Poll: Man of Steel: The Good, the Bad, and the future of the DC Cinematic Universe

[LittleWings]

I always think people are too harsh on MoS. I mean, maybe it's just me but I wasn't expecting wonders from the film, I was actually going in hoping against hope that it wouldn't be as bad as The GL film was. So I was pleasantly surprised. Sure I understand the criticisms and would even say that I didn't find the action the interesting part, rather the ideas it was trying to (granted quite badly) put across.

See, I feel a lot of people don't understand that comics and film are a different medium, and so something that worked n the comics might not work in the film (Loki's hat). One of the reasons I really don't enjoy the Marvel films (other than I don't like Marvel comics) is that they don't seem to take any risks- They just film a comic. Now a lot of the time, that's exactly what people want. I mean, all through the Avengers I was sitting there thinking this was the coolest thing ever to exist. But just as a film, well it doesn't quite hold up.

I'd also say that the animated series is different to a live action series, and I don't think it's right to say "Well the DCAU did it right, why can't the films?" because again, different medium (sort of).

 

[Kyrian007]

Personally I couldn't stand it. I'm really surprised I didn't leave the theater early. It wasn't a lot of problems... in fact it was just one problem that spanned the entire movie. I know they spent a lot of money on cameras and dollys and used state of the art digital film equipment. So the persistent Parkinson's shaky-cam was added to the entire movie in post production. And there's no good reason for it. They use it in every single second, it creates no contrast with a more normal looking shot. It's just done to add pretentious faux-realisim, and when I go to a movie about 2 space aliens battling each other with superpowers... REALISM is not exactly important to the experience (for me anyway.) Plus modern digital cameras have more or less unlimited focus depth. So blurring foreground and background images is just another aesthetic choice that was edited back into the film for... reasons? To make it look like it was filmed on '70s technology cameras? I guess I just don't understand the "artistic vision" for the movie.

I just wanted it to look good, not eye-gougingly awful.

Otherwise I'm ok with MoS. If it doesn't use the same terrible cinematography, I say bring on SvsB or Justice League. If it shares the same gaudy, overly retouched, and butt-ugly look... I'll pass. It's the visual equivalent of the singer who chronically over-uses auto-tune.

 

[Guilherme Zoldan]

The justification for Pa kent's sacrifice could have been done better, he should have been saving a little kid or something, but the scene is still incredibly well done and moving.

The death was tasteful but the execution and lead up sucked i found it rather ridiculous.

Also I just plain disagree that they needed to have made a bigger deal of Zod's death. They established that Superman didnt like doing it and he even cried about it, had to cuddle Lois Lane FFS.
There is no ammount of payoff that would have made hardcore fans okay with Superman taking a life, I don't think snyder should have tried to please them.

Byrne Managed although he had months but you don't just cut to Superman killing someone and then see him being fine in the next scene from an indiscriminate amount of time that's real lazy.
Why couldn't we see Superman brooding then here a plane was about to crash and voices from his dads brings him out of his funk or something? This doesn't need to happen but the end was obviously rush unless they were doing a Bourne Supremacy ending which i highly doubt.

I can't say you're wrong but I honestly was not bothered anywhere near enough by that to not enjoy the movie. The script was weak at some points but the visceral experience was enough that you could ignore that.
I feel people are so deeply invested in superman that they are unreasonably critical of the movie, then again being unreasonably nitpicky is the moto of any hardcore comic book fan.

 

[Lrbearclaw]

Personally, I liked the movie, I really liked it. I enjoyed Lois figuring it out and helps him become Superman. (Which has happened in some retellings in the comics.) And not all of Smallville knows his secret. Only the ones who saw him save the bus and Pete's mom. Seriously, think back to the scene of kid-Clark being bullied, who would be STUPID enough to bully someone who can lift a bus? Or the scene where Jonathan died to protect Clark's secret?

You want inconsistancy and plot holes? How does superman shave and cut his hair? how come his hair don't burn off on reentry or in fire? How does a non-aerodynamic shape fly so fast? Why would he put oh a cape when it will only increase drag as he fly?

Well, Superman TAS hit this well, shows him shaving with his heat vision which runs "Around 1,950 Celsius. Give or take." (As Supes said). Reentry shuttles have a max heat tolerance of 1,630 Celsius.

As to the drag from the cape, allow me to counter with: A man can fly unaided and you are stumped by the cape?

 

[Angie7F]

For me, superman is so long running that i dont know where to start from.
The movie was a good way to introduce me to the series in a really quick way.
Same thing jappened to me for the Nishio Ishin books.
I watched the anime for Nisemonogatari, and it prompted me to start reading the books from the beginning.

 

[spoonybard.hahs]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if it was a good introduction or not (read: it did well enough in the box office), the sequel is already being worked on. And it was announced this weekend at SDCC that it will be a team up film with Batman.