Post by: Dragonfire on June 25, 2013, 09:53:57 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg/220px-ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg)
This is a reboot of the Superman movies, going back and dealing with the origins of the character again. I really enjoyed Superman Returns, though I know a lot of people didn't and the decision was made to restart the movies. Christopher Nolan is a producer and he worked on the story as well, so that made me hopeful before I saw the movie.
Once again, the movie starts on Krypton, though more time is spent there and a little more about the planet is shared. I liked that more of Krypton is shared and thing it looks very interesting. Jor-El has a decent amount to do this time, something else that I liked. A sort of hologram of him does turn up later in the movie too and it seems like it is more able to interact. Zod is an actual military general, in charge of the safety for the entire planet. He agrees with Jor-El about the planet being in danger, but his method for dealing with it is very different and gets him and his followers sent to the phantom zone. After the bit on Krypton, the movie jumps forward to show Clark as an adult, trying to figure out how to use his abilities. Important moments from his childhood are shown through flashbacks. That does mess with the flow just a bit, but it works overall. Clark discovers who he really is and meets Lois Lane when Zod shows up.
I did end up seeing this one in 3D because of the start times. The 3D didn't add anything, though I have discovered that fewer people tend to go to the 3D shows, so it wasn't as crowded. The effects are done well, though I do get why some people have said there was too much focus on the effects. Later in the movie, there is massive action that wipes out a lot of Smallville before moving on to Metropolis where several buildings are destroyed when Superman and Zod fight. That does go on a little longer than it needed to, though I do think it is needed to show that Zod is just as strong and he won't be stopped easily.
While some things are the same, there are other things that are a little different. Most of those things I think worked for the movie. Jonathan especially is shown to keep telling Clark that he has to keep his abilities a secret no matter what. That just doesn't exactly seem like Jonathan to me. While it is clear he loves Clark, he doesn't seem as supportive as other versions of the character have been. A lot of people have been upset by something that happens late in the movie. I'm not exactly thrilled by how that thing worked out, but I also see why it was done and how it will play into the future for Superman as well.
I really like this version of Lois. She was always capable, and smart, but somehow, this Lois seems a little smarter. Superman does save her at times, but she isn't just a damsal in distress and she is active in an attempt to deal with Zod and everything that is going on.
Man of Steel has a few issues, but it is a very good movie that works well overall. It is worth seeing.
I did post a longer review on Epinions.
Man of Steel (http://www.epinions.com/review/Man_of_Steel_epi/content_624169619076)
Post by: DJ Doena on June 25, 2013, 09:58:09 AM
The 3D didn't add anything
That's my main problem with 3D, especially if it's the only option at the theatre.
That's why I'm probably going to skip Man of Steel in the theatre altogether.
Post by: Dragonfire on June 25, 2013, 10:03:01 AM
Post by: DJ Doena on June 25, 2013, 10:49:18 AM
http://doena-journal.net/en/1238/3d-ticket-prices
Post by: Blair on June 26, 2013, 04:16:33 AM
I really like this version of Lois. She was always capable, and smart, but somehow, this Lois seems a little smarter.
And yet, she still can't tell even at close range that Clark and Superman are the same person because a pair of thick glasses and different hair despite being The Daily Planet's top reporter. :baffled: :laugh:
(I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if this revelation is made like in other movies.)
Post by: Dragonfire on June 26, 2013, 06:10:20 AM
I've just translated a blog post of mine which I had posted a few days ago in German:
http://doena-journal.net/en/1238/3d-ticket-prices
You made some very good points there. For the most part, all the 3D does is jack up the price. If 3D was just used once in a while, I wouldn't be as annoyed...but now just about every movie is converted to 3D that ends up not really being 3D. I know the studios want to do it became they make more money and theaters are showing more in 3D to cover the price of putting in the projectors. It still stinks though.
I really like this version of Lois. She was always capable, and smart, but somehow, this Lois seems a little smarter.
And yet, she still can't tell even at close range that Clark and Superman are the same person because a pair of thick glasses and different hair despite being The Daily Planet's top reporter. :baffled: :laugh:
(I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if this revelation is made like in other movies.)
I do admit that her failure to see through the "disguise" doesn't say much for her powers of observation or intelligence. Though she isn't the only one fooled by those things. I'm not saying how that is dealt with in this movie.
Post by: Achim on July 08, 2013, 06:18:48 AM
Post by: Jimmy on July 08, 2013, 07:05:45 AM
I have read a few Superman comics when I was young and I clearly do remember that Superman would always try to take the fight somewhere with less or no people, rather than duking t out in the middle of Metropolis, destroying the whole place and indirectly getting people killed...?It's the exact same thing that some of my friends said about the film... doesn't sound like a big deal, but someone who would have respected the source material would never made Superman act that way...
This is sure enough for me to skip that one and do like it was never made... maybe Superman IV was awfully made and surelly Superman Returns was boring as hell but at least the directors of those films made Superman act like Superman.
Post by: Achim on July 08, 2013, 03:46:21 PM
It's the exact same thing that some of my friends said about the film... doesn't sound like a big deal, but someone who would have respected the source material would never made Superman act that way...I have no love for Superman IV, but I definetely think Superman Returns is more respectful to the source.
This is sure enough for me to skip that one and do like it was never made... maybe Superman IV was awfully made and surelly Superman Returns was boring as hell but at least the directors of those films made Superman act like Superman.
Like I said, the movie is half good, all the stuff shown in the first two trailers. The other half matches the third trailer, which was super fast cut and all out action.
Jimmy, you need to Void this like the plague! It's a CGI Fest that won't be able to enjoy.
Post by: Jimmy on July 08, 2013, 04:54:19 PM
Jimmy, you need to Void this like the plague! It's a CGI Fest that won't be able to enjoy.I have no doubt about that, it's more the completist in me who was talking :laugh:
Post by: DJ Doena on July 08, 2013, 05:16:36 PM
And I have to say: I don't like it. Where is Clark's humanity (something that makes Superman Superman) if he lets his father die because of some BS rule?
Post by: DSig on July 08, 2013, 07:41:48 PM
I liked Superman Returns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns). I like the idea of starting a new 'casting/storyline' as a carry forward. Not a redefinition of the past.
Post by: Blair on July 08, 2013, 08:03:26 PM
Post by: Achim on July 09, 2013, 06:03:00 AM
I've read some reviews by now and also learned of the circumstances of Jonathan's death.
And I have to say: I don't like it. Where is Clark's humanity (something that makes Superman Superman) if he lets his father die because of some BS rule?
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Achim on July 09, 2013, 06:11:45 AM
And to pile on this :), I haven't seen it though will this week, I don't like the bit in the trailer where Jonathan acts all disappointed with Clark after saving a bus load of kids .. he says something like you have to keep your powers secret not matter what. I am sorry but I don't believe, having grown up on Superman, that Jonathan would ever have said anything of the kind.Well, I didn't mind this part so much. I already went through some length in regards of Karsten's remark in the above spoiler, but can say the following openly.
In the scene you refer to Clark is still a kid, an early teenager, maybe. I think Jonathan is simply realistic here: what would happen if Clark is officially revealed? Humanity will be happy to have this alien among them? No, not only will the government want to examine him, but there might be serious problems otherwise, like in regards to religions, etc. At least that was Jonathan's concern which he repeatedly expressed.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 09, 2013, 06:46:34 AM
Post by: Blair on July 10, 2013, 04:33:06 AM
It did kind of seem to me like Jonathan wasn't as....hmm...supportive as he has been in other versions. I get that he was worried about how people would react to what Clark could do, but it still seemed a bit...off to me.
It is, of course, possible that they specifically wanted changes like that in the film (still haven't seen it) so that it's the same story, but different. After all, how many times can a reboot be made interesting when you always have to lead off by telling the exact. same. story. every. single. time?
Post by: Dragonfire on July 10, 2013, 08:27:38 AM
Post by: DJ Doena on July 10, 2013, 02:54:56 PM
http://www.weirdfiction.de/article_database/man-of-steel-oder-st-superman-gegen-die-wissenschaft/
Here's a translation to the best of my abilities:
Quote
That Superman is in fact Jesus is practically known to everyone who’s analysed the character. And that’s not a problem in itself because he’s always been reduced to the best parts of godhood: He’s an all-powerful and infinitely gentle being which is benevolently watching over mankind. In the mediocre “Superman Returns” (which wasn’t as bad as it was made out to be – it focused on soap opera drama instead of the Übermensch aspect) there was one moment which characterized this perfectly: A gangster fired a bullet directly into his eye but Superman doesn’t even blink or loses the smirk on his face. Even though the guy tried to kill him, Superman doesn’t get mad and only smiles at him because he poses no threat to him. This scene shows him all-powerful yet benign.
“Man of Steel” fails at both and turns the nice tutelary deity into a fundamentalist god the likes of which has recently surfaced again during the gay marriage debate.
But before we get to the ideology first to the lack of opulence. That was something I really did not expect with Snyder! He pumped up the “Watchmen” to demigods even though they were originally designed as losers and it didn’t fit their profile at all. But now he suddenly fails to make the one original super being as big as he deserves it. From time to time there are scenes where he walks through fire or where he tests the boundaries which define his omnipotence. But these are rare because the first half is all about hiding his powers. When he finally gets into the costume the bad guys from the Phantom Zone have already arrived and they are his equals, thus he doesn’t stand out anymore.
Their spacecrafts, armours and tech further diverts from the powers the Kryptonians themselves possess. When that’s finally out of the way and the end boss fight with General Zod is happening we actually get a rumble of epic proportions – it just should have happened sooner.
That’s disappointing but at least not objectionable. But the ideological direction of the film leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
For starters Superman’s godlike status is pointed out more obvious than ever before. Multiple times he’s called the “son of El” and his Kryptonian surname is explained as meaning “hope”. I do not speak Kryptonian but I do know what “El” in the Semitic languages means and what subsequently the only hope is: God.
This hidden hint in the Superman myth is further underlined by having his deceased father Jor-El being omnipresent. It becomes over the top when he guides Lois Lane through the ship by being everywhere without moving himself.
When Superman doubts his destiny in a church then Jesus is right behind him in the Garden of Gethsemane. Just like Jesus he travels the world after his childhood and before his acceptance of his destiny and like Jesus he has to surrender to mankind if he wants to save them.
It becomes problematic when a question is answered I’ve been asking for a long time: Why didn’t Jor-El flee from Krypton himself? Did the ultra-advanced civilization which is known in the whole DC universe really have no other spacecraft? Now we learn that he wanted Krypton to perish. They used terraforming (which is going to be the bad guy’s weapon at the end). Their children are genetically enhanced and are prepared for their later career before they are even born (see Huxley). This is an offense against nature which deserves to be punished – like with the bringer of Noah’s flood from the Old Testament the innocent individual doesn’t count.
Later in the battle the bad guys gloat with their genetic enhancement and explain that they are the result of evolution and thus not bound to morality like Superman is. That’s a pretty big load of crap (evolution is nature; genetics, culture and morals are a completely different topic). But in today’s situation it puts them with a certain faction. Science – to which the study of evolution belongs – is automatically put in contrast (and irreconcilable) with acting morally. Positive characters thus are enemies of enlightenment: The amicable editor won’t print any articles about the existence of aliens because he doesn’t want to upset people – even if he loses a sensational headline. Superman’s adoptive father considers his son’s secret as his topmost priority.
At least the last one is understandable in principle. But the moment when secrecy becomes more important than saving lives, Superman loses his second important characteristic: His humanism. He’s criticized for saving a busload full of children and Jonathan (completely unnecessarily) sacrifices himself in a storm to save a dog which his invulnerable son could have rescued without any problem. Once again the message is that a single individual is less important than a higher being and higher cause and that is exactly NOT the foundation of the Superman myth.
His education comes to an end when he finally learns target-oriented killing. Of course only in self-defence, to defend the innocent and of course he cries about this. But that’s the only way to get a happy end and is the logical conclusion of the previous lessons.
You could think it’s a small moment of subversion when Superman destroys an army drone which wants to discover his secret identity. But even that becomes void when he explains that he’s pure American due to his growing up in Kansas and when he passes his vote of confidence to a high-ranking officer.
So in the end we have an American Jesus who is supposed to guide mankind, who knows how little a single individual counts in the grand scheme of things, who’s not a cosmopolitan but who thinks in context of nations (“us” and “them”) and whose enemies represent science.
The movie is enjoyable at times, the action sequences and the scenery looks great. It’s certainly better than the third and fourth Reeves movie. But oh the ideology. Just like with “300” I can imagine that Snyder did not think of these side effects (because if he tries to think, the result is “Sucker Punch”) but he didn’t understand at all what makes Superman Superman.
(Dirk M. Jürgens)
Post by: Kathy on July 10, 2013, 03:44:13 PM
Will this genre become a mandatory requirement at theological universities? I can see it now - what is your major? Superheroes!
I bought every comic book made when I was young and I have re-read them countless times over these many years. These are comic books - an enjoyable read with interesting characters - nothing more.
What is it about some characters that makes some people take an almost personal stake in what they do and how they are portrayed?
I go to the movies to enjoy the experience that is presented to me. I don't go into it needing the film to comply with any preconceived expectations. If you do then you're bound to be disappointed.
Post by: Jimmy on July 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM
After all, how many times can a reboot be made interesting when you always have to lead off by telling the exact. same. story. every. single. time?Maybe the solution for that is to make something new and not do remake or reboot...
Post by: Achim on July 11, 2013, 07:37:30 AM
I believe some people way over think things. A comic book character representing Jesus or God? Really?Just like with movies, it is not about what is on the page (or screen), it's about the subtext. That subtext usually only becomes obvious to the viewers and is not necessarily originally intended by the author.
So, just like with movies, it may work as a pure piece of entertainment, but one can also project themes onto it.
Beyond that, the article made it clear to me I actually like the movie even less than I thought at first :-\