a critic, but I enjoyed it more than MoS, that's the only thing I know, I can't explain it to you why I like ice cream more than cake, I just do. It also might be a factor that I was a big Superman fan back then and loved the CBMs that came out last decade (even though I don't think these are the reason I liked SR more), I just didn't like MoS, maybe if I see it a second time I might like it better.

#20 Edited by batmannflash (6189 posts) - - Show Bio
#21 Posted by RustyRoy (10941 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc: People have different opinions, live with it, anyways most people loved MoS and hated SR, I don't ask them why they prefer MoS.

#22 Posted by DRUDOX19 (157 posts) - - Show Bio

This disturbs me that people want to praise returns now what the hell why the hell. Audience scores for MOS is higher then returns, dont know why Superman Returns is being put higher it doesnt make sense to me it failed with audiences cause i guess the audience was smart enough to see Superman was still stuck in this era, i mean MOS is the highest rated superman film with audiences that ever came out with superman 1 being behind it, So this kinda tells you for 30 years the audience didnt care till 2013. To me this is very very weird and ironic to me i mean if they really liked returns the audience let that film bomb itself, critics and the public are divided in how superman should be portrayed its kinda unbelievable. MOS is getting defended more then returns was when it came out but everyone has a opinion people are just saying returns because so people i see seem to like the i am perfect superman but dont want to admit it.

What i fine funny is this when superman is finally portrayed more human people want him to be perfect which to me doesnt make anysense also i think its not fair that superman has to be seeing higher then other characters. WW is in the same vein has well why is it that with WW and Superman there expectations have to be extremely higher to me this isnt fair for the characters. MOS has also told me maybe its better WW gets introduced with the JLA instead of having a solo film and make Flash have a solo film instead because WW is another character that people seem to want to be perfect. I don't know this movie has caused me to look at film differently and at comic book fanboys differently.

#23 Posted by TheAcidSkull (17312 posts) - - Show Bio

superman Returns was sh*t, MOS Was amazing

Online
#24 Posted by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy: Dude all I did was ask why you liked one

More than the other. Relax

#25 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (9503 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked both movies.

But the whole living in the past and bring people from the grave show how unhealthy and insane people is about Superman.

Leave the past in the past, there is no reason to go back, also the plot had good ideas, it just was the damn Luthor from the movies was dumb as hell, i mean Smallville did everything to make the Luthor real villains and a real problem, then this movie destroy all the work they did with Smallville.

Another thing, Lois dont remember anything from Superman 2, that means she dont remember ahving sex with Superman and then she has his son, that sound like rape to me.

I mean all over the internet complaint about Superman not being human enough and now that he actually can fail, people complaints the is way too human.

Sorry but i dont liked inhuman characters, i care for Superman and Batman for the man part.

#26 Posted by RustyRoy (10941 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc said:

@rustyroy: Dude all I did was ask why you liked one

More than the other. Relax

Okay, now I'm relaxed I think.

#27 Posted by Black_Claw (2889 posts) - - Show Bio

MOS is infinitely superior. No question about it.

#28 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel is the better movie.

No question. No doubt.

#29 Edited by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

MoS had zero character development, no real story, just a bunch of random ideas flung at the screen without any sense of continuity, pacing or function, and a few storytelling shortcuts passed off as plot. The only superhero film where millions of people would be saved if the hero didn't exist ...

Superman Returns was redundant and obscene love poem to the Donner films. It was off-key with dumb scenes (the whole minigun thing made zero sense other than as a movie setpiece) Spacey had a much better and very scary Luthor than the plot allowed. Thank Crom we didn't get Jack Black as Otis. And then there was the kid ... of all the stupid ideas ever ... I must say that for all its flaws (Arg, getting Marlon Brando flashbacks, giving me acid burns ...) Superman Returns had a plot, character development and humanity.

Superman Returns was a million times more human than the spitefully violent Man of Steel, but MoS dared to break the mould (and then promptly lost itself) and it had stunning action. (Stunning action with no stakes since all the ever did was hit each other at super speed and all being invulnerable ...)

It boils down to picking the least of two evils and Superman Returns at least had a heroic Superman who actually saved people rather than a guy who was too busy moping, punching lasers and needed constant voiceover by his dads to remind the audience he was actually a hero.

#30 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

MOS

#31 Posted by Strongarm (5857 posts) - - Show Bio

MoS

Kryptonite planet is just a load of asspul, kumar made that movie bearable

#32 Edited by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio
#33 Posted by _Braveheart_ (1467 posts) - - Show Bio

I haven't seen MOS but it definitely has to be better than Superman Returns!

#34 Edited by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio
#35 Edited by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't get the people who complain about character development. It's like they didn't watch the movie. Did you see the flashbacks? Did you see Clarks act of heroism at the oil rig? Them they complain about no story....that's just factually incorrect. I don't get the hate.

#36 Posted by Jpgman (69 posts) - - Show Bio

MOS, not even close lol!

#37 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (9503 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc said:

I don't get the people who complain about character development. It's like they didn't watch the movie. Did you see the flashbacks? Did you see Clarks act of heroism at the oil rig? Them they complain about no story....that's just factually incorrect. I don't get the hate.

Hipsters, they belive being a hater is a cool thing!!!

If you hate a movie, you seriously have big problems, dislike and hate is not the same, hate means you really really have problems, because you belive life should be as you want it and if dont fit the way you see thing, it means it sucks and people should only think the same that you.

Thats why i hate haters (Haterception), also many people looks to have problem they didnt made this movie exactly like Marvel does them, even overlooking how many flaws this movies have and saying are perfects and this should be the only way movies should be done, not only comic book movies but movies in general.

Dont lie, ti was as bad as Captain America, it just dont have the luck of being part of a cinematic universe.

#38 Posted by stevenjaber (6 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel was way better loool

#39 Edited by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc said:

I don't get the people who complain about character development. It's like they didn't watch the movie. Did you see the flashbacks? Did you see Clarks act of heroism at the oil rig? Them they complain about no story....that's just factually incorrect. I don't get the hate.

I'd like to make a few remarks about why I think people like Man of Steel so much.

The simplest answer is that it has plenty of action, makes a good popcorn film, looks very sophisticated and appears to have deep meaning, high stakes and it's dark and gritty etc. So this film should have plenty of popular appeal.

I contend Man of Steel fails at pretty much everything else ...

Chuck Palahniuk, the writer of "Fight Club" gave the advice "Show, don't tell." The idea is that instead of simply writing "Joe felt guilty about cheating on his exams." You write something from which the reader will conclude that Joe has a guilty conscience. He looks at the results and quickly stuffs them in his pocket, he can't sleep at night, he doesn't want to talk about the exams with his friends, and his otherwise sunny disposition turns to storm etc ...

Same thing with characterization and a character. You could easily write a few lines that very accurately describe a character and his motivation and everything else or you could write the story in such a way the reader can pick out the various elements. For example you could write the story of "Catcher in the Rye" on a single page, saying that Holden Caulfield feels that adults are all phonies and he doesn't want to grow up if it means becoming a phony. He visits his teacher and he gives him a long speech that bores Holden to death and confirms his opinion. etc ...

This is not a universal rule, some things are much easier explained to the reader with a good shortcut if you want to quickly set a scene or showing it would take too long and slow things down. It's a very useful technique and there is nothing wrong with its judicious use.

A good example of shortcuts used in a recent film was Snow White. In the film she was supposed to be "the fairest". You could write a good arc gradually showing how Snow White is really the fairest and you could have your actress use all her talent and skill to emote that virtue, but it's not something that's easy to write. They used three shortcuts to convince the audience Snow White was the fairest. They had her interact with some kids after they escaped from the bad guys. Then then put in a beautiful scene where a magical animal magically blesses her, confirming her status and we had blind Bob Hoskins tell us how she was really special. One might argue that next to the evil Ravenna the average girl on the street would be fairer ...

The problem with shortcuts is that while they are convenient and save time, they are like the Dark Side, they become very seductive, faster, easier, but not better ...

Looking at Man of Steel the film has lots of shortcuts and setups that give the impression that the Man of Steel is a great hero though he does little to really show it.

It starts with Kal El's natural birth. It implies he's unique, and Jor El thinks it is important and may save Krypton, but it fails to have any relevance since at the end of the film he's the last of his kind. All it does is create the impression Kal El is destined to be special. One might conclude it explains his powers, but the other Kryptonians also have powers so it's a moot point.

Jonathan Kent is another shortcut. They try to establish that he's a wise father who puts his son on the right path. But at the same time the makers wanted the character to be a bit more ambiguous. The scene where he's talking with Clark after the bus rescue establishes that Clark is destined for greatness, but he's not ready yet. On further examination Jonathan is sending his kid a mixed message. "Some day you'll be a great hero, but for god's sake keep your powers hidden." This is not ambiguous, it's downright cognitive dissonance. Jonathan is implied to be a wise father, but by giving his son mixed messages telling him it's better to let people die than to reveal his secret is not "cleverly nuanced" as some might think, it's downright evil because it arbitrarily denies some people the possibility of Clark helping them until some point where he finally would be allowed to use his powers and do good. And you'd think that after the bus incident Clark grudgingly decides to listen to his wise father, but he simply does the right thing anyway, despite what his father tells him and rescues people on a burning oil rig. It allows us to assume Clark is the good guy and allows us to believe there is some grey area to it as well, but it's all just an impression. From all this can conclude that there is no actual conflict or character development. Clark/Kal acts heroically regardless of what happens, except when the plot demands a dramatic moment, Jonathan's death which serves no real purpose because it leaves no legacy or doesn't seem to have repercussions.

By using shortcuts, Man of Steel allows people to assume a lot more than is actually shown in the film. When people comment about the destruction of Metropolis we often get the answer that rebuilding will be part of the sequel or that it's self-evident that the Man of Steel helps rebuilding the city. That's not how it's supposed to work, as a writer, filmmaker etc you should at least try to tell the whole story and not use tricks to let the audience fill in the blanks for you or simply assume that what you didn't show is purely self-evident. It allows writers to be lazy, cheat or just not care. It allows George Lucas to tell us that "The audience doesn't care about the plot."

One of the better examples is when Lois Lane arrives at the site of the ship. We see the US army is involved, though that is quickly defused by saying she has a court order that allows her to be there. They then warn her it gets bitterly cold and it's dangerous, but she makes it look like a walk in the park. One might assume she's a tough, hardened reporter who grits her teeth and carries on even in dangerous Arctic conditions, but this is exactly what the makers hoped for. Rather than show her actually showing us a tough reporter in action, we just get an outline and are free to use our imagination where the film fails to provide us concrete elements.

There is one more point I'd like to address. When people point out that certain things don't make sense or are badly done there is often a response "But he had no other choice, he had to do this or this is the only way it could have been resolved." Like the shortcuts allow you to make far reaching assumptions, the plot is only the creation of the writer, the entire setup is purely arbitrary, which is not exempt from poorly done contrivances.

I would like to think that just before they started shooting the makers of Man of Steel had a meeting and brainstormed, looking for ideas and some of the things they came up were potentially creative gold, but as they left the meeting they must have said "This film just wrote itself." Thinking that a bunch of ideas were a fully fledged film.

My belief is that you could retain most of the elements and ideas they wanted to introduce into Man of Steel and make a far superior film that doesn't rely on storytelling tricks, but an actual story with real characters, real characterization an interesting plot and good, solid action. But I stand by my view that Man of Steel is less than the sum of its parts.

Here are two links with some more interesting points people make about Man of Steel.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKixEh0541k

#40 Posted by dcdyno (130 posts) - - Show Bio
#41 Posted by Wondershorts (2 posts) - - Show Bio

I hated the MOS as much as Robert Ebert hated the movie North: Roger Ebert Reviews North - YouTube. I thought the costume update was needed, and Cavill looks like Superman, but the final scene with Zod was an abomination to Superman's character as well as lazy writing.

I was worried when they chose Zack Snyder for this. I think he is the Michael Bay of superhero movies who has a complete lack of how to create substance in his characters. His action sequence was so long, it was monotonous, really, how many skyscrapers can Zod and Superman throw each other through?

This movie felt like an assault on my childhood. Superheroes meet to discuss their newest threat: Man of Steel director Zack Snyder!

#42 Edited by Justthatkid (2816 posts) - - Show Bio
#43 Edited by Justthatkid (2816 posts) - - Show Bio
#44 Edited by dcdyno (130 posts) - - Show Bio

@kapitein_zeppos:

because of the Nolan trilogy I feel like it was made to have a sequel. also superman was the only one to develop. and he hardly interacted with anybody. character interaction is great character development. mos>sr

#45 Posted by dcdyno (130 posts) - - Show Bio

I hated the MOS as much as Robert Ebert hated the movie North: Roger Ebert Reviews North - YouTube. I thought the costume update was needed, and Cavill looks like Superman, but the final scene with Zod was an abomination to Superman's character as well as lazy writing.

I was worried when they chose Zack Snyder for this. I think he is the Michael Bay of superhero movies who has a complete lack of how to create substance in his characters. His action sequence was so long, it was monotonous, really, how many skyscrapers can Zod and Superman throw each other through?

This movie felt like an assault on my childhood. Superheroes meet to discuss their newest threat: Man of Steel director Zack Snyder!

the neck snap scene was a wonder woman scene. she broke Maxwell Lord's neck to stop him from controlling superman into killing. I think. it added major development to her character!!!

#46 Posted by jumpstart55 (2267 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked both, but i though Man of Steel delivered more to me as a solid Superhero film. I remember watching Watchmen and becoming so fascinated with the whole realistic take on Superheroes, and i begin making correlations between Doctor Manhattan and Superman and asked myself what would it be like if Superman existed in the real world,So i decided to Watch Superman Returns, and then i thought myself wouldn't it be cool, if the guy directed Watchmen directed a Superman film, and sure enough he did. I knew Zack Snyder was destined to to make an awesome Superman film.

#47 Posted by Wondershorts (2 posts) - - Show Bio

@dcdyno: So why transfer a Wonder Woman plot device onto the MOS? Again, I think that smacks of lazy writing, not to mention a lack of imagination. It's as if Snyder said, "Well, we've tried everything else, let's have him kill the dude. It worked in 300."

Also, the hero community was appalled when WW killed Max.

#48 Edited by SOG7dc (6713 posts) - - Show Bio

See all the complaints about MOS are just looking at things in the most negative light possible. There was characterization but now it's bone headed in your face charcterixation. I could point to almost every other CBM and you'd see the same "cognitive dissonance" and lazy writing? That's just annoying to me. It's a different story than in the comics, a different superman. Think of it as you think of "superman earth one" they can do anything they want in this world. People complain about superman killing but not about batman not being a detective at all in the Nolan films. They don't complain about Thor being afraid of dying from falling out of a plane. They don't complain about spiderman getting struck by a stray bullet. By in large people complaining about MOS are holding it to impossible standards. Was it a perfect movie? Not at all but dis it fail in everything but chi and action? No it did not. But if you look at it through (excuse my language) shit covered goggles (like Stan smith on south park) then of course you see an awful film

#49 Posted by jointron33 (1902 posts) - - Show Bio

Seriously, people say Superman is too perfect, but when they get a green, imperfect Superman, they moan. They talk about the characater's morals on killing, even though he's done it before in comics and film (Superman 2, anyone?) Speaking of morals, the one thing that people hardly every bring up when they critique Singerman Returns was Superman having a bastard child. And yet killing Zod destroys the character? They moan that he kissed Lois during the destruction( a bit rushed, I admit), yet laugh at teh funneh Joss Whedon's shawarma scene in Avengers. Jesus....help me Lord...........

I think I'm catching stupid.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.