Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    DC Comics Historian
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    268

    Default MAN OF STEEL (Reflecting on how easy it is to fix 5 years later)

    Before we go anywhere else let me just start by saying please realize I am doing this mostly because I am a smartass. I know that a lot of these are obvious and have been beaten to death over the last 5 years. However, some people speak about this film as if it is just the worst thing to ever touch Superman and let's be honest here. They obviously never saw Superman 3 or 4. Even Schumacher meets his match with those dreadful installments. I am not saying that my way is the best way and really want to just have a good conversation about things. Perhaps I am missing something or there is a point you don't agree with. Let's discuss it!

    I think a majority of fans when it comes to Snyder's DC Trilogy will be in agreement with me when I say MAN OF STEEL is the best installment of all 3. It is definitely so when it comes to Rotten Tomatoes and most critics. Tonight I had to write a persuasive speech for my Public Speaking college class (Yay film school!) and decided to throw MOS on in the background and since I have my persuasion hat on right now I figure why not write up this flick and give my view that this film is actually incredibly easy to fix in terms of making it a just "Okay-Good" film and instead making it the "GREATEST SUPERMAN FILM OF ALL-TIME" in a more unanimous light across critics and fans alike. I for one have always loved this film and I honestly feel it is incredibly faithful to what Superman is aesthetically. The Krypton stuff is great and overall all of the components needed to tell a good Superman story are here. The execution, just like in Batman V Superman is just lacking.

    First let's talk about what people say needs fixing but ISN'T REALLY THE PROBLEM.

    1. METROPOLIS BEING DESTROYED IS WHAT WE NEEDED TO SEE!

    A lot of people say the problem with this movie was the wanton destruction. This in my opinion is an incredibly ridiculous straw man argument as we literally the summer before saw basically all of Gotham and a lot of New York destroyed in both THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and The Avengers and no one said a thing. Even Godzilla got a pass and that was even the subject of a How It Should Have Ended. The destruction of the city is not only something that would have gotten a pass IMO had the film just done what I am about to explain but it is also something that we as fans had been waiting for since 1978 in just wanting Superman to hit things and enemies. HARD. Also, I am going to say it here and probably several more times. This is a super man who isn't quite SUPERMAN yet. He will learn after this to try to be a bit more careful and cunning in his future altercations. I didn't think it needed a "Dark Knight Rises AUTOPILOT" amount of mentioning in BVS that things were empty or what not. Fans are weird though in what they seemingly need spelled out for them sometimes.

    2. WOODEN DIALOGUE

    Including this was something I was on the fence about. It's been a problem in all of the Snyder films and it really is unfortunately a fault of Snyder alone and it's really hard to understand how such little time was used in fixing that. Even Watchmen has dialogue that seems genuine and fits into the story. But it is clear that Snyder got caught up with his visuals much like Tim Burton was in Batman and way more so to a detriment in Batman Returns. I mean, I think Burton was more interested in filming penguins with eye sight aimed missiles strapped to their backs marching down the street than literally just about anything else in that entire flick. Anyway, back to Snyder and MOS though. The scene where he knocks the drone out of the sky and confronts the General was both well acted and well written. THAT WAS SUPERMAN THROUGH AND THROUGH. So good acting from Cavill and good writing from Snyder are possible.

    3. SAVING MIN 2 OR 3 CIVILIANS IN SMALLVILLE AND SEEING HIS POWERS AS A GIFT FOR GOOD

    If he had just taken the time to have Superman save a few more people from projectiles and raging Kryptonian soldiers in Smallville it would have easily won over more people right then and there. Whedon wasn't NOT onto something when he had Superman save people in Justice League. But it really felt like a stick it Snyder moment in writing that in. Really all of what he did for Superman in that film feels like a "No, THIS is how you do it, Zack" type of thing. However, instead all we got was one line of dialogue of Superman jogging down the street nonchalantly asking someone if they were okay when said person really wasn't anywhere near the action and then said to noone at all "Get inside, it's not safe" in his indoor voice so no one of any consequence could have possibly heard it. Seriously, if he would have just saved 2 or 3 people and then smiled after feeling great about them not only being okay but seeing that he can do good with his powers despite what Pa Kent had told him earlier. However, I am going to touch upon why this isn't COMPLETELY out of character, just mostly.

    That's another thing. If Johnathan could would have just said a few within his concern for Clark being discovered and taken away by the government about how he was special and these gifts could be a great thing for the world as long as he always uses them to better himself and those around him that's another countless fans that would have been won over by the film and it's something that is so easy. It doeasn't cost millions of dollars for an action piece or reshoots. It could even have been a nice little flashback whilst saving said people in Smallville. Let's say Clark didn't really understand anything Pa was saying at the time but then bam, right then and there he gets it 100%. You see, in my eyes he didn't really becoming Superman until the end of the flick.

    4. TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE NOLAN WAY. (IE PHANTOM ZONE, NOT DEATH

    And the final thing which I am sure everyone knows is LISTEN TO CHRISTOPHER NOLAN. The biggest mistake this movie made was killing Zod and that was something that Christopher Nolan not only told Snyder that he shouldn't do and Snyder didn't listen but it is also what from what I have read made Nolan stop being a consultant on the future films and become a producer in name only. This ending to this story is basically tradition. You wait for this to happen in every single Superman story involving Zod. Just like with the Joker you wait for him to go careening off a building or a cliff only to not have a body show up or Batman and Robin in the 66 show somehow getting out of whatever death trap they are in. I understand that Snyder thought he was being clever and just wanted to do something different. But if the only reason they killed Zod was so he could become a Doomsday larva in Batman V Superman it seriously WASN'T WORTH IT. I would have much rather have seen Bizarro be the reason why people didn't trust Superman in BVS as at least that would have made sense and then if you HAD to have Doomsday you either make Bizarro change into him as it is a disease that Kryptonian blood carries and you could justify it's craziness because he is half Luthor OR you just bring down the genuine article. Seriously.

    That's all it would have taken to make this film go from "Okay" to "GREATEST SUPERMAN FILM EVER". These changes are largely easy. They don't involve anything more than the script just being better and when the Phantom Zone sucks the world engine back in Zod goes with it. So it's not an expensive reshoot or anything like that. So what do you guys think?
    Last edited by theonetruebatman; 08-02-2018 at 01:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,013

    Default

    Snyder was not the first person to have Superman kill Zod. Nor was he the last as Supergirl shows. Considering Nolan had Batman kill someone in every
    Bat film he directed I'm not even sure why he objected to it.

    That said, I do like the other changes.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 08-02-2018 at 01:29 AM.

  3. #3
    BANNED Starter Set's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,772

    Default

    Feeling like beating a dead horse eh?

    Fair enough, we all been there.

  4. #4
    DC Comics Historian
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starter Set View Post
    Feeling like beating a dead horse eh?

    Fair enough, we all been there.
    No more or less than anyone else. Go back to your (insert character name here) tribute threads. Meanwhile, other people will be having thoughtful conversations that don't border on some sort of compulsion.

  5. #5
    BANNED Starter Set's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,772

    Default

    Haha, feeling a bit edgy today aren't we now?

    That's fine, don't worry. As i said, we all been there.

  6. #6
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Man of Steel is a master piece. People have no clue

  7. #7
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Here’s a the problem with Superman. People have a Christopher Reeve film perception of him and his most successful comic incarnations are not like that.

  8. #8
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shriveling_memo View Post
    Man of Steel is a master piece. People have no clue
    "Masterpiece" is several steps too far, but it does attempt an interesting story. It succeeds more than it fails, but it's successes I feel are fairly modest whereas it's failures are significant. To me it just often felt too art student project, where it's execution doesn't meet it's aspirations, and falls into doing comfortable things reflexively to fill space.

  9. #9
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    The problems with a lot of this is that it wasn't what was done but how.

    For instance, there's nothing wrong with the destruction in Metropolis in itself. But contrast it with the first Avengers movie where you have a portion of New York being destroyed. But what does the story focus on? The Avengers trying to save people and prevent as much destruction as possible.

    What does MoS focus on? Graphic shots of buildings toppling and almost obsession with the destruction itself. And how much is Superman really shown trying to prevent any of it?

    It's not the events themselves but the impression they leave, how they are presented.

    Now I know this will just lead to "He was a rookie" and "It's realistic", both of which I agree with but it's not going to change people's reactions and turn a movie that some loved and some hated and generally equaling out to a so-so reaction by meeting in the middle (where few people in the audience really met) into something that is considered the greatest Superman movie ever made.

    The comparison to "Godzilla" is pointless because people may just have an ever so slightly different expectation of what might happen in a Godzilla movie and what might happen in a Superman movie.

    The truth is that you can make a movie as well as you possibly can and you are still never going to get a Superman movie that is considered a great Superman movie when you are not meeting people's expectations for a Superman movie and I say that as someone who liked a lot of things in MoS that a lot of people hated.
    Power with Girl is better.

  10. #10
    Astonishing Member Tuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    The problems with a lot of this is that it wasn't what was done but how.

    For instance, there's nothing wrong with the destruction in Metropolis in itself. But contrast it with the first Avengers movie where you have a portion of New York being destroyed. But what does the story focus on? The Avengers trying to save people and prevent as much destruction as possible.

    What does MoS focus on? Graphic shots of buildings toppling and almost obsession with the destruction itself. And how much is Superman really shown trying to prevent any of it?

    It's not the events themselves but the impression they leave, how they are presented.
    Redlettermedia nailed it when they called it a good Hulk movie.

  11. #11
    Death becomes you Osiris-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    The whole point of a Godzilla movie is to show Godzilla destroying stuff. The point of a Superman movie is supposed to be Superman saving people and stuff.
    And MoS is the only movie where we actually saw Superman kill somebody. In Superman 2 we never actually saw Zod die and in some alternate cuts he is actually
    shown to be alive and sent to prison. In Supergirl it was just Winn saying Superman killed Zod but it turns out Zod is alive in the future. Plus I think the idea is
    that this is the same Superman as the Superman in MoS, but just an older version of him.

  12. #12
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    Now I know this will just lead to "He was a rookie" and "It's realistic", both of which I agree with but it's not going to change people's reactions
    The whole "he was a rookie" justification for how this played out is the weakest in the history of comic book arguments. The entire superhero genre is built on the idea of superheroes doing something they've never done before to win the day.

    Which I guess in this case he did, but it was something terribly unsatisfying to both fans of Superman and casual fans of adventure films.

  13. #13
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    The whole "he was a rookie" justification for how this played out is the weakest in the history of comic book arguments. The entire superhero genre is built on the idea of superheroes doing something they've never done before to win the day.

    Which I guess in this case he did, but it was something terribly unsatisfying to both fans of Superman and casual fans of adventure films.
    While I think the way it was handled in MoS was poor, I don't agree with the core sentiment. It's just saying you can never introduce any realism into the genre because that's not how it's been done before. Kind of reminds me of somebody I knew who thought Snake Pliskon was a wimpy action hero because a hunk of steel going through his leg actually so overwhelmed him with pain that he just couldn't do anything as opposed to what an action hero is *supposed to be". You know? Rambo. John Matrix, etc.

    Granted though that they shouldn't have done it with Superman. John Hancock already did that and you need an original character people have no expectations of to pull that off.

    There was an old Saturday Night Live spoof about how Superman was once the Ultimate Innovator, that, by definition, everything he did was original. But that he had reached the point where they couldn't do anything with him anymore without getting blasted.
    Power with Girl is better.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •