The Man of Steel Thread

[Cyko]

Anyone interested in the movie? I expected a thread about the film. Supes was the only comic hero I was interested in, since I was a kid.

[The Jay]

I'll see the movie and I hope that it is as good as they are hyping it up to be.

[Sasha]

I like zack snyder a lot as a director but I think it will fall short of the batman movies... I'm more exited about pacific rim...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Meh, I really don't like Zack Snyder and I thought the action set-pieces as well as some of the performances in the Batman movies were excellent, but I also thought they were over-hyped and not much different in content than "the Avengers" or "Spiderman", just darker in tone. THe first one was good, the second was good if Ledger was on screen and the third one was just a mess.

I don't really have much interest in seeing this movie because of some of these factors and I also don't really have much interest in a brooding Superman. I loved the Donner movies when I was a kid, but I never read the comics much - loved Spiderman and the X-men comics though. Recently I read a Superman for all Seasons and All Star Superman which were terrific. I kind of like the super-strong but super-nieve take on Superman - it's a nice way to synthesize some of the inhernet silly Americana baggage of the character without going the cynical or yuppie-superman route.

Also Amy Adams seems like a bad choice. I'd see Michael Shannon yell (or mumble akwardly) at anything though... I kinda wish that Superman was facing off against a super-mean racist sorority girl:

dngOH9G4UPw
^You've probably seen this already.

In other words, I might still go see it just for the hell of it but I don't have very high expectations.

[Lina]

The movies was watched by me last night.Believe me the movie was really nice and most entertaining. If you have not watched then watch it now.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

It was ok...last third was quite dull (two invincible guys htting eachother over and over and demolishing a city in the process). Liked Costner and Crowe's turns as the dads.

[MarxSchmarx]

Silly me, and here I thought I'd come across another Stalin biography by this title.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Silly me, and here I thought I'd come across another Stalin biography by this title.

Ha ha same here.

[Einkarl]

Probably the worst movie I've seen in the last couple of years. The words "hammy" and "dull" c
come to mind

[CryingWolf]

Terrible. Don't bother.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I really liked Shannon as Zod, I thought he was brilliant for the role. But, yeah, overall the film suffered from the same issues as Dark Knight Rises. It's basically a collection of scenes loosely tied together by a theme and some music rather than a film.

Also didn't understanding why the Kryptonians didn't just terraform Mars.

[Zukunftsmusik]

judging from Watchmen or - even worse - Suckerpunch (haven't seen 300), I think it will suck. Either way, I won't watch it, I've always found Superman the most boring super hero, for some reason

EDIT: I also don't see the point of making another Superman film. Wasn't there a trilogy out just a few years ago? Which also was somewhere between bad and just ok? What's the point of making another "just ok" Superman-film?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Ha ha same here.

someone should replace Superman with Stalin in the movie poster me thinks.

[RadioRaheem84]

Man of Steel is the worst move of the year. I have to say it was abysmal. The editing was sloppy and the pacing was weird. Superman barely spoke in the movie and there was no chemistry between him and Lois. The fight scenes were a CGI nightmare, they literally looked like a video game.

It was also hammy, long winded and featured tons of reactionary allusions to religion, militarism and nationalism.

What else can you expect from writer David Goyer?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

*Warning, rant and spoilers incoming*

I went to it last night. God, it was awful. Man of steel likes to talk about the idea of superman, not superman himself. There was zero dialogue in this, and I'm not even exaggerating. All the supposed dialogue were in fact motivational speeches about what it means to be superman, but it had no character development. Superman didn't learn anything from the speeches, he just went his own way.
The actors were bland. The story flawed and forgettable and in general it was just painful to watch.
It tried to be dark like Batman begins but in fact it wasn't, since making the video less bright doesn't make it dark, since there was no story.
I didn't feel for the characters since they weren't developed because there was next to none dialogue.

The actions scenes were nice, if I were able to see them because there was horrible shaky cam, and even in the intro were some ridiculously overdressed senators are talking the camera is shaking like crazy, almost making me puke.
All the women in this movie were basically left out and the ones that were there could've been written out of the story without it losing any value. The so-called romantic love interest Lois Lane ends in a kiss at the ending but just left me wondering if superman and Lois had a thing going on. There was no romantic development since there was no dialogue. Except for them looking each other deeply in the eyes I saw no reason for them to end up kissing at the end. It felt to me like it was just because they are Lois Lane and Superman so they have to kiss, regardless of them not having any romantic relationship at all.
The ending was an extreme let-down. Well, Zod tries to kill some people with laser-eyes while superman holds him in a position he can't ever get out. In the end Superman snaps the guy's neck and screams. Why? I don't know, there was no "superman doesn't kill"-story going on like with Batman. It could've worked because it would be interesting to see how a superhero comes to deal with situations where he has to kill sometimes, but with such sloppy writing of course that doesn't happen. Superman is sad, they cut to a satellite exploding and never talk about it again.

They hammered some kind of "he is jesus"-bullshit in there. Which I found really obnoxious and cheap. Especially cause if you have a huge glass artwork of Jesus behind him when he's in a church. There are very little similarities between him and Jesus too. He has more of a story like Mozes being send to another place in a basket, and eventually leading the world, or jewish people, to a better place. That mixed with some greek-ish mythology, not Jesus. He had nothing in common with that.
There are more issues like the whole father sub-plot but that is not even worth any words.

This movie was made for the 14 year old transformers-crowd, not for people who want to see an intelligent movie like the new batman trilogy, even though they have tried to hint at it being such a movie, with Nolan being the writer and all. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except people who like mindless action scenes, which you can't actually see.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's this writer David Goyer that ticks me off. He is a frank miller loving libertarian nut or something. He co wrote the reactionary Dark Knight Rises and the Call of Duty three featuring a left wing terrorist. Now Man of Steel features a Christ like pro military pro American Superman. Jor-el talks a lot about "choice" in the libertarian way when talking a rebellion leader down. There are always allusions in David Goyers stuff about no matter how corrupt and vile our situation is its better than the people who might rebel against it.

[Red Commissar]

EDIT: I also don't see the point of making another Superman film. Wasn't there a trilogy out just a few years ago? Which also was somewhere between bad and just ok? What's the point of making another "just ok" Superman-film?

The last Superman trilogy was from the 70s and 80s, which was a series of four movies. There was a "Superman Returns" movie which was released back in 2006 which was tied in with the old series but didn't make the money the studio wanted as well as having pretty mediocre reception. Warner Bros. wanted another franchise to ride off after Batman and Superman was the logical choice after Green Lantern bombed. The reason to reboot this was much the same reason for Marvel having to reboot the Hulk or having another Punisher movie- they thought they could actually make one with staying power.

Judging from the lukewarm reception to this one their plans to build up to a "Justice League" movie to compete with the Avengers might be slowed down. It seems they are going ahead with a sequel to this movie with pretty much the same crew, and Goyer'll also be involved in the Justice League movie.

[Q]

I share this guy's review (spoilers ahead!):

uVR1ozVnUSM

[Ace High]

I saw it, here were my issues. Slight spoiler alerts, not too crazy though.

First of all, Amy Adams is an awesome actress, very good looking too, but she was not at all the right person to play Lois Lane. Terrible role for her, it didn't fit. Henry Cavill was great fro Superman, perfect really. The problem is, they started him and the movie off great at the beginning. I loved the scene at the beginning on Krypton. Awesome. I also loved the first parts of the movie where he saved the oil rig ect, ect. Then it just got terrible. I mean who was the actor that played Zod? I think he slept through one too many acting classes. Christopher Nolan did perfectly on the Batman trilogy but it sucks that he produced this sub-par film. I did like Snyder's 300 and Watchmen. I think Watchmen was him.

Lol didn't mean to bash the film, just my personal review :)

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I share this guy's review (spoilers ahead!):

uVR1ozVnUSM

This guy, and you too because of sharing the "opinion, is insane.
And he says "cool" too much. Which leads me too believe he is not that good of a reviewer, more a 14-year old that likes explosions.

[Fourth Internationalist]

This guy, and you too because of sharing the "opinion, is insane.
And he says "cool" too much. Which leads me too believe he is not that good of a reviewer, more a 14-year old that likes explosions.

Not all 14 year olds love explosions!

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Not all 14 year olds love explosions!

No but I meant the crow movies like transformers are aimed at, 14 year old boys who do love explosions. Of course there are probably some 14-year old boys out there who do have taste, but I mean't the more "mainstream" audience.

[Comrade #138672]

Why is there so much ageism on this forum? It's not very inviting for the new socialist generation.

Of course, young people have much to learn and the like, but we don't have to keep bashing them for it.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why is there so much ageism on this forum? It's not very inviting for the new socialist generation.

Of course, young people have much to learn and the like, but we don't have to keep bashing them for it.

I don't think you know what ageism means.
I did not discriminate against people of a younger age, I said that was the crowd these movies are marketed for.

[connoros]

Imagine my disappointment when I finally realized I'd just bought a ticket for a Superman movie. Anyway, I think this director would've done a better job of adapting Dragonball to the American big screen than what we saw with Evolution. At least that story is entertainingly convoluted and idiotic.

[TheEmancipator]

Imagine my disappointment when I finally realized I'd just bought a ticket for a Superman movie. Anyway, I think this director would've done a better job of adapting Dragonball to the American big screen than what we saw with Evolution. At least that story is entertainingly convoluted and idiotic.

You expected a Stalin biopic from Hollywood, didn't you? Would you enjoy seeing a moustachioed monster eating babies for breakfast?

[connoros]

Would you enjoy seeing a moustachioed monster eating babies for breakfast?

I would pay so much money to see that movie.

[Q]

What did bug me about the plot is how the Kryptonian invaders choose Earth of all places (and of course downtown USA) as their spot to start a terraforming process (or kryptoforming process, as the case may be). Why? Just to teach Kal-El a lesson? Why put the whole legacy of Krypton at stake for such petty reasons? They could have taken Venus as a spot, somewhat of a "hot summer beach" for Kryptonians, and nobody would care.

Sigh.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What did bug me about the plot is how the Kryptonian invaders choose Earth of all places (and of course downtown USA) as their spot to start a terraforming process (or kryptoforming process, as the case may be). Why? Just to teach Kal-El a lesson? Why put the whole legacy of Krypton at stake for such petty reasons? They could have taken Venus as a spot, somewhat of a "hot summer beach" for Kryptonians, and nobody would care.

Sigh.

Superman had the codex needed, well they thought he had it, well anyways jt was on earth.
Remember they did still see Superman as a potential ally in building the new Krypton and he wouldn't leave.

[Il Medico]

... features a Christ like pro military pro American Superman.
Or in other words, Superman.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Or in other words, Superman.

Not really. I find Superman reallu uncomparable to Jesus.
Superman's background story is closer to Moses mixed with some Greek mythology.

I find the recent trend of overly use of shameless Jesus-imagery in superhero-movies really annoying.

[Jimmie Higgins]

EDIT: I also don't see the point of making another Superman film. Wasn't there a trilogy out just a few years ago? Which also was somewhere between bad and just ok? What's the point of making another "just ok" Superman-film?
Literally they made this movie with a deadline because if they didn't use their rights to it, it would "open up" again; go back to DC comics to re-sell or something. Actually I think the movie rights would have gone back to the estates of the comic creators... I wish there was some kind of information network with search engines where I could find out for sure...:lol:


Not really. I find Superman reallu uncomparable to Jesus.
Superman's background story is closer to Moses mixed with some Greek mythology.

I find the recent trend of overly use of shameless Jesus-imagery in superhero-movies really annoying.

There's a lot of writing out there in the ether about connecting Superman to the US working class jewish immigrant experience. But all these mythologies kinda get mixed up anyway - Jesus stories have some greek mythology in them (or at least mediterranian sun-cult mythology) and superheroes are basically like greek demi-gods (and some are actually gods in the comics).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I saw a bootleg version - the sound was a little messed up but the picture wasn't bad. I was very underwhelmed and... for fuck's sake, an origin story? The first Balebatman movie was at least an unfilmed version of an origin story, but really Superman doesn't need or lend itself to an origin story. ("We're going to make Superman relevant to a new generation... by having him grow up on a family farm just like .003% of the US population!"). Not to mention that an hour of backstory in the movie was basically already summed up in the trailers.

I actually thought Amy Adam's was believable as a reporter... maybe not Lois Lane, but a reporter. I think the movie would have been more interesting if they just started with her and she's investigating urban legends of a super-strong farm kid and we meet Superman through her eyes, rather than through 50 minutes of exposition.

Shannon ate some massive scenery, but like Cumberbach in Star Trek, there was noting inherently compelling about his villian... the over-acting (enjoyable over-acting) was just to cover for an absense of real drama.

Stuff happened... I was bored and not trilled by all the FX I was supposed to be thrilled by.

I have to say that I enjoyed the last Superman re-boot effort. I didn't think it was great, I thought there were problems with most aspects (it really drags at the end and Lex Luthor was uninteresting which is a major crime IMO) other than the nostaligia for the originals and the main actor's Christopher Reeve impression. But I thought the first set-piece was unusually and actually tense and awe-inspiring and even though it got tedius, I felt like I had watched a movie, not a really long trailer.

Gene Hackman is great as a comic Lex Luthor, I'd love to see a Lex Luthor who's a "respectable" businessman though (rather than an obvious supervillian or a Hackmanesque con-man). There's something amazingly subversive about a story of a man from another planet who has unlimited god-like powers... and yet is matched by a mere mortal who happens to have millions of dollars... being rich in our society is the equvilant of being a powerful god-like alien.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I saw a bootleg version - the sound was a little messed up but the picture wasn't bad. I was very underwhelmed and... for fuck's sake, an origin story? The first Balebatman movie was at least an unfilmed version of an origin story, but really Superman doesn't need or lend itself to an origin story. ("We're going to make Superman relevant to a new generation... by having him grow up on a family farm just like .003% of the US population!"). Not to mention that an hour of backstory in the movie was basically already summed up in the trailers.

I actually thought Amy Adam's was believable as a reporter... maybe not Lois Lane, but a reporter. I think the movie would have been more interesting if they just started with her and she's investigating urban legends of a super-strong farm kid and we meet Superman through her eyes, rather than through 50 minutes of exposition.

Shannon ate some massive scenery, but like Cumberbach in Star Trek, there was noting inherently compelling about his villian... the over-acting (enjoyable over-acting) was just to cover for an absense of real drama.

Stuff happened... I was bored and not trilled by all the FX I was supposed to be thrilled by.

I have to say that I enjoyed the last Superman re-boot effort. I didn't think it was great, I thought there were problems with most aspects (it really drags at the end and Lex Luthor was uninteresting which is a major crime IMO) other than the nostaligia for the originals and the main actor's Christopher Reeve impression. But I thought the first set-piece was unusually and actually tense and awe-inspiring and even though it got tedius, I felt like I had watched a movie, not a really long trailer.

Gene Hackman is great as a comic Lex Luthor, I'd love to see a Lex Luthor who's a "respectable" businessman though (rather than an obvious supervillian or a Hackmanesque con-man). There's something amazingly subversive about a story of a man from another planet who has unlimited god-like powers... and yet is matched by a mere mortal who happens to have millions of dollars... being rich in our society is the equvilant of being a powerful god-like alien.

With all its major flaws the 2006 film did one thing so much better and that was portraying the struggle of being a superhero.
In this movie it had a lot of stuff about him hearing everything, but you didn't feel for him regardless of that.

In the 2006 movie they did that almost perfectly with some simple dialogue, something which this god-awful movie lacks, that tells us everything:


Superman: Listen; what do you hear?
Lois Lane: Nothing.
Superman: I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one.


It was a flawed movie but dialogue like that I really liked.
Man of steel talks more about superman and talks more about the struggles then actually showing it and when it does it is half-assed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lazer eyes. That's one thing this movie did well.

Also, when the bad Kryptonians appear, they say that they've been traveling for like 30 years... but it doesn't seem like they had much of a plan when they got there except to ask for Superman to be turned over. Everything after that seemed like they were improvising. It was much more fun in Superman II to see these space-thugs land on earth and begin to realize that they were 100X stronger than everyone else. Also no 2-D prison? WTF... that would have been ironically awesome in a 3-D movie.