Man of Steel

[Zombie_61]

Meh. Where's George Reeves when you need him?

In my opinion, Reeves was the best live-action incarnation of Superman/Clark Kent. But, clearly, he wasn't faster than a speeding ******.



What, too soon?

 

[vintageTink]

I like my Superman idealistic, raised on a farm by caring foster parents who instilled good honest values in him. Yes there's a time and place for him to brood and contemplate his place in the world, but ultimately he's just an old-fashioned good guy. There's a place for them even in 2013, I'd like to think.

Thank you!
I also prefer him as an "overgrown Boy Scout", as Lex Luthor referred to him. A genuine good guy.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Well, as a Superman fan going back to the silver age comics, George Reeves series, and Fleischer cartoons that defined the character in my childhood, I mostly liked it. Hey, the 1978 film was mostly very good in its day (and Christopher Reeve was a tremendous find), but there's no point in maintaining fealty to that 70s/80s approach nowadays... The awful, DOA Superman Returns failed for exactly that reason.

What I liked: the casting, starting with Henry Cavill and Amy Adams, and going right down the line. That Clark/Kal is 33 years old - Superman should be a bit more mature (a la George Reeves): one of the things I most hated about Superman Returns was that it allegedly took place five years after Superman II... but the new actors were YOUNGER than the previous stars! The new conception of Lois as an actually brilliant investigative reporter, and doing away with the entertaining-but-silly Clark/Lois/Superman romantic triangle. The production design and effects work, which were definitely super. The complete lack of camp or winking-at-the-audience irony. The overall science fiction tone: always the best native mode for Superman, as detective mysteries are for Batman.

What I disliked: The continual shaky cam: geez, put the camera on a tripod once in a while! Han Zimmer's score - Nolan's earlier Batman films (etc.) already had more pretentious and monotonous percussion that I've ever needed to hear. The absurd overkill of the fight sequences - despite how well done they are, I'd gladly give up 10 or 15 minutes of action for more character scenes. The heavy handed Jesus symbolism, though at least this one spared us an actual death-and-resurrection plot a la Superman Returns. And completely ignoring that thousands, or even tens of thousands, of innocent bystanders were killed when the towers of Metropolis fell. (Also: I'm sick of every urban superhero battle or disaster film endlessly milking the 9/11 imagery. It's a cheap shot!)

I have no problem with Kal/Clark killing Zod. He simply had no choice. If we're going to have a "realistic" version of Superman fighting at this power level, there's going to be death. I don't think it diminishes his super-virtuous boy scout image as much as people think...

Anyway, I definitely enjoyed it and look forward to seeing them do great things with Superman in the sequels, now that all the tedious exposition and origin is out of the way.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

 

[Benny Holiday]

Hang on, who let Bruce Wayne in here? lol Next thing we'll have **** Grayson putting his two cents' worth in as well!
Isn't there a Clark Kent out there somewhere?

BTW that is a very funny post Bruce! How many times can you wreck New york?

 

[Edward]

Hang on, who let Bruce Wayne in here? lol Next thing we'll have **** Grayson putting his two cents' worth in as well!
Isn't there a Clark Kent out there somewhere?

BTW that is a very funny post Bruce! How many times can you wreck New york?

Ah, jings, not **** Grayson.... I hated Robin so much, I cheered when the Joker killed him (yeah, that was Jason Todd, I know, but still...).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Ah, jings, not **** Grayson.... I hated Robin so much, I cheered when the Joker killed him (yeah, that was Jason Todd, I know, but still...).

You know he's not dead anymore, right?

 

[Worf]

Man that's some purty funny chit right there bub! As I stated earlier in another thread. Too frenetic, too loud, too long, too annoying... and for some reason it NEVER clicked with me. I didn't care about Kal, Lois, Metropolis... I did love Diane Lane as his mom and who knew Costner still had some acting left in him? Wish I had that $30 bucks back.

Worf

 

[Benzadmiral]

I went to see it partly because Cavill is lined up to play the lead in the Man from U.N.C.L.E. movie, if it ever happens. The Smallville/parents scenes really worked -- best work I've ever seen Kevin Costner do. But like most of you, I found the action scenes quickly surged over the top and stayed there. The climactic battle, I thought, would have left almost nothing of Metropolis standing . . . yet in the tag scene, here's Clark trotting into his job at the Daily Planet office in a building that looks none the worse for wear.

And Cavill didn't make me forget Christopher Reeve, not in the same way Chris made me say, "I grew up with George Reeves, but Chris is Da Man!" Chris's Clark is very different from his Superman, so much so -- even to a changed hairstyle -- that you could imagine people would not connect the two. Cavill's Clark looks like Superman in a blazer and glasses. (I know, GR's Clark and his Superman were very much alike too.)

Too dark and brooding for me. That has its place (though I've gotten tired of it in the Batman films), but it shouldn't overshadow everything here.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Like you, I was wowed by Christopher Reeve back in 1978. Basically, that film and Superman II would not be the warmly remembered classics they are now if not for the near-miraculous casting of Reeve. Because the truth is, there's an awful of stuff in those films that didn't work, or that only marginally worked, and a lot of really dumb stuff... but Reeve's incredible presence in the role trumped the complaints.

But one of the things that nearly didn't work for me even then - it just barely cruised by on Reeve's charm - was his portrayal of Clark Kent. It was much too broad: Kent should be a feared crusading reporter, not a doofus. I'll take George Reeves, or Dean Cain (a weak Superman, but a good Kent, which was the role that mattered on Lois & Clark) or Tim Daly in the 90s Animated Series, over the Christopher Reeve Clark Kent anytime. (And don't even get me started on Brandon Routh, whose impersonation of Reeve made for a barely acceptable Superman, but whose doofy Kent was even lamer without Reeve's charm.)

One of the reasons I'm most looking forward to the next film is to see Cavill as a more mature Clark Kent a la George Reeves. It bodes well that he's in his mid-30s, and that the new concept of Lois and their relationship avoids the entire galactically-stupid-for-not-recognizing-him-with-the-glasses trope. Plus, with the Krypton and Zod stuff out of the way, and with Kal/Clark now knowing his place in the world (not to mention having a hot girlfriend!), maybe they'll soft-pedal the dark and brooding aspect a bit next time.

 

[DamianM]

Like you, I was wowed by Christopher Reeve back in 1978. Basically, that film and Superman II would not be the warmly remembered classics they are now if not for the near-miraculous casting of Reeve. Because the truth is, there's an awful of stuff in those films that didn't work, or that only marginally worked, and a lot of really dumb stuff... but Reeve's incredible presence in the role trumped the complaints.

But one of the things that nearly didn't work for me even then - it just barely cruised by on Reeve's charm - was his portrayal of Clark Kent. It was much too broad: Kent should be a feared crusading reporter, not a doofus. I'll take George Reeves, or Dean Cain (a weak Superman, but a good Kent, which was the role that mattered on Lois & Clark) or Tim Daly in the 90s Animated Series, over the Christopher Reeve Clark Kent anytime. (And don't even get me started on Brandon Routh, whose impersonation of Reeve made for a barely acceptable Superman, but whose doofy Kent was even lamer without Reeve's charm.)

One of the reasons I'm most looking forward to the next film is to see Cavill as a more mature Clark Kent a la George Reeves. It bodes well that he's in his mid-30s, and that the new concept of Lois and their relationship avoids the entire galactically-stupid-for-not-recognizing-him-with-the-glasses trope. Plus, with the Krypton and Zod stuff out of the way, and with Kal/Clark now knowing his place in the world (not to mention having a hot girlfriend!), maybe they'll soft-pedal the dark and brooding aspect a bit next time.

I don't believe they will soft peddle the darkness.
We might see Lex luthor rebuild the city with his infinite wealth and he lead a rally against the man of steel for all the destruction "he" caused to metropolis. In the comics Lex eventually becomes the president of the united states by these means. Feeding anger and fear to the people.
his ultimate goal is to secure the best technology for weapons i. e krypton technology.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I didn't mean darkness in terms of plot, I meant in terms of Kal/Clark being a brooding depressive.

Certainly, there will have to be awful, world-at-stake events in the sequels to present a challenge to so powerful a Superman - whether they come from Luthor, Brainiac, Doomsday, or whoever. But as a character, Kal/Clark/Superman needs to have some lighter moments too - he shouldn't be a borderline-sociopath obsessive like Bruce Wayne/Batman.

(Not that I don't love Batman too! But sometimes - when I'm in a rare good mood - I identify more with the daylit optimism of Superman than the shadowy paranoia of Batman.)

 

[DamianM]

True true.
But you have to understand that Superman is not human, he always has to wrangle with this. Hopefully when they introduce the new batman he would remind him of this.

Batman is just as insane as all his enemies but on the opposite spectrum.