PushTheButtonMax
Banned
there saying this the Reeve frame
Cavill looks weird fo sho
You guys might doubt, but in my opinions there's no question that this was intentional. It's just too similar too Reeve's face.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man of Steel |OT| It's about action.
- Thread starter MisterHero
- Start date
You guys might doubt, but in my opinions there's no question that this was intentional. It's just too similar too Reeve's face.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
This is pretty much how I feel.
And my love for the Donner flicks is part of the reason I dislike Returns as much as I do. Trying so hard to be something it couldn't. I mean, Routh isn't Reeve, Bosworth isn't Kidder, and Spacey isn't Hackman. No matter how hard they tried to make them so.
And part of the reason I appreciate the change of tone in MoS. If they'd tried to be a Donner flick again I would have lost all hope of getting anything approaching a modern "good" Superman flick.
TacticalFox88
Banned
While I don't like it as much as I did initiatlly, it still is better than Returns on the basis of actually have shit happen instead of bullshit.
A SUPERMAN movie without any action or even a villain to face?
Sorry, but there's no legitimate argument that can be made to defend that dumbfuck decision.
A SUPERMAN movie without any action or even a villain to face?
Sorry, but there's no legitimate argument that can be made to defend that dumbfuck decision.
I think it has less to do with the fact that he may have killed X amount of people and more to do with the fact that he didn't seem to care about the destruction happening around him. I swear, all that scene needed was maybe one or two shots of him catching falling debris or something to get rid of that critique. Instead it was "FUCK IT LET'S FIGHT!!!". That last shot with the family felt like such a disconnect. I found myself thinking "OH YEA people."
It didn't bother me as much as most but I think the actual critique (as far as I know of it) is getting confused a bit.
Spectral Glider
Member
He brought Robo-Zod to Earth to begin with! The least he could do is figure out a way to fight him without killing people. No surprise he didn't, because Jedi ghost Jor-El was the one who had to figure out how to stop Robo-Zod. Which I guess is good, because it was his stupid ass that sent Kal to Earth in the first place. And again thank god Robo-Zod brought Lois on board for absolutely no reason whatsoever and then locked her in the one area where she could allow Jedi-El to work his magic. Uggh, the plot of this movie is such a stupid horrible mess.
I know, I know, what follows next is the cries of "he just became Superman, give him a break!" Well, maybe if Pa Kent wasn't such a dick about having Clark repress everything, he might have been a little more useful when the shit hits the fan.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't think it's getting confused. The majority of the critique is coming from the destruction itself, and Clark's part in it. It ends up becoming a meditation on how "Superman" should act and what "Superman" should do, which is fine - there's no way this movie wasn't going to spark those discussions.
But the majority of the criticisms comes not from Clark's percieved apathy (which I also don't believe is really there) but from the destruction itself. Man of Steel seems to be the lens through which a lot of unspoken frustration with summer blockbuster shortcuts is being focused. Probably because the character at the center of that blockbuster is one known for saving people.
But he DOES save people. Billions of them. He just doesn't save EVERYBODY. And most of the complaints are picking at why he doesn't save everybody, how he COULD have saved everybody, why didn't the writers make it so he COULD have saved these people, or stopped THIS from happening. "Why didn't he just fly up." so on and so forth.
I think Clark obviously cares. It's shown enough in the film to infer the level of his compassion, even through his cautiousness regarding human nature.
Painting him as a thoughtless killer (which is happening in the majority of these thinkpieces) is a distortion of the film, a distortion at the expense of the movie's way bigger problems (pacing, tone, dialog, length) that end up not being discussed because it's a lot easier to reduce to soundbyte form the idea that the movie is broken because "Superman kills people."
But the majority of the criticisms comes not from Clark's percieved apathy (which I also don't believe is really there) but from the destruction itself. Man of Steel seems to be the lens through which a lot of unspoken frustration with summer blockbuster shortcuts is being focused. Probably because the character at the center of that blockbuster is one known for saving people.
But he DOES save people. Billions of them. He just doesn't save EVERYBODY. And most of the complaints are picking at why he doesn't save everybody, how he COULD have saved everybody, why didn't the writers make it so he COULD have saved these people, or stopped THIS from happening. "Why didn't he just fly up." so on and so forth.
I think Clark obviously cares. It's shown enough in the film to infer the level of his compassion, even through his cautiousness regarding human nature.
Painting him as a thoughtless killer (which is happening in the majority of these thinkpieces) is a distortion of the film, a distortion at the expense of the movie's way bigger problems (pacing, tone, dialog, length) that end up not being discussed because it's a lot easier to reduce to soundbyte form the idea that the movie is broken because "Superman kills people."
Maninthemirror
Banned
You cant convince everyone of this fact, audiences are hardwired from movie examples that cheesy moment of superhero swooping down saving 1-2 people while hundreds die but they dont care as long as they see the melodramatic 1-2 people saved ignoring the 100s of others. Snyder tried something different and got hounded when infact it was the same result. People say they hate exposition but they need to be shown the hero saving people hand holding the audience with an example.
Anton Sugar
Member
Except that Superman did EXACTLY this when he saved Lois.
If people are thinking about it to that extreme then yea, very weird. I recognize my own personal problems with it though. It really wouldn't have taken much to satisfy my slight issue with it.
Think back to Spiderman 2 during the train scene when those two people fell (or were thrown) from the train and Spiderman threw out some webbing in stride to save them. Or when the cop car flipped in (I think) Spiderman 2 and he stopped it. Little things like that help to solidify the "hero" aspect.
I don't think the conversation in general about this wouldn't be happening if Superman caught some debris but I doubt it'd be as loud.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The complainers refer to metropolis battle not that.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yes, Robots are known to lose their shit when they cannot achieve their primary goal.
They're so emo.
They're so emo.
Maninthemirror
Banned
How many villians did the introduction of iron man create ? Spider man raimi and webb versions ? Tdk? Tdkr ?
All these movies had villians created indirectly from the heroes or as a result of. Where was this complaint then ?
Was I the only one that thought he brought her on board in the likely case Superman wouldn't give up the codex? He could use her to get to him. Threaten to cut off her fingers or have forced relations or something.
Anton Sugar
Member
Does it make the complaint any less valid?
I think the main difference here is that many of these villains were already on Earth and scheming to do bad things. The Green Goblin had his own experimental serum that created him; Doc Oc had a similar origin. The universe and script support those villains.
Iron Man, you could argue that Obediah was already a pretty bad dude, but the Iron Man technology let him be fully realized. In Iron Man 2 (which was not great), yes, you could argue that the villain exists because of Tony Stark, but that is also a huge part of his arc/motivation. In Man of Steel, they treat the fact that Kal-El brought Zod to Earth as if it was some destiny that he needed to fulfill.
Spectral Glider
Member
That's not emo. If he was emo, he would dress all in black, hide in a room and listen to shitty music all day.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Yes it does
It was leaked to the public that Lois was the one person on Earth that knew who Kal was. It's also kind of why the FBI brought Lois into custody. Zod tried to mine whatever information about him that he could. I'd say that's a pretty good reason to bring her aboard the ship.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Cant believe ppl forget this part of the movie
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Totally agree. Almost all of the problems people are using to springboard into the "Superman is a cold-blooded murderer!" tone of the pop-culture narrative around the film could have been EASILY, easily fixed with nothing more than 3 or 4 ADR'd lines of dialog. It's kind of maddening, on 2nd or 3rd watch, seeing what Clark IS doing to mitigate destruction, but watching it go by so fast, with no acknowledgement from Snyder/Goyer. Why didn't they address it in post with that dialog? Who knows. I'm gonna venture to guess it never occurred to them that they should underline Clark's effort's with some dialog here or there. They've got blind spots as filmmakers that are DEFINITELY highlighted with this film.
Spectral Glider
Member
Something that cool would only happen if Tarantino or Scorsese were directing.
Yeah this complaint is pretty overused as 90% of superhero films can be written off as "The world would have been better without the hero." Most heroes create their villains. Loki would never have come to earth if not for Thor, the crazy military dude wouldn't have access to a suit if Tony didn't build it, Aiden Killian wouldn't have gone super evil if Tony wasn't a douche to him, Venom would have never existed if Spiderman didn't pick up the symbiote AND be a complete douche to Eddie Brock, etc... the list goes on and on.
Anton Sugar
Member
I guess you'll ignore the part where I refute most of your examples. With TDKR, it's a continuation of the League of Shadows wanting to destroy Gotham, which had nothing to do with Batman initially in BB. With TDK, a huge part of the story and theme is that the Joker's existence is a counterpoint to the existence of Batman, and how similar they are in many ways. Even if the Joker would not exist without Batman, the movie is an exploration of that dynamic.
Bringing that back to MoS, it's not inherently a bad story point that Superman is the reason Zod is attacking Earth--it's just that the script/Snyder chose to not explore this, or hamfistedly attempt to make it a part of Superman's "purpose".
It is not outside the realm of possibility that Zod and Co. would have eventually chosen Earth as a habitable planet anyway. Krypton had previous contact with Earth during their days of colonization and Jor-El (or his wife) specifically chose Earth for their son.
Snytbaggen
Member
Just came back from the theater. Overall I liked it a lot, but some of the cuts to the flashbacks were very confusing.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I just hope Clark is more of an adventurous reporter in the sequel, heading to developing countries and doing manly shit but without relying too much on his powers until he has to be Superman. I don't need dorky Kent. I have Christopher Reeves for that and I love him for it. But let this new Cavill Kent be a bit adventurous and actually use his position to cover interesting events that lead to an interesting villain who results in an interesting plot.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Iron man 1 villian was as a result of starks iron man tech and becoming iron man
Iron man 2 villian as a result of success and popularity of stark post im 1
Joker's chaos was a main part due to him trying to expose and destroy batman
Both hulk movies had villians which were a direct result of banner becoming hulk
Spiderman 1 2 3 villians except sandman were result of spiderman
Tasm lizard was a result of parker equation and spiderman
The incredibles villian was a direct result of the parents
Returns kryptoniteisland was a direct result of
Kryptonite which came with superman
Unbreakable villian was a direct result of him trying to find mr unbreakable
Sun man in superman 4 a direct result ot superman
What else
Spectral Glider
Member
But they had Kal. I could see if they needed to use her to find him, but he gave himself up. She was useless to them, but the plot needed her, so she was brought on board.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Must be easier to break a human than a kryptonian. Zod wanted to take superman to get his info and in case superman doesnt fold then extract info from lois which they did because lois told supes they did something to her to which superman said they did to me too. Immediately after, faora lands in smallville to the kent farm
Anton Sugar
Member
Obediah was already a bad guy, just in hiding.
Ivan Vanko comes about as a direct result of Stark, yes, but the movie does try to explore this (and fails).
Like I said, the entire movie explored the Joker's existence--this is not something that can be counted as a negative against the movie, since they actually DID something with the idea.
You're probably right, I don't remember enough about either.
Wrong.
Spider-Man 1: Green Goblin is created because of Norman's desperate attempt at injecting himself with his serum.
Spider-Man 2: Doc Oc is created because Octavius is trying to create a source of energy, but it goes wrong.
Spider-Man 3: This movie sucked, so I'll give it to you.
This movie was also average, but Parker technically helped him, and the formula went wrong (or whatever) and transformed him.
Don't remember enough of these to address them.
Anyway, we've gotten a bit off-topic. Like I said, Super-man being the reason for Zod coming to Earth isn't inherently bad, but Man of Steel doesn't know what to do with it and doesn't do anything interesting with it. Worse, they treat it like its his "purpose".
Already posted?
Snyder snuck in a split-second shot of Christopher Reeve over Cavill's face during a particularly heroic moment.
http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Christopher-Reeve-Henry-Cavill.gif
Snyder snuck in a split-second shot of Christopher Reeve over Cavill's face during a particularly heroic moment.
http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Christopher-Reeve-Henry-Cavill.gif
Already posted?
Snyder snuck in a split-second shot of Christopher Reeve over Cavill's face during a particularly heroic moment.
http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Christopher-Reeve-Henry-Cavill.gif
Thought this was confirmed to be fake.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Was talked about pretty extensively on the previous page.
It's a coincidence.
It's a coincidence.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Both cavill and reeve have the same chiselled face, cavills mouth is larger reeves was smaller so when he presses his mouth together and looks up into the light with nearly the same hair he looks like reeves
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
That's all well and good. But I think most people's problems come from all the lives lost due to Clark's inactions: what he DOESN'T do, the first of which seems to be giving a fuck about the very possible reality that there are still many people present over these city blocks that he shows no concern fighting Zod in. He doesn't try to stop the fight between him and Zod or move it away from the city an go elsewhere.
And it's nice that you think that because we don't see bodies flying out o the exploding gas station and car parked there, that there was obviously nobody there. I often start filling my car up with gas and then leave town forever. Anyway, the point is that the scene in which three people's lives at Zod's hands suddenly mean so much to him comes across as he hilarious after he doesn't seem to give two fucks that Zod's actions (and his own inaction) are also causing thousands of people to die during their fight. Why couldn't he snap Zod's neck beforehand? Again, it's the film's fault for not showing us either a) the city being massively evacuated or b) giving us two seconds of Superman considering how hazardous his fighting Zod in th middle of the city must be toward the civilian population, but not being able to do anything about it due to Zod being relentless. But we don't get that. So either thousands of people died because Superman doesn't give a single fuck or because he's a dumbass.
And it's nice that you think that because we don't see bodies flying out o the exploding gas station and car parked there, that there was obviously nobody there. I often start filling my car up with gas and then leave town forever. Anyway, the point is that the scene in which three people's lives at Zod's hands suddenly mean so much to him comes across as he hilarious after he doesn't seem to give two fucks that Zod's actions (and his own inaction) are also causing thousands of people to die during their fight. Why couldn't he snap Zod's neck beforehand? Again, it's the film's fault for not showing us either a) the city being massively evacuated or b) giving us two seconds of Superman considering how hazardous his fighting Zod in th middle of the city must be toward the civilian population, but not being able to do anything about it due to Zod being relentless. But we don't get that. So either thousands of people died because Superman doesn't give a single fuck or because he's a dumbass.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Actually he does, he knows about the other machine and tries to destroy that while colonel hardy tries to destroy the machine in metropolis, if hardy had not destroyed the machine immediately after supes destroyed the indonesian one, there would have been a singularity which could have destroyed the entire earth.
Secondly there is no indication that Zod would have gone with superman, if you remember zods little speech before the fight he says his purpose now was to destroy humans in front of superman, do you think if superman would have flew off zod would have followed? Or does the director need to handhold the viewer with a scene even after the movie. The only destruction really between the fight is one building collapsing and superman flying through 7-8 buildings but not destroying them, 10-20 buildings were already shown destroyed by the world machine
Secondly there is no indication that Zod would have gone with superman, if you remember zods little speech before the fight he says his purpose now was to destroy humans in front of superman, do you think if superman would have flew off zod would have followed? Or does the director need to handhold the viewer with a scene even after the movie. The only destruction really between the fight is one building collapsing and superman flying through 7-8 buildings but not destroying them, 10-20 buildings were already shown destroyed by the world machine
evil solrac v3.0
Member
it was small and a tiny scene but there is a cop directing jenny Olsen and others out of the line of fire when the world engine is firing. that's all that you should need to let you know that a lot of people where evacuated.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There's a link to the fuckin spoiler thread for a reason, you backwards Aussie.
Maninthemirror
Banned
zod throws him into orbit then superman throws him into the satellite, zod throws the satellite to superman then drags him back to metropolis
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
It's almost like you're frustrated about what I didn't do.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I really hope there are some deleted scenes from the Daily Planet. I'm still trying to understand why I was meant to give a shit about Jenny when I know absolutely nothing about her before that scene.
Discotheque
Banned
look at all these cats superman is rescuing from trees
lol
complaints about the film aside, i think it looks really cool when he catches the daily planet globe.
lol
complaints about the film aside, i think it looks really cool when he catches the daily planet globe.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That's an... interesting way to read my response
Most of your redacted shit is addressed in some manner once you scroll down after reading the link.
This is my only gripe with the entire film. The entire focus was on Superman and the Kryptonians that the Daily Planet crew suffered. I didn't know or care about a single one of them by the end of the film (even Lois strangely). I think (and hope) we'll get a lot more Daily Planet in the second film.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
It also felt like once the initial shit hit the fan, the Daily Planet staffers were the only ones left in the city.