criterionforum.org

Snyder and Nolan are completely humourless and that seems to be reflected in the trailer. Could they possibly take themselves any more seriously? At least Donner's versions had a lightness of touch that every so often deflated the pompousness of the Superman mythology.

Plus Shannon, as good an actor as he is, can't hope to match up to Terence Stamp.

rs98762001 wrote:Snyder and Nolan are completely humourless and that seems to be reflected in the trailer. Could they possibly take themselves any more seriously? At least Donner's versions had a lightness of touch that every so often deflated the pompousness of the Superman mythology.

Do we know that Snyder and/or Nolan had final cut on the trailer?

rs98762001 wrote:Plus Shannon, as good an actor as he is, can't hope to match up to Terence Stamp.

I can't disagree with you here.

Man of Steel is easily the worst of the cinematic versions of Superman (and pretty low on any version) with nothing being as good as it could be (and I do think many of the alterations could be good). This is another slave to the Donner/ Lester version of the character with John Kent's whole thing being completely and dully lifted from those films. The movie basically takes the worst aspects of the Batman Begins structure and takes away the practical effects that at least allowed that film to be interesting. The CGI may be excused if it was any good, but comes across so cartoonish and artificial as to take away from the bland griminess that Snyder shoots for. The action is also very incompetently edited especially in Crowe's action scenes. The film announces ideas to appear smart, but doesn't even utilize in the context of the story and runs from any supposed kitsch only to supply tons of it such as in a quoting of 300 or when Pa runs to save a dog. You'd think at least Michael Shannon as Zod would be tons of hammy fun, but he sleepwalks through the role so much that even a ridiculous monologue looks tired rather than the Stampian fun that could have been achieved. Amy Adams (who I normally adore) is also severely miscast which is a shame since her's is the only character that actually borders on being a character.

I mostly agree with knives. I don't think the casting was bad as everyone seem to do a decent job but the problem was the bad script. editing and direction. Also, it deviates so much from the so well known Superman story. Still, my biggest problem with the movie is the whole dark filter, brooding tone of the film. The guys behind this movie apparently don't understand that Superman and his story is completely the opposite from Batman's. Superman is the light to Batman's darkness and the film should have reflected that instead of making it look like a bad mix of 300 and Batman Begins, a tone which certainly doesn't fit Superman at all.

The funny thing is that a serious, existential take of the character is entirely possible to the point where it has been done before. Even something quick like the DCAU episode Only a Dream is more on point with how the character works. Even this underpowered version is never really at risk of losing a fight so extended sequences of exploding wheat could never draw suspense or excitement. Instead the question becomes how does he do this without killing anyone. Too bad this film fails with that on multiple fronts.

Just because.

Plus, having a dark Superman square off against a dark Batman in the mooted World's Finest team-up film saps that particular clash of its dynamic entirely. Supes is meant to be the wholesome square-jawed company man.

I thought it was awesome. 10/10 for me. It owes a lot to more recent SM comics of the last decade that take a more internal look at the effect of SM on the world. The Silver Age SM that formed the basis of the Donner-verse is enjoyable, but basically old hat and not at all what SM entails nowadays in the comics and to a certain degree the animated works since the mid-90s. I don't begrudge anyone if they'd rather have new films of the former type, but I was certainly ready for the newer SM to get his big screen due and the movie delivered just that to me.

That wasn't my complaint at all and it seems like deliberate mischaracterization to suggest I just want the Donner superman (much rather have the Moore or Morrison).

Who says I was responding specifically to you and your statement in isolation?

It was a general response to the negative takes on the film across the internet. If I was responding to a specific thing you were saying I would have quoted a specific statement of yours.

And like I said before, if someone was wanting one of the other takes on SM - whether Silver Age, Donner, or as you've stated, Moore & co. - then I understand their reservations about some of the choices here.

One thing I will specifically respond to is the idea of it being humorless. I found plenty of moments of levity that worked for me. I also don't necessarily equate contemplation of ones place in the world and treating the scenario as truly threatening as a problem of humor. To me, it makes the touches of humor which occur at many moments throughout the film more significant and meaningful.

This isn't to say I don't like the older take on the characters and story, either. I'm someone who quite likes the more lightheartedness and romanticism of the Silver Age/Donner/Singer films, as well as the Moore/Morrison take on the material.

Given that this forum's had little response and that yours was entirely in reference to other responses I had assumed it was directed toward me and DX. Frankly even ignoring how awfully I thought the film was shot I don't see any of the contemplation of ideas let alone the ones you mention in the film. Those ideas are very poorly shouted introduced at various points, but certainly never contemplated and never cohered within the film. For example the ending with Zod functions nearly as a non-sequitor as Supes' pacifism is never brought up before this point and before this point he never seemed to care about collateral. Those two ideas would need to have been brought up for that final equation to mean anything otherwise it just looks like he is taking the easy way out, which isn't bad in and of itself, and then exhausted or whatever afterward. That has as is no real thought though and that's just one example.

Well, agree to disagree I guess.

Completely agree with captveg. Thought the movie was brilliant, with some big Wagnerian dumbness of course.

Sets and costumes reminded me of Lynch's DUNE. At other times, thought it was downright Eisensteinian.

I'd also like to point out that this whole response "that's not what Superman is!" is deeply rooted in a bias towards Silver Age incarnations of the character. There was a great article about this in The New Republic a few weeks ago. 1938 Kal-El is actually very much a leftish social renegade. Very much a product of Popular Frontism.

And most importantly, as captveg mentioned, the past 10 years (if not the past 25 years) of Superman comics have attempted to bring an entirely different, introspective tone to the character -- against "Donnerism" -- that works extremely well. In particular, "Birthright" and even the new Grant Morrison Action Comics. Man of Steel went with that, and I thought it worked beautifully.

I'll take this over Nolan's "dark," pimply fascism any day of the week.

Uh, you know Nolan was a writer on this, right? Along with David Goyer, who co-wrote the Batman movies?

matrixschmatrix wrote:Uh, you know Nolan was a writer on this, right? Along with David Goyer, who co-wrote the Batman movies?

Yep!

I still don't understand why everyone blames Nolan for Batman being a dark, brooding character. Or why that might bother anyone.

Don't you remember the bright, campy fun of Tim Burton's Batman?

Mr Sausage wrote:I still don't understand why everyone blames Nolan for Batman being a dark, brooding character. Or why that might bother anyone.

Fair point. As Grant Morrison pointed out in his autobiography, Batman's always been an intensely right-wing creature:

Grant Morrison wrote:Superman began as a socialist, but Batman was the ultimate capitalist hero, which may help explain his current popularity and Superman's relative loss of significance. Batman was a wish-fulfillment figure as both filthy-rich Bruce Wayne and his swashbuckling alter ego. He was a millionaire who vented his childlike fury on the criminal classes of the lower orders. He was the defender of privilege and hierarchy. In a world where wealth and celebrity are the measures of accomplishment, it's no surprise that the most popular superhero characters today--Batman and Iron Man--are both handsome tycoons.

I'd tweak that a bit. Iron Man is certainly the ultimate "capitalist" hero as the activities Stark Enterprises--at least in the movies--converges far more with his Iron Man heroics. But in Nolan's Batman films, Wayne Enterprises or whatever is seen as a distance creation, separate entirely from the Batman heroics. If anything, this makes Batman significantly farther to the right of simply "a capitalist." After all, the fascists of the 1920s and 30s and the European nativist parties of today spend almost as much time taking shots at capitalism and the decadent bourgeoisie as they do immigrants.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Don't you remember the bright, campy fun of Tim Burton's Batman?

No, just the bleak unrelenting grimness of the Joel Schumacher entries.

Haha, yeah, but those certainly didn't define Batman in the public consciousness.

connor, I think that analysis is true in some ways- certainly Frank Miller's Batman and his love for the character are pretty directly due to the degree to which he can be fit to an outright fascistic narrative- but it's overly narrow, given the breadth of stories Batman has been used to tell, and doesn't fit say Batman: The Animated Series well at all. Moreover, the Nolan movies actually address those questions somewhat, particularly in the second and third entries, though I think they're intentionally designed so that one may draw whatever conclusion one wants out of them- the second is more successful in that regard, as the third winds up just doubling back on itself so much that it has no meaning whatsoever.

I think it's easy to overstate the immigrant hero aspect of Superman, too, though that's something that's been consciously resurrected lately- I think for any era in which his credo was 'truth, justice, and the American Way', he's something of a jingoistic figure of American exceptionalism, wherein the idea that American values should naturally 'help' everyone else, regardless of jurisdiction or whatever, was more or less universal. Both characters can be figures of imperialism or panic over crime or social revolution or whatever else you want them to be, as they are vast and contain multitudes.

I really liked how Ma and Pa Kent were written and acted out. The non-linear approach to his childhood on Earth was an inspired choice. I went in with realistic expectations, insofar as my taste went. The Nolan Batman movies appealed to the action/crime geek I can be more than the character itself. Much more since I am not a comic book guy at all. I went in with some optimism as well because I felt like the trailers were telling me that this telling of the story was made as relatable as can be. I'd say 75-80% of that was met. It's good popcorn Summer blockbuster with a bit more to it, just the way I like it.

So no one had a problem with

Spoiler

Superman killing Zod? One of the things that differentiates Superman and Batman from characters like the Punisher and Wolverine is that they don't kill. Big part of the plot in the Batman Begins was about Batman refusing to take someone's life. Some of the best Superman stories from the past 15 years like All-Star Superman, Kingdom Come and Superman vs the Elite have as a central plot the idea of Superman refusing to kill and always finding another way in order to stop the villains. I believe that those Superman qualities should have been preserved in order to show how Superman is not a soldier or a murderer.

Spoiler

He did technically kill Zod in Superman II as well. Purposely.

I did like how it was handled in this film, though. Supes was pleading with Zod to stop what he was doing, begging even when he had him in the choke hold. But I think it was obvious to him that if he let Zod live, just because of how he was "designed" so to speak, he would never stop until everyone was dead. I think there was an extra conflict simply because Zod was now the last Kryptonian after him so it's not like he did it with any enjoyment at all. I guess it all fits in with the conflict he had with his Earth dad as well, who wanted him to more or less suppress and hold back, and in this case it wasn't going to work.

I thought the film was okay after I was expecting I would hate it. I found I really enjoyed all of the stuff with younger Clark and his earth dad (I thought Costner was great in this actually) and his journey to discovering his path. Which made the last half so disappointing since it just breaks down into a bunch of super beings beating the crap out of each other for an hour and throwing each other into buildings. Over. And Over.

Lois was useless and might as well not have been there. I also have to admit a slight disappointment in Shannon as Zod. He was good, but man, did he take the role seriously. I do kinda wish he had a few Stamp moments. But I did like the conflict between him and Superman.

I haven't seen the movie, but the canonical version of how he dealt with Zod is that he zapped him with a Phantom Zone projector, which means essentially that he was hucked into an inescapable and hellish space jail for eternity- not sure that's better than killing, really.