MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

This might also explain why Clark was able to hold his own against two Kryptonians at once and snap Zod's neck, something that shouldn't be possible with their powerset. Clark grew up on Earth from a very young age (it looks like only a few days old), while Zod and his companions were only exposed to our Sun and atmosphere for a few hours. Zod getting the ability to fly so quick may be explained by his nature as a warrior (which, IIRC the dialog during that scene basically states).

So because Clark grew up on Earth he is truly invincible while the other Kryptonians are only incredibly strong. Jor-El also stated something about how Earth's environment would make Clark's skin and bones infinitely stronger, which also helps explain why Clark was able to snap Zod's neck. Zod's bones were still very weak comparatively.

 

In response to Shaka Zulu:

On the other, you can argue that SMALLVILLE helped introduce the character to a whole new generation that might have been turned off by a more traditional approach.

My niece watched the show religiously, even though she had never read a SUPERMAN comic in her life and didn't have a clue what a "Brainiac" was. And I have to imagine that she was hardly the only viewer of SMALLVILLE who came to it with fresh eyes and no expectations--which is not necessarily a bad thing.

There's something to be said for not just preaching to the converted . . . .

 

You.re not alone. I never cared for this series either.

And although I had my issues with Smallville and I wasn't a regular viewer I thought it was light years better than Lois & Clark.

 

I ignored Lois and Clark back in the day but I have recently got into the show. It's not too bad.

 

The first two seasons of Lois and Clark are good but after that it was pretty horrible.

 

Galactically stupid?

I spent the afternoon watching American Hustle.

Lois Lane is TOTALLY into Batman.

 

While I agree with you, I wouldn't call the last two years "horrible". Worse than the first two, yeah, but not horrible.

And Lois & Clark is my favorite version of Superman. Make of that what you will.

 

But Batman is married to Mystique and scamming Hawkeye . . . .

 

Because otherwise Rocket Raccoon will throw him in jail.

 

C+
Some of the supporting characters, particularly Lois Lane, Zod and Jor-El (though in the middle he came off as a little too non-alien), were OK to good but the key roles of Clark, Jonathan and Martha were much too bland. It also felt overly (in)convenient that Clark, despite having a suit and being able to fly, didn't make a costumed debut until the bad Kryptonians forced him to and that the villains got out of their imprisonment seemingly pretty easily.
The best parts were the most creative, fat/mean Pete Ross and Lois discovering Clark's secret so early on; I also liked the final Superman/Zod battle but otherwise the action and tone generally felt too much like Thor. Lex Luthor was also very missed.
Edit: Zod demanding Lane came aboard also felt contrived.
Jor-El being at least a little skeptical about or feeling superior to humans could have made Superman's hesitancy to make a debut make more sense.
Didn't like Superman killing Zod. It's true that he did it out of desperation and that he felt bad about it but the film didn't sufficiently establish that Zod, without his machines, was as big a threat as he claimed to be. If Superman kills any time he faces someone about as strong as him or anyone else is threatened, that is missing the point.

 

The three standout things I didn't care for in this film:

- Jonathan Kent's death. Totally pointless and stupid way of doing this. Made zero sense whatsoever.
- Climatic fight scene. Actually most of the figthing scenes quickly got dull, but the ending fight sequence just dragged on to no purpose.
- Superman's costume. It jiust looked wrong to me before and still does.

Most everything else I was okay with.

 

Agreed about the final Superman/Zod battle dragging on a little too much. But with the others I thought Snyder actually showed a surprising amount of restraint. The battles were much more focused and not nearly as long and tiresome as the battles in the Transformer movies, or the action sequences in the Pirates sequels.

I can understand if it maybe felt that way to some people, but I'd be surprised if they were even close to the same length.

 

I rewatched the movie last night, and besides the character assassination of Jonathan Kent, I really can't remember exactly what problems I had with this movie. The action scenes are great, Cavill makes a fine Superman, Shannon is deliciously hammy as Zod, and overall the movie is pretty fun. The grimness that I recall from my first viewing wasn't apparent to me at all. That's very strange.

 

^ I found that I also liked it more on a second pass; I think the ending had retroactively tainted the entire movie for me on the first pass at theaters.

I still don't like the ending, though; it was an unnecessary ending in my opinion and did not advance the characters in a direction worth exploring in a mainstream film. It only serves to dillute and diminish the Superman character.

Superman is about hope and setting a standard for humanity to follow; it even says it in this movie. But this Superman did no better than the rest of us would. Superman is supposed to be better.

 

A lot of the disillusionment I'm reading here strikes me as stemming from expectation. Many (if not all) have a set image or expectation of who/what Superman/Clark is (as well as the other characters) and they're upset with any deviation.

While I can't say this is absolutely the Superman film I would have liked to see I'm not pissed about it. Within context of the what they set out to do I find more right with it than wrong, even if a lot of the right isn't what I might have preferred.

One thing that made sense to me (from what we saw of it) was making Lois smart enough to figure out who Clark was from the beginning. This got around the hoary old idea that has long lost any credibility whatsoever that him simply donning glasses (and maybe combing his hair a bit differntly) could fool her into beleiving Clark and Superman were two separate individuals. They got that out of the way.

They picked up on a lot of what was done in Smallville. Basically Clark was/is trying to find himself and isn't the boyscout from day one. Actually Smallville's Clark was more the boyscout than the MOS version. And I get a lot of folks are having a problem with that. The MOS version of the character here seems (to me) more in line with the character's early years in the comics as opposed to the idealized squeaky clean Christopher Reeve version.

There are things I liked in the '78 film, but it was a sanitized version of the character and his world. It was unquestionable hugely successful and popular, but it was an interpretation and one not everyone bought into. After Supes' first appearance in Metropolis the film veers into inescapable camp and mostly slides from there (in my opinion).

MOS (whether one likes it or not) stays pretty consistent throughout in terms of overall tone. It is a somewhat darker and edgier take on Superman and his universe. It is more in line with the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy even if not intended as the same continuity. Some are really upset that this Superman doesn't do more to save people, but again how the character is established precludes that. This Superman is facing a huge unforseen challenge before he's actually decided to be Superman and establish himself. It all comes to a head before he's even really figured everything out for himself. What we saw in MOS largely makes sense within context of the film made and its interpretation of the characters and their world.

One can decry seeing the origin story all over again, but it pretty much is necessary to establish that this interpretation of Superman is definitely distinct from previous film versions. If they had simply done Superman as already established I can imagine the outcry would have been even louder.

Comparing the '78 film and MOS I find there are things I like in both and things I don't like in both. In the '78 film I've grown to dislike the overt camp and over sanitization of the character and his world. In MOS I like the overall consistency of tone better, but I find some of the creative choices questionable.

I'm thinking what I need to do is watch the two films back-to-back for the sake of a more first-hand comparison.

 

To be honest, I'm glad they dropped the whole Lois-Superman-Clark triangle thing.

Really, after a while the whole thing just made Lois look like a complete moron, and it made Clark this douchebag who enjoyed playing a bizarre mind game with the woman he supposedly was in love with.

 

That, and it's just not interesting. The whole "Oh no, they might learn my secret identity!" thing? It's boring.

 

The secret identity thing only works with a character like Batman or Spider-Man or Iron Man or anyone who's face is at least partially covered. If the face is exposed it falls apart.

Well...the Hulk could be an exception to that because his face, as well as his whole body, morphs sufficiently to alter his features so that most probably won't make the connection. That plus him growing in size and physique.