• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

In retrospect it makes sense that Man of Steel got panned harshly

Trogdor1123

Member
I always like Superman Returns more. Brandon Routh was a really good Superman and the bad guys were good too.

I'm sure I'm in the minority.
 

dr_octagon

Banned
MaLkEyJ.gif


I always like Superman Returns more. Brandon Routh was a really good Superman and the bad guys were good too.

I'm sure I'm in the minority.
Brandon Routh is a great Superman, it's a real shame he didn't reprise in role but he wouldn't fit in the Synder version.
 
Last edited:
IMO the big reason critics panned it (56? wtf?) is that Snyder is a fantasy director and the preferred genre by activist journalists is social realism. This is a big deal for communists. They don't really like fantasy. It is traditional, it is classical, it is based on European lore. For them art is supposed to instruct, to inform, to educate. This is a real thing in film history, it was a style invented for propaganda purposes. Snyder's is too fantastical. Being gritty and "real" is part of the propaganda element, to trick the audience into thinking it is educational.

Think about it. They spent all last year trying to tear down statues, Superman basically is the statue of superheroes. Unless he spent this movie saving black trans youth they were always gunning for it.

Also, critics hate religion, so anytime there was symbolism or classical iconography in this movie they rolled their eyes at it.

56%? Give me a fucking break. The agenda is impacting their ability to do their jobs.

Everything is politics to you crazies
 

pel1300

Member
The same happened to Final Fantasy. Gradually became less fantasy and more "modern" sci fi ie replacing Basch with 14 year old Vaan as the main protagonist.
 
Last edited:

Soltype

Member
Just finished it, very uneven movie. All the visual stuff is still fantastic though, I think someone said it in the thread already, its as close to a DBZ movie as we're going to get
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
I don’t think it’s nearly as political or agenda driven as people are saying here.

I do think the MCU has done a better job being that cultural milestone that has built a lot of brand excitement and goodwill with bloggers, reviewers, etc.

So without question even the mediocre MCU movies are more highly rated than they should be.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
I don’t think it’s nearly as political or agenda driven as people are saying here.

I do think the MCU has done a better job being that cultural milestone that has built a lot of brand excitement and goodwill with bloggers, reviewers, etc.

So without question even the mediocre MCU movies are more highly rated than they should be.

Reason is for the most part even if the rest of the movie plot, villan is pretty shit. The character of the film is well represented and well written in either previous films or on going. The viewers get to follow the character arc in multiple movies, even if the movie itself is bad the character's progression or journey is well represented. Which is why marvel has such a high bar compared to DC.

Man of steel did not do a great job on story, it had breadcrumbs of some cool places it was trying to take the character, but nothing materialized to anything that the audience could connect with. Which makes it hard to then follow said character for 2-3 extra films.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Well, if you're really interested why people pan the movie(at least for the writing) you should look up Mauler's streams, they go in depth with all the questionable writing and execution that contradict the themes in the movie.



That is not the reason why Man of Steel got bad reviews.

I like Mauler, but none of these bloggers care about his opinion
 
The writing of many Marvel movies is questionionable and often terrible, yet they great amazing reviews. Why is that? They don't get 56%. How did this get so low? It's a good question.

We see the Avengers cause tremendous collateral damage, Tony Stark even invents Ultron, almost causing the end of the world. Yet seeing Superman kill one guy is bad? Just accept that he is a new take on the character. The more I thought about it, the more I saw how it fits in with the themes in the movie, and especially with the follow up films (Bruce witnessing the Zod battle from below and giving the human response in the next film), how it fits in with Snyder's overall vision.

I get the argument that it's not the old Superman. But it's not going for that, it is a more emotional take, more in conflict with his role on Earth, a more complex and self-doubting take. Really the shocking thing in that final scene is not that Superman kills Zod, but that it impacts Superman in such a strong way, he cries out. All movie long he is searching for a morality, a moral center to call his own. Why this moment is shocking is not just the violence of the act (which is what critics dwelt on) but that Superman is killing one of the few remaining members of his home planet. In fighting Zod, he is almost, in a way, fighting his Kryptonian past. And while it's easy to call the terraforming machine a lazy laser-in-the-sky, in an interplanetary way it makes sense, they want to turn this into the new Krypton. The symbolism of Superman fighting against all this couldn't be more clear, he is fighting against his past. In order to live on Earth he is paradoxically having to kill a potential Krypton2. There is something very tragic and personal in that, and Snyder approaches it with the proper amount of operatic grandeur.

I don't know, I felt like it was really honest to who Superman is, even if it was a darker take. Regardless of what you think of the film, you have to admit Cavill is a great Superman.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom