Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
I've been listening to the Man of Steel soundtrack for the past few days and I like it a lot. I love the John Williams theme (those three notes fairly cry out "SU-per-MAN") but it would not have worked in this kind of film. Zimmer's MoS score is still pretty percusion heavy but it's slightly more melodic than the Nolan Batman scores.

I'm listening to it right now. I think it shows a gentler, more melodic Zimmer.

Like with just about everything from the 1978 film, the Williams score was a classic in its day, but it's time to move on. It's been 35 years. R.I.P.

Funny enough, a lot of the tracks from that score would make excellent ambient music for playing 40k.

Saw this tonight. It got mixed reviews but I liked it just fine, certainly more than World War Z. Coming from someone who doesn't especially like the Superman character, I'd recommend it nonetheless - it actually made me sort of like him more.

I agree killing Zod was the only way the film could end. I remember thinking about 20 minutes beforehand that this can only end with Supes killing him. I was fine with it.

I think allot of the negativity has come from people who are only really familiar with the Christopher Reeve movies which as great as they were, really were products of their time. It's broadly the equivalent of watching the Christopher Nolan Batman movies if your only previous knowledge of Batman came from the Adam West TV series. Needless to say the character will be almost unrecognizable and you probably won’t enjoy it.

Not a perfect movie and there where things that bugged me. Lois figuring out who Clark Kent is so easily disappointed me, especially as if she can do it then what exactly is to stop the US military from tracing his steps the same way? They after all already know that he comes from Kansas which gives them a head start. If they have any satellite footage of Zod’s ship landing at the Kent’s farm then the games up for Clark.

But overall I really enjoyed it and will probably go back for a 2nd viewing some point soon.

I'm going to go back for a second viewing soon also. I suspect I'll like it even more.

I never would have suspected that this film would get such different, strong reactions, but in retrospect any serious, thorough reboot was probably going to do that. It's also worth keeping in mind that Batman Begins scored something like a 70 on Metacritic...good but not great and some of the complaints were about it being too dark, etc. It'd be interesting to see how the same critics would rate it now knowing where the series went (although obviously their role is to review movies as self-contained things). As we've discussed, some of the stuff that people are complaining about -- consequences, etc. -- may be a primary subject of the sequel.

Here's an interesting podcast about the film. One critic hates it, the other likes it, and they get into it pretty good.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/06/18/man-of-steel-ending-jesus-exegesis/#more-255502

where's the Kneel, where's the Zod?!
Because of that lack, and the absence of the classic theme, I have no interest in seeing the movie

OK?

You're missing out though...

CGI doesn''t impress me, in the slightest, I donno what else this movie offers besides a bunch of CGI effects

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
CGI doesn''t impress me, in the slightest, I donno what else this movie offers besides a bunch of CGI effects

That could be said of any movie with CGI that you haven't seen.

And while I really like Superman and Superman II, they're also a bit dated and somewhat silly too - though certainly still enjoyable!

I liked "Superman" for its origin story mostly - it was well done, IIRC!

I really liked the movie. There were only a few things that were a bit off.

I disliked how Lois figured out Clark was Supes in about a minute of screentime.

They also kind of fell into the Dragonball Z problem. When you have beings of such immense power fighting each other you can quickly lose all dramatic tension as nothing does enough damage to be a true threat.

I think it might have worked better if the fight in Smallville had ended up having some civilian collateral damage. Especially as Clark would most likely have known some of them.

This would have been an opportunity to have him realize the consequences of using his power recklessly.

It also would have allowed them to add some depth to the final showdown with Zod. There could have been sequences where Superman saved civialians mid fight allowing Zod a chance to land unanswered blows, this would have helped build to the final resolution of the fight.

 Eldarain wrote:
I disliked how Lois figured out Clark was Supes in about a minute of screentime.

My guess is that they don't want the films to be about their romance or the whole rigamorole of him going to lengths to hide his secret from her. They are just getting rid of all that in one fell swoop.

 Eldarain wrote:
There could have been sequences where Superman saved civialians mid fight allowing Zod a chance to land unanswered blows, this would have helped build to the final resolution of the fight.

Zod didn't seem to want to fight like that. Superman saves one person to turn around and see Zod has killed 40 others. He wasn't some ineffectual villain there to steal Hostess Fruit Pies , he came to play.

 Alpharius wrote:
And while I really like Superman and Superman II, they're also a bit dated and somewhat silly too - though certainly still enjoyable!

I liked "Superman" for its origin story mostly - it was well done, IIRC!

Yep, nostalgia tends to have rose colored glasses.

Awhile ago, I went back to watch Quantum Leap after all these years---which turned into inward groaning after a few "Oh boys".

Agreed. Quantum Leap is horrible.

Yeah but the new Star Trek Films still make old Star Trek look so much better.

Man of Steel in my opinion is suffering from what the Raimey Spider-Man, Abrams Trek, and the X-men films suffered from. The need to appeal to non-fans of the source material. When after films like, Watchmen, Sin City, 300, Batman Begins, Amazing Spider-Man etc.have proven that you can produce a film that holds very true to the source material that will still appeal to the wider audience.

 Ahtman wrote:

Zod didn't seem to want to fight like that. Superman saves one person to turn around and see Zod has killed 40 others. He wasn't some ineffectual villain there to steal Hostess Fruit Pies , he came to play.

Ha - nice one there!

A good old school comic book ad shout out!

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Man of Steel in my opinion is suffering from [...] [t]he need to appeal to non-fans of the source material. When after films like ... Batman Begins ... have proven that you can produce a film that holds very true to the source material that will still appeal to the wider audience.

That's a very strange view of things.

For my part, as a big fan of both characters and someone picking up all their monthly titles, Man of Steel is very true to the source material whereas Batman Begins was much more the product of what was current in film. Indeed, I would say a big part of Man of Steel is getting past the event horizon of Nolan's take on Batman. Man of Steel is incalcuably more comfortable with its comic book roots than Batman Begins. (Just ask R'as al'Ghul!)

 Eldarain wrote:
This would have been an opportunity to have him realize the consequences of using his power recklessly.

The movie deals with that elsewhere and much better than as an incident to a fight scene.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
CGI doesn''t impress me, in the slightest, I donno what else this movie offers besides a bunch of CGI effects

You should check out a movie called "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace."

Christopher Reeve? CHECK
Gene Hackman? CHECK
No CGI? CHECK
DUH-DUHDUH-DUH-DUH? CHECK

I think it meets all your criteria.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
There could have been sequences where Superman saved civialians mid fight allowing Zod a chance to land unanswered blows, this would have helped build to the final resolution of the fight.

Zod didn't seem to want to fight like that. Superman saves one person to turn around and see Zod has killed 40 others. He wasn't some ineffectual villain there to steal Hostess Fruit Pies , he came to play.

I see the 'civilian casualty' complaint brought up a lot. I guess this line of thinking somehow applies to MoS and not to 100 other action films because in some incarnations/appearances, Superman's been able to fight bad guys while preventing loss of property or life, etc. And to be fair, the character has often "super-powered" away problems and situations throughout his history. A Silver Age Superman or a Christopher Reeve Superman might have used his super-breath to create a reflective ice wall to bounce Zod's heat vision harmlessly away from the endangered family at the climax of the film. Or perhaps turned the world back in time as in the 1978 film. People are used to it. But that doesn't mean it's not terrible writing.

This just isn't that kind of Superman or kind of Superman story. Two super-powered beings running amok in Metropolis has consequences, and realistically in any brawl between two people, there aren't time outs to help old ladies across the street. I think perhaps the film needed 30 seconds after Zod's death to address the aftermath/loss of life/etc. as Avengers did. But that's in nitpick territory and not a fatal flaw.

More and more I feel like Zod's death was a kind of exclamation point on the "new Superman" thing. Not because he's some kind of dark avenger in this version, but because this Superman is realistically going to have to deal with tough decisions and situations that he can't super-power away. And I still think a lot of this stuff is setting up the sequel.

As multiple people have said here, how well does this film pave the way for Lex Luthor to become the savior of Metropolis in the months afterward and the prosecutor for humanity's case against Superman? While the government and military may have warmed up to him somewhat, the public is liable to be even less enthusiastic about what happened in Metropolis and who led the alien invasion to Earth in the first place.

On a side note, I was glad for the absence of super-breath. IMO it's his cheesiest power. Super-breath belongs in the trash can with super-ventriloquism. IMO.

 Alpharius wrote:
And while I really like Superman and Superman II, they're also a bit dated and somewhat silly too - though certainly still enjoyable!

"Bad vibrations?"

I saw Superman in a theater with my dad in the summer of 1978. Thirty-five years later, it's a good memory, but I'm over the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Man of Steel in my opinion is suffering from [...] [t]he need to appeal to non-fans of the source material. When after films like ... Batman Begins ... have proven that you can produce a film that holds very true to the source material that will still appeal to the wider audience.

That's a very strange view of things.

For my part, as a big fan of both characters and someone picking up all their monthly titles, Man of Steel is very true to the source material whereas Batman Begins was much more the product of what was current in film. Indeed, I would say a big part of Man of Steel is getting past the event horizon of Nolan's take on Batman. Man of Steel is incalcuably more comfortable with its comic book roots than Batman Begins. (Just ask R'as al'Ghul!)

It's amazing how many little references and Easter eggs are in the movie. MoS may or may not launch a unified DC movie universe, but they definitely started laying some groundwork.

I thought the movie was just ok. I didn't know what bothered me about it at first, but I rewatched Superman Returns a few days ago and I figured it out.

I don't need another brooding, dark, emo superhereo. Batman gave us that and now they tried to do the same thing with Superman. Superman should be pure, boyscout pure. Idealistic and clean. He should represent the idealistic view of life in 1950's America. IMO this would make him the perfect foil for Batman and in a Justice League setting they would be at ends of the emotional spectrum.

As it is now with MOS, Batman and Superman are the same emotional characters. I suspect Lex will have Lois tied up in a warehouse with barrels of gasoline in the sequel. It seems they remade Batman Begins as Man of Steel and just changed the names and powers of the characters. Somebody needs to be the optimistic do-gooder in the group. It had been Superman in the past, just not anymore.

I'm not sure we watched the same movie!

Superman is all of those things - and I didn't get a sense that they Batman-ed up Superman.

Even him killing Zod has been done before...

I think we'll be OK, and that Superman will be the perfect foil for Batman...IF there ever is a Justice League movie!

@DarthDiggler: It's hard to believe you actually watched the movie. Or even the trailers.

In Man of Steel, Superman is a herald of moral clarity who arises in a morally ambigious world. He is shown to trust in the basic decency of people. He is shown to love humanity despite a childhood of being bullied, feeling alone, having folks suspect him and accuse him of being strange. As per Jor-El's voiceover, he is depicted as giving the people an ideal to strive for.

*shrug* If he doesn't like the film, he doesn't like the film. There are plenty of others who don't.

However, I think a problem word in the post -- and I see/hear this same word from some critics -- is "should." ("Would" is also in the same category.) The character has been around for more than 70 years and he's been somewhat different things at different times. And meant different things to different people. If I like the early Superman who jumped not flew, fought Nazis, and threw people out high-rise windows without conscience, does that mean that this film "should" deliver that?

As they discussed in that podcast, you can't say that the Clark Kent in Man of Steel has a "code against killing." Jonathan never instructs him on that in the film. The character in the film never proclaims to have one. The character has had something like that in the past in some mediums and incarnations, but then the character has also killed in some incarnations when necessary.

It's probably fairer and more accurate to say that "Superman means X to me and this film didn't deliver that." Which again is a valid personal opinion.

I didn't criticize anybody ITT for not liking the movie. To quote myself from earlier:

 Manchu wrote:
That's all on the screen, no homework required. If you didn't get it, I don't know what to say. I mean, you're not required to like it but it's all there.

I've seen it a further two times now with work, so admittedly I was switched off, but it still feels a bit meh to me. Hope the next one is more up my street.

Zond wrote:
I've seen it a further two times now

The food was terrible and such small portions. - Woody Allen

Nothing like a lack of context to justify a witty quip.

Zond wrote:
Nothing like a lack of context to justify a witty quip.

Any excuse works, really.

Having worked at a theater before you don't have to watch anything shown there, so seeing it at work doesn't really change that you still watched it three times while saying how you didn't care for it. Of course you could also be saying you just caught bits and pieces as you were working and have turned that into the same thing as sitting through the entire movie while giving your full attention, which it really isn't.

I don't work at a cinema. Interesting nonetheless as I always assumed the attendant sat through the entire showing.

Zond wrote:
I don't work at a cinema. Interesting nonetheless as I always assumed the attendant sat through the entire showing.

After I wrote I realized you didn't say that, so then the question is what were you doing that forced you to watch the movie two more times?

Maybe he has to babysit teenagers or something.