Why all the hate for Man of Steel?

[Jeivar]

Man of Steel seems to get a lot of bashing on the internet. I see people mention it the same way they do The Phantom Menace, as something that's just accepted as being a disappointing failure. I personally really liked the movie and most of the actual scores I've seen have been positive, and so have done quite a lot of headscratching over this. Why do people dislike Man of Steel? I've seen some go on about it trying to be dark and broody in an effort to imitate the Dark Knight trilogy but I didn't find it dark, I just found it realistic about the situation the characters found themselves in.

What do people dislike about it so much?

*Superman killing Zod in the end? Well, there was nothing else to be done at that point. There was literally no way to depower or imprison him. I was a bit shocked for a moment because Supes isn't known for killing, but I thought it was a nice aversion to the superhero Thou Shalt Not Kill rule. Superhero stories always provide the hero a way out of a situation without getting his hands dirty. Here, the situation was genuinely impossible.

*The outfit? Because it wasn't the exact, brightly coloured costume of the comics? That just wouldn't work in a movie in this day and age. I thought the costume looked cool, and made sense as an alien armour-uniform-thing.

*Characters reacting to Superman with fear more than anything, rather than "Wooowww, cooool!". Well . . . that's how people WOULD react to an immensely powerful unknown. The first movie is about Superman earning the adoration he enjoys in the comics.

*Supes not being able to prevent loss of life in Metropolis? It was a devastating situation.

A lot of the complaints I've seen are about MoS supposedly not being inspiring. I think it was, just not in the simple Saturday morning cartoon way.

[Aedilred]

I think part of it is that the internet isn't particularly good at expressing, and, consequently, forming, non-extremist views on this sort of subject. It's either the greatest thing evar or it totally sux0red. I think Man of Steel disappointed a lot of viewers, not because it was terrible in any particular way, but just because it was nothing particularly special, particularly in view of films like The Dark Knight or some of the Marvel efforts. Then memetic distortion led to its being regarded as totally awful.

There are a lot of details about the film which people might take issue with, and whether you can ignore them (as with those you mention) is largely a personal thing. For some people they might be a deal-breaker, even if there's a reasonable explanation for it. But putting the details to one side and looking at the film as a whole - it's not atrocious, but it's still nothing much to write home about.

[SiuiS]

There were a lot of good points when the movie tread was still active. Largely, the DC universe seems almost ashamed of itself for making movies and not only makes them gritty-real-dark, they feel they have to apologize for them. It shows in their movie production.

I eSnpersonally satisfied, although I accept the issues others had.

[Scowling Dragon]

People who disliked it (AKA People like me) Found it:

Dull: Dull music and boring colors and dull acting

Jumbled: Flashbacks at random places for no reason

Superman is not Superman: This guy is not Superman and does not give off a superman Quality. He comes off creepy alien and monsterlike. Because REAL Superman knows himself to be creepy he takes effort to do minor things to show he cares.

Like Not-Superman fought in the city whereas Real-Superman would take effort to lure Zod out of it.

The whole neck-snap comes off phony baloney when superman killed THOUSANDS of humans in his fight with Zod.

Superman also in the movie is creepy stoic and not very human at all. So the end result is "Creepy". Also kinda thuggish.

Pa-Kent also comes off as an idiot **** who was raising a messiah. Not his son.

Really the complaints made sense, you just didn't look at them in the Proper way.

[Tengu_temp]

If you have some time, feel free to watch/listen to these videos. I find them very insightful.

http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s3e5-th...k-kent-6618856
http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s3e5-1-...low-up-6629695
http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s4e2-ma...isited-6876467

Short version:
Superman is an extremely destructive saviour who causes a huge amount of collateral damage and probably kills or at least wounds some civilians by accident. Pa Kent is a horrible human being who we're expected to find sympathetic. The people of Krypton are ridiculous idiots. The whole movie is shot as a collection of unrelated scenes, not a coherent narrative, and many of these scenes don't amount to anything.

[comicshorse]

[QUOTE=Scowling Dragon;17825889

Like Not-Superman fought in the city whereas Real-Superman would take effort to lure Zod out of it.
[/QUOTE]

Now I've heard this complaint a lot and don't agree, it really seemed to me that Superman was trying to move the fight out of the city but Zod just wasn't having it. As I remember several times he tries to throw Zod out of the city and Zod grabs hold of a building or simply flies back until Superman realises that he's just wasting time doing this and every moment the fight goes on more people die.
Its all very well saying Superman should have lured Zod put but if Zod was aware of that (which isn't difficult to spot) and wants to cause maximum casualties (which he does) then he simply isn't going to be lured

Superman is not Superman: This guy is not Superman and does not give off a superman Quality. He comes off creepy alien and monsterlike. Because REAL Superman knows himself to be creepy he takes effort to do minor things to show he cares.

I'd disagree with the 'monsterlike' but this is Superman's beginings story. He's learning how to be Superman and not scare the hell out of people and isn't there yet

The whole neck-snap comes off phony baloney when superman killed THOUSANDS of humans in his fight with Zod.

Really that makes no sense. Because loads of people have died then its alright for more to die

I didn't think much to Pa Kent I must admit and thought the whole 'oh its ok Perry was saved that makes the devastation of Metropolis less horrible' bit was silly. To me the whole point was the devastation of Metropolis WAS horrible, the point was this was how it was when Superman saved the day, the results without him would have been infinitely worse.
Over all though I liked it, though I did feel there was a a better movie in it trying to get out. Preferably a shorter movie that skipped all Jor-el's needless action sequences

[lord_khaine]

What do people dislike about it so much?

Just to start with, the death of Jonathan Kent were so horribly stupid it made me want to bang my head against my chair in frustration, that along were enough to leave a negative mark on the movie.

And thats then besides all the other little negative things, like the costume not being the proper one.
What the **** were they thinking? Superman is suposed to be the brightly colored one, not Batman version 2.0

[Eldan]

So, I must preface this with sometihng:
I don't know Superman. I've never read a Superman comic. I've never seen a cartoon or one of the older movies. I also don't care about Superman. I know some pop culture facts. Blue tights, Louise Lane, Clark Kent, Kryptonite, Laser eyes, saves people. THat's all.


This movie was dull. Let me rephrase that.
DUUUUUUUUUUULLLLL.

Nothing interesting is happening. One person is acting (Zod) and he's hamming it up too much compared to everyone else. The fights? The first one is interesting for a while, then it's the same again and again. I've seen people get smashed through walls, movie. It's not funny the twentiest time.

And then, just... the characters. Father Kent may be one of the strangest people I've seen on film. I don't want to call him stupid, as such, but nothing he said makes sense. Don't show your power? Even when people are dying? Even when it's your father dying? Yup, makes soooo much sense.

And the tonal whiplash in the end. "Oh, thousands of people were smashed to powder or burried under buildings. We caused billions in damage. Let's laugh. Haha."

Also, the entire Zod dilemma. Where was it said that Superman doesn't kill? He never said that in this movie. It was never shown. He certainly went at the other Kryptonians without much hesitation and didn't seem to have any trouble with punching people through occupied buildings. But then, we get this situation. First of all, it doesn't work. The family could just walk away, the lasers are moving so slowly. Superman could knock Zod's head aside. Why is this handful of people so important, when there are hundreds dead outside under the rubble? Why is Superman heartbroken about killing Zod? He killed other Kryptonians. And again, it never said he's against killing. Plus, what a cheesy scream. It made me laugh almost as much as superman's vision of the ball pit full of skulls.

IN the end, it was just a dull, badly written mess with some nice effects.

[Gespenst Ritter]

I didn't really hate the movie, but I didn't really like it much either. It was resoundingly average.

A lot of the problem is that the film doesn't spend as much time on delivering something even remotely close to a coherent and well-flowing narrative as it does endlessly waxing philosophical on what the world's reaction would be if they found an almost godlike figure walking amongst them. And then it never really answers those questions. Clark reveals himself to the world and people hardly give two ****s about it. Or at least, the amount of ****s given is significantly lower than what the movie tells us it should be. They think everyone should be experiencing soul-crushing fear and societal breakdown at Superman's very existence, and then this is never shown. Don't tell us you're doing a "beware the superman" plot and then not show people bewaring the superman.

Aside from that, there's things like Pa Kent being kind of an *******, the movie showing the Krypton flashback and then having Jor-El give us a recap of the Krypton flashback just a few minutes later, and how Lois is able to figure out Superman's identity with a few days of investigative reporting, but an entire nation's intelligence network still can't figure out "where Superman hangs up his cape" by the end of the movie.

[Kitten Champion]

I think Bob Chipman summarizes my issues with the movie rather concisely.

While Man of Steel's objectively the better movie, I would have preferred it if they'd just gone on and made their universe around Green Lantern, bomb though it was. At least it wasn't hellbent on distancing itself from its source material or draining the world of joy.

Meeting the Goyer/Nolan-ized DC universe is not something I care to do.

[Drascin]

First point is that it mangles a lot of what makes Superman Superman. For example, origins and base: Superman is basically a god that was taken by a kindly couple and learned right and wrong from them. Ma and Pa Kent are always some of Clark's strongest moral foundations. But in Man of Steel, Pa Kent was... not really very much so. Clark in MoS became a hero despite Jonathan, not thanks to him. Most comic book fans I meet point to the complete destruction of the character of Pa Kent (which is a foundation and example for Superman), and the entire tornado scene, as a very big problem with MoS. And people are starting to get really tired of some Hollywood directors' obsession with daddy issues.

A second point is that the pacing is, honestly, not very good. Man of Steel is more a series of disjointed scenes that seem more designed to look good in Youtube and then stitched together haphazardly than a movie that was thought up coherently. Some scenes are entirely too short for what they need to say while some others (especially fights) go on for-freaking-ever for no particular benefit. So on and so forth.

Third is about tone problems. Like, you have Superman forced to kill Zod, and he reacts with sadness and pain at having been forced to take another life. Which is exactly how Superman should react... aaaand a minute later we get the kiss and supposedly uplifting finale scene atop the rubble that used to be metropolis. Sudden mood jerk right at the very last part of the movie makes people leave theatres annoyed.

We could go on, here.

[smuchmuch]

Too much, too loud. And with a pretty bad pacing. Action scenes are too long that it dilutes whatever little moments where characterisation (what little there is) happens.

Some moments could have trimmed a lot of fat and be a better film. I think the worst offender are the scene on Krypton, the whole thing must last at least a good what twenty minutes ? Maybe more. And you could have done just the same in a quarter of the time if you remove the scene with kal el riding his dragon and swimming and having a pointless fight with Zod (hes supposed to be a scientist damnit, there would be no shame with him loosing in one pucnh from the mighty general) and so on, and kept about as much of the emotional impact it had.

Our main villain has a tendendy to go from underacting to chewing the scenery in a matter of seconds which is honetly a bit jarring. (i still like Zod in this film, mind you, I just feel he doesn't have to shout so muh.) A lot of the other actors feel stiff and emotionoles when they shouldn't. the only moment where I felt there a genuine human moment comming from Superman was when he flies for the first time and you see him happy, only one i can remember.

Aaand about everything with Pa Kent really.
There's jsut not enough human warmth in any of those scene to make it feel like a father/son moment.

Oh yes and my favorite (which oddly enough is barely ever brought at all, maybe I'm the only one who find it shocking or did I grossly misinterpet this scene ?) Superman commits Genocide of the last remaining kryptonian clone babies (when he punches the glass of their clone tank like thingy while saying 'krypton had it chance'). Pretty sue it was wholy unescessary.

Superman is an extremely destructive saviour who causes a huge amount of collateral damage and probably kills or at least wounds some civilians by accident.

*Shrug* To be fair I feel a lot of the usual counter arguments (They generaly boil down to 'He's new at this againt a mych more experienced fightr than him (who doesn't care and in fact try to cause as much as said destruction) and it's not like Zod is giving him a break to get away from the city or do damage control') given to this hold their ground.

Besides if people can somehow accept the Superman caused no death whatsoever here with this famous punch in the animated series, I'm going to cut some slack to the film.

[TheEmerged]

Answering for myself and only myself here

*Superman Killing Zod - I had no problem with this. In fact, it was on the short list of things the movie got right in my opinion.

*Product placement. This wasn't something I had a *problem* with, but it was a persistent nuisance throughout the film, the kind of thing that got to the point it wasn't worth mocking before the film was over. You know how some comedy TV shows have a running joke or catchphrase that isn't as funny as the producers seem to think it is? That's about the level of issue that was.

*Jonathan Kent. As I've mentioned on other posts of the subject, I left the theatre entertained but with a nagging feeling something was wrong. Eventually, it was Jonathan Kent - his portrayl, his horrifying morals, and his "it's in the script, we have to do it" death sequence - that most seemed to represent what was wrong with the film for me.

*Amy Adams as Lois. She should have been Lana. Period. End of discussion.

*The Youtube series "How It Should Have Ended" had a nice take on this.

Spoiler

Show

Superman and Batman are in a cafe shooting the breeze when Batman cracks that he can take Superman in one blow. Superman calls him on it and Batman says, "Your movie... wasn't insprining."

*Related to the spoilered comment: I've heard it argued that this wasn't a Superman movie, it was a Batman movie starring Superman. There's more of a point to that statement than there should be.

[Jallorn]

I found it to be a passable/acceptable movie that was less than the sum of it's parts.

[tomandtish]

I found it to be a passable/acceptable movie that was less than the sum of it's parts.

And I think this could be the worst thing that's said about it. Given the quality of the recent Marvel films, and Dark Knight, it's certainly possible to have done a great movie. They just did a "meh" movie. Most of my friends seem to feel the same way. We went, we saw it, it was OK.

Acting was OK. Plot was OK. Special effects were OK (CGI became way too obvious in the big fight, which lasted way too long). But nothing stands out as "Wow" or "Cool" or "Great". It's just ... OK.

I'd have rather had a movie with more significant flaws. At least then I'd be more confident that they would do something different in future movies. But there was nothing I could really point to as truly bad. Just....

[GloatingSwine]

I'd disagree with the 'monsterlike' but this is Superman's beginings story. He's learning how to be Superman and not scare the hell out of people and isn't there yet

Yeah, here's the thing.

The upbringing of the character in Man of Steel is not the upbringing of someone who will become recognisable as Superman.

You can't get there from here, this character will not grow into being Superman no matter how he dresses. He's not that guy.

And there's the problem, it's a Superman film which not only does not contain Superman but shows a character's journey to become less like Superman not more.

[TheThan]

Man of steel was decent. Although there were several bits that I really disliked because I thought they were dumb (Pa Kent committing suicide), but on the overall it was a fair movie.

My main problem with it is that I’ve seen it. It’s superman 2, but with newer special effects and a grittier feel. But on the overall, it’s the same movie. So if you’ve seen superman 2, then you’ve already seen this movie.

It adds nothing new to the franchise; and that’s my big problem. It’s not a new story, it’s not a new threat, there are no new characters, nothing. There is nothing in this movie I haven’t seen before.

It’s a problem with the franchise; Superman Returns was the same film as Superman, same villain, mostly the same characters, same plot nothing new happened in that movie. The makers really need to move on and create new stories (or borrow from the stories in the comics) and move on with the character, give us some villains we haven’t seen on screen before. As long as they stop spinning their wheels and go forward I’ll be much more satisfied.

[russdm]

Well, it looks like I don't need to see this movie after all, and can wonderfully remember the earlier superman movies and the Dean Cain series plus bits of smallville.

I mainly agree with the bit about how this movie was supposed to tell the story of superman becoming superman, so the fact it doesn't pretty much means this is completely stupid.

This plus casting ben Affleck as batman (Who did Daredevil, apparently) makes me really wonder why the director didn't ask Joss whedon to write the script or maybe Kenneth Bragan (He wrote and directed the first thor movie) to write the script.

At least that way, it would have been a better or more sensible movie.

I had fond memories once of superman, now they turn into snow.

D*** IT HOLLYWOOD AND YOUR STUPID WRITERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nourjan]

As someone who never had any fond memories of any of previous live action Superman(seriously, I even disliked the old ones with Christopher Reeves) nor a comic book reader, I was surprised at how much I liked Man of Steel,in fact it was the first live action Superman that I enjoyed(still couldn't hold a candle to the animated versions).


Still, I can see why some people would have hated it (Psycothic Pa' Kent,shakey cam,a tad callous Superman etc).Most of the complaints however seems to stem from the MoS not being the Superman that they're familiar with (and expected to see) rather than the movie's flaw(which is aplenty).

[Jayngfet]

I'd disagree with the 'monsterlike' but this is Superman's beginings story. He's learning how to be Superman and not scare the hell out of people and isn't there yet

That's a cheap excuse and you know it. It's like the new Tomb Raider being an origin story, promising that maybe Lara Croft would become what we know her to be later ...only for the very next game to frame itself as having the exact same origin-esque tone from trailer one.

This character isn't magically going to turn into an actually good Superman who saves people more than he leaves them to die to make out with Lois just because he's had his origin story. That's what they've established him as being, and that's what he's going to keep being, because it's been proven time and again neither Snyder nor Goyer want to do the kind of inspiring, hopeful stories Superman is often known for nor the inspiring, hopeful stories they advertise in trailers.

MoS superman "isn't there yet" because he's never going to be there. At most they'll waste Henry Cavill's talent trying to pantomime it like they did with the drone crashing scene, and having it fall just as flat because of how obviously paint by numbers and flat the dialogue is.

[SiuiS]

Yep. Sounds like I just selectively blocked the bad bits.

My thing was, I went in wanting a thing and got it. The other things were easy to let go at that point.

[Metahuman1]

That's a cheap excuse and you know it. It's like the new Tomb Raider being an origin story, promising that maybe Lara Croft would become what we know her to be later ...only for the very next game to frame itself as having the exact same origin-esque tone from trailer one.

This character isn't magically going to turn into an actually good Superman who saves people more than he leaves them to die to make out with Lois just because he's had his origin story. That's what they've established him as being, and that's what he's going to keep being, because it's been proven time and again neither Snyder nor Goyer want to do the kind of inspiring, hopeful stories Superman is often known for nor the inspiring, hopeful stories they advertise in trailers.

MoS superman "isn't there yet" because he's never going to be there. At most they'll waste Henry Cavill's talent trying to pantomime it like they did with the drone crashing scene, and having it fall just as flat because of how obviously paint by numbers and flat the dialogue is.

Pretty much. It would be akin to doing an Iron Man Movie were he want's to put the government in charge of EVERYTHING or doing a spiderman movie were he wants to make a deal with the devil to get out of dealing with something that happened in part because of poor choices he made in his life, or a captain America movie were cap promotes racisum. Anyone who wants to make that as a movie clearly doesn't even begin to grasp the character, and in all probably doesn't care about the character, never will, and by extension will never grasp them. (I'm aware Quisada allowed Stark to do that in Civil War and Insisted Spiderman do that in One More Day. The point stands and he's a walking example of it.)

[SaintRidley]

If the film had had the temerity to simply be bad, I wouldn't mind it all that much, really. It'd be a bad Superman movie just like so many others, and it would pass from memory soon enough.

No, it's the aggressive mediocrity which really earns the movie its derision.

[Rater202]

Superman has a strict morale and ethical code.

He does not kill. He goes out of his way to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties.

In this film, he cuased how many millions in collateral damge? How many civilian casualties becuas ehe didn't try to lure Zodd away?

not to mention he killed Zodd.

Superman does not kill. Ever!(Unless your name is Brainiac or Darkseid, but that never sticks).

You can say that Superman couldn't have moved Zodd away before the fight, except superman is literally strong enough to juggle planets. If he farts in the bath tub, the oceans boil away.

Not mention if it weren't for the fact that perfect muscle control is one of his powers, he'd tear trough everyone and everything like paper just by touching it.

Now amount of super toughness or inertial control can keep you in place if superman really wants you t move, even if you're on the same power level as he is.

You could also say that he had no choice but to kill Zodd, but no, that's wrong, because superman also possess superhuman intelligence. He can afford to be merciful because he can always find a way to stop someone without killing them.

So people complain about man of steel, because it screwed up on Superman big time. They screwed up his moral code. The Moral Code is everything. There's a Reason why he's called the Big Blue Boyscout

[Anteros]

Batman is the one with the no kill rule. Superman kills. It's not his first choice, but he does it. He killed Zod in the comics.

Basically people were mad that it wasn't the cheesy feel good 80s movie Superman with Christopher Reeves...except they were also mad when they got that movie as well.

I think the biggest problem is that Superman is really only interesting as a plot device and a foil for other characters to work off of. It's hard for him to carry a solo movie because he's simply too powerful, and his characterization is very unrealistic.

The only part of the movie that I thought was absolutely terrible was the parts involving Pa Kent. They completely ruined Pa Kent's character, and then killed him in a stupid and unnecessary way for the sake of cheap drama. I don't know what type of person would stand still and let their father die in order to protect their own secrets...but it sure isn't Superman.

[SaintRidley]

The only part of the movie that I thought was absolutely terrible was the parts involving Pa Kent. They completely ruined Pa Kent's character, and then killed him in a stupid and unnecessary way for the sake of cheap drama. I don't know what type of person would stand still and let their father die in order to protect their own secrets...but it sure isn't Superman.

That's also a big, big part. If you can't get Pa Kent right, then your Superman movie is destined to fail, because it all comes down in the end to getting Pa Kent right.

[Coidzor]

*Superman killing Zod in the end? Well, there was nothing else to be done at that point. There was literally no way to depower or imprison him. I was a bit shocked for a moment because Supes isn't known for killing, but I thought it was a nice aversion to the superhero Thou Shalt Not Kill rule. Superhero stories always provide the hero a way out of a situation without getting his hands dirty. Here, the situation was genuinely impossible.

Nah. Could've easily written something where he ends up imprisoned somehow or another, but they chose not to do so. You seem to be confusing in-story conclusions with the writing decisions that lead to them to a certain extent here.

*The outfit? Because it wasn't the exact, brightly coloured costume of the comics? That just wouldn't work in a movie in this day and age. I thought the costume looked cool, and made sense as an alien armour-uniform-thing.

Mostly it's the aping Nolan aspect, IIRC. Superman doesn't fit in with Nolan and shouldn't.

*Characters reacting to Superman with fear more than anything, rather than "Wooowww, cooool!". Well . . . that's how people WOULD react to an immensely powerful unknown. The first movie is about Superman earning the adoration he enjoys in the comics.

And Superman is supposed to be about inspiring and generating good will. So if he fails to do the PR after testing poorly initially...

*Supes not being able to prevent loss of life in Metropolis? It was a devastating situation.

Is that the sort of story that goes well as a Superman Origin Story? Is that what audiences want out of Superman the first time they see him in a continuity? Apparently not.

[Shinken]

Batman is the one with the no kill rule. Superman kills. It's not his first choice, but he does it. He killed Zod in the comics.

Superman does not kill.
He killed Zod in the comics, true. It left him devastated, he suffered a mental breakdown and then exiled himself in space because he thought he was not worthy of Earth anymore.
That's a lot more strict of a non-killing code than Bruce "I'm going to lock KGBeast in a box and cover it with cement" Wayne.

[Ichneumon]

I don't object to Superman 'killing' Zod. He killed Zod too in Superman II. It's just the excessive violence that you are exposed to when watching Man of Steel that makes it a somewhat boring and dull movie. Especially since after The Dark Knight, we've come to expect more of superhero movie than just action movies. The Dark Knight not only showed us a physical battle between Batman and the Joker, but a philosophical/ideological one as well (remember the interrogation scene in The Dark Knight?). Audiences have come to expect a certain depth to the character that simply wasn't there in Man of Steel, at least not as obvious.

[t209]

The actor said that he read Superman: The Red Son.
I kinda prefer the old Superman (the Animated Series and Christopher Reeve version).