New Superman Film :: Man of Steel

13738404243

Comments

  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    Poor Zack Snyder was always going to get flak just as soon as he signed the contract to direct. He is the very personification of polarising opinion.

    My first encounter with a Snyder film was the remake of Dawn of The Dead. I came away thinking that if a director hooks me in within 5 minutes then he is someone to watch out for and I have done. I have gone into every Snyder film made and enjoyed it, even Sucker Punch, no matter what Kermode has to say on the matter.

    Now I am not a fan of comic books, even though I do remember reading some really old Superboy serials my Grandmother had acquired from somewhere, so I don't particularly know the ins and outs of what makes Superman tick, short of watching and re-watching the Reeve films.

    I wasn't expecting a shot for shot remake of the seminal Donner film and thank heavens for that. What i saw was a film in which a man has to learn how to survive knowing he is different to everybody else. He has to learn how to harness his powers, and to master them and it is not an immediate process, and if that means he made the decision to kill somebody who in turn was about to kill someone else then so be it. Why should we hold this against him? Why must we expect Superman to be the embodiment of truth, justice and the American Way, which is ironic really seeing that the ultimate punishment for murder in the US justice system is execution, without first making some mistakes along the way. Perhaps the most valuable lesson he could possible learn was that there must be another way than the killing way.

    Personally speaking, I think Zod and co died in the fortress because they were baddies and that's what happens to baddies. On the other hand, why kill off characters which could potentially return in a sequel. Seems daft to do that but I am speaking with the benefit of hindsight as we all know that Sydney J Furie buggered it up for everyone and the franchise went into deep sleep.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    Poor Zack Snyder was always going to get flak just as soon as he signed the contract to direct. He is the very personification of polarising opinion.

    This is true but to me after Watchmen the guy could do no wrong. I thought that was amazing, and I loved the book too. I wish they'd given V for Vendetta to Snyder, after seeing Watchmen, because that was *not great*. I liked it, but too much was sanitised out of the novel.

    Agree about Dawn of the Dead. A great remake, and a brilliant flick in its own right.
  • humehume Posts: 2,088
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was struck by how much symbolism was prevalent in MoS.
    It wasn't obvious at the time, but on persistent recollection, it is.
    The scene with the family whom Zod threatens to kill is analogous to Superman's own family. The composition of the family threw me at first. The father in the way of Zod's beam, protecting the rest of the family members. The teenage boy who is unable to act at his father's urging. The mother with her youngest boy pressed to her abdomen. This boy and his father's face are hidden from us. Symbolically this suggest neither exist. Jonathan Kent sacrifices his life protecting Clark's secret. The small boy is how Martha Kent see her son. The enthralled teenager is Clark Kent as he is and was at the time of his father's death. Superman's guilt springs from this, compounded by the argument that took place prior to it, where he in essence disowns his father. You can imagine the thoughts which cripple his (Superman's) mind. Had he not loved his father? If he had wouldn't he have saved him, in spite of his wishes? Hadn't he disobeyed his father to save the school bus and the lives of friends and bullies alike. Virtually strangers in comparision with his father. Maddening grief could never accept his part in what transpired.
    Superman is forever trapped in that moment. His wandering, a penance. The lives he saves, an atonement for the life he didn't. He lives his life in a manner his father would be proud of, under different circumstances.
    In destroying the terraformer, Superman becomes the saviour of mankind. When he kills Zod he assumes the responsibility of a father, in protecting his family.
    In taking a life Superman may feel he has betrayed himself and the memory of his father.
    I like how the screenwriters set about their own doctrine, in the scene between Lois and Superman where she looks at him with infinite understanding and guides his head to her abdomen. A symbolic sign of rebirth. The subtle message, absolution doesn't come from the father, but through the mother.
  • RooksRooks Posts: 9,080
    Forum Member
    The film left me exhausted, it's very action-packed but I have to say that I didn't rate the film highly. Someone else mentioned Transformers and that's a good comparison. Lots of gloss, lots of action but maybe a little too much.

    I liked most of the changes they made to the mythology as much of which was long overdue (actually I don't think they went far enough). But the whole thing was too serious for my liking. I get that they were trying to get away from the campy fun of the earlier Superman films but perhaps they went too far away from that. In 10 years time people will still remember Terrance Stamp's "Knee before Zod" above pretty much anything in this film.

    It sounds like I hated the film, I didn't but it felt empty. I left the cinema thinking "Yeah, I'll watch the sequel when it gets to TV".
  • mwardymwardy Posts: 1,925
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hume wrote: »
    I was struck by how much symbolism was prevalent in MoS.
    It wasn't obvious at the time, but on persistent recollection, it is.
    The scene with the family whom Zod threatens to kill is analogous to Superman's own family. The composition of the family threw me at first. The father in the way of Zod's beam, protecting the rest of the family members. The teenage boy who is unable to act at his father's urging. The mother with her youngest boy pressed to her abdomen. This boy and his father's face are hidden from us. Symbolically this suggest neither exist. Jonathan Kent sacrifices his life protecting Clark's secret. The small boy is how Martha Kent see her son. The enthralled teenager is Clark Kent as he is and was at the time of his father's death. Superman's guilt springs from this, compounded by the argument that took place prior to it, where he in essence disowns his father. You can imagine the thoughts which cripple his (Superman's) mind. Had he not loved his father? If he had wouldn't he have saved him, in spite of his wishes? Hadn't he disobeyed his father to save the school bus and the lives of friends and bullies alike. Virtually strangers in comparision with his father. Maddening grief could never accept his part in what transpired.
    Superman is forever trapped in that moment. His wandering, a penance. The lives he saves, an atonement for the life he didn't. He lives his life in a manner his father would be proud of, under different circumstances.
    In destroying the terraformer, Superman becomes the saviour of mankind. When he kills Zod he assumes the responsibility of a father, in protecting his family.
    In taking a life Superman may feel he has betrayed himself and the memory of his father.
    I like how the screenwriters set about their own doctrine, in the scene between Lois and Superman where she looks at him with infinite understanding and guides his head to her abdomen. A symbolic sign of rebirth. The subtle message, absolution doesn't come from the father, but through the mother.

    Nice interpretation that shows there's some depth here.

    However, there was an awful lot of banging. Kryptonians getting banged through buildings, through mountains, through tankers, by train locomotives and so on. (And of course, almost always with absolutely no effect on the bangee. Were they all thick?)

    And how were they going to Kryptoform the earth?
    By banging it.

    The first one or two bangs were very impressive in the IMAX. Seat-rattling sub bass. Grand! But by the time it was clicking over into third dozen I was starting to wonder how long it had to go.

    I realise fruitless banging and crashing is part of the Superman style, but they overdid it IMHO. It would have been better twenty minutes shorter as others have said, and given the audience more of a chance to focus on the more subtle aspects of the story as above.
  • MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I saw MOS for the 2nd time and i have to say i still think it's a phenomenal film. Totally. Cavill OWNS Superman. I loved it just as much as i did when i first saw it. Hands down the best film of the summer for me. Although that might change when Pacific Rim gets released tomorrow.
  • BlueZane00BlueZane00 Posts: 200
    Forum Member
    I finally got a chance to see it and I really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the sequel. If they bring in Lex Luthor, please can they not rehash the Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey interpretations. I preferred the Luthor from 'Smallville'.

    Things I liked:

    - the casting. Cavill suits the role just fine, and Michael Shannon did a great job on Zod. I also liked Russell Crowe as Jor-El;

    - the film did a decent job of showing the struggle to fit in to human life when you grow up with superpowers;

    - Superman's suit. Some people were screaming heresy at the underwear no longer being on the outside. What works in a comic book doesn't necessarily work on screen;

    - great action sequences (though see below) and good looking Kryptonian design; and

    - the score. Hans Zimmer doing his usual exemplary job.


    Things that could have been better:

    - a little more humour in the script wouldn't have hurt;

    - some of the supporting characters were a little empty;

    - Lois Lane seemed a little bland and underdeveloped; and

    - the fight scenes were a little long given that they mostly consisted of things crashing into other things.
  • Grand DizzyGrand Dizzy Posts: 7,369
    Forum Member
    Just for fun, would anyone care to rearrange the below Superman productions in favourite order, or give each marks out of 10?

    Donner Films (Superman/Superman II)
    Lester Films (Superman III and IV)
    Lois & Clark
    Superman Returns
    Smallville
    Man of Steel
  • BlueZane00BlueZane00 Posts: 200
    Forum Member
    Just for fun, would anyone care to rearrange the below Superman productions in favourite order, or give each marks out of 10?

    Donner Films (Superman/Superman II)
    Lester Films (Superman III and IV)
    Lois & Clark
    Superman Returns
    Smallville
    Man of Steel

    Yeah, I'm always game for these rating type posts :).

    - Superman - 6/10
    - Superman II - 8/10

    - Superman III - 4/10
    - Superman IV - 2/10 (It gets 2 as I always mark out of five i.e. this is a 1 out of 5 film. Awful production.)

    - Lois & Clark - 4/10

    - Superman Returns - 6/10

    - Smallville - 8/10

    - Man of Steel - 8/10
  • mialiciousmialicious Posts: 4,686
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BlueZane00 wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm always game for these rating type posts :).

    - Superman - 6/10
    - Superman II - 8/10

    - Superman III - 4/10
    - Superman IV - 2/10 (It gets 2 as I always mark out of five i.e. this is a 1 out of 5 film. Awful production.)

    - Lois & Clark - 4/10

    - Superman Returns - 6/10

    - Smallville - 8/10

    - Man of Steel - 8/10

    no way was superman returns on par with superman..and man of steel was good but i dont think it was on par with superman 2.

    superman - 8
    superman 2 - 9
    superman 3 - 5
    superman 4 - 2
    superman returns - 4
    man of steel - 7

    never followed smallville or L&C
  • livininadavelivininadave Posts: 143
    Forum Member
    Superman - 9
    Superman - 8 (Lester version) 9 (Donner Version)
    Superman III - 6
    Superman IV - 1
    Lois & Clark - 3
    Superman Returns - 6
    Smallville - never seen it
    Man of Steel - 8
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just for fun, would anyone care to rearrange the below Superman productions in favourite order, or give each marks out of 10?

    Donner Films (Superman/Superman II)
    Lester Films (Superman III and IV)
    Lois & Clark
    Superman Returns
    Smallville
    Man of Steel

    Lester didn't do IV
  • Grand DizzyGrand Dizzy Posts: 7,369
    Forum Member
    Lester didn't do IV
    Oh, yeah. Sorry for the mistake! I totally forgot that. I just have in mind that he did two Superman films and forgot IV wasn’t his.

    Obviously, IV is not a film I think about much. Spend a lot of time trying to forget it actually! :D
  • Grand DizzyGrand Dizzy Posts: 7,369
    Forum Member
    Der diddly der,
    DEE DAA DER!

    Der diddly der,
    SUPERMAN!

    :D
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Der diddly der,
    DEE DAA DER!

    Der diddly der,
    SUPERMAN!

    :D

    Sherry again? Lol.
  • performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What I've found is that MoS definitely benefits from multiple viewings. There's so much going on in the last 20 minutes that's it's nigh on impossible to catch it all first time. Maybe this is a lot of people's problem with the action? Whatever, they made the right decision to go crazy with the action. One of the biggest criticisms of Superman Returns was the lack of action, the other one being no Kryptonian enemy; both these things were sorted out in MoS, so I don't see the problem??
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm sorry to say that I absolutely hated it. I loved Watchmen, and Sucker Punch and was excited after seeing the trailers for this, but MoS just didn't work for me on any level. I couldn't warm to Clark, Lois had no personality, making Jimmy into Jenny seemed like the most pointless thing ever, I loathed this version of Krypton...I could go on.

    This is one of the most disappointing movies I think I've ever seen. I get what they were trying to do but I just don't think you can give realism to a Superman film without sucking the heart out of everything. I will stick with the first two Christopher Reeve movies in the future. Even Superman Returns was more likeable than MoS, I think.
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BlueZane00 wrote: »
    I finally got a chance to see it and I really enjoyed it.

    I thought it was OK, though not as good as I was expecting it to be. It was better than Superman Returns though. I saw it once in 2D and once in 3D just for comparison.
    Looking forward to the sequel. If they bring in Lex Luthor, please can they not rehash the Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey interpretations. I preferred the Luthor from 'Smallville'.

    It would be nice to see some other villains. Surely there must be some from the comic books?
    Things I liked:

    - the casting. Cavill suits the role just fine, and Michael Shannon did a great job on Zod. I also liked Russell Crowe as Jor-El;

    - the film did a decent job of showing the struggle to fit in to human life when you grow up with superpowers;

    I didn't like the flashback approach though. But then I'm not a fan of flashbacks in general.
    - Superman's suit. Some people were screaming heresy at the underwear no longer being on the outside. What works in a comic book doesn't necessarily work on screen;

    The suit wasn't a big deal for me.
    - great action sequences (though see below) and good looking Kryptonian design; and

    - the score. Hans Zimmer doing his usual exemplary job.


    Things that could have been better:

    - a little more humour in the script wouldn't have hurt;

    Didn't mind much either way, but always best when there's not too much humour. My ideal is a bit less than there was in Superman 1 and 2.
    - some of the supporting characters were a little empty;

    - Lois Lane seemed a little bland and underdeveloped;

    Yes, better than Kate Bosworth but still not quite what I would have expected. Erica Durance in Smallville is the best since Margot IMO.
    and

    - the fight scenes were a little long given that they mostly consisted of things crashing into other things.

    Yes, there can be too much action in these movies if the sequences are too long or repetitive.
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I get what they were trying to do but I just don't think you can give realism to a Superman film without sucking the heart out of everything.

    For me, the dark cinematography of MoS (and SR) is not ideal. It works fine for Batman, who is a different type of character. I expect a much brighter world for Superman. Maybe I'm just preconditioned from the early Superman movies?
    I will stick with the first two Christopher Reeve movies in the future. Even Superman Returns was more likeable than MoS, I think.

    Yes, 1 and 2 are still the benchmark. 2 in particular has a well-balanced combination of elements. Menace, action, predicament humour and romance.
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    What i saw was a film in which a man has to learn how to survive knowing he is different to everybody else. He has to learn how to harness his powers, and to master them and it is not an immediate process, and if that means he made the decision to kill somebody who in turn was about to kill someone else then so be it. Why should we hold this against him?

    Killing a criminal while they are actually threatening to kill you or others is different from killing them after they've been disarmed. So, Superman is on a sound footing here.

    Why must we expect Superman to be the embodiment of truth, justice and the American Way, which is ironic really seeing that the ultimate punishment for murder in the US justice system is execution, without first making some mistakes along the way. Perhaps the most valuable lesson he could possible learn was that there must be another way than the killing way.

    Well, the Krypton way is life imprisonment rather than execution once a criminal has been disarmed.

    Re: "truth, justice and the American way," well my take is that Superman is supposed to represent or at least approximate the ideals rather than the practice. :)
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    Well, the Krypton way is life imprisonment rather than execution once a criminal has been disarmed.

    And how did the Kryptonian way work out for the Kryptonians? They got their entire race destroyed except for the criminals!

    I actually don't see anything wrong in Superman killing Zod. He'd already made the point that humanity couldn't control him. He knew the only thing that made him not a deadly threat was that he wasn't interested in killing everyone. Zod was, however. He openly told Superman that he intended to kill them all, just to get even. Superman could barely control Zod, so there wasn't exactly an opportunity to try him in court and put him in prison.

    Zod couldn't be controlled. Any attempt to pacify him resulted in a city being shredded like paper. Superman had no choice. I honestly don't see what the problem is and its far less callous than Superman's treatment of Zod in Superman 2 - where he could have just been put in prison.
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Helbore wrote: »
    And how did the Kryptonian way work out for the Kryptonians? They got their entire race destroyed except for the criminals!

    They didn't deliberately kill themselves. They merely disbelieved Jor-El about the planet's dying.
    I actually don't see anything wrong in Superman killing Zod.

    Nor do I. You write as though you've not read my post very carefully.
    He'd already made the point that humanity couldn't control him. He knew the only thing that made him not a deadly threat was that he wasn't interested in killing everyone. Zod was, however. He openly told Superman that he intended to kill them all, just to get even. Superman could barely control Zod, so there wasn't exactly an opportunity to try him in court and put him in prison.

    Zod couldn't be controlled. Any attempt to pacify him resulted in a city being shredded like paper. Superman had no choice. I honestly don't see what the problem is

    Nor do I.
    and its far less callous than Superman's treatment of Zod in Superman 2 - where he could have just been put in prison.

    I see no difference. He was destroyed there as well. How could he have been put in prison unless Superman was able to reconstruct the phantom zone? Even then he would have had to drag him there somehow.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They didn't deliberately kill themselves. They merely disbelieved Jor-El about the planet's dying.

    Well, there was more to it than that. Jor-El seemed to be saying that they had actually caused the death of Krypton by mining its core. A lot of the film was about how Superman could help guide the people of Earth to not make the same mistakes as Krypton.
    Nor do I. You write as though you've not read my post very carefully.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted/misread, then.
    I see no difference. He was destroyed there as well. How could he have been put in prison unless Superman was able to reconstruct the phantom zone? Even then he would have had to drag him there somehow.

    Zod in Superman 2 had all his powers taken away. He was as weak as any normal human at the end. Superman could have handed him over to the authorities, as he had clearly committed crimes against the people of Earth. But instead he picked him up and threw him down a pit.

    Kinda mean, really ;)
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    Superman 2 (Donner Version) - 9
    Superman (Donner Version) - 9
    Lois & Clark - 8
    Man of Steel - 7
    Superman Returns - 7
    Smallville - 6
    Superman III - 5
    Superman IV - 4
  • Grand DizzyGrand Dizzy Posts: 7,369
    Forum Member
    I still haven’t seen MoS yet but the more clips I see and the more I read, the more I am led to believe that I will not like this film. The clips look really horrible, dark and dismal. It merely seems to be a great action film, but not the Superman I know and love, rather, continuing the gloomy, hopeless tone established by Returns.

    Sadly, the trouble with an uncontrolled franchise is that new producers can completely change the tone of the original to appeal to completely different audiences with completely different values. That is a real shame.

    No one ever presumed the Superman franchise needed a “style guide” because the style has always been implicit. It was a bright, upbeat tale of positivity and hope, and Superman was a perfect example of righteousness. Even though Quest for Peace was a dreadful film, it still strongly embodied that spirit.

    But with Returns and now MOS, that spirit has been lost. Superman’s costume is darker, and the motivations of the character is reduced to simply fighting crime and saving lives for the sake of it. Superman lacks the deep, burning and tangible sense of moral righteousness that underlines all his motivations and words; therefore he is not really a universal figure of hope for the world, only a figure of circumstantial physical protection. It would also appear that the Superman presented in MOS is not a pure and perfect role model. He is now a flawed, self-motivated human character (smarmy, proud, aggressive, etc.) rather than being Christ-like and pure.

    Many people will gladly welcome this change. I don’t. If people want a dark Superman, they should just invent a new superhero rather than changing what Superman is.

    Or, being a writer, perhaps I shall invent my own superhero to surpass the fallen Superman? Then we might have a real “battle”! :) I am only half joking about this.
Sign In or Register to comment.