The Big Picture: The Big Letdown

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

MovieBob:
The Big Letdown

MovieBob gives us a spoiler laden glimpse as to why Man of Steel was a letdown.

Watch Video

I still have to disagree, in a way.

I'm not disappointed by this movie, because I don't view it as done badly. I view it as incomplete. And I think that's by design.

Most Superman movies, or superhero movies for that matter, try to get the origin story done in the first movie. The second movie then "challenges everything we know" about that hero, and the third movie is some big showdown that firmly establishes our hero's supremacy after his "greatest challenge ever." (And then the greedy fourth movie does something stupid and ridiculous)

In this case, though, I think the folks behind this movie recognize that Superman large is origin story. After he's established, everything is either just "being Superman," or it's outlandish attempts to provide believable threats to the guy who has all the superpowers. So, with that in mind, I think they're eschewing the traditional trilogy structure.

I think what we're getting is a three-part origin story. It's not super interesting to watch Superman spend two movies just... being Superman. Being super strong and super noble and super kind and super "good." He's boring at that point. Yet all the Superman material seems to rush to that point -- "Yeah, yeah, Krypton, farm, Metropolis, SUPERMAN!!!"

We're being given a longer, more detailed view of how Superman became those things. In this first movie, we're seeing the first few parts of Joseph Campbell's monomyth, the Departure: the call and the refusal, as Clark wrestles with hiding his powers and avoiding the world... while secretly saving it here and there.

And then we see the "supernatural aid" step, when he begins to dig up information about his past. This leads to the "crossing the first threshold" phase, when he reveals himself and steps up to fight Zod... but then we find ourselves in the "belly of the whale" phase -- something occurs that is going to set Clark (now Superman) up for his metamorphosis. He kills Zod.

Superman doesn't kill. Not the Superman we know now. It's just a thing he doesn't do, because... reasons. Well, now we're seeing deeper into that. He doesn't kill, because he did once, and it happened to be one of the last surviving members of his entire species, and it's a burden he carries with them.

Superman is, at least in large part, a set of principles with a set of powers. Usually, the powers get all the focus and the principles are just assumed. Now we're getting to see him earn those principles, and the conviction that would make them truly super principles.

And that's all. That's where we're left at the end of this movie -- Superman is ready for the next phase, but not entering it yet. He isn't entirely Superman yet, as his origin story is not yet complete. This isn't like the Dark Knight Trilogy -- the rise and fall of a hero. This is just an extended rise. Give it time.

I definitely agree with Bob, while their were "elements" and "parts" of this movie I really enjoyed they were all the superficial "this looks cool" stuff and almost nothing regarding story, characters, plot, dialogue, whatever was done in anyway that was competent. This wasn't a SuperMan movie, it was gloomy angry man fights other gloomy angry man the movie. It's DragonballZ without the heart, PowerRangers without the camp. A big cgi and special effects budget doesn't make up for complete failure in all other departments. The bayformer movies demonstrate this better than any other modern big budget movie series and I'd easily throw man o stupid in to their category as well. A film based on material it doesn't understand at all with a cynical awful opinion of its various elements and not caring at all for what made it good.

I usually agree with Bob. However, not this time. I no longer care for its surely by now written in stone that impossible princess fanboys will never be pleased, so next time DC just don't bother doing any movies. Like a film one minute, dislike it the next because it misses your high expectations up on your Superman cloud. You know what, most of the people who watched MoS, didn't give two f**ks about comic book bs minutiae, they just wanted to be entertained and that's what many got.

Don't know about others but I enjoyed MoS. It filled the summer nicely for me alongside Pacific Rim. The DBZ style fights were cool and great referencing, since DBZ is nothing but a japanese retelling of Superman/Journey to the East tale anyway. Why do people find it so hard to just kick back and enjoy a film, than questioning and nitpicking? Its all this same bs fanboy nitpicking that's also winding up the Ben Affleck/Batman stuff. Kinda sick of it all.

Sometimes, fans of anything can whine and moan too much. Get the crows out to pick at the carcass, that we all built up and fattened up in MoS before the kill. If that's the case, then we never deserved MoS being made at all. You want it your way, then go shoot and make your own Superman films.

Perhaps its also a case of DC comic fans abuse with stories, over many years that got some so bitter, that anything different than their Superman ideal feels like nothing they can adjust to.

Dastardly:
snip-a-dee-doo-dah, snip-a-dee-day

That's my thing, though. What DO we know about Superman up to this point?

He got contradictory advice from his two father figures, he walks aimlessly around looking for answers to his ancestry, I guess, until he discovers The Cave of Exposition to get his Superman outfit. And then...he just does Superman stuff from that point on. He smiles charmingly at Lois, beats up Zod and his gang with wreckless abandon, screams in "agony" (???) over having to kill Zod despite the fact that he not ONCE considered Krypton > Earth (the entire reason he even gives himself up in the first place is that he's concerned about Earth's safety), destroys the drone at the end of the movie to joke about "Ah ah ah, lemmie stay a hidden secret", and the movie's over.

That's....about it.

He didn't "reveal" himself to anyone except Lois and the military guys; I GUESS Pete Ross knows now, but is he supposed to be important in some way? He was in so many scenes, and literally nothing happened in the IHOP scene except for them trading blank expressions. At least in Batman or Spiderman, the common people were able to get a good look at them and were able to form opinions about them one way or another. People only caught glimpses of Superman swooshing by them, especially in Metropolis where a GIANT FREAKIN CRATER OF DEATH has been made where a city used to be (but oh look, ____ amount of time has passed and the Daily Planet's back and everything's back to normal. Consequences? What are those???), soooo we're going to have to wait for a sequel to find out whether they like the dude or not? IF it even does that when they aren't too busy CGI'ing Batfleck vs. Supercavil throwdowns?

Lazy writing is lazy. Create initial reaction in the first movie, then expand upon it in sequel. Make it a STANDALONE film rather than the "Wait till next time!" cliffhanger/unanswered questions BS. Especially when it's THE ENTIRE CONCEIT OF THE DAMN MOVIE!

The entire point was having Clark worrying about what the people might think of him if he exposed what he really was. And they skip on showing JUST THAT....epic fail doesn't quite cut it here.

So what exactly is supposed to be "challenged" in this sequel? He starts out the movie being a secretive loner doing heroic stuff on the side, and he ends the movie being a secretive loner doing heroic stuff on the side but now with a girlfriend.

He doesn't really learn anything new, I still know little about what his vague, nondescript principles even are (since they barely give poor Henry more than 3 lines of dialogue at a time), and there's no noticeable change that makes him go from lost boy Clark to found motivation Superman. Everyone, even fans of the movie, are having a hard time pinpointing the transformation from this kind of character to that kind of character because it's completely unnatural. It just sorta HAPPENS because...because the script says so, that's why.

You're right he didn't earn anything from this movie because he didn't do anything. He's the bad kind of reactionary character where his presence (or lack thereof) is inconsequential and interchangeable; there's nothing about his personality that makes him all that important to the overall story. The only reason for Superman's existence in this movie at all is because he's literally a MacGuffin for Zod (who again, does all the plot driving legwork). Take that away and what are you left with? From where I'm standing...not much.

Spot1990:

HemalJB:

Now, I'll use the following quote, but this goes to all who are sharing this sentiment in the above comments:

Then don't.

These videos are a way for Bob to share his personal opinion, a fact he makes sure to mention often in the videos themselves.

All of you, complaining about his opinions or fixations being grating... Why are you watching his videos then?

Because if he has every right to harp on his fixations over and over again then we have every right to harp on this stupid redundant complaining over and over again.

Yes but if you don't like the guy discussing his opinions then why watch a show specifically for him to discusshis opinions. It's like going into a pizza place and then complaining about the lack of chinese food.

Because maybe you want to expose yourself to some opinions that differ from your own, to see where other people are coming from. Even though somebody like Bob may be totally wrong about the recent Star Trek movies (Bob is totally wrong about the recent Star Trek movies) it's still interesting to find our why they're wrong. Also, wouldn't going into a pizza eatery and then complaining about the lack of chinese food be more akin to watching an opinion filled video such as this and then complaining that Bob didn't spend enough time talking about the supercontinents? I know when I go into a video about why a particular film is lacking (also wahjjabramsisruiningeverythingwah) I'm gong to be sorely disappointed if I don't get the potted history of Earths continental drift.

I liked the film, I know it has some problems, but it was an origin film and I have found most of them have trouble finding their feet. In the next film, if they have him learn from his mistakes in the first, then you could have a really good sequel.

anthony87:
I like how a city being destroyed is suddenly 9/11 symbolism.

You're missing the point. Buildings falling down amid clouds of dust while people topple from the windows to fall hundreds of feet to their deaths just ahead of the collapsing masonry is what makes it 9/11 symbolism.

got you book bob, enjoying it thus far.

Decent episode, but I will admit I was kind of hoping for a new topic this week. You've talked about this flick enough I think. If you dedicate another episode or article about it, you'll officially be beating a dead horse methinks.

Batman and Superman movies live and die not on Batman or Superman, but on their villains. And Zod was absolutely fantastic in Man of Steel. If Superman wasn't quite what you wanted - who cares? In these films, it's the bad guy.

This is in complete contrast to, say, the Iron Man movies, where the main character is interesting and the only villain worth mentioning was a red herring.

By the end of Man Of Steel I had just lost all interest with the sheer scale of all the destruction that Superman vs Zodd's fight was causing. I would be willing to bet THOUSANDS died as a result of so many buildings getting toppled/collapsed, and then Superman finally decides to kill Zod (you know, something he could have done at the very beginning) to save a family of 4 people. 4 people! I just can't get over that, sorry.

All Superman does in Man Of Steel is roar like a bear and punch things i.e. If that's all people wanted then I guess they'll be satisfied. But all that talk about "symbol of hope" etc from his original parents turned out to mean absolutely nothing, showing flashbacks of his childhood meant nothing, it all boiled down to an hour of watching big structures getting smashed. No charisma, no humor, no nothing.

Whoever was impressed by Man Of Steel, your standards are pretty low.

Don't worry people Amazing Spider-Man 2 comes out next summer. We'll be able to see how Bob doesn't like that film series all over again, just because it doesn't match the version of the character he likes.

endtherapture:
Man of Steel is great.

Great characters.
Great score.
Great action.
Great visuals.
Great art style.

Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

I didn't know what to expect from the film so I went in and thought it was amazing, 3rd favourite superhero movie EVER. Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers, because when you get down to it, Man of Steel inspired me, it felt inspiring and said some really interesting and deep things about society in general.

Food for thought: Clark is reading Plato's Republic at one point in the film, this subtley links into the "failure" of Kypton as a Platonian society in the film, exemplified by Zod. Very clever stuff. But obviously no, it needed brighter colours and more comedy so it was a failure!!

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Look man, the film wasn't that bad, Movie Bob said as much.

It had alot of good stuff but the first Spiderman film did the whole 'how normal folk react' better without needing a bunch of brooding shots of the MC just drifting there, be it in space or the ocean.

The characters were sort of 50/50 for me. Zod was great, I loved him at the end when he had nothing left and just went bat shit on Superman but his awesome was offset by Jon Kent and his constant 'wut?' philosophy. Cavil did a good job but the rest of the cast barely got a word in, which is fine, it's his movie but alot of the time they could have used to flesh them out seemed squandered on yet another lonely shot of Superman. Yes, we get it, he feels different and cut off from everyone else.

The action was pretty good, it's nice to have a film going for realism without shaky cam but it zoomed in WAY to close.

The score was good, no duh it's Hans Zimmer but I don't remember any individual pieces like I did 'Elysium' or 'Time'.

The visuals I have no quarm with, Snyders stuff always looks good, despite me tiring of the lonely shots of Superman they always looked great.

And the art style was really interesting to, the design of Kryton was pretty cool as was all their gear and tech, granted we never got more than a quick glimpse of most of it and maybe the audience could have had abit of time to relate and get to know Kal-El as he learn't about it but not the end of the world... at least until the terra-forming manchine arrives.

The reason i'm going on is that alot of 'Man of Steel' fans seem to have this idea that because the movie tried so hard to be deep and meaningful it's some how better than alot of, for example, Marvels stuff which largly just seems to be enjoying itself. Hell, I agree to some extent, it annoyed me when people were constantly complaining that it just didn't seem to be very comic book and that it should have had more fun, as you said 'we have the Avengers already' if DC wants to try going for the deeper route than thats fine but this doesn't mean that Marvels films have nothing outside of the fun stuff.

Saying 'Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers' comes across as real aloof and just kind of bitter.

Superman man was good but there's more to depth than a bunch of slow shots at nice angles.

What you said about the Plato ref was interesting though, I had real beef with that when I first saw it in the film, like they were trying to show how much better he was than us with some shallow visual but you say it was actually referancing the ideals of the characters, so I guess I was wrong there.

All I really got from this and Linkara's recap of Man of Steel and basically everyone's recap of Man of Steel that was a huge comic fan was that they didn't like Superman's portrayal of it.

... Honestly, I can see where they're coming from, but only as a person who might be a fan of a specific character/franchise and doesn't want to see it bastardized or handled in such a manner that it doesn't resemble its source material. Subjectively, I can't stand Halo 4 because I feel that the way it took the Halo franchise is contrary to literally everything that was established about it up to that point, in both characters, setting, and gameplay, but objectively, it's alright. Its gameplay, while a bit broken, is still pretty polished and enjoyable, and a fan of Halo 4 who knows a lot more about the new Forerunner lore than I do explained some of the murkier aspects and gave me more of an appreciation for 343i's work. However, I still have disdain for Halo 4.

Why? Because it's not the Halo 4 I wanted. It's not the Halo I wanted. It's the same with MovieBob, Linkara, and most other people that have gripes with Man of Steel not from a technical aspect, but from its writing and its direction. This is a good effort from everyone involved, but this isn't their Superman, and it's essentially a betrayal to what they love. They can't be objective about it because it goes against everything they love.

And, unlike Linkara, at least MovieBob goes over the things that Man of Steel did right and he does try to be objective about it, even though you can still see a hint of bias in his analysis of it. That's just it, though; he can't separate his bias from it because this matters a lot to him, more than the more casual viewer. A lot of people walked away from Man of Steel happy because they can accept the changes to the Superman mythos, something that these critics can't.

To explain this in a manner that more people might understand, imagine if that old Super Mario Bros. Movie, the one that basically didn't resemble the games at all, was legitimately good. Like, it had Oscar-worthy acting and its special effects and cinematography made Star Wars and Space Odyssey: 2001 blush, but everything it changed was STILL changed. Objectively, it'd be a fantastic film, but you guys probably wouldn't like it because it wasn't Mario anymore. It changed so much and went in such a different, jarring direction that, even though it's one of the greatest things since canned bread, you simply can't like it because it's simply not the Mario you're familiar with. And people that don't know shit about Mario will love the film, simply because they don't have that inherent bias that others have.

And there's really no changing it. I just hope, though, that MovieBob will get over it, since it's starting to get repetitive here.

Jabbawocky:
Don't worry people Amazing Spider-Man 2 comes out next summer. We'll be able to see how Bob doesn't like that film series all over again, just because it doesn't match the version of the character he likes.

the amazing spiderman was a mediocre if not poorly made movie no matter what version of spiderman it told

the villain was the weakest movie villain we've had since Justin Hammer, in fact, "the lizard" outside of the couple fightscenes they had, made Justin Hammer look like a deep and charming character

the dialog was clunky and forced, and it was poorly paced

the entire thing was rushed just to keep the rights to the IP and it shows

you can try and blame it on bob not liking a version of a character or whatever, but it was just a bad movie.

anthony87:
I like how a city being destroyed is suddenly 9/11 symbolism.

It's not the city being destroyed itself that's the 9/11 symbolism. It's the idea of the implications of the city getting destroyed. Within that scene you had tons of people dying by the truckload in a cataclysmic and totally unexpected manner so huge that in the reality-based Nolanverse you'll be sure to see tons of "Metropolis: Never Forget" posters depicting the wreckage in the sequel. And they could've made it work in the actual movie, had they actually shown just how hopeless a situation it would've been on a massive scale, which actually would've worked better with James Cameron than Nolan/Snyder- hopeless, and then to have Superman go and save each citizen while fending off Zod. That would've been the perfect way to convey the climax.

Instead we get Zod and S bashing at each other, giving no clues as to who cares more or less about whatever lives or collateral damage they claim in the process. It's kind of a bad sign when you have freaking Captain America- whose powers can't even scratch Superman's- help more people in the city-destroying scene in Avengers with, and for what little power he has compared to Superman in a movie centered around him.

heh good ol bob , showing us again the full breadth of the meaning opinions are like arseholes , our own tend to be important to us and others dont really want yours shoved in their faces.

this site could really do with a movie reviewer or critic so tired of bob's personal diatribes on everything that isnt made to his enshrined ideal.

I don't think it was a let down. I actually felt a lot more from this movie than say...Amazing Spider-Man. I thought that movie was an actual let down in that I really didn't want to see more from the characters and their world, but after MoS I was like wow...okay I want to see more of this.

But they're gonna be putting Batman in the next one so I was like never mind haha...

endtherapture:
Man of Steel is great.

Great characters.
Great score.
Great action.
Great visuals.
Great art style.

Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

I didn't know what to expect from the film so I went in and thought it was amazing, 3rd favourite superhero movie EVER. Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers, because when you get down to it, Man of Steel inspired me, it felt inspiring and said some really interesting and deep things about society in general.

Food for thought: Clark is reading Plato's Republic at one point in the film, this subtley links into the "failure" of Kypton as a Platonian society in the film, exemplified by Zod. Very clever stuff. But obviously no, it needed brighter colours and more comedy so it was a failure!!

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Thank you!

I was beginning to think I had seen a different movie than everyone else. Man of Steel was a very good movie. If there are certain aspects that Bob or someone else didn't care for, I get that. If it wasn't what someone had envisioned it should be, that's fine, but to dismiss it completely seems unfair. It reintroduced the character in a new way and finally escaped from the shadow of the Christopher Reeve films. It left us in a place that could make for some great films in the future.

For me, Iron Man 3 was the bigger let down. It was a good movie, but I was disappointed by the treatment of the Mandarin. Now don't get me wrong, Kingsley played it well and it was amusing in its own right, but it wasn't the Mandarin. I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed by Marvel sacrificing one of its characters like that. Up to this point, they've been so respectful (as much as they can in a movie) of their characters and I hope this isn't a new trend for them.

I generally agree with Bob or I can at least see where he's coming from, but Man of Steel, I think he's way off the mark.

endtherapture:
I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Nowhere in this video did Bob even bring up the Avengers. This was all about DC and its recent failures.

And as a person who is unfamiliar with the source material of both the Marvel and DC universes, I have to say Man of Steel is incredibly shallow in what it presented. At the end of all the Marvel movies, I feel like I understood the characters. I got why Tony Stark was Iron Man. I got why Rogers was Captain America. I got why Thor was Thor, I got why Romanov was the Black Widow, I got why Barton was Hawkeye.

Note I'm saying why, not how. At the end of Man of Steel, I understood how he was Superman, but I didn't know why. There wasn't a character there. I feel like they were going somewhere with his whole childhood of having to deal with lots of noises and such, but all of that perceived empathy and self-sacrifice they tried to imbue in him was completely absent in the final act. All that collateral damage, all those people killed in the wake of their fight, and he didn't even try to lead them away to a more remote location. He was supposed to be some sort of embodiment of all humanity should be, yet he himself forgot all about that in favor of finishing up his fistfight.

That made no sense to me. And at the end when he killed Zod, it didn't even occur to me that he would find that to be such a problem. Again, I knew next to nothing about Superman going into this movie. I had no idea he was so against killing his enemies. So when Zod dies, I was just wondering why Supes was so torn up about it. For a moment, I wondered if it was all the carnage around him finally sinking in. It wasn't until later when I watched Bob's review that I realized killing wasn't something he normally did.

I also felt like Lois's presence was completely unnecessary. Hell I can't even remember what exactly she contributed to the film's events--is there anything that literally wouldn't have happened without her? I mean, when she spots him in that glacier, he was already there. All she did was witness what happened on that ship, she didn't actually contribute anything. And then when she's locked up with him in that military base, the things he said to her he could have said to anyone else. In fact, he probably would have said them to anyone else, because he was completely in control of the situation. She doesn't do anything to help him that couldn't have been accomplished by anyone else, she doesn't aid in any amount of character development, all she seems to do is trigger exposition. She talks to Supes because someone needs to get him to talk about himself. She talks to his mother because someone needs to get her to talk about Supes. Her presence could have been replaced by a few flashbacks and a couple of military interrogators.

If there's another lesson to be learned by the Avengers here, it's that Man of Steel didn't use everything it put out on the table. In the Avengers, everybody is there for a reason, and everybody has an influence on the story's outcome. I was a bit disappointed that Natalie Portman didn't appear in the Avengers, especially since Pepper got at least a few moments on screen, but later I realized she didn't really have to be there, and that's where the film's strength was. It was dealing with a lot of strong characters, but it made sure every one of them got used. And in order for that to happen, there couldn't be any unnecessary characters to hold them down.

Lois and the Daily Planet crew were only there because it was decided they couldn't have a Superman film without them, so they kept them in there. But the story was not structured around their presence, they amounted to little more than window dressing. And it's not that they couldn't have found some way for them to influence the story, they just didn't. It apparently wasn't high enough on their priority list, somehow they decided that simply having them exist within the world was "good enough." Having the Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers movie isn't awesome because the Black Widow and Hawkeye are members of the Avengers. It's awesome because they're in the movie, and they do awesome stuff.

So that's my general problem with Man of Steel. The film didn't do anything meaningfully or consistently enough for me to feel like I understand Clark Kent or Kal El by the end of it. Whatever points it set itself up to make were sabotaged later by other parts of the film.

The Gentleman:
I will give Man of Steel one thing in how it changed the (cinematic) version of the character: it decoupled Superman from America (albeit in very blunt matter).

As I noted long ago on this site, the image of Superman as the embodiment of America's moral and strengths means that a movie in the vein of the original comic or prior movies just wouldn't work in a world where people look at the US as coming down from decades of partying and arrogance. The earnestness that Bob wants to see doesn't represent the US today, now suspicious of its own power and what it has become.

Do I think they could have done it in a better manner than having him literally chuck a drone at a general in an obviously tacked-on scene? Of course, but they at least tried.

Which is pretty much where I sit. I liked Man of Steel, and I honestly wasn't expecting the happy-go-lucky tone of the 50's original or the Adventure Camp leanings of the Animated Universe series. I didn't need Comics-verse Superman's increasingly convoluted storyline either - so Man of Steel was largely what I was expecting it to be. It has its flaws, of course (such as how quickly the whole Lois Lane issue is brushed under the rug and the annoying call-backs to Christian iconography) but it still is my favourite portrayal of the character to date. I'll also admit that it's a great technical deconstruction of the character - but not so much a compelling origin story.

I can't always agree with Bob, after all.

I do agree that David Goyer is a bit of a hack. Batman Begins seems to be his only decent sole writing credit, oh and...Blade 2? Eh...I'm giving that one to Del Toro. I think he's a rubbish writer, much like Mr Orci and the other guy from Star Trek/Transformers.

But hey, they have jobs, they earn millions, and I'm here. What do I know.

Ugh I really hope this is the end of this. This video says nothing new about the movie that he himself hasn't already said. I get it, you didn't like it, so what? You already released enough videos about this. I think that's enough. It doesn't matter that I completely agree, I just can't stand repetition.

Zach Snyder looks like Mark Ruffalo.

Also, David Goyer is a hack and I blame him for this movie being what it was.

Wait... what superman? I thought it was Dragonball Z the movie... wait.. superman? WTF? But... superman NEVER lets the bad guys get away with killing so many... He'd NEVER reveal his ID THIS EASY, and he's NEVER let him self down to his enemy's level... he ALWAYS wins by overcoming/overwhelming/overpowering the baddies... I thought this was simply Gouku not knowing super sayan power yet... I mean... we even saw the sayans rip jets with their own hands! just like the cartoons!~ wow... well played, Mr.Nolan... well played... you fooled Zach too; to make him do the DBZ actions and slapped on superman costumes and fooled all of us... well played...

Lilani:

endtherapture:
I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Nowhere in this video did Bob even bring up the Avengers. This was all about DC and its recent failures.

And as a person who is unfamiliar with the source material of both the Marvel and DC universes, I have to say Man of Steel is incredibly shallow in what it presented. At the end of all the Marvel movies, I feel like I understood the characters. I got why Tony Stark was Iron Man. I got why Rogers was Captain America. I got why Thor was Thor, I got why Romanov was the Black Widow, I got why Barton was Hawkeye.

Note I'm saying why, not how. At the end of Man of Steel, I understood how he was Superman, but I didn't know why. There wasn't a character there. I feel like they were going somewhere with his whole childhood of having to deal with lots of noises and such, but all of that perceived empathy and self-sacrifice they tried to imbue in him was completely absent in the final act. All that collateral damage, all those people killed in the wake of their fight, and he didn't even try to lead them away to a more remote location. He was supposed to be some sort of embodiment of all humanity should be, yet he himself forgot all about that in favor of finishing up his fistfight.

It's not about Bob bringing up Avengers in this video, it's his long term trend of bringing up the Avengers as the pinnacle of modern filmmaking since it got released, in the majority of his videos, whilst also bashing Spider-Man, TDKR and Man of Steel.

It's an origin movie, Superman hasn't yet "found" himself and I'm willing to give that up in the first film to get a more interesting, character-driven sequel where Clark is finding it place in the world. It's going for a different arc.

That made no sense to me. And at the end when he killed Zod, it didn't even occur to me that he would find that to be such a problem. Again, I knew next to nothing about Superman going into this movie. I had no idea he was so against killing his enemies. So when Zod dies, I was just wondering why Supes was so torn up about it. For a moment, I wondered if it was all the carnage around him finally sinking in. It wasn't until later when I watched Bob's review that I realized killing wasn't something he normally did.

It's an origin story. That event OBVIOUSLY set up the fact that he's against killing in later films because it traumatised him so much. I don't get why people don't get this, it's so obvious.

I also felt like Lois's presence was completely unnecessary. Hell I can't even remember what exactly she contributed to the film's events--is there anything that literally wouldn't have happened without her? I mean, when she spots him in that glacier, he was already there. All she did was witness what happened on that ship, she didn't actually contribute anything. And then when she's locked up with him in that military base, the things he said to her he could have said to anyone else. In fact, he probably would have said them to anyone else, because he was completely in control of the situation. She doesn't do anything to help him that couldn't have been accomplished by anyone else, she doesn't aid in any amount of character development, all she seems to do is trigger exposition. She talks to Supes because someone needs to get him to talk about himself. She talks to his mother because someone needs to get her to talk about Supes. Her presence could have been replaced by a few flashbacks and a couple of military interrogators.

If there's another lesson to be learned by the Avengers here, it's that Man of Steel didn't use everything it put out on the table. In the Avengers, everybody is there for a reason, and everybody has an influence on the story's outcome. I was a bit disappointed that Natalie Portman didn't appear in the Avengers, especially since Pepper got at least a few moments on screen, but later I realized she didn't really have to be there, and that's where the film's strength was. It was dealing with a lot of strong characters, but it made sure every one of them got used. And in order for that to happen, there couldn't be any unnecessary characters to hold them down.

Lois and the Daily Planet crew were only there because it was decided they couldn't have a Superman film without them, so they kept them in there. But the story was not structured around their presence, they amounted to little more than window dressing. And it's not that they couldn't have found some way for them to influence the story, they just didn't. It apparently wasn't high enough on their priority list, somehow they decided that simply having them exist within the world was "good enough." Having the Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers movie isn't awesome because the Black Widow and Hawkeye are members of the Avengers. It's awesome because they're in the movie, and they do awesome stuff.

So that's my general problem with Man of Steel. The film didn't do anything meaningfully or consistently enough for me to feel like I understand Clark Kent or Kal El by the end of it. Whatever points it set itself up to make were sabotaged later by other parts of the film.

Once again, it's an origin story, so it's setting up the characters and how they see Superman for further installments. There was some pretty cool action scenes like Lois in the ship being guided by Jor-El and Lois was a great female lead. If they'd just introduced Lois/all the daily Planet characters straight off in MoS2, people would've complained that they weren't around in the first movie and were shoehorned in.

War-Machine is in the first Iron Man movie right...when he doesn't really need to be? So that criticism can be leveled at Iron Man also.

endtherapture:
Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

You've discussed a number of points with other users but I just wanted to bring this part up.

I think you've got the wrong idea here. He's mentioned in the past - Captain America review, I think - that actually he found it refreshing that for once the hero wasn't reluctant (Spider-Man), snarky (Iron Man) or brooding (Batman). He's also gone back to say that he'd perhaps been too kind on earlier Iron Man films. It's not that he wants everything to be funny and upbeat, it's that he's tired of so many things going the grimdark or miserable route. MoS was a pretty miserable film in the eyes of many.

Jacco:
Zach Snyder looks like Mark Ruffalo.

Also, David Goyer is a hack and I blame him for this movie being what it was.

The movie was so bad it's impossible for me to blame it on any one guy.

It failed on every level; who's idea was it to have matrix pod babies? Some sort of kryptonion socialist-communist failing utopia that harvests the planets core because that's what a pre-defined babies with no freedom would do? The foundation of this movie was pure nonsense and on top of that they compounded on even more nonsense.

Then you 3 disaster flashbacks

Then you have plot holes including; centuries old off world colonies not being able to sustain themselves for even 24 years but have operational 'World engines' lying around

Then you have Lois spouting exposition every 5 minutes & popping up everywhere important

ZOD giving technobable every 10 minutes

Expecting the audience to care about Morpheus because he had one scene where he was annoying.

Superman killing Zod to save some middle class family after 100,000 + were already slaughtered

So many comments here of people saying Bob likes Marvel or Bob doesn't like it because it wasn't the superman we expected. We don't like it because it through and through garbage.
Most disappointing movie of the summer? try worst movie since The Medallion.

Teoes:

endtherapture:
Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

You've discussed a number of points with other users but I just wanted to bring this part up.

I think you've got the wrong idea here. He's mentioned in the past - Captain America review, I think - that actually he found it refreshing that for once the hero wasn't reluctant (Spider-Man), snarky (Iron Man) or brooding (Batman). He's also gone back to say that he'd perhaps been too kind on earlier Iron Man films. It's not that he wants everything to be funny and upbeat, it's that he's tired of so many things going the grimdark or miserable route. MoS was a pretty miserable film in the eyes of many.

The thing is...that's Bob's opinion. I think it's fair enough to have a serious superhero series with some gravitas, which Justice League might be, with room for maybe a bit more comedy in there (the Flash maybe?) and then having this bubblegum, funny, upbeat series in the form of The Avengers, then we get the best of both worlds.

Either way, I wouldn't say Superman was "broody" in this film, not nearly as much as Batman. He mourned the death of his Earth father yes, and had some struggle with himself over what was the right thing to do when Zod arrived, but that's one way of making Superman interesting, and relatable. There were PLENTY of uplifting moments in this film, namely when he learned to fly for the first time which just made me heart soar, and when he destroys the Drone at the end, and many more. Just because he wasn't constantly wisecracking and making cheesey comments.

I really liked this interpretation, and it's the only time I've actually enjoyed Superman as a character on film. They made Superman a human, relatable character, which is a marvellous achievement.

endtherapture:
Either way, I wouldn't say Superman was "broody" in this film, not nearly as much as Batman. He mourned the death of his Earth father yes, and had some struggle with himself over what was the right thing to do when Zod arrived, but that's one way of making Superman interesting, and relatable. There were PLENTY of uplifting moments in this film, namely when he learned to fly for the first time which just made me heart soar, and when he destroys the Drone at the end, and many more. Just because he wasn't constantly wisecracking and making cheesey comments.

I really liked this interpretation, and it's the only time I've actually enjoyed Superman as a character on film. They made Superman a human, relatable character, which is a marvellous achievement.

I didn't say Superman was broody/miserable in this film - I said the film was broody/miserable, which is the over-riding feeling I got from it. I won't argue that there's uplifting moments in MoS and points full of hope, but that's the source of many people's criticism, Bob's included - that characters harp on about hope, but in the end Superman doesn't really embody much hope here. He spends a lot of time in the action sequences with his war-face on, bellowing and punching things. Not exactly pinnacle of humankind's hopes and dreams material, that. I felt like the film was too angry and my lady thought the same when we went to see it together; it's a similar feeling that she got from District 9, which I thought was great, but she doesn't want to watch again because it's just such an angry piece.

endtherapture:
Once again, it's an origin story, so it's setting up the characters and how they see Superman for further installments. There was some pretty cool action scenes like Lois in the ship being guided by Jor-El and Lois was a great female lead. If they'd just introduced Lois/all the daily Planet characters straight off in MoS2, people would've complained that they weren't around in the first movie and were shoehorned in.

It's funny that you say this in response to Lilani's post, where she's explained how she felt that those characters were shoe-horned into the first MoS film - and how respective supporting/secondary characters in the various Marvel origin films don't feel shoe-horned in, are more central to the story or the main characters' developments and actually do more.

But whatever - I doubt I'm going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine as we're both talking about our opinions, so like so many internet discussions this'll go nowhere, right?

IronMit:

The Dubya:
Only Zod (thanks to Michael Shannon's overacting) brought some much needed life into this film and was closet to having a definable character. I understood his motivation, I got understood goals, I even got his BACKSTORY from all that time spent on Krypton. And ya know what, he actually DID STUFF to go about achieving said goals. As far as I'm concerned, HE'S the main character of the movie and this movie was his Shakespearean tragedy...

Why couldn't he say 'yo superman.You know those many off world colonies we have I will just go there - 100% chance of success. Just let me suck out the codex from you'. end movie.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on the subject,but wasn't it explained that the reason those colonies were abandoned so long ago was because they didn't have the resources to self-sustain themselves (lack of resources and food)?

This is getting really old, Bob. I know you don't like the all movies, you say so in your reviews. But making video after video where you keep bashing those movies? That's just petty bitterness.

Not that you care, but I'm really starting to lose respect for you, not personally ofcourse, but as a professional reviewer. Go review some new movies instead, please.

oh and by the way:

Man of steel: Loved it!
Pacific rim: Boring trash. Talk about missed opportunities.
Avengers: Shallow, boring trash.
Dark knight: Fell asleep.
Amazing spiderman: Haven't seen it, but since you just can't stop complaining about it, i might just have to.

Zetatrain:

IronMit:

Why couldn't he say 'yo superman.You know those many off world colonies we have I will just go there - 100% chance of success. Just let me suck out the codex from you'. end movie.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on the subject,but wasn't it explained that the reason those colonies were abandoned so long ago was because they didn't have the resources to self-sustain themselves (lack of resources and food)?

I just rewatched a few scenes from the film. Zod says his been preparing for 33 years give or take until Clark conveniently activated the distress beacon on that ship in the ice.
How old was that ship in the ice? hundred? thousands of years? it was at least hundreds .They mentioned it- can't remember exactly.

So this spacefaring species of at least hundreds of years of experience that has many off world colonies, didn't make them self sustaining? They made world engines to teraform planets to make them habitable. Because transporting food across planets is the dumbest thing you could do. They have so many world engines Zod finds one lying around. Yet everyone is dead.

This is what you call a contrivance. The needed Zod to get his hands on a 'world engine' and weapons when he escaped prison, so they made up some rubbish about off world colonies that all conveniently died out in 1-3 decades but left a working world engine. Eventhough none of that makes sense.

There are small plotholes in movies like ' why didn't a character just do this', but this one is the foundation of everything that happens in the movie.

Movie Bob, as always saying that changing comic book films for a wider audience as a negative thing. The problem with comic books is they are too out of touch and too retarded. For comic book fans, it's okay. However, when DC seems to do things like make light of suicide at the beginning of Suicide Awareness Month, it really is a sign of just how out of touch with reality the company is. Once you start getting into the writing of the comic it's self, the more out of touch they really are. For comic book fans, the various hi-jinks comic book companies do is completely fine and the wackiness and insanity of the writing is dandy. For everyone else, it's likely just a bit too much. So for a film to have anything resembling a budget, they do have to adapt that for the wider audience. Otherwise, it just simply wouldn't get touched and would go down as a controversy vehicle.

Seriously, people have to start admitting there are core problems with comics. There are core problems with everything, just the realisation that comic books are not the exception and noticing what these problems are is important for some sense of progression. At the very least, knowing it is able to put reviews in a different light. Comic books will barely ever be true to their source material, because doing that would get at least someone fired.

Oskuro:
Now, I'll use the following quote, but this goes to all who are sharing this sentiment in the above comments:

Zachary Amaranth:
the harping on the same movies over and over again is sort of making him harder and harder to watch.

Then don't.

These videos are a way for Bob to share his personal opinion, a fact he makes sure to mention often in the videos themselves.

All of you, complaining about his opinions or fixations being grating... Why are you watching his videos then?

Because beside his fixation with hating same movie over and over again, hes a pretty decent movie critic?

If you somehow fail to realize our right to critisize his opinion, watch this weeks Jimquisition.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here