Man of Steel (2013)

Originally posted by juggerman
1. No one said it didn't have more, but people are bashing it like other SH movies had not destruction whatsoever

No, people are not stating that. They are stating the level of destruction of a movie that includes Superman.

Originally posted by juggerman
2. Pretty much. Unless you care to point out what exactly was Superman's fault

If two people are fighting and damage is caused it does not matter who initiated the fight, both are at fault when it comes to the damage that is caused.

Originally posted by juggerman
3. We saw no one in the buildings unlike in the Avengers when Hulk was crashing thru fully occupied buildings with no regard for anyone that may have been in his path.

It is been awhile since I have seen the movie but I do not recall a fight where both Zod and Superman were fighting inside of a building. I do recall them hitting buildings but not fighting in them. Unless you can refresh my memory.

It seems that you are making a lot of assumptions. Once again this is Superman not the Hulk, expectations are different.

Originally posted by juggerman
4. Are you saying their were people in the air that they could have bumped into? And i never said the falling buildings couldn't hurt anyone but when exactly did Kal knock Zod thru a building?

I do recall Kal pushing Zod’s face through the glass of an office building and the building collapsing. Whether you assume people got hurt or not from actions such as those and similar ones, is up to you.

Originally posted by juggerman
5. Did you miss the part with him going into space and Zod knocking him right back down? And Kal could not just leave the city since Zod threatened to kill all the humans and couldn't fly at first. Kal leaving would have just left the humans at his mercy. Guess you went to see Superman: Zod kills all humans while Clark just runs away!

Right, in Superman II, Superman leaves a whole city in which Zod and his companions could have killed everyone.

Now the writers of MOS decided not to make Superman do the same but instead to continue the battle with Zod in the city. Guess, what, viewers favor the writing in Superman II more than MOS.

Note, both Zods hated Superman. So the situations are quite comparable.

During the battle with Zod in MOS all Zod did was follow Kal. There is really no reason why Kal who was stronger and more experience with his powers could not have led Zod out of the city.

Originally posted by juggerman
6. Is that not what counts? Maybe he should have only saved the city and let Zod destroy the rest of the world eh?

You talk about people not noticing scenes or not caring, well how about you try to notice a valid point so it does not have to keep being repeated.

In plain English, yes Superman saved the world. The compliant is the manner in which it occurred.

Originally posted by Kotor3
1 No, people are not stating that. They are stating the level of destruction of a movie that includes Superman.

2 If two people are fighting and damage is caused it does not matter who initiated the fight, both are at fault when it comes to the damage that is caused.

3 It is been awhile since I have seen the movie but I do not recall a fight where both Zod and Superman were fighting inside of a building. I do recall them hitting buildings but not fighting in them. Unless you can refresh my memory.

4 It seems that you are making a lot of assumptions. Once again this is Superman not the Hulk, expectations are different.

5 I do recall Kal pushing Zod’s face through the glass of an office building and the building collapsing. Whether you assume people got hurt or not from actions such as those and similar ones, is up to you.

6 Right, in Superman II, Superman leaves a whole city in which Zod and his companions could have killed everyone.

Now the writers of MOS decided not to make Superman do the same but instead to continue the battle with Zod in the city. Guess, what, viewers favor the writing in Superman II more than MOS.

Note, both Zods hated Superman. So the situations are quite comparable.

During the battle with Zod in MOS all Zod did was follow Kal. There is really no reason why Kal who was stronger and more experience with his powers could not have led Zod out of the city.

7 You talk about people not noticing scenes or not caring, well how about you try to notice a valid point so it does not have to keep being repeated.

In plain English, yes Superman saved the world. The compliant is the manner in which it occurred.

1. So a city being destroying in Avengers is ok but woe on thee that makes the same happen in Superman? Have they never read a Superman comic?

2. We disagree there. Superman was trying to avoid a fight but Zod attacked. He had to fight back or be killed

3. Superman is knocked into a building and Zod follows him in. It's when his HV first happens

4. So again double standards and ignorance of Superman stories. When two superpowers collide there is damage

5. Hard to imagine people being hurt by glass flying into an empty building but maybe that's just me

6. Negative. it's not the same at all. In Superman II Zod decided to rule the humans. In MoS he decided to kill all the humans. See the difference? Superman leaving could have easily resulted in Zod just turning his anger on the bystanders

7. I notice the valid points. These are not very valid

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😆

@Kotor3, Are you a disgruntled screenwriter or something

Originally posted by Kotor3
Avengers
The theme was set for the movie Avengers from the beginning of the movie. Everyone watching the movie new that superheroes were being gather together to fight a war that would dictate the fate of man.

Originally posted by Kotor3
So, of course there was going to be damage and casualties however the director did a good job of directing attention of the movie viewers on focusing on the heroes defeating the bad guys.

Originally posted by Kotor3
What many people are failing to see is that people are not necessary complaining about the damage that was caused in MOS but how it was caused and how Superman reacted to it.

He turned himself over to Zod, then broke Zod's neck to prevent 3 people from being fried; if that's not a show of concern, i dunno what it.

Originally posted by Kotor3
In Superman II from the start of the fight with Zod and his companions we see Superman looking at his surrounding, the director is clearly showing that Superman is aware of the where the battle is taking place and conscious of the damage that would be caused. This was so prevalent that Zod notice it as a weakness.

We do not see this in MOS. Yes, he is just starting out as Superman, but that is really not an excuse.

Originally posted by Kotor3
In MOS we never see Superman try to take the fight out of the city or use his brain to try to direct Zod to fight him somewhere outside of the city. It was just a fight scene that you could have done with any action figure but not a representation of Superman.

Originally posted by Kotor3
do not criticize people for making valid complaints about MOS movie.

have you ever read a Superman comic, or does all of your knowledge of the character stem from the movie "Superman II"?

Originally posted by juggerman
1. So a city being destroying in Avengers is ok but woe on thee that makes the same happen in Superman? Have they never read a Superman comic?

Once again you miss the point. The majority of people hold Superman to a different standard then most Superheroes. Blame it on the Christopher Reeves Superman movies. You do not have to agree with that view but that is how Superman is viewed. Damage is not the point here. Damage is expected in a fight between any super beings. It is how the damage occurred and mostly Superman’s attitude toward the damage.

Please stop using the Avengers a group that consisted of a freakish out of controlled monster, demi-god, and assassins as a comparison to Superman. Avengers are a horrible comparison that is not helping your argument.

Originally posted by juggerman
2. We disagree there. Superman was trying to avoid a fight but Zod attacked. He had to fight back or be killed

Ok. However, I do hope you understand the difference between avoiding a fight and leading a fight to a different location.

Originally posted by juggerman
3. Superman is knocked into a building and Zod follows him in. It's when his HV first happens

Originally posted by juggerman
4. So again double standards and ignorance of Superman stories. When two superpowers collide there is damage

There is no double standard, you just don’t agree with the way Superman is held and viewed in comparison to other Superheroes.

Originally posted by juggerman
5. Hard to imagine people being hurt by glass flying into an empty building but maybe that's just me[QUOTE=14382503]Originally posted by juggerman
[B]

The glass was flying out of the building and the building collapse according to my memory. Since it has been a while since I have seen the movie I am taking your statement that the building was empty as truth. But I may watch the movie again because I do not recall all of this.

[QUOTE=14382503]Originally posted by juggerman
[B]6. Negative. it's not the same at all. In Superman II Zod decided to rule the humans. In MoS he decided to kill all the humans. See the difference? Superman leaving could have easily resulted in Zod just turning his anger on the bystanders[QUOTE=14382503]Originally posted by juggerman [B]

True in Superman II Zod wanted to rule humans, however there are two valid points that you are forgetting concerning that Zod.
1. He showed on more than one occasion that he had no problem killing humans.
2. In that battle between Zod and Superman, Zod and his companions had already started attacking humans once they saw it as a weakness for Superman before Superman decided to leave the city.

Zod could have continued to try to get Superman to come back. He knew Superman cared for humans.

The only time Zod tried to attack a human that I recall in MOS is before he got his neck snapped. His comments to Kal was, if he wins he was going to kill the humans and that if Kal wanted to save them he would have to kill him. The battle was between them winner receives the spoil.

[QUOTE=14382503]Originally posted by juggerman
[B] 7. I notice the valid points. These are not very valid

Reality is you do not. You do not have to agree with a perspective or point for it to be valid.

Either way, I say we agree to disagree.

You seem to feel that movie is a great superman movie. I on the other hand feel it is a great action picture but not a great superman movie. I gave my reasons before, but simply put I did not feel enough of superman attributes were displayed in the fight scenes nor were there good emotional connection between the characters.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Once again you miss the point. The majority of people hold Superman to a different standard then most Superheroes. Blame it on the Christopher Reeves Superman movies. You do not have to agree with that view but that is how Superman is viewed. Damage is not the point here. Damage is expected in a fight between any super beings. It is how the damage occurred and mostly Superman’s attitude toward the damage.

So basically you, and others like you, wanted a Christopher Reeve Superman movie and were upset it wasn't like that. That's all you had to say. " I dislike MoS because i wanted it to be like Christopher Reeve's Superman".

Originally posted by Kotor3
Please stop using the Avengers a group that consisted of a freakish out of controlled monster, demi-god, and assassins as a comparison to Superman. Avengers are a horrible comparison that is not helping your argument.

Not at all. But as it hurts your stance i can see why you'd want me to stop bringing it up.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Ok. However, I do hope you understand the difference between avoiding a fight and leading a fight to a different location.

I do. But you're acting like the option was a given. He could barely keep up with what was going on and Zod was much more aggressive than your Zod for Superman II. He was all over Supes

Originally posted by Kotor3
There is no double standard, you just don’t agree with the way Superman is held and viewed in comparison to other Superheroes.

There is. This superhero can do this but this one can not is indeed a double standard. Not reffering to abilities that is

Originally posted by Kotor3
Reality is you do not. You do not have to agree with a perspective or point for it to be valid.

Either way, I say we agree to disagree.

I do i just do not find your complains valid. Little hint tho: just because you feel a certain way doesn't automatically mean you have a valid reason to do so.

Yes we do

Originally posted by Kotor3
You seem to feel that movie is a great superman movie. I on the other hand feel it is a great action picture but not a great superman movie. I gave my reasons before, but simply put I did not feel enough of superman attributes were displayed in the fight scenes nor were there good emotional connection between the characters.

An early Superman movie shouldn't display him at his very best imo. Nothing to build up to if that's the case. It'll show character development when he learns to handle himself better

Originally posted by marwash22
Superman in "MoS" was also fighting a war that would dictate the fate of man.
Your beef is that "MoS" showed too many people in the midst of the carnage? Is it your stance that the audience was naive to the fact that people died in "Avengers" during the invasion, specifically when the leviathan crashed through several buildings?

This horrible example that you and some others keep using is becoming irrelevant to this discussion. No one is discussing your opinion (nor am I interested in doing so) about how people should feel about damage caused in superhero movies.

There is a standard that people have for Superman. Recognize it and Get over it.

Originally posted by marwash22
When did he have time to react to it on an emotional level? The entire time damage was being done, he was getting his ass kicked... him fighting back and trying to stop Zod and co. from doing more damage to the planet and exterminating all life on the planet [b]was his reaction.
He turned himself over to Zod, then broke Zod's neck to prevent 3 people from being fried; if that's not a show of concern, i dunno what it.
the director did this to show that Superman isn't inherently perfect; it's a way to show growth in the character instead of being a Sue who never makes mistakes.
incorrect; it's not a representation of Superman as seen in "Superman II", but it's a very accurate representation of the actual source material.
your entire opinion seems to based on the false assertion that the character who appears in "Superman II" is the way Superman should be portrayed, right from his inception.
have you ever read a Superman comic, or does all of your knowledge of the character stem from the movie "Superman II"? [/B]

Look everyone can make comments to support their perspective of the movie. If you feel the movie represented Superman well, then I say ok. That is your opinion.

Now to address your other comment concerning comics, I will admit I have not read a superman comic in a long time. But I have read many, so tell me is the Superman in MOS the best representation of the various versions Superman from the comics?

Your statement seems to mean that MOS superman is the superman from the comics (meaning all of them).

Originally posted by juggerman
So basically you, and others like you, wanted a Christopher Reeve Superman movie and were upset it wasn't like that. That's all you had to say. " I dislike MoS because i wanted it to be like Christopher Reeve's Superman".

Not at all. But as it hurts your stance i can see why you'd want me to stop bringing it up.

I do. But you're acting like the option was a given. He could barely keep up with what was going on and Zod was much more aggressive than your Zod for Superman II. He was all over Supes

There is. This superhero can do this but this one can not is indeed a double standard. Not reffering to abilities that is

I do i just do not find your complains valid. Little hint tho: just because you feel a certain way doesn't automatically mean you have a valid reason to do so.

Yes we do

An early Superman movie shouldn't display him at his very best imo. Nothing to build up to if that's the case. It'll show character development when he learns to handle himself better

Well, I respect your opinion and enjoyed the conversation but I am not going to agree with you.

I think best statement made on this form was that some people wanted to see Superman Begins and others did not. I did not.

Originally posted by Kotor3
There is a standard that people have for Superman. Recognize it and Get over it.

also, you sound upset. calm down.

Originally posted by Kotor3
is the Superman in MOS the best representation of the various versions Superman from the comics?

Your statement seems to mean that MOS superman is the superman from the comics (meaning all of them).

Never claimed it was the "best" representation, I discredited your claim that it was an invalid representation altogether.

Never claimed that either. What I'm saying is that, death and destruction, and Superman trying his best to curtail it, has always been apart of Superman comics; the people who don't realize that Superman isn't infallible are coming from the perspective of only knowing how the character is portrayed in the Reeve films.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Yes, agree.
And although we have flash backs of Clark saving a school bus of kids & then later, crew on an oil-rig....this is one Superman movie where we don't really see The Big Blue BoyScout saving those whose trust he asks for. This is one film where he views Zod as the bully he can finally stand up to, regardless of the consequences.

I disagree, tbh, but that's me.

Originally posted by Kotor3
I do not agree that it is an unrealistic expectation.

The point is his powers or lack of experience with his powers is not a good enough excuse or reason. Once again if you look at Superman II, Superman left the city because it did not matter how experience he was with his powers, there was no way to limit the damage that was going to be caused.

Simply put, in MOS, Zod needed Superman more than he did in Superman II. He would have travelled anywhere to obtain Superman. The writers and directors did not give Superman (33 year old man) the intellect to try and move the fight outside of the city.

All everyone wanted to see was for him to try.

I don't agree; I think that Superman was able to fight Zod at all, after what he'd been through, was a minor miracle.

Yep.

Originally posted by marwash22
it's a standard held by people who do not have much knowledge of the character.

That is the real point I am making when discussing this point. Christopher Reeves did a heck of a job as Superman and in my opinion Christopher Reeves is the best on screen depiction of what Superman is meant to be.

I did not expect this type of Superman in MOS especially since I knew Nolan was the director. However, I am not upset and will not state that people lack knowledge of Superman from the comics because they were expecting something little similar to Christopher Reeves. There just too many versions to make a statement like that.

Whoever plays superman or makes a movie about him is going to have to do a lot to appeal to the broader audience who are expecting that Christopher Reeves type Superman, if they are going to stray away from that version. MOS appeals to those who are familiar with that version of Superman.

Did MOS do enough? That is a decision for each person to make.

Originally posted by marwash22
also, you sound upset. calm down.

I am not upset I just made a strong statement since I kept hearing the same response. Sorry if I offended you.

Originally posted by marwash22
Never claimed it was the "best" representation, I discredited your claim that it was an invalid representation altogether.
Never claimed that either. What I'm saying is that, death and destruction, and Superman trying his best to curtail it, has always been apart of Superman comics; the people who don't realize that Superman isn't infallible are coming from the perspective of only knowing how the character is portrayed in the Reeve films.

I agree with your statement. Though I do not believe that the Reeves Superman was depicted as infallible he definitely showed in the first two movies that he was fallible.

Now, I never claimed it was an invalid representation. I do not feel it was a great representation for a new Superman series. Therefore, you have my statements that MOS is a great action picture not a great Superman movie.

I have been through this conversation earlier on this forum and I do not want to repeat everything I stated earlier but to sum it up:
1. I felt Nolan was trying to be too different from the Reeves Superman and missed some key attributes of Superman.
2. Most of all I really did not want to see Superman Begins especially with Zod in it.
3. I felt character development could have been done much better.

It is not a bad movie just not a great Superman movie in my opinion.

small point of clarification: Zack Snyder directed MoS, Nolan was a writer/producer.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't agree; I think that Superman was able to fight Zod at all, after what he'd been through, was a minor miracle.

Ok. I guess it really depends on the perspective you are taking with the movie. Since he is not really superman yet in this movie, I understand your statement.

Originally posted by marwash22
small point of clarification: Zack Snyder directed MoS, Nolan was a writer/producer.

My mistake. Nolan was involved so any hope of a Christopher Reeve type superman was erased.

Originally posted by marwash22
it's a standard held by people who do not have much knowledge of the character.

also, you sound upset. calm down.

Never claimed it was the "best" representation, I discredited your claim that it was an invalid representation altogether.

Never claimed that either. What I'm saying is that, death and destruction, and Superman trying his best to curtail it, has always been apart of Superman comics; the people who don't realize that Superman isn't infallible are coming from the perspective of only knowing how the character is portrayed in the Reeve films.

👆

Originally posted by Kotor3
Well, I respect your opinion and enjoyed the conversation but I am not going to agree with you.

I think best statement made on this form was that some people wanted to see Superman Begins and others did not. I did not.

Still friends? 😄

Originally posted by Kotor3
My mistake. Nolan was involved so any hope of a Christopher Reeve type superman was erased.

It was NEVER,EVER GOING TO BE anything like Reeves Superman

**** Superman Reeve.

I love the guy and his performance as Superman is part of my childhood and I will always cherish it and he was an inspiration, but it is time to move on.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
**** Superman Reeve.

I love the guy and his performance as Superman is part of my childhood and I will always cherish it and he was an inspiration, but it is time to move on.

NO Mister it is Reeves Superman 😄

but yeah people need to move on from the past .. I myself love the original Reeve Supes films except parts 3 and 4, but with Man of Steel I believe they got it right and will get into something really great