What does "Man of Steel" (2013) remind you of?...

[Lencho01]

As for the main question of this thread, I go with Batman Begins since it just felt like they were trying to use what worked for one character and tried to recreate that success in some way. It wasn't like they were trying to hide that fact in the marketing.

 

[FunkMiller]

How can you belive that is murder.
It's obviously not.

It literally says it in the article.

“Snyder's original reasoning for having Superman kill is more than a little disturbing:

“The why of it for me was, well, if it's truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It's just in his DNA. And I felt like we needed him to do something — just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet, or any of the other things that you're sort of seeing for the first time, that you realise will then become sort of his thing.

“Yes, if you don't murder once, how can you ever come to the conclusion that murder is bad? That's how morality works, right?”

 

[JannTosh]

In an alternate universe, there’s a genuinely great version of Zack Snyder’s Man Of Steel, where there was genuine oversight of the story at script stage by the likes of Nolan and others, which curtailed the worst of Snyder’s instincts. A version with no neck snap, less tone deaf destruction, and more warmth and heroism injected into Cavill’s depiction of the character. That movie did a billion dollars, and heralded the start of a successful DCEU.

I honestly don’t remember that much destruction being actually caused by Superman. Most was caused by the Zod’s world engin le or Zod himself. I honestly think people really exaggerate this element

 

[X Knight]

I wouldn't say MOS reminded me of anything, other than maybe Batman Begins in that it's an origin story where the hero starts out "lost" and has to find himself.

what it was, in hindsight, was a missed opportunity and waste of potential (including Henry). I agree with other posters about the neck snap. There were so many other ways they could have WRITTEN that scene where Clark wasn't forced to kill. I remember the lady sitting next to me in the theater gasping and saying "But Superman doesn't kill" when he snapped Zod's neck. While that's not 100% true, I get the sentiment. And I, too, would have preferred a scenario where Superman wasn't forced to kill. Especially using the "argument" that Clark needed to kill someone first in order to learn killing is bad or whatever. That's such a BS argument. By that logic, that means people need to steal first in order to learn stealing is bad and so on.

And speaking of stealing, I'd also add to that Clark stealing the clothes from the truck bothered me, too. I get how desperate Clark was, but it's still stealing. And for the character of Clark Kent, that just seems out of character. He could have taken clothes that were in the trash or recycle bin. Then, it wouldn't technically have been stealing because the clothes were already thrown away. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Or, even better, they could have had someone rescue Clark from the ocean, care and feed him until he "recovered" and then given him warm clothes to send him on his way. That would have been an act of kindness, along with other instances throughout the story, that taught Clark the goodness of humans. Those acts of kindness would have solidified Clark's faith in humanity (despite the bad things he's witnessed/experienced), which is why Clark ultimately chooses humans over Zod.

And the other big faux paus, imo, was Clark standing there and letting his father die in the tornado. That just looked and felt wrong on so many levels. It should have been Clark out there rescuing people despite his father's wishes. While Clark's out there helping people, he "hears/sees" his father having a heart attack. Clark is stuck between helping others or saving his dad and exposing his secret. Jonathan would still forbid Clark from saving him, but he would do so witnessing his son being the hero he always knew his son would be. Clark would still learn he's unable to save everyone, but at least he would have been actively helping people instead of passively standing by and watching his father die.

It's those instances and how the character was written that ultimately showed me that Snyder and Goyer and the rest of creative really didn't "get" the character of Superman.

this continued on in BvS. Only in Justice League did Superman finally start feeling like Superman. but by then, it was too late.

Now, I'm ready for a reboot and fresh start.

 

[DerekLake]

MOS seems to me most like a Nolan/Goyer version of Superman the Movie, plus lots of elements from everything from Lion King to War of the Worlds.

I think the film would have benefitted if it had come out maybe a few years later, enough to benefit from the way Birthright handles an itinerant Clark. While I appreciate the approach to Superman, I think it’s ultimately an ill-fit for the character Clark needed to become. Birthright handles the reluctant hero angle much better in my opinion.

As for the third act, I think it simply needed to be consolidated in Metropolis. So instead of the Indian Ocean, the World Engine is just attached to the Black Zero in Metropolis. And instead of fighting metallic tentacles, Superman fights Zod in Metropolis (and actively tries to save people), while the military attempts to send the Kryptonians back into the Phantom Zone. Superman bests Zod, Hamilton activates the pod, and all the Kryptonians get sucked up. No need for Superman to kill Zod (which ultimately has no bearing on his character development anyway), but we still get a satisfying third act that doesn’t get misconstrued as Superman destroying the city.

 

[Avs21]

It literally says it in the article.

Ok. I don't understand how he can consider that to be murder. But not much he said in that article makes sense.

 

[Herofan]

I'm not sure if it's weird or makes sense (or both) to do both an origin story and a battle against Zod in the same first movie. That's a lot of story and events to try to cram together but OTOH I generally think origin films have to little other story and too little, unimpressive action and after SR of course there would be desire to avoid that. It was ambitious to try to have an origin story and a huge action challenge in one movie, the action plot a big part of the new origin, but not very successful.

 

[Herofan]

Or, even better, they could have had someone rescue Clark from the ocean, care and feed him until he "recovered" and then given him warm clothes to send him on his way.

That would have felt reminiscent of Wolverine 09 but yeah, it obviously would have been more fitting for Superman than Wolverine.

 

[X Knight]

That would have felt reminiscent of Wolverine 09 but yeah, it obviously would have been more fitting for Superman than Wolverine.

I forgot, but is Wolverine 09 the one in Japan or the Origins movie?

 

[BatmanBegins05]

I forgot, but is Wolverine 09 the one in Japan or the Origins movie?

Origins.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Where do you fall on the argument? Do you like Man of Steel or do you dislike it?

Absolutely love it, adore it.

 

[BatmanBegins05]

Imagine if Michael Bay had directed Man of Steel. Every shot in the movie would be freaking beautiful! Michael Bay is just as good of a technical film director as Zack Snyder, if not better. It's very hard to do what Michael Bay does from a straight up technical film-making standpoint. Of course Michael Bay would objectify a woman like Amy Adams. But then, maybe he'd get somebody hotter than Amy Adams. Somebody who's smoking like Megan Fox, but not Megan Fox herself.

The difference between Michael Bay and Zack Snyder is...Michael Bay doesn't pretend to be smarter than he actually is. One thing's for sure. Man of Steel would've been a film with a lot of sex appeal and it never would've been boring. Because Michael Bay HATES "boring."

 

[DerekLake]

I honestly don’t remember that much destruction being actually caused by Superman. Most was caused by the Zod’s world engin le or Zod himself. I honestly think people really exaggerate this element

No, Superman doesn’t cause that much destruction. This irks me to no end. No, Superman did NOT destroy half the city. That would be the World Engine (and even then, it still wasn’t nearly half the city). Is he reckless and a bit too uncaring about the fight’s destruction? Sure. But responsible? Not really.

Ok. I don't understand how he can consider that to be murder. But not much he said in that article makes sense.

Ok, but the larger point still stands. Superman should not have to kill in order to develop an aversion to killing. That’s not how it works. And honestly, BvS proves it was just an excuse to have him kill. There was no “oh I killed someone so I’m never going to do it again” in BvS. Which is why the first thing he said about it is really what matters. Snyder wanted Superman to kill because he thought it was the “mature” thing to do.

I'm not sure if it's weird or makes sense (or both) to do both an origin story and a battle against Zod in the same first movie. That's a lot of story and events to try to cram together but OTOH I generally think origin films have to little other story and too little, unimpressive action and after SR of course there would be desire to avoid that. It was ambitious to try to have an origin story and a huge action challenge in one movie, the action plot a big part of the new origin, but not very successful.

I think it made a sort of sense to have Zod first given the story they were attempting to tell. The problem is that it’s simply not credible to have a Superman story where Clark is legitimately torn between siding with Zod and siding with humanity. In fact, I don’t think it worked to try to make Clark this sort of burdened, melancholy character. It required changing too many things about his outlook and values, things that directly inform his well-developed role as Superman. The destruction was problematic to many in itself, but it might have been less so were it not for the overall depiction of the character.

 

[Kane52630]

It reminds me of Amazing Spider-Man.

Like ASM, MOS is ultimately a mediocre attempt at replicating Batman Begins' success with another major Superhero.

And just like ASM, MOS was followed by a dumspter fire of a sequel.

 

[FunkMiller]

Imagine if Michael Bay had directed Man of Steel. Every shot in the movie would be freaking beautiful! Michael Bay is just as good of a technical film director as Zack Snyder, if not better. It's very hard to do what Michael Bay does from a straight up technical film-making standpoint. Of course Michael Bay would objectify a woman like Amy Adams. But then, maybe he'd get somebody hotter than Amy Adams. Somebody who's smoking like Megan Fox, but not Megan Fox herself.

The difference between Michael Bay and Zack Snyder is...Michael Bay doesn't pretend to be smarter than he actually is. One thing's for sure. Man of Steel would've been a film with a lot of sex appeal and it never would've been boring. Because Michael Bay HATES "boring."

I think Michael Bay and Zack Snyder are on a very similar level. And I don’t mean that as an insult. Both have strong visual flair and equally strong technical skills, but weak story skills. Both benefit from oversight, and both suffer when there is none. Both have obvious talent, but both also have obvious shortcomings.

 

[unholyrevenger]

Another person misinterpreting MoS Pa Kent, because their only reference point is the "with great power comes great responsibility" hero.

Pa Kent's message is it's OK to not use your powers. The use of your powers to do good is not what makes you a good person. So please son, don't feel pressured or conflicted about not using them.

Snyder and Goyer's only sin, not using simplistic un-misinterpertable language and delivery of the message

 

[FunkMiller]

Another person misinterpreting MoS Pa Kent, because their only reference point is the "with great power comes great responsibility" hero.

Pa Kent's message is it's OK to not use your powers. The use of your powers to do good is not what makes you a good person. So please son, don't feel pressured or conflicted about not using them.

Snyder and Goyer's only sin, not using simplistic un-misinterpertable language and delivery of the message

I don’t think there’s a single poster on here that doesn’t understand that this. It wasn’t hard to grasp at all.

 

[Batmannerism]

Imagine if Michael Bay had directed Man of Steel. Every shot in the movie would be freaking beautiful! Michael Bay is just as good of a technical film director as Zack Snyder, if not better. It's very hard to do what Michael Bay does from a straight up technical film-making standpoint. Of course Michael Bay would objectify a woman like Amy Adams. But then, maybe he'd get somebody hotter than Amy Adams. Somebody who's smoking like Megan Fox, but not Megan Fox herself.

The difference between Michael Bay and Zack Snyder is...Michael Bay doesn't pretend to be smarter than he actually is. One thing's for sure. Man of Steel would've been a film with a lot of sex appeal and it never would've been boring. Because Michael Bay HATES "boring."

If Michael Bay had directed MOS there would have been a ton of racially stereotypical- bordering on racist caricatures, lots of nonsensical dialogue, a ton of generic bad guys who are virtually indistinguishable from each other, action that is superconfusing and at the same time bland, pointless 360 degree shots, a convoluted but utterly asinine story and Superman constantly punching things so that they explode.

Zach Snyder got a bunch of stuff right in MOS , which he promptly forgot about in B v S, but he's no Michael Bay - a man who can turn beloved characters like TMNT into ghastly parodies of themselves.

It is hard to make films like Michael Bay, not everyone can make action films that are such an assault on the senses but at the same time lack any feeling, suspense or excitement.

 

[metaphysician]

I don’t think there’s a single poster on here that doesn’t understand that this. It wasn’t hard to grasp at all.

Well, yes. However, if one starts from a position of "Anything less than total love of Man of Steel must be based in either ignorance or malice". . .

 

[Boy Scout]

I think it made a sort of sense to have Zod first given the story they were attempting to tell. The problem is that it’s simply not credible to have a Superman story where Clark is legitimately torn between siding with Zod and siding with humanity. In fact, I don’t think it worked to try to make Clark this sort of burdened, melancholy character. It required changing too many things about his outlook and values, things that directly inform his well-developed role as Superman. The destruction was problematic to many in itself, but it might have been less so were it not for the overall depiction of the character.

They could’ve somewhat pulled it off if Zod hadn’t been - or at least hadn’t presented himself as - an outright villain from the very start.

Using Zod in a more productive manner could’ve lead to a lot of cool moments, I think. He could’ve provided Superman with combat training; access to Kryptonian technology and robots that could could’ve eventually populated the Fortress; knowledge of the wider universe (Oa, Thanagar, Rann, etc.); and the means to learn the Kryptonian language.

Zod could’ve been Superman’s Ra’s al Ghul, but they made him a Hulk.

 

[Batmannerism]

They could’ve somewhat pulled it off if Zod hadn’t been - or at least hadn’t presented himself as - an outright villain from the very start.

Using Zod in a more productive manner could’ve lead to a lot of cool moments, I think. He could’ve provided Superman with combat training; access to Kryptonian technology and robots that could could’ve eventually populated the Fortress; knowledge of the wider universe (Oa, Thanagar, Rann, etc.); and the means to learn the Kryptonian language.

Zod could’ve been Superman’s Ra’s al Ghul, but they made him a Hulk.

Yup. First thing Zod does when we meet him is shoot dead an unarmed old woman.... it couldn't be any clearer that he's the bad guy.

I did think there were attempts to explain Zod's twisted morality they just weren't done with any subtlety.

 

[metaphysician]

If they didn't feel the need to make Zod pointlessly genocidal, they could have played to a temptation that works off of Clark's virtues: Zod pitches the conquest of Earth as a way for Kal-El to save the people he clearly cares about. What better way to protect them, to uplift them, than to rule them? No more wars, no more starvation or disease thanks to Kryptonian technology. . . the planet could be turned into a paradise, if Kal-El is only willing to take Zod's hand and join them.

 

[X Knight]

Origins.

thanks.

 

[Nemeres]

I see Man of Steel as the summation of ideas borrowed from JJ Abrams' Superman script, Batman Begins and Independence Day.

BB, the exact same approach in tone and structure. It had worked well once and it wasn't so overdone yet that it couldn't be attempted again. Independence Day, it's that "First Contact leads to destruction, and it's awesome" blockbuster flavor. JJ Abrams' Superman Flyby script... in broad strokes, it's the same blueprint for the origin. You can tell the filmmakers read it. Clark as an outlier with a complicated childhood and teenage years; civil wars in Krypton; Kryptonian villains come to Earth with heavy machinery; cities destroyed. MOS comes up w plenty of its own ideas, but it borrows from Flyby heavily, right down the blurred S-shield on TV that signals the alien arrival.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Transformers. Both are overly long big, dumb movies made by notoriously big, dumb filmmakers, totally reliant on fights and explosions with abysmal character work that appeals mainly to teenage males and the fratboy crowd that think they are "kewl, bro!" I do think MoS is better than Transformers, but they are similar in a lot of ways.