Support NeoGAF

[Messypandas]

Zod and his goons were literally genetically bred for combat scenarios, Clark wasn't. Theres your answer. When Clark fights Faora and the big guy, they wore masks that blocked the atmosphere while benefiting from the sun. It was also 2 against 1.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

So the movie has to tell you it's his first day? Isn't that just a defense for your viewpoint same as the poster you're replying to?

The movie even tells you it's his first day. He finds the ship, puts on the suit, learns to fly, takes it off, and takes the bus home.

The only power the movie implies he's practiced with is his heat vision. Widening it enough to melt his way to the ship, and focusing it enough to perform delicate surgery on Lois.

 

[Wag]

They just showed parts of the trailer on ABC National News.

The anchor said, "I don't know what Superman did, but he clearly did something to anger a lot of people".

He clearly didn't see Man of Steel. 😉

 

[Messypandas]

There was definitely nothing in the movie to imply it was first day order of business either

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

Don't get the hate for Man of Steel, Sir Hans Zimmer's score alone makes it a thoroughly enjoyable film. The music during the final fight between Zod and Sups, and when Sups comes at Zod to protect his mother and last but never the least the soundtrack during Sups first ever flight.

 

[lamaroo]

Zod and his goons were literally genetically bred for combat scenarios, Clark wasn't. Theres your answer. When Clark fights Faora and the big guy, they wore masks that blocked the atmosphere while benefiting from the sun. It was also 2 against 1.

Not to mention the lower gravity on Earth. We're not sure how much lower it was, but it's stated anyway.

Clark grew up in that gravity, while the other Kryptonians didn't.

 

[Bracewell]

Where has this even come from? Man of steel must be on the most polarizing movies on gaf, precisely because of endless discussion like this.

The discussions I've seen so far try to shut down any critique by saying any inconsistencies were intentional, or were to meant to set up events in BvS, or some other hand-wavey argument that exonerates Man of Steel from further analysis. Then someone mentions it being the definitive Superman, and throws up a chart when that's met with derision.

That really is load of crap. Man of Steel has rarely been given any benefit. It's has had more nit picking criticisms and ignorant discussions about motive and intent than the last 10 Marvel movies combined.

ignorant discussions about motive and intent

What? What does that even mean?

People constantly talk about motive and intent (amongst many, many other things) in the Marvel threads, and no one ever jumps to the defense of any of those movies with the intensity I've seen here.

 

[The Technomancer]

You take all discussion away with this mentality. The whole point is to discuss character motive. In any movie. Why did he do this? Why did she do that? What was the motivation?

To say "Cuz that's how they wrote it" is extremely lazy and nothing more than an excuse to back out of discussion when you have nothing to add.

They're not just saying "thats how they wrote it" though, they're saying "that's how they wrote it and so that's what they wanted to show". Because all of the people saying "well of course there are all of these reasons we can think of why it wasn't that way" are also missing the point. No-one forced their hand into having that fight develop that way. Discussion of character motivation is only half the conversation; discussion about why the creators gave the character that motivation are just as important.

 

[Game4life]

People constantly talk about motive and intent (amongst many, many other things) in the Marvel threads, and no one ever jumps to the defense of any of those movies with the intensity I've seen here.

You should see the stuff people say with a straight face to defend mediocrity like Age of Ultron here. I have seen strong defense for even embarrassing scenes like the magic pool scene from AoU or cookie cutter villains like Ultron. Every side has some fans defending with fervor.

 

[guek]

There was definitely nothing in the movie to imply it was first day order of business either

http://i.imgur.com/rKmlAiT.gif[img][/QUOTE]

Except we see none of this when he actually fights. We get no moments of pause or reluctance or Clark being unsure of how to use any of his abilities. Clark goes from learning to fly to mastering flight in an afternoon and never once displays inexperience when actually fighting. So no, the "first day" argument does not hold up in the movie itself as a central theme. It's ancillary at best and there's no basis for arguing it's central to Clark's motivations.

 

[ReiGun]

Where has this even come from? Man of steel must be on the most polarizing movies on gaf, precisely because of endless discussion like this.

This. If it seems like folks are balking at the discussion, it's because we've been having this discussion for over 2 years now and everyone is tired.

There's no new ground to cover, no new angles from which to discuss the film, and no chance of anyone changing their mind. We're beyond beating a dead horse; we're now beating what little remains of that horse's skeleton.

 

[More_Badass]

There was definitely nothing in the movie to imply it was first day order of business either

Given the time-frame of the movie, are we supposed to assume anything else besides it not being his first time acting as Superman?

Between getting the suit and turning himself into the military, there's the period of time where Lois wrote her story and tracked Clark down. Nothing in the movie implies or hints that he was doing Superman stuff between then

So why do people discount the notion that it's not his first time being Superman?

 

[Alienous]

Ice breath in this or no, do we think?

Given the time-frame of the movie, are we supposed to assume anything else besides it not being his first time acting as Superman?

Between getting the suit and turning himself into the military, there's the period of time where Lois wrote her story and tracked Clark down. Nothing in the movie implies or hints that he was doing Superman stuff between then

So why do people discount the notion that it's not his first time being Superman?

"acting as Superman". What do you mean by that?

He's been saving enough people to leave a trail that Lois follows before the beginning of the film.

 

[The Technomancer]

But how do you know that's poor writing and wasn't intentional? You think it was an accident that Goyer didn't write Superman to save civilians while fighting Zod? How could you possibly know one way or the other?

What you mean to say is "I thought it was a bad choice on the writer's part." That doesn't mean the writing itself was bad.

That is an incredibly specific qualifier that I'm not sure has much actual practical use in discussion . Generally if we were to say "that was a bad choice in the script" everyone gets the implication that we therefore think that part of the script was bad. The only way I can think of someone saying "the writing was bad" that wouldn't work that way is if they were literally critiquing like, the grammar or something.

 

[lamaroo]

Except we see none of this when he actually fights. We get no moments of pause or reluctance or Clark being unsure of how to use any of his abilities. Clark goes from learning to fly to mastering flight in an afternoon and never once displays inexperience when actually fighting. So no, the "first day" argument does not hold up in the movie itself as a central theme. It's ancillary at best and there's no basis for arguing it's central to Clark's motivations.

He gets his ass handed to him by Faora the first time he tried to fight her one on one. Relying on his flying to do anything offensive and defensive.

 

[Messypandas]

The discussions I've seen so far try to shut down any critique by saying any inconsistencies were intentional, or were to meant to set up events in BvS, or some other hand-wavey argument that exonerates Man of Steel from further analysis. Then someone mentions it being the definitive Superman, and throws up a chart when that's met with derision.

Well I can't agree with that because i've literally never seen merited critiques shutdown. Links? Generalising all fans of any particular thing partaking in some kind of illusory defensive dissonance is not going to get you very far either. Just imo.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Not at all. The crux of the criticism comes from the lack of consistency in having Superman defend humanity while seemingly paying no attention to the humans surrounding him and then pretending like Zod heat raying a family is suddenly a big deal. It's not lazy to point out poor writing. I'd rather analyze what's actually in the movie than make up motivations and character development out of thin air.

Anywho, I'm honestly not interested in yet another MoS debate. I shouldn't have replied to begin with, so consider me lazy or a troll or whatever.

You completely miss the whole point. Through out the fight Supes and Zod are fairly even. At the finale Supes has Zod dead to rights and demands Zod give up. Up to that point Clark believes he might be able to beat some sense into him, but Zod proves his irrationality by trying to fry the people in the Station when he has no moves left that would lead to victory.

 

[Glass]

As a big Superman fan, I wish MoS made me feel half of what this did.

 

[More_Badass]

I always thought the "Superman didn't save anyone during the Zod fight" was one of the most ridiculous criticisms

It's always been shown that he saves people during flashbacks, pre-suit, and during the Smallville fight

And during the fight, keeping Zod occupied is saving people, by proxy. Because taking 30 seconds to stop fighting and exclusively focus on rescuing someone or something means hundreds or thousands other people are killed by Zod during that time.

That's assuming Zod would even let Superman save people and not blindside him while Superman is distracted saving people

 

[Maninthemirror]

Except we see none of this when he actually fights. We get no moments of pause or reluctance or Clark being unsure of how to use any of his abilities. Clark goes from learning to fly to mastering flight in an afternoon and never once displays inexperience when actually fighting. So no, the "first day" argument does not hold up in the movie itself as a central theme. It's ancillary at best and there's no basis for arguing it's central to Clark's motivations.

There is something called learning the physicality of things and then the next day being mentally focused on what is important like action and consequences, gods and men , power and helpless

You can learn to shoot a gun but using it responsibly is the bigger test

 

[ryan299]

Probably doesn't update as quickly, but interesting Facebook trailer views seems to be outpacing Youtube

About 16 million to 14 million right now

Where do you see views on facebook?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I always thought the "Superman didn't save anyone during the Zod fight" was one of the most ridiculous criticisms

It's always been shown that he saves people during flashbacks, pre-suit, and during the Smallville fight

And during the fight, keeping Zod occupied is saving people, by proxy. Because taking 30 seconds to stop fighting and exclusively focus on rescuing someone or something means hundreds or thousands other people are killed by Zod during that time.

That's assuming Zod would even let Superman save people and not blindside him while Superman is distracted saving people

Yeah. Agree completely.

It reasonable to complain that Snyder cranked up the destruction so high, but Superman delay with it well. The choreography/editing doesn't always make it clear.

At least they are making the destruction pay off somewhat in the sequel.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Where do you see views on facebook?

It's usually located just under the embed.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah. Agree completely.

It reasonable to complain that Snyder cranked up the destruction so high, but Superman delay with it well. The choreography/editing doesn't always make it clear.

At least they are making the destruction pay off somewhat in the sequel.

I've come around to the destruction in general, but the ending moments of the movie are both really dissonant and also don't really fit within that more "serious" tone (and no, I don't mind the Clark joke for its jokeyness inherently, I mind it for its tone in its specific place and context within the film(

 

[Lights and Waves]

It's usually located just under the embed.

Facebook views are inflated. Just scrolling through it on your newsfeed is considered a view.

 

[wesleyshark]

Unnf. Been wanting this on the big screen for the longest! Hype!

 

[IconGrist]

That is an incredibly specific qualifier that I'm not sure has much actual practical use in discussion . Generally if we were to say "that was a bad choice in the script" everyone gets the implication that we therefore think that part of the script was bad. The only way I can think of someone saying "the writing was bad" that wouldn't work that way is if they were literally critiquing like, the grammar or something.

Maybe but to me bad writing can be pointed out by dialogue, plot holes, and character inconsistencies. Something like Superman remaining focused on Zod is an intentional choice made by the writer. You can disagree with that choice but it's not the same as bad writing.

 

[Maninthemirror]

People who say that the destruction was unnecessary should take solace that they are on batman's side

 

[lamaroo]

Yeah. Agree completely.

It reasonable to complain that Snyder cranked up the destruction so high, but Superman delay with it well. The choreography/editing doesn't always make it clear.

At least they are making the destruction pay off somewhat in the sequel.

I have one problem with the destruction. Why does literally everything explode in a burst of flames?

Anytime Superman goes through something, or throws somebody through something, it explodes.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Facebook views are inflated. Just scrolling through it on your newsfeed is considered a view.

Okay, that I didn't know. I thought you had to at least hit play. Do they do that because they set videos to autoplay if you simply hover over them now?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I have one problem with the destruction. Why does literally everything explode in a burst of flames?

Anytime Superman goes through something, or throws somebody through something, it explodes.

Buildings also fall over like houses of cards.

 

[Messypandas]

I always thought the "Superman didn't save anyone during the Zod fight" was one of the most ridiculous criticisms

It's always been shown that he saves people during flashbacks, pre-suit, and during the Smallville fight

And during the fight, keeping Zod occupied is saving people, by proxy. Because taking 30 seconds to stop fighting and exclusively focus on rescuing someone or something means hundreds or thousands other people are killed by Zod during that time.

That's assuming Zod would even let Superman save people and not blindside him while Superman is distracted saving people

And according to this, he still managed to save a bunch of peeps ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

eye beams are jet fuel

LOL

 

[The Silver]

Buildings also fall over like houses of cards.

eye beams are jet fuel

 

[Bobby Roberts]

That gif is funny. I'd say it's overstating its point a bit much, but considering the amount of overstatement the opposing side has had for two years straight now, I guess they're allowed a little bit of hyperbole?

What is it about this movie where the default is overheated hyperbole.

Hell, even that stupid "WE FIXED THE COLORS" video was overheated hyperbole that started by desaturating the movie even further than it actually looked, and then oversaturating the living shit out of it like "Ta-daaaaa!"

 

[Messypandas]

That gif is funny. I'd say it's overstating its point a bit much, but considering the amount of overstatement the opposing side has had for two years straight now, I guess they're allowed a little bit of hyperbole?

What is it about this movie where the default is overheated hyperbole.

Hell, even that stupid "WE FIXED THE COLORS" video was overheated hyperbole that started by desaturating the movie even further than it actually looked, and then oversaturating the living shit out of it like "Ta-daaaaa!"

Yeah I haven't watched the whole thing and I lol'd at the church scene. I guess he saved some souls in there?

 

[Sibersk Esto]

I have one problem with the destruction. Why does literally everything explode in a burst of flames?

Anytime Superman goes through something, or throws somebody through something, it explodes.

There was that particularly egregious truck throw where the truck hits that parking lot sort of hard and explodes into like, a mushroom cloud

 

[Mighty Chin]

That really is load of crap. Man of Steel has rarely been given any benefit. It has had more nit picking criticisms and ignorant discussions about character motive and intent than the last 10 Marvel movies combined.

Because Marvel gets its Characters right.

 

[Bracewell]

Well I can't agree with that because i've literally never seen merited critiques shutdown. Links? Generalising all fans of any particular thing partaking in some kind of illusory defensive dissonance is not going to get you very far either. Just imo.

Honestly, short of a thorough and robust statistical breakdown of every Neogaf discussion on Man of Steel, I don't know if I can give you evidence that you can agree with. I doubt a link to a specific comment does anything other than call a poster out for no good reason. Feel free to disagree with my anecdotal evidence though, I agree that it isn't really conclusive proof of anything.

It's just that I can guess the kind of replies I might get if I criticized Man of Steel, something I can't say if I did the same for Age of Ultron.

Of course, only one of those movies has been out since 2013, and isn't going to have a follow up until next year. If these sorts of discussions have happened before and people are sick of it, I can't really blame them.

People who say that the destruction was unnecessary should take solace that they are on batman's side

I lol'ed.

 

[Timu]

MoS scene synched with trailer scene

That's pretty cool.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Sucker Punch and owl movie probably weren't franchise material. It would be apropos here, but as someone mentioned, they probably don't want any more Marvel comparisons than they already get.

They are quite different from one another, don't see why people try to compare the two other than superheroes being in one world.

 

[Mighty Chin]

You should see the stuff people say with a straight face to defend mediocrity like Age of Ultron here. I have seen strong defense for even embarrassing scenes like the magic pool scene from AoU or cookie cutter villains like Ultron. Every side has some fans defending with fervor.

Pool Scene we know was cut to the bare minimum. It doesn't change the fact that it's a low point in the movie. We know there is more on the cutting room floor.

Ultron is not cookie cutter.

 

[IconGrist]

Honestly, short of a thorough and robust statistical breakdown of every Neogaf discussion on Man of Steel, I don't know if I can give you evidence that you can agree with. I doubt a link to a specific comment does anything other than call a poster out for no good reason. Feel free to disagree with my anecdotal evidence though, I agree that it isn't really conclusive proof of anything.

It's just that I can guess the kind of replies I might get if I criticized Man of Steel, something I can't say if I did the same for Age of Ultron.

Of course, only one of those movies has been out since 2013, and isn't going to have a follow up until next year. If these sorts of discussions have happened before and people are sick of it, I can't really blame them.

It differs from person to person the kind of discussion you will have if any. I can sit down all day and go over the bad and good from both Man of Steel and Age of Ultron and not once tell you whether I did or didn't like them. So can plenty of others. Some won't bother and will say "loved it" or "hated it". Then you have the extremes of "best movie ever" and "worst movie ever".

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I feel like the problems (aside from the overheated hyperbole I mentioned earlier) crop up the most when people take the criticisms of the film, and remove them from the context of the film, and instead place them in the context of completely separate films/universes.

Basically - the instant someone kicks open the door to make this a "But Marvel didn't do it that way" comparison, things go to shit. Because then it's not so much a criticism of the movie, but a criticism of the mechanisms that go into the corporate strategy behind the making of the cinematic universes, and from there it's a quick hop, skip, and jump over to WWE-style marking out at all costs, foam-fingers and pennants flying.

 

[Messofanego]

Pool Scene we know was cut to the bare minimum. It doesn't change the fact that it's a low point in the movie. We know there is more on the cutting room floor.

Ultron is not cookie cutter.

Ultron was a cookie cutter mother fucker, just like the rest of those safe moist dudes.

 

[Discotheque]

Ultron was a cookie cutter mother fucker, just like the rest of those safe moist dudes.

lol

 

[Messypandas]

Of course, only one of those movies has been out since 2013, and isn't going to have a follow up until next year. If these sorts of discussions have happened before and people are sick of it, I can't really blame them.

I'm mostly indifferent on the movie (6-7 out of 10) at most, but I do like DC and I think some comments take it to far. Wasn't calling you out bud. I don't really care about brand mentalities either. But i'm sure if you went into an Ant-Man thread and started talking about Edgar Wright you'd also get some interesting replies lol (in good fun).

 

[Mighty Chin]

Ultron was a cookie cutter mother fucker, just like the rest of those safe moist dudes.

The Drones were cookie cutter. Ultron wasn't.

 

[TheKaeptain]

The Drones were cookie cutter. Ultron wasn't.

His personality was cookie cutter Tony Stark. Pretty boring version of the character.

 

[Apt101]

Wow, looking great. And holy shit Gal Gadot looks so much like a Wonder Woman from the comics come to life on film.

 

[Alastor3]

Why did they make a Batman VS Superman movie before introducing the new Batman with a Batman movie ?