Why Man of Steel Superman Does not Top Reeve’s version

Yes, Man of Steel has the special effects but that is about it.

Man of Steel had the chance to actually set the standard and face of a new Superman however it failed horribly in this regards. Reeve is still regarded as the ultimate version of Superman.

The persona of Superman in ‘Man of Steel’ just was not what most people wanted to see (those familiar with the comics and those who are not).

Emotionally he was not stable and mature as Reeve’s version was before he even started to take up the mantle of Superman. To sum it up he was not a Superman that anyone was familiar with or liked.

This differs greatly from Nolan’s Batman which even though he did not kill, he was almost as dark as Keaton’s version while keeping all of the same characteristics and adding some new advantages which is why his Nolan’s version is comparable if not better.

There is no advantages or comparable characteristics when comparing Man of Steel Superman to Reeve’s version. Hence why I believe it failed to become the new Superman for everyone.

I was familiar with him. I liked him. shrug

the point of this thread, what is it?

Seems like you made an entire thread to voice your personal opinion which could have been done in the actual MoS thread.

Stupid thread, when 3 others exist.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Yes, Man of Steel has the special effects but that is about it.

Man of Steel had the chance to actually set the standard and face of a new Superman however it failed horribly in this regards. Reeve is still regarded as the ultimate version of Superman.

The persona of Superman in ‘Man of Steel’ just was not what most people wanted to see (those familiar with the comics and those who are not).

Emotionally he was not stable and mature as Reeve’s version was before he even started to take up the mantle of Superman. To sum it up he was not a Superman that anyone was familiar with or liked.

This differs greatly from Nolan’s Batman which even though he did not kill, he was almost as dark as Keaton’s version while keeping all of the same characteristics and adding some new advantages which is why his Nolan’s version is comparable if not better.

There is no advantages or comparable characteristics when comparing Man of Steel Superman to Reeve’s version. Hence why I believe it failed to become the new Superman for everyone.

The Reeves era films were good for their time (about 3 decades ago), but they admittedly do not hold up with contemporary superhero films. They're kind of cheesy TBH.

Besides the one scene with the trucker, I think they got Superman's persona pretty down pat in this. I liked and familiarized with him. He was clearly an altruistic hero.

Also, the ultimate version of Superman to me is the DCAU version. Everything else is just a variant.

But yeah, I'd much rather watch MOS than one of the Reeves films.

Originally posted by Lestov16
The Reeves era films were good for their time (about 3 decades ago), but they admittedly do not hold up with contemporary superhero films. They're kind of cheesy TBH.

Besides the one scene with the trucker, I think they got Superman's persona pretty down pat in this. I liked and familiarized with him. He was clearly an altruistic hero.

Also, the ultimate version of Superman to me is the DCAU version. Everything else is just a variant.

But yeah, I'd much rather watch MOS than one of the Reeves films.

Agreed, I have every movie of Superman, and yet I find myself wanting to watch MoS more then the other ones when its time to see a Superman flick.

Well of course. Unlike Total Recall or Robocop, Superman was a film that actually needed rebooting. And they did an awesome job IMO. quite honestly, the more I think about, the more I think MOS might be my favorite superhero film (Watchmen, 300, Sin City are my favorite comic book films, but they're not the same). The comparatively weak alien invasion of the Avengers doesn't hold a candle to the Kryptonian invasion.

Man of Steel was a film of very little substance. The action was repetitive and flat. The characters and the plot were lackluster as well. All in all a major disappointment.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Man of Steel was a film of very little substance. The action was repetitive and flat. The characters and the plot were lackluster as well. All in all a major disappointment.

Disappointment? For you it was probably a celebration how crappy it was

Originally posted by Firefly218
Disappointment? For you it was probably a celebration how crappy it was

There are many reasons why Man of Steel is not a good superman movie. However, the purpose of this thread is to discuss and see people opinions as to whether people view this version of Superman as the best.

For the most part I believe those who favor Man of Steel movie like the version of Superman in this movie. However I believe one of the biggest reasons people did not like the movie was because of how Superman was portrayed.

Yes Reeve’s movies are old but his version still reigns Supreme. I believe that is the general view. Thoughts?

Originally posted by Lestov16
The Reeves era films were good for their time (about 3 decades ago), but they admittedly do not hold up with contemporary superhero films. They're kind of cheesy TBH.

Besides the one scene with the trucker, I think they got Superman's persona pretty down pat in this. I liked and familiarized with him. He was clearly an altruistic hero.

Also, the ultimate version of Superman to me is the DCAU version. Everything else is just a variant.

But yeah, I'd much rather watch MOS than one of the Reeves films.

The trucker scene is a good example, him breaking the handcuffs and saying (if I remember correctly) let us put our cards on the table, and the ending scene with the satellite.

He displayed (which everyone is aware of) too much of the, I can do what I want attitude if wanted instead of a person who is always in controlled.

That is a bit of change and I do not think it went over well with the audience. With Reeve’s version you were always guessing how powerful he was because of the way he acted. That gave it the awe factor when he displayed his abilities.

Superman Returns shows that with updated special effects, Reeve’s version would still be accepted.

There were no complaints about Superman in that movie just the lack of action.

I was crushed by the time I left the theater. Was a disappointing film.

5 Reasons MOS sucked balls:

1. He probably killed hundreds of people with all the buildings he flew through.
2. He wasn't overly concerned with saving lives as much as fighting the bad guys.
3. I don't think there was a single still shot in the whole film, Zach Snyder was trying to be visionary with his flashbacks and breaking his camera crew's wrists, but it just came off like he was trying way too hard to be different.
4. Lois Lane knows Clark is Superman... like wtf... There is like... I don't even...
5. Too much focus on violence and fight scenes. The opening scene on Krypton ****ed around for way too long. Because ol Zach wanted to stretch the battle scenes and milk it for everything it was worth.

Conclusion: Zach Snyder Ruined Superman and now he wants ruin Batman with Superman VS Batman.

1. This isn't your mommas superman.
2. This isn't your mommas superman.
3. Still shots, what are we in the 60's There was plenty of flashbacks.
4. Finally a change. By your logic everything needs to be the exact same as the last 5 films we have seen...
5. You really sounds like pansy at this point...

Conclusion, quit smoking weed hippy.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
1. This isn't your mommas superman.
2. This isn't your mommas superman.
3. Still shots, what are we in the 60's There was plenty of flashbacks.
4. Finally a change. By your logic everything needs to be the exact same as the last 5 films we have seen...
5. You really sounds like pansy at this point...

Conclusion, quit smoking weed hippy.

And you obviously swallow everything Hollywood serves you.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Yes, Man of Steel has the special effects but that is about it.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
5 Reasons MOS sucked balls:

1. He probably killed hundreds of people with all the buildings he flew through.
2. He wasn't overly concerned with saving lives as much as fighting the bad guys.
3. I don't think there was a single still shot in the whole film, Zach Snyder was trying to be visionary with his flashbacks and breaking his camera crew's wrists, but it just came off like he was trying way too hard to be different.
4. Lois Lane knows Clark is Superman... like wtf... There is like... I don't even...
5. Too much focus on violence and fight scenes. The opening scene on Krypton ****ed around for way too long. Because ol Zach wanted to stretch the battle scenes and milk it for everything it was worth.

Conclusion: Zach Snyder Ruined Superman and now he wants ruin Batman with Superman VS Batman.

1. He was fighting Zod.
2. Yes he was, he just had to deal with Zod.
3. By using techniques other directors have used for years?
4. Why shouldn't she?
5. Superman's first world saving always has to be big. Always. It establishes how important he is to Earth.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
And you obviously swallow everything Hollywood serves you.

Nah you just want Superman movies to be the same boring crap hollywood has served us for the last 5 movies. Sorry this isn't the 60's anymore. Time moves forward.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Nah you just want Superman movies to be the same boring crap hollywood has served us for the last 5 movies. Sorry this isn't the 60's anymore. Time moves forward.

Indeed. The time has come for a high budget Superman Film with killer special effects, a cunning antagonist, camera angles that don't make it look like it was filmed by someone with parkinson's and a Superman with the power to divert the effects of nuclear impact. We also deserve the quirky awkwardness of Clark Kent the journalist. Where the hell was that in MOS, god forbid Zach Snyder should have an entertaining scene that didn't involve someone dying to save a dog.