Veelk said:

It always confuses me why people think something has to be well made to be enjoyable. I'm strictly talking about it's composition. Those aspects of film-making can still be somewhat subjective, but much less so than sheer enjoyability.

What you enjoy is up to you, but it's hard to argue Man of Steel is a well made film.

Click to expand...

Toa TAK said:

At least.

Unlike the rest of KorraGAF. >_>

Click to expand...

Discotheque said:

I liked those two and the Kents more than Superman tbh

And it's not a problem with the character either. I like him in the cartoons and loved the reeves/routh version

Kind of a dour dude in man of Steel

Click to expand...

Renekton said:

How did Zod, MILITARY LEADER, get beaten badly in CQC by a flipping scientist.

By the time he faced Superman, you knew he was going to lose.

Click to expand...

Renekton said:

How did Zod, MILITARY LEADER, get beaten badly in CQC by a flipping scientist.

By the time he faced Superman, you knew he was going to lose.

Click to expand...

Sesuadra said:

For me it's the best superman movie. The action is amazing and the fights after just like you would expect a noobie superman to fight and the ending is a good set up for his future "no killing" rule >_>

I know a lot of people don't like it and I acknowledge that it has flaws(like lois). But I really enjoy it.

Click to expand...

• thematics are all over the place: the film just exists to exist. With Superman the Movie the tone and direction was clear thematically, how Krypton led to Smallville, Pa Kent's death through to what kind of man Kal El become. MoS is just a mess. None of the characters actually develop at all including Kal El.
• Many characters are either one note (Zod shouts!) or muddled (Pa Kent, what's your actual point?)
• Kal El manages to make worst choices pretty much every time as does Zod, etc. Nobody appears to have a brain (actually Diane Lane delivers a decent Martha Kent)
• None of the characters convince they are who they are (apart from Martha and maybe Faoro. Zod is an elite solider who never behaves like one and loses in combat to a scientist and a farm boy and never once acts like an elite solider

formasymphonic said:

After the recent Batman vs Superman trailer, I wanted to watch Man of Steel again and make a thread, but seen as someone else has done it and we have 100 MoS threads already, I'm just gonna post what I'd already written. Also I did warn you.

======================================================================​

Yes, I know most of GAF hates Man of Steel. I’m gonna get both the disclaimer and the inevitable gif out of the way —
This isn’t a post to change your mind. If you’ve come here to shit on it then

Please don't. There are 100 other threads for that, feel free to revive one of those.

If you’ve never liked Superman, this is not a post to endear you to him. If you do like him but don’t like Man of Steel, this is not a post to endear you to it. I’m not hear to argue that “________ was great scene and you should all like it” or “_________ wasn’t as bad as you think it is and here’s why”. What this thread *is* about, is (hopefully objective) discussion of some of the narrative threads from Man of Steel, why I believe they are the way they are, and how I think they will be used for Batman vs Superman.

To start, there is a crucial premise that people need to grasp, prior to watching the film:

Man of Steel is not a movie about “Superman”. Accept this, and internalise it.

”Superman” does not exist yet — and doesn’t by the end of the film either. It is instead, a movie laying the foundation for the "Superman" we know to be built on top of, as well as a foundation for the rest of the upcoming DC films. Man of Steel is instead, a movie about Clark. A guy who doesn't understand why he's so different from everybody else. It’s as much of a look at his search for answers, for his place in the world, and what it is he should be doing as you can fit into 2 hours. All of this is as new to him as it is to the rest of his world.

Spoiler

Note that he is only ever referred to as Superman *once* during the entire film, and during that one scene, he’s not even in it.

I’m not really gonna touch the Krypton stuff as its kind of outside of the scope of the MoS/BvS links I am covering. There are 3-ish main areas I want to go over though:

Grittiness + Realism of DC movies (compared to Marvel) // Origin stories // General comments about the Superman mythos & why that type of Superman doesnt work in today’s climate.
“Superman is what I can do. Clark Kent is who I am” [Lois & Clark, the New Adventures of Superman, (Tempus Fugitive)]​

Characterisation of Superman the man and “Superman” the myth play a large part in how divisive MoS is to people. To understand why, we’ll consider the old debate of who the real Kal-El is? Is Clark merely a disguise Superman uses to conceal himself? Or is Superman a product of Clark Kent? There isn’t really a right or wrong answer for this as varying iterations of the lore have handled him differently. While the original incarnation always considered Clark as the product and Superman the identity, the more recent ones have been focused on adding depth to Kal by exploring Clark. The quote above is something I've always remembered from Lois & Clark. I won’t say that MoS is based on that, but I do feel it aligns with whatever goals they had in building a contemporary take on Superman’s origins and motivation. Diving deeper into Clark has always left Superman a richer character for it, and tbh there is no way you could do a realistic portrayal of Superman without it.

A film about the origin of Superman, can’t just have him wake up in the morning and be the boy scout we know. “Truth, Justice and the American Way” just isn’t as palatable to today’s cynical & demanding audience as it once was. This is particularly true in a post-Nolan Dark Knight world. Back in the 40’s/50’s saying it was because he had good parents and a wholesome upbringing was enough, but in 2015 it’s just not. A lot of us have had a good upbringing, and very few of us are saints. This doesn’t mean that we can’t ever have him be the “boy scout” — It’s ok if he gets there later, but there has to be a journey. For MoS though, the journey doesn’t end mid-film with him being Supes just because he dons the cape. The entire film is still a part of Clark’s journey. And like some other narrative threads that I will mention later, it’s an arc that that will carry through over to BvS.

Jonathan Kent not wanting Clark to use his powers // (…even at the cost of his own life) // “The world isn’t ready…” // “…Is Clark?”
Perry White: “Could you imagine how people on this planet would react, if they knew there was someone like this out there?”​

Homo Sapiens have pretty much settled into the idea that on our world (and for as far out as we know) - we are the dominant life form/society. The existence of a theoretical Homo Superior lurking in our midst that could usurp us, or alien life that supersedes us, or anything that is not just better but *significantly better* could destabilise our world view. The fact that Clark embodies all three of those notions simultaneously would make a realistic interpretation of Superman an absolute societal shift of our place in the universe. MoS thus fundamentally asks two recurring questions: What place is there in the world for a guy like Clark? And when people like Clark exist, what would it mean for the rest of us? These are of course, rhetorical. They frame the film, and context for the rest of the DC over-world to be based on. Clark will have to find answers himself as part of his journey. While he struggles with the implications of the former, and the second half of the film accounts for the latter, — flashbacks show that Pa Kent presciently struggles with the implications for both as he tries to raise Clark. While many like to hang to the bus incident response to claim that this is a terrible iteration of Pa Kent, its important to remember that at that point Clark himself doesn’t know the truth yet and the reveal dialogue below is what follows immediately after it.

Pa Kent: “It’s another way of saying its not from this world Clark…. And neither are you. you’re the answer son. you’re the answer to ‘are we alone in the universe?’.”
Clark: “I don’t wanna be.”
Pa Kent: “And I don’t blame you son. It’d be a huge burden for anyone to bear. But you’re not just anyone Clark, and I have to believe that you were… that you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you’re going through one day, one day you’re going to see them as a blessing. And when that day comes, you’re gonna have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.”
Clark: “Can't I just keep pretending I'm your son?”
Pa Kent: “You are my son… But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.”​

In fitting with the more realistic tone MoS adhere’s to, Jonathan Kent is a man who loves his alien son as his own, but is also extremely worried for him. He does his best to comfort Clark and help him through his troubled childhood. But he is also a man no guide book for an alien-super-powered-puberty. No answers on a silver plate he can whip out. With some in his town already throwing around terms like “divine providence” for a 13yr old boy, he’s aware of how significant Clark’s existence will be to people — and how much of a weight that will be on Clark himself. Jonathan’s position raises the idea that it’s not just that the world isn’t ready for what Clark is, but also that Clark himself may not be ready yet to carry the weight of that burden. But like any father, he chooses to believe in what his son will one day be capable of. Until then though, until Clark is mature enough to handle his reveal and its worldwide implications — the secret must be kept, and he is ultimately willing to die to keep it for Clark

Spoiler

tornado.gif

.

Clark: “I wanted to hit that kid, I wanted to hit him so bad.”
Pa Kent: “I know you did. I mean part of me even wanted you to. But then what? Make you feel any better? You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be Clark, because whoever that man is —good character or bad— he’s… he’s gonna change the world.”​

DBZ fights // Collateral Damage to Smallville & Metropolis // “Superman would never allow that kind of destruction” // Clark Snapping Zod’s Neck // “Superman Doesn’t Kill”
“Superman is the guy who saves everyone”, “Superman would never be a part of that kind of destruction”, “Superman inspires hope”, “Superman doesn’t kill”, “MoS Superman doesn’t feel like Superman to me”​

Of course, as usual people never get to choose the time for these things, the time chooses them. Clark using the the colony ship triggers an automated distress signal that identifies his location, inadvertently leading Zod’s forces to Earth. This immediately brings up the negative implications of MoS’s second fundamental question; What does it mean for the rest of us when the gods come down from Olympus and do battle in the human realm? The results are where much of the above sentiments come into play. Its worth noting again then, that Man of Steel is not a movie about the “Superman” you know from lore. It is a rebooted origin story. A contemporary foundation for what we know as “Superman” to come to exist.

A large part of that foundation is going to be through loss.

Following the Smallville and Metropolis battles, many people are dead, countless $$$$$ worth of destruction have taken place, Clark is ‘alone’ again and he killed last person like him with his bare hands. He may have stopped Zod and ended the threat, but he didn’t win. And that’s the point. The victory is all too pyrrhic. It's a powerful moment and will now be as much a part of what makes this version of Clark go on to be “Superman” as being raised by the Kents, the red cape, and learning why he was sent here by Jor-El are.

There is no individual “Uncle Ben” / “Death of the Waynes” moment that makes him “Superman”. No single trigger that serves as his motivation. The events of the film *collectively* serve as his “with great power comes great responsibility” speech, with some of Batman vs Superman adding to it. Now when Superman refuses to kill, we will know why. When he goes out of his way to avoid collateral damage, we will know why. When he pushes himself to save every person he can, no matter how bad the situation is, we will know why. What motivates the heroic ethic, isn’t just moral rhetoric - its underpinned by loss, mistakes, the decisions he had to make, and a desire to never see anything like them happen again.

It’s this that will make him the Superman we know. More importantly, it makes the Superman we know more believable than the boy scout perfectionist we have previously been given. And more relatable; the hope he presents is metaphorical — you too can stumble, you can fall but can overcome your mistakes and one day join him in the sun. An ideal, lead by his own example.

So what does all of this supposedly mean for Batman vs Superman? Why have the trailers so far been so Batman-centric?​

While BvS will continue narrative arcs for Clark, I feel like it’s gonna be more about Bruce/Batman's (and in a similar way Lex's?) side of this than Superman’s. The obvious reason is that they need to firmly establish that this isn’t the same continuity as the Nolan films. But while MoS asks its questions, it covers them mainly from the perspective of those gods. In the same way that the questions ask both about Clark and about everyone else, BvS must cover the perspective of men. Batman has always been a solid contrast and foil to Superman. As another ‘hero’ and someone who wants to protect people, he will be representative of the human perspective — with his life battling corruption and crime in Gotham having shaped his view of human nature and people succumbing to power. I suspect that desert scene with everyone bowing to Superman is a nightmare etc. His perspective will likely also be reflected in Lex, only without the altruistic motivations. What Man of Steel has given us as a set up for BvS + Beyond (also supported by the trailers):
- Legit narrative reasons for why Superman is such a boy scout (not just upbringing, but he pushes himself because of guilt over MoS events)
- Legit narrative reasons for why Batman would be a foil to a Superman (can’t forgive him after seeing the events in Metropolis first hand and the threat someone like that poses should they change, also the threat of people *willingly* following him).
- Legit narrative reasons for why a Lex Luthor would dislike and distrust a Superman (see above)
- Legit reasons for why a human population would have mixed views on a Superman despite all the good he can do (which Lex can go on to exploit etc)
- Examples of threats so big that they would encourage previously independent heroes to form a super group

The film will then propose a force necessary to stand against threats unlike anything humanity has ever stood against, and which a single hero wouldn’t be able to deal with alone. This of course leads to the creation of a group of DC-Earth’s finest, the Justice League

Spoiler

(Coming to a movie theatre near you, June 2017?)

TLR - There is no Superman in Man of Steel. There is a reason it isn’t in the title. He may gain the outfit during the film, but he only becomes “Superman” of the mythos as a result of all the good/bad that happened in the film. MoS in an origin story, both for that, and a setup for the DC overworld’s climate. This means there probably won’t be a Man of Steel 2 because its narrative threads will be picked up *directly* in BvS. BvS will probably be heavily slanted towards Batman + Lex though because they need to show the human side of the equation as the fallout from MoS’ events. Also they need to let people know this isn’t TDK’s Batman.

A lot of parts of it are forward linked to help setup the DC movies so they can get in on that Marvel-Cinematic-Universe-Movie-Revenue™. So if you didn’t like a lot of things about Man of Steel, do yourself a favour and avoid BvS. The two will be very heavily related.

Spoiler

Please spare yourself the grief and spare GAF the threads.

Click to expand...

AlteredBeast said:

What a condescending piece of shit post. I nean, damn. What kind of discussion do you hope to have here?

Click to expand...

Veelk said:

This may come as a shock, but I think there is strong supporting evidence that it's not a very well made film.

Themes are all over the place. Repressing your identity is tantamount, even in the face of the death of innocents and children so that you can ensure your own personal safety, because no matter how altruistic and compassionate you are, you WILL be feared and resented for being different, so don't tell anyone who you really are even at the cost of lives. The film makes allusions to times where Superman being the hero he wants to be will be acceptable, but I'm not sure what marks that time. He decides to out himself once he talks to Jor-el and get the suit, but why that is a marker for a time he is willing to come out to the world is beyond me. And people do indeed fear him. People want to throw him to Zod the moment Zod threatens them and makes them aware of his existence, and the military attacks him openly, and after the Zod conflict the military is still tracking him even after they 'trust' him, and BvS operates on the premise that Batman can't deal with Superman so long as he represents a potential threat. But on the other hand, people do trust him, and Lois trusts him automatically after he saves her. So...I'm not sure if the movie is trying to depict Pa Kent as right or wrong here. Do Superman's deeds matter or not? I mean, something like that is undoubtedly going to get a mixed response by different people, but I'm not sure how the movie is even trying to frame it, that people are letting fear control them or that fear of Superman is something logical and rational to the point where it's understandable if he let people, even children, die to protect his identity.

It doesn't help that the actual framing of the dilemma's the movie gives is pure nonsense. I'm willing to let a movie slide on some logic for it to make a thematic point, but fucking Pa Kent died to save a frikken dog, and then let himself die even though Superman could have probably hid himself well enough to not let people discover his identity. It's a tornado, it's an inherently obscure, chaotic environment, let Clark get the damn dog and you have your problem solved. Same thing with the final scene with Zod. Yeah, being forced to choose between killing and letting innocents be killed is a good dilemma and all, but if he can snap Zod's neck, he should be able to keep his head from turning.

Speaking of, Zod makes no goddamn sense half the time he is onscreen. He's just an evil dick for no reason. He likes to frame things like he's doing them for krypton, but literally everything he does could have been resolved peacefully, and even has been but he's starting shit for no goddamn reason. He acts like it's either earth or krypton, but he can just terraform Mars or something. He needs Superman's DNA to get the codex, but he already had it when the doctor took his blood, or else could just ask Superman for some hair or something.

The movie just has this really annoying tendency to try and push Superman into a binary choice when it can be easily resolved some other way. Personal safety or Altruism, kill or let innocents die, Krypton or Earth. And Superman buys into this shit completely, even muttering at one point "Krypton had it's chance" before aborting every single Kryptonian Fetus they had. People give Superman shit about the city destruction, and while that might hurt the film thematically by emphasizing how violent this particular world is and how much death and destruction it brings, putting that on Superman simply isn't reasonable, especially when he is trying to just end everything, he's just failing at it. But his willful and self-satisfied genocide of the remaining innocents belonging to his race is barely ever mentioned. I don't get it.

I'd like to say that the action is atleast good, but it's only good if you like sheer spectacle. Which is fine, but the way they fight is just....bizarre. The choreography felt like they listened to an 8 year old play with Superman and Zod toys and just realized that onscreen, because it doesn't reflect their characters at all. Like, Zod is apparently a trained combatant, but he doesn't use any grapples or identifiable moves other than generic punches. Remember, his training would have been when he was on Krypton, where they are basically normal people like us. Where the fuck was this included in his training? Did his fighting instructor tell him "hop like a frog to close the distance on your enemy"? I'm just saying, I've seen trained fighters, and they're usually more economical in their movement than this wide ass uppercut and usually have better posture. The fight between these two is big and epic and it's entertaining on maybe a pure visceral level, but good action scenes are always more than just that.


What always bothered me was that this was the starting point. This set the tone for the DCCU. What bothers me isn't that it's dark, because it's a stupid complaint that Superman shouldn't engage with these things. But it's so haphazard in it's composition. It gets so excited about engaging with dark material that it doesn't stop to consider whether it even makes sense for it to do so and ends up putting it's characters in a nonsensical positions. I don't care that DC wants to go to a darker route, but I want it to do it with more skill than MoS has done. Hopefully, they took note of that, hired an actually skilled writer, and the next movie in the franchise will be more carefully constructed.

But if the review thread is anything to go by, we just got MoS2 in the worst ways possible.

Click to expand...

Toxi said:

One where people don't just reply to criticism of a film with "But I enjoyed it!" and nothing more.

Click to expand...

RedVladimir said:

Oh I see. Here I thought you could like things without having yourself or otherwise your level of 'film appreciation' questioned. You know, as subtly as OP has.

Click to expand...

BadAss2961 said:

OP, wtf...

I think I remember you from other Man of Steel threads. Shouldn't this be RTTP?

Click to expand...

Malyse said:

Is anyone else starting to worry about Suicide Squad?

Click to expand...

Veelk said:

It always confuses me why people think something has to be well made to be enjoyable. I'm strictly talking about it's composition. Those aspects of film-making can still be somewhat subjective, but much less so than sheer enjoyability.

What you enjoy is up to you, but it's hard to argue Man of Steel is a well made film.

Click to expand...

RedVladimir said:

Oh I see. Here I thought you could like things without having yourself or otherwise your level of 'film appreciation' questioned. You know, as subtly as OP has.

Like, what is it that you people hope to achieve here? That a thread that starts in such a negative tone will change OP's made-up mind through the cheer number of empirical examinations of this movie's filmic equalities? And after achieving the evidently impossible, we are to believe that somehow it's to our benefit?

You people need to get over yourselves.

Click to expand...

formasymphonic said:

Too long to type out something similar so just gonna quote myself.

Click to expand...

Forsaken82 said:

I can't help but feel like you are using your criticism of the script and story structure in the film to fuel an argument for bad film-making, which makes little sense to me. Reading through your argument, not a single thing about film making stands out... it is all complaints on how the character is written, or certain acts they perform but nothing on the actual film making process which goes against your entire argument here.

Click to expand...

formasymphonic said:

Too long to type out something similar so just gonna quote myself.

Click to expand...

SilentRob said:

It's the Dragonball Z movie I never got, so yeah, I like it a lot.

Click to expand...

Henkka said:

Watched it again yesterday. Disliked in the cinemas, Blu-ray didn't really change my mind.

Not going to ramble all my thoughts, but did Pa Kent die for nothing? It kinda seemed that way. At the beginning, the movie seems obsessed with no one on Earth knowing that Clark is an alien. It would be too devastating to our worldview, or something. Even Clark says he let his father die so no one would know about him.

So instead, the existence of aliens is revealed to humanity by Zod, some 10-15 years after the tornado. What exactly was gained by Pa Kent's sacrifice? A couple more years of blissful unawareness? Seems kinda weak.

And this theme is completely forgotten by the time the movie ends. We're never shown how humanity at large responds to the existence of aliens. Everyone seems pretty nonchalant about it, and the army lady finds the alien "kinda hot".

It's just really poor storytelling.

Click to expand...

nemss said:

As I say in every MoS thread, Snyder must have done something right, considering we have these threads once a week it seems.

The Superman depicted in MoS actually lines up pretty close to Supes post Infinite Crisis and New 52. This Supes isn't saving cats out of trees, he's too busy trying to keep the government out of his way.

Click to expand...

Toothless said:

I just rewatched it, and I liked it again. It's flawed for sure; the third act is a total mess, but the first two are pretty good. Kinda wish Michael Kelly was playing Jimmy Olsen lol.

Click to expand...

formasymphonic said:

Too long to type out something similar so just gonna quote myself.

Click to expand...