Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 49 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 16, 2013 5:24:20 PM PDT
ZZrider says:
They took the heart of Superman and blew it up, again and again and again...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2013 11:14:39 PM PDT
When you say blew it up, do you mean as in inflate with air or an explosive?

Posted on Jun 17, 2013 7:17:10 AM PDT
ajsteele says:
The heart of Superman was intact!

Posted on Jun 17, 2013 9:29:50 AM PDT
ZZrider says:
The movie was overblown with CGI and explosions. It also didn't have the charm of the originals.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2013 10:06:39 AM PDT
ajsteele says:
Some write as if they want Chris Reeve resurrected from the grave and put back in the cape, even in a wheelchair. I'm glad the film didn't have the "charm" of the "originals". Why remake a remake of a remake?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2013 12:14:02 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 4, 2013 6:20:56 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 17, 2013 3:51:35 PM PDT
Blue Jay Way says:
For charm we had Superman Returns and looked what that one turn out to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2013 7:57:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 24, 2013 7:58:39 PM PDT
I second that ZZrider. The first half was a decent origin story for the hero (though this time with many key differences from traditional canon), but the second half devolved into too much mindless action for my tastes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2013 5:55:01 AM PDT
ajsteele says:
How was the action mindless? The makers wanted a real world depiction. With that in mind, a real Superman would display plenty of action defending the earth. Death and destruction is often the result of war, with purpose in mind. I was also happy to see a Superman film in which he actually threw punches and got tossed around.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2013 8:44:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2013 1:41:39 PM PDT
I found the action rather disturbing. During the slugfest, there came a point where I, as a movie buff, stopped suspending disbelief and started paying attention to the staggering loss of life that had to be occurring in the midst of all the action. The Superman I grew up with would have taken the fight AWAY from Smallville and Metropolis to avoid as much loss of life as possible.

As far as the comic book film genre is concerned, it's all about preference. I am finding that I prefer the Marvel adaptations over the current DC adaptations due to them being more fun and escapist.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2013 3:17:17 PM PDT
There was charm in Superman Returns? Where? Looking here. No. Not under here. Not over there. Nope, can't find it anywhere.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2013 5:47:44 PM PDT
ajsteele says:
Did you consider the staggering loss of life that would have occurred had Zod prevailed? Basically Earth:zero, and I know you wouldn't want that. Realism takes effect when you just can't lead a super being to the deserted area of your choice to prevent loss of life. In fact Zod was too smart for that as Faora pointed out by exposing Kal El's "morality".

Marvel characters are great and I grew up with them. I don't know your age but at heart DC always fascinated me and I never thought they were presented effectively until now, even with Man Of Steel's shortcomings.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2013 8:01:59 PM PDT
The bottom line is, if you're looking for awe-inducing action and spectacle, this is your movie. If you believe there should be more to a superhero movie than that, you will be disappointed.

Posted on Jun 25, 2013 8:44:28 PM PDT
ajsteele says:
The spectacle had purpose which I have seen no counterpoint given to dispute. If you like your superhero movies lite and holding to what we have all seen before, then play back the cringe worthy Otis and Miss Tesbocker antics of Superman: The Movie. This film buff found a humble and conflicted Clark in MOS that compliments the long history of the character.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2013 2:32:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2013 5:12:57 AM PDT
Agree to disagree. This movie doesn't understand Superman at all. Superman is supposed to be the total opposite of Batman. Superman represents brightness, goodness, a shining example for humanity to aspire to. So, his films should have a light touch, not be dark and brooding like Batman. This movie should have been modeled more after the Captain America movie than Nolan's Batman movies.

Posted on Jun 26, 2013 6:58:59 AM PDT
ajsteele says:
Blanket statements with words such as brooding and dark and Nolans name attached are quite popular but collapse under scrutiny. How brightness or goodness is not seen when the foundation for Clarks life is revealed and sealed in these elements, along with genuine anger towards harm to his mother, and the desire to save the world at the cost of ones life is puzzling. Much to be aspired to there. Of course we are all entitled to our take on a film, but because something is different, and not fitting into the formulaic images of years past, it often becomes bogged down with critiques based in what must be, not simply what is. MOS certainly deserves a more careful analysis.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2013 8:01:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2013 9:04:00 AM PDT
Agree to disagree. Not blanket statements. Snyder may be the director, but it's very clear that Man of Steel is every bit a Nolan picture, even if he is just a producer.

Posted on Jun 26, 2013 9:40:05 AM PDT
ajsteele says:
"Agree to disagree" is a catchy phrase I agree. For clarity, a blanket statement is a generalized statement(s), which are aplenty in your commentary. I've seen no counterpoint to the positive attributes I outlined.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2013 9:45:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2013 11:17:54 AM PDT
My statements are based upon my knowledge of the character:
>the pre-1985 comics
After 1985, comics took on a more fatalistic tone that never resonated with me the way the swashbuckling earlier adventures did.
>the various TV shows (including cartoons)
>and the old movies
This interpretation of this beloved character is so alien to the one I've grown up with.

This sums up how I feel about this movie:
Prior to watching the movie, I was convinced that we were about to experience cinematic history. I felt it in my bones; this was going to be one of the greatest comic book adaptations of all time. I was wrong. If this is the tone of DC's future films, I'm a little worried about what's to come.

Posted on Jun 26, 2013 11:01:27 AM PDT
ajsteele says:
Let me help. Superman is an alien FIRST, which MOS pulls no punches on. I can't see how you would disagree with that aspect of the film. The comics emphasize his alien nature continually. I'm not sure how you move away from that. As well, basing your knowledge on prior films and comics is great if you realize that that comics and films (comics specifically) have altered Superman many times over. Does that trouble you? I wouldn't use prior Superman incarnations as a reference point since many are so different. Much of the early history of Superman does remain in MOS however, which is a good thing.
Minor deviations occurred in MOS that did not effect the morality of Superman. Killing a bad person to save the innocent is not immoral (except maybe in highly religious quarters).
If your hung up on the death scene, step away from the Chris Reeve era and remember that from the git-go the makers of MOS stated repeatedly that the movie was intended to be a real life depiction of the character. So, fair warning was in play. To say you thought you were going to see something different as an informed person is an ill stated remark.

You also must have liked the trailer to come to the conclusion that you were going to experience cinematic history. But even more important is that outside of mentioning the fight(s) scene that were too much for you, you have disregarded the wonderful attributes expressed in the film that make Superman who he is, which I pointed out. Feelings are good but if you enter a debate you might want to get into more than "its every bit a Nolan picture" without examples. By the way you edited your response quite a bit after my response.

Can you tell me how the film "doesn't understand Superman at all?

Why is it "dark and brooding?" (outside of writing Nolans name)

We don't have a masterpiece here with MOS but a solid Superman film that those used to the gimickey and comical notion of the character can't get passed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2013 11:13:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2013 3:39:11 PM PDT
This was one of those instances where the trailers fooled me.

This is a comical take on some other issues I had with the movie besides the fighting:

The overall tone of the film is what makes it dark and brooding. I think this movie should have taken The Avengers tone: some drama, some action, but come up for air occasionally. A few more of those post-barroom scenes would have done wonders for this movie. Not camp or comedy, but a few light scenes to balance out the otherwise morose tone of the film.

This sums up how I'm feeling about DC's current films in general:

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2013 2:26:58 PM PDT
ajsteele says:
Oh yeah as I said earlier the film had some shortcomings and I agree a few more fish out of water scenes to add a chuckle wouldn't have hurt. I actually found a few more chuckles and a couple of goofy expressions on Supermans face in a second viewing of the film that I didn't notice because of the top heavy action.

I just disagree with the harsh tone some have taken with the film. Its really a pretty interesting film. Superman is a champion and he never losses that in MOS. I'm glad it wasn't a "been there done that" take on the character as many thought it would be because it was an origins plus Zod and company revisited.

Posted on Jun 26, 2013 3:25:18 PM PDT
If I decide to see a sequel, and that's a major if, it will be a Netflix rental rather than paying ridiculous prices at the theater.

Posted on Jun 26, 2013 4:05:18 PM PDT
Box Office takes for 6/21/13 through 6/23/13 Monsters University $92,000,000. World War Z $74,000,000. Man Of Steel $41,000,000. So much for the "Me" generation. This movie was geared toward people who hate Superman. They stupidly thought LOUD criticism of the most beloved icon meant MAJORITY criticism. I can understand Monsters University doing well because Pixar films are popular family films. But for M O S not to beat World War Z is very telling. The WWZ trailer wasn't even impressive. Just your typical over the top, it's been done before, fast moving camera, explosions everywhere trailer.

Posted on Jun 30, 2013 12:02:48 PM PDT
Well it seems my numbers were off. It was really Monsters University 82 million, WWZ 66 million, but M O S was still 41 million. Now for this weekend of 6/28/13 - 6/30/13 Man of Steel drops to 5th place at 20 million. This is what happens when you cater to truly hateful people who falsely accuse other people of being hateful. More "personal opinions" marriages anybody?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  16
Total posts:  49
Initial post:  Jun 16, 2013
Latest post:  Nov 27, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Man of Steel (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital HD with UltraViolet)
Man of Steel (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital HD with UltraViolet) by Henry Cavill (Blu-ray - 2013)
3.9 out of 5 stars   (3,809)