Man of Steel (There Be Spoilers)

[Arnabas]

When Todd McFarlane took over, Spider-Man became a no-nonsense character who was sick of the scum that roamed the streets.  I remember a reader voicing their opinon in a letter to Marvel about how this isn't the Spidey he grew up with and not even on his worst day would he string a bad guy up by the fingers and toes and climb up and sit on the guy's back in an effort to interrogate him.  Ostensibly, Spider-Man was using his own weight to torture this guy, pulling him apart at his joints.  This version of Peter is still very prevalent in the comics today.  He's still the quipping every-man in some of his titles but now he's also a vigilante with realistic views on how the world can be an inequitable place.  In contrast to Batman, Spider-Man is a more optimistic hero clad in bright colors.  He's like Superman Lite.  But having a Spidey deal directly more with tragedy and darker themes didn't break the character for the majority of the fans.

I always saw the introduction of Ben Reilly as an attempt to get Peter back to his lighthearted self. They tried to pass him off as the real Peter, but that didn't go over well, probably because people generally didn't want to believe that everything the had read over the past several years didn't "count", but I think there was a desire to get him back to a lighter place.

[silvers1]

My impression of the movie:

Positives:
1.  Great special effects and combat sequences. ( but overdone )
2.  Decent, but not great casting.

Negatives:
1.   The characters seem for most of the movie to be rather distant.  I had a hard time feeling any attachment to any of the characters.
2.   Jonathon Kent seemed to be a rather cold character - not at all what I would expect.  They didnt take full advantage of Costner's acting
abilities.
3.   The casting for Lois Lane was just ... off.  That was not Lois.
4.   Like most movies these days, the emphasis was on special effects and violence.  More time could have spent
on character development.  The constant switching back and forth in the time line didnt help in that regard.

Overall, an "ok" movie.  Maybe 3 out of 5 stars - nothing I'd care to repeat watching.

[DJMoose]

I for one enjoyed this new take on Superman.  The cast and acting were fantastic.  I loved the costumes and environments. The music provided by Hans Zimmer was amazing.

The approach to storytelling they took was interesting, but not unsatisfactory.

Call me strange, but my favorite character was the villainous female sidekick Faora.  ;D  Completely badass, and enjoying it.  Also, her armor silhouette certainly had a fun Arachnos vibe to it.

Yes, I liked the original Superman movies, but I enjoyed this reboot greatly.  All in all a great movie that I enjoyed watching.

This movie really made me want to play City of Heroes dammit!

[Golden Girl]

My impression of the movie:

Positives:
1.  Great special effects and combat sequences. ( but overdone )
2.  Decent, but not great casting.

Negatives:
1.   The characters seem for most of the movie to be rather distant.  I had a hard time feeling any attachment to any of the characters.
2.   Jonathon Kent seemed to be a rather cold character - not at all what I would expect.  They didnt take full advantage of Costner's acting
abilities.
3.   The casting for Lois Lane was just ... off.  That was not Lois.
4.   Like most movies these days, the emphasis was on special effects and violence.  More time could have spent
on character development.  The constant switching back and forth in the time line didnt help in that regard.

Overall, an "ok" movie.  Maybe 3 out of 5 stars - nothing I'd care to repeat watching.

Another positive is Hollywood - we won't have to wait to many years before there's a reboot :P

[houtex]

Hm.  If this reboot doesn't work/continue, how many more can there be?  I mean... really.  You have George Reeves, Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh, and now Henry Cavill, and those versions thereto.  Of course, there's the Tim Daly/George Newbern version in the Timmverse, which is as close to THE Superman you could want, I suppose. 

What other versions can there be and still be Kal El/Superman?  I imagine it'll be interesting to find out.

[Golden Girl]

Hm.  If this reboot doesn't work/continue, how many more can there be?

As many as they feel they're able to do - for example, the next Batman movie isn't very likely to be a follow up to Nolan's trilogy - there's a pretty good chance that we'll be seeing a new take on Batman, starting with his origin story.

This applies more to DC than Marvel, as Marvel's now got a well established movie universe, so they're more likely to simply recast roles when actors retire from them, rather than trying to fit a reboot into the middle of an ongoing meta-story.

[Tenzhi]

As many as they feel they're able to do - for example, the next Batman movie isn't very likely to be a follow up to Nolan's trilogy - there's a pretty good chance that we'll be seeing a new take on Batman, starting with his origin story.

Just once I'd like to see them gloss over the origin retread and get to the established hero doing his established hero thing.

[Golden Girl]

Just once I'd like to see them gloss over the origin retread and get to the established hero doing his established hero thing.

Well, WB did actually do that for a while, until the franchise was derailed by rubber nipples.

[Tenzhi]

Well, WB did actually do that for a while, until the franchise was derailed by rubber nipples.

Ah yes, I suppose that's true.  I've been deluged with so many origin stories over the past several years that it slipped my mind.  Still my two favourite Batman movies, too.

[Golden Girl]

Up until the rubber nipple crisis, it seems like they were using the James Bond franchise as a template - a series of self-contained stories with occasional references to previous movies, and recasting the leads as and when they needed to.

[Thunder Glove]

That is one thing about superhero films that always annoys me, particularly for well-known characters.  Why do they always feel the need to start off with an origin story?  Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man's origin stories are among the most well-known in the world, but they insist on treading over all-too-familiar ground for the millionth time.

If you really think your audience consists entirely of 3-year-olds who have never seen a superhero before in their life, then start with an opening montage.  The first few minutes can be an origin story flashback, the next five or ten minutes can show the superhero handling a routine crisis, and the rest of the film can be the superhero actually taking on the Threat of the Movie.

It's the only action-movie genre that does this (especially to the extent that superhero movies do, taking half the film until the hero is actually in costume), and it continues to annoy me.

[JetFlash]

Call me strange, but my favorite character was the villainous female sidekick Faora.  ;D  Completely badass, and enjoying it.  Also, her armor silhouette certainly had a fun Arachnos vibe to it.

Yup, she was awesome, and I just realized that Antje Traue also played Nadia in Pandorum.  Gorgeous lady that can pull off being a badass.  :D

[FatherXmas]

That is one thing about superhero films that always annoys me, particularly for well-known characters.  Why do they always feel the need to start off with an origin story?  Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man's origin stories are among the most well-known in the world, but they insist on treading over all-too-familiar ground for the millionth time.

If you really think your audience consists entirely of 3-year-olds who have never seen a superhero before in their life, then start with an opening montage.  The first few minutes can be an origin story flashback, the next five or ten minutes can show the superhero handling a routine crisis, and the rest of the film can be the superhero actually taking on the Threat of the Movie.

It's the only action-movie genre that does this (especially to the extent that superhero movies do, taking half the film until the hero is actually in costume), and it continues to annoy me.

Blame the 1978 Superman for establishing the origin story trope for the first film of a super hero film.  The 1989 Batman perpetuated it.  X-men in 2000 had too large of a cast and with the exception of Rogue simply did a voice over about the school.  But soloing super heroes, tend to get an origin story especially if it's a year one story.

Superman, Man of Steel, Batman Begins, Punisher, Hell Boy, Spiderman, The Amazing Spiderman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Spawn, Howard the Duck, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, X-men: First Class, Green Lantern, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  I'm sure there are many more that I forgotten.  But you also have to realize, and you said it yourself, "well known characters".  Well movies are international, superhero comics are primarily US/UK and to most of the world they aren't well known.  It's been 35 years between Superman origin stories, 16 for Batman.  Since the two Spider-man versions are very different (organic Vs mechanical web shooters, MJW Vs GS) it needed to be retold with only a 10 year gap.

[Magus Prime]

Just read this review by an inebriated Brandon Routh.  Very entertaining. 

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/brandon-routh-man-of-steel/

[Thunder Glove]

Blame the 1978 Superman for establishing the origin story trope for the first film of a super hero film.  The 1989 Batman perpetuated it.  X-men in 2000 had too large of a cast and with the exception of Rogue simply did a voice over about the school.  But soloing super heroes, tend to get an origin story especially if it's a year one story.

Superman, Man of Steel, Batman Begins, Punisher, Hell Boy, Spiderman, The Amazing Spiderman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Spawn, Howard the Duck, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, X-men: First Class, Green Lantern, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  I'm sure there are many more that I forgotten.  But you also have to realize, and you said it yourself, "well known characters".  Well movies are international, superhero comics are primarily US/UK and to most of the world they aren't well known.  It's been 35 years between Superman origin stories, 16 for Batman.  Since the two Spider-man versions are very different (organic Vs mechanical web shooters, MJW Vs GS) it needed to be retold with only a 10 year gap.

In the 1989 Batman film, they don't tell his origin, except as a brief flashback lasting a couple of seconds halfway through the film.  Otherwise, Batman was already well-established in Gotham when the film started.  (To be sure, it was something of an origin film for the Joker, but even with him they don't start at his childhood; he's already established as a big shot in Gotham criminal circles even before the accident. Certainly we didn't watch his mother in the delivery room giving birth to little Jackie Napier, like we did with Kal-El)

More specifically, what I have a problem with is spending a significant portion of a first film on the origin, rather than having it be just an introduction to an established hero.  There's nothing there that requires a half-hour of screen time to explain.  When literally nobody in the world knew who Superman was, his origin was told in only one page.  And that's all you need to know right there.

And that's all they should need to include for a Superman movie.  You can go back and fill in details later, but there's no need to have your lead character wandering around for an hour before finally getting into costume.

[Tenzhi]

More specifically, what I have a problem with is spending a significant portion of a first film on the origin, rather than having it be just an introduction to an established hero.  There's nothing there that requires a half-hour of screen time to explain.  When literally nobody in the world knew who Superman was, his origin was told in only one page.  And that's all you need to know right there.

And that's all they should need to include for a Superman movie.  You can go back and fill in details later, but there's no need to have your lead character wandering around for an hour before finally getting into costume.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it seems that filmmakers want to over-explore the origin as a means to create pathos.  I would prefer they develop the character and the audience's attachment to said character in the here and now rather than spend 1/4+ of the movie on prologue and flashback, because otherwise they run the risk of avoiding more relevant character development and we end up with Superman kissing Lois Lane for no other reason than it's Superman and Lois Lane.

[Rust]

Some times an origin story can work for a Super Hero film. The Tom Jane Punisher film (Which I consider the one, true Punisher movie) told the story of how Frank Castle became The Punisher and made that the centerpiece of the plot, as it involved Tom Jane's Frank Castle not simply walking up to John Travolta and shooting him, but deliberately tearing down everything Travolta's character had ever loved and cared about.

Punishing him, if you will.

It's just a shame that film flopped, because it really was crafted with love and understanding of the character. The only hokey part came at the end with the exploding cars in the shape of a skull. Beyond that? It's a brilliant film, does its character justice (Too often Frank Castle is portrayed as nothing more then a psychopath - even in his own comics), has several scenes directly lifted from the comics (The interrogation with a Popsicle scene and the fight with the Russian), and manages to even be a love letter to the action films of the 1970s (a la Death Wish).

[Tenzhi]

I much preferred War Zone, and somewhat prefer the cheesy Dolph Lundgren film.  About the only thing I liked about Thomas Jane's Punisher was the fight with the Russian.  Part of it was that Jane himself just didn't make a convincing Punisher for me, and part of it is that I'll always think of the movie as the worst episode of Friends I've seen.  And thus, for me, any origin story they wasted time on in that movie was overshadowed completely.

[primeknight]

They do and then redo origin stories because it's all a retread of the hero's journey: the favorite classic story of the populous.  Star Wars (1977), Star Trek (2009), Die Hard (1988), and even Dumb and Dumber (1994), sort of...
It's how Hollywood and story tellers in general get us to root for the hero.  Anyway, that' s my take on it.

Also...I liked the Man of Steel, but it was lacking that basic sense of hope that Superman symbolizes. 

Peace!

[Golden Girl]

They do and then redo origin stories because it's all a retread of the hero's journey: the favorite classic story of the populous.  Star Wars (1977), Star Trek (2009), Die Hard (1988), and even Dumb and Dumber (1994), sort of...
It's how Hollywood and story tellers in general get us to root for the hero.  Anyway, that' s my take on it.

Also...I liked the Man of Steel, but it was lacking that basic sense of hope that Superman symbolizes. 

Its box office seems to be reflecting that too - it started off very strongly, but it's fallen away quite sharply, and it'll struggle to make 300 million domestically now.
When you've got the most iconic superhero ever created as the star of your brand new show, you really shouldn't be getting destroyed by the 3rd entry in the Iron Man franchise.