MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

[kirk55555]

I didn't hate like I thought I would

I am shocked! Shocked! to learn that preconceived notions didn't stand up to experience!

To be fair, I may not hate it, but I didn't like it. It was, like I said, fairly mediocre, but I could see it maybe being the foundation for a decent Batman/Superman movie, depending on if Batman is done well and if Superman loses some angst and gets some personality.

 

[Sindatur]

For me, this movie was much different than I expected.

The beginning on Krypton was full on Fantasy, wasn't expecting that at all. And then, all the flipping back and forth through Clark's pre-Superman life was confusing, I would've preferred it more linear.

The ending, yea, it made the movie much longer than it needed to be, I think the movie would've been better if it had a bit shorter.

I really enjoyed Amy Adams as Lois, I thought she was great.

I think Cavill did a really good job with Superman/Clark as well. He played a wide range, and I like where he ended up at, and think that's a great place to have him for the next movie

Yea, Johnathon allowing himself to get sucked up in the Tornado was pretty stupid, it really didn't seem to me there was any danger of Clark exposing himself by saving his Dad.

I didn't watch the movie as closely as I could have, so, I'm not ready to decide if I really liked or just liked some parts of it, I'll have to watch it again when I have more time to devote exclusively to it, but, I definitely didn't hate or even dislike it, just not sure if it's a B or a C in my book. Definitely better than a D for me, though

 

[The Old Mixer]

But when I went and looked it up apparently that wasn't the first instance of Metropolis being located in or near Kansas.

I'm not aware of such an instance. It's more a matter of the tail wagging the dog on Smallville.

In the Silver/Bronze-Age comics, Metropolis was assumed to be an East Coast city a la New York, and Smallville was supposed to be a rural town in the same vicinity (like upstate New York).

In the Donner film, Metropolis was an obvious stand-in for New York, complete with several recognizable New York landmarks. But that film put Smallville in Kansas--to my knowledge, the first source to do so.

The 1986 Byrne reboot followed suit in the comics, putting Smallville in Kansas. Metropolis remained as East Coast city.

The TV show Smallville kept Smallville in Kansas, but decided that they still wanted it to be near Metropolis...so they moved Metropolis to Kansas!

 

[Skywalker]

But when I went and looked it up apparently that wasn't the first instance of Metropolis being located in or near Kansas.

I'm not aware of such an instance. It's more a matter of the tail wagging the dog on Smallville.

Yeah, nevermind. I checked again and it looks like I'd misread it earlier.

 

[Mr Light]

Didn't the 90s Superman Animated Series put Metropolis on the Great Lakes?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^Metropolis is usually put in near Illinois, in the Chicago area or where NYC should be.

 

[Gaith]

Zod's death was stupid. Clark should have been able to physically move Zod's body from the way he was holding him, or at least Zod's head.

Yup. Instead of giving us a really compelling scene, in which, say, the Jor-El hologram tells Clark he must use lethal force against Zod, and have Clark have to deal with that idea before the big battle, a totally manufactured moment is just dropped in at the end there, because interesting dialogue scenes are for pansies, I guess. Besides, can't Zod move his eyeballs while in the headlock?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I know it's a small thing, but I'm a real stickler for continuity and shot consistency, but when he kills Zod, the director of the film totally forgets why: the family he saved is missing from every subsequent shot. There's not even them sighing relief, or reacting, or even being anywhere. Sure, they may just be a generic family, but they don't know that.

Just to compare: when the NS4 saved Dell Spooner instead of the little girl in I, Robot, the director and editors were smart enough to add a shot of the little girl and her vehicle sinking further.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Metropolis is usually put in near Illinois, in the Chicago area or where NYC should be.

The only Illinois connection that I'm aware of is that in the real world, there's a small town in IL named Metropolis that makes a big deal about being Superman's home.

If the animated series put Metropolis on the Great Lakes, that's another first as far as I know, not a "usually".

 

[Captaindemotion]

Now the script of Man of Steel... Christopher brought up a point that if you just read a transcript, you would not know what was going on at the end battle of the film.

I'm sorry, but of all of his complaints that has go to be the weakest of the bunch.

Movies are visual medium, as are comic books. Telling a story without dialogue is perfectly reasonable. We used to have these things called silent movies. Ring a bell?

Even more recently we've had movies like Castaway where there is very little dialogue for long stretches. Going by Christopher's complaint you'd have no idea what was going on there either if you just went by a direct transcript, but unless you are blind you would have known exactly what was going on.

I get that a lot of people weren't fond of the movie, and that's their right, but complaining that you wouldn't know what's going on in a movie based solely on a direct transcript is a pretty weak complaint.

That it was a complaint of his wasn't even part of my question. I'm just wondering how detailed the script was.

Had anyone asked Greg Cox?

 

[davejames]

Yup. Instead of giving us a really compelling scene, in which, say, the Jor-El hologram tells Clark he must use lethal force against Zod, and have Clark have to deal with that idea before the big battle, a totally manufactured moment is just dropped in at the end there, because interesting dialogue scenes are for pansies, I guess. Besides, can't Zod move his eyeballs while in the headlock?

Yes, already. Zod could have moved his eyes, but the movie made it pretty clear that he was only threatening to kill the family so Superman would kill him instead. Since Krypton had been destroyed for good and his programming gave him no other purpose or reason to live. Which is what he tells Superman. And why he threatens to continue killing until he is stopped.

Not sure how much clearer they could have spelled things out.

 

[Ovation]

Yup. Instead of giving us a really compelling scene, in which, say, the Jor-El hologram tells Clark he must use lethal force against Zod, and have Clark have to deal with that idea before the big battle, a totally manufactured moment is just dropped in at the end there, because interesting dialogue scenes are for pansies, I guess. Besides, can't Zod move his eyeballs while in the headlock?

Yes, already. Zod could have moved his eyes, but the movie made it pretty clear that he was only threatening to kill the family so Superman would kill him instead. Since Krypton had been destroyed for good and his programming gave him no other purpose or reason to live. Which is what he tells Superman. And why he threatens to continue killing until he is stopped.

Not sure how much clearer they could have spelled things out.

Pretty much. I really fail to see where any confusion lies about this moment in the film. Zod wants Kal to kill him.

 

[Gojira]

With all of the mass destruction Zod and his minions caused and with Zod acting in a manner which said "he will not stop until he achieves his goals" and his verbal threat to Kal-El that this will end in the death of one of them...Superman really had no choice but to kill him. It was the only way he could be stopped.

Also, I was under the impression that in Superman II that Zod was killed when Superman threw him into the pit after he crushed his hand.

I had no problem with Superman killing Zod.

 

[kirk55555]

I know why Zod was doing it, but Superman could have moved Zod's head/wqhole away from the family without killing him. It wasn't an all or nothing thing, he was holding Zod tight enough that moving Zod's whole body shouldn't have been an issue. It may have given Zod the chance to break out and continue fighting, but I'm pretty sure at that point Superman could have taken him out without killing him. I might give Clark slack if they had shown more than just a hammy scream over Zod's death. Maybe, like someone else said, the should have had Jor-El bring up the possibility, and then have Clark think about it. Even then it probably wouldn't have been justified, but atleast it would have set up Clark eventually being haunted by what he did and realizing that he didn't have to do it, and then he'd vow to never do it again. Knowing the people behind this movie though, half of the next movie will probably be spent "justifying" what Superman did.

Honestly, the best way out of this would to have been not writing it. Its exactly the same as if Goyer had written the end of TDK Rises with Batman grabbing a pistol and shooting Bane in the head because "he had too". I honestly don't think there was ever any way to write a scene where superman had to kill Zod, or would be justified with doing it. They attempted to do that, but it didn't feel like it was his only choice at all. I think the big problem is having the next scene immediately after the death be confronting the general. They have Clark do little but angst and fight the entire movie, but we don't see any emotional scenes of him murdering a guy outside of the stupid scream right after he did it. Maybe they'll handle it in the sequel, but at this point I'd rather just skip to him being over it, and maybe having him lighten up a bit. Have him be happy in his role, put some brighter colors in the costume and just the world in general, and develop him more as a person and show some personality. Basically, make it a more hopeful movie/character. If they did that, I wouldn't really care if they glossed over Zod's death.

 

[Gojira]

I know why Zod was doing it, but Superman could have moved Zod's head/wqhole away from the family without killing him. It wasn't an all or nothing thing, he was holding Zod tight enough that moving Zod's whole body shouldn't have been an issue. It may have given Zod the chance to break out and continue fighting, but I'm pretty sure at that point Superman could have taken him out without killing him. I might give Clark slack if they had shown more than just a hammy scream over Zod's death. Maybe, like someone else said, the should have had Jor-El bring up the possibility, and then have Clark think about it. Even then it probably wouldn't have been justified, but atleast it would have set up Clark eventually being haunted by what he did and realizing that he didn't have to do it, and then he'd vow to never do it again. Knowing the people behind this movie though, half of the next movie will probably be spent "justifying" what Superman did.

Honestly, the best way out of this would to have been not writing it. Its exactly the same as if Goyer had written the end of TDK Rises with Batman grabbing a pistol and shooting Bane in the head because "he had too". I honestly don't think there was ever any way to write a scene where superman had to kill Zod, or would be justified with doing it. They attempted to do that, but it didn't feel like it was his only choice at all. I think the big problem is having the next scene immediately after the death be confronting the general. They have Clark do little but angst and fight the entire movie, but we don't see any emotional scenes of him murdering a guy outside of the stupid scream right after he did it. Maybe they'll handle it in the sequel, but at this point I'd rather just skip to him being over it, and maybe having him lighten up a bit. Have him be happy in his role, put some brighter colors in the costume and just the world in general, and develop him more as a person and show some personality. Basically, make it a more hopeful movie/character. If they did that, I wouldn't really care if they glossed over Zod's death.

Sure they could have written a more traditional scene where Superman stops Zod without killing him, I like the fact they they took a different route and did something unexpected. I don't see Superman's reaction to killing Zod as being hammy. I thought it was good acting and emotional.

Or Superman could have ambiguously just thrown him into a pit of mist and clouds like in Superman II.

I love that movie, but come on! That scene doesn't bother me it is just ironic that people complain that Superman kills Zod in this movie and yet it is implied that he killed him in Superman II but because it is shown in such a "G" rated manner nobody bats an eye.

 

[davejames]

Sure they could have written a more traditional scene where Superman stops Zod without killing him, I like the fact they they took a different route and did something unexpected. I don't see Superman's reaction to killing Zod as being hammy. I thought it was good acting and emotional.

Agreed. The fact it was so bold and unexpected is why I actually LIKE the scene. It was a defining moment, and his anguished reaction afterwards (after stopping a mass-murderer who was killing thousands, no less) only proves that this is a superhero who takes this stuff much more seriously than most.

Having Supes simply knock Zod out cold or throw him into the Phantom Zone wouldn't have been nearly as powerful or compelling.

 

[Taylirious]

A+

Got the DVD and loved it!

 

[stj]

Yes, already. Zod could have moved his eyes, but the movie made it pretty clear that he was only threatening to kill the family so Superman would kill him instead. Since Krypton had been destroyed for good and his programming gave him no other purpose or reason to live. Which is what he tells Superman. And why he threatens to continue killing until he is stopped.

Not sure how much clearer they could have spelled things out.

[Q
Pretty much. I really fail to see where any confusion lies about this moment in the film. Zod wants Kal to kill him.

Way back when, I used the phrase "suicide by cop," only to have the idea contemptuously dimissed. Moreover, are you really sure you like this idea? After all, if Zod wants to be killed, why should Superman feel bad for giving Zod what he wanted. It was a mercy killing, really. Why not give Zod a little win, since he couldn't win big? Since it was Zod's total choice, Superman angsting so much is kind of pussy, self indulging emo.

It's not like he couldn't have felt anguished at the human casualties, right?

Snyder and Goyer and Nolan and whoever thought crunching up buildings was fun to watch (and again, there were enough of us so bored as to wonder about the people off screen because those scenes felt like they just went on and on.) And similarly, they thought the hero killing the villain was fun to watch. But for some of us that wasn't our idea of a hero, at least not one so powerful. Everything else from them I think is just rationalization.

 

[sojourner]

In a way it's funny. For years people wanted to see a knockdown drag out fight with Superman in a live action film. When we finally got it the most common descriptor of it was "boring".

Sometimes having a thing is not so pleasing as wanting a thing.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's all in the execution. And I was never one of those people, FWIW. The heart of Superman is about saving people, not hitting them.