Man of Steel - Your thoughts — Page 3

A friend of mine and I planned on seeing this last night over a week ago. We invited a few of our other friends along the way, then something came up and the original friend I planned on seeing it with couldn't make it. We get to the theater, and one friend says, "Oooh! World War Z, I'd almost rather see that!" Another friend, "Yeah! I'd be down with that!" and the other, "Works for me. Are you cool with that?" All three of them turn to me. What could I say? "Yeah, if you guys would rather see that it's fine." Would have much rather seen This is the End or something that would have been mindless fun. It was the worst and most lifeless, souless movie I've allowed myself to be subjected to in a long time.

I hate situations like that. So, hopefully sometime in the near future I'll get an opportunity to see Man of Steel and will be able to post a few comments on it. If I would have known things were going to pan out that way, I'd have gone to see it by myself the night before.

Finally saw it last night.  There was a lot of destruction, which certainly would have resulted in damages like noted in the above picture.  But honestly I really, really enjoyed it, and I don't care what fake people like Frink's wife think about it.  It was fantastic!  If I were a fan editor, the main thing I would change would simply be the extensive destruction.

Minor spoiler alert:

In spite of of how much I liked the movie, I noticed one serious logical error right away.  In Metropolis, Zod's ship is work in tandem with the world engine or whatever it's called on the opposite side of the planet.  In Metropolis, it's broad daylight.  After destroying the world engine on the other side and getting knocked out, Supes gets some recovery as he soaks in sunlight from the morning light.  How could there be sunlight on opposite sides of the planet simultaneously???

SilverWook said:

Great Scott! Can't they use some other villain from the rogue's gallery for a change?

No, because the audience would not be familiar with any other superman villians beside Lex Luthor and Zod. It's all about selling tickets than taking risks. That's why they had the origin story in Man of Steel for the second (or third?) time.

perhaps it is time to put one of these other Superman villains in a movie so that the audience will become familiar with them.    In addition, I am pretty sure many are familiar with Doomsday and Bizarro(though I realize that Bizarro would be too silly and Doomsday wouldn't seem right for the first movie). 

btw, is the John Williams Superman music used anywhere in the movie?

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

Great Scott! Can't they use some other villain from the rogue's gallery for a change?

No, because the audience would not be familiar with any other superman villians beside Lex Luthor and Zod. It's all about selling tickets than taking risks. That's why they had the origin story in Man of Steel for the second (or third?) time.

That is all demonstrably false.

Many villains that are not so well known have been popping up in comic books movies. Batman Begins started off with Ra's al Ghul, while well known to fans of the comics, the general public had no idea who he was. Lesser known villains have made their way into Disney's Marvel movies as well.

I don't think featuring Lex Luthor in the sequel would be in the interest of playing it safe, but rather because he is Superman's arch nemesis and modern super hero movies seem to have a life expectancy of three installments. I don't seem to remember too many complaints about the Joker in The Dark Knight, and in fact most people found this tired and overused villain to be the highlight of the film. Hopefully they find a way to make Lex interesting, rather than rehashing Hackman, like they did with Kevin Spacey in the overly shitty Superman Returns.

Also, this is a reboot. What is wrong with a fresh take on the origin story? We haven't seen his origin on the big screen since 1978, that was a year after the first Star Wars film was released, and several years before I was even born. If Marvel can keep rebooting the same characters over and over and over again (Spider-Man, the X-Men, The Punisher, the Hulk, and probably a few others) all in the expanse of ten years, then surely D.C. is allowed to give Superman another go from the beginning after 30+ years. 

darth_ender said:

Finally saw it last night.  There was a lot of destruction, which certainly would have resulted in damages like noted in the above picture.  But honestly I really, really enjoyed it, and I don't care what fake people like Frink's wife think about it.  It was fantastic!  If I were a fan editor, the main thing I would change would simply be the extensive destruction.

She may be fake, but she has better taste than you. :p

LexX said:

Just saw it too. I have to say, one of the worst films I've seen. I didn't imagine they would make a worse Superman film than Superman Returns but it seems like a masterpiece compared to this. Ugh. Very disappointed.

Glad I saved my money. 

But isn't Superman IV considered the worst in the franchise by fans? (Or at least until Man of Steel arrived) Granted, Superman Returns was bland and pointless; and the later Reeve films at least have some camp value.

SilverWook said:

If they want a compelling villain we haven't seen in a Supes movie before, and someone Superman can fight toe to toe, there's only one way to go, and that's Darkseid. There probably saving him for the Justice League flick though.

um . . . what about Doomsday?  Superman can certainly fight him toe to toe and he has not been in any theatrical release yet. 

adywan said:

Just got back from seeing it - bag of shite. Just can't be bothered to say any more at this point it's got me so pissed off.

Ady are you more a fan of the original Christopher Reeve film?

I haven't seen Man of Steel yet. I've been a bit apprehensive as I really love the Christopher Reeve films.