Why all the hate for Man of Steel?

[Jayngfet]

Isn't that entirely up for argument? Or did they change it in the movie?

That's kind of the whole point of Ozymandias. Hence why he's named Ozymandias instead of Alexander or Charlimagne.

Saving the world through needless destruction never really keeps it saved, except perhaps in a roundabout way.

[Anteros]

I think everyone understands that these characters are not "real," because no one is "blaming Superman."
The writing for MOS clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the character and the expectations of the audience.
It's the writers who didn't do the best they could.

The meme is just a funny way to put one of the key problems of the film in a comparative context.

My point is that the characterization of Superman himself (something people often complain about) is fine. Things like saving the school children, the oil rig, and surrendering to the military showed hints of the character we all know and love. The scenario the writers created around him was what was bad.

[Zrak]

My point is that the characterization of Superman himself (something people often complain about) is fine. Things like saving the school children, the oil rig, and surrendering to the military showed hints of the character we all know and love. The scenario the writers created around him was what was bad.

Plus, they washed out the color palette. It's a well-known scientific fact that explosions emitting light in the dreaded "washed-out" spectrum kill thousands of times as many innocent people as explosions emitting only bright and colorful light.

Fun fact: in the colorized version of The Grapes of Wrath, the dust bowl never happens and the characters live happy lives as farms in an idyllic pastoral landscape.

Which is certainly a clever ending, for a grim deconstruction.

Unrelated, but it's also a masterful centerpiece to Rorschach's character development. I'll point to the essay in his flashback, his reaction to Veidt's plan, and leave the rest up to you; since the topics involve historical events that touch heavily on real-world politics, I don't think it would be appropriate to give a detailed reading.

[theNater]

Plus, they washed out the color palette. It's a well-known scientific fact that explosions emitting light in the dreaded "washed-out" spectrum kill thousands of times as many innocent people as explosions emitting only bright and colorful light.

Occasionally, news outlets get curious and hire disaster-cost prediction firms to analyze fictional disasters in films and identify their expected economic impact. A couple that may interest readers of this thread:

Avengers: $70 billion in physical damage, $160 billion overall economic impact.
Man of Steel: $700 billion in physical damage, $2000 billion overall economic impact.

[Anteros]

The vast majority of that would be due to the world terraformer thing crushing a huge portion of the city into dust, and not the fight everyone criticizes.

[Forum Explorer]

The vast majority of that would be due to the world terraformer thing crushing a huge portion of the city into dust, and not the fight everyone criticizes.

Yes, but even just the damage from the fight would greatly exceed the damages in the Avengers. The Avengers had one building be more or less completely destroyed. Superman and Zod's fight had multiple skyscrapers collapse.

[Anteros]

Buildings in the Avengers seemed to be unrealistically durable, so maybe that's a part of it. There's also a huge invading alien force and we don't see all of their actions. I'm sure they inflicted far more damage than we see on screen. Whereas with Superman, it's one specific enemy, and the entire fight is viewed. I do agree that there is much more on-screen destruction in Man of Steel.

I don't even really see why it matters, because both movies have the heroes doing their best to end the fight, and thus collateral damage as soon as possible. I'm not going to defend it any further, because it's honestly irrelevant.

[Devonix]

Buildings in the Avengers seemed to be unrealistically durable, so maybe that's a part of it. There's also a huge invading alien force and we don't see all of their actions. I'm sure they inflicted far more damage than we see on screen. Whereas with Superman, it's one specific enemy, and the entire fight is viewed. I do agree that there is much more on-screen destruction in Man of Steel.

I don't even really see why it matters, because both movies have the heroes doing their best to end the fight, and thus collateral damage as soon as possible. I'm not going to defend it any further, because it's honestly irrelevant.

But in Avengers Saving lives was the stated goal of the characters. They put themselves at risk for it even at the expense of attacking more of the Chitauri.

In Avengers Saving lives Trumps Beating the badguy.

[Scowling Dragon]

And if the buildings were injected with plot induced adamantium so be it. That way the battle becomes less horrific which is perfect for the movie.

[Dienekes]

Buildings in the Avengers seemed to be unrealistically durable, so maybe that's a part of it. There's also a huge invading alien force and we don't see all of their actions. I'm sure they inflicted far more damage than we see on screen. Whereas with Superman, it's one specific enemy, and the entire fight is viewed. I do agree that there is much more on-screen destruction in Man of Steel.

I don't even really see why it matters, because both movies have the heroes doing their best to end the fight, and thus collateral damage as soon as possible. I'm not going to defend it any further, because it's honestly irrelevant.

I'm not sure if the buildings were stronger or if it was because the unstoppable flying worms of destruction that can go through anything like it was paper avoided the buildings... for some reason. Except that one that didn't.

I'll be honest, if they movie was trying to go for a more serious Superman and a more dark look at what kind of destruction a battle between two gods like Zod and Supes could do, more power to them. So long as it at least looks like Superman is trying to mitigate the damage. He doesn't even have to be successful (how many superfights happen in downtown Metropolis?) buildings can be destroyed in the fight, but it should be obvious to the watcher Zod is using buildings and people as weapons, Superman is trying his hardest to save them.

Giving Snyder the benefit of the doubt (not saying he deserves it, just do it), Superman does try to get Zod out of the city in the fight, he knocks him clean into orbit. Then Zod knocks him right back. Of course, I only noticed this when watching very carefully for it. I shouldn't have had to, it should have been obvious through the fight choreography what the characters goals were. What gets me with this is, say what you will about Snyder's talents or lack thereof as a director, but he's generally been able to convey rather exciting, dynamic fight sequences where you can get a hold of the motives and character of the combatants simply through their actions. This doesn't happen in Superman, he dropped the ball in a huge way.

[lord_khaine]

Another think i would like to point out here that i think is being glossed over, is that this Superman had newer before been in a fight his entire life.

Do try and let that concept sink in, he has gone his entire life without once having to actually fight, he has newer before had someone he could do so against, and suddenly there drops down for the sky someone with all of his powers, as well as military training.

People are bringing the Avengers fight in as comparison, but i think its important to point out here, that the aliens they were fighting was far beneath them in power, they were simply just not being preassued in the same way as Superman was here.

[GloatingSwine]

Shows like that are a big problem for comic books in general. You see snippets from a story being reviewed by someone who wants a quick laugh (and quick money) with a side of bashing comics he didn't like. It is completely biased but somehow people often take it as gospel.

I'm fairly sure that exactly no people who aren't already nerdy enough to be watching a show like Linkara's aren't already invested in comic books. Quite frankly you're overestimating his impact by several orders of magnitude when you say that shows like his are a "big problem for comic books". The comics he's talking about might be, when they're high profile books which gain visibility outside of existing comic fandom and are exclusionary in exactly the ways regularly complained about on sites like eschergirls.

I enjoy some of Linkara's stuff, but trying to badmouth Amazing Fantasy #15 is so arrogant it's ridiculous. "Wow, with 40 years of hindsight and under my modern perspective, now that comics are a multibillion dollar business and information is one click away from everyone, I think they could have done some stuff different." Seriously?

All those old comics are really goofy and silly when appraised from modern sensibilities, and those are the only sensibilities we have access to. It's not "arrogant" to point out the goofiness, if you did a review of those old comics and didn't point out all their silliness just because of the character they introduced you'd be a failure as a reviewer.

[theNater]

Buildings in the Avengers seemed to be unrealistically durable, so maybe that's a part of it. There's also a huge invading alien force and we don't see all of their actions. I'm sure they inflicted far more damage than we see on screen. Whereas with Superman, it's one specific enemy, and the entire fight is viewed. I do agree that there is much more on-screen destruction in Man of Steel.

I don't even really see why it matters, because both movies have the heroes doing their best to end the fight, and thus collateral damage as soon as possible. I'm not going to defend it any further, because it's honestly irrelevant.

It's relevant because what the film shows the audience is a major factor in how the audience reacts, and audience reaction is the topic of this thread. Man of Steel showed much more destruction, so viewers react as if there was much more destruction. I agree that the actual amount of destruction is irrelevant; if there was a throwaway line in Avengers about how 5 other cities had been totally obliterated(but none of it was shown), it wouldn't have had a huge impact on audience reaction.

Note also that how much destruction to show is a deliberate choice on the part of the director. Snyder didn't have to show the entire fight(and, as I recall, another common complaint is that the fight scenes were longer than necessary), but he did. He could have arranged to show some mourning and rebuilding, but he didn't. He could have shown Superman saving more individual civilians during the fight, but he didn't. No matter what the in-universe reasoning for those things is, they form the story the director chose to tell, and that's the story to which people react.

Another think i would like to point out here that i think is being glossed over, is that this Superman had newer before been in a fight his entire life.

Do try and let that concept sink in, he has gone his entire life without once having to actually fight, he has newer before had someone he could do so against, and suddenly there drops down for the sky someone with all of his powers, as well as military training.

People are bringing the Avengers fight in as comparison, but i think its important to point out here, that the aliens they were fighting was far beneath them in power, they were simply just not being preassued in the same way as Superman was here.

But having Zod be just as powerful as Superman was, again, a deliberate choice made by Snyder. He even had two easy outs he could use if he wanted Zod to be weaker; Zod's shorter time on Earth resulting is less power or Zod being unable to fully to use his powers due to lack of practice(another relatively common complaint was how quickly he adapted to his powers compared to Clark). Snyder chose the route of maximal destruction, and that was a choice a significant percentage of the audience didn't care for.

A slightly weaker Zod who evens the odds by endangering civilians as a diversion would close a commonly referenced plot-hole, reduce overall destruction, and result in more scenes of Superman directly saving people; three birds with one stone. If that had been what Snyder wanted.

[Anteros]

I'm not sure if the buildings were stronger or if it was because the unstoppable flying worms of destruction that can go through anything like it was paper avoided the buildings... for some reason. Except that one that didn't.

I'll be honest, if they movie was trying to go for a more serious Superman and a more dark look at what kind of destruction a battle between two gods like Zod and Supes could do, more power to them. So long as it at least looks like Superman is trying to mitigate the damage. He doesn't even have to be successful (how many superfights happen in downtown Metropolis?) buildings can be destroyed in the fight, but it should be obvious to the watcher Zod is using buildings and people as weapons, Superman is trying his hardest to save them.

Giving Snyder the benefit of the doubt (not saying he deserves it, just do it), Superman does try to get Zod out of the city in the fight, he knocks him clean into orbit. Then Zod knocks him right back. Of course, I only noticed this when watching very carefully for it. I shouldn't have had to, it should have been obvious through the fight choreography what the characters goals were. What gets me with this is, say what you will about Snyder's talents or lack thereof as a director, but he's generally been able to convey rather exciting, dynamic fight sequences where you can get a hold of the motives and character of the combatants simply through their actions. This doesn't happen in Superman, he dropped the ball in a huge way.

I agree with this. I'm just pointing out that there's more to it than the mindless "hurr durr, Superman kills everyone!" that people often imply when criticizing the movie.

[SeeDarkly_X]

I'm sorry... but any argument that uses "he'd never been in a fight before" as an excusing factor is flawed.
There was nothing preventing the writers from having Superman consider the impact of his fight enough to remove it from innocent bystanders, even when he'd never been in a fight with anyone as powerful as himself before.

Let's face it... when you are able to validly mock the characterization and story of Superman with THIS,
there is something wrong.

[lord_khaine]

But having Zod be just as powerful as Superman was, again, a deliberate choice made by Snyder. He even had two easy outs he could use if he wanted Zod to be weaker; Zod's shorter time on Earth resulting is less power or Zod being unable to fully to use his powers due to lack of practice(another relatively common complaint was how quickly he adapted to his powers compared to Clark). Snyder chose the route of maximal destruction, and that was a choice a significant percentage of the audience didn't care for.

A slightly weaker Zod who evens the odds by endangering civilians as a diversion would close a commonly referenced plot-hole, reduce overall destruction, and result in more scenes of Superman directly saving people; three birds with one stone. If that had been what Snyder wanted.

Im sorry, but i just cant see the argument in what you are saying there. So yes, Snyder did not take any of the cheap ways to have Zod weaker than Superman, so..?
Zod is suposed to be Supermans equal in power, if he had been nerfed in some cheap way, then we would have had even more people complaining over being cheated out of the fully powered kryptonian fight we had been waiting for the last 20 years or so.

I'm sorry... but any argument that uses "he'd never been in a fight before" as an excusing factor is flawed.
There was nothing preventing the writers from having Superman consider the impact of his fight enough to remove it from innocent bystanders, even when he'd never been in a fight with anyone as powerful as himself before.

You have newer been in a real fight have you..? Even when you have gotten used to it though practice, in a practice fight, then its still extremely hard to focus on anything but your opponent and the actual fight. And that counts double so for when its someone you know thats actually trying to kill or hurt you, and you for the first time ever fears for your life.

Let's face it... when you are able to validly mock the characterization and story of Superman with THIS,
there is something wrong.

No.. there are always idiots ready to mock something, whereever their point are valid or not, and since i dont think that stupid little thing is valid, then i dont think there are something wrong there.

Dont get me wrong, its not like the movie dont have its issues, but the action scenes were not among them.

[Jayngfet]

Dont get me wrong, its not like the movie dont have its issues, but the action scenes were not among them.

I'm sorry, but no. That final fight was a total mess. Destruction aside both Zod and Superman adopted totally new stances and styles neither had displayed before. Zod went stomping about on all fours at random times and Superman decided to hover mid air flat on his belly for his opener. Not to mention the weird slapstick gag at the construction site and a host of other issues.

[Math_Mage]

More to the point:

Zod is suposed to be Supermans equal in power, if he had been nerfed in some cheap way, then we would have had even more people complaining over being cheated out of the fully powered kryptonian fight we had been waiting for the last 20 years or so.

I don't think "we" have been waiting for that, if "we" is "people who like Superman enough to watch Man of Steel". Certainly not as a priority over giving the Superman reboot a compelling narrative that reflects Superman's core ideals.

[Kitten Champion]

Zod suddenly having full use of the abilities Clark developed over 33 years in a matter of seconds is just a contrivance. One hand-waved away in a bit of dialogue about Zod spending his life mastering his body and being this ultimate soldier despite the fact that he lost in a fist fight with Russel Crowe, so Zod could be there for the big dumb loud overlong ending.

In any well written screenplay Clark's evident struggle to adapt to a world alien to him and discovering his potential - which was a central theme throughout the first 3/4 of the movie - would have some relevance at all to the conclusion. Typically you establish such things so your conclusion has some validity, and isn't perceived as a "cheap out".

[theNater]

Zod is suposed to be Supermans equal in power, if he had been nerfed in some cheap way, then we would have had even more people complaining over being cheated out of the fully powered kryptonian fight we had been waiting for the last 20 years or so.

I'm going to have to insist that you provide some evidence for that. After the Avengers, there were comments about how convenient it was that the Chitauri all died when the mothership blew up, but they were few and far between. And the people who made those comments usually said they liked the film regardless.

I strongly suspect that the fight could have been managed in such a way that the vast majority of people would have come out of it satisfied, even if some of them grumped about Zod being nerfed.

[Shinken]

I'm fairly sure that exactly no people who aren't already nerdy enough to be watching a show like Linkara's aren't already invested in comic books. Quite frankly you're overestimating his impact by several orders of magnitude when you say that shows like his are a "big problem for comic books". The comics he's talking about might be, when they're high profile books which gain visibility outside of existing comic fandom and are exclusionary in exactly the ways regularly complained about on sites like eschergirls.

I know several people who do just that - don't read comic books, yet they think they know everything that is going on because Linkara or whoever else said "character x is ruined because of y".

All those old comics are really goofy and silly when appraised from modern sensibilities, and those are the only sensibilities we have access to. It's not "arrogant" to point out the goofiness, if you did a review of those old comics and didn't point out all their silliness just because of the character they introduced you'd be a failure as a reviewer.

It is absolutely arrogant (specially from someone that says Power Rangers is the best thing ever with a straight face). It's like bashing Lusíadas for pacing issues or saying Odyssey can't stick to one plot. If your definition of reviewing is a bunch of empy jests while wearing a funny hat, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree.

People are bringing the Avengers fight in as comparison, but i think its important to point out here, that the aliens they were fighting was far beneath them in power, they were simply just not being preassued in the same way as Superman was here.

I suggest you watch the leviathan scenes again. They are very pressured.

Spoiler: Superman at the end of the battle

Show

No bruises, his hair barely moved, the cape didn't rip, he is fine.

Spoiler: Captain America before the fight was even over

Show

The man can barely stand.

Im sorry, but i just cant see the argument in what you are saying there. So yes, Snyder did not take any of the cheap ways to have Zod weaker than Superman, so..?
Zod is suposed to be Supermans equal in power, if he had been nerfed in some cheap way, then we would have had even more people complaining over being cheated out of the fully powered kryptonian fight we had been waiting for the last 20 years or so.

But Zod is weaker than Superman, quite clearly. Superman has been absorbing solar energy for years, Zod has absorbed it for a few hours. When they are fighting, his attacks don't even bruise Superman - and he is attacking with all of his might, intending to kill. This is a highly trained military officer fighting against someone who, as you said before, had never been in a fight before. Superman only wins because he is a lot more powerful - the moment he decides to end the fight, the fight is over. That was not a "fully powered kryptonian fight", it was the script's death throes.

[Metahuman1]

I know several people who do just that - don't read comic books, yet they think they know everything that is going on because Linkara or whoever else said "character x is ruined because of y".


It is absolutely arrogant (specially from someone that says Power Rangers is the best thing ever with a straight face). It's like bashing Lusíadas for pacing issues or saying Odyssey can't stick to one plot. If your definition of reviewing is a bunch of empy jests while wearing a funny hat, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree.

If that first part is referring to me in the other thread, I will thank you to retract it since you are putting words in my mouth and stating things that never actually happened as fact.

[Fan]

More to the point:


I don't think "we" have been waiting for that, if "we" is "people who like Superman enough to watch Man of Steel". Certainly not as a priority over giving the Superman reboot a compelling narrative that reflects Superman's core ideals.

No this is the thing, Math is completely right here.

The fight at epic proportions is only made valid and cool if there are actually warring philosophies at play, the two of them crusading in a well established way against the viewpoint of the other.

Best example I can think of, Superman V.S. The Elite for this, if you're going to make a movie centric to a fight you need to have the reasons why they're fighting be good ones. The Elite believe that Superman isn't taking things far enough and is a relic of the old world back when people believed that everyone could be redeemed. Superman wants to show them that it isn't a relic of the past to believe that there's good in everyone and everyone can be redeemed and shown the right way and does so through their fight. By showing them the terror and fear that everyone else was experiencing at having to face down an Even Bigger Bully than all of them combined, and the types of extremes that leads to without ever actually harming anyone beyond what was necessary to stop them from harming others.

The scenery chewing goodness is to provide an exciting backdrop to the philosophical debate at play here, the show that Superman CAN save the day without compromising the morals is what makes it hopeful and inspiring.

Man of Steel had none of that.

[Shinken]

If that first part is referring to me in the other thread, I will thank you to retract it since you are putting words in my mouth and stating things that never actually happened as fact.

I don't even know what you're talking about. I don't remember you ever doing something similar to what I describe in any thread in which we interacted. Rest assured, if I ever have something to say about you, I will tell you.
EDIT: Oh, it was the OMD thing? No, I wasn't talking about you. You read OMD, even, right?

[Metahuman1]

You called into question in the other thread if I actually read the books or if I simply jumped on Linkara's Bandwagon after I advised that I quit Marville and All Star Batman And Robin before they were finished and form what I did glean in his reviews of them, I missed out on nothing worth my time. So I had to wonder in light of the phrasing of that quoted post. My apologize for the misunderstanding.

Edit: Ninja'd by Edit:

Bought it when it came out in 07. Read it. I've never thrown anything at my wall in a rage like that before or since.

[McStabbington]

Im sorry, but i just cant see the argument in what you are saying there. So yes, Snyder did not take any of the cheap ways to have Zod weaker than Superman, so..?
Zod is suposed to be Supermans equal in power, if he had been nerfed in some cheap way, then we would have had even more people complaining over being cheated out of the fully powered kryptonian fight we had been waiting for the last 20 years or so.

I don't think that's what he said at all. What he said was that Snyder had a choice to make. He could have gone for tonal and thematic consistency, in which case he would either have edited out the scene early on where Clark is terrified of his powers and only through the help of Martha Kent does he manage to get his X-ray vision under control, or he could have edited the fight so that it was apparent that Zod didn't have the same strength as a full-blown Superman. Now, either of those options has their drawbacks. If they edited the movie the first way, they would have removed what was almost universally praised as the single original and clever scene in the movie. If they edited the movie in the second, that would get in the way of the meta-desire by the producers to overcompensate for the supposed failure of Superman Returns to deliver on the action. But in either case, you'd have a Checkov's Gun firmly placed in the first act that fires in the third, or no gun that doesn't fire at all.

But Snyder didn't choose that. Instead, he took the third option of going for thematic incoherence. Superman is set up as having had to learn over many years how to control his powers, and then Zod displays the same problems . . . for about five seconds of screen time before he ass-pulls a response. One that isn't justified at all by the character's introduction, in which he got punked by the Kryptonian equivalent of a pocket-protector-wearing nerd. It's a Checkov's gun that fires, only for the villain to reveal that he'd double-top secretly been wearing a bulletproof vest, and Wonder Woman's bracelets, and that he'd been bullet proof the whole time. It's five year-old storytelling.

The point being, we are entirely justified in pointing out that this was the script pulling a solution straight from its nethers that prioritized a high body count over thematic coherence. This wasn't an accident. It could have been fixed in post-edits. It could have been repaired in the script. It could have changed by the director. It was, instead, a deliberate choice by the studio and director. And we are entirely justified in criticizing that choice.

[Tiki Snakes]

That's...not incoherence though? It sets up a clear and obvious prospect. Superman plus however much time, exposure and effort reaches a certain level of strength and mastery over powers. Zod reaches a comparable level of strength and mastery in a far shorter time, this implies a much higher ceiling and puts an obvious extra pressure on the fight; The longer it goes on, the longer Superman spends searching for a third option, the less likely he'll be able to stop the fight.

What's hard to follow about that? I mean, I can understand if you don't like what it's implying, (that given time, Zod becomes much more powerful than Superman), but that's not the same as it being incoherent, thematically or otherwise.

[TheThan]

I don't even really see why it matters, because both movies have the heroes doing their best to end the fight, and thus collateral damage as soon as possible. I'm not going to defend it any further, because it's honestly irrelevant.

It was also made perfectly clear that the Avengers were trying to contain the alien invasion force they faced. Superman didn’t seem to have been trying to do the same with the alien invasion force he faced.

I'll be honest, if they movie was trying to go for a more serious Superman and a more dark look at what kind of destruction a battle between two gods like Zod and Supes could do, more power to them. So long as it at least looks like Superman is trying to mitigate the damage. He doesn't even have to be successful (how many superfights happen in downtown Metropolis?) buildings can be destroyed in the fight, but it should be obvious to the watcher Zod is using buildings and people as weapons, Superman is trying his hardest to save them.

Now I want to see Zod throw (living or dead) bodies at Superman like they were ammunition. Bonus points if he uses one as a bludgeon. Hehe, that brings new meaning to the phrase “human weapon”.

[Scowling Dragon]

That's...not incoherence though? It sets up a clear and obvious prospect. Superman plus however much time, exposure and effort reaches a certain level of strength and mastery over powers. Zod reaches a comparable level of strength and mastery in a far shorter time, this implies a much higher ceiling

No it doesn't. Thats just an inconsistency. Though Zod has been "Bred for war" we had no indicator of some superior form of mastery beforehand. He got his but handed by just some Delagator.

There where also no increasing visual or any kind of cues of increasing mastery.

[theNater]

That's...not incoherence though?

Thematic incoherence. Often, Superman learning to control his powers is a metaphor for an immigrant adapting to different cultural norms. Under this metaphor, Zod having immediate control of his powers means he adapts instantly to the new culture. But Zod isn't adapting to the new culture; he's not even interested in trying to doing so. He wants to destroy the new culture and replace it with the old one. So this can't be the metaphor.

So what is Clark's struggle to control his powers a metaphor for? What is the human struggle that allows us to relate to Clark in those scenes?