Tuesday, August 6, 2013

VLOG: 8-5-13 - Belated Man of Steel Vlog

Linkara finally gives his thoughts on Man of Steel! A month and a half after people stopped caring! ‎


AndNowInStereo said...

Well Lewis, now you have experienced the film that is to Superman what "Advent Children" is to Final Fantasy. Wasn't what I wanted either....

Joshua Ford said...

...yikes...and I thought my hatred of this movie was intense :).

Honestly, the thing that bugged me MOST...is when Superman destroys that ship, there were chambers on board with dormant kryptonian fetuses...so what I'm saying is, in this movie Supes is a baby-killer...hows that for the symbol of hope in the DCU. :(

You also mention the female soldier at the end. Funny thing! That was Carol Ferris. :)

Also, the woman serving Zod in this film is Faora, who actually was in the comics waaaayyyy before this movie (unlike Ursa, who was added into the comics in 2007 I think)

Sorry you had such a miserable experience, I definitely sympathize with ya since my experience was very similar.

If you don't mind me plugging my spoiler free review, it has all of my thoughts on it.

Shifter's Haven said...

There was no killing in Superman 2. May be different cut, but when I saw S2, in the end, after depowering them he later take Zod and his gang to the White House as prisoners and The President says "Thank you" (cliche, yeah).

Well, I'll listen vlog to the end, and comment later (if there will be need). Just stopped for that moment.

Unknown said...

I went into Man of Steel with the ending spoiled for me, and was ready for disappointment, and got a worse movie than I expected. I knew pretty early on I wasn't in the target audience too, since I noticed that Krypton had a yellow sun. It is such a stupid, mundane detail to complain about, but if this was a Superman movie made by people who loved Superman, that would be the kind of thing they made sure to get right, wouldn't it? I can't say it prepared me for the horror of Pa Kent in it though.

Kaingerc said...

the original character from the comics was named Faora which was a kryptonian villian(several backstories pre\post-crisis).

she was the inspiration for the Ursa character in the superman 2 movie.

and now in the 'man of steel' movie she's named Faora-Ul with the backstory of the superman 2 movie, but with the original name from the comics.

Bekah said...

I hope you cheer up soon! <=(^_^)=> My arms are open wide if you need a hug.

Alexa said...

Dude, I feel your pain. I really, really do. You basically hit all of the points about the movie, that I hated. Like the color scheme, the lack of concern on Superman's part, the way the Kents were portrayed (even though I kind of like Costner, he did indeed make for a terrible Jonathan Kent). The total lack in logic as well, such as why do they need Lois and why did Superman go to the other side of the world to stop the other terraformer. And of course the complete misunderstanding of the character. It really is a joyless, dirge of a movie. And no amount of "cool" action is going to make up for that. Even a person like me who likes Batman slightly more, still loves and gets the character more than the makers of this movie.

I really hope you feel better *hugs*.

Unknown said...

Too bad you do not like the movie, I found it entertaining for the good things... My pick for a superman comic is Kingdom Come... I would love to see what you think of Young Justice like The Last Airbender Vlogs of Doug,i know is not going to happen... saludos de Mexico :)

Unknown said...

While i have never been too big of a superman character, the superman movies were always my favorite superhero movies as a kid. i really enjoyed them. especially the first and second one. to this day, even though superman 3 and 4 are really shittily made films, i still find a lot of joy in them. superman's all drunk and fighting himself in the third. then nuclear man is in the fourth.

but in man of steel, I found no joy in the film at all. every ounce of dialog was just there to move the story along.the colors were washed out. and superman had no regard for the well being of ANYONE unless it is a named character. like captain law and order.

but that the general problem with dc movies. that the studios generally do not seem to get the characters. or what makes them interesting. not even at all.

and in some cases, they become giant plot holes.

like batman's expensive gadgets. bruce wayne disappears for 8 years. then suddenly when he returns, BATMAN shows up. with a tank, and all these expensive gadgets. and who else can afford all this, other then the richest 30 year old in town?

yet the only one who seems to be able to figure this out is "robin"?

i want to see batman running around solving crimes.

i want to see superman being superman, and doing everything with a smile.

put the CHEER back into dc.

the new 52 comics, washed all that out.

not to mention, all their colors look terrible. put the shorts back! they exist to bring color to his all blue outfit. they exist to separate the legs from the rest of the body. so it doesn't just look like a man wearing an all blue outfit, with boots and a cape.

imagine what it would be like if captain planet, had HIS shorts removed!

superman 1 and 2, have a lot of problems, but they are still the only movies that seem to GET the character.

and the biggest problem for me about man of steel, was the wasted potential of the "zod" army.

superman could of had 30 supermen to fight! but no, they wasted that entirely.

the only thing that really bugs me about superman 1, is the time travel crap. lol

with that said, my favorite superman film, is the richard donner cut of superman 2.

which did make it far more dramatic, but still kept the joy in everything.

it also made lois a much more intelligent character, then she usually is in the tv shows and movies. she actually figures out that clark is superman, JUST by looking at clark, and a picture of superman in the news paper. then proceeds to try to prove that he IS superman for the next 20 minutes or so.

richard donner, while his films are not perfect, at least seems to get, that superman isn't the only character, in superman.

Anonymous said...

...when I watched the movie, I walked in without spoilers. I could feel my heart pounding with rage as it progressed (if you could call that "progression") although I didn't mind a lot of the scenes too badly. for the most part, I was just mad about the flashbacks and the truck-impalement that I'm surprised you didn't bring up, because they showed Clark succumbing to his human anger and acting on impulse.

but when he killed Zod, I literally stood up out of my seat and screamed BETRAYAL! at the screen, louder than I've ever screamed something in my life, and I didn't even think of all the other reasons you mentioned. I saw the build-up and was thinking "no no no no no no no no" and when it happened, I lost it. I had to leave the theater. I couldn't finish the movie after that.

I may not have read all the Superman comics, I don't know about all the nuances from years of printed history. the majority of what I do know comes from the Donner films, the DC Animated Universe and you. and in particular, your review of Superman #701 (which I drew up the fanart for an alternate title card) when you said "Superman ALWAYS chooses life." there was more emotion and power in those four words than this entire movie. I understand your frustration, and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

Doleth said...

Wait, did Linkara just implied that I was insecure for liking Superman nu52 costume more than the classic one?

Franky said...

It would be interesting to hear what Lewis thinks about Lois & Clark, still my personal favorite live action Superman, simply because of what he says at the end here, that Clark Kent is who he really is, and Superman is a mask that he uses to do things Clark can't.
Plus, it has a great villain in Lex Luthor, who is a perfect foil to Superman because Superman is the only one who knows that he is a villain.

Shifter's Haven said...

Ok. Watched it through. Few things (I guess some of them will be pointed out by others, so sorry in advance)

Why did he goes to Indian Ocean? As I understand because this thing also generate gravity field which protects the Metropolis machine, and destroying it allow military successfully attack (if you remember, at first missiles can't hit it because of misdirecting gravity field). Minor correction. Though, if you think of it, why not attack in Metropolis first... Well, it was guarded which means lower chance of succeeding (but how Clark know it?). I don't know. Now I'm confused.

Anyway, after watching MoS I was "disappointing but Ok", but after thinking more and more it became just irritating. It has so many flaws in main characters and I cannot like him. Oh yeah - he broke truck as a joke, taught a lesson for this trucker. Yeah, very mature, "not expose myself" and this demonstration of power. And yeah, that guy was a dick, may be a little drunk. But why on Earth Clark totally broke this man's (presumably) only way to earn money? Very mature.

And yes, Superman is not so hero. I never like the character. I like Superman Doomsday, but mostly for the plot. I was mostly favor Batman (but now I think I just like Batman mythology more, except Batwoman comics where she is admirable character). But until last year I saw STAS (funny enough, but for that I should thank Arkham games, cause I wanted to see BTAS, then I want more and here I am). And I saw the very sympathetic Hero, which a very likable, very humane, very inspiring and loving people. And I rewatched Superman and for the first time Superman 2. And you know what is funny? Sister (mostly neutral on superheroes) make a glimpse at the moment in the end of the first movie where Superman very fast did some heroic stuff with levee, rocket and train and she said "Superman is much more hero-like than Batman ever was". And that was The Superman who can just save a kitten from a tree. MoS Kal-El will never do that. Oh no, he is more like "First think after sending villains to Phantom Zone, I'll go kiss Lois in the middle of the ruined town. And let these people under debris wait. For other people. I am symbol of hope." Man, my thought was "Man, didn't your superhearing show that there are people might need you? Or you conscious sleep right now?" And I was just pissed to see, that first fight in Smallville started with Clark dragging Zod through filed DIRECTLY to gas station and presumably drivers and stuff was killed in explosion. Hero, yeah. And last stand with Zod. Already told without me.

You know what? Brian Azzarello's Lex Luthor from "Lex Luthor Man of Steel" will become very sympathetic character which motivation would be completely justified by this movie. Who would think? *on the side not. Why in LLMOS and SM Doomsday they always drop Toyman from big height? Some joke I don't know?*

And what is most funny thing for me? I really like previous Zak Snyder films. Watchmen was great and his Sucker Punch was interesting and has some good ideas. But this... I am disappointed to see him directed that movie. No, some scenes was great (I personally like fight with Faora in restaurant, great choreography), but this is not him.

I saw All-Star Superman cartoon week ago and that was great. That cheered me up a great lot. May be I am a bit old-fashioned about some superheroes. Well, and I never understand why my cousin really want make Batman to become Punisher (which is more realistic for some reason). I don't know - may be there are already so many action heroes with guns (Shwartznegger, Stallone, Willis and so on) and let superheroes like Batman and Superman have that distinct and value life? No, looks like my corner of Universe not that sacred.

Wow. Looks like I was really pained by MoS. So much text.

Kenta said...

Hey Linkara. Just wondering if you think that a good sequel could save this particular series or not.

It can be argued that Superman was still out of his element, young, and inexperienced as this was his first outing in the suit. There's a lot of talk that in a possible sequel, Lex Luther could use the amount of destruction caused by Superman and Zod to turn public opinion against Superman. Or that the events of this movie would be a pretty damn good reason for Cadmus to start up.

A good screenwriter could turn turn the problems into this movie into mistakes that Superman must now pay some serious penance for. Sadly WB already seems more concerned with shoehorning Batman into the next one.

Falcon Whitaker said...

I chose not to see this movie because it didn't look very good. I feel rather vindicated now.

Just wanted to let you know that from my experience, you're definitely right about the running out of the classroom thing. When I was fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, I had a lot of problems with stress and anxiety that sometimes led to me becoming overwhelmed in class and running out to hide somewhere and at no point did any of my peers follow me and crowd around me for giggles. The only time I left a classroom and people followed me was when I was thirteen and snuck out of a class to escape some people who were bullying me and that was only because they wanted to make my life miserable more. Plus it was a Design & Technology lesson, so there was less structure anyway and it was easier for them to get out and come looking for me. Clark's teacher must have been awful at her job.

Sorry this movie disappointed you so much :(

Nedburns said...

Lewis, I am a man (punch?) and as of this writing I am in a very happy relationship with a girl I love dearly, however after watching this I wanted to kiss you.

I knew this film was not going to be nearly as good as it wanted to be, but I'll be honest, I was having fun with it. Perhaps I was just calmed by the presence of my friends and our riffing, but I was enjoying this goofy, dumb, experience.

And then Superman killed Zod, and everything I previously laughed at was no longer just a goofy mistake, but an idiotic failure.

I used to be in the 'Batman is a God and Superman sucks crowd' but thankfully I have matured into someone who appreciates Supes. So naturally the utter failure of this film did not sit well with me.

The filmmakers say that the killing of Zod was to give Superman a reason for his No Killing Rule in subsequent films, and to show that he still has things to learn before being the greatest hero of them all.
This depresses me. According to these people, we live in an world where you can't just be a good person. The most heroic and pure of all superheroes needs to have killed someone before he decides on one of his most basic characteristics.

And you summed up my thoughts on Pa Kent perfectly. How in the hell did that character get off the page without anyone realizing what a goddamn horrible person he was!?

shikome kido mi said...

Here's the thing... I have a similar stance on Superman as your brother. Heck, I think the Hulk sometimes suffers from this problem with being overpowered for the setting and he's far more limited in power, but I digress.
And I still think this movie was horrible. I don't have any problems with the bright colors or the lack of killing or any of that, so trying to change those doesn't fix it. In fact, making him a dull grey killer in a dull grey setting makes him more boring and rids him of the parts of his personality that gave him character.
Don't get my wrong, a willingness to kill villains works for some characters, not this one. I think his powers might even contribute to that. It's hard to argue that a human can always stop the bad guys before they kill anyone if they leave those bad guys alive, but it's fairly easy with Superman's powerset. Oh, that's not the only factor, but it's an idea that hit me as I was typing. The old "you need to kill him to stop him killing" moral dilemma doesn't apply as much when you can stop people casually.

KKDW said...

I did actually like Man of Steel, but thinking about it I agree with pretty much what you're saying here.

I didn't really like that Supes killed Zod, mostly because while he did get the big no afterwords, next scene it's as though it didn't happen!

And I really didn't like the lack of colour either, especially on the Superman suit. Actually, while seeing this movie I starting thinking to myself 'what if Nolan made movies based on Gerry Anderson's stuff', and with that I thought 'if he does he'd BETTER have the colours be nice and bright'!!

Unknown said...

Taking Lois was a very smart move by Zod and makes complete sense. The blogger from earlier in the film says on national TV that she knows who he is. It seems completely likely that they would be monitoring media reaction to see if anyone knows superman. Seeing as she is the only person mentioned to be close to Superman she could possibly know where the codex is. Also they initially have no context for superman's training. If he had told her the location of the codex she is the obvious weak point if he resists.

Anonymous said...

I personally really liked this film

it was not the perfect Superman film, but it sure was closer to it than that train-wreck Superman Returns

Dracomax said...

I disagree. Zod's actions don't make sense. Kal-el has been on earth for 30 years, since he was a baby.

Zod has to know Kal will have some sort of attachment to earth, so his recruitment pitch is, "Let's destroy everyone and everything you have ever know or cared for in order to replace it with a society you don't know, an atmosphere that makes you sick and weak, and I can be in charge. Yeah, that was ever going to work.

What's more, they have terraforming equipment and FTL ships. They didn't need to do it on earth. Yet somehow, neither beardless idiot not Zod ever think of, y'know, terraforming Mars or Venus, or going to any of the other potentially habitable planets they had visited. It's not like 20,000 year kryptonian technology is going to fail next week.

Of course, then there wouldn't have been a conflict, which means that beardless idiot wouldn't have been forced to be "mature" and "realistic" and kill someone.

Anders said...

Reading De-Jis comment, you may also have my manly embrace... :)

Was it worse than Superman at world's end?

And Pollo wants to know why you discriminate against robots.

Anonymous said...

Supposedly, Superman killing Zod is supposed to be the REASON he has a "no killing" policy in this continuity. The experience of killing Zod was so traumatic that he swears never to kill again. The problem there? The situation with Zod was deliberately set up so that there was "no choice" but to kill Zod... meaning it doesn't matter WHAT Superman's policy on killing is, you have established that there will be situations where he has no choice. It doesn't matter how crappy he feels about it afterwards; once you establish that Superman can be put into a "no choice but to kill" scenario, there's no going back. So yeah. That didn't help.

tenkiforecast said...

The scene in this movie that broke me was the tornado scene.

I'm a meteorologist. I worry about people's safety during severe weather. This means that scenes involving severe weather events.

They attempt to hide under an overpass. They hide...under an overpass. There is a thing called Bernoulli's Principle that states a fluid (the atmosphere) going from a large area to a small area (overpass) causes the velocity of the fluid to rise.

Hiding under an overpass increases the speed from the tornado, and the speed of the debris is also sped up. In other words, going to hide under an overpass is a death trap.

I thought that myth had been dispelled by now. But no, the writers thought "This is tornado safety!" and put it in this film, and people are going to follow it and die. That just broke me.

Brownie_the_3rd said...

Is there any chance that maybe you and Angry Joe could do some kind of vlog together discussing the movie? Unlike you and pretty much everyone else on Channel Awesome he liked the movie and defended it and I would really like to see two Superman fans with such differing views get together and talk about it.

LucasChad said...

I never read the Superman comics though I only saw bits and pieces of the original and saw Superman Returns. That being said, I went into this movie with an open mind knowing I was going to watch something like The Dark Knight. In the end, I enjoyed the hell out of this film much more than the "certain" people thought.

In fact, I did a review for a small Maine newspaper that I'll let everybody read. You guys may not agree with me, but this is how a "movie-loving, non-comics reading" kinda critic I am.

Also about the sequel, one thing I'm most interested about it besides the return of some of the Man of Steel cast is who will be the new Batman. It might be tough to adjust to the new actor since Christian Bale will no longer wear the cowl. His stamp on the character may be hard to top, but I'm still interested in how it all works out. Will I still anticipate it when it comes out in 2015? Absolutely! Superman and Batman fighting then team up to save the world? Sounds like fun!

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"What's more, they have terraforming equipment and FTL ships. They didn't need to do it on earth. Yet somehow, neither beardless idiot not Zod ever think of, y'know, terraforming Mars or Venus, or going to any of the other potentially habitable planets they had visited. It's not like 20,000 year kryptonian technology is going to fail next week."

Yeah, I actually completely forgot about that during the vlog - not ONCE did they suggest GOING TO A DIFFERENT PLANET. The only thing they need from Superman is the genetic template to rebuild the Kryptonian race. Get that and they can be on their way. It only works if he wants revenge and if Zod is raised from birth to care more about Krypton, like he implies, he should be willing to put aside revenge for that.

Anonymous said...

During the final fight Superman and Zod fly into a construction site and one of them is tossed into a "wall." If you look at the wall it is a sign that says how many days since the last accident. The impact knocks all the numbers off but a 0. I love that joke, too bad you only get 2 seconds to catch it.

At the start of the church scene Clark sits in a pew, it has shaky cam when he sits down.

I just wanted to state my favorite and most despised moment.

Watchmaker said...

And people wonder why comic fans keep bringing up the DCAU after all this time...


Behold: Destruction, Inspiration, and Concern, all in one scene, against one of the very few villains I would argue had earned Superman using outright lethal force, even though we know...


... he can't.

More to the point, there are numerous examples of 'modern' Supermen, who have darker outlooks, can kill, struggle with acceptance by humanity, and so forth. None of them have ever reached mainstream acceptance - or at least, not to any truly sustainable level - and it feels like so many writers hate this fact. Mind you, there's pretty substantial evidence that a good chunk of Marvel and DC staff hate the genre they're paid to create in.

Have fun with Marville #6, by the way.

Adam said...

Lewis, I feel your pain. *manhug* Originally, after seeing Man of Steel, I gave it a partial pass despite its flaws. However, as time passed, my mind kept going back to the many mistakes that I noticed but tried to overlook (the editing, the overuse of action, the wooden performances, the betrayal of Superman as a character, etc.). There are some good points to this movie (I.E. Lois figuring out Clark's secret) but its buried under the countless errors in this film.

After going through so many DC Comic movie duds (its a long list), I've basically surrendered myself to the idea that DC and Warner Brothers do not get these characters... AT ALL. Between Man of Steel and DC New 52, both companies seem to be catering to the douche-bag demographic that believe all heroes should be joyless, grim, and bad ass. It's the worst qualities of the 90s all over again. And the fact that DC/WB is going with Snyder again to make Superman/Batman plus the rumor of Frank Miller being involved does not make me confident for the direction this project is taking. In fact, with the points you brought up, Lewis, I almost want to say that Man of Steel may have been written by Frank Miller but then, if that were true, Lois Lane would have been Superman's sex slave/prize instead of the capable journalist she was in the movie.

This is why I got out of comics and have been hunting/pecking the TPB's because I can no longer commit to an ongoing series that won't waste my time and money and DC's New 52 is just that imo. It has lost its way to the point that I fear the only way it can recover is if it suffers a major catastrophe like bankruptcy.

Sorry if I'm going off into a tangent but I loved DC comics and enjoyed their characters and stories. But the entire company has gone so far off the deep end, I have nearly lost all hope in ever seeing DC Comics make a return to glory. And as a fan of comics and DC, that truly pisses me off to no end.

Unknown said...

What's so funny about Truth, Justice and The American Way?

The American Way is greed, corruption and arrogance. That is what is so funny about the statement.

Truth and Justice are a direct contradiction of the American Way.
That is what is so funny about it, and probably why in recent years they have dropped the end-tag and stuck to just Truth and Justice.

Even the writers recognise the statement is an oxymoron, a hangover from the days when it did have a small element of truth.
Left behind decades ago now.

Unknown said...

Christopher Nolan was actually very much against the idea of Superman killing Zod. At the end of the day I am so very mixed on this movie. For every one thing the film does right it does two things right. And with Frank Miller being brought in for the sequel I'm worried that DC's cinematic universe is going to crumble fast.

Lotus Prince said...

I'm actually okay without the "kneel before Zod" line. It would have felt too much like a fan-service callback. It's like Spock shouting KAAAAHN in Into Darkness. It just felt like "...really?"

Anonymous said...

It took me a while, but I finally found the words I wanted to describe your demeanor here, Lewis.

Disappointed. And disillusioned.

Even going into the movie knowing you were probably going to have problems with it, it is so clear that you were hoping that they'd still somehow get it right. That those "flashes of brilliance" would not just be few and far between. And your love of the character and its setting and history are so evident here.

There were times during this vlog I thought that you were just a step away from tears of frustration and disappointment. And it suddenly dawned on me that I think, now, I understand where that desire to make Linkara a hero comes from.

And it says a lot about you (and this is not a bad thing) that you keep commenting on how joyless and grey it is. I'm not surprised - comics are (usually) a bright, colorful medium. There is beauty and intensity and light and darkness and LIFE in those pages. And so, seeing a film like this, it's easy to see how this would bother you. To see a medium you love so let down in the transition.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong - feel free to tell me if I am.

Milly said...

You know I keep seeing people bringing up lots of valid and reasonable points about why this movie isn't good, but I can't for the life me say I didn't enjoy it. It was by no means a great movie, I'd say it sits around mediocre territory for me. There were a lot of under developed stuff and it definitely needed at least another re-write I think, but overall I liked it okay.I liked it a lot more than Superman Returns.

But all of that talk about how Superman acting out of character, I completely understand, but for some reason it didn't bother me a whole lot while I was watching it. It just sorta annoys me now, like it was a lost opportunity. I mean I love Superman a lot. He's one of my favorite heroes. Does not feeling more outraged make me a bad fan?

Doug Puthoff said...

Good review. I remember reading that story you alluded to, wherein Supes kills the Phantom Zone villains: #22 of the second series, John Byrne's last issue. Kal did justify his behavior as the last representative of law on the earth. You may have disagreed with his choice. However, governments have resorted to executing criminals (Supes cites the Nuremberg trials, for example). However, in the movie, Superman is an agent of law. He is a vigilante, no better than the Punisher. My biggest cripe with issue was it's tasteless cover.

Anonymous said...

Like you said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I liked this movie and I like Superman's New 52 costume.

Also Faora is Ursa's name in the comic books.

RICHB said...

Yeah, I wanted to see this but I don't care about spoilers so when I heard what happened in the movie I said no. I had my fears when I saw that depressing trailer! This is not the Superman I want to see a movie about. I really am tired of this brooding dark crap all the heroes have to be now, remember the awful Wonder Woman pilot? I was glad you talked about the Avengers because I also loved that move, it felt like a fun Superhero movie why couldn't this? I am sure I will see it eventually, but not at a theater. Seems we appreciate the character the same way and I really should buy myself a copy of All Star Superman one of these days. I don't understand why Angry Joe liked it but he is entitled to his opinion. My father liked it too but he has no idea what makes Superman work to him it was just a cool sci fi movie. Why is Superman so hard to make a good movie about? I read that Superman issue when it came out and I hated it, but to be fair Superman did not shrug those deaths off he tormented him for a long time. And one last thing, the villains did not die in the Donner version of Superman II we see them being taken into custody.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

The thing I really hate is the bit where Kevin Costner says that he took some of the metal from the spaceship to a chemist, and the chemist said it didn't even appear on the periodic table.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it either be an element, in which case it ought to be violently radioactive, or an isotope of a known element, in which case it would be recognizable, or a compound we haven't made yet, in which case it wouldn't appear on the periodic table?!

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

I actually really like the new outfit because he's actually wearing armor instead of an outfit that serves no other purpose than to make him look silly (if memorable) and not be naked. Yeah, it's less iconic, but it's practical and it makes sense when he's fighting supersoldiers who can do him serious damage. And having underwear with a waistband on the outside is stupid because it can be grabbed onto in a fight.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"I actually really like the new outfit because he's actually wearing armor instead of an outfit that serves no other purpose than to make him look silly (if memorable) and not be naked. Yeah, it's less iconic, but it's practical and it makes sense when he's fighting supersoldiers who can do him serious damage. And having underwear with a waistband on the outside is stupid because it can be grabbed onto in a fight."

...Why does Superman NEED armor? And if a super-soldier truly is strong enough to harm him, why would armor help? If they're strong enough to hurt him, they're strong enough to punch through armor.

And it's NOT underwear - THAT'S THE POINT. It's an homage to wrestlers and circus strongmen, which is what Supermen's outfit was SUPPOSED to be homaging. And having it be all blue completely throws off the color balance. Superman's classic outfit is one of the most aesthetically perfect and balanced designs for a superhero costume ever because the red shorts break up the blue.

Ah, well, whatever...

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

There's nothing wrong with truth, justice, and the American way. But Henry Cavill's Superman is far less selfish than Christopher Reeve's. For one thing, he doesn't start saving people just because the girl he likes is in trouble. For another, when he kills Zod, he is severely emotionally traumatized (though there should have been a scene where he reflected on everything he'd done and helped rebuild the city's).

My biggest issue with Superman II was that Lois was stupid, selfish, drug-addicted, and obsessive. She cared more about not being able to tell the world about Superman (for reasons that are NEVER explained) than about human life - she killed a woman and didn't seem to even care. That didn't happen in this movie, whatever else you say about it.

Also, I like that the humans in this movie aren't helpless pawns. They are heroes just as Superman is.

The fight scenes are too long, but they do show the serious amount of damage that would be done if people like that actually fought (unlike a small town getting a bit of superficial damage - have I mentioned I hate Superman II?), and if you watch closely Superman is trying not to damage the buildings the entire time (he always flies a little out from them).

I really like the shot that focuses on Superman's feet while he's walking. You really feel the repressed power as he looks like he's walking on eggshells.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

"...Why does Superman NEED armor? And if a super-soldier truly is strong enough to harm him, why would armor help? If they're strong enough to hurt him, they're strong enough to punch through armor."

He's wearing the same armor they are. The suit is Kryptonian-made and is one of the few equalizers in the fights.

Hibryd said...

your future rebbetzin - There's a theoretical concept called "The Island of stability" where super-heavy elements, that we haven't yet discovered, can exist for more than a few nano-seconds. I'm not a chemist/physicist, so I don't want to butcher the explanation, but that's the idea behind "undiscovered" elements in sci-fi.

Anonymous said...

I fucking LOVED your freak-out about the adoptive father so damn much, man. The whole thing with him was so damn TERRIBLE and I HATED it! I loved the movie as a pure self-gratifying cgi-action movie, but that was one of my main gripes with the film.

The whole thing was pretty-much a rushed mess. It basically just went from scene to scene to scene, showing as much action as possible and showing the bare minimum amount of talking and general character development (if at all). There's practically no time to just "enjoy" any individual scene. It's like the exact opposite of the "Superman Returns" film (which I've seen, and OMFG is it ever slow!).

Some stuff I enjoyed is when a robot/cyborg/alien lady spewed out weird dialogue, the biological father had a weird way of moving the story along, and Superman rammed into the bad guy without a care in the world (even though it barely made any sense, character-wise). There's definitely times I would call complete bullshit on the film. For example, I didn't like the way the boss was running things. He punished people who easily complied to his will and hated the idea of ever investigating anything that reporters found. There were also various other problems in the movie that I noticed (but not all of them), which Spoony and Brad mentioned, but they were fairly tolerable to me anyways (not that I couldn't feel any better if it was all changed/improved, mind you).

There's many times I'll notice how badly-made a movie is, but I'll still enjoy it greatly. I once saw Alvin and the Chipmunks and I kept laughing at the many problems with it: awkward acting; continuity issues (ex: the sudden need for non-prescription glasses); mistakes in "weight" from, and "reactions" to, the CGI characters; inconsistent age behavior/psychology of the chipmunks; and etcetera.

During my attempts to make a "Man of Steel" vlog/review a while ago, I decided to just have fun improvising and poking fun at both the movie and myself (for liking the movie). I pretended like the whole "Angry Joe Army" is a really serious thing and that I had to give a report after "the big battle mission". It's right here if you want to see it:
It's all for the LOLs. ;-)

Enoc Elias Escalona Delgado said...

i personally think this movie is 6 out of 10

Unknown said...

Okay, this comment isn't going to have much structure to it, just what I think of when watching your vlog.

I didn't like this film either. First off: The sheer volume of action. The last 40 or so minutes were just action, and not even smart action. Just stuff HAPPENING! Punching and that's all, with no tactics behind things. If there were tactics, the shaky cam didn't let me see any!

And the joyless thing? Thank you! Clark's first flight is so dull! He just does it by hopping. No real emotion or joy behind it. The music manipulates you into feeling happy. Him gaining your costume is just there. Smallville built it up through 10 seasons! Hear, he just gets it. It's like a reward for a fetch quest. There's no real build-up to the costume or the flight. I feel like they should've kept from him gaining those until the end of the movie.

The set-up took so damn long and felt so drawn out. I was so bored.

The tornado scene is so full of idiocy! Why did the dog not leave under its own power? I don't remember the scene perfectly, and am not a biologist, but wouldn't the dog's survival instincts just kick in? And Jonathan's stupid-ass sacrifice. Why?! So many levels of stupid

I found the bar scene stupid. It's America! Don't, like, all bartenders have guns under the counter?

Lois just didn't feel like Lois. She had no fire, she was just there. And she just didn't feel strong. Hell, she needs Jor-El's help to escape the ship, but the kryptonians had the worst reaction time ever, so it makes her feel inept. Isn’t she supposed to have a degree of military training?

And yeah, I don't get why Martha told Lois about Clark either. Seriously, why? She's just some reporter who showed up out of the blue. I guess, maybe, she was trying to guilt her into secrecy, but that's a pretty stupid risk. Also, I always picture Lois finding out about Clark being Superman AFTER they get together. That's the version I'ev seen most often. So it feels like this is laying the groundwork for Superman getting together with Wonder Woman in this universe, because, really, there was no real chemistry between Clark and Lois (they may have gotten together in this movie, but if they did, it was forgettable).

I actually didn't notice the Jesus-priest thing... because I was so damn bored. Yeah, why didn't he talk to someone else?! They didn't even HINT at his religious beliefs.

The Batman Begins loophole hurts me on so many levels.

I agree with what you said about this movie overcompensating. It tries so hard to make him cool. He already is. The darker costume, which really goes against the fact that Superman is supposed to be a symbol for hope! Hell, he doesn't even do the Clark Kent convincingly! He doesn't do the stuttering and nerdiness. He's just an attractive guy in hipster glasses. The Clark Kenting thing is mainly body language! But here, he’s just

There was no reason for them to want Lois. Maybe for leverage against Supes, but what about his mother? But maybe that was after the thing with Lois happened.

Zod was okay, but he did have a massive douche-factor. I don't recall there being a legitimate reason for terraforming EARTH. It seems like he only did so to spite Clark and Jor-El. If he did it to draw Clark out or something it would be better (that might've been the reason, though). But here, he risks his people’s future for the sake of revenge.

Thanks for pointing out the quantum singularity plot hole. I didn't notice because the endless action just bored me so damn much.

Superman basically giving Zod TIPS on how to use his powers is so stupid. Why would you tell him that?!

Unknown said...

Fayora (Not!Ursa) was easily one of my favourite parts of the movie, if only due to her competence. Zod barely fought, and yet Zod doesn't tell her about the other powers.

I agree the Superman in this movie isn’t smart! He’s an idiot.

I hate that Supes kills:
1. The people had plenty of opportunity to get out, but hey just cower. I’m sorry, but wouldn’t you FOLLOW THE CROWD?!
2. Kryptonians, from what I’ve seen, have trouble flying down (relatively speaking). SO WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU FLY UP?! The hell?
3. If you watch closely, you see Clark LET GO of Zod’s head. So he could’ve punched Zod away!

I get that they can’t depower him, but Jor-El is still around! Try SOMETHING! Consider your options!

Clark getting this job is stupid. How the hell did he get that job?! I’ve heard that maybe he’s just a copy boy, and that would make sense, I guess, since Lois probably recommended him. But what about the family of the current employees?! You know, the ones who probably lost their jobs due to the destruction?! Give the job to them!

Nolan apparently did not have much input. It’s amazing that the movie based on the comic that almost single-handedly (let’s not forget The Dark Knight Returns) issued in the Dark Age had more colour, jokes and joy than Man of Steel. The music is the main good point of this movie, and even then, it would have to be in order to manipulate the audience to feel something.

A massive disappointment that I don’t know who to blame for. I guess we’ll have to wait until Superman vs. Batman (yes, that’s one of the names they’re thinking of going with), wherein Nolan will have less input. I really wanted better for DC. I really wanted better for Superman.

Unknown said...

You know... this is kind of scary to watch. I haven't seen you this mad since Cry for Justice and it's... unsettling.

Anonymous said...

Lewis Lovhaug, Why do you understand why some people like this movie?

it seems odd that you didn't say why you thought they like it in more detail?

Anonymous said...

One thing no one brings up. Lois Lane can figure out who Superman is but the US GOVERNMENT cannot? In the comics she tried but never could so I could by it on some level...but....no....just no....

Mitchell Martinez said...

As soon as I saw the look on your face in the teaser image, I knew you had the correct response to that abomination on film.

Lewis I am SO SORRY that you had to sit through Man Of Steel. For as much as I wanted to know your opinion, I still don't believe that you or anyone should have suffered through that. Honestly, it was almost hard to watch this because of how hurt and upset you were. I kept hoping that somebody would just walk in and give you a hug.

Jigglysaint said...

I am going to admit that I don't follow, well, everything. I haven't seen any previous Superman Movies, haven't read any Superman Comics. Heck, I never even watched the Avengers. I am pretty much that one guy who gets his media second hard from other people explaining it.

That being said I did see this movie, and while I am not educated enough to get angry at it like I should have, I did come to one conclusion about General Zod that Lewis did. That is, I actually felt Zod's goals were kind of noble and that he really wasn't all "that" of a bad guy if he was trying to resurrect his race. I know it would come at the cost of humanity, but seriously, Zod was only doing what he was programmed to do.

The other part I kind of remember shaking my head at was the scene with Clark's father dying. Other than that I am afraid I am just not geeky enough to get super angry at this film even though I know I should be. Guess that's why I don't do internet reviews on stuff.

Staredcraft said...

Linka...no...Lewis. I've been a BIG fan of your work, I usually agree with your points and those I disagree with I usually take it as a "It's his opinion" and all. Also with those who complained about Man of Steel like you did...usually I saw those as people who were more fan of the other media incarnations SAVE the comics, or are at least casual comics readers/fans. But this...

I'm sorry man but...you come of as such a Purist of the worst kind! You point out about Pa Kent's "Maybe" line...you're the first comic FAN I'm aware of, that's online anyway that I pay any attention to, who didn't look at the alternatives (I listen to MANY superman podcasts with DIE HARD Superman fans who at least enjoyed the movie and what it did). He said MAYBE because 1) This was more of a world where, if they found out about clark at that age, they'd take his boy away from him. he didn't want that! 2) Pa Kent is NOT PERFECT! He is a human being! He didn't know WHAT to say in that moment! that tone of voice...he was like "I don't know...maybe" kind of tone NOT "Maybe...yeah let em die" like you came off like he said. There HAVE been OTHER interpretations of Pa Kent where he was AFRAID of what Clark does...It's Superman the novel is a prime example! What Pa was TRYING to instill in clark is "You DO have greatness in you...but now is NOT the time to do it yet...when you feel it is time THEN you can show the world!" Which I feel makes a LOT of sense realsitically!

Again with the other peopel I listen to (Check out the Superman Podacst Network) did they all find it perfect? Hell No...but they did accept a lot of it...most of them anyway. Most of them, however, have been more accepting of this as an INTERPRETATION since they've had to go with HOW MANY different new origins for the man in the past few years? (Birthright, Secret Origins, Earth One, new52, etc etc) this is just a new one!

They were TRYING to make a superman who, while DOES inspire hope (which I feel the man himself TRIED to do give the circumstances) is met with a world that is more belivible to the one we live in and does NOT fit the perfect idealistic world of the pre Infinite Crisis-build up DCU...because let's face it, I don't believe Audiences would ACCEPT a world of a man with great powers coming before us wanting to help without believing "Hey...what's your real deal?" or other skeptical notions.

And Superman Killing...he's done it before! The Phantom Zone Villains! And, a friend of mine put this best. Superman was always more of a MOSES based hero rather than the Christ based one most people think of him post Reeve's movies...Moses had a flaw to him that kept him from being perfect...he KILLED someone! he KILLED a guard and felt terrible about it! If we are to believe Superman is more like Moses, this is almost a parallel in that direction moreso than the Christ parallel (NOT saying that is intentional on the film crews part but still). He has killed, he feels awful about it...it pains him...but he'll make sure NEVER to be put in that spot again! EVER!

As far as Superman not saving people...Fayora put it best to him "For everone you save, we will killa MILLION MORE!" A MILLION! And she was NOT bluffing! So what was superman to do? fly to save the people and let MILLIONS MORE get slaughtered by these Kryptonian soldiers? What do you think as he's saving them the villains will just stand there and watch? NO! They may try to STOP him from the rescue OR they'll continue on ehtier rampage (Zod would definietly do that by the last fight).

There's more to it than Black and White Lewis

Sorry for the rant but...this is thefirst time you really ticked me off with a video man...it pains ME to say all this, it really does...I just never thought I'd see the day where I see you as a purist...of the worst kind

ventrra said...

Wait...Troubled plot, nearly monochrome color, the people writing it didn't seem to get what it was really supposed to be about...It's Silent Hill Dying Inside the Movie.

Ruesch said...

I did enjoy the film, mainly for the action flick it was, but I do see the problems and understand them to at least some degree.
I have never seen the original Superman movies (which I will rectify as soon as possible) or much of the animated DC universe (I want too, but time is limited these days), one thing I think that really captures Superman as he should be, at least to some degree, is the show Smallville.
Now, I know that this is very loosely based on the Superman mythology, and he doesn't even dress up in the suit until the very end of it and even then we don't see much of him in the suit. But it does capture the essence of the characters: the values that Clark Kent learns from those around him, the trust and love in his relationship to his earthly parents, that he identifies with the humans more than his kryptonian heritage because he was raised by humans with absolutely no knowledge of kryptonians. In fact, the only part of his origin in the first couple of seasons that we see is that he arrived as a toddler in a meteor shower and Jonathan and Martha Kent found him. Of course everything is reavealed later on, but it is interesting to see him discover it and try to understand it.
While people did die due to events he either caused, or was at least a major factor in, to my knowledge he never actually killed anyone (but it is hard to remember every detail of ten years worth of show). It also pushed the idea of Clark Kent is Superman, much like Linkara said in the vlog.
Another thing that made it work and feel like Superman was that it was eposodic. That is probably one of the important contributing factors of why the DC animated universe was so great was that it continued and every episode adds depth, much like the comic books would theoretically do. There are more stories to be told, more things happening with life and more time to develop and explore the characters. Movies, on the other hand, are one and done, and hard to capture that ongoing feeling of the genre (although, whatever Marvel is doing with the Avengers and related characters is great as they found a way to capture it). With a show, you can go through a journey and there are revelations, growth, twists and turns much like what Doug Walker discovered and mentioned many times in his Avatar: The Last Airbender vlogs.
So yeah, there was my bit of rambling on something Superman related. I hope you feel better soon Linkara so we can hear you criticize and complain about bad comics in the future some more, and enjoy nearly every minute of it.

Staredcraft said...

One more thing...about Lois Finding out...there is a phrase connected to Lois and Clark the New Adventures of Superman I believe that I think sums up how the whole "She doesn't know despite being an investigative journalist" really doesn't work anymore..."Lois Lane...HOW DUMB WAS SHE?"

THAT is what they wanted to avoid. If she's a PULITZER PRIZE WINNING REPORTER she WOULD do what shee did in the movie! She WOULD turn the stones most people wouldn't think to turn (or care to) to find the story...and she DID! NOT saying this is against teh comics version, they can do their own thing, but for this...I don't hate it, it makes a LOT of sense IMHO

Anonymous said...

I've had some thoughts I've posted to my Facebook about this movie I think you'd find appropriate.

1) The movie ends with Superman destroying a drone that was trying to spy on him and he acts like he's Earth's savior and should be trusted implicitly. Meanwhile, not a handful of scenes earlier, he and Zod completely leveled Metropolis. Like it's a smouldering crater now. The Government is absolutely in the right for wanting to keep tabs on him. If he had dragged Zod to an unpopulated area before beating the shit out of him, and thereby reduced the destruction and casualties he caused, then I could see Superman being in the right. You can't level a city, and then be mad your seen as a threat.

2) Man of Steel isn't even consistent with its own internal logic. Pa Kent continuously tells young Clark that he needs to hide who he is because people will fear him... So when Zod comes around to fight in Metropolis, Superman just straight up forgets that people may fear him if he gives them a reason to... like by leveling the city! Just because his birth father told him once to be a hero, he forgets a lifetime of teaching from his adoptive father that people could potentially fear him...

3) They never call him Superman in the movie. They allude to it, but never say it. Also, the title doesn't really make sense. The Dark Knight made sense because they had the Harvey Dent/Gotham's White Knight subplot. There's really no plot reason why it was called Man of Steel

4) Your review made me think of something I didn't notice before: Jimmy Olsen in this movie was made into a woman, named Jenny Olsen for this movie. Why did they do that? The character has very little, if any, impact on the story. Why was he made into a woman? Because he needs to be rescued. The sole thing Jenny Olsen does of any import is to get trapped when Metropolis is being destroyed, and get rescued by Perry White. We can't have a man rescue another man, that'd be weird. No, Jimmy Olsen needs to be a woman so he can be rescued. Jimmy Olsen had to be made a woman because, to the filmmakers, "women are helpless." I don't claim to be a feminist, but that's some messed up shit right there.

Staredcraft said...

"Your review made me think of something I didn't notice before: Jimmy Olsen in this movie was made into a woman, named Jenny Olsen for this movie. Why did they do that? The character has very little, if any, impact on the story. Why was he made into a woman? Because he needs to be rescued. The sole thing Jenny Olsen does of any import is to get trapped when Metropolis is being destroyed, and get rescued by Perry White. We can't have a man rescue another man, that'd be weird. No, Jimmy Olsen needs to be a woman so he can be rescued. Jimmy Olsen had to be made a woman because, to the filmmakers, "women are helpless." I don't claim to be a feminist, but that's some messed up shit right there.'

ACTUALLY the ONLY place it was stated she was named Jenny Olson was the Wal-Mart Magazine, it was NEVER offically stated, even in the credits, her last name was OLSON...besides she didn't have a camera! So until I see a Camera, I won't buy it. That is just a fan assumption that has yet to be proven

Will said...

One thing I wanted to point out pertains to Supes going to destroy the Indian Ocean machine: It makes sense in that there was no possible way (if memory serves me) for Zod to stop him in time on that side of the planet.

Anonymous said...

Robert Willing, I'm not sure that the right tone you should use in you Comments.

Lewis seems to be quite depressed about the movie as indicated by the tone of the review.

it important to remember that he honestly believe that Superman is the Superman is the spirit of truth and justice. He even burnt Superman At Earth's End for crying out loud.

Anonymous said...

I'm commenting on this about 10 minutes into the review. I'm going to watch the rest of it afterwards. I'll start by saying I have no interest in seeing Man of Steel. I admit I was one of those people that didn't like Superman. I couldn't relate to him. Watching your show has actually turned me around on him. I read All-Star Superman due to your recommendation, and actually didn't like it all that much. Grant Morrison is a writer that I sometimes like, but more often than not, his stuff seems too out there for me to enjoy. However, I find I do like stories that have Superman in them, and have come to agree with you that he's a great character.

I can sympathize with you on not liking the movie, as I was extremely disappointed with Dark Knight Rises. The weaknesses of Batman Begins and Dark Knight, two movies I love, are really starting to show through, mainly with the pretentiousness and melodramatic dialogue. The dark tone makes sense with Batman, but a character like Superman should be given a movie with a more positive outlook. Admittedly, I haven't seen the movie and am not an expert on the character, but you seem pretty annoyed after having sat through what I imagine is another 3 hour long comic book movie.

I didn't like the Watchmen movie at all, and haven't liked any movies Zack Snyder has done. I feel he'd be a good director for an action movie, and I don't think character driven movies fit his style.

Anyways, I might see the Wolverine movie this weekend. Hopefully it won't give me an intense migraine.

13th Doctor said...


Damn, Lewis, I don't think I have ever seen you quite that mad. Not even as Linkara. I am sorry you didn't like the movie.

I myself thought it was ok. It wasn't great but it didn't piss me off like you did. Hate to say it but I am more of a Batman fan so you have grounds to hate it like you do.

A big part of the reason why I give this film leeway is that I am hoping the follow-up will be better. I won't bring up my thoughts on the Superman/Batman film since you made it clear you are not interested until a trailer comes out.

I also do get why you thought this movie was joyless and gray. Hell, I thought The Dark Knight Rises was more uplifting!! What does that tell you? Anyhoo, feel better and do your best to forget this movie.

Staredcraft said...

"Robert Willing, I'm not sure that the right tone you should use in you Comments.

Lewis seems to be quite depressed about the movie as indicated by the tone of the review.

it important to remember that he honestly believe that Superman is the Superman is the spirit of truth and justice. He even burnt Superman At Earth's End for crying out loud."

Oh trust me I DO understand that, I do, but he came off too much of a purist "I want him to be exactly as he should be right off the bat" or "I want him to be just like the comics" NOT saying that is EXACTLY what he said or how he feels, that is just how it came to me...and believe me "I" am a huge fan of Superman too, "I" believe in what he stands for and all that. I DO! But even "I" can accept this version as valid since, given how they had things play out, we are SEEING him GET to that point! We are WATCHING me build himself up towards being that hero. It's a sad thing but, for a MAJORITY of America, if not the world, Superman is OLD HAT! He is OLD FASHIONED! They want SMALLVILLE not Superboy!

We need to GET the people to understand and SEE him the way we do, NOT just dive in and hope they'll just accept it! We are NOT EXACTLY at that point yet! And I'm sorry BUT diving into him just being exactly how we know he is to be right off the bat...again MOST people in the world WON'T accept that as cool, they'll say "Yeah...so what?".

It is a SAID truth, one I am NOT proud of accepting...but it is there. And he did not come off as even considering that as a possibility, that is what annoyed me. Again I'm sorry for defending this movie but...it's what I'm doing.

Breno Ranyere said...

i don't know if this helps but... i used to not like Superman... but after Watching Superman vs the elite, and reading superman secret identity, i admit i got more interested in the character... and curious at how someone with such high principles like never killing, always protecting the weak and always trying to bring the best of humanity... is so hard to find these days... Ihaven't seen man of stell, and i don't think i ever will...

Staredcraft said...

"Robert Willing, I'm not sure that the right tone you should use in you Comments.

Lewis seems to be quite depressed about the movie as indicated by the tone of the review.

it important to remember that he honestly believe that Superman is the Superman is the spirit of truth and justice. He even burnt Superman At Earth's End for crying out loud."

Look you Think I LIKED saying all that? I DIDN'T! I really didn't! But, just like he had his rant about the movie, I had my rant about his rant! And I felt it needed to be said. It's not like I'm saying I'm boycotting AT4W from now on, far from it, but in this instances, "I" felt insulted at what he said. Like what "I" saw was wrong and seeing all those who agreed that Pa was Character-assassinated and all that...I feel like I'm surrounded by "True fans" again.

Anonymous said...

I don’t know if you watch ItsJustSomeRandomGuy on YouTube but he did a whole storyline about how Superman’s character is often misportrayed or seen as too powerful to be interesting. In the end, after showing how great his character is, all the other heroes tell Superman (who had become disheartened thinking he could no longer make a difference because people didn’t find him inspiring any more) that they believe in him.

Stan Lee then tells him, “If I may Superman; it’s true that I gave Marvel characters imperfections to make them more relatable than DC’s characters but just because they’re imperfect doesn’t mean they don’t aspire to be the best they possibly can. Everyone, hero or not, would love to be able to do more, be better, to always know right from wrong and have the strength to make sure right always wins. You are that perfection Superman. The reasons my characters are so relatable is that they’re all trying to be like you, just like everyone else. Hollywood may lose faith in you sometimes but everyone else never will.”

Ben Ford said...

@Robert Willing
The problem with the approach being taken is that it feels like they're going grim and gritty with a character whose concept is that he's a good man who has the power to protect everyone. There's a scene which sums this up. The 'You're much stronger than you think you are. Trust me.' scene in All-Star Superman. That is what this character is about at his core. I'm all for new interpretations, except when they go against the core ethos of the character. The Nolanverse Batman worked because he took the key concept and grounded it. While we're speaking about realism, I want to make something clear.

'because let's face it, I don't believe Audiences would ACCEPT a world of a man with great powers coming before us wanting to help without believing "Hey...what's your real deal?" or other skeptical notions.'

Realism =/= Grim and gritty. Our world isn't a perfect one. But why should realistic have to mean that Superman snaps someone's neck. I'm sorry if I come across as a purist. But the grim approach isn't Superman. I've read in places that people like to contrast Superman and Batman,and the reason is precisely the same one why armored!Supes and real is grey shouldn't enter into a Superman movie. The two are opposites. Batman is dark, Superman is light. Batman is pragmatic, Superman is idealistic. Batman is a bringer of fear, Superman is a bringer of hope. Batman has gadgets and skill, Superman has superpowers.

I want to make something clear because I feel like if I don't I'll come across as biased. I'm not against realism. I could understand people having suspicions about Clark. That's not the problem. The problem is with the grim approach they took as though they were making Batman again. It could be Nolan or executives pushing for a Nolanverse Batman feel, I suppose. Either way, it feels off for a Superman film. It's fine for there to be scepticism about Superman. But I feel that scepticism should be an initial thing. Then he saves dozens of people from disaster, and helps in even the tiniest ways. The scepticism ebbs away except for maybe one or two voices. I can accept people not trusting Clark right away, what I can't accept is how Clark was handled. The neck-snap felt entirely against the character's nature, and part of me's tempted to call it as an executive meddle. Also the scene with the drone? I shouldn't feel like Clark has nothing to fear from the government because he can smash their stuff, I should feel like Clark has nothing to fear because the government recognises that he's a good person.

Lewis is right in that there were nice moments, like Martha helping Clark to deal with his ultra-sensitive hearing. But I feel like the nice scenes were drowned in the grey. Realistic approaches are okay so long as you don't lose the ethos of the character, which was what I felt was lost here. You had the origin. But past those basic threads the character just sort of drifted into off characterisation. I wouldn't even say it's a matter of being a comic book purist, I'm unfamiliar with Superman comics outside of what Lewis has reviewed, the odd thing I've picked up from the internet, and All-Star Superman. But even from what little I know of the complexities of Superman, this felt like it drifted away from the most basic ethos of Superman. What I have to wonder is why. Was it executive meddling? I have to wonder given laziness like the yellow sun on Krypton.

Also why does he need armor? If Marvel can get away with putting their heroes in versions of their comic outfits, Superman can get away with his iconic outfit.

I'm much more apprehensive about Superman vs. Batman now. On the one hand the statement that the Zod kill will haunt Supes gives me some hope. On the other hand, Frank Miller.

Nero Angelo said...

After seeing this movie, I've been waiting for Man of Steel II: Deport the Alien

Antiyonder said...

1. Yeah, even if being a killer wasn't out of character, killing Zod to protect everyone is just a cop out when for the majority of the film he showed no prior concern for the bystanders.

2.And I actually don't get where DC's mentailty of how only dark heroes get tickets sold. Yeah GL did poorly, but Avengers and the films leading up to it (plus Iron Man 3) demonstrate otherwise. Heck they demonstrate how to make the heroes flawed without undermining that they are heroes.

Anonymous said...

So, basically, cutting through the self-serving pretension and incessant whining of Robert Welling, the simple version of his comments to summarize, are that he's just another butt-hurt Man of Steel fanboy who can't maturely handle the concept of someone else having their own opinion, without devolving to the level of an entitled 6-year old throwing a tantrum who takes Lewis's thoughts on a movie as some kind of personal attack.

You are being a HUGE baby about this. I don't think that you are adequately aware of how self-serving, whiny and blubbering you sound and come across with this, but you do.

The reality is that your comments can easily be read in the tone of a crying child with a quivering lip, and that wouldn't be far from the truth of how you are obviously conducting yourself, here.

Someone else watched a movie and thinks about it differently than you, and you're acting so butthurt, whiny, and hopelessly indignant about it, that you're completely flushing any coherent point that you would be trying to make here, down the drain with your whiny, self-serving and sobby tone.

If you can't do anything else in these comments but cry and whine the way that you are currently doing, please by all means, grow up, get over yourself and go. Because you're not coming off as constructive or intelligent, you're just coming across as a pissy little baby throwing a passive-aggressive hissy-fit.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Anonymous, I appreciate the support, but I don't want people hurling insults at one another on my comments section, either. People are allowed to have their own thoughts about it, as I said in the vlog.

Maki P said...

Goodness I do want to give you a hug. And if it helps, my feelings are the same as yours, but less intense because I'm not that much into comics

Staredcraft said...

@ Lewis Lovhaug said...
Anonymous, I appreciate the support, but I don't want people hurling insults at one another on my comments section, either. People are allowed to have their own thoughts about it, as I said in the vlog

Thanks Lewis, and look I'm sorry for what I said but...yeah i get emotional outbursts like I did there right off the bat (I suffer aspbergers and...yeah no need to go into those details). It's just...like I said before, I HATE True Fans and...while you clearly weren't THAT level, I felt you did come off like one and...I've had MANY Bad times with True Fans of many fandom's I've been a part of (Don't get me started on the Danny Phantom TF's LOL)

So, again, I'm sorry for my harsh words

AnonD said...

You, Doug (I think he's going to do an episode as soon as the DVD comes out), and Noah(even though he's no longer with Channel Awesome) should get together for an episode again like "Alone in the Dark". And throw in Angry Joe since he loves this movie. Was there anyone else on Channel Awesome who like this movie?

Anonymous said...

Could we not get in to the "True Fans" territory.

He allready asked us to shop insulting each other.

Peteman said...

I haven't seen the movie, but would the krypto-forming device over the ocean run the risk of causing massive waves? If so, then Superman can justify flying over to the ocean if his plan is to prevent tsunamis, cause those can get a lot more than just Metropolis wiped out.

Peteman said...

Provide a link to that tumblr image!

TimeTravelerJessica said...

OK I agree with everything else you said about the movie and I am a big fan and I hope this doesn't come off as ragey or rude but ...

I really don't get your complete and utter rage over Supes killing Zod. Disappointed the writers took that route? I get that. But how were you okay with Cap throwing HYDRA soldiers (or worse, possibly they were possessed SHIELD agents) to their death without blinking but Supes killing Zod to save humanity and showing anguish over it was the end of the world? I know you said it's because Cap is Marvel but that doesn't sit well with me - that's just a company label that's becoming progressively more meaningless as the companies try to imitate each other more and more, as you yourself pointed out. It shouldn't be a license to kill or a ban from killing.

Don't get me wrong, I support Thou Shalt Not Kill. I don't want every hero to be the Punisher. Superman should not MURDER. But there is a difference between dropping a criminal out of vigilante justice and killing in defense of others.

Seriously - Zod had just killed hundreds of thousands of people and made it very clear he was going to kill every human on Earth until he was stopped or everyone was dead. You said Supes could have just redirected Zod's heat vision - which is true, but how long could Clark have kept it up? He'd already destroyed the machine and fought Zod's guys - Zod was still fresh and running on rage. This is not Batman vs. the Joker - there is literally nowhere on Earth that can hold Zod and probably not anywhere else in the universe after Krypton's destruction. Zod is not a mentally ill human in a costume - he's extremely powerful and had just proven there was no reasoning with him or hope he could be changed. He chose genocide as Plan A, rather than spend a few years in pain adapting or continuing to use the atmosphere suits - that undermined any attempts to make him a sympathetic character. It was the most extreme situation you could have, Clark was totally justified, and he was still anguished over it. I don't think Superman should kill, but if he's going to, it should be done exactly how it was done in the movie. It put Clark in a much better light than Cap throwing those guys (and I'm not criticizing Cap, he did it to save himself, Tony, and by extension everyone on the Helicarrier and the civilians who would have been killed by the falling wreckage and he's a soldier who's trained to kill) but everyone flips their lid over Clark killing ONE genocidal monster who was in the midst of murdering EVERYONE on Earth but Cap killing multiple guys without remorse over lower stakes is okay? The Marvel/DC divide is not enough to explain that to me.

That said - I really wish Zod had just surrendered in utter despair, completely broken by the loss of his life's purpose, since then maybe I could have had a tiny bit of sympathy for him and that last fight was anticlimatic and stupid. That way the killing could have been avoided by means other than taking Thou Shalt Not Kill to ridonkulous extremes. Filmmakers should learn from what Avengers did right - Loki surrendering made the film much better structured and fit with his character and got in a good laugh. A dramatic version with Zod would have worked just as nicely. There is no law that says there has to be a final boss fight, especially if it's anticlimactic.

Antiyonder said...

TimeTravelerJessica: Yeah I get Superman doing so in self defensee, but it comes off well hollow.

For most of the movie he shows no lick of concern for civilian casualties, but now he's concerned to a point where he'll kill Zod to do so.

Maybe if there was a gradual build up to that moment by showing him either showing more concern for casualties or trying to prevent more of them before the big kill.

I mean look at The Proteus arc in The Uncanny X-Men. They acknowledged in the end that Proteus had to go down, with good build up to sell us on that point.

Now if you disagree with my argument, fine, but please give a direct rebuttal.

FS said...

I agree with most of your points, but since I knew what was going to happen and was with a friend making jokes throughout the whole thing, I came out only indifferent towards it. Dont' get me wrong, it's still a bad movie, but I was able to keep myself entretained during it (which kinda re-enforces the whole sucking aspect about it).

One thing I disagree with you though: I like the new 52 costume, yes, considering the character, an armor is almost stupid, and the former one was perfectly balanced. However, I like that the costume looks like it can resist the one that's wearing him, and I think it now makes the shield call much more atention towards itself. I don't know if it IS better, but I do like it better.

Also, the villains being probably the most sympathetic characters in the movie is unforgivable, specially considering that they literally say they are willing to kill everyone on Earth (for no good reason)....which was one of the funnier scenes (Zod telling Jor-el that he was discussing the merits of GENOCIDE with a ghost). When space-Hitler (Stalin or Mao might be better analogies actually) is a more likable character than SUPERMAN in an origin story about the man of tomorrow, you have to re-write the script from scratch.
Sorry you had to suffer it so much.

P.D.:I'm starting to think that Miller's Dark Knight was way worse of an influence than it's credited for.

Deraj said...

Lewis I feel your pain. I'm a Batman fan but even I know how to write Superman the right way. You and the Walker Brothers have pointed out all the reasons why I hate this movie. Joe is the only one who I have seen adamantly defend it. I actually got up and went to the bathroom during this movie and I didn't care if I missed anything. I even said to my friend "How long is this?" "why?" "Because if it sucks I don't want it to drag on forever". I was more annoyed/ angry with the movie by the end of it then depressed but I was depressed when I thought "Oh god are they still going to make a Justice League movie?" I mean so far after watching the Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel, and Green Lantern all I can say is "Maybe if they don't fuck up Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and whoever else their putting in it, it'll be good" I have my doubts obviously. I mean I would rather they didn't use the Dark Knight trilogy Batman as the one they put in the Justice League, reason for that is if this is the same universe as Man of Steel and Green Lantern why didn't they get off their super asses and take out the bomb?! In all honesty I rather DC say "No more movies for awhile let's get our shit together first" I realize they run a company but still rather wait and make an awesome movie than rush to get a new one out each year!

Unknown said...

Out of curiosity Linkara, what is your opinion of Lois and Clarke: The New Adventures of Superman?

Anonymous said...

Hey Linkara, just curious have you seen "Justice League: Doom" yet?

Anonymous said...

I'm annoyed by how many people bitch about Superman killing Zod, when he did that in the post-Crisis revamp. So, yeah, Superman HAS, in fact, killed before. And he killed Zod for pretty much the same reasons he did in this movie.

E.O. Bjorndal said...

Wow... You're scary when you're angry, Lewis. Remind me to never piss you off. Ever.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"I'm annoyed by how many people bitch about Superman killing Zod, when he did that in the post-Crisis revamp. So, yeah, Superman HAS, in fact, killed before. And he killed Zod for pretty much the same reasons he did in this movie."


Anonymous said...


I recognize that, but the thing is that the character has evolved. Batman killed when he was first created but does he now? NO because he has evolved with the ideas of others and become something else. Look at the Superman portrayed in Action Comics #1 is he like the superman we know today? No far from it. It's because the character has evolved into something greater.

dancingmadrb3 said...

Okay so now none of the reviewers of Channel Awesome have cast this down except for Angry Joe, I have to finally say that this movie is one of the few times I am at odds with all of it.
Mainly because I liked this movie.

Yes I said it, but I am entitled to that opinion and I will explain why I liked this movie:

Firstly I actually rather liked the less bright tone of the movie.
It gave the movie more of a realistic feel as opposed to a living comic book.
Comic book movies overall have the same tone but some go too comic book in looks, such as Batman and Robin and look how many people like that movie.
Yeah no one really likes that one as it came after the comic book movies became more grounded in reality such as the case of Burtons Batman film.

Another reason why I liked it is that I actually liked the bits with Krypton.
In general in films and other media outside the comics Krypton is never really featured too much.
Krypton is more of a plot point then an actual place.
Heck I would have been in favor of a movie just about Krypton, it seems like it could have worked too given the opening.

I also liked that Superman was not over powered and could not entirely save everybody.
The issue I always hated with Superman non comic wise is that he can fly around the planet, save seventy bazillion people, stop every disaster and be home in time to save a kitten who is stuck in a tree.
There is nothing that can hurt the guy, this superman is less powerful thus grounded in more reality.

Also I am in contention on why people call Zods plan stupid.
Just because you have a terraforming device doesnt mean you can pick any planet, its actually a big flaw i see in the Genesis device from Star Trek... a dead moon is a dead moon for a reason.
And considering the condition of the colony that Zod visited choosing a more suitable planet I think is important for such a device to work.
And considering how Zod seemed to know about Earth I think he gathered its inherit properties so his race can become practically gods.
Plus it would be another blow to Jor-El, destroying the world that he gave his son to.
As for hopping over to mars, well even if we had the same terraforming tech the Kryptonians do it would still be a big bust.
Mars is farther from the sun thus is the main reason why its in the condition its in, its outside of the Goldilocks zone.
We would still need artificial means to make sure that conditions stayed ripe for the colony to survive.
Even with a magic device like the Genesis device where you can make a dead world an inhabitable one faces major flaws if its not in the right orbit.
For life as we know it to thrive you need sunlight and water.
Mars for example has plenty of water but its all frozen thanks to its distance from the sun.
Even if we did make it into water, well we would need a way to maintain it.
Its just a major terraforming trope I think needs to be re thought, most who come up with such ideas are more interested in what the device can do then how really effective it is.

Then there is Lois Knowing who Clark is, again this is something I like.
I never got why in a lot of media Lois is too stupid not to know, or too genre blind.
For such a great reporter Lois is rather thick in most media.

In the end this is no different then some of the negative things said about Burtons Batman movie, complaints that its "too dark!" are all over the place and so is "thats not the Superman i grew up with and loved!"
Just replace Superman with Batman.

dancingmadrb3 said...

Also if I may add if its anyone who should be mad that Superman killed it should be me as I usually doint like superheros that kill.
But in this case i dont think Supes had a lot of choiced in the matter.
Zod was left alone with only Supes to keep him at bay and well Zod being rather crazy I did not see many ways to keep him at bay or make him powerless.
And considering that this is a newer superman who is still learning to control himself this actually makes him more aware of what he can do.
It takes failure in order to succeed, so this gives Supes more motivation to do better next time.

thorondragon said...

gthe reason why I prefer batman over superman is not that he has too many powers, is that he has too few weaknesses. I do like the idea of him realizing he is more powerful than anything on earth, that he could singurally defeat the entirety of humanity, I do. however I dislike that he seems invulnerable to other worldly forces as well. he has advantages over all other beings in dc, not just over humanity, and I have a problem with that concept. it means that whenever he fights, there is absolutely no risk. it means also that every time he is hit there is far less, well, emotional impact, because we know that the hit is not going to cause him any true pain or inconvenience. he fights, but does not suffer for his effort for the most part. I just feel they can make him more powerful than humanity but still vulnerable to threat that are equal to him. him able to totally overpower darkside is faaar too much when it is without effort.

think that is why I prefer marvel in a sense. while yes, a lot of the characters are even more ridiculously durable than the man of steel, they do not take lumps without conesquences. can you imagine how many times wolverine has suffered injuries so painful, so traumatic that it would have killed a human by the pain alone, yet he survived without a scar? when his flesh is cut or a lung punctured, he is forced to remember these injuries without hope of forgetting them.
just saying that I would like superman truly and fully, and I do like him as a character so long as I diassociate him with comics lately, if he had to truly risk his life to defend earth far more often. not saying he hasn't risked himself before, but I mean come on, how often has he overpowered guys other heroes would struggle against in a single blow?

.....and yeah, superman killing zodd is stupid. while I am not entirely against the idea of a hero killing, depending on their background and morals (wolverine and even captain America are trained to kill, and it shows their strength when they are able to show restraint), I do like the ida of someone being so strong they need not kill..... and he would not have had to kill zodd if the people of metropolis were not lemmings.

Anonymous said...

"In the end this is no different then some of the negative things said about Burtons Batman movie, complaints that its "too dark!" are all over the place and so is "thats not the Superman i grew up with and loved!"
Just replace Superman with Batman."

The previously popular version of Batman before the Burton movie was the Adam West show; before that, Batman was seen as campy despite the fact he had already gotten pretty dark in the comics. The popular idea of the character clashed with what was actually going on until the movie came out. This version of Superman is not based on anything except one guy's vision of Superman, and as such it clashes with a lot of people's views of the character.

Oh, and "just replace Superman with Batman"? Yeah, that's actually part of the problem: trying to make every superhero as dark and brooding as Batman. Making something darker and edgier is fine, but if it doesn't work with what's already established with a character, then it just plain doesn't work.

I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't like this movie, and I won't criticize any of your other points. (I kind of agree with a couple, actually; Lois knowing Superman's identity is probably for the best, since she just looks like an idiot otherwise.) But please don't simplify the complaints against this movie into "They Changed It, Now It Sucks"; sometimes a change just simply isn't for the better.

thorondragon said...

oh how it confuses me why people keep on fucking up characterization that is seventy years old..... best I could guess is that they do not want him to go stale, but I am pretty sure if he has last this long something msut be right.... sighs.

basically when it comes to killing, it should match the hero and the situations they get themselves into. superman should not kill, batman should not kill...... I have no problems with wonder woman killing. mainly because that I find it the reason why she does not kill so often is because she adopts the attitude of the other heroes for the most part. ultimately she is one of the few trained warrior in dc, people who learned martial skills. unlike batman, who developed his skills to disable and maim, she was trained in the art of ending a motherfucker right quick. it shows that she has great strength herself as she does not just kill everyone in sight, but she is the only one who is truly capable of ending a threat once and for all if no other option is available. SHE us the one who would snap zodd's neck, though of course she would be the one whol would GET HIM AWAY FROM THE FUCKING LEMMINGS WHO AREN"T TRYIGN TO ESCAPE.

..... uuuuugh. most would have hoped that the avengers would make people step up their game, but instead they get pretentious over it all,. I, for one, shared a similar disappointment when Avatar the last Airbender was finished. I thought that a series THIS god damn good would make people want to become as good. instead, mediocrity. hell the best shows produced since avatar have been transformers prime and, as shocking as it was too me at first, my little pony.... basically tow old series, one of them especially vapid, rose up amongst the mediocrity. sighs.

Dracomax said...

dancingmadrb3 said... "Mars for example has plenty of water but its all frozen thanks to its distance from the sun.
Even if we did make it into water, well we would need a way to maintain it.
Its just a major terraforming trope I think needs to be re thought, most who come up with such ideas are more interested in what the device can do then how really effective it is."
Actually, the problem with mars is not that water is frozen. it is only frozen because mars does not have a liquid core. Bear with me for a second. the lack of a liquid core means no magnetosphere, which in turn means that when a solar flare or the solar winds hit Mars, the atmosphere is worn away. WIthout much atmosphere, it has no way of keeping temperatures high enough to keep the water liquid. it is, however, in the zone around our sun in which liquid water occurs. That being said, it is entirely irrelevan, because the Kryptonians have the technology to increase the mass of a planet. doing so would, in fact, restart core fusion, and help to produce a magnetosphere. for a civilization that can manipulate mass and gravity, creating/moving atmosphere and converting it to a breathable one(which they were going to do on earth. they literally told us they were doing these things)from Jupiter or Venus(not like they are using them) would literally be trivial.

and in a universe in which a man can fly faster by tightening some unknown muscle, and has all the powers of superman, your science is more or less irrelevant anyway.

The point is the only reason that it was a scenario like that is that it was written like that. Everyone involved had an idiot ball, and since apparently kryptonian atmosphere can remove kryptonian powers now(Beardless Idiot had no powers even after he recovered from being sick--and why wasn't Zod sick, come to think of it? if it is that easy for adults to adapt, and they have powers like that of literal gods, then his entire reason for rejecting the "build krypton in concert with earth, and coexist" plan is entirely moot.

I don't mind that you liked it. I know lots of people who like it. It's okay. But just because you like it doesn't mean that it doesn't fail on sever critical levels, and the problem with the death of Zod, aside from the fact it doesn't really fit his character, is that it was not earned. The lead up was poor, there were literally dozens of points where either one of them could have avoided it, and even when the point came, there were other options. It's not like he had a doomsday device that would instantaneously kill every life on Earth. And to be honest, even the big no was cheesy and felt more campy than a 1960s batman episode. it didn't work, for me, at all, and was far more "I'm screaming because people will bitch and moan if I don't, not because I have any real issue with what happened."

-And as for those who argue that this was the guy becoming superman, much like Batman in Batman begins, and that's why he didn't care how many people died because he couldn't be bothered to help---figuring out what you are going to stand for, figuring out how you are going to do it, those could be excused here. but his love of humanity, his basic decency? Even his respect for life, those are things that you don't really learn. either you have them, or you don't. The idiot of steel did not.

TimeTravelerJessica said...


I don't disagree with that. They should have built it better - even if the fight had been shorter and there had been less collatoral damage up until that point it would have worked better. Like I said, I wish they had gone a different route - the entire final fight indicated why Zack Snyder needs a hardcore lesson in directorial restraint, both from a structural point-of-view and avoiding the killing thing. When I posted about this on Facebook, my friend posted yet more really good reasons why Supes killing was,to him, a fail moment that had to do with Supes as a character specifically. That's fine - I actually agree they shouldn't have forced the issue because of that. My problem is that that's not most of what I'm hearing - most of what I'm hearing is "But DC characters don't kill!" which, to me, is not a valid argument. "But Superman is so powerful that the only logical reaction afterwards from the populace would be fear since he's unstoppable in this universe without the other superpowered characters" or "He's supposed to be a symbol of hope and goodness and I'm angry that the filmmakers worked in that no way out situation just to be gritty" (which is what Lewis started to say and I was with him until then) or "it simply wasn't built up too well" are all good arguments. I still think the complete and utter rage I have seen over it is disproportionate but I can see all of those.

dancingmadrb3 said...

Dracomax said...

"Actually, the problem with mars is not that water is frozen. it is only frozen because mars does not have a liquid core. Bear with me for a second. the lack of a liquid core means no magnetosphere, which in turn means that when a solar flare or the solar winds hit Mars, the atmosphere is worn away. WIthout much atmosphere, it has no way of keeping temperatures high enough to keep the water liquid. it is, however, in the zone around our sun in which liquid water occurs. That being said, it is entirely irrelevan, because the Kryptonians have the technology to increase the mass of a planet. doing so would, in fact, restart core fusion, and help to produce a magnetosphere. for a civilization that can manipulate mass and gravity, creating/moving atmosphere and converting it to a breathable one(which they were going to do on earth. they literally told us they were doing these things)from Jupiter or Venus(not like they are using them) would literally be trivial."

Well yeah Mars has other issues outside its distance from the sun.
I only used Mars as an example as its the planet we are considering colonizing.

Anonymous said...

To anyone making the 'He's killed before!' argument, do you realize that just because he's done it before, doesn't mean he had to do it here?

The fact that he's done it before does not give Goyer and co. a free pass on lack of creativity. Stop shaming yourselves with this faulty logic.

Unknown said...

Pa Kent is the foundation of who Clark becomes. in this train wreck all he does is "No don't do anything to help or trust anyone. Stay hidden and be afraid of everything!" Any kid who had that their whole life should be paranoid as f***.
Then he goes and "heroically sacrifices" or more accurately does something dumb-ass and lets himself be killed even though your son could have easily gotten the damn dog without getting discovered. Then the "oh no don't come save me' ya like that wouldn't traumatize the poor kid even more and he should really be a complete basket case.
This portrayal of Pa Kent killed the movie for me so much and then it doesn't get any better, though some parts are OK.
And because of this (and Frank miller being involved and a direction similar to Dark Knight) i do not want to see Superman Batman or the JLA movie.

Fanatic-Templar said...

It's funny, but by the time Kal kills Zod this movie had depressed me enough not to care. See, if you're into overly simplistic moral dichotomies, then between killing Zod and letting him kill those civilians he made the moral choice. It's disappointing that they set up the story to culminate in such an uninspired (and uninspiring) climax, but at least by the standards established Kal made the right call. In a better movie I would have been appalled. In this one, I was relieved. Because they did have Kal make the wrong choice.

Between revealing himself and letting innocent civilians die, we again have a simplistic moral dichotomy. But Kal chooses to hide and let the innocent die. When Kal stood and watched his father die without intervening, I knew that I could never forgive this movie. This is the defining moment of Kal's development. This is a "hero" who is defined by the notion that sometimes you have to let innocents die to save yourself. Man of Steel has a protagonist defined by cowardice.

Jonathan Kent spent his entire life in terror and bequeathed to his son a legacy of fear and distrust, his only comfort in death being the knowledge that his child would grow up as a pariah desperately seeking the favour of a world that would curse his name if it knew he existed.

That's basically Darkseid's ultimate victory in the animated series.

The fact that Kal eventually forsakes his father's teachings of fear and selfishness to become something even vaguely Supermanish at the urging of his alien dad also perverts one of the core concepts of Superman - in this movie, Kal is good - to the extent that he is - because his alien nature manages to shine through despite his human upbringing endeavouring to bring him low. He is completely inhuman.

Marcos said...

Hey Lewis have u watched the green arrow series?
alot of people have liked it, me included,
its funny because he kills, he has a reason to, but the series wants he to because at this point he is a vigilante first and will slowly change into a hero, and thats fine because u see that happen and it works there, also the influence of the other characters over him and all that you should really check it out

Frosty said...

Yeah, this movie blows. Hard.
The biggest stupidity for me was still Jonathan's death. I thought the reason for it "so Clark wouldn't have to reveal himself" was pretty dumb but even then that plot point itself had no build up at all. (I've actually wondered if they were going to make Superman into Spiderman with a bad conscience for not helping and with kids bullying him in another scene... They even had the "crushed the metal pipe with his bare hand" thing.)
Really, the whole movie just felt like a rush, every time it seemed they would explore something interesting it just skipped to another scene.
And the fact we barely actually see Superman do the "traditional superhero work". It's nice to see people helping each other from under the wreckage but I actually wanted to see Superman do some of the saving...
And yeah, there were at least a dozen other ways out besides killing Zod, but I gave up long by that point. This is not Superman, it's just an idiot flying around destroying cities - which he could have at least tried to avoid.

The animation is waaaaay better than this thing. And now I'll definitely check out All-Star Superman.

Frosty said...

Speaking of subtle biblical references I groaned when they said Clark was 33 years old...

Unknown said...

Lewis... I just wanted to say that this is the single best video blog I have ever seen. Seriously. All your videos are good but this unscripted, direct approach was really refreshing. I wouldn't want to watch it every week but to see a video without jokes or nerd 'references' was a great change of pace. its really refreshing to see someone vlogging these days about something they obviously care about, talking openly and honestly about something, from the heart and without it being scripted and edited and pre produced. It was awesome to watch and also a good analysis of the film. It's something I'd like to see done more often.


Nazaru said...

Well this funny. I like Man of Steel and you hate it, Linkara. And you like the Dark Knight Rises, while I despise it entirely. But I will agree Kevin Costner was pretty bland and wooden in his acting. Then again I've seen Jennifer Aniston's so called "acting " & "comedic material" (Hack) so it could've been worse.

Unknown said...

In other words, they took Superman and tried to make him Batman. Grand...

With the continuity screw aside, I'd like to say that I am also a part of the "Superman Doesn't Kill" club. It just seems to go against the kind of person that he has evolved to during his tenure as a superhero and his general philosophy. His life, teachings, and outlook on life has made it where he is the boy scout that we either have grown to love or love to hate. Taking that away from him kind of takes away what makes Superman, Superman. One great example of this could be found in the DCAU where Superman murdering someone led him to become a Justice Lord and being willing to kill a teammate in order to achieve a goal.

Well I make no sense so I am going to look for that awesome image that you've brought up with Tony Stark and NotHeroic!Superman. I hope that you can feel a little better soon, Linkara.

Anonymous said...

Lewis, I love that you care so much about Superman, and about positive, uplifting, affirming storytelling.

I'd predicted this when Zak Snyder was announced as the director. Snyder, the man behind 300, has no restraint or... moral bearings, at least in his storytelling. Thus, I'd already decided to give this travesty a pass.

Daniel2112 said...

I'm genuinely sorry for how badly you reacted to this movie, Lewis. I'll probably eventually watch it myself, but I don't have particularly high hopes for it. I never bothered with Superman Returns because as you said, he never even throws a punch. How do you do that in a Superman film?

Anyway, have you seen Pacific Rim, and if so, what did you think of it?

Unknown said...

Linkara, your pain is...delicious. In all seriousness, while I did enjoy Man of Steel alot, I see were you are coming from.

Unknown said...

I thought Man of Steel was a solid film, though it does have problems for sure.

rdfox said...

Right, I haven't watched, probably won't (not a fan of MoS), but is it just me, or do you look TOTALLY stoned in the thumbnail?

MasterSeijin said...

Anytime I see Lewis explode with outrage, it's beautiful. Because I have this mental image of him being this great big friendly teddy bear who cracks jokes. But when someone fucks with his most cherished characters, this teddy bear sprouts claws and fangs! XD

Anonymous said...

Wow, Lewis... I've seen you *play* angry before, but this was genuine.

My review: http://le-messor.livejournal.com/90907.html)

I didn't mind this movie as much as I should've, but that's because I expected it to be a lot worse on every level - even the greyness was broken up with a bit of green!
Part of it was, I was spoiled on the neck-snapping. Though I didn't expect Superman to kill that family.
Seriously - look at the direction he turns Zod's head as he snaps the neck. TOWARDS them, not away; he should've killed them!

But after your rant, and Mark Waid's, and others, I've decided you all make very good points, and I can't back it up. There's so much wrong with this movie - it's like a lot of superhero and fantasy things lately, made for people who *hate* the subject matter.

In Secret Identity, didn't he get his powers from a meteor?

~ Mik

Unknown said...

"Hey Lewis have u watched the green arrow series?
alot of people have liked it, me included,
its funny because he kills, he has a reason to, but the series wants he to because at this point he is a vigilante first and will slowly change into a hero, and thats fine because u see that happen and it works there, also the influence of the other characters over him and all that you should really check it out"

I actually hate that he kills. The kills frewuently, but then the series gives us Roy Harper, who is portrayed as sympathetic... si Ollie just killed how many Roy Harpers? The show shows us that the skums are hell, and that you do what you have to. Yet he kills. And he kills guards. Men just doing their jobs.

Oh, and in general, if you think Lara was wooden, look at Stephen Amell's face! He has two emotions: Stoic and smug. This is one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen. A self-righteous hypocrite.

Arrow has very few good points, namely the Tommy and Roy Harper characters, and not much else. Also, as a fan of Birds of Prey, you will probably HATE this series' portrayal of Helena Bertinelli. Overall, Linkara, steer clear of Arrow, at least the first season. The only good thing is that season 2 will apparently launch a Flash TV series, which will likely be much better, hopefully not attempting to be dark and edgy. It will probably have a lot more heart to it.

Fionordequester said...

You know, I have not watched hardly any of this movie, and have in fact only watched the Superman vs. Zod fight on Youtube. And...I actually found the last moments of the fight kind of touching and sad. Superman clearly didn't WANT to kill Zod, but, while I do agree he could have turned Zod's head...

What exactly DO you do with someone who has declared himself hell-bent on destroying the people you love AND has proven himself to be strong enough to fight you on even ground, even if you are Superman? Smash his hands? Laser beam the tar out of his wrists? Blind him so he can't use his heat vision? Even then, who's to say he couldn't use his weird alien technology to fix that?

Superman should never kill when he has the choice...but think about it, what if Zod had somehow gotten out of the hold? Literally all he has to do is sneeze on someone, and they're dead. Do you really think Superman would've been justified in taking that kind of risk?

I'm not saying this movie is good (I wouldn't know), but, that's just what I was thinking of.

Barachiel said...

@Robert Willing

Honestly, I could hug you, man. I've been reading Superman since I the 80s, and I *loved* this movie. I really haven't understood the sheer amount of hate and vitriol this film got. Sure it had it's low points, but everything they did made sense to me, and the repeated plotholes I see pointed out are only holes if you don't actualy take a second and *think* about what's going on.

Why'd Clark talk to a priest and not Holo-Dad? Because Humans were the other side of the issue for him. Kryptonians were the other. He already knew Zod was bad from the Holo-History lesson. But he needed to look a stranger in the eye, confess so to speak, and see what he did. Duh.

Why did Supes go to the Indian Ocean? Um, because the gravity machine was screwing up jet attacks AND it was on the far side of the world. He could get there and back a LOT faster than the US military could unless they just happened to have a carrier in range, and honstly, given what it as doing to the ocean, i doubt a carrier could have carried off a successful attack either. No, the team split was completely logical.

Third, the Pa Kent scene. You already touched on that, so I'm leaving it alone.

Fourth, the death of Zod. Why didn't he just fly up? Because if you didn't notice, their flight works an awful lot like gravity manipulation, what with th ehovering and re-orienting from lying down. Clark probably WAS pulling up, and Zod was pulling down. Supes, NOT being a bloody christ figure, made the hardest choice of his life, to save people. And as many others have said, this will probably be the catalyst for his "Don't Kill" policy from this point forward.

Finally, why didn't the Kryptonians go to another planet? Why should they? THIS world was ripe for terraforming. It would require much less time and work to do a halfway compatible planet than a completely barren world. Also, at this point, Zod hates Kal so, and to torment his father, he's doing this out of revenge and spite, and is using his Kryptonian "upbringing" to justify this in his own head. Just because even the villain is the hero in his mind, doens't mean he's not actually the bad guy. Plenty of horrible people have had a reasonable sounding justification for their atrocities.

I'm sorry Spoony, Linkara, and Nostalgia Critic were so thoroughly aggrieved by this film. Not everyone gets to like the things everyone else does. I'm just thankful Angry Joe raved about this. As long as the fans keep trying shout their praises over the wailing and gnashing of teeth, we'll hopefully see this franchise continue.

Anonymous said...

So you say that "Superman is too powerful, it makes him boring, etc." is an invalid argument when someone explains why they do not like Superman. I have this mindset, so how would you explain to me how this argument is not strong enough?

Anonymous said...

Lewis Lovhaug, what do you think of Barachiel points?

The ones he defending are pretty valid and make sense logical.

I hope you don't mind responding to the points made in the Comments please?

Oh and you hope you get better!

Think you.

47ness said...

Thanks for doing this vlog, Linkara. Well worth the wait. :)

Two minor nitpicks (just because): Zod and co. traveled the galaxy looking for other Kryptonians, presumably in the 33 years, but they didn't age at all when they arrived to Earth. Sure they have cryostatis technology, but that was only established as being imprisoned in ice. (Or, are they simply gentically bred to age really slowly?) And speaking of the Earth arrival, Zod says humanity has "24 hours to comply", as if an alien warlord gave a crap what an "hour" was! The movie really pressed the issue of 'these are aliens who can barely breathe Earth's air and lived on a world with more mass because REALISM', but they seem to already know our units of time?

Definitely needed another draft.

(Also, not to take anything away from her competence, but Lois gunning down Kryptonians with their own tech- which she acquired not one minute ago- made me think of SFDebris' wry quip about Remans being bred for war.) ;p

Anonymous said...

"So you say that "Superman is too powerful, it makes him boring, etc." is an invalid argument when someone explains why they do not like Superman. I have this mindset, so how would you explain to me how this argument is not strong enough?"

Well, I can't speak for Lewis, but my idea has always been, "There is no such thing as a hero too powerful that you can't throw a villain at him that's a viable threat." Superman has villains such as Metallo (a robot powered by Kryptonite that can slaughter a bunch of people while Superman's moaning on the ground), Parasite (a villain who can drain Superman's powers and use them himself), Mxyzptlk (a magic imp that has to be tricked into a defeat), Mongul (who's strength not only rivals Superman, but fights really dirty, like that little birthday present he left him in that one Alan Moore story), Bizarro (as strong as Superman but really messed up in the head) and Darkseid (more insanely powerful than Superman, not the least due to his ability to shoot homing disintegration beams). Also, look at Superman's greatest foe, Lex Luthor. His "power" is basically being really, really smart, and yet Superman acknowledges him as one of the greatest threats to the planet. There are other arguments one can use why it doesn't matter why Superman's overpowered (such as that's not where the drama is SUPPOSED to come from, it comes from how much he helps people without becoming a god or whether he can stop a villain he can't just punch out before they kill a bunch of people), but I think the fact that it's really not that hard to create a villain more powerful than the hero of any given story is good enough.

Anonymous said...

My mom and I were looking forward to this movie ,but the backlash I heard is giving me second thoughts. We did finally see the Avengers last night though

Anonymous said...

Lewis Lovhaug, why are you not responding to the (Man of Steel) defenders points?

Don't you think the points are fair. it would be nice see if you agree or dsagree with them.

Please responding to the points made in the Comment.

I'm sorry if this post is annoying you. is just that you not answering. Think you.

Anonymous said...

"Why did Supes go to the Indian Ocean? Um, because the gravity machine was screwing up jet attacks AND it was on the far side of the world. He could get there and back a LOT faster than the US military could unless they just happened to have a carrier in range, and honstly, given what it as doing to the ocean, i doubt a carrier could have carried off a successful attack either. No, the team split was completely logical."

But the other gravity machine was in New York City! Home to millions of human lifes. thousand of people were being killed by the destructon of the gravity machine. If he could get there and back faster than the military then why did he not deal with the one in the city first and than the one
in the Indian Ocean?

Unknown said...

First, I'm so sorry that you went to see this movie. Personally I refuse to see this movie based on just Kevin Cosner's quote of not saving people is an okay thing. That is a load of crap, and I screamed several obscenities at my computer screen after seeing that clip. Second, is it just me or is there a color problem with movies like Superman, where there is no real color other then grey and brown and black; its some of the most mind numbingly depressing set of colors that I've seen in movies. Lastly, I refuse to allow the last two "Superman" movies top exist in my reality. It sounds silly I know, but I remember seeing Superman and Superman 2 on the big screen. I based most of my characters in the early days of DND and other RPGs on Superman's moral compass. And I just straight up refuse to allow such darkness into the memories that is the Man of Steel, to me.

Now that I've seen your review, I have to go see the Avengers just to get that darkness out of my head about Superman. For no other reason then to hear Tony Stark's speech to Loki about "There is no way your coming out of this on top."

Volvagia said...

Anonymous 6:23:

My "Top 4" Superman villains are:

1. Livewire (Themes and concepts (all but the last of these AREN'T in her comic book origin): Is suicide okay if the victim is clearly happy while doing it (and make no mistake, her expression in that episode clearly betrays happiness in the face of suicide), does Superman's direct involvement in her creation justify her anger at him, could Superman actually feel guilty over doing what he does just once AND (the big question) does Superman sow the seeds of moving forward or complacency. In terms of sheer dramatic depth, Livewire is maybe the richest and most rewarding villain in his stable for a writer to think about more deeply, and I almost hope Superman/Batman allows her, and not Luthor, to come to the big screen. It won't, but I can always hope.)
2. Brainiac (Themes and concepts: The conflict between man and machine, Superman's compassion for his people (if he's bottled Kandor) and exploring the line where cold logic becomes barbarism under a different name.)
3. Lex Luthor (Conceptual theme: Though he really only contains the thematic question of "Is Superman sowing the seeds of forward movement or complacency", that's probably the deepest single question in the Superman mythos.)
4. Mxyzptlk (He doesn't have much in the way of thematic questions, if any, but he was the other central figure of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and he's a fun villain in Superman's stable.)

Torkuda said...

I had a couple problems with this movie too.

First problem I will confess is a problem with the over all franchise of superman. Claim you are encouraging the best in people, whilst with no semblance of proof, constantly assuming the absolute worst about them. I'm talking about superman's identity. The main reason I've always seen given for him having said secret identity is not to safe guard his family from his enemies, or because he's bashful or whatever, no, it's because he assumes that if people find out who he is they'll try to snatch him in his sleep and do experiments on him or try to control him… because given the fact that they have had plenty of opportunities to do that anyway regardless of whether they know his secret identity and generally don't even try… I just hate that. And really, I know it's supposed to be a commentary that we fear what we don't understand but… well that statement is an exaggerated half truth anyway. We spend billions of dollars a year trying to send people into space precisely to look at the unknown and we have spent little to no money at all aiming anything even resembling a weapon into space even "just in case". When special people do show up in society, whether better than us in some way (like Einstein or Hawking) or disabled, save for extreme examples like the Nazi's, actually no, we don't tend to try to slaughter them and try to experiment on them. We fear unknowns that seem to present a clear danger not things we just don't understand. Seriously, just be honest, what do you think humans are more afraid of by in large, alien invasion, or yellow jackets? Why are we so afraid of bugs over something that could probably squash us like bugs? Probably because we know what yellow jackets are and we know why we should fear them, but aliens, we haven't got a clue. And don't go into the horror movies involving aliens, because there are way more horror movies involving great white sharks, ONE SPECIES OF SHARK that we totally do understand, than ones involving aliens.

Second is something that the superman franchise sometimes does do, but sometimes does not do. The notion that the military is only present to convenience the plot. We have aliens sitting in satellite orbit threatening to blow up the planet in 24 hours unless we meet ridiculous demands. We have how many ICBMs that can fly up there (look up how ICBMs work if you have doubts), how many rockets that can get up there and further and how many of them that would probably be flying at, around or above mach 25… for the love of… SHOOT… THEM… DOWN! If ever there was an excuse to try that, they're gonna try to blow up the planet, shoot them. It's not like this is a moral dilemma. 3 to over seven billion, I think we can justify this one. And I know "it might not have worked". It might have, no one knew because no one tried, "But they hacked our satellites". We existed before satellites, hell space travel and ICBMs both predate that kind of satellite technology, we wouldn't know that trying to save the freaking planet wouldn't work unless we tried and really, what's the worst they can do if we do try… blow up the planet? That's what they're gonna try to do anyway! Even when they start sending ships into the atmosphere we don't shoot at them. When the military is called in they have apaches and A-10 warthogs fight three human sized guys on the ground and four F16s and a C130 fight a giant city sized ship that is leveling an entire city in minutes. Because that's logical strategy. No 22s, no cruise missiles, no discussing nuclear options (remember the planet is at stake) no air fleets, no mobilizing battle ships just "help us man flying around in bright blue pajamas!".

Torkuda said...

Sorry, wanted to continue-

Yes, I'm a 5 year army vet, but seriously you can't say no one else realized how utterly useless the military looked in this movie. Cops, fire department, national guard, medical folks, let's not even talk about them, as neither did the movie.

What could they have possibly done to have human beings standing up to aliens successfully or at least trying to fight and still made super man look important? I don't know, how about ask the folks who created the animated superman adventures about Daniel Turpin and Maggie Sawyer? Ya know, the cops who several times physically and tactically assist superman? The people helping to SHOW superman inspiring and helping people, instead of just pushing them aside to "let the professional guy wearing a jumpsuit go to work"?

Finally… Zod made sense? Why was he terraforming earth? Kryptonians could survive on earth and would live as gods, why would you try to change that? He only has to focus for about five minutes and he gets over all negative side effects, meaning the negative effects of this planet on Kryptonians are less troublesome than the onset of puberty. I think the rewards of virtual invulnerability, flight, super speed and god like abilities outweigh the costs of five minutes of confusion at six years old. (He looked about 6 or maybe even 10 to me, really I couldn't tell how old he was specifically in the scene where he discovered his powers of hearing and sight.) Trust me, kids get confused about a lot more than that anyway, it's part of growing up.

Anthony said...

At last! Someone else who disliked Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent as much as I did.

Anonymous said...

I knew you probably weren't going to like this one about 30 seconds after I saw it. I just didn't realize it would be 'berserk button' didn't like.

Fiery Little One

xwiry tyler said...

Lewis, the reason that everyone waited and pleaded for you to do a vlog on Man of Steel is because many of us see you as the... it's not authority, but I guess it's more of the voice of reason when it comes to comic book characters and the products that are based on them. Some of us like myself are children of the digital age or just weren't into comics at the time. We missed the good comics that you talk about on your show, feel that we still want to be a part of what made them great and see you as a guide to the good experiences of sequential art like people see Noah with regards to non-electronic gaming.

The point is, all of your fans know of Superman, but not all of them really know Superman the way you do and the ones who do still value your opinion enough to seek it out.

And think about that a little the next time you're feeling down. It won't help, but it'll give you a feeling I am told is not entirely unlike drinking peppermint schnapps when it's below freezing outside.

Anonymous said...

I liked this movie, oh its pretty bad and my hype was just eh. I Did love the nods to donnor, Smallville, etc.

it was still an okay movie, and what was with all that screamming and jeus crap?!

Anonymous said...

this version of Superman would of been a better movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWMc-EdDRY

COTS said...

The movie was so bad that I was laughing like a little girl all the way cause I could not believe what I was seeing.

Also the scene in the end after Zod fight. Did Superman said to the army that they should leave him alone by making a threat?

I do not know about Superman(or comics in general) a lot but why nobody can write a simple story of how your actions are represented and shown. I am sure it is a very modern tale with internet and all having a tale that the Hero thinks how his actions are seeing from other people, than being a freak who saves people. Cause you know if somebody saves me I immediately think he is a freak.

Adam said...

I don't really understand how people are calling this movie realistic. It isn't realistic, quite the opposite in fact, it's highly stylize. The sort of blue-grey color pallet isn't something that you see in real life, it's something that was deliberately exaggerated for effect.

In other works, this is Snyder's greatest strength (see 300, where the stylistic choices fit perfectly with the style of the comic.)

But Man of Steel isn't realistic. It's unrealistic, just in the wrong direction.

Actually, wait. Do you know what this movie is? It's the film equivalent of a Liefeld comic. It's grim and gritty in the name of supposed realism, but really it's no more realistic than any silver age comic, it's just unrealistic in a way that clashes horribly with the medium.

Anonymous said...

Lewis this is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw_GlYve_Lg

Man this guy is like a skinny version of you! its awesome,and I agree with both of you.

"all i'm seeing is fire and death." - Max Landis, on Superhero films.

it's pseudo-Realism. so it snot really unrealastic.

SKSNS said...

There is something overlooked a lot in this movie also (just to finish to bring down this movie, also i'm french, don't mind if i make some mistakes).
Apparently Linkara, you think that,this movie set up to make superman a killer, but actually it isn't the case. The script by Nolan (and David pleasekeephimawayfromascript Goyer) didn't include that, after all, Nolan was against this scene, to make Superman a killer. As Doug and Rob said in their review, it is not adress at ANY moment, that Superman doesn't like or want to kill. It's rushed and "totally forgotten in the next scene".
I think that really Goyer and Snyder kill this movie. You complain about the lack of clark and humanity, but that's what Snyder does, always, he make movies about an Elite and can't make them interact with "normal" people. If the intention was to show Superman inspire people, you can't be sure that Snyder screws this up and he is the one to blame. And now, even though there's plenty of mistakes, he has the balls to make a sequel with Batman without finishing to establish Superman as a character (or clark kent), as his movie was perfect and no need to developp Superman any longer, we got the explosions and the SUPER FIGHT with Zod, now Batman.

Speaking of wich. When we look at the movie, everything is throw at us. Superman vs Stunman and Faora? It's basically Superman vs meta human (or superhumans)
Superman vs the terraforming device? It's basically Superman vs Brainiac or a machinelike enemy. And Finally Superman vs Zod, we even has the trip to the space just like the fight against doomsday.
So this movie a given everything, no way they could top that in a sequel...except if they would know how to make Luthor a real threat, know how to make character interact with each other and simply make a good story.

SKSNS said...

Now my last point, many people say that despite the fact that the story, or the character or whatever, sucks, at least the actions scenes are good.
But no, i'll not talk about the violence or, Superman who punchs a laser beam or what. I'll talk about the final Fight against Zod. This fight does exactly the THING(i'm talking like frank miller) that shouldn't have be done...Multiple times. I'll explain.

When you see the fight you'll notice that they're no real chemistry beetwen the characters but most of all, let's talk chronologically.
Superman and Zod fly/run at each other, Superman win, take Zod with him into a building. Next Shot, Superman is beaten on the ground and Zod discover heat vision.

There's many scenes like that, but the worst is in space. Superman fly into Zod, Zod throw a wayne Satellite at Superman, then fly throught it to punchs Superman, totally helpless and loosing the battle while entering to the stratosphere. Next Shot, Superman pushs Zod into a station or a museum or something and had Zod into a headlock...why? how?

See, when we see a fight in a film like matrix revolution..(let's say any good fight scenes beetween rivals will do).We see an équation that try to balance itself. One has the upper hand, then it's the other, it comes back and forth and there's a continuity, a story in the fight. When Seraph and Neo fight in reloaded we feels that Neo at the beginning don't try to fight seriously against Seraph until the end but Seraph stops. Or hell even in the dark knight rises, the fight between Bane and Batman (and nolan is not really a master when it comes to make a fight scene) we see Bane overcoming Batman, that tries everything, tries to motivate himself by screaming etc etc.

My point is...Snyder doesn't even know how to make a great fight scene. No intensity, no drama, no implication from the viewer. Make something looks cool doesn't mean it's good.
Man of Steel is a mess, and that's sad because there was many good ideas. At least there's still Hans Zimmer that did a really good job with the Soundtrack. And i kind liked Henry Cavill in the role...A shame that Snyder directed it.

Gareth said...

I remember that when I watched the tornado scene I thought it was very brave and noble of Jonathan to suggest to Clark that he should die to protect his secret, but I judged Clark for actually agreeing to that and letting his father die.

Which brings me to a bigger question, what is the deal with modern Superman stories and killing off either one or both of the Kents?

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Which brings me to a bigger question, what is the deal with modern Superman stories and killing off either one or both of the Kents?"

In the Silver Age, Pa Kent was dead. It was actually a modern invention post-Crisis that both of his parents were alive, which frankly I prefer.

Anonymous said...

I know I seem to be in the minority with this thought, and normally I really love all the AT4W videos, but I just don't back the level of hatred and indifference "Man of Steel" gets as a film. Now bear in mind I'm not uneducated about the historical background of Superman, and I'm not going to say it was a perfect film, but I remember walking out of the theater feeling invigorated about being a Superman fan. That opinion didn't change after a second viewing, even after seeing people brow-beating this film into the ground. I do believe the dislikers can continue disliking all they want: movies are a work of art, and art is open for discussion. But I just had to give voice to a person that felt a little bit of Superman magic, even through a different lens, after having seen "Man of Steel". Regardless, keep up the excellent work, Lewis!

Tegan Dumpleton said...

Aw, Linkara *gives Linkara a hug*

Sounds like the movies is about as bad as I heard. I'll still have to go see it to see for myself, but I'll remember to bring some happy comics with me for afterwards

Gareth said...

"In the Silver Age, Pa Kent was dead. It was actually a modern invention post-Crisis that both of his parents were alive, which frankly I prefer."

Huh, I did not know that, thank you for the information. I prefer them being alive too, I remember you talking about character deaths and story potential and I see much more interestiing story potential from both his parents being alive to see him as Superman.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

Oh, and this just occurred to me: Superman DID confine the damage to a small area. The Kryptonians only directly devastated two cities! There was a small army of them!

Anonymous said...

Due to recommendation from a friends I just saw this awfull horrible dumb movie. Your review really spoke from the deeps of my heart. Couldn't agree more - Thank you for this review Linkara!
No idea what people get of this ...
Greetings from Hamburg

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and this just occurred to me: Superman DID confine the damage to a small area. The Kryptonians only directly devastated two cities! There was a small army of them!"

Well, yeah, they did only devastate the only cities they invaded; if they wanted to, they could have deployed that small army to half a dozen locations, and THEN we could be impressed that Superman only let a couple of those cities get wrecked. Stopping them may have ultimately prevented more damage, but that's not really the same thing as actively going out of your way to make sure they were causing as little damage possible. Plus, all that devastation and people who probably died while Kryptonians were getting tossed through buildings? Yeah, see, to comic Superman, a fatality rate greater than zero is too high. At the very least, he needed to acknowledge that he was partially responsible for the death and destruction happening in the wake of their fight. But no, all we got was him feeling bad that he snapped Zod's neck to save three people, when he didn't give any thought to the hundreds of people he was most likely putting in harm's way by driving Zod through buildings. So no. This Superman gets no points for "only" letting the bad guys wreck an entire freaking city, when any other Superman could have contained the damage to a few blocks.

Unknown said...

Hey Linkara did you know that the guy Mackenzie Gray Plays the bald skinny Kryptonian on Zod's crew is Jax-Ur?

Also the guy from SVU you mentioned, the actor's name is Christopher Meloni and his character is Nathan Hardy.

Anonymous said...

I actually liked Man of Steel at first. I went into it on the advice of Angry Joe, who suggested that you watch it as if it were an Elseworlds story, like "Red Son." And in that light, I was able to enjoy the movie. I was even psyched at the end: there was a lot about the movie that had problems, but I was absolutely certain that the next movie would iron them out, like Dark Knight did for Batman Begins. It wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed it for what it was.

Then two things happened.

1. I saw Pacific Rim, and experienced two hours of absolute joy, as people with great power used that power to beat up monsters and save people in a brightly colored environment.

2. I found out that Man of Steel 2 would not be "Man of Tomorrow," the movie where Superman could come into his own and we would challenge that status quo using his most famous villain, but ANOTHER FUCKING BATMAN MOVIE. Because, you know we certainly NEED a new FUCKING BATMAN MOVIE AFTER WE'D JUST GOTTEN THREE OF THEM.

Oh, and NICE MOVE promoting it using a quote from a Frank Miller comic that portrays Superman as a stupid government stooge.

... you know, I think I know the problem. People don't like superheroes. People seem to think it's corny for people with great gifts to use them for the benefit of others. They'd much rather see angry vigilantes take matters into their own hands and make themselves judge, jury, and executioner. It happened to Spider-Man. It's happening to Superman.

I mean, think about it. This summer's superhero movies consisted of:

1. Mark Millar's screed on why costumed heroes are dumb and why in the real world, costumed vigilantes would act like dicks.

2. Iron Man quitting and blowing up all his suits.

3. Superman being emo, mopey, and killing people.

Ben Ford said...

'... you know, I think I know the problem. People don't like superheroes. People seem to think it's corny for people with great gifts to use them for the benefit of others.'

I'd almost agree with this except for the fact that The Avengers was very much old-school, back to basics superheroing, and it was a colossal success. I feel like there -is- still a market for superheroes, especially given a particularly vocal complaint about MoS is that Clark isn't much of a superhero in it at all. He ends up demolishing a good chunk of Metropolis in the final fight, rather than attempting to remove Zod and the other Kryptonians from areas where collateral damage is likely to injure or kill people.

I don't know. The Avengers did this so well. There, the heroes explicitly attempted to contain the Chitauri, we clearly see Cap saving civilians, and Iron Man almost sacrifices himself protecting the city from the nuke. So I don't understand where MoS went so wrong. I suppose it could be a deliberate touch to contrast DC with Marvel, but if so, personally I'm just alienated if this is what we can expect from DC. Sure, there's a market for spectacle which I suppose MoS succeeded with, but you can do spectacle without divorcing Superman from the key concept, that he's a man with great gifts who uses them for the benefit of others.

Reflecting on it I'm really not fond of Superman vs. Batman either. The whole thing just feels like a cash-in to me. It could be cool, but I'm not sure if I'll find what I'm looking for in a superhero movie there *shrug*. I'm much more excited for The Dark World and The Winter Soldier, to be honest.

Anonymous said...

"Second, is it just me or is there a color problem with movies like Superman, where there is no real color other then grey and brown and black; its some of the most mind numbingly depressing set of colors that I've seen in movies."

It's not just you.

"all we got was him feeling bad that he snapped Zod's neck to save three people"

Worse, as I've described, he did it to *kill* three people. He turns Zod's neck in exactly the wrong direction to save them.

"... you know, I think I know the problem. People don't like superheroes."

I think the problem is movie producers think people don't like superheroes. And then they tell us what we want, instead of listening to what we want.
And then they make a Superman movie aimed at people who hate Superman.

~ Mik

Tantum Ergo 2 said...

I feel I should thank you for this VLOG, Linkara. I really enjoyed it, and I found myself further validated as I watched, in the views that I myself hold about Man of Steel. You hold many of the same views I do, but you explained your reasoning better (and more passionately.)

In fact, in retrospect, I have -more- reason to dislike Man of Steel than you do, because near the end; all those little changes to the Superman mythos that you said you didn't care about... All of those bugged me.

Doresh said...

@Canvas Wolf Doll:

I'd say it has less to do with 'heh heh, they can't talk properly!' and more with "Let's give this villain DC is pushing as a badass mastermind a voice not suited for an evil mastermind"

As for those of you who compare Harvest with Aizen: I'd say Harvest is worse. At least Aizen started out rather competently, had a much, MUCH saner recruitment strategy ("Turn the enemies of my future enemy into super soldiers") and actually explained his plan (essentially "I'm bigger than god and want to kick him off his throne") at the moment of his heel face turn.
But Harvest? He already STARTED as the "I don't even have to try anymore to beat you"-Aizen from one of the worst manga arcs of all time.

Anonymous said...

MoS is still a better interpretation of the character than the New 52 WW comic...

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with all the points you made. Especially about the destruction during the fight with Zod, and his killing of Zod.
I remember one of the earlier comments saying about how people get annoyed about superman killing but don't bat an eyelid when Captain America does. That mainly because Cap was a SOLDIER fighting in a WAR. He also doesn't have near invulnerability ike supes meaning one perfectly placed shot could kill Cap. So really it's justified for Cap to kill because he is basically just an athlete trained to fight in a war.

Unknown said...

For those still looking for that tumblr image, here it is:

Yes, a belated response to a belated review. I've been out of AT4W for a while and trying to catch up. :)

Anonymous said...

When Superman was first created America viewed itself proudly as a country of immigrants. Their tag line was:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Now you’re more likely to hear politicians say that Mexicans are after your jobs while North Koreans and Middle Easterners want you dead.

Maybe the origin just doesn’t work anymore because people get too hung up on the idea of an alien, or an orphan. Perhaps the success of Spider-man or Batman has led us to superimpose the relatable social outcast onto every character. That is not Superman.

What I’m about to say is pretty drastic but hear me out. DC should have changed his origin in the reboot. If Superman were 100% human then people could finally stop fixating on the alien aspect, and the character could actually be closer to what he was intended to be. He could still be an orphan who was adopted by a farm couple, just say that he was a human who got powers in some accident, or better yet, an event involving Kryptonian Technology.

Anonymous said...

ahere a comment from the Deadline article "Is ‘Man Of Steel’s Big Spoiler Turning Off Audiences As Sequel Ramps Up?"

Comment by Michelle G

I grant everyone the right to feel how they like to about the movie, but I fall on the Superman fan and Man of Steel fan side of things. That being said, I really feel the need to jump in and correct a couple of weird raging assumptions and generalizations.

I’m not too cool with you stating that this Superman is without a moral compass, because you are missing the fact that this is an origin story that’s telling year “zero” of the hero. That means it’s an origin story, a bit like Iron Man when he was learning to be a better person; Batman when he was learning how to be a symbol; Cap when he was realizing that he couldn’t save everyone; Thor when he learned he couldn’t be an ass (in the span of 3 days) and a whole slew of other heroes. People choose not to give Superman a pass because they want him to be the Silver Age ridiculous character from the late 1970s. Superman/Clark have both changed a ton in the comics since the Silver Age officially ended in the early 1970s, and Superman changed even more in the mid-1980s in stories that made Clark the dominant personality.

Anonymous said...

The moral compass comes with his heartland upbringing, which you seem to be missing in the subtle moments of the Smallville story. The way he goes to check on his mother after she was attacked by Zod, the obvious distress on his face upon seeing the destruction of Smallville and even the fact that he so believed in his father that he lived with his final wishes. You could argue that the tornado moment sparked him living a quiet life of saving people without recognition, giving up whatever piece of life he has managed to carve out to save people like on the oil rig. I know one or two of you will ask, “why didn’t he really say he was upset about Smallville” and my answer to that is that he COULDN’T LET THE WORLD KNOW WHO HE WAS/WHERE HE GREW UP. One of my favorite moments in his time in Smallville is the conversation with Martha about how things can be replaced, but she can’t be replaced. In Superman, Martha and Lois have very often stood for his love of humanity and his connection to the bigger world – because, let’s face it, it’s our connections to each other that make us human.

On the issue of the deaths of thousands, let’s remember that Superman was on the other side of the planet saving people worldwide by destroying the World Engine. While he was on the other side of the globe, deaths happened but there was also evacuation of the city going on that was in evidence on screen and off (we can make the jump with the empty offices that the fight hits). Again, this is Superman Year Zero and he has not had 10(+) years of Jor-El training in the Fortress like the Donner Superman had AND he is facing a threat that is being carried out by a military force of Super-Soldiers who want to build a new world on the bones of an old world. It’s not a “let’s talk it out situation.”

The destruction was excessive, but the aerial views show that the majority of the city is intact outside of Ground Zero where the Black Zero hit. Buildings that are plowed into are shown to be empty, when they end up in actual offices, or they are shown to be under construction or parking garages. Superman tries to take the battle into the air, but Zod wants to keep collateral damage to a maximum – because, he wants Clark to feel each and every bit of pain he can inflict.

I also have to say that I’m just about ready to explode over the issue of the big “act” against Zod, and everyone who says that there was another option or “Superman never ever does that.” There was no other option, aside from allowing Zod to kill him and allow him to become the dictator of a scorched Earth. There was no Phantom Zone to send him to; no Cadmus; No Star Labs; No Green Lantern Corps; No couples counseling and no possible way to get him to stop! What about the “he would never do that” argument? He did in Superman #22. The big thing coming out of it all was that it forced him to become a better hero – it gave him the spark to be the better man. He also did the same thing in Superman #75, giving up his life while ensuring that the planet would survive. He even did the same thing in both the Donner and the Lester cuts of Superman II, but he did it in a comical way and most people just seem to forget that he killed Zod/Ursa/Non when they all lacked powers.

All of that being said, I LOVE where this has positioned us for a sequel that creates Superman as the moral core of the DC Universe. My only request for everyone out there is that we remember that the Donner/Reeve versions are not the same Superman, this is a post-Crisis Byrne Man of Steel who has been mixed with some stories like Birthright and All Star Superman.

Last thing – No matter who took this reboot on, I think this would have been a controversial film. Any version would have required that we finally jump beyond the Donner films, giving the world a Superman that has been in the comics for years. I think Snyder/Goyer/Nolan handled it admirably.

Main Street Saint said...


While I enjoyed the movie I do see a lot of your points; chief point being Pa Kent. I liked "Superman: the Movie" version of Pa Kent. With that it was simple and to the point, *spoilers* a heart attack killed him. I felt it was more realistic in that way as opposed to a tornado.

Allaiyah said...

That's some nerdrage there, kinda like listening to Josh Hadley. There were several moments where it seemed like your were fighting back tears. That's how I felt about Queen of the Damned & Aeon Flux.

Tobias van Penname said...

This movie really needed some campiness.

Anonymous said...

This isn't meant to be an insult, but these review is somehow more joyless than the film itself. Linkara is not at his best in the mode of "humourless scold." t

ran76 said...

after seeing your vlog, I googled Faora. Apparently, Faora is an actual character associated with Zod and, depending on continuity, is portrayed as Zod's wife. According to wikipedia, Ursa is based on her. It seems using Faora's name makes more sense than Ursa, comic book wise at least.

Unknown said...

Hey man who said Superman can't have a reason for never killing again? Him killing Zod could be his reason to never kill again.

Anonymous said...

"Hey man who said Superman can't have a reason for never killing again? Him killing Zod could be his reason to never kill again."

In that case, let me ask a very basic question: what is Superman's plan if he ever ends up in the same situation again?

Anonymous said...

"Heedless of the human lives lost and at stake... He'd launch himself at his enemy, smashing him back... ignorant of the damage this might cause the innocent hostage. Superman is a creature of muscle, you see, very little thought goes into his actions. ... Private property would be of no concern to these raging juggernauts... He cares not at all that there is a human being inside the (enemy) uniform. Cares not at all for the soft, fragile human forms that dot the street around him."

It goes on like that.

I read this recently for the first time - it's from The Adventures of Superman #437, and to me it perfectly describes the Superman we get in Man Of Steel.
Heedless, uncaring of the destruction he causes. Brutal.

You know who's narrating that? Lex Luthor is. He's trying to turn one of the Global Guardians (yes, Snowflames nemeses!) against Superman.

That means that with Man Of Steel, we get Superman as seen by his worst enemy.

~ Mik

Unknown said...

Oh my.... I must admit, during watching this film, my brain went into "lockdown". Complete apathy went in my mind watching this right until the very end.

The only emotion I could relate involves Jor-El and baby Clark being separated, but that was the scene, not the actors carrying the emotion. The rest of the movie involved shallow, forgettable characters that soon left my mind when I left.

"Maybe" should be considered the single greatest word that kills people and intelligence, as this movie has shown. It wasted my time seeing Clark wandering around false moral conundrums. I'm sure most parents teach their children that human life is precious, that it can't be bought, sold, or taken back if lost. Apparently I found the exception in Jonathan Kent. What's idiotic is that, rather than change for the better after failing to save his father (especially when he said he's not "his" father earlier on), Clark just wanders around lost....

Action scenes were average to me. Its well in the SFX/CGI department, but it felt soulless. Like some element of emotion and conflict was missing.

Zod's death to me was wasted oppourtunity. Given that Clark has almost no character, this was his chance to have a defining moment. What to do when you already have taken a life, and placed in a situation like that in future? Trouble is, its not addressed further in the film. Couldn't they do it in the 2nd act to another Kryptonian? Some character would be nice. BTW, it was here that my mind woke up since it started smelling the waft of Batman Begins written all over it.

Ultimately, Linkara, I need to ask, were you convinced that Superman was born at the end of this movie? Because I'm sure that if Superman was replaced by another hero, nothing was lost in this movie. It stank of Batman Begins because it felt like it tried to reflect the ending; that the legend is born. But whereas Batman's legend was on two-feet running around, this one barely left the crib.

Anonymous said...

This is in answer to the anonymous poster on the ASBAR 7 comments section:
First, Man of Steel gets a lot of hate, true; but it also has a lot of defenders. Yourself, for example. A lot of them use the The Avengers example, just as you did.

However, while both contain the destruction of a city, that wasn't my problem with Man of Steel.

But, to explain the difference, Superman, in Man of Steel, showed no concern at all. Look at Superman II; when Zod insists on fighting in Metropolis, our Hero actually shouts out 'Think of the people!'.
The Avengers show care and concern and try to save people; Superman never does in Man of Steel.

That's one difference. Another is, the Metropolis bouncy castle scene (which isn't nearly as fun as it sounds) went on waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too long, and was unrelieved smash smash smash smash!!!
At the end of it, I felt more brutalised than entertained. At the end of the Avengers' fight, I felt more entertained.
(The usual answer is: 'But that's what would happen in such a fight!' Mine is: 'So? I didn't come for a documentary. I came to be entertained by escapism.)

However, more than anything, my real problem with the movie is everything that led up to that fight: a drab, colourless movie (This isn't George Reeves, guys, we can film in colour now!) with callous, uncaring characters (Pa Kent, I'm looking at you), and nothing to hook onto.

They claimed to be making Superman 'relatable', which this movie's defenders parrot ad nauseum. You want me to relate to you? Smile, man, smile! We saw his life from infancy to adulthood over 2.5 hrs, and he smiled, what, twice? I don't relate to mopey emo-boys.

And the Krypton scenes!
Okay, loved them. Except during that calm, ordinary scene of people talking, when the camera shook suddenly for no reason.

I could go on...

~ Mik

13th Doctor said...

Ok, I tried to sit on this for as long as I could but I feel it needs to be addressed. I am not going to defend the movie. Even though I don't completely agree with your arguments, I understand and empathize with them.

But I thought you went WAY overboard with the underwear track. I mean, is it that hard to imagine that Superman's briefs look like tightey-whiteys and thus look stupid to some? Now I don't particularly have a problem with the briefs myself but I can see where other people are coming from. Again, you can hate this movie for any number of reasons but I thought this was a weird and inconsequential thing for you to get hung up on.

Felix Brunschede said...

"But I thought you went WAY overboard with the underwear track."

He didn't. The New52 does the same stupid thing by giving him a Kryptonian "ceremonial battle armor" that looks like a shiny blue pyjama with black lines all over it.

Felix Brunschede said...

I am not kidding when I say the following: I did not realize that Kevin Costner was Jonathan Kent because of that "maybe" line in the trailers until I saw the movie.

Unknown said...

You want a movie that gets Superman? Watch Superman VS The Elite.

You see, I was introduced the comic book world via the Ultimates and the Authority. I started collecting comics during the Dark Reign of Marvel. I thought that 'dark and gritty' was the staple of modern superheroes. But the first comic I picked up, Dan Slott's Mighty Avengers, was different. It was fun. It was enjoyable. Every time I finished an issue I had a smile on my face.

But I also believed that DC, especially Superman, was inferior and overrated. I had the same bullshit complants about Superman being too powerful and unrelatable. But as I was browsing through Netflix one day, I saw the movie 'Superman VS The Elite.' It seemed like an interesting movie about the OG hero Superman teaming up with 'modern heroes.' As I watched the movie, I became horrified by what the Elite did. They tortured people, publically excuted a supervillian who had surrended, and killed the leaders of two nations. And felt no remorse. But I also saw Superman, the real Superman. I didn't see an alien trying to fit in or as an outcast. I saw a man who struggled to maintain the same values that he grew up, that turned him into the man he is today. As the world turned against him, he stayed true. He outsmarted the Elite, and did so without getting anyone killed.

Superman Vs The Elite is now my 2nd favorite animated movie and one of my favorite movies of all time. It made me belief in the Man of Tommorrow. That there is always a better way. That people can be good. It also made me think back to Man of Steel. When I first saw it, I didn't give it a second thought. But after watching Superman vs the Elite, actually reading the Superman comics, and watching the Legion of Super-heroes cartoon, I now understand now this movie spits in the face of everything Superman stands for. Everything Clark Kent is.

I feel your pain, Lewis. For so many years, I blindly based my discontent with one of the Greatest Heroes of all time on expies like the Sentry and Hyperion (Supreme Power version). Superman is now one of favorite heroes, even above Iron Man, who I idolized for years.

If anyone from DC or Warner read this by chance, do not start a cinematic universe around this failure of a movie. This is not Superman, a man who is the heart of the DC Universe. This is a shameless parody of the man. Stop trying to make all your heroes like Batman!!! Don't put Nolan, Goyer and Synder on anymore of your movies! Hire someone like James Gunn or someone who actually cares about and gets Superman!