• 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.

LTTP: Man of Steel/Superman 78/Superman 2

Veelk

Banned
Idk why some of you guys are wasting your time with Bleepey, he is not ever going to move from his position, despite how bad his arguments are.

Yup. In the very OP, he's discrediting people's possible counterpoints, without even having heard them, by saying that the only reason anyone could disagree with him is childhood bias.

Without even getting into the merit of his actual arguments, it's not possible to have an honest discussion with Bleepey because he doesn't view anyone's perspective but his own as valid.
 

Anth0ny

Member
Wonder Woman is basically a love letter to Donner's Superman, and it's universally loved. The movie still holds up.
 
You got that right. The original Superman movies are rubbish

 

Neophant

Member
I've always found the Richard Donner Superman movies and Man of Steel to be products of their times, especially when you consider what the public mindset of Superman was like in the comics. I also get the impression that the Christopher Reeve's portrayal was closer to the Pre-Crisis Superman that could essentially solve any problem and do impossible feats, like juggling planets and flying so fast in order to reverse time. In Man of Steel however, Henry Cavill's portrayal was more grounded both in powerset and in the perception of how people would view such a entity if someone with Superman's powers were to pop up in the real world. I don't necessarily think any one movie or interpretation is objectively better, but I do think people don't realize that their biases for how they viewed the character originally would affect seeing different interpretations.

Batman v. Superman was what really cemented Cavill's portrayal of Superman in my heart though, and I'll always appreciate Reeve for catapulting Superman's ideals to the mainstream.
 

Bleepey

Member
Did you forget about this part, OP?


Nope. But the only person adversely affected by Clark's actions are the a) the trucker b) his employer c)insurance company. If it was Reeves he'd have curb stomped the dude all over the diner and ruined everyone's meal and destroyed the diner

It's not the numbers. It's the tone.

MoS Superman bears the weight of the world with discomfort and obligation. His powers are more of a curse than a gift. He's subsumed in a dark, cruel, violent world, and he looks it. He looks grim at the best of times.

Reeves Superman is, once he puts on the suit, helpful by nature. He saves people, he's good at saving people, he likes saving people. It's effortless. He saves Lois, grabs a helicopter, and chitchats about the safety of commercial air travel on the way back.

They're two different approaches. You can argue preference between them, or discuss execution, but you're coming from the wrong angle if you think "saves more dudes = more heroic."

I agree with you about tone and I think I have said that about Marvel films too. If audiences respond well to the tone a lot more shit can slide. Snyder treats killing Zod with great seriousness and people feel Snyder is an edgelord, Donner treats cold blooded murder as nothing more than a sucker punch and a bad one liner away and people forget coldblooded murder is coldblooded murder.

Cavill may tell people to get into buildings that shit is not safe or only giving a soldier a brief nod to see if he is OK may not resonate with audiences as well as say... Reeves waving and smiling to onlookers whilst saving a baby even though he should probably be telling them to get the fuck moving.

Or people may be blinded by nostalgia and swear up and down John Kent was beaming with wide eyed optimism about the world when in real life that was not the case. To see that shit in real time listen to Ralph garman and Kevin Smith talk about Man of Steel where Ralph Garman insisted Superman never killed, Smith said the Lois Lane being oblivious stuff would make her look like an idiot, and whilst cynical as a parent he truly related with how Costner felt.

This could be extended to the Metropolis fight in both films as well where people forget Superman punched Kryptonians through skyscrapers in S2 but the scale of destruction in MOS would have you think he drove Zod through a crowded skyscraper.
He didn't

Idk why some of you guys are wasting your time with Bleepey, he is not ever going to move from his position, despite how bad his arguments are.

What arguments did I make that you disagree with? I gave you a lot of material to work with
 
Man of Steel is by far one of the worst movie going experiences I've had in recent memory. Taking away from everything tied to Superman, it's poorly written, poorly directed, and has performances that range from over the top to completely dull.

The main problem with Man of Steel is that it wants to take a more dark and serious approach with the character, yet the filmmakers arent competent enough to stray away from the standard hollowness and stupidity you'd find in any generic blockbuster. That clash results in a slog of a film that's equal parts dull and unintentionally campy.

For all of Snyder's talk of making Superman relatable, the film constantly pushes him away from mankind, observing him from the perspective of other characters like a germ in a petri dish. He's constantly exposited to, and rarely has a word to say, or a decision to make on his own. If not for the discovery of the Kryptonian ship in the artic, who knows how long Clark would've been wandering aimlessly because he couldnt decide if he wants to follow his father's teachings or not. It didn't help that the interesting classic aspects of the character, such as his balance of identities and his relationship with Lois were either heavily subdued or completely removed. As a result, this version of the character is stale and boring. I would blame Cavill for an equally wooden performance, but with the material and direction given, I cant blame him.

The perfermances all around are as dull and lifeless as the material, with the exception of Michael Shannon, who hams it up to 100. There's so little humour or fun to be had in the script that any attempt at doing so feels forced and out of place.

I dont believe in Lois and Clark's relationship, when there's so little chemistry and dialogue between them. I dont believe in Clark's connection to humanity when he's shown to be either pushed away or treated like crap by them his whole life, and vise versa. I dont believe in the world ever accepting this character when his very existence nearly caused the end of the world.

Snyder and Goyer handled these serious, compelling ideas with the depth of a puddle and the subtlety of a sledgehmmer.

No image better showcases how wrong those involved were for handling such complex concepts than this one shot in the film:

 

EGM1966

Member
Reeve's acting can't be praised enough. He does so many little things that really help make Clark and Superman feel like two people - which is something the Snyder movies fail at incredibly.

TBH the biggest issue since Reeves including Cavil is even getting close to how he nailed the character in a way you could relate to. Cavil tries but you never believe he's got a clue who he is (script and plot bears fair bit of brunt for this too of course) and there is literally zero sense of difference between his Clarck/Kal side vs some mild line delivery changes.

Despite the odd tone wobbles remaining from Donner's attempt to purge all of the dumb stuff from the original script Reeves delivered a wholly convincing take on the character. What I still love about his performance particularly in the first is he's always Kal. Sometimes he's Kal pretending to be Clark. Sometimes he's Kal in his public persona of Superman and sometime's he's just Kal (when in his fortress or alone with Lois). It's actually a really strong performance and TBH I feel an actor who can nail it again is required and I'm not convinced that's Cavil. He's okay as young not knowing himself Kal but he just can't assume adult mantle in the role nor seem to move beyond being too human and emotionally frail.

To take an example from another film Cavil is liking someone playing Spock as all human and forgetting he's half human. Reeves got the split sides to the character as naturally as Nimoy nailed Spock.
 

BFIB

Member
MoS: Superman killed Zod! Worst Superman ever! Who cares if he had no other choice! Superman doesn't kill!

Superman 2: Superman knowingly removes Zod's powers, along with the other Kryptonians. He not only does this, but also kneels, crushes Zod's hand, lifts him over his head like a child, and just tosses him off a cliff. He could have easily taken him and his cronies to jail, you know, the exact same way he does to Luthor not even two minutes later?
 

Sephzilla

Member
MoS: Superman killed Zod! Worst Superman ever! Who cares if he had no other choice! Superman doesn't kill!

Superman 2: Superman knowingly removes Zod's powers, along with the other Kryptonians. He not only does this, but also kneels, crushes Zod's hand, lifts him over his head like a child, and just tosses him off a cliff. He could have easily taken him and his cronies to jail, you know, the exact same way he does to Luthor not even two minutes later?

I think you can blame this on the behind the scenes mess that was Superman 2. From what I remember there was supposed to be a scene of Zod and the others being sent to prison, but they cut it.
 

Bleepey

Member
I think you can blame this on the behind the scenes mess that was Superman 2. From what I remember there was supposed to be a scene of Zod and the others being sent to prison, but they cut it.

I heard in the shooting script Zod dies in that too. The TV edit that people insist should be gospel because it has Lex being arrested by police with possible Kryptonians being taken away was an after thought. Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY5RD3Ocmsg

So edgy!
 
Top Bottom