Dawn of Justice vs Civil War vs Apocalypse

[Killer]

Man of Steel repeated a lot of the same plot beats and concepts as Superman '78, especially those that originated in the Donner movie and not the comics.

It still felt like a completely different animal.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

But the reality is that it did have an impact on the way the movie was received. I can´t tell how big of a factor it was, neither can you, but it was definitely a factor.

Sure it was a factor, but as FC pointed out there were other issues that fans, critics and general moviegoers took it to task for.

 

[Visualiza]

But the reality is that it did have an impact on the way the movie was received. I can´t tell how big of a factor it was, neither can you, but it was definitely a factor.

This only seems to be perpetuated by people who liked Man of Steel.

To this day, I've never read a review in which the author claims that the problem(s) with Man of Steel is that it wasn't like the Donner movies. The idea itself is pure nonsense.

Now, there have been comparisons to the Donner movies, but they were to illustrate areas where one movie did something well, while the other did not. Two completely different things.

The overarching issue isn't that it was done differently, it's that it was done poorly. There are far too many examples of movies that were well received(and in many cases, garnering higher praise than ever before) in spite of differences to their predecessors and/or sources of adaptation.

 

[Visualiza]

It still felt like a completely different animal.

*shrugs* But not in a good way, and for that matter, not in an any way more noticeable than TASM...which is kinda the point.

Both movies borrowed heavily from what came before them while also putting their own little spin on things, but neglected important things like story, character development, dialogue, and a whole host of other things.

Either way, all of this is irrelevant, and only serves to dance around the fact that most of the complaints about Man of Steel had more to do with its failures and problems as a film (kudos flickchick), rather than not satisfying certain preconceptions.

Why is it that this argument never gets turned on its head? Isn't that only a fair possibility, since the argument is supposedly true for the other side? Why is it that some MoS fans aren't accused of liking the film only because of how different they perceive it to be(although some do freely admit to enjoying it for how "modern" it is), or that it validated their preconceptions about the character?

Because that's irrational bull*****, that's why.

 

[hotrain33]

Batman vs Superman dawn of justice will be first because you have three of the most iconic heroes in one film. Each hero had there share of movies tv shows. The general audience knows them more. Second will be Xmen apocalypse based on its success the previous films days of future past and first class. Third will be Civil war Captain America vs Iron man.

 

[flickchick85]

Every film has outside factors that affect its critical reception. Some are biases toward the lead actor, director, studio, behind-the-scenes drama, a poorly-timed release date, being too similar to another release that year, the list could go on. MoS is not a special snowflake that got unfairly railroaded by critics because of the iconic nature of its lead character. It's a heavily flawed movie with some great aspects, but one that earned its criticisms.

As to the topic, it's a toss-up between BvS or Civil War for me. Too soon for me to pick a front-runner without footage from either yet.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm anticipating both CW and DOJ about the same amount, but I have higher expectations for civil war. I almost don't even care about AoA.

 

[Killer]

This only seems to be perpetuated by people who liked Man of Steel.

To this day, I've never read a review in which the author claims that the problem(s) with Man of Steel is that it wasn't like the Donner movies. The idea itself is pure nonsense.

Now, there have been comparisons to the Donner movies, but they were to illustrate areas where one movie did something well, while the other did not. Two completely different things.

The overarching issue isn't that it was done differently, it's that it was done poorly. There are far too many examples of movies that were well received(and in many cases, garnering higher praise than ever before) in spite of differences to their predecessors and/or sources of adaptation.

I´ve also never read a review where the author says "I don´t like this movie because it´s different from the Donner ones". And lets be honest, who would write something like that? Even if that was the truth, nobody would ever write that.

But i´ve seen many people, not only critics, but people in general, not only directly comparing MOS to the Reeve´s movies, but also criticizing the movie for not being a buch of things that are heavily associated with the Donner Universe, like "less serious", and having "more humour" and "more romance", amongst other things. You can definitely see these people went to see MOS with a stong mindset regarding what they were or were not willing to accept as a good "Superman movie".

I´m not even suggesting that if the old ones didn´t exist, MOS would have been loved. But you truly gotta be a blind hater to actually believe that a preconceived concept regarding the nature of a character couldn´t impact the way the movie is received.

*shrugs* But not in a good way, and for that matter, not in an any way more noticeable than TASM...which is kinda the point.

The difference between MOS and STM is waaay heavier than the difference between TASM and SM1, and i can´t even believe there´s actually someone who would contest something so obvious.

 

[henzINNIT]

BO Winner:

Civil War. Unless AOU disappoints sorely, Marvel have too much good will to fail. I'd argue that Cap and Iron Man are bigger draws than a MOS Superman and a recast Bats, but obviously you can't count out the novelty of that team up. X-Men will surely be last, though it'll do well too.

Critic's choice:

Singer's X-Men have always been critical darlings, so I'm going with Apocalypse for this. Regardless of quality, there's a chance that Marvel will have lost some favour by then for the sheer amount of films they've churned out, enough to put this in second. Snyder is generally disliked by critics and I doubt BvS will change the tide.

My favourite:

This is up for grabs. I'm sure I'll see all 3, and while I'm a bigger X-Men fan than the others, I'll probably be more picky about that one too. I'm most confident that I'll enjoy Civil War at this point.

 

[Visualiza]

I´ve also never read a review where the author says "I don´t like this movie because it´s different from the Donner ones". And lets be honest, who would write something like that? Even if that was the truth, nobody would ever write that.

Perhaps, but it hasn't exactly been implicit, either. As I said before, the comparisons to Donner were done for the same reason you do any sort of comparison - to illustrate an easily understood, identifiable example of how and why something was well executed in relation to something else. It doesn't mean that it's the only way to skin a cat, and it shouldn't be interpreted that way either.

But i´ve seen many people, not only critics, but people in general, not only directly comparing MOS to the Reeve´s movies,

I'm gonna stop you right here, because I'd really like to know why the only time a comparison between MoS and Donner (or the comics, for that matter) is unfair is when it's unfavorable for MoS.

I have seen several posts by fans of the movie that not only list off all the ways MoS is superior to Donner, but they also get extremely critical of the '78 movie too. Apparently, that's perfectly fine, all while being fundamentally no different than when the shoe is on the other foot.

So let me ask you this, why aren't both of those examples so heavily scrutinized? If a comparison that favors the '78 movie makes one biased against MoS, then why isn't the reverse true?

Comparison (and contrast) is just one of many techniques that can be used when analyzing a movie, or anything really.

It's used so frequently in this case because it's relevant, familiar, and easy for people to relate to and visualize. Nothing sinister about it, no matter which way the pendulum swings.

but also criticizing the movie for not being a buch of things that are heavily associated with the Donner Universe, like "less serious", and having "more humour" and "more romance", amongst other things. You can definitely see these people went to see MOS with a stong mindset regarding what they were or were not willing to accept as a good "Superman movie".

People have a tendency to refer to the familiar when something new disappoints them, but we've also seen where new and fresh, when done well, manages to please even the most zealous and devoted purists. I don't think I should have to list them for you to know what I'm referring to. And no, you definitely can't see that people went to see MoS with a skewed perspective. We all knew what we were getting into when we saw those trailers; the marketing campaign made it perfectly clear what type of film we would be seeing - 'the 'visionary' Zack Snyder; produced by the director of TDK trilogy, Christopher Nolan'. Everyone was on board for a fresh take on the character, and the marketing captivated everybody. I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone say that they went into that movie expecting to not see a "good Superman movie". Who has the time and money to waste on movies that they're explicitly expecting to dislike? Honestly, what are you even basing this on? The hype was through the roof across the board, indicating that people had already bought into the premise, but once they saw the movie, they found that the failure was in the execution.

Anyway, those things that you listed are far too broad to be 'heavily associated' with the Donner films. Those are just the wavetops; superficial characteristics that the Donner movies possessed, but weren't solely defined by, and those things certainly aren't what made the movies as good as they were. While I've also seen people make similar comments, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that this is yet another example of people being unable to properly articulate their grievances with a film. People do the same sort of thing with praise as well, when they call a movie good for the exact opposite reasons (and yes, that includes MoS). The truth of the matter is that those sorts of details can be done as poorly as they can be done well.

I'm interested in responses to the more expressive and meaningful critiques that really get into the weeds of what made the film effective or not. More romance? How about a carefully and effectively developed romance, rather than a rushed, undeveloped, and haphazard one? STM is a good example or the former, but that's just it, it's an example; relatable and relevant because it's the same characters, but it's not the only way to do it.

See how that works?

I´m not even suggesting that if the old ones didn´t exist, MOS would have been loved. But you truly gotta be a blind hater to actually believe that a preconceived concept regarding the nature of a character couldn´t impact the way the movie is received.

That's a pretty poor attempt to poison the well, especially when myself and the rest of the so-called haters have explained why we feel that way. You're gonna have to do better than that, because you're not presenting a very convincing argument to anyone who doesn't already believe this.

Anyway, I think it's important to consider that there are enough examples of successful adaptations and remakes that have deviated from the source material for this excuse to have much merit with this film.

The difference between MOS and STM is waaay heavier than the difference between TASM and SM1, and i can´t even believe there´s actually someone who would contest something so obvious.

There it is again.

 

[Flint Marko]

Visualiza once again hitting the nail on the head

 

[Killer]

Perhaps, but it hasn't exactly been implicit, either. As I said before, the comparisons to Donner were done for the same reason you do any sort of comparison - to illustrate an easily understood, identifiable example of how and why something was well executed in relation to something else. It doesn't mean that it's the only way to skin a cat, and it shouldn't be interpreted that way either.



I'm gonna stop you right here, because I'd really like to know why the only time a comparison between MoS and Donner (or the comics, for that matter) is unfair is when it's unfavorable for MoS.

I have seen several posts by fans of the movie that not only list off all the ways MoS is superior to Donner, but they also get extremely critical of the '78 movie too. Apparently, that's perfectly fine, all while being fundamentally no different than when the shoe is on the other foot.

So let me ask you this, why aren't both of those examples so heavily scrutinized? If a comparison that favors the '78 movie makes one biased against MoS, then why isn't the reverse true?

Comparison (and contrast) is just one of many techniques that can be used when analyzing a movie, or anything really.

Did i mention anything about comparisions being fair or unfair? I simply mentioned people do compare these two movies, wich they do. It´s fact.

People have a tendency to refer to the familiar when something new disappoints them, but we've also seen where new and fresh, when done well, manages to please even the most zealous and devoted purists.

I don´t really think you have that many examples of iconic franchises, on the level of the Christopher Reeve´s Superman, that were rebooted and received big critical acclaims. The Donner Universe was the main vision people had of Superman for over 3 decades. How many comparable examples do you have? I doubt many.

And no, you definitely can't see that people went to see MoS with a skewed perspective. We all knew what we were getting into when we saw those trailers; the marketing campaign made it perfectly clear what type of film we would be seeing

Yes i can. And no, it was never perfectly clear what type of movie we would be seeing. For example: How could i have guessed Superman would kill, something most people weren´t expecting to see him doing ad really didn´t? A trailer can only tell you so much. There were plenty of elements that i was very curious to see how they would be handled in the movie. The trailer didn´t make everything crystal clear.

Everyone was on board for a fresh take on the character, and the marketing captivated everybody. I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone say that they went into that movie expecting to not see a "good Superman movie". Who has the time and money to waste on movies that they're explicitly expecting to dislike?

Plenty of people watch movies out of curiosity. Just because they pay for it, doesn´t mean they´re expecting them to be great. I paid to watch Robocop and i never expected it to be better, or even as good as the original. What makes you think everybody who liked the MOS trailer and went to see the movie actually believed they would like this version better than the Donner one, or even as much?

Anyway, those things that you listed are far too broad to be 'heavily associated' with the Donner films. Those are just the wavetops; superficial characteristics that the Donner movies possessed, but weren't solely defined by, and those things certainly aren't what made the movies as good as they were. While I've also seen people make similar comments, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that this is yet another example of people being unable to properly articulate their grievances with a film. People do the same sort of thing with praise as well, when they call a movie good for the exact opposite reasons (and yes, that includes MoS). The truth of the matter is that those sorts of details can be done as poorly as they can be done well.

It doesn´t matter if they´re broad or not. Life has showed me i´m right. Just from being around people. I know there´s a difference between going to see something we have no idea about and going to see a new version of something we grew up watching. Make no mistake, this is not a theory. This is me stating a fact. People do develop preconceived notions regarding characters and franchises they grew up with. And those preconceived notions can affect your judgment of a movie. You can, indeed, go watch a movie expecting to see certain things. And you might not be pleased in case you don´t see what you´re expecting. And you can even go watch a movie convinced that you´re not gonna like it as much as the previous incarnations. It doesn´t happen to everyone, but it happens.

This is not a theory. It´s a fact. I´ve seen it in first hand. I´ve had people confessing me they didn´t like something because it was too different from what they were used to. It is a factor. It has happened to me, it has happened to personal friends, and it has happened to several people i used to talk to when i was the manager of a movie theater in my city.

Is it a big factor? Is it a small factor? I don´t know, and i´m not even trying to argue about that. I´m just saying it´s a factor. And it´s not opened for dispute, because i´ve seen it in first hand, many times. Again, it´s not a theory.

 

[Tony Stark]

People may have not liked MoS because it was so different from the Donner films, but that doesn't get rid of the legitimate criticism of the film that had nothing to do with the Donner films. It was an uneven script with terrible dialogue, and cookie cutter characters that really had no reason to interact other than being forced to.

 

[TalismanRing]

Pfft, forget comparing MOS to the excellence of the Donner Superman or even the wonderful Superman the animated series, or various comic runs, MOS fails at being nearly as good as Lois & Clark, the 1950s Adventures of Superman or even Smallville or Superboy. And yes, that's my opinion.

Wow, and guess what all Superman interpretations had a different slant on storytelling and take on the character of Superman. They also all have their fans and detractors to varying degrees.

So what makes MOS so special that it has all these irrational myopic "haters" trying to tug on Superman's cape rather than fans who are judging it on it's merits of storytelling, characterization etc? Nothing. It's not a special snowflake being unfairly judged or picked on. The people that don't like it aren't narrow-minded or unable to embrace new things. They just don't like it, they aren't entertained by it, they are not enamored of this version of Superman etc. Finis.

 

[Killer]

People may have not liked MoS because it was so different from the Donner films, but that doesn't get rid of the legitimate criticism of the film that had nothing to do with the Donner films. It was an uneven script with terrible dialogue, and cookie cutter characters that really had no reason to interact other than being forced to.

I disagree with basically everything you said. I also think that not liking the movie for not being what you would expect from Superman can actually make you overvalue certain flaws the movie might have.

MoS is hardly a perfect movie, but i don´t see it being that much worse than other movies that got a superior critical acclaim. Pacific Rim, for example. This is one of the worst action movies i´ve seen in a loooong time. Weak plot, weak characters and long and excruciating action scenes that completely bored me to death. Had Pacific Rim been a direct reboot of a an iconic franchise and i doubt it would had received this kind of acceptance.

I see a lot of double standards when judging MoS.

 

[Quasimod0]

Pacific Rim was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Even the Transformers films had better characters and dialogue than PR, imo. And that's saying something.

 

[Killer]

Pacific Rim was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Even the Transformers films had better characters and dialogue than PR, imo. And that's saying something.

Exactly. I couldn´t believe how awful this movie was. It´s still beyond me how critics can complain so much about certain aspects of MoS and completely ignore how Pacific Rim can be 3x worse in those exact same aspects. I had a better time watching the Transformers, and the Transformers is a movie i hated.

 

[Flint Marko]

Did i mention anything about comparisions being fair or unfair? I simply mentioned people do compare these two movies, wich they do. It´s fact.



I don´t really think you have that many examples of iconic franchises, on the level of the Christopher Reeve´s Superman, that were rebooted and received big critical acclaims. The Donner Universe was the main vision people had of Superman for over 3 decades. How many comparable examples do you have? I doubt many.



Yes i can. And no, it was never perfectly clear what type of movie we would be seeing. For example: How could i have guessed Superman would kill, something most people weren´t expecting to see him doing ad really didn´t? A trailer can only tell you so much. There were plenty of elements that i was very curious to see how they would be handled in the movie. The trailer didn´t make everything crystal clear.



Plenty of people watch movies out of curiosity. Just because they pay for it, doesn´t mean they´re expecting them to be great. I paid to watch Robocop and i never expected it to be better, or even as good as the original. What makes you think everybody who liked the MOS trailer and went to see the movie actually believed they would like this version better than the Donner one, or even as much?



It doesn´t matter if they´re broad or not. Life has showed me i´m right. Just from being around people. I know there´s a difference between going to see something we have no idea about and going to see a new version of something we grew up watching. Make no mistake, this is not a theory. This is me stating a fact. People do develop preconceived notions regarding characters and franchises they grew up with. And those preconceived notions can affect your judgment of a movie. You can, indeed, go watch a movie expecting to see certain things. And you might not be pleased in case you don´t see what you´re expecting. And you can even go watch a movie convinced that you´re not gonna like it as much as the previous incarnations. It doesn´t happen to everyone, but it happens.

This is not a theory. It´s a fact. I´ve seen it in first hand. I´ve had people confessing me they didn´t like something because it was too different from what they were used to. It is a factor. It has happened to me, it has happened to personal friends, and it has happened to several people i used to talk to when i was the manager of a movie theater in my city.

Is it a big factor? Is it a small factor? I don´t know, and i´m not even trying to argue about that. I´m just saying it´s a factor. And it´s not opened for dispute, because i´ve seen it in first hand, many times. Again, it´s not a theory.

None of these "pre-concieved notions" you speak of hindered people from loving the Nolan films, despite the innumerable differences between them and the two Burton movies. Want to know why? Because the Nolan movies were overall regarded as well-made. Even ASM received moderate praise because (regardless of how you feel about it) most people felt it was a decent enough movie. If any of those movies were outright bad, I wonder how many people would be making excuses for them saying "Oh, it received such a tepid reaction because of people's preconceived notions"?
At some point you're going to have to accept the fact that the criticisms leveled at MoS are made because the movie was sub-par in many peoples eyes (myself included), and that has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with previous incarnations of the character.

 

[Killer]

None of these "pre-concieved notions" you speak of hindered people from loving the Nolan films, despite the innumerable differences between them and the two Burton movies. Want to know why? Because the Nolan movies were overall regarded as well-made. Even ASM received moderate praise because (regardless of how you feel about it) most people felt it was a decent enough movie. If any of those movies were outright bad, I wonder how many people would be making excuses for them saying "Oh, it received such a tepid reaction because of people's preconceived notions"?
At some point you're going to have to accept the fact that the criticisms leveled at MoS are made because the movie was sub-par in many peoples eyes (myself included), and that has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with previous incarnations of the character.

You´re completely missing the point. I don´t know if you´re doing it purposely or if i just can´t explain myself very well.

1- Keaton was never as iconic as Reeve. I´m sorry, but he just wasn´t

2- Keaton was never the main image of Batman in the public eye for over 30 years.

3-I never said a movie couldn´t be a reboot of something iconic and still be loved. I said past movies could impact the way people perceive new ones. Especially in the case of Superman, whose only incarnation people knew for years was the Christopher Reeve one.

 

[Marvin]

None of these "pre-concieved notions" you speak of hindered people from loving the Nolan films, despite the innumerable differences between them and the two Burton movies. Want to know why? Because the Nolan movies were overall regarded as well-made. Even ASM received moderate praise because (regardless of how you feel about it) most people felt it was a decent enough movie. If any of those movies were outright bad, I wonder how many people would be making excuses for them saying "Oh, it received such a tepid reaction because of people's preconceived notions"?
At some point you're going to have to accept the fact that the criticisms leveled at MoS are made because the movie was sub-par in many peoples eyes (myself included), and that has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with previous incarnations of the character.

You're not even trying with this Flint...

But let's start with just how 'innumerable' these differences were between batmen for starters. Then move into just how singular the popular vision for the batman brand has been since it's conception, particularly to the movie going audience. Then do the same with Superman in cinema.

Because for example, just like Snyder, when Nolan had batman break his 'actual' kill rule(multiple times), it was supposedly the first time the GA has seen the character do it /sarcasm.
Then one puts forth the idea that the reason there was no controversy whatsoever is because it was well done in a well made movie in one instance and not so much in the other. It's all so terribly convenient imo. I think it's great that people talk about this film so vigorously to this day(unlike certain other even recent cbms, good or bad), but I just don't think you were even trying there.
Just saying.

On preconceptions;
Heroes kill all the time, even tree heroes. Heroes in brightly coloured disney cbms...but none receiving such a tepid and massive reaction for the act alone than seen here. That this very thing wasn't at all fueled by 'preconception' or 'preconceived notion' is odd imo. Then again, I suppose it was just so bloody violent and crass in mos..
This idea that 'more' saving people during the battle would have lead to a better and more entertaining movie stems from preconceptions as well considering all the big good movies that have one without the other.

People may have not liked MoS because it was so different from the Donner films, but that doesn't get rid of the legitimate criticism of the film that had nothing to do with the Donner films. It was an uneven script with terrible dialogue, and cookie cutter characters that really had no reason to interact other than being forced to.

This could be used to describe a great deal of movies, particularly in this genre, but I suppose that's what boils down to opinion. Anyways I think you are right about the first part, the trouble is that it doesn't actually negate the basic presence of the inverse.

 

[Flint Marko]

You´re completely missing the point. I don´t know if you´re doing it purposely or if i just can´t explain myself very well.

1- Keaton was never as iconic as Reeve. I´m sorry, but he just wasn´t

2- Keaton was never the main image of Batman in the public eye for over 30 years.

3-I never said a movie couldn´t be a reboot of something iconic and still be loved. I said past movies could impact the way people perceive new ones. Especially in the case of Superman, whose only incarnation people knew for years was the Christopher Reeve one.

It's tough to gauge things like this because we can't really speak for the general audience but looking at Man of Steel and reading reviews about the film, it's clear to me that there are numerous other factors that went into people's negative reaction towards the film other than a sentimental leaning towards Reeves. So to cite that as a significant factor seems like an excuse because there are a lot of valid criticisms about the movie itself. That's really my main point. There might be people out there who weren't going to like the film at all because it wasn't exactly like Christopher Reeves portrayal, but that is probably an extremely small minority whose voice is drowned out by the other complaints people had.

You're not even trying with this Flint...

But let's start with just how 'innumerable' these differences were between batmen for starters. Then move into just how singular the popular vision for the batman brand has been since it's conception, particularly to the movie going audience. Then do the same with Superman in cinema.

Because for example, just like Snyder, when Nolan had batman break his 'actual' kill rule(multiple times), it was supposedly the first time the GA has seen the character do it /sarcasm.
Then one puts forth the idea that the reason there was no controversy whatsoever is because it was well done in a well made movie in one instance and not so much in the other. It's all so terribly convenient imo. I think it's great that people talk about this film so vigorously to this day(unlike certain other even recent cbms, good or bad), but I just don't think you were even trying there.
Just saying.

On preconceptions;
Heroes kill all the time, even tree heroes. Heroes in brightly coloured disney cbms...but none receiving such a tepid and massive reaction for the act alone than seen here. That this very thing wasn't at all fueled by 'preconception' or 'preconceived notion' is odd imo. Then again, I suppose it was just so bloody violent and crass in mos..
This idea that 'more' saving people during the battle would have lead to a better and more entertaining movie stems from preconceptions as well considering all the big good movies that have one without the other.

This could be used to describe a great deal of movies, particularly in this genre, but I suppose that's what boils down to opinion. Anyways I think you are right about the first part, the trouble is that it doesn't actually negate the basic presence of the inverse.

You spend a great deal of time discussing the act of "killing" in the movie when that was only one item on a pretty long list of common complaints against MoS. I personally had no problem with him killing Zod, and the rampant destruction is pretty far down on my list of general complaints about the film, because as Tony Stark began to point out, there is a lot wrong with Man of Steel. You brush his description off and say "oh, well that could be used to describe a lot of different movies", but that doesn't address the issue and it isn't exactly true. Look at how many comic book movies have come out in the past couple years to critical acclaim, and note the differences between those movie and MoS.

 

[KevanG]

Before I saw DoFP I had no interest in seeing Apocalypse due to all the X-Men movies that came out after X2 (except for FC which was well done) being crap, after DoFP I'm curious to see how it will go and actually think it should be neat.

Civil War is on the edge for me as the comic was meh and pretty dumb all around due to the reasoning behind it all. For the movie I'd need to know more behind it than anything.

Could not care less about DoJ.

 

[Killer]

It's tough to gauge things like this because we can't really speak for the general audience but looking at Man of Steel and reading reviews about the film, it's clear to me that there are numerous other factors that went into people's negative reaction towards the film other than a sentimental leaning towards Reeves. So to cite that as a significant factor seems like an excuse because there are a lot of valid criticisms about the movie itself. That's really my main point. There might be people out there who weren't going to like the film at all because it wasn't exactly like Christopher Reeves portrayal, but that is probably an extremely small minority whose voice is drowned out by the other complaints people had.

The factors are really not that numerous, if we really pay attention to the reviews. A lot of the criticism is just too vague and could easily be applied to a good perentage of the CB movies, if not all of them. Just the fact that MoS is crucified for certain things that are much more tolerated in other action movies just proves to me that a lot of people went to see the movie not willing to accept in a Superman movie certain things they would easily accept in other films.

If you have a strong idea of what a character should be, and if you´re very emotionally attached to previous incarnations, like many people are, it might be difficult for you to judge the movie with the same eyes you would judge something that you knew nothing about and had absolutely no value to you. This is a pretty natural human behaviour.

The fact that people in their reviews give you reasons to not have liked the movie that may seem logic to you doesn´t mean that the criticism consciously or subconsciously wasn´t aggravated by certain preconceptions. Plus, you can´t seriously expect critics to say they didn´t like this movie because it was too different from the Donner one, even though many reviews strongly allude to it. They will obviously try to find a more acceptable reason to trash the movie, and that´s really not very difficult to do.

 

[The Batman]

You spend a great deal of time discussing the act of "killing" in the movie when that was only one item on a pretty long list of common complaints against MoS. I personally had no problem with him killing Zod, and the rampant destruction is pretty far down on my list of general complaints about the film, because as Tony Stark began to point out, there is a lot wrong with Man of Steel. You brush his description off and say "oh, well that could be used to describe a lot of different movies", but that doesn't address the issue and it isn't exactly true. Look at how many comic book movies have come out in the past couple years to critical acclaim, and note the differences between those movie and MoS.

I feel like Marvin's post confirmed what I've thought all along: He's so fixated on that "People were too attached to Donner" argument, that he honestly believes thats the only reason MOS' detractors didn't like the film. I'd like to be proven wrong on that, as believing that there is only one reason that people dislike that film is silly, and sounds like the ideology of someone who loves MOS so much that he/she is unwilling to accept that there are people who dislike the film for legitimate reasons.

 

[Killer]

I feel like Marvin's post confirmed what I've thought all along: He's so fixated on that "People were too attached to Donner" argument, that he honestly believes thats the only reason MOS' detractors didn't like the film. I'd like to be proven wrong on that, as believing that there is only one reason that people dislike that film is silly, and sounds like the ideology of someone who loves MOS so much that he/she is unwilling to accept that there are people who dislike the film for legitimate reasons.

It would be hard for you to find in this thread anyone saying that was the only reason.