What did you think of Man of Steel?

[TSCR]

The movie generally got positive reception from the public and not so positive reviews from the critics.

Honestly I agree with the critics. Snyder was too obssessed with the action and thus the characters suffered as a result. However I was arguing with my friend the other day about it. He told me Superman got plenty of development in the film I kept telling him the only development Superman got was his blue suit and other than that he was pretty much the same person at the start and end of the film He still wasn't convinced though.

So what do you guys think? Did you think Man of Steel was well written? Or did you think Donnor and Reeves was way better?

[Gradius]

I think the critics' issues stemmed from the fact that it didn't use the same themes as previous versions, as if they don't understand what a reboot is. :P

Some issues I had were:

1) Zod (a military general) getting owned by weaker opponents, i.e. Jor-el (a scientist) and Clark (a farmboy).
2) Not enough logic provided for why Superman didn't try to take the fight outside the city.
3) The Krypton arc is basically a giant plot hole. Why couldn't they live on other planets again? Zod & Clark adapted just fine to Earth.

I like Cavil, he was awesome in the Tudors. I think Snyder didn't give him much room to flex his emotions. Overall, I liked this version because it was a little darker than the others.

[TheEconomist]

I thought it was a damn good movie. Not Dark Knight good, but still good.

[DemolitionSquid]

I give it a resounding "meh." I had nearly forgotten I had even seen it, and I only watched it about a month ago through torrent.

Also, it's given us Ben Affleck as Batman. So fuck.

[TSCR]

I think the critics' issues stemmed from the fact that it didn't use the same themes as previous versions, as if they don't understand what a reboot is. :P

Really? I thought the main criticism was that there was basically no character development in the film and I agree with that. Character development is when a character learns something and changes after learning it. That barely happens to anyone in Man of Steel.

Take Superman for example. At the start he's helping people and keeping his identity secret. He was going from place to place to discover his origins. After discovering his origins.....................he's helping people and keeping his identity secret. The only difference is now he's not going from here to there but is settling in one place but that's because he's discovered his origins. But still nothing happens after he discovers his origins. He pretty much gets a blue suit and that's it. How does he learn anything?

That's why I find the story to lack direction and the characters to just being saying stuff for the sake of saying stuff.

Take John Kent for example. His philosophy of the world not being ready for Superman but one day it will be is vague and makes no sense when you consider the events of the film. By the end of the film Superman says that the day where the world needs him will come. By that time he had defeated Zod and saved mankind from him thanks to his superhero powers..............but he was doing that already. Ever since he was a kid, he was helping people with his super powers when they were in danger in which normally any other human would die in. Plus people who he helped with his powers, accepted him (remember the bully who became his friend after he saved him drowning?). So my question is what on earth did John's philosophy mean? Nothing changed with Zod's invasion other than it being on a larger scale. Even before Zod invaded it was shown countless times that Superman's powers were needed to save people from the direst situations. Besides there was no reason for him to even know about Zod's invasion so really John's philosophy seems to have been poorly written.

The other problem I have is John's death which is even more ridiculously written. The problem with it is that it makes Superman look inhumane. A human wouldn't just stand there and watch his foster father die even if he told him to do so. A human would run out and try to save him no matter what. Nobody can possibly hold Superman back. It makes no sense that Clark just stood there and watched John get swept away by the tornado.

Above all this, the movie is incredibly inconsistent. Sometimes it does something amazing only to do something illogical. Like th idea of adjusting to the atmosphere was cool but the idea of Superman somehow learnin how to magically use his powers was bad. In the original Superman had access to the fortress of solitude where he learnt to use his powers. However in Man of Steel, he somehow knew how to use heat vision before he even accessed the ship. That's illogical because kryptonians only get all those extra powers when they live under the Earth's Sun. How did Clark learn to use all his abilities all by himself?

So yeah I agree wit hthe critics. Donnor and Reeves was actually way better because they gave Superman an arc and portrayed him as a human. Superman has to struggle with his responsibility as Superman as well as his desire to be with Lois. He needs to learn that he can't just have a normal life if he has to be Superman.

[Gradius]

John's death was incredibly nonsensical. Superman ended up "revealing" himself to the world in the end anyway. That scene tugged at the ol' heartstrings, but was pointless. But yeah, no character development (not that I mind in a superhero flick), and Superman had the emotions of a stone (either way, he's a highly generic good guy in the comics anyway, so whatever).

In the original Superman had access to the fortress of solitude where he learnt to use his powers. However in Man of Steel, he somehow knew how to use heat vision before he even accessed the ship. That's illogical because kryptonians only get all those extra powers when they live under the Earth's Sun. How did Clark learn to use all his abilities all by himself?

It was explained in the flashback when he was at school. He had to learn how to focus his powers, and I'm sure it wasn't easy. It came easier for Zod though because he's a warrior.

[TheEconomist]

Do we really need the story of Superman retold to us for the seven thousandth time or do we want some badass effects and action?

I could recite the Superman story like scripture. I'm glad it wasn't the focus in the movie. If it focused on the less known parts of Superman's history, I could understand, but, even my mom and dad knew this part of the story, despite the minor changes, and they know nothing about anything.

[DemolitionSquid]

I hate Superman. Figured I might as well put that out there. Superman is the worst superhero. You can all laugh at Squirrel Girl, or Cypher, or Aquaman. But deep down you know Superman is fucking stupid.

[TheEconomist]

Depends on how dark the particular story arch is. If its saturday morning cartoon stuff, yeah, awful. If it some of the darker stuff, then I usually enjoy it.

I loved Smallville though.

[Gradius]

Anybody here watch/play Injustice: Gods Among Us. It had a pretty decent depiction of evil superman.