Poll: Man of Steel; Why the hatred?

[Ishal]

snip

The whole thing was an interesting experience for me. I didn't like the movie, but then I knew I wouldn't like it going in, for multiple reasons. I don't like movies, I feel they are inferior in my own tastes of media. If I had to make a list it'd be games>books>tv shows(HBO)>music>movies. I just don't get anything from them anymore, they don't move me except in ways that make me uncomfortable. I hate going to theaters where there is always a chance some external force can ruin my experience and end up wasting my money.

I saw the film and ended up kinda unsettled (not really mad, persay) about all the Jesus allegory (even though I knew that was basically what Superman was) and the ad placement. To be honest, I don't see why videogames need to be fighting to be recognized as art alongside the likes of movies when we have stuff like this as examples of movies. It's pretty disgusting. But the violence and ultimate shallowness of the plot was almost insulting. Normally I hate talking like I take media so personally, when especially it isn't the case with something where I was so detached like with this film. But the whole nonsense of Papa Kent and Jor el espousing their ideals, only for superman to end up pleasing neither of them was just retarded. People can talk about the zeitgeist all they want, but there comes a time when too much is too much. When you have moms walking out with their kids, and asking their fathers "was that too violent?" you missed on a big demographic. Also, when the ahem "butthurt comic books nerds" are walking away trashing your film, you know, that juicy succulent nostalgia crowd that made of 50%- 66% of the target demographic... you done fucked up. BIG TIME. There is something to be said about the dark eddy nature of these films being targeted at 28-35 year old misanthropes. It's unfortunate.

To put this in perspective, the only movies other than MoS I saw this summer were Pacific Rim, and MLP: Equestria Girls. Equestria Girls opened on the same weekend as MoS. Despite my enjoying the film, it had problems. Its ending was a combination of a Deus Ex Machina, Gainax ending, and Anticlimax. Yeah, and I still thought it was a better overall film than Man of Steel.

 

[King Aragorn]

I really don't get how this movie was too violent, or even really edgy or dark? if anything compared to the likes of Batman which was a major success with all sorts of demographics, this was relatively tame. If people went in expecting something along the lines of Saturday morning cartoons or 60's comics then that's far out of touch with what it is today. This movie's missteps for the most part seem purely on the artistic levels over demographic levels.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

It sucked cos there was 90 mins of him doing boring stuff in Smallville (which we already had 10 dam seasons of) before he actually started fighting Zod.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

The original (two) Superman movies were superior by far. Sure they were cheesy, but at least there was actual chraterization and coherence there. The one thing I did like was Micheal Shannon as Zod. The best fight in the film was between Shannon's acting and the ass of a script he was handed.

Anyways, my problems with the film are numerous but here some examples,
http://blip.tv/renegadecut/44-the-trouble-with-man-of-steel-6692267

 

[Misterian]

I haven't seen it, but the more I've heard about it, the less I want to see it.

Speaking as someone who was exposed to Superman through the DC Animated Universe and the 1940's cartoon shorts, I've always seen Superman as a superhero with a strictly upbeat, idealistic tone to him and his stories.

I kept hearing that Man of Steel has been going by the dark and gritty tone that the Dark Knight trilogy has been going for, which I found difficult to swallow, that would be like making Mario a Gears of War clone, wouldn't it?

At least with Batman, as long as the setting stays in Gotham City, the grimdark elements fit because Batman by design is a superhero with dark elements to him that would make a story with cynical and dark elements fit well.

But putting grimdark elements on Superman? Please tell me this, my fellow escapist, if you liked Man of Steel, tell me what you liked about Superman BEFORE even hearing about Man of Steel?

Also, really, I fail to see any appeal making the DC Universe dark and gritty anywhere outside Batman. 'Cause seriously, we're talking about a world where little kids and turn into superheroes by shout 'Shazam!', there's an invisible city of super-intelligent gorillas somewhere in Africa, and moments where Earth gets invaded by FREAKING. ALIEN. STARFISH!

Really, how does anyone find appear in making the DC Universe gritty and dark when it's filled to the brim with stuff like that?

 

[nuttshell]

You can have fun with these superhero/swashbuckle-sci-fi-fantasy movies, they can be good fun. I really don't understand why any of these can be really better or worse than the rest, save a few odd exceptions like Dark City (that one was not based off of something, coincidence?)...they all have plot holes, characters behaving like out-of-character-idiots to further the story, touch some interesting philosophical questions with a very light feather and have plenty of boom, gloom and even more boom. Star Wars/Trek, Pirates of the Carribean, Thor, Spider-Man, Batman...they all have one important thing in common - interesting at the surface, shallow at the core. I am not seeing how the new Superman stands out from this crowd.

 

[King Aragorn]

Comic books in general have been more dark and moody since the 90's, it's really nothing new for the universe. The thing is though not every character can be made dark, which you are right about. The thing is though I didn't really find MoS to be so dark. The problem is people went in comparing to Superman 1/II, all three movies come from vastly different eras and each has vastly different interpretations/views of a character that changes and flip flops all the time.
In the end though it all lies in the execution. I do think trying to make everything moody and dark is stupid, because not every story is like Batman which is set up to be dark and moody, but you don't have to go either extreme camp or extreme gritty, there is a middle ground somewhere that could work for Superman.

The original (two) Superman movies were superior by far. Sure they were cheesy, but at least there was actual chraterization and coherence there. The one thing I did like was Micheal Shannon as Zod. The best fight in the film was between Shannon's acting and the ass of a script he was handed.

Anyways, my problems with the film are numerous but here some examples,
http://blip.tv/renegadecut/44-the-trouble-with-man-of-steel-6692267

I also found Russel Crowe as Jor-El pretty great. It's hard for me to envision someone other than him in the role now, to be honest. Actually most of the actors were pretty good, or atleast the main ones that aren't Louis. Shannon was great, Crowe was great and Henry was great as Superman.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

You can have fun with these superhero/swashbuckle-sci-fi-fantasy movies, they can be good fun. I really don't understand why any of these can be really better or worse than the rest, save a few odd exceptions like Dark City (that one was not based off of something, coincidence?)...they all have plot holes, characters behaving like out-of-character-idiots to further the story, touch some interesting philosophical questions with a very light feather and have plenty of boom, gloom and even more boom. Star Wars/Trek, Pirates of the Carribean, Thor, Spider-Man, Batman...they all have one important thing in common - interesting at the surface, shallow at the core. I am not seeing how the new Superman stands out from this crowd.

The first two Superman movies and the majority of the DC animated movies featuring Superman were great movies onto themselves, with great structure, characterization, and catharsis.

Man of Steel was just bad. Its writing was bad. Its cinematography was bad. Its action scenes were bad. Its plot was bad. Its pacing was bad. Its characterization was bad. Its directing was god awful.

 

[MatsVS]

Honestly I'm just sooooooo fucking sick of comic book films at this point. It seems every other AAA action flick to come out of Hollywood has to star some moron in a rubber suit, and people keep perpetuating this nonsense by praising rubbish like the newest Thor film, or Iron Man 3. Often the same people who are rightly trash talking Transformers and such, yet seem utterly blind to the dissonance here.

So yeah, Man of Steel was trash, but it's a product of our broken culture so its only sin, really, is being slightly dumber than the average film.

Go watch 'Synecdoche, New York', people.

 

[King Aragorn]

Transformers can't be compared to superhero films, they just can't. No matter how bad they get, they're still more than fancy explosions, even the crappy ones like Iron-Man 3. Comic books are the new Greek myths of our culture in the sense that the have so much potential because of how much interpretations you can get out of them, how many things you can do and the ideas you can use, it's a very wide playing field which coincidentally has brand power behind it.
I think it's even more ''backwards'' to dismiss superhero films as stupid action flicks just because instead of a bunch of gangsters going at it, it has a person dressing up as a Bat.

I also feel that you're not giving those movies enough credit, @nutshell .
I mean I won't act as all of them are postmodern masterpieces rivaling Blade Runner but they aren't all just shiny effects, there is legitimate meat and interesting ideas behind many of those movies and films.

 

[nuttshell]

The first two Superman movies and the majority of the DC animated movies featuring Superman were great movies onto themselves, with great structure, characterization, and catharsis.

I watched those when I was very little, I remember pretty much nothing. I may rewatch them again.

Man of Steel was just bad. Its writing was bad. Its cinematography was bad. Its action scenes were bad. Its plot was bad. Its pacing was bad. Its characterization was bad. Its directing was god awful.

As I said, I don't see how MoS is any more worse than Thor 1/2, Star Wars/Trek reboots etc. I enjoyed a few scenes in it like I enjoyed a few scenes from them all - they were all mostly fights or pretty backgrounds.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I don't understand all the hate for it. I mean, I don't even like Superman and I still thought it was a decent movie.

 

[nuttshell]

Transformers can't be compared to superhero films, they just can't. No matter how bad they get, they're still more than fancy explosions, even the crappy ones like Iron-Man 3. Comic books are the new Greek myths of our culture in the sense that the have so much potential because of how much interpretations you can get out of them, how many things you can do and the ideas you can use, it's a very wide playing field which coincidentally has brand power behind it.
I think it's even more ''backwards'' to dismiss superhero films as stupid action flicks just because instead of a bunch of gangsters going at it, it has a person dressing up as a Bat.

I also feel that you're not giving those movies enough credit, @nutshell .
I mean I won't act as all of them are postmodern masterpieces rivaling Blade Runner but they aren't all just shiny effects, there is legitimate meat and interesting ideas behind many of those movies and films.

I tried to watch Transformers 1 and 2 till the end two times both and I failed. Of course, there are worse movies than the movies I critisized, after all, I watched all Iron Mans, both Thors, Captain America, etc. from beginning to end and I enjoyed some of them and yes, there is some "loldeep" stuff there but it is still underreaching.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

The first two Superman movies and the majority of the DC animated movies featuring Superman were great movies onto themselves, with great structure, characterization, and catharsis.

I watched those when I was very little, I remember pretty much nothing. I may rewatch them again.

Man of Steel was just bad. Its writing was bad. Its cinematography was bad. Its action scenes were bad. Its plot was bad. Its pacing was bad. Its characterization was bad. Its directing was god awful.

As I said, I don't see how MoS is any more worse than Thor 1/2, Star Wars/Trek reboots etc. I enjoyed a few scenes in it like I enjoyed a few scenes from them all - they were all mostly fights or pretty backgrounds.

I think the main difference is that the movies you mentioned were intended to simply be popcorn flicks. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the explosions sort of affair. They were meant to satisfy your id and make your inner child cheer a little.

Man of Steel had a slow burn structure and introduced things such as destiny, free will, genocide, humanism, and Messianic allegory. It tried to be about something. The problem is that its director confused 'try' with 'accomplished' and did absolutely nothing with those themes and story elements other than muck around and be smug at the audience (the church scene being the most obvious example).

An equivalent film with the central theme of principle vs. necessity would be Under the Red Hood. Below is that film's ending and an excellent example of how to end it right, without an idiotic action to make the film 'epic'

Be warned that tha video contains MAJOR spoilers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kscfb9XzPs

 

[MatsVS]

Transformers can't be compared to superhero films, they just can't. No matter how bad they get, they're still more than fancy explosions, even the crappy ones like Iron-Man 3. Comic books are the new Greek myths of our culture in the sense that the have so much potential because of how much interpretations you can get out of them, how many things you can do and the ideas you can use, it's a very wide playing field which coincidentally has brand power behind it.
I think it's even more ''backwards'' to dismiss superhero films as stupid action flicks just because instead of a bunch of gangsters going at it, it has a person dressing up as a Bat.

There's loads of interesting things to be done with the format, for sure. Loads of interesting things HAS been done with the format. There is also such a thing as saturation, artistic fatigue, and being actually exclusive in its market presence. It's as if there is no room left for anything else these days, which is super frustrating.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Superman killed Zod and was totally okay with it. Him killing Zod isn't the problem. Fast forwarding straight to him dicking around with the military and making it look like it had no effect on him at all was what was horrible.

I was able to forgive everything except this.

There was small glimmer of hope that there might have been some rare Superman character development going on.
"Superman killed a guy, holy shit. This has to have a great impact on the story." Big ooolll'd nope. I'm hoping the next movie focuses on it a lot more. But I really doubt it.

 

[King Aragorn]

Superman killed Zod and was totally okay with it. Him killing Zod isn't the problem. Fast forwarding straight to him dicking around with the military and making it look like it had no effect on him at all was what was horrible.

I was able to forgive everything except this.

There was small glimmer of hope that there might have been some rare Superman character development going on.
"Superman killed a guy, holy shit. This has to have a great impact on the story." Big ooolll'd nope. I'm hoping the next movie focuses on it a lot more. But I really doubt it.

I'm on the same note. That ''he's so hot'' joke just so, so killed the mood. If anything the movie should have cut to the credits then and there with the neck snap and it would have been a more satisfying conclusion.

 

[Butterfly]

Felt like the cheapest, most soulless bumblefuck of an action movie I've seen in a while, and I've enjoyed many soulless bumblefuck action movies in recent times. It was just... cringy, I guess.

8.5/10

 

[King Aragorn]

A cringy movie earns a 8.6/10?

 

[nuttshell]

I think the main difference is that the movies you mentioned were intended to simply be popcorn flicks...Man of Steel had a slow burn structure and introduced things such as destiny, free will, genocide, humanism, and Messianic allegory. It tried to be about something. The problem is that its director confused 'try' with 'accomplished' and did absolutely nothing with those themes and story elements other than muck around and be smug at the audience...

Almost, if not all of the movies I mentioned, also "tried" to be about "something" in a similar fashion like MoS.

An equivalent film with the central theme of principle vs. necessity would be Under the Red Hood.

I didn't hear of that one, I will watch it completely without spoiling it now when I have the time. If it's any good, thanks in advance.