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.

 Ahtman wrote:

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?

I'm a support worker for adults in the local community that have learning disabilities or suffer from ongoing medical conditions that require constant monitoring.

As I said due to work and seeing it before for myself I probably wasn't giving it my full attention.

Well having to watch a movie you weren't all that keen on to begin with two more times I imagine not.

I'm keen on certain parts of it and some sequences. Just the complete package disappoints. I still say Zack Snyder needs a second director for any scene involving dialogue.

Thought the movie was going to fall into the usual super hero "Humans are weak and useless" trope and while to some extent it did that Colonel guy made me proud to be a human.

Overall very good,actually got me interested in a superhero I usually avoid like the plague.

I just saw the film tonight, due to assorted busy-ness.

I never really did grow up with comics that weren't Oor Wullie or The Beano, so I've not really got that background.

I don't think I've ever seen any of the Christopher Reave Superman films all the way through. Though I did grow up during the 90's Batman / Batman Animated series era.

My main experience of Superman has been from tvtropes, wikipedia, DCUO, some vague memories of Lois&Clark and most notably the recent (overall EXCELLENT) DC Animated movies.

Overall, I'm feeling fairly conflicted about Man of Steel.

On the one hand, I'm really really glad they got rid of the whole 'will-they, won't-they rubbish' - There was a whole TV show dedicated to that! I've had enough! So that change was welcome. Then again, I also liked the DCAM method of just going, "you know all that stuff already, they're together, lets get on with the plot."

Then again, the fact that every single person in Smallville either had a good guess at, or unless they were idiots figured out the big deal about Clark just seemed rather daft. Some attempts to cover his tracks a little could have been worthwhile. But then, maybe people were fed up of that after Smallville - I dunno, I've only watched an episode of it!

I was kind of disappointed that, if they were rebuilding the Daily Planet, they didn't put the globe up on the roof like in the classic silhouette. - I get the feeling that they'll blow up the building again in film 2 and the globe will finally get up there by film 3.

And finally, I'm really not too pleased with the Zod solution. It feels to me that Superman has lost the moral high ground before he ever gained it. I can't help but think if a third option should have been taken there. - Perhaps, in another callback to earlier, the father sacrificing himself in the beam or maybe someone else finishing Zod, technically taking it out of Supes hands.

I suppose General Sedgwick knowing a lot about Supes identity probably helps things going forward. - He'll probably help run interference in the future and tidy up that whole Smallville incident during the film.

Finally, is John Kent really supposed to constantly die? I thought that was meant to be one of the main differences of Superman to other heroes. He's not supposed to be having the 'refusal of the call' moment, he's not got an 'Uncle Ben' hanging over his head. He's a hero because his ma and pa taught him that he should be and even in his darkest times and deepest doubt, there's his family he can turn to.

I think I'm giving the film 7/10 at the end of the day, with a lot of the DC Animated Movies being significantly better.

I'm remembering a scene in the Superman / Batman Apocalypse film.

Darkseid is being his usual evil self, up to a load of no good. Superman threatens him with blowing up his fortress, dooming a bunch of slaves and all that other stuff. Darkseid laughs him off, knowing he'd never sacrifice them. He's too good.

Supes then replies, "that's why he's holding the trigger."

Cut to shot of Batman.
Darkseid surrenders (and possible need to change his underwear).

 Compel wrote:
And finally, I'm really not too pleased with the Zod solution. It feels to me that Superman has lost the moral high ground before he ever gained it. I can't help but think if a third option should have been taken there. - Perhaps, in another callback to earlier, the father sacrificing himself in the beam or maybe someone else finishing Zod, technically taking it out of Supes hands.

I liked making him choose between taking the moral high ground or save those people's lives. It really humanized him that they didn't take the easy way out.

 Compel wrote:
Finally, is John Kent really supposed to constantly die? I thought that was meant to be one of the main differences of Superman to other heroes. He's not supposed to be having the 'refusal of the call' moment, he's not got an 'Uncle Ben' hanging over his head. He's a hero because his ma and pa taught him that he should be and even in his darkest times and deepest doubt, there's his family he can turn to.

IIRC Jonathan originally died in the comics, the 1980 Superman movie. It was the Byrne revision (post Crisis) that let Jonathan live. Lois & Clark also had him still alive. Smallville had him die. It all depends on which variation the producers want to go with.

I know it's off topic but I thought the Green Arrow was a big deal in the Justice League. Or am I just mixing things up?

The movie was fine. I didn't enjoy it as much as I did the first Batman, Iron Man, or Captain America but I did like it more than Thor (just barely) and the second Hulk. So take from that what you will.

I'd be down for a JL movie if it was well done but I'm a super hero movie fan anyway so it's just another excuse to go to the movies.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I know it's off topic but I thought the Green Arrow was a big deal in the Justice League. Or am I just mixing things up?

Green Arrow was a major character in the Justice League Unlimited animated series (EDIT: His role in this series was to him what the Iron Man films have been to Iron Man, kind of raising the character out of his niche roll to mainstream popularity). Traditionally though I don't think he's commonly associated as being a major leaguer.

Regardless of how she go there so fast after they fell to Earth, I think the moral high point of the movie (for me) was when Clark is nearly crying into Lois' arms after being forced to kill Zod.

Nothing about this movie stops me from seeing this new Superman as the "Boy Scout". Just that a lot of the cornball stuff from other media versions of Superman was removed.

 Breotan wrote:
I liked making him choose between taking the moral high ground or save those people's lives. It really humanized him that they didn't take the easy way out.

Well said. That impressed me, too.

slightly off topic but do they make any non heroclix superman miniatures?

 Alpharius wrote:
I'm not sure we watched the same movie!

I can say the same thing. I saw angst. I saw emo. I saw a dark take on the character. Note the darker colored spandex et. al.

I didn't see him help everyday people as superman. I didn't see him have blind faith (he was told to have it). I didn't see the Boy Scout say the simple, but true cliche phrases. I didn't see the child like wonder and simplistic straight and narrow path.

Different strokes for different folks. But I know what I saw.

You also didn't see the calendar say "1978" either!

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26067.html

Warner Bros. created sermon outlines and other support materials, and invited pastors to early screenings, as one very targeted way of promoting Man of Steel. Among the Superman-themed sermon outlines was a "Father’s Day Conversation Guide," by the American Bible Society, which starts out with the following:

"Round up the kids and take them to see Man of Steel (PG-13). Then use this Conversation Guide to take another look at the movie’s major themes. In the conversation, you will discover new connections to your own life and God’s Word."

Another offering,"Jesus: More than our ‘Super Man’," offers as the "Goals of Meeting," "Kids will better appreciate Jesus and his sacrifice through looking at scripture and the parallels in the Man of Steel movie." And, of course, as "Fellowship," it suggests, "You may consider seeing the film together, or start by watching a trailer."

Outreach to religious audiences is not new. Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was promoted to churches and Christian retailers, with group ticket sales to churches, sermon outlines, marketing materials, and other support all designed to drive interest in the film and ticket sales. The film grossed $370 million domestically, the highest gross ever for an R-rated film.

But promoting a secular movie based on a comic character to a religious audience was a new twist in movie marketing.

Man of Steel passed $210 million in domestic box office last weekend 1(see "Pixar Pic Tops 'Monster' Weekend").

My favourite part of the Bible is when Jesus throws the money lenders out of the temple. Using his super speed.

And then heat visions satan.

I din't think it was a bad film - just not a great one- its a better DC comic film tha I expected - even with Chistopher Nolens involvement..........(which did put me off seeing it)

Some nice moments and lines, but way way too long, dodgy plot and oh wow plot effects overdoes at the detrement of the story.

Problem is I compared it to Iron Man, Avengers and Thor - and its jsut not in their League. (IMO)

 Mr Morden wrote:
I din't think it was a bad film - just not a great one- its a better DC comic film tha I expected - even with Chistopher Nolens involvement..........(which did put me off seeing it)

Some nice moments and lines, but way way too long, dodgy plot and oh wow plot effects overdoes at the detrement of the story.

Problem is I compared it to Iron Man, Avengers and Thor - and its jsut not in their League. (IMO)

I don't know that the movie defines greatness either, but you and I are never going to agree on the details. IMO, Thor was the very definition of paper-thin, and Iron Man an enjoyable but by-the-numbers Hollywood formula film saved by Downey Jr's charm. Avengers was a fun romp, but it certainly wasn't *art* and for whatever reason wasn't help up to the same standards as Man of Steel regarding big issues, morality, etc.

Which makes me think that maybe the Malick-style early trailers were a bit of a mistake. Perhaps it should have been marketed around the action from the beginning. Then again, Batman Begins only scored something like a 70 on Metacritic and there were critics who thought it too dark and joyless. So with MoS recouping its costs on the first weekend, the studio probably isn't sweating the reviews too much and knows that the second film can be even bigger if they get it right, as with The Dark Knight.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I din't think it was a bad film - just not a great one- its a better DC comic film tha I expected - even with Chistopher Nolens involvement..........(which did put me off seeing it)

Some nice moments and lines, but way way too long, dodgy plot and oh wow plot effects overdoes at the detrement of the story.

Problem is I compared it to Iron Man, Avengers and Thor - and its jsut not in their League. (IMO)

I don't know that the movie defines greatness either, but you and I are never going to agree on the details. IMO, Thor was the very definition of paper-thin, and Iron Man an enjoyable but by-the-numbers Hollywood formula film saved by Downey Jr's charm. Avengers was a fun romp, but it certainly wasn't *art* and for whatever reason wasn't help up to the same standards as Man of Steel regarding big issues, morality, etc.

Which makes me think that maybe the Malick-style early trailers were a bit of a mistake. Perhaps it should have been marketed around the action from the beginning. Then again, Batman Begins only scored something like a 70 on Metacritic and there were critics who thought it too dark and joyless. So with MoS recouping its costs on the first weekend, the studio probably isn't sweating the reviews too much and knows that the second film can be even bigger if they get it right, as with The Dark Knight.

I think you are right - we are never going to agree

I found the recent Batman films, turgid, overlong, heartess and effects rather than story driven - fillwed with plot holes and "pretending" to be art to avoid any real critiscism - compared to the first Michael Keaton incarnation - very disapointing. But then I absolutely hated Inception - for much the same reasons.............

I just did not see the moral isues in the Superman film - and was again dispaointed by several missed opportunities - for instance - when asked if he was going to defend the USA - it should have been - NO I am here to defend ALL humanity IMO. The Zod plot was weak - if well executed and amusing that the "selection" system had made Supermans father a super scientist, rich eccentric nobleman and rock hard ninja fighter who defeats all comers................rather than just one of these.

I thought the heart was still in the Avengers and other Marvel films that is / was lacking in the DC films

but as you say - we are not gonig to agree - and thats all good

 kronk wrote:
I liked the recent Star Trek 2 better than Man of Steel.

There were some good moments, and some fine acting, but I felt the movie was OK at best.

Spoiler:

Good: The American Robin Hood's influence on Superman.
The show succeeded in making me empathetic, but not sympathetic, with General Zod. I actually liked this character.

Bad: It looked like the Krypton chapter of the script was written my George Lucas, ala Star Wars prequels. It just had that "WTF?" feel to it. Took me out of the movie, actually.
60 minutes of tearing down 1 building after another. I get it. These guys are bad asses. Do I really need to see 400 buildings get torn down, one by one?

WTF? I thought the sun's radiation gave superman his power, not the air. When he goes on the ship, they explain that the Krypton air made him weak. Also, General Zod and hot alien fighter chick didn't get x-ray vision until they took off their masks, but he had super strength from the get go? I don't get it. Big hole there some where.
Also, they destroyed Zod's ship by getting another one close to it that had a warp engine or whatever they call it. 1. Wouldn't everyone in an advanced space-traveling civilization know not to get two of these ships near one another, ala Space Travel 101: gak Not to Do. 2. Wouldn't they have safe guards like, I don't know, a sensor that says "Hey feth-heads, there's a ship within 10 Krypton miles, veer left" and known there was a baby carrier ship with a warp engine approaching? 3. Why the feth would you not have 20-30 of your advanced fighters protecting your world engine? I dunno. I'm not a military guy, I guess.

Awesome: Supes punching Zod in mid air. That scene was freaking cool. Also, "I was bred to be a soldier. Where did you learn to fight? On a farm?" That was pretty funny.

In contrast I thought ST was warmed over ass and loved Superman #24 or whatever this is. Its the first movie I've seen in a theater this year that I really liked.
*Loved Zod, but love that actor. He's epic in Boardwalk Empire. I liked the Zod background. He's not a bad guy. He's trying to save his race in Mongol style.
*Loved the female second in command. Good writing for her.
*Liked the backstory flashbacks. It kept the film pacing excellent.
*Lois Lane - excellent.
*I liked the backstory of an old Kryptonian empire. Now that would be a nice prequel.
*I joked with the wife that this wasn't Superman. This was "flying, punchy Jesus"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

They didn't need to show that if it was meant to show a starvation death. Even Zod seems to be a little unnerved by it. So I think it's supposed to suggest that something nasty is out there. Brainiac? Tyranids?

Superman vs. Nid Biotitans. YES.

Frazzled liked a movie? That should settle it then, Jesus Superman is best Superman.

Well, as J.R. "Bob" Dobbs teaches us, there are many Jesii. One of them is indeed the Two-Fisted Fightin' Jesus...not to be confused with the Headless Golfer Jesus.

 gorgon wrote:
Well, as J.R. "Bob" Dobbs teaches us, there are many Jesii. One of them is indeed the Two-Fisted Fightin' Jesus...not to be confused with the Headless Golfer Jesus.

Don't forget Motorcycle Maintenance Jesus.

Um.. God sent Jesus to Earth to suffer and die for the sins of humanity. Jor-El sent Kal-El for the opposite reason, to live here in virtual godlike state if immortality to inspire man kind.

Brando played Joe-El as if he was God, and was far more successful in his portrayal than Crow was.

Biblically MoS has more in common with Noah's Ark, as the blood lines are all stored in Kal for the purposes of preserving all of Kryptons people with a fresh start at a new civilization, with a chance to learn from the mistakes the kryptonians made.

The plot hole comes from Supermans inability to procreate with humans unless the movie is going to ignore the comics in that respect.

Thats not a plot hole in the movie. Thats a plothole in comics.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

The plot hole comes from Supermans inability to procreate with humans unless the movie is going to ignore the comics in that respect.

In Superman Annual, Vol1, Iss3, an Armageddon 2001 series, Lois died carrying his child (in a potential "superman future").

Did they take back the possibility of Superman having a kid with a human?

Say...what?

Armageddon 2001 was a dumb event that spanned about a dozen annuals.

It was some futuristic dude that went back in time to figure out who was going to become "Monarch", a super villain that takes over the world and kills the other super heros.

The futuristic dude's power was to be able to touch someone and see a potential future. Every time he touched superman, he saw a different future (i.e., they wanted to sell 3 superman annuals).

Monarch ended up being Hawk, from Hawk and Dove. A totally lame super hero that they just fething offed at the end.

Anyway, one of the "Superman Futures" showed him getting Lois knocked up and she died with the super baby super kicked her and destroyed her innards.

What if super baby takes a super dump? Would Jr. blast himself into orbit? Or would he blow a hole in the earth's crust, causing a volcano and killing tens of thousands of people? Lois don't breast feed that baby!!!

 Frazzled wrote:
What if super baby takes a super dump? Would Jr. blast himself into orbit?

Would the "fix" is to totally avoid sunlight? Baby Superman wouldn't have his powah...right?

They've had a number of "alternate" futures where Lois marries Kal-el and they have a kid. In the one I vaguely remember, they had a daughter.

Also there were the Super-Sons stories (Superman Jr. and Batman Jr.). Those were an alternate reality/dream thing, but then he and Lois weren't married in the current continuity of the time anyway and so it wasn't established that he *couldn't* have children with humans.

It's amazing how easily story/plot holes develop in Man of Steel when you take an incomplete understanding of the character and its full history in comics and other mediums, and then apply them to a reboot film that's really only striving for its own internal consistencies, etc.

FWIW, I believe Siegel and Shuster said the Moses story was more of an inspiration to them than the Christ story. After all, they were Jewish. Of course, Clark is a Moses in reverse -- more-or-less a prince on Krypton but raised by humble farmers on Earth. That aspect is obviously more Christlike.