Whitty Hutton
these posters are TRASH
How you know what my conversations with people about their dislikes of the movie involved? Get out of here
Watching Man Of Steele high brehs!!!!!!!
- Thread starter The_King_of_Everything
- Start date
KevCo
Bond's gun spoke once....
Yea i see your point, I just think its unfair to compare TDK to this, as its the relaunching of the franchise. (As BB was) to my knowledge there are still two more planned MOS movies, so well see. I myself enjoyed the movie alot, but I also am not a huge superman fan. My best friend on the otherhand is, and was pretty underwhelmed by the movie. Its really quite strange how split people seem to be about this movie.
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
Great movie. Only hate it gets is on the internet. cry baby fans think he should have talked it out with Zod instead of kill himor have the retarded debate about Metropolis destruction like its a real place
Isn't is suppose to be a real place in the film? Keep moving goal post for that shyt.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
At least they bothered trying to save people.
oh and
http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/man_of_...perman_and_zods_fight_cost_metropolis-2013-06
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
So I take it you didn't watch Man of Steel then where Superman saves people throughout the entire movie
Y'all are dumb as fukk lol
Used to feel the same way you did until I watched Justice League and JLU again and realized he's a really dope character. The idea of a guy who's not perfect, but has the power of a god, and the nobility of one while having to push back his urges to be less than ideal and carrying around the weight of the world on his shoulders, sometimes literally, is very compelling when done right. The episode with him dealing with that jealousy he feels for Shazam or the philosophical clashes he and batman have, or just his absolute distrust of lex luthor really show that he constantly has to fight to be the thing humanity aspires to
o and that actually makes him very human. He's very conflicted internally but he can't show it because he's not allowed to.
Last edited:
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
So I take it you didn't watch Man of Steel then where Superman saves people throughout the entire movie
Y'all are dumb as fukk lol
No nikka, hold that L. Superman Begins wasn't the real superman but keep telling yalself that.
Dude got most of a city killed.
Meanwhile The Avengers battled an army of robots and saved an entire city. Sounds like real superhero shyt.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
Superman saves people. That’s his main job. He’s not a crime fighter like Batman. He’s the guy who plugs up exploding volcanoes, who rescues crashing jets, who plucks kittens from trees. To some extent all superheroes do that sort of stuff but for Superman that’s the whole job. Yeah, he sometimes butts up against the criminals in Intergang and he sometimes has to take down archfoe Lex Luthor or stop an invasion by Brainiac, but left to his own devices Superman is first and foremost a protector.
That’s an important thing to keep in mind when we’re talking about the havoc wreaked during the course of Man of Steel. In our modern era of reboots and remakes and hip new reimaginings I’ve thought a lot about what makes a character the same character, about how many ways you can change Captain James T Kirk until he’s no longer the same character. I understand that it’s 2013 and there are elements of the Superman mythos that need to be updated and brought into the modern world, that some characters reflect outdated, almost century old mores and gender norms. But there are some things about Superman that are so vital, so central to the what sets him apart from other superheroes, that to change them is to alter utterly the character, rendering him Superman no more. And one of those things - maybe the ultimate central thing that makes Superman who he is - is his status as a protector.
To Man of Steel’s credit the movie gets that aspect of him right a lot. I wasn’t fully sold on Superman’s first costumed appearance being a scene where he is surrendering to the authorities, but in many ways that’s a great way to show him as protector. He is laying himself down for Zod so that no humans are hurt. It’s not as gripping as having him save a crashing space shuttle (as John Byrne did in his Man of Steel reboot miniseries back in the 80s) but it encapsulates who he is.
So where is that aspect once the punches get thrown? The only time Superman seems to show interest in the well-being of civilians is during the beginning of the Smallville fight, when he tells people to get indoors. He then proceeds to help destroy all the buildings in which those people were hiding, but at least he gave their well-being some casual thought. The Smallville fight is where you sense things are going a little off the rails in the movie because a small town in farm country is actually the easiest place to reduce collateral damage - Superman and the Kryptonians are never more than a few hundred feet from open farmland. When the military sends in the jets to attack it doesn’t feel like a holy shyt moment, it feels like a reaction in kind. A true Superman story would see our hero attempting to keep the incoming bombs away from Smallville while also fending off his foes. Instead, Clark Kent’s hometown is essentially wiped off the map.
Then the action moves to Metropolis. There General Zod begins straight up massacring people; his World Engine destroys what seems to be square miles of prime business real estate in the middle of the work week. That’s awful, but he’s the bad guy, and so killing innocents is his bag. The stakes are being upped here as we see Metropolis laid low, and we even have some characters we ‘know’ trapped in the rubble.
Here the film makes an interesting choice. There are two World Engines on opposite sides of the globe. One is out at sea, pretty far from people. The other is right in the middle of Metropolis. Superman goes to handle one, leaving the other to the US military. He chooses the one in the middle of the ocean.
This really bothered Mark Waid, a veteran comic book writer whose thoughts on Man of Steel are worth reading. It bothers me less, but it is a strange and unlikely choice. The most pressing threat in that moment is clearly in Metropolis, where innocents by the thousands - millions? - are dying. The World Engines work in tandem, so destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth; while both need to be dealt with, they could be taken out one at a time*. I do like that the humans get to have a real role in the saving of the world - that feels right for Superman as inspiration to humanity - and I understand that Superman could get to the South Pacific much faster than the US military, but it’s still a strange choice. One that is a harbinger for what comes next.
After the World Engines are destroyed Superman and General Zod begin their drag out, knock down fight. It is, without a doubt, magnificent spectacle. It’s the sort of epic throwdown that we imagined reading splash page punches in comic books. But it’s handled completely, totally wrong.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the destruction during the Metropolis fight - and the continued presence of civilians, who had to be CGIed in to sequences so they’re certainly not there accidentally - comes from Christopher Nolan, who wrote the story with David Goyer. The huge scale of devastation and the sense that the hero is just as much of a menace to the city as the villain are hallmarks of Nolan’s Batman films. But where that sort of cynical mistrust of the hero fit in The Dark Knight, it’s stunningly out of place in a Superman movie. It also demands that the script rob Superman of his best qualities, as well as take away one of his greatest vulnerabilities.
In superhero comics the heroes often do not go as hard as the villains. They can’t, because they don’t want to hurt innocents. Villains have historically understood this, and so they use innocents as shields or distractions. This is an old trope, but an effective one. It starkly illustrates the difference between the good and the bad guy and it allows the good guy’s idealism to be expressed through action. Many comic book battles end with the hero allowing the baddie to go free so he can rescue a civilian in grave danger.
In fact it’s the dilemma - rescuing innocents versus stopping the baddie - that is the final moral choice Superman makes in Man of Steel. It’s a great moment, a truly hard decision that clearly impacts him immensely. Unfortunately it’s a hollow decision because Superman just saved four people after letting hundreds of thousands die.
Says Mark Waid:
Particularly in this last sequence, his utter disregard for the collateral damage was just jaw-dropping as they just kept crashing through buildings full of survivors. I’m not suggesting he stop in the middle of a super-powered brawl to save a kitten from a tree, but even Brandon Routh thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate deadly falling debris after a sonic boom. From everything shown to us from the moment he put on the suit, Superman rarely if ever bothered to give the safety and welfare of the people around him one bit of thought.
It would have been as easy as having Superman save ONE baby in a stroller to show his concern. That’s all that was needed. Hell, instead of having Perry White standing around the rubble have him aiding in the evacuation of the city so that we can understand the city has been evacuated. The movie instead goes out of its way to have Superman speed at Zod alongside a (likely populated) building and punch him so hard the sonic wave collapses that building. It’s an awesome moment, a stupendous illustration of the power of these two, but it’s also so absolutely tone-deaf in terms of how Superman should be handling this fight.
Some people online have been wondering why the ending of The Avengersdidn’t result in the same complaints. There are a couple of reasons, the biggest one being that the destruction in The Avengers is tiny compared to that in Man of Steel. The entire battle in The Avengers is kept in a few city blocks. In Man of Steel Superman punches Zod away from the destroyed section of the city to go fight him in populated areas.
What’s more, the best parts of the final fight in The Avengers deal with saving civilians. Captain America creates a battle plan intended to contain the chaos, and then he has a great, wonderful moment where he convinces jaded New York City cops to help evacuate people. Then he rescues civilians from the Chitauri. And then Iron Man, not as much of a protector hero as Superman, sacrifices (he thinks) his life to save New York City from being nuked. Finally, the film has a sequence where the aftermath of the battle - including a wall of pictures of the missing civilians - is revealed.
The two fights aren’t comparable because The Avengers did it right.
In his review our own Evan Saathoff puts it perfectly: Zack Snyder “successfully delivers the flawed concept we have all clamored to see.” Way back in the 80s Alan Moore examined what it would be like if superhuman beings really went at it in the world, and that comic, Miracleman, ended up with horrific wholescale destruction and the eventual creation of a fascist state governed by a Captain Marvel clone. Placing these sorts of battles in reality, as Man of Steel sort of does, results in a sad and ugly aftermath of rubble and body parts. Unlike The Avengers, Man of Steel doesn’t want to examine what that means, even in a quick montage. Which is weird in a movie where half the expository speeches are telling Clark Kent to be mindful of how his presence will change the world. It’s as if Goyer and Nolan got to the end and realized the way his presence would change THIS world is that everybody would hate him and he would be seen as a mass murderer. We’re supposed to cheer at the end when Superman brings a destroyed spy drone back to the military, but after his recklessness in Metropolis why would any government trust him?
That’s an important thing to keep in mind when we’re talking about the havoc wreaked during the course of Man of Steel. In our modern era of reboots and remakes and hip new reimaginings I’ve thought a lot about what makes a character the same character, about how many ways you can change Captain James T Kirk until he’s no longer the same character. I understand that it’s 2013 and there are elements of the Superman mythos that need to be updated and brought into the modern world, that some characters reflect outdated, almost century old mores and gender norms. But there are some things about Superman that are so vital, so central to the what sets him apart from other superheroes, that to change them is to alter utterly the character, rendering him Superman no more. And one of those things - maybe the ultimate central thing that makes Superman who he is - is his status as a protector.
To Man of Steel’s credit the movie gets that aspect of him right a lot. I wasn’t fully sold on Superman’s first costumed appearance being a scene where he is surrendering to the authorities, but in many ways that’s a great way to show him as protector. He is laying himself down for Zod so that no humans are hurt. It’s not as gripping as having him save a crashing space shuttle (as John Byrne did in his Man of Steel reboot miniseries back in the 80s) but it encapsulates who he is.
So where is that aspect once the punches get thrown? The only time Superman seems to show interest in the well-being of civilians is during the beginning of the Smallville fight, when he tells people to get indoors. He then proceeds to help destroy all the buildings in which those people were hiding, but at least he gave their well-being some casual thought. The Smallville fight is where you sense things are going a little off the rails in the movie because a small town in farm country is actually the easiest place to reduce collateral damage - Superman and the Kryptonians are never more than a few hundred feet from open farmland. When the military sends in the jets to attack it doesn’t feel like a holy shyt moment, it feels like a reaction in kind. A true Superman story would see our hero attempting to keep the incoming bombs away from Smallville while also fending off his foes. Instead, Clark Kent’s hometown is essentially wiped off the map.
Then the action moves to Metropolis. There General Zod begins straight up massacring people; his World Engine destroys what seems to be square miles of prime business real estate in the middle of the work week. That’s awful, but he’s the bad guy, and so killing innocents is his bag. The stakes are being upped here as we see Metropolis laid low, and we even have some characters we ‘know’ trapped in the rubble.
Here the film makes an interesting choice. There are two World Engines on opposite sides of the globe. One is out at sea, pretty far from people. The other is right in the middle of Metropolis. Superman goes to handle one, leaving the other to the US military. He chooses the one in the middle of the ocean.
This really bothered Mark Waid, a veteran comic book writer whose thoughts on Man of Steel are worth reading. It bothers me less, but it is a strange and unlikely choice. The most pressing threat in that moment is clearly in Metropolis, where innocents by the thousands - millions? - are dying. The World Engines work in tandem, so destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth; while both need to be dealt with, they could be taken out one at a time*. I do like that the humans get to have a real role in the saving of the world - that feels right for Superman as inspiration to humanity - and I understand that Superman could get to the South Pacific much faster than the US military, but it’s still a strange choice. One that is a harbinger for what comes next.
After the World Engines are destroyed Superman and General Zod begin their drag out, knock down fight. It is, without a doubt, magnificent spectacle. It’s the sort of epic throwdown that we imagined reading splash page punches in comic books. But it’s handled completely, totally wrong.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the destruction during the Metropolis fight - and the continued presence of civilians, who had to be CGIed in to sequences so they’re certainly not there accidentally - comes from Christopher Nolan, who wrote the story with David Goyer. The huge scale of devastation and the sense that the hero is just as much of a menace to the city as the villain are hallmarks of Nolan’s Batman films. But where that sort of cynical mistrust of the hero fit in The Dark Knight, it’s stunningly out of place in a Superman movie. It also demands that the script rob Superman of his best qualities, as well as take away one of his greatest vulnerabilities.
In superhero comics the heroes often do not go as hard as the villains. They can’t, because they don’t want to hurt innocents. Villains have historically understood this, and so they use innocents as shields or distractions. This is an old trope, but an effective one. It starkly illustrates the difference between the good and the bad guy and it allows the good guy’s idealism to be expressed through action. Many comic book battles end with the hero allowing the baddie to go free so he can rescue a civilian in grave danger.
In fact it’s the dilemma - rescuing innocents versus stopping the baddie - that is the final moral choice Superman makes in Man of Steel. It’s a great moment, a truly hard decision that clearly impacts him immensely. Unfortunately it’s a hollow decision because Superman just saved four people after letting hundreds of thousands die.
Says Mark Waid:
Particularly in this last sequence, his utter disregard for the collateral damage was just jaw-dropping as they just kept crashing through buildings full of survivors. I’m not suggesting he stop in the middle of a super-powered brawl to save a kitten from a tree, but even Brandon Routh thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate deadly falling debris after a sonic boom. From everything shown to us from the moment he put on the suit, Superman rarely if ever bothered to give the safety and welfare of the people around him one bit of thought.
It would have been as easy as having Superman save ONE baby in a stroller to show his concern. That’s all that was needed. Hell, instead of having Perry White standing around the rubble have him aiding in the evacuation of the city so that we can understand the city has been evacuated. The movie instead goes out of its way to have Superman speed at Zod alongside a (likely populated) building and punch him so hard the sonic wave collapses that building. It’s an awesome moment, a stupendous illustration of the power of these two, but it’s also so absolutely tone-deaf in terms of how Superman should be handling this fight.
Some people online have been wondering why the ending of The Avengersdidn’t result in the same complaints. There are a couple of reasons, the biggest one being that the destruction in The Avengers is tiny compared to that in Man of Steel. The entire battle in The Avengers is kept in a few city blocks. In Man of Steel Superman punches Zod away from the destroyed section of the city to go fight him in populated areas.
What’s more, the best parts of the final fight in The Avengers deal with saving civilians. Captain America creates a battle plan intended to contain the chaos, and then he has a great, wonderful moment where he convinces jaded New York City cops to help evacuate people. Then he rescues civilians from the Chitauri. And then Iron Man, not as much of a protector hero as Superman, sacrifices (he thinks) his life to save New York City from being nuked. Finally, the film has a sequence where the aftermath of the battle - including a wall of pictures of the missing civilians - is revealed.
The two fights aren’t comparable because The Avengers did it right.
In his review our own Evan Saathoff puts it perfectly: Zack Snyder “successfully delivers the flawed concept we have all clamored to see.” Way back in the 80s Alan Moore examined what it would be like if superhuman beings really went at it in the world, and that comic, Miracleman, ended up with horrific wholescale destruction and the eventual creation of a fascist state governed by a Captain Marvel clone. Placing these sorts of battles in reality, as Man of Steel sort of does, results in a sad and ugly aftermath of rubble and body parts. Unlike The Avengers, Man of Steel doesn’t want to examine what that means, even in a quick montage. Which is weird in a movie where half the expository speeches are telling Clark Kent to be mindful of how his presence will change the world. It’s as if Goyer and Nolan got to the end and realized the way his presence would change THIS world is that everybody would hate him and he would be seen as a mass murderer. We’re supposed to cheer at the end when Superman brings a destroyed spy drone back to the military, but after his recklessness in Metropolis why would any government trust him?
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
Kill Dat Noize
Banned
Cinemascore, RT and IMDB. All overwhelmingly positive audience reception.
cinemascore???man of steel recieved an A- on cinemascore.
other notable cinemascore ratings:
iron man 2 (A)
iron man 3 (A)
thor: dark world (A-)
amazing spiderman (A-)
amazing spiderman 2 (B+)
transformers: dark of the moon (A)
transformers: age of extinction (A-)
green lantern (B)
superman returns (B+)
the lone ranger (B+)
was the reception to all those movies "overwhelmingly positive" as well or is this just a site where fanboys vote for their favorite movies and everything gets a good grade???
in fact let's look at some recent non summer movies.
gone girl (B)
nightcrawler (B-)
american hustle (B+)
wolf of wall street (C)
would you put man of steel, iron man 2, and thor dark world above ANY of these??? was GREEN LANTERN better recieved than wolf of wall street???? why would you even mention this site???and since we're on the subject... IMDB!?!?!? the same site where fans have voted dark knight the FOURTH greatest film of all time????
these are the websites with whom you wanna place your faith?
dark knight was was received "overwhelmingly positive"
avengers was received "overwhelmingly positive"
those movies became instant classics.
man of steel came and went like every other summer movie. at best the response was indifferent.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
dumber than I thought
And you blind as fukk apparently.
man of steel recieved an A- on cinemascore.
other notable cinemascore ratings:
iron man 2 (A)
iron man 3 (A)
thor: dark world (A-)
amazing spiderman (A-)
amazing spiderman 2 (B+)
transformers: dark of the moon (A)
transformers: age of extinction (A-)
green lantern (B)
superman returns (B+)
the lone ranger (B+)
was the reception to all those movies "overwhelmingly positive" as well or is this just a site where fanboys vote for their favorite movies and everything gets a good grade???
in fact let's look at some recent non summer movies.
gone girl (B)
nightcrawler (B-)
american hustle (B+)
wolf of wall street (C)
and since we're on the subject... IMDB!?!?!? the same site where fans have voted dark knight the FOURTH greatest film of all time????
these are the websites with whom you wanna place your faith?
dark knight was was received "overwhelmingly positive"
avengers was received "overwhelmingly positive"
those movies became instant classics.
man of steel came and went like every other summer movie. at best the response was indifferent.
This is where shyt gets murky for me tho: Who's response? Cause if I'm going off of my circle of friends, the response was the opposite of indifferent. So are we going off of the internet echo chamber of film geeks and critics?
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
man of steel recieved an A- on cinemascore.
other notable cinemascore ratings:
First of all, I didn't say the site was the end all be all of audience reaction. It's not a site where people vote. It is a poll and they have been around forever. Here's the difference between me and you. You are using your theater, which no offense nobody gives a fukk about your small little movie viewing experience
, and you are using that as your basis for how Man of Steel was supposedly poorly received or forgotten, etc.. I'm giving you sites where either thousands of viewers were polled or millions of viewers voted.. Am I telling you it's a perfect methodology? Hell no. But it's definitely more to the point than your stupid ass post about how people in your theater said they didn't like it. All 20 of them.
Kill Dat Noize
Banned
when you say the reception to a movie was "overwhelmingly positive"... that indicates the movie had to have been a classic or near classic.First of all, I didn't say the site was the end all be all of audience reaction. It's not a site where people vote. It is a poll and they have been around forever. Here's the difference between me and you. You are using your theater, which no offense nobody gives a fukk about your small little movie viewing experience
I'm giving you sites where either thousands of viewers were polled or millions of viewers voted.. Am I telling you it's a perfect methodology? Hell no. But it's definitely more to the point than your stupid ass post about how people in your theater said they didn't like it. All 20 of them.
man of steel caused no craze and gave way to no superman boom. it was just another summer movie. like godzilla.
not a classic.
not a movie that ppl will be talking about in year's time.
not "overwhelmingly positive".
i don't care how many ppl voted on these sites... mcdonalds also sells the most hamburgers.