Superman American Alien Is What Man of Steel Should Have Been

Superman American Alien Is What Man of Steel Should Have Been

Superman: American Alien is proof that selfless, Boy Scout heroes can be great characters without resorting to grim violence.

Read Full Article

Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Ah, I enjoyed the article and thanks for the heads-up about this new Superman series. I've have been meaning to get back into reading Superman comics and now I have a reason to do so.

It would have been interesting to think about what Man of Steel could have been had it gone this route compared to the grim version (Still an enjoyable movie in its own right). But that's what other forms of media are there for, to allow for different kinds of stories.

Color me interested, I'll have to give this one a look. Especially since I prefer optimistic stories over the grim and depressing ones.

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

JCAll:

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

<3<3<3Max Landis<3<3<3

Eh, this is just indicative of the two opposing views on comics. Some people think the hero aspect is boring, or at least just boorish. For some it lacks nuance or subtlety or "realness". Then you get to read rave reviews about what people who like the hero do not like so much. The thing about Clark Kent... he is boring. I don't personally find it interesting that he met these people before he or they were anything. I actually find it contrived, to be honest. It's intellectually dishonest to throw these things in there like that, as if his life as Clark Kent in the beginning would commonly see him interact with these other characters.

I'm not saying it's bad. But I do clearly stand on the pro-hero side. When I read about comics I don't care about realism. If you do, then I daresay superhero comics are not for you. There are lots of really well written and great stories involving hero that do not shirk the main aspect of the book. Read just about the entire Invincible series for this. Great writing about people with powers with real problems, relationship problems, problems with their parents or friends.

Also, to be clear, Man of Steel was about a guy who wanted to help people. Part of the story was that his father was so afraid for his son that it turned into him being afraid to help people. His father was so convinced that humanity was not ready for what he represented that he chose to die rather than be saved by his son. At no point was he in a position where he didn't want to help anyone, as a matter of fact we see him go out of his way to help people (such as people on a burning oil rig). That aspect was not lost on the movie, just presented in a different way.

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

My thoughts exactly. And considering that the whole reason Man of Steel was what it was is because the last movie, Superman Returns, was criticized for having not enough action at all and being the same old, same old.

Besides Man of Steel may have its flaws but it is certainly not the worse Superman thing ever.

American Fox:
<3<3<3Max Landis<3<3<3

What a hack fraud.

IOwnTheSpire:
Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

I don't even hate what the film tried to do or any of the deliberate creative choices, as I can see what its going for with most of them and I wouldn't say that even a handful of them were bad, but I think its fair to say that the film failed to accomplish what it set out to do.

IOwnTheSpire:
Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

Characterising people who put forward arguments for ways they would like to see their favourite franchises/characters treated as "change things because I say so" is such a ludicrous strawman it nearly defies comprehension. People making their tastes public can only ever be a good thing as it promotes discussion. You, on the other hand, appear to think filmmakers are on some sort of pedestal and essentially shouldn't be receiving negative feedback on their works; media, and especially an ongoing franchise, is not a hugbox, and criticising things like tone, style, and artistic direction are all perfectly valid. Calling it "arrogant" to express an opinion on how a franchise should be handled is absurd.

Samtemdo8:
the same old, same old.

Speaking of which, half of Man of Steel was dedicated to his origin story. Of the 6 Superman movies, that's 50% that have done his origin. Man of Steel didn't need to do it again.

OT; I'd like to blame Snyder for all of Man of Steel's faults (at the very least I can blame him for using the same crappy filter he uses in all his recent movies), but the thing is, he is probably under some very tight reigns by WB similarly to how Whedon was at Marvel.

008Zulu:

Samtemdo8:
the same old, same old.

Speaking of which, half of Man of Steel was dedicated to his origin story. Of the 6 Superman movies, that's 50% that have done his origin. Man of Steel didn't need to do it again.

OT; I'd like to blame Snyder for all of Man of Steel's faults (at the very least I can blame him for using the same crappy filter he uses in all his recent movies), but the thing is, he is probably under some very tight reigns by WB similarly to how Whedon was at Marvel.

Just read up on the critcisms of Superman Returns quoted directly from Wikipedia and you can understand exactly why Man of Steel is what it is especially when Man of Steel was accused of trying too much to be "Batman Begins version of Superman":

However, Roger Ebert argued the film was a "glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating." He also felt that "Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman", surmising that he "may have been cast because he looks a little like Reeve".

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle felt that Warner Bros. should have rebooted the series along the lines of Batman Begins. He also felt Bosworth, at 22 years old, was too young to portray Lois Lane, and the climax did not "match the potential of the tiring 154 minute long film"

IOwnTheSpire:

JCAll:

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

Nobody said "because I said so". They've given very specific, detailed breakdowns of why the various story elements presented, and how they were used, were less than ideal for the story they were trying to tell.

If you think someone giving a long, thought out, scene by scene breakdown of what flaws a particular film (any film) is basically them just being "butthurt", then you apparently don't agree with criticism at all. I mean, you do agree that we, as a society have the ability to judge what others do in our society, and explain why it was good/bad right?

Samtemdo8:
Just read up on the critcisms of Superman Returns quoted directly from Wikipedia and you can understand exactly why Man of Steel is what it is especially when Man of Steel was accused of trying too much to be "Batman Begins version of Superman"

Never said Returns was a good movie, only that MoS didn't need to dedicate half the movie to his origin story. Fifteen or twenty minutes would have been more than enough. Aside from the overly long dedication to the origin, my only other gripe with MoS is that crappy video filter Snyder loves using. Superman wears blue, not a shade of black.

Baresark:
Eh, this is just indicative of the two opposing views on comics. Some people think the hero aspect is boring, or at least just boorish. For some it lacks nuance or subtlety or "realness". Then you get to read rave reviews about what people who like the hero do not like so much. The thing about Clark Kent... he is boring. I don't personally find it interesting that he met these people before he or they were anything. I actually find it contrived, to be honest. It's intellectually dishonest to throw these things in there like that, as if his life as Clark Kent in the beginning would commonly see him interact with these other characters.

For what it's worth, I felt that during my first reading, but the story found ways to make it believable and consistent.

As for the balance between "being a hero" and "being a real person", the comic definitely has both - it just leans a little more to the latter because that's an aspect of Superman which doesn't always get covered. Or when it does, it's usually in a "mature" gritty violence kind of way.

IOwnTheSpire:

JCAll:

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

And you have never, ever done this to ANY movie at all?

I will admit I am not a big fan of the recent Superman movies, and I have not even seen them. And before people get on my back, let me explain.

The Marvel hero movies have been fun. They, to me, are fun to watch, and fun to enjoy. But seeing Man of Steel's trailers did not make me want to watch it. While I found the idea interesting about Clark having doubts about his powers, the very dark "So I shouldn't have saved them?" felt like a leftover from a Batman script.

To me, Superman was a bringer of hope, not a bringer of mope which the movie seemed to be aiming at. And that's not a Superman I want to watch. The plot seemed a little off from what people have told me, and I just couldn't care.

When I saw the BS movie, I felt the regurgitation of the Man of Steel was strange, and when I saw the scenes where people were protesting Superman's presence, my first thought was "He single-handedly fought his own race to save you, and this is how you repay him?" That stuff flies with Batman, it is literally a part of his mythos, being the reason why Gotham will never improve in a meaningful way, but not the hero that entire alien races turn to for help.

But, seeing this American Alien comic idea, makes me wish that was the movie playing. DC seemed to be hitting the depressants and listening to too much emo music when writing their scripts. I want to be excited for Shazam, but given the 'grim and gritty' nature of their movies so far, makes me want to wash my hands of DC, which is a shame because they have some great characters. I just wish they treated them better as movie franchises.

VoidWanderer:

IOwnTheSpire:

JCAll:

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

And you have never, ever done this to ANY movie at all?

I will admit I am not a big fan of the recent Superman movies, and I have not even seen them. And before people get on my back, let me explain.

The Marvel hero movies have been fun. They, to me, are fun to watch, and fun to enjoy. But seeing Man of Steel's trailers did not make me want to watch it. While I found the idea interesting about Clark having doubts about his powers, the very dark "So I shouldn't have saved them?" felt like a leftover from a Batman script.

To me, Superman was a bringer of hope, not a bringer of mope which the movie seemed to be aiming at. And that's not a Superman I want to watch. The plot seemed a little off from what people have told me, and I just couldn't care.

When I saw the BS movie, I felt the regurgitation of the Man of Steel was strange, and when I saw the scenes where people were protesting Superman's presence, my first thought was "He single-handedly fought his own race to save you, and this is how you repay him?" That stuff flies with Batman, it is literally a part of his mythos, being the reason why Gotham will never improve in a meaningful way, but not the hero that entire alien races turn to for help.

But, seeing this American Alien comic idea, makes me wish that was the movie playing. DC seemed to be hitting the depressants and listening to too much emo music when writing their scripts. I want to be excited for Shazam, but given the 'grim and gritty' nature of their movies so far, makes me want to wash my hands of DC, which is a shame because they have some great characters. I just wish they treated them better as movie franchises.

People need to learn that Man of Steel isn't grim and gritty, it's serious, and there is a difference. The upcoming DC universe is not going to match everyone's preferences, and those who don't like their approach should just stay home. It's fine if you don't want to watch these films, but don't make judgments and assumptions about the filmmakers' intentions or methods of writing when you haven't seen the work itself.

IOwnTheSpire:

VoidWanderer:

IOwnTheSpire:

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

And you have never, ever done this to ANY movie at all?

I will admit I am not a big fan of the recent Superman movies, and I have not even seen them. And before people get on my back, let me explain.

The Marvel hero movies have been fun. They, to me, are fun to watch, and fun to enjoy. But seeing Man of Steel's trailers did not make me want to watch it. While I found the idea interesting about Clark having doubts about his powers, the very dark "So I shouldn't have saved them?" felt like a leftover from a Batman script.

To me, Superman was a bringer of hope, not a bringer of mope which the movie seemed to be aiming at. And that's not a Superman I want to watch. The plot seemed a little off from what people have told me, and I just couldn't care.

When I saw the BS movie, I felt the regurgitation of the Man of Steel was strange, and when I saw the scenes where people were protesting Superman's presence, my first thought was "He single-handedly fought his own race to save you, and this is how you repay him?" That stuff flies with Batman, it is literally a part of his mythos, being the reason why Gotham will never improve in a meaningful way, but not the hero that entire alien races turn to for help.

But, seeing this American Alien comic idea, makes me wish that was the movie playing. DC seemed to be hitting the depressants and listening to too much emo music when writing their scripts. I want to be excited for Shazam, but given the 'grim and gritty' nature of their movies so far, makes me want to wash my hands of DC, which is a shame because they have some great characters. I just wish they treated them better as movie franchises.

People need to learn that Man of Steel isn't grim and gritty, it's serious, and there is a difference. The upcoming DC universe is not going to match everyone's preferences, and those who don't like their approach should just stay home. It's fine if you don't want to watch these films, but don't make judgments and assumptions about the filmmakers' intentions or methods of writing when you haven't seen the work itself.

Oh, so it's "Making judgments on a film is fine as long as you understand it and why I like it, but if you can't see why it's actually good then you have no right to criticize something." Sure, that sounds fair.

TheVampwizimp:

IOwnTheSpire:

VoidWanderer:

And you have never, ever done this to ANY movie at all?

I will admit I am not a big fan of the recent Superman movies, and I have not even seen them. And before people get on my back, let me explain.

The Marvel hero movies have been fun. They, to me, are fun to watch, and fun to enjoy. But seeing Man of Steel's trailers did not make me want to watch it. While I found the idea interesting about Clark having doubts about his powers, the very dark "So I shouldn't have saved them?" felt like a leftover from a Batman script.

To me, Superman was a bringer of hope, not a bringer of mope which the movie seemed to be aiming at. And that's not a Superman I want to watch. The plot seemed a little off from what people have told me, and I just couldn't care.

When I saw the BS movie, I felt the regurgitation of the Man of Steel was strange, and when I saw the scenes where people were protesting Superman's presence, my first thought was "He single-handedly fought his own race to save you, and this is how you repay him?" That stuff flies with Batman, it is literally a part of his mythos, being the reason why Gotham will never improve in a meaningful way, but not the hero that entire alien races turn to for help.

But, seeing this American Alien comic idea, makes me wish that was the movie playing. DC seemed to be hitting the depressants and listening to too much emo music when writing their scripts. I want to be excited for Shazam, but given the 'grim and gritty' nature of their movies so far, makes me want to wash my hands of DC, which is a shame because they have some great characters. I just wish they treated them better as movie franchises.

People need to learn that Man of Steel isn't grim and gritty, it's serious, and there is a difference. The upcoming DC universe is not going to match everyone's preferences, and those who don't like their approach should just stay home. It's fine if you don't want to watch these films, but don't make judgments and assumptions about the filmmakers' intentions or methods of writing when you haven't seen the work itself.

Oh, so it's "Making judgments on a film is fine as long as you understand it and why I like it, but if you can't see why it's actually good then you have no right to criticize something." Sure, that sounds fair.

Read what I actually said. He admitted he hasn't seen MoS, therefore he's in no position to properly criticize it.

IOwnTheSpire:
Read what I actually said. He admitted he hasn't seen MoS, therefore he's in no position to properly criticize it.

You've also said it's not my place to criticize MoS, and I'm a professional critic. Who saw the film. Who exactly can judge the movie by these standards?

No one should stop you from liking MoS, or sharing your opinions on it. But by the same token, that right should be extended to people who didn't like the film. That's how discourse and criticism works. And while it's immensely frustrating when someone "attacks" projects we love, that's how flaws are found so creators can consider ways to improve in the future. We can't have it both ways.

For the record, I didn't hate MoS - there are some things it did very well. Especially with Lois Lane, who is probably my favourite film version of the character at this point. But I do feel it made some serious missteps on what makes Superman a compelling character.

I was extremely conflicted about man of steel: it had some good parts, but it had at least an equal number of terrible parts. The DBZ style fights didn't help, either.

But that aside, this american alien sounds way more interesting; I'll get it as a graphic novel when it comes out. My two favorite superman stories of all time (kingdom come and then another one I forgot the name of by Alex Ross where superman tries to solve world hunger) are my favorites because they feature him dealing with frustrations and failures much more like a human than as a god.

It's hard to relate to a character that can hear all of the people around him suffering and ends up going to his day job.

IOwnTheSpire:

TheVampwizimp:

IOwnTheSpire:

People need to learn that Man of Steel isn't grim and gritty, it's serious, and there is a difference. The upcoming DC universe is not going to match everyone's preferences, and those who don't like their approach should just stay home. It's fine if you don't want to watch these films, but don't make judgments and assumptions about the filmmakers' intentions or methods of writing when you haven't seen the work itself.

Oh, so it's "Making judgments on a film is fine as long as you understand it and why I like it, but if you can't see why it's actually good then you have no right to criticize something." Sure, that sounds fair.

Read what I actually said. He admitted he hasn't seen MoS, therefore he's in no position to properly criticize it.

I did read what you said. I was referring to the part where you suggested that people who don't like Snyder's approach to Superman shouldn't bother seeing it, and that people who haven't seen it shouldn't bother commenting on it. In this hypothetical world, movie criticism is an echo chamber made up only of people who saw the film because they already knew they would like it.

This is not how reality works at all. You certainly don't have to agree with any criticism of something you like, especially if it's coming from someone who's opinion is suspect because they haven't seen it, but you have to be able to accept that people might dislike the very things that you did like about it. That's just being a part of the human race.

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Well guys, guess we should just end review and commentary. It's been nice knowing everyone.

Here's my thing: I didn't hate Man of Steel. Actually I liked it quite more than the overall narrative of criticism says I should have. However, there's a part of me that felt it would have been so much better with a different cut. Having just watched it last night, these views are fresh:
The editing was sloppy. Absolutely horrible. No transitions between scenes that made sense, which brought down the overall fluidity of the movie. Had it been properly pieced together, I think there would have been a much better film overall.
I guess there needs to be a "Richard Donner Cut" type version. I think that would change a lot of the way people see this movie... and remove the filters. Doesn't need to be vibrant color but when I feel like I need to adjust the brightness on my TV to watch, there's a problem.

Fanghawk:

IOwnTheSpire:
Read what I actually said. He admitted he hasn't seen MoS, therefore he's in no position to properly criticize it.

You've also said it's not my place to criticize MoS, and I'm a professional critic. Who saw the film. Who exactly can judge the movie by these standards?

I never said you can't criticize it, my problem is with HOW people approach criticizing it. Most of the criticisms I've heard against it are people judging the film based on what they wanted/expected/thought the film should be instead of judging the film as it stands on its own two feet.

IOwnTheSpire:

JCAll:

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

I think his main complaint is Man of Steel is flying in the face of the constant spirit of Superman. I equate it to thinking the Mass Effect 3 ending is bullshit because it wasn't really built up to by the rest of the canon. But hey, this is a separate work of fiction from every other instance of Superman. That's the whole alternate universe shtick of comics. If you don't like one universe, make your own - and he did. I just read all five issues out and they're pretty well done. I don't read comics (especially DC) very often, but this felt pretty exceptional to me.

IOwnTheSpire:

JCAll:

IOwnTheSpire:
Ugh, can we stop with the Man of Steel bashing already? It's not your place to tell filmmakers what films they should make and how to make them. If you don't like this version of Superman, that's fine, but to say the film should have been a certain way because you didn't like it is incredibly arrogant.

Being critical of our entertainment isn't some unjust cruelty, nor is it arrogant to ask to be entertained a certain way. It's a good thing when people make their demographic known, that way producers can cater to them. It's okay, nobody is going to hurt the WB's feelings if they don't like some of their movies.

Not liking a movie is fine, but saying 'it should have been this way because I say so' is ridiculous.

I think his main complaint is Man of Steel is flying in the face of the constant spirit of Superman. I equate it to thinking the Mass Effect 3 ending is bullshit because it wasn't really built up to by the rest of the canon. But hey, this is a separate work of fiction from every other instance of Superman. That's the whole alternate universe shtick of comics. If you don't like one universe, make your own - and he did. I just read all five issues out and they're pretty well done. I don't read comics (especially DC) very often, but this felt pretty exceptional to me.

IOwnTheSpire:

Fanghawk:

IOwnTheSpire:
Read what I actually said. He admitted he hasn't seen MoS, therefore he's in no position to properly criticize it.

You've also said it's not my place to criticize MoS, and I'm a professional critic. Who saw the film. Who exactly can judge the movie by these standards?

I never said you can't criticize it, my problem is with HOW people approach criticizing it. Most of the criticisms I've heard against it are people judging the film based on what they wanted/expected/thought the film should be instead of judging the film as it stands on its own two feet.

To be fair, critiquing the film for flying in the face of the canon of Superman's character is a pretty solid reason to do so. That's pretty much the jist of this article.

Man of Steel failed at making Superman feel like Superman. Superman is a blank slate character with little personality in the movie. There's not really much reason to cheer for him on as a hero. This makes all of the destruction he causes lead to reasons for the citizens of Metropolis and Smallville to hate Superman. Illogically they don't. And Superman in Man of Steel feels little remorse for all the death he caused. The person that he displays the trait of naive compassion he's known for is shown most towards the villain Zod.

OP is basically saying that Man of Steel should have been a Superman movie instead of a bad hero action movie using Superman to sell seats. This series the OP is talking about seems to have all of the reasons that made the first Sam Raimi Spiderman one of if not the best Superhero movie made. Both had great character development for the main protagonist. No Superman movie has done that. And in that respect Man of Steel is among the worst because so much of it conflicts with even a cursory knowledge of Superman. Superman shouldn't be throwing people through buildings he told humans to hide in for cover.

AzrealMaximillion:

IOwnTheSpire:

Fanghawk:

You've also said it's not my place to criticize MoS, and I'm a professional critic. Who saw the film. Who exactly can judge the movie by these standards?

I never said you can't criticize it, my problem is with HOW people approach criticizing it. Most of the criticisms I've heard against it are people judging the film based on what they wanted/expected/thought the film should be instead of judging the film as it stands on its own two feet.

To be fair, critiquing the film for flying in the face of the canon of Superman's character is a pretty solid reason to do so. That's pretty much the jist of this article.

Man of Steel failed at making Superman feel like Superman. Superman is a blank slate character with little personality in the movie. There's not really much reason to cheer for him on as a hero. This makes all of the destruction he causes lead to reasons for the citizens of Metropolis and Smallville to hate Superman. Illogically they don't. And Superman in Man of Steel feels little remorse for all the death he caused. The person that he displays the trait of naive compassion he's known for is shown most towards the villain Zod.

OP is basically saying that Man of Steel should have been a Superman movie instead of a bad hero action movie using Superman to sell seats. This series the OP is talking about seems to have all of the reasons that made the first Sam Raimi Spiderman one of if not the best Superhero movie made. Both had great character development for the main protagonist. No Superman movie has done that. And in that respect Man of Steel is among the worst because so much of it conflicts with even a cursory knowledge of Superman. Superman shouldn't be throwing people through buildings he told humans to hide in for cover.

Everything you just said is a matter of opinion and personal taste, not objective truth. You may think it flies in the face of canon, or that it's not a Superman movie, but not everyone agrees with you, so don't act as though you're factually right.

American Alien is a fun series so far but that his identity is so publically known in Smallville is ridiculous. Would everyone in the town be willing to keep the secret knowing the payout they could get.

As to Man of Steel, I have to agree it didn't feel like a Superman movie. The problem is that is has to measure up against the brilliant Superman II with Christopher Reeve.

In that movie Superman took the fight out of the City once he realised that people were being hurt. In Man of Steel he didn't seem to care about the damage, didn't attempt to take the fight elsewhere, and just kept punching Zod through buildings.

To be honest it felt more like I was watching the start of an Irredeemable franchise.

votemarvel:
In that movie Superman took the fight out of the City once he realised that people were being hurt. In Man of Steel he didn't seem to care about the damage, didn't attempt to take the fight elsewhere, and just kept punching Zod through buildings.

If you actually rewatch that fight scene carefully, Superman didn't punch Zod through any buildings. The most damage he did was throwing Zod into a satellite (which was attempting to take the fight elsewhere) and dragging him along the side of a building. Everything else falls on Zod, who wouldn't have let the fight leave the city, considering how beyond reason he was. If Superman had tried to lead him elsewhere, Zod would likely start destroying things to force Superman to come back.

votemarvel:
In that movie Superman took the fight out of the City once he realised that people were being hurt. In Man of Steel he didn't seem to care about the damage, didn't attempt to take the fight elsewhere, and just kept punching Zod through buildings.

To be honest it felt more like I was watching the start of an Irredeemable franchise.

I haven't seen Superman II, but by going by just what info you provided, that's a false equivalency. Zod outright states in MoS that he's going to kill everyone and destroy everything, because that's all he has left. Clark trying to lead him away is useless at this point because he has no motivation for trying to attack him, or at least, not attack him over more vulnerable targets. This being Zod, who's so intent on bringing harm to others that he tries to kill a family rather than trying to get out of the headlock. This being Zod, who declares "never" (why do you think that simple utterance has two meaning to it?), in what he's doing?

You can say, "oh, but Clark should have tried to save more people" - never mind that he's been saving people since the beginning of the movie (the oil rig), never mind that he just saved the entire planet from being kryptoformed (is that a word?), never mind that he's up against a trained soldier and barely holding his own. If you're fighting just to stay alive against an opponent who has the advantage over you for most of the fight, I think I can forgive Clark for not being perfect after learning to fly about a day ago.

IOwnTheSpire:

AzrealMaximillion:

IOwnTheSpire:

I never said you can't criticize it, my problem is with HOW people approach criticizing it. Most of the criticisms I've heard against it are people judging the film based on what they wanted/expected/thought the film should be instead of judging the film as it stands on its own two feet.

To be fair, critiquing the film for flying in the face of the canon of Superman's character is a pretty solid reason to do so. That's pretty much the jist of this article.

Man of Steel failed at making Superman feel like Superman. Superman is a blank slate character with little personality in the movie. There's not really much reason to cheer for him on as a hero. This makes all of the destruction he causes lead to reasons for the citizens of Metropolis and Smallville to hate Superman. Illogically they don't. And Superman in Man of Steel feels little remorse for all the death he caused. The person that he displays the trait of naive compassion he's known for is shown most towards the villain Zod.

OP is basically saying that Man of Steel should have been a Superman movie instead of a bad hero action movie using Superman to sell seats. This series the OP is talking about seems to have all of the reasons that made the first Sam Raimi Spiderman one of if not the best Superhero movie made. Both had great character development for the main protagonist. No Superman movie has done that. And in that respect Man of Steel is among the worst because so much of it conflicts with even a cursory knowledge of Superman. Superman shouldn't be throwing people through buildings he told humans to hide in for cover.

Everything you just said is a matter of opinion and personal taste, not objective truth. You may think it flies in the face of canon, or that it's not a Superman movie, but not everyone agrees with you, so don't act as though you're factually right.

Oh I'm aware its my personal opinion. Its also the opinion of a huge percentage of the people who paid money to see the movie, so it brings some validity to my points. People took issue with seeing Superman getting into fights that kill innocent civilians. This was above all the main criticism of the movie. And I doubt Batman V. Superman is going to be a critical marvel either.

 

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
Register for a free account here