Yeah. The worst part is they dont seem to recognize the problem and improve in the subsequent films. Hopefully BVS script is good. I absolutely adore the way the visuals are looking right now and I know there will be no issues on that front. I hope the script holds up. BVS is supposed to have a decent writer behind it right?
Dark Knight Rises v Man of Steel (Which one sucked more?)
- Thread starter Nintendoga
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. The worst part is they dont seem to recognize the problem and improve in the subsequent films. Hopefully BVS script is good. I absolutely adore the way the visuals are looking right now and I know there will be no issues on that front. I hope the script holds up. BVS is supposed to have a decent writer behind it right?
billy beane
Banned
Man of Steel makes me hate Amy Adams and I love Amy Adams that's how much Man of Steel sucks.
Monocle
Member
How is this even a question? Only one of those movies is a cold, soulless exercise in everything its protagonist is meant to oppose, and that movie is Man of Steel.
TDKR is bizarrely underrated around here. It's a couple steps down from TDK, sure, but it is not a bad film. The performances are fine, the story is fine. It's flawed but not the disaster some posters portray it as.
TDKR is bizarrely underrated around here. It's a couple steps down from TDK, sure, but it is not a bad film. The performances are fine, the story is fine. It's flawed but not the disaster some posters portray it as.
King Gilga
Member
Them shockwaves mayne.
He does it a couple of times later, for cat woman and I think some cops.
billy beane
Banned
I watched Trouble With the Curve, a shit baseball movie with Clint Eastwood and Justin Timberlake, and even that was a better Amy Adams movie than MoS.
The Chosen One
Member
For those that don't like Man of Steel, what are your main criticisms?
The biggest problem I had with Man of Steel is that Superman behaved more like a Michael Bay Transformer than Superman. I had a big problem with all the indiscriminate damage Superman caused in huge population areas. He was completely reckless smashing through skyscrapers and destroying a crowded Main Street in a small town.
Unlike other superheroes, Superman is supposed to value human life, Even with his God-like power, Superman almost always self-nerfs himself because he doesn't want to cause collateral damage that could harm humans. However Man of Steel, Superman just became another generic superhero with big explosions and effects.
The biggest problem I had with Man of Steel is that Superman behaved more like a Michael Bay Transformer than Superman. I had a big problem with all the indiscriminate damage Superman caused in huge population areas. He was completely reckless smashing through skyscrapers and destroying a crowded Main Street in a small town.
Unlike other superheroes, Superman is supposed to value human life, Even with his God-like power, Superman almost always self-nerfs himself because he doesn't want to cause collateral damage that could harm humans. However Man of Steel, Superman just became another generic superhero with big explosions and effects.
flaxknuckles
Member
TDKR was pretty enjoyable up until the Talia scene completely ruined the whole movie. And though I didn't really notice how bad the fights were in it they didn't get me hyped either (just meh). Man of Steel's action and cinematography were so awesome they carried the movie into greatness regardless of the narrative issues.
I feel Supes wasn't even Superman until the end credits, so laying the blame of his first ever fight with beings as strong and more trained them him is kind of harsh. Other than that, I really wanna know what was bad about the flashbacks. Is it just because he allowed his father to die(as per his wishes)? The movie isn't subtle with it's themes but it seemed weird that's what people were hung up on.
flaxknuckles
Member
Stevetopsy
Member
vs
Yes, post everyone's go-to Faora gif with the best fight choreography in Man of Steel vs a zoomed in gif of some of the worst in TDKR. Fair.
It's hard to tell for me which I like better. Both films I feel fell way short of their potential, botching opportunities left and right, but both still make for an entertaining watch. If I had to pick I guess I would say TDKR since I enjoyed some of the performances more.
Also, I thought Faora was as cool as anyone, but really it wasn't due to her character. It was due to the way they animated her to fight. If they would have gave those moves to Zod or unnamed giant Kryptonian guy then we'd all be hoping he came back for the sequel. On the other hand I feel like Bane in TDKR was very distinct in both his fighting style and characterization. Seeing Batman clearly out of his league as Bane methodically took him apart both physically and verbally, all with no music, made for a very tense fight scene. I know MoS fights are going to be more grandiose since we're dealing with actual superhumans but sometimes it felt like a contest of how many buildings can we throw him through/into now.
The worst piece of dialogue in Man of Steel is Faora's thing about evolution and morality. Not only does it not make any sense, but it's doubly worse because you feel like Goyer actually believes it too.
If we're going to talk about whose speeches make the least sense, can't leave out Bane's.
Schweinehund
Member
Nolan's Batman is way too grounded for a shared universe. He got beat down by a roided out jock.
Fancy Clown
Member
TDKR was way more disappointing, but it was probably the better movie.
A terrible script, with dialogue that says one thing but sure as hell doesn't show it or make us feel anything ('You will give the people an ideal to strive towards' 'On my planet it means hope' Ok that's great, lets have Superman break Zods neck, nothing says hope more then that right guys? Who thought that would be a good end to Superman saving the day? Oh thats right, Zack Synder.
More script problems - Henry Cavill gets nothing to say. He has like two lines before discovering the Fortress of Solitude and suiting up. Compare it to the epic journey we go on with Bruce in Begins. Cavill is a great casting, but he doesn't get to earn audiences affection. If you loved Superman in MoS, it's because you already loved him. For people who didn't know anything about him or didn't care before, this film did nothing to show why he is special. Im pretty sure general audiences recollection of this film is as murky as the films colour pallet.
And the tonal inconsistencies. There was never a plan to explore the repercusions of the Metropolis destruction. Zack Synder just had a hard on for Superman finally getting to throw a punch and dialled the fight up to 11. The movie itself didn't pay attention to how depressing the neck snap and desolated Metropolis was because 5 seconds later we have 'Got tickets to the game, court side tickets!' And all is right in the world. And all should be right in the world at the end of a Superman origin film. But this film got there by paying no attention to its own third act. I am one salty motherfucker I know.
Doctor Decimate
Member
Neither deserves the vast hyperbole surrounding them, but it's kind of a toss-up either way. The Dark Knight Rises is a lot more ambitious so I think it fails at what it sets out to do to a greater degree, but I also think it has better individual scenes and ideas than Man of Steel does. Man of Steel is easier to rewatch because a huge part of that movie is just some nice action scenes but it's probably a worse movie on paper when you consider everything else.
This is pretty on-point. I feel people get way more fixated on Snyder's flaws and forgiving of Nolan's flaws in both finished products. I will say that Snyder's scripts aren't always bad nor are the performances that the actors give in his movies. It seems to me he just isn't good at directing actors, at pulling the performance he needs out of them. His movies feel hollow and stiff as a result since the emotion isn't there. It may be there in what these people say and even the emotion in their performances, but it comes off as stilted and unnatural and I think it's because Snyder is more concerned with how something looks than how it feels.
Nolan on the other hand understands that emotion the audience feels much better but he's manipulative of that fact in how he puts a story together. He'll emphasize a plot over a cohesive believable story and plot twists over characterization. He wants the audience to be on a rollercoaster of emotion in the moment but doesn't care that the ends doesn't always justify the means and that many elements of the films start to crumble under slightly more examination.
In a sense, both are more concerned with style over substance, they just choose very different methods for how to accomplish their unique vision for a film.
ilikesanta
Member
The mantra for MoS "Lois Lane must be in Every Scene!"
Why did she need to be brought to Zod's Ship with Supes?
roflwaffles
Member
I actually don't have a problem with the destruction element in the movie. It's Superman on his first outing, getting used to using his powers against another godly individual. He doesn't need to be the fully formed boy scout we know from the comics.
My main criticism is that some scenes are very unnecessary and the pacing is off. The church scene and the World Engine battle could have been cut out altogether. The battles, although visually very impressive, don't feel like they hold alot of weight. This isn't really MoS's fault, but more of an issue with Supes himself. The air-to-air brawl vs Zod looks great, but none of the punches leave an impact on the receiving end and no one seems hurt, which sort of trivializes the battle.
Monocle
Member
Man of Steel seems like it was made by emotionally stunted teenagers who don't understand anything about Superman except that he can cause large scale destruction. The movie is so out of touch with the spirit of the character that it's actually creepy. Here are all these familiar faces, but where are their personalities?
MoS turns Superman and his enemies into lame DBZ warriors, but worse, because DBZ has heart and a sense of humor, while MoS is bleak and purely mechanical. Like you said, Superman shows no effort to avoid collateral damage. He's a mindless punching machine, nothing heroic about him.
I used the word character earlier, but that was misleading because in fact there are no real characters in this movie, just human-shaped clumps of traits. Lois teleports around, often to places where she has no logical reason to be, just so that people can throw exposition in her direction. No motivations of her own. Superman wrecks a whole city and doesn't try to help any regular nameless civilians caught in the crossfire. Superman's dad is the most human person in the film, and he's an alien ghost who exists to spout convenient info.
There's no joy in MoS. It's a misconceived and brutal mess of a film that left me feeling empty and cheated out of the great Superman story that was implied in the trailers.
vs
Zippy cg DBZ rip off
vs
Decent practical non-shaky cam choreography
I'll take DKR.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Man of Steel. Rises was boring, but MoS was boringer.
But everything that was good about Bane as a character WAS Talia.
Bane wasn't a genius, he was just pulling off Talia's plans.
Bane's tortured backstory and escape from the prison, that was all Talia.
Bane is nothing but a hired muscle simp with a dumb voice and breathing problems.
He's strong enough to break Batman's back but that's about all he was, a strong henchman.
first of all, I dislike Snyder. His flashy, drab, pretend badass, roided up style may appeal to a certain demographic, but I just find it childish, immensely boring and worthy of 90s MTV trash.
then the movie itself: a laughably edgy reboot, with some really godawful dialogue, paper thin plot, zero suspense, twists or anything that resembles good filmmaking. it's a bowl of emptiness with two or three cool scenes, but marred by schizophrenic editing that basically makes it look like a collection of badly stitched together bombast. there's no character development, no chemistry, it's just a race to hold the viewer's attention by introducing one destructive scene after another until the ridiculous ending. TDKR may have its fair share of flaws, but it doesn't even come close to the dreadfulness that is MoS. Imho, of course
User 479360
Banned
TDKR was okay, and I need to rewatch it because I'd had a couple of drinks when I did. I'd wanted to watch it completely sober but a friend put it on and it was decent but a bit boring.
Man of Steel was crap, though, so it wins this suckitude contest. Such a painfully boring movie.
Man of Steel was crap, though, so it wins this suckitude contest. Such a painfully boring movie.
TacticalFox88
Banned
WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE?!
Jesus if you're going to criticize the film at least make sure the critique makes some goddamn sense.
You're telling me that you, an alien with god like powers, is going to take the time out to save civilians when another god like being with genocidal intentions from DAY ONE is out to kill both you AND the human race isn't going to inadvertedly cause MORE deaths? Zod wanted to kill everyone of them "one by one." That's about as direct a threat as it gets.
This whole hard on for hating on the destruction in the film is flat out fucking stupid, considering how many people give the Avengers a pass. People WERE going to die. It's inevitable.
Unless you somehow think that if Kryptonians actually did exist they wouldn't cause the damage they did, then which of course, there's no point in me pointing out the logical fallacies this thread keeps bringing up ad nauseum.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Whaaaat? How? The ending of TDK was him making a choice about who the real heroes of Gotham would be: he chose citizens like Dent instead of freaks like himself. That was the whole point of the need/deserve speech. It was obvious he was going into hiding or at least running away, even the first time watching it.
That's why it was so powerful. He made a huge sacrifice to set the city on the right path.
Monocle
Member
I'm pretty sure he could have brought the fight to space if he wanted to, instead of treating the city like a playground. He's Superman.
At the time he had been "Superman" for what, 2 days? You people are ridiculous.
Monocle
Member
He didn't even try. He's an amoral creep, not a hero.
Are you saying he couldn't control the direction of his punches because he was new to the superhero business?
You know he could have joined Zod and just let all the humans die.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Fighting someone equally as strong but more skilled in combat. In those situations you don't decide where the fight goes. In fighting you go into a defensive and reaction mode until you get an opening.
It's like most of you judge MoS by what you wanted it to be instead of the film it is. This isn't the comic book Superman. He doesn't have the experiences that his comic book counterpart has. It was his first day on the job against an invading force that were breed and trained for warfare.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
This. MoS has all of Rises negatives, and none of its positives.
When people criticise MoS's destruction and lack of human saving efforts on Superman's behalf, it should be noted we're not criticising Superman - he's not fucking real, its a criticism on the film makers for not doing a better job. There's a million different ways Superman's time could have been written into something more satisfying for the audience. But instead he's just a cgi dude punching another cgi dude through a cgi city. After spending 5 minutes fighting a cgi ball bearing monster. It's no wonder people start to think what else he could have been doing instead.
Aaronology
Member
I simply can not understand why the collateral damage argument keeps popping up when nearly every battle Superman is depicted having in the animated series (and often in the comics) has the same level of destruction. Heck, even the Zod fight is almost a direct rip from the Darkseid/Superman encounter in JLU.
Superman smashing through skyscrapers isn't out of place in MoS. On the contrary it's the first time we've seen him fight almost exactly as he always has elsewhere!
It's true. People have a tendency to conflate the hyper-altruistic Superman that we've almost always seen with the raw, unseasoned one we got in MoS. Superman's first priority in fighting Zod wasn't actually saving people, it was reaching a peaceful solution that left Zod alive, for the selfish motive of himself reconnecting with Krypton. Jor-El made the point that Superman, having grown up on Earth, was stronger than any of the Kryptonians could ever be, and he only really exercised that strength when he had Zod in a no-escape-kill-him-with-a-twitch position and Zod still refused to ever stop killing humans. Superman wasn't broken up over having to take a life, it was because he just killed (to the best of his knowledge) the only other Kryptonian left in the universe.
It's the only way that segment really makes sense, and I guess it's kind of interesting, even if it runs counter to the traditional depiction of Superman.
Dark Knight Rises is worse.
Femmeworth
Banned
I'm not all that attached to Superman so the level of destruction didn't bother me. What did bother me is Zod being the more compelling character.
The Boom Camel
Member
Flip these around and you have my views on this question.
- Status