I disliked it because I actually fell for the trailer. It made out that MoS was going to be epic, both emotionally and in terms of the inevitable battle with Zod.
Instead, Zod was that god awful Shannon, the Kryptonians were generally hugely underwhelming, Lois Lane was naff and thin on character and Clark, though he looked the part and you really wanted him to be substantial, was just vacuous.
The whole of the Krypton story was awful, from the tech and stupid pin-board intercom/speaker shit to their architecture and dress and ships.
I never liked the idea of Kryptonians being this super advanced race who never thought of having off-planet colonies and inter-stellar travel ships and such. But if you're going to stick with the comics, atleast bring out some angle that's a little more emotionally powerful.
Instead the Kryptonians just seemed like limp deathrow inmates and Zod - as awful as he was - atleast had some fight about him.
Anyway, as I said, the trailer made me hope for something epic, the film let me down. Badly.
I actually had almost the exact opposite opinion on Zod. I felt that the movie made him too sympathetic at the beginning which made him going all genocidal and eliminating bloodlines weird. Personally I'd rather have this Lois than one who acts completely invincible for no reason: in this case she just happens to be around when the plot demands it. Also Faora bringing the pain-train makes up for the rest of the mook Kryptonians.
I personally liked "Not Pandora" Krypton, but I can see why most wouldn't: could've dealt without the sperm-shaped pods and Matrix-babies.
I've got nothing for this one. Though it did have a pretty cool fight between Jor-el and Zod at the beginning that I though was cool. And we did see Laura get incinerated if that strikes your fancy.
Sorry to hear that. Hopefully MoS 2 with Affleck-man will be better in that regard.
That's not a passive description of something benign, that's (one of many) a glaring flaw in the film. Any film. Having something done that logically should not be done for the sake of plot contrivances is a flaw. In this case, a rather egregious one, since it's Lois' inexplicable and pointless presence in these scenarios that's driving forward the plot and resolution. If such contrivances need to happen, then there's something inherently wrong with your movie.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
The airplane scene is really the only thing good that I got in Superman Returns.
Instead of trying something new I felt that it tried to hard to recapture Donner's success, which meant campy Lex and an insufferable Lois. Needless to say the acting was pretty good even though it was a snooze-fest.
Here's hoping Affleck will wow us.
Its a flaw sure but it doesn't break the movie. Not that far off from Loki somehow surviving at the end of the first Thor.
"At the end" (literally after the credits) being a key phrase. Whatever other problems Thor had, it saved that particular contrivance for after the movie was over.
But like I said, Lois' total uselessness (other than being a expository convenience) is one of many--MANY--flaws in MoS. And like I would argue with even the hated Star Wars prequels... it's not the plot holes that make a movie suck, it's the emotions and sensations that the movie as a whole both conveys to (or doesn't) and elicits from (or doesn't) the audience. MoS elicited from me at various times boredom, confusion, embarrassment, and frustration, and it conveyed to me at various times a lack of humor, joy, humanity, empathy, or humility.
And it's fascinating, because I think I can see where and how so many people like it, and why everyone was supposed to, but watching the film I can't for the life of me feel why I should. The movie is emotionally hollow to me.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
That flaw is a key point in driving the Avengers plot. Loki being brought back by convenience and a pretty vague explanation is equal to Lois conveniently showing up to wherever she needs to be. Still doesn't break the movie. It could've used a tad more humor and the movie did have a bit a humility where Supes regrets not being a beacon of hope like AI Jor-el planned. Don't really need empathy with a indestructible alien fighting other indestructible aliens but to each their own.
Yup, it's equivalent, and nope, it doesn't break the movie. Still not forgivable.
I was actually on the cusp of saying before that the post-credits Thor scene is actually a plot WTF for Avengers. But where the Marvel franchise tends to embrace silly story, over-the-top action, goofy dialogue and general cartoonishness, Man of Steel was meant to be the polar opposite of that. I can dismiss Loki's survival in space because he's a magical god from a magical space-heaven where they walk on rainbows and beam themselves through "bifrosts" or whatever. It's ridiculous and comical and it doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Man of Steel however... is a dark, gritty, serious, joyless, humorless movie where reality seeps in to a far larger degree than in the Avengers--in other words where the tone and feel of the movie is NOT silly/goofy/cartoonish. But the execution of the dialogue/plot IS. Loki can do whatever the f*ck he wants, those movies are all about that. Lois Lane being inexplicably involved despite no logical reason for being so, is annoying and bothersome. Comparing the two is like comparing Batman Forever and Batman Begins. You can see the similarity, but holy hell, they're not the same thing at all.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
How is Lois being places a contrivance? The Kryptonians brought her on the ship as a hostage and for information and after that she was around since Jor-El told her how to defeat Zod and gang. As far as movie plots go, I not seeing how thats even a little contrived.
As opposed to the usual Lois Lane who'd beat up Zod herself.
Lois is always "useless." She's an ordinary human, not even a trained one, shes a reporter. What the hell is she going to contribute other than exposition? I was quite impressed by how they were able to work her into the plot myself. I can't think of ANY other thing she could have done than what she actually does in MoS.
Wait, why was she on Zod's ship? Why did Zod want her onboard? What information did she have? I know she was around later because of what Jor-El told her on Zod's ship, but it's why she was there in the first place that's the issue. I can't think of a logical reason given in the movie as to why Lois was brought onboard. Her presence in the rest of the movie is predicated on her presence there first, so why did Zod bring her onboard? I remember sitting in the theatre and asking that, and afterward couldn't recall an explanation. Did I miss something n the Kryptonians' dialogue? Did Zod explain to Kal-El why he found Lois' presence to be advantageous?
The "usual" Lois Lane is Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Who is annoying to look at and listen to. I don't even remember the 2006 one. I'm not comparing Superman films here, they're all bad. But where the Reeve films are funny bad, and the Snyder film is forgettable bad, Man of Steel is frustratingly bad. Like I said, I can see where it's supposed to be good. I never saw that with the others.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
And yet the fact that Superman slipped her something seconds before somehow eluded the telepathic machine going through every encounter she had with Superman....
KMC Community Forums
Nov 13th, 2013 04:01 AM
