Man of Steel

[JasonEvans]

Sorry, but you are going to have to indulge me a bit here. I usually make my reviews fairly quick but I am going to linger a bit on this one. Sue me.

Les start with a look at where comic book movies have been and where they are today.

Back around the turn of the century, Bryan Singer took a chance and made X-Men as a serious and realistic film. He went dark and gritty and it worked. The critics loved it and so did audiences. Sam Rami then did the same thing for Spiderman and the entire comic book superhero genre, which had sorta been killed by Joel Schumacker's horrible Batman sequels as well as duds like Superman: The Quest for Peace, was hot again.

But, as much as Singer and Rami embraced the serious side of comics, there were still plenty of moments of humor in their films. Wolverine was always wise-cracking in the X-men films and who can forget Peter Parker's first swing on his web which ended with him face-planting into a wall? Still, we thought of these films as dark and realistic takes on superheroes.

And then, along came Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and the subsequent Dark Knight sequels. We learned what dark really meant. The only moments of humor were things like Joker using a guy's eye to make a pencil disappear. This was serious stuff.

In recent years, we have seen DC and Marvel go in opposite directions. Marvel's Iron Man films and Avengers (and even Cap/Thor) have embraced the use of humor alongside action. They still have the realistic feel and they go to dark places, but there are a lot of winks at the audience and moments designed for nothing but humor. DC tried something like that with Green Lantern... but it was an utter failure.

So, for their latest attempt to reboot their most valuable character, Superman, DC has given us a very Batman Begins-esque version of Superman. This is a dark and realistic film. There is no humor whatsoever in it. Heck, I would say there is no joy in it. Superman is a brooding and conflicted character. It is no surprise that Christopher Nolan is one of the driving creative forces behind Man of Steel (he did not direct it, but it is his screenplay and story idea) as it feels much like Batman Begins in terms of tone and structure.

http://content6.flixster.com/rtmovie/10/32/103280_gal.jpg

“WOW,” says Jason’s readers, “it’s just like Batman Begins!! That’s awesome.”

“Ummm, not exactly,” replies Jason.

I thought the first half of Man of Steel was truly excellent. The opening scenes on Krypton are very cool and present some interesting storylines that are only fully developed later (and I suspect some parts of them will not be completely understood until the sequel or sequels are done). The depiction of Superman’s life before he is known to the public is done in a truly unique fashion, not at all in keeping with the traditional story of the character. I loved it! Mid-way through this film, I thought I was watching one of the best comic book movies of all time.

And then the action really heated up… and the film stopped working for me. It seems strange to say this about a superhero flick, but the moment he became the superhero, I thought it got in the way of the story. The action scenes were too long and, though well directed and full of cool stuff, nothing really happens in them. You see, Superman (and his Kryptonian enemies) are pretty much invulnerable. Drop a freaking building on them and they just shrug it off. So, we are forced to endure long scenes of fighting where no one is really affected by any of the action. I got tired of it... and it went on for a while. The film is 2 hours and 20 minutes. It would have been better under 2 hours.

Make no mistake, the action is beautifully choreographed and the effects are top notch, I just didn’t think they added much of anything to the story. It also hurts that the Kryptonians are all able to move at super speed, meaning much of the action happens so fast you can barely tell what is going on and who is doing what. I saw it in 3D and would strongly recommend that you NOT spend the money to see it that way as I think your eyes will have an easier time with the action if it is not a 3D image.

http://i2.cdnds.net/13/01/618x463/henry-cavill-man-of-steel.jpg

The film does reach a reasonably satisfying conclusion, though the final act involves some strange machinations to get everything to work out just right. I enjoyed the final quarter of the film and look forward to where they take the story and character next. I thought he first half was an A+, the third quarter was a C, and the fourth quarter was a B. Overall, I would give it about a B+.

The movie was well-acted and directed. Henry Cavill looks the part and ripples with muscles in ways that will make the ladies swoon more than a little bit. His portrayal of Superman is largely emotionless though. Once he puts on the suit, he loses a lot of his personality, which is a pity. Amy Adams’ Lois Lane is good. Michael Shannon exudes anger and malice as General Zod. He is a big step up from the very understated Zod we saw from Terrence Stamp in Superman II back in 1980. The supporting cast is all very solid. Russell Crowe's Jor-El plays a bigger role than you might imagine. I wish we had seen more of young Clark's relationship with Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

This is a far more effective reboot of the Superman franchise than Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns in 2006. It has been announced that there are already plans to make a sequel for this film with all the main players (in front of and behind the camera) returning. Clearly the studio likes the product they got and I think audiences will as well. I just left the theater a little disappointed that I had been treated to half a film of greatness and half a film of ok-ness.

-Jason "all that said, this is a flick worth your summer movie dollars and I am eager to see where Nolan takes the characters next" Evans

[NashvilleDevil]

Reviews are starting to show up on Rotten Tomatoes and right now it is sitting at 72%. Critics who have panned it say the action adds nothing and it is to serious for a Superman movie. I am still excited to see it and 2:20 run time is not that bad considering how long Nolan's last two Batman movies were. I hope to see it twice.

[NashvilleDevil]

More reviews are coming in and the top critics have it at 44%. Granted there will be more that will boost its number in the coming days but it appears that this movie will be either love it or hate with many. I wonder of this movie will be viewed more favorably over time like Batman Begins?

[JasonEvans]

More reviews are coming in and the top critics have it at 44%. Granted there will be more that will boost its number in the coming days but it appears that this movie will be either love it or hate with many. I wonder of this movie will be viewed more favorably over time like Batman Begins?

There are so few reviews that one or two "Top Critic" reviews can really shift things. For example, it is now at 58% from Top Critics, which isn't that bad. There are a total of 12 top critics reviews.

I don't think it is a love it or hate it kind of film. A critic friend that I often sit with in screenings gave it a negative review (he really hated how emotionless and empty Superman was once he put on the Red and Blue suit) but told me he still thinks it is worth seeing. I think most everyone will see the quality of many aspects of the movie. In fact, it is seeing how high quality is it that makes me long for the few changes that could have made it truly great.

-Jason "I don't know anyone who does not think the first 45 minutes or so are less than excellent" Evans

[NashvilleDevil]

Starting to think this movie may be DOA. As more reviews come in the more it's getting panned. As someone who was really looking forward to this movie it's pretty disappointing. I don't base weather I see a movie on critics reviews (just Jason's) but it can't help especially after the first weekend.

[JasonEvans]

Starting to think this movie may be DOA. As more reviews come in the more it's getting panned. As someone who was really looking forward to this movie it's pretty disappointing. I don't base weather I see a movie on critics reviews (just Jason's) but it can't help especially after the first weekend.

Not sure what reviews you are looking at, but it is still fresh (62%) on Rotten Tomatoes and is even more fresh (67%) among Top Critics, reversing an early lack of support from the most influential critics. It is not a fabulous runaway critical success, but it is not anywhere close to a flop or a film that is universally panned. The reviews aren't all that different from, for example, Iron Man 2, which made well over $300 million dollars.

Also worth noting that Metacritic, which measures critical reviews with a lot more nuance than Rotten Tomatoes simple yes/no label, has it with a very respectable 55 rating. Metacritic says it has 10 positive reviews, 15 mixed ones, and only 1 negative review. That is not the mark of a movie that critics are killing... not even close.

Hollywood tracking has Man of Steel making more than $100 million its opening weekend, which would make it the second biggest opening of the year trailing only Iron Man 3. If it doesn't make well over $250 million at the boxoffice, I'll be utterly shocked and I would not be at all surprised to see it pass $300 million (the long running time will work against boxoffice and makes it somewhat less palatable for repeat viewings).

-Jason "anyone wanna bet on Man of Steel's boxoffice take" Evans

[brevity]

Hollywood tracking has Man of Steel making more than $100 million its opening weekend, which would make it the second biggest opening of the year trailing only Iron Man 3. If it doesn't make well over $250 million at the boxoffice, I'll be utterly shocked and I would not be at all surprised to see it pass $300 million (the long running time will work against boxoffice and makes it somewhat less palatable for repeat viewings).

-Jason "anyone wanna bet on Man of Steel's boxoffice take" Evans

I was going to laugh at you and say that it will easily break $125M in its opening frame (Thursday evening to Sunday night). But history is not on my side. Despite the kids being out of school and having ridiculously hot weather preferred only by insane mosquitoes, June has not been a banner month to open a movie. The third Toy Story and Transformers movies are the only ones to have $100M openings, and releases for mid-June tend to be around $60M. (Compare May (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/month/?mo=05&p=.htm) to June (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/month/?mo=06&p=.htm) to July (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/month/?mo=07&p=.htm).)

I think history is going to change -- Man of Steel and Monsters University reflect a recent trend to make June more relevant. I would expect both to top $90M in their openings. I think Man of Steel breaks $100M but doesn't quite get to $105M. Most people have already made up their mind about seeing it -- I would imagine reviews are a non-factor this week.

[CameronBornAndBred]

It's interesting that Man of Steel (61% tomatometer) is currently less than Superman Returns (75% tomatometer), which everyone knew right away killed any hope for a new franchise. Now, everyone expects there to be sequels to this one, along the lines of Nolan's Batman movies, and it is getting less favorable reviews then the one before it. It looks like the critics agree that the story is better overall, but it just isn't as fun to watch.

[NashvilleDevil]

It's interesting that Man of Steel (61% tomatometer) is currently less than Superman Returns (75% tomatometer), which everyone knew right away killed any hope for a new franchise. Now, everyone expects there to be sequels to this one, along the lines of Nolan's Batman movies, and it is getting less favorable reviews then the one before it. It looks like the critics agree that the story is better overall, but it just isn't as fun to watch.

I have read that they have already greenlit sequels for Man of Steel.

[JasonEvans]

I have read that they have already greenlit sequels for Man of Steel.

Yup, and both screenwriter David Goyer and director Zach Snyder have been contracted to play those same roles in the sequel. I am certain the major cast members will return as well.

It is not certain what role Christopher Nolan will play in the sequel. I am sure he will still get a producer credit, but the word is that he won't be as intimately involved in the story.

By the way Goyer signed a huge, huge contract (for a writer) with WB to write 2 Superman films as well as a Justice League pic so it was always assumed he would be back for the sequel. I would bet that whatever story is told in the next Superman film will at least begin to set the stage for a Justice League pic.

No one knows who will be in Justice League yet but you have got to have a Batman (perhaps played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, I am not sure there is much interest at this time in a Batman reboot). Warner and DC have always expressed an interest in Wonder Woman and Flash movies. I think Aquaman is a tougher character to make work. Green Lantern has traditionally been part of the Justice League, though the public hatred of the Green Lantern movie may hurt that.

All of the above paragraph is rampant speculation for the moment and I can't see how they could have a Justice League pic in theaters in any less than maybe 3 years (Man of Steel sequel in summer 2015, WW/Flash/Other reboot in winter of 2015, another reboot in early summer 2016, Justice league in late summer 2016???). It is more likely that Justice League would be a 2017 film at the earliest.

-Jason "Avengers 2 comes in summer 2015, but Marvel is much more on the ball about movies. DC currently has nothing in development for 2014" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

I have read that they have already greenlit sequels for Man of Steel.
Oh, I know they have. It's just interesting that this movie is the obvious start of something, when the last one wasn't yet was viewed more favorably. I'm thinking they pretty much have to, regardless of if it is bad or good. They missed the first time, they can't miss twice in a row.

[JasonEvans]

They missed the first time, they can't miss twice in a row.

I am telling ya'll, this is not a miss. It is not a homerun, but it is not a strikeout either. I'd say it is a solid double ;)

-Jason "I think the standards for a good comic book movie have been raised a lot since Superman Returns came out (2006)" Evans

[luburch]

Just got home from the theaters, and if you're on the fence about seeing it, I would definitely go. It's better than Iron Man and is on par with Star Trek. I would agree that the first half of the film is indeed better than the second half though.

For what it's worth, Now You See Me is still my movie of the summer.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This has got to be one of the weirdest openings I've paid attention too. It has now gone from fresh to rotten, with 59% positive RT reviews. And yet, the consensus also seems to be that it is really good. Just not fun to sit through. In a way, that to me is what defines the classic summer movie, the mindless popcorn thrill ride that this one just doesn't seem to be.

[JasonEvans]

The Thursday evening opening numbers are in and they are really impressive -- $21 million, which is the 7th biggest Thursday preview number of all time trailing only various members of the Harry Potter and Twilight family of films. It is a bigger number than any other comic book property in history, including Avengers.

So, um, yeah, this is going to be a big, big hit.

-Jason "reviews be damned, I'd say this film is a $300 mill lock at this point... anyone wanna bet me?" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

My question is -- do reviews really matter for a summer popcorn film?

I know some of the comic book franchises started strong -- Batman Begins, Spiderman and Iron Man all drew strong tomatometer ratings.

But look at the Transformers franchise. The first one drew a rotten 57 percent on the tomatomater, followed by a truly terrible 20 percent for the second and an awful 36 percent for the third. Yet, all were huge summer hits.

And then there is the Fast and Furious franchise. It started at a rotten 53 percent -- and went downhill ... to 36, 35 and 27 in its next three films. Then something strange happened -- I think the critics gave up -- F&F 5 got a fresh 78 percent and F&F 6 came in at a solid 71 percent.

And what about Now You See Me? It's not going to finish in our top five, but it is exceeding expectations, despite a rotten 48 percent on the tomatometer (and BTW, I agree with luburch -- it's the best movie of the summer).

Just don't think that the target audience of teenagers/young adults that fill the theaters in summer pay much attention to the reviewers. And the mostly old farts who do reviews (sorry, Jason, nothing personal) aren't all that plugged in with what the kids want to see.

[NashvilleDevil]

My question is -- do reviews really matter for a summer popcorn film?

I know some of the comic book franchises started strong -- Batman Begins, Spiderman and Iron Man all drew strong tomatometer ratings.

But look at the Transformers franchise. The first one drew a rotten 57 percent on the tomatomater, followed by a truly terrible 20 percent for the second and an awful 36 percent for the third. Yet, all were huge summer hits.

And then there is the Fast and Furious franchise. It started at a rotten 53 percent -- and went downhill ... to 36, 35 and 27 in its next three films. Then something strange happened -- I think the critics gave up -- F&F 5 got a fresh 78 percent and F&F 6 came in at a solid 71 percent.

And what about Now You See Me? It's not going to finish in our top five, but it is exceeding expectations, despite a rotten 48 percent on the tomatometer (and BTW, I agree with luburch -- it's the best movie of the summer).

Just don't think that the target audience of teenagers/young adults that fill the theaters in summer pay much attention to the reviewers. And the mostly old farts who do reviews (sorry, Jason, nothing personal) aren't all that plugged in with what the kids want to see.

My guess is the pedigree behind this film makes some of the mediocre reviews suprising.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I know some of the comic book franchises started strong -- Batman Begins, Spiderman and Iron Man all drew strong tomatometer ratings.

But look at the Transformers franchise. The first one drew a rotten 57 percent on the tomatomater, followed by a truly terrible 20 percent for the second and an awful 36 percent for the third. Yet, all were huge summer hits.

That goes to my point about Superman....it is like this movie ISN'T a popcorn flick. Transformers, Fast & Furious, etc ARE popcorn flicks. Completely dumb fun. You don't go see a Michael Bay movie because of the story and acting, you go because you want to see crap blown up. Superman seems like it is a bit cerebral to be considered a popcorn flick, which is maybe why it's getting the bad reviews...it's not the summer movie people want to see. (Even though they will still go see it because it is good.)

[SoCalDukeFan]

I rarely go to these kind of movies but got invited to a free showing.

First half is definitely better. I was pleased that it was a real movie and not just a bunch of car chases strung together. Agree with Jason that the action scenes were too long.


Glad that I saw it. Fun and interesting but not great.

SoCal

[Indoor66]

I rarely go to these kind of movies but got invited to a free showing.

First half is definitely better. I was pleased that it was a real movie and not just a bunch of car chases strung together. Agree with Jason that the action scenes were too long.


Glad that I saw it. Fun and interesting but not great.

SoCal

But the price was just right. :cool:

[JasonEvans]

Huge opening weekend... early projections are that it is going to do about $120 million. Huge!! This film was 100% critic-proof.

-Jason "mortal lock for the Top 5 and the likely #2 film of the summer" Evans

[dukebsbll14]

Saw it tonight. I was never into the Superman character to begin with. My thought was, "oh, here's a character that can fly, is super strong and is basically invincible. That's the superhero I thought of when I was five." I actually really, really enjoyed Man of Steel. It was a very personal film and I liked that.

I'm glad that Russell Crowe was included in more than just the opening sequence. I was a little nervous watching the previews and thought he would be used basically to attract viewers, but his character added a nice storyline to the film. Would have been cool to see Joaquin Phoenix play the general, mainly because I recently watched Gladiator.

The end fight scenes reminded me of Transformers 3. It was really cool to look at, but just kept going on and on and on.

Also, Amy Adams: please be in more movies. I enjoyed your part.

[NashvilleDevil]

Just got back from seeing it. I was entertained for 2:30 hours and did not think the action dragged. It's not a perfect movie by any means but I would see it again. Saw some nice touches that I will not mention and I think this is a solid foundation for a series of movies.

[davekay1971]

Saw it and really enjoyed it. Agreed with the general consensus that the first half of the movie was very strong and the action less so...but the action was still quite good. The challenge of Superman is always to create a realistic sense of danger for him, and I think they did that. They did a masterful job of "the origin" and establishing Clark's roots. I loved the parts where we saw the struggle a young super-being struggled: with questions of what he is, how he should handle his gifts, etc. That's never really been explored in prior Superman movies and it was done very well here. It was a quality movie and the low tomato enter score must reflect critics' hopes that this would have been a great movie, because this movie is really, really good...but not quite great. Better than Dark Knight Rises or Iron Man 3, not as good as Dark Knight or Iron Man.

[JasonEvans]

I knew when I posted my review that it would be far more positive than most of what other critics were saying. I told a critic friend I was giving it a B/B+ kind of rating and he laughed at me, saying he thought it was a C-minus.

I am glad so many folks here seem to agree with me that it is a pretty good flick, though one with some flaws (which we all largely seem to agree upon).

-Jason "after this weekend, we can probably have a spoiler discussion where I can tell you about something that really bothered me in the movie ending" Evans

[ncexnyc]

Just came back from watching it in 3D. It was either 3D or waiting around for 45 minutes as lunch took a little longer than expected. Jason was spot on in his warning that the 3D version wasn't a wise choice, but that's about all he was accurate about.

This is possibly the greatest superhero movie of all time and I say this as a person who never really cared about the Superman character. The way Superman was depicted in this movie is what a superhero should be, HEROIC!.

We got a great background story on Krypton. A bad guy who has some solid justification for being the way he is. Tons of great action and a fantastic score which melds perfectly with what we are seeing on the screen.

Were there holes in the plot? Sure, like any other movie in this genre there are bound to be. An example would be how the bad guys had nearly the same exact powers as Superman even though they were just experiencing our atmosphere and sun for the first time. It was also odd how quickly they mastered their new found abilities, while it took Superman a while to find his way around his skills.

Hey, this is definitely a must see movie and I wouldn't be shocked if it finishes as the top movie of the summer. It's fresh and Nolan's spin on the franchise is a winner.

[Troublemaker]

Saw MoS and liked it a lot. I think the relatively high audience/user ratings for this film (currently 82% Tomatoes, 8.3 IMDB, 8.7 Metacritic, A- CinemaScore) are a better gauge of whether the average movie-goer would enjoy this film than the relative panning the critics have doled out to MoS (currently 57% on Tomatoes). Always interesting to me when there's a wide disparity between how the critics and audience rate a film. I was nervous about the 57% heading in, and I'm glad I came out quite satisfied (and perhaps that's related... lowered expectations always help.)

[Duvall]

Ugh, Zack Snyder. Ugh, David Goyer. It takes special skill to make impossible bawls between demigods that thuddingly boring. First half of the movie was okay, but the rest...

[bjornolf]

Haven't seen it, but one reviewer I do like and respect (along with JE of course) dinged it slightly because he said it had some of the most blatant product placements he's ever seen (Nikon and Nokia in particular). He said he heard it made $170M in product placement money before it had rolled in a single theater. Is this true?

[luburch]

Haven't seen it, but one reviewer I do like and respect (along with JE of course) dinged it slightly because he said it had some of the most blatant product placements he's ever seen (Nikon and Nokia in particular). He said he heard it made $170M in product placement money before it had rolled in a single theater. Is this true?

I think I noticed two instances of product placement in the movie.

There was a nice reference to Lex-Corp in it.

[bjornolf]

I think I noticed two instances of product placement in the movie.

There was a nice reference to Lex-Corp in it.

I just saw this article about it. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/superman-is-already-a-170m-brand-superhero-as-man-of-steel-tops-the-product-placement-charts-8651215.html

Says there were 100 advertising partners. Seems genius. I mean, you pay a fee for a 30 second spot on the superbowl, but if you get a movie tie-in, it's shown over and over, plus it's on the dvd/bluray/download forever.

[Troublemaker]

Wow, rumors are WB wants MoS sequel in 2014 and Justice League in 2015. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/16/report-man-of-steel-sequel-in-2014-justice-league-in-2015/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

If true, then that means WB wants to use the Justice League film to introduce Wonder Woman, Flash, etc, and if they find compelling actors for those roles and introduce them in a compelling way, THEN WB might spinoff solo movies for them. I think that could be the right approach. A solo WW movie or Flash movie prior to a Justice League film could fail as spectacularly as Green Lantern.

[Duvall]

Wow, rumors are WB wants MoS sequel in 2014 and Justice League in 2015. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/16/report-man-of-steel-sequel-in-2014-justice-league-in-2015/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter.

A sequel by 2014? Are they planning to make it with stock footage? It's hard to see how any movie made on that kind of timetable could be good. WB shouldn't waste the momentum they get from the commercial success of MoS by churning out inferior products.

[Windsor]

It was my husband's choice for Father's Day so we saw it (in 3D)yesterday.
He is a huge Superman fan...me...not so much. We were not impressed.

The actions sequences (particulary at the end) are way too long - and parts of it seemed to be lifted from the final Agent Smith/Neo battle from Matrix Revolution - as was the Krypton baby farm). I found it to be an unoriginal cookie cutter "misunderstood hero rises to the occassion and all is is well" movie. My husbands comment was that it wasn't a superman movie, just another super hero movie. Lots of stuff gets broken, lots of product placement ...bleh.
That is 2:20 minutes of my life I won't get back.

[Troublemaker]

A sequel by 2014? Are they planning to make it with stock footage? It's hard to see how any movie made on that kind of timetable could be good. WB shouldn't waste the momentum they get from the commercial success of MoS by churning out inferior products.

Agreed, seems undoable. I could almost understand a late 2014 release for the MoS sequel if they started work on it right away but then to turn around and do a Justice League movie with the same principal creators making it, including a key actor in Cavill, by the end of 2015 seems a bit much.

I can understand the mindset to rush things as much as possible, though, if true. There exists a huge amount of duplication of characters and storylines between the DC and Marvel universes. For example, whenever Justice League is released, the impact of seeing The Flash on the big screen will be somewhat reduced since Marvel will have already shown their Flash ripoff (Quicksilver) on the big screen when he joins the Avengers in Avengers 2 . Heck, a generation of kids might grow up thinking Flash was the ripoff.

Likewise, the villain of the Avengers sequel (Thanos) is an unabashed ripoff of Darkseid, who has become DC's main planet-threatening villain. For example, the Justice League cartoon series culminated in a battle against Darkseid, and when DC Comics relaunched in 2011, he was the first villain the Justice League fought in the comics. If the Marvel movies didn't exist, he probably would've been the headlining villain for either the first Justice League film or the sequel, but after Avengers 2 is released, he instantly becomes unusable.

As for storylines, can Justice League do an alien invasion if Avengers already did it (although I suppose Man of Steel also had an alien invasion in a way, except they look like humans)? Goyer might want to write the Justice League as "not getting along at first" but that might have too many familiar beats to the Avengers as well. If WB (and Hollywood in general) were very creative, it wouldn't be a big deal. But if they are creatively bankrupt and understand that about themselves, then they'll want to play catchup to Marvel so as not to limit the characters and storylines that they can use.

[BD80]

... If WB (and Hollywood in general) were very creative, it wouldn't be a big deal. But if they are creatively bankrupt and understand that about themselves, then they'll want to play catchup to Marvel so as not to limit the characters and storylines that they can use.

Let's see ... two movies this summer about attacks on the white house, two movies last winter about Snow White, a year recently with two movies about Truman Capote, endless streams of vampires and zombies.

Five of the top 6 movies this year will be sequels, and the other will be a reboot. Two other movies in or near the top ten will be sequels. There just isn't sufficient profit in creativity.

Maybe DC should wait and see how the Marvel storylines and characters are received, and copy what works.

[JasonEvans]

Wow, rumors are WB wants MoS sequel in 2014 and Justice League in 2015. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/16/report-man-of-steel-sequel-in-2014-justice-league-in-2015/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

If true, then that means WB wants to use the Justice League film to introduce Wonder Woman, Flash, etc, and if they find compelling actors for those roles and introduce them in a compelling way, THEN WB might spinoff solo movies for them. I think that could be the right approach. A solo WW movie or Flash movie prior to a Justice League film could fail as spectacularly as Green Lantern.

If you spend the time introducing WW and Flash and others in the Justice League film, it greatly detracts from the time the film needs to actually build up a threat and viilian worthy of putting all these superhero characters together. I see this as a mistake.

But, Goyer has already been contracted to write the MOS sequel and to write the Justice League film so he should be well-equipped to integrate them seamlessly into an overall story. Perhaps the MOS sequel becomes a place where we are introduced to WW or Flash or other future Justice League characters.

But, unless Goyer has a script ready RIGHT NOW the notion that they could get a MOS sequel ready for 2014 seems absurd. It is simply too big a project, with too many digital effects that must be honed in just the right way in post-production, to make that work. Hollywood tried to do the same thing with The Hunger Games sequel rushing it into theaters 18 months after the first one came out, and everyone said it would be almost impossible to do... and that was with a film with far less digital effects and where the story was already written (though, obviously, the screenplay will make many adjustments to the story).

I see this as a very bad sign. MOS was not so universally loved and praised that WB/DC can think that they can make a shoddy next film and the audience will be completely forgiving, can they? It would be far better to take the time to do this right! I would hope that Nolan, who resisted pressure to rush his Dark Knight sequel (4 years between those two films), would understand this.

-Jason "if they announced TODAY that MOS 2 would be June of 2015 and Justice League would be June of 2016, I think that would be very doable... though there is no way you could have Zach Snyder direct both MOS 2 and JL" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Five of the top 6 movies this year will be sequels, and the other will be a reboot. Two other movies in or near the top ten will be sequels. There just isn't sufficient profit in creativity.

One minor dissent with this notion...

While it is true that an "original idea" can only rarely steam its way into the Top 5 or 10 movies of the year, one reason for making original products is that they can spawn those highly successful sequels. Many of the huge properties out today started as more risky ideas in the first place. We only got Hangover II and III because someone had the guts to make Hangover I. Same with Pirates of the Carib and numerous other current franchises.

I hear people talk about Hollywood being bereft of ideas all the time. And while it is at least partly true, I can think of examples that some might say were "unoriginal" but were in fact very original. Take Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It is easy to say, "that's just a reboot of a 70s franchise!" But that would be ignoring that fact that it is a very unique and original story that tells the Apes story in a whole new way. Other than "smart apes" it bears no resemblance at all to the original films. Just because the Batman character was in Christopher Nolan's trilogy, it is not like those films contained unoriginal stories. X-Men Origins was a completely unique story and I loved it! The list goes on and on.

Look, a big effects movie -- the kind of "popcorn" flicks that we all love during the summer -- is going to cost a lot of money to make. That is a given. Getting Hollywood to spend that kind of money without some established audience/franchise already in place is really risky. They won't do it because they cannot afford to take $100-$200 mil losses if the movie fails and has no built in audience. So, they make movies with new ideas but with overall themes/characters/titles that ensure enough audience recognition so that the movie is not too big of a financial risk.

And if you want Hollywood to take more risks with unestablished properties, I suggest you sit down to discuss that strategy over lunch with Rich Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Ross#Disney). He isn't as hard to get a hold of these days as he was a couple years ago.

-Jason "I thought MOS told a very creative and original Superman origins story" Evans

[Troublemaker]

If you spend the time introducing WW and Flash and others in the Justice League film, it greatly detracts from the time the film needs to actually build up a threat and viilian worthy of putting all these superhero characters together. I see this as a mistake.

But, Goyer has already been contracted to write the MOS sequel and to write the Justice League film so he should be well-equipped to integrate them seamlessly into an overall story. Perhaps the MOS sequel becomes a place where we are introduced to WW or Flash or other future Justice League characters.

You're absolutely right. The more I think about it, the more the rumored timeline sounds like a disaster (and probably untrue). WB/DC just have to accept the reality that Disney/Marvel are way ahead in establishing their cinematic universe, and WB/DC should take their time establishing their own, even if it means certain high-level storylines or even characters have to come off the table because the Marvel films did them first.

[Troublemaker]

Interview with Goyer where he says that WB is pressuring the filmmakers to hurry, but Chris Nolan is keeping them at bay, "protecting the process."

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62904

Relevant excerpt:



Beaks: And the added expectation that, because Marvel has already made THE AVENGERS, you've got to hurry up and get to JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Goyer: Obviously, Warner Bros has tried. They're not making that a secret.

Beaks: But does that influence your work on MAN OF STEEL, and might it going forward?

Goyer: It didn't influence MAN OF STEEL at all. We have to thank Chris the most for that because he really did protect the process. He just advised us, we took that advice, and he kept Warner Bros at bay a little bit. He said, "You've got to make this film, make it as good as humanly possible, and put all that other stuff out of your head." It's impossible to put it completely out of your head. By the same token, I know that he said that to Warner Bros in terms of pressuring us. Then it becomes this impossible mountain to climb. You can't think about how many merchandising deals they've made, or how much ad support they've got. You just can't think about it. Otherwise, you won't be able to make your movie.

Beaks: I think Warner Bros and DC have to take their time with JUSTICE LEAGUE. You can't force it, which is what it feels like they're trying to do.

Goyer: You can't force it. The DC characters are different than the Marvel characters. They've been around much longer, particularly the big three: Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. The Marvel characters that Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko came up with, they came along, in some cases, thirty years later. The DC characters are deeper archetypes, and those Marvel characters were in reaction to these archetypes. My grandmother is ninety-six, and she has an emotional attachment to Superman. She doesn't have any attachment to Spider-Man or Iron Man. They have to be treated in a different way, particularly the big three. Done right, like Chris did with the Batman films, they can reach an even bigger audience. But I also think there are more pitfalls because people have more preexisting expectations.

[JasonEvans]

Interview with Goyer where he says that WB is pressuring the filmmakers to hurry, but Chris Nolan is keeping them at bay, "protecting the process."

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62904

Relevant excerpt:

Nolan can wield incredible power in this process. If WB puts too much pressure on him to move things along, he walks away and leaks his dissatisfaction with WB. That would be killer. The fanboy universe trusts Chris Nolan, he has certainly earned that trust, and his disapproval of DC/WB would be a severe hit to the credibility of a Justice League project.

-Jason "of note regarding timeline of all this -- Nolan is about to get very busy on his time-travel/dimension-travel film Interstellar for a Nov 2014 release... it could hinder his ability to move too fast on a MOS sequel" Evans

[BD80]

Interview with Goyer where he says that WB is pressuring the filmmakers to hurry, but Chris Nolan is keeping them at bay, "protecting the process."

Relevant excerpt: ... "My grandmother is ninety-six, and she has an emotional attachment to Superman. She doesn't have any attachment to Spider-Man or Iron Man" ....

Let's hope that 96 yo grandmas aren't the target audience!


Nolan can wield incredible power in this process. ...

-Jason "of note regarding timeline of all this -- Nolan is about to get very busy on his time-travel/dimension-travel film Interstellar for a Nov 2014 release... it could hinder his ability to move too fast on a MOS sequel" Evans

If he really nails the time-travel aspect, he could take all the time he needs and still have MoS2, Justice League, Wonder Woman and Flash all released in 2014!

Random thought, if Winslow commits to Duke, Blue Planet could beat Nolan to the punch on Justise's league!

[bjornolf]

Let's see ... two movies this summer about attacks on the white house, two movies last winter about Snow White, a year recently with two movies about Truman Capote, endless streams of vampires and zombies.

Five of the top 6 movies this year will be sequels, and the other will be a reboot. Two other movies in or near the top ten will be sequels. There just isn't sufficient profit in creativity.

Maybe DC should wait and see how the Marvel storylines and characters are received, and copy what works.

This has been going on for at least a decade, maybe two. TV shows too. One year it was buddy cops. Another year it was the supernatural. Ghosts. Then the fae. Remake westerns. Lesser known superheroes. Vigilantes. Asteroids hit the earth. Other natural disasters. Aliens attack. Spoofs. Last man or people. Massive climate change causes winter everywhere. Hangover and Bridesmaids.

[BD80]

This has been going on for at least a decade, maybe two. TV shows too. One year it was buddy cops. Another year it was the supernatural. Ghosts. Then the fae. Remake westerns. Lesser known superheroes. Vigilantes. Asteroids hit the earth. Other natural disasters. Aliens attack. Spoofs. Last man or people. Massive climate change causes winter everywhere. Hangover and Bridesmaids.

Forgot about the 2 Abe Lincoln movies last year!

[Wander]

Saw it tonight. I was never into the Superman character to begin with. My thought was, "oh, here's a character that can fly, is super strong and is basically invincible. That's the superhero I thought of when I was five." I actually really, really enjoyed Man of Steel.

Basically my feelings as well. Maybe it's just because I grew up watching Dragonball Z, but I even liked the fighting sequences.

Probably in the minority, but I just wish there wouldn't be a Justice League. The crossover thing is fine for Marvel, but in the more "realistic" world of the Batman and Superman movies, it just doesn't make sense to me that the events of this film took place in a universe with other superheroes. What was Green Lantern or whoever else doing while the planet was about to be destroyed?

[Olympic Fan]

This has been going on for at least a decade, maybe two. TV shows too. One year it was buddy cops. Another year it was the supernatural. Ghosts. Then the fae. Remake westerns. Lesser known superheroes. Vigilantes. Asteroids hit the earth. Other natural disasters. Aliens attack. Spoofs. Last man or people. Massive climate change causes winter everywhere. Hangover and Bridesmaids.

Don't forget that two movies about turn-of-the-century magicians came out together in 2006 -- the Illusionist and The Prestige. As noted, two movies about comets/asteroids threating the earth in 1998 -- Armageddon and Deep Impact. And it's not just movies -- I still remember that ER and Chicago Hope debuted the same month.

I do know that in the late 1970s, two disaster movies about burning skyscrapers were in production -- the Tower and the Glass Inferno. Only in that case, the producers got together, combined projects and came up with one movie -- The Towering Inferno.


-- and BD80, love the reference to two Abe Lincoln movies last years ... great point!

PS -- I don't think Hangover/Bridesmaids fits this category. Bridesmaids is nothing more than a female ripoff of Hangover. It came out two years after Hangover. That's not the same as two similar movies that come out at the same time.

[bjornolf]

Don't forget that two movies about turn-of-the-century magicians came out together in 2006 -- the Illusionist and The Prestige. As noted, two movies about comets/asteroids threating the earth in 1998 -- Armageddon and Deep Impact. And it's not just movies -- I still remember that ER and Chicago Hope debuted the same month.

I do know that in the late 1970s, two disaster movies about burning skyscrapers were in production -- the Tower and the Glass Inferno. Only in that case, the producers got together, combined projects and came up with one movie -- The Towering Inferno.


-- and BD80, love the reference to two Abe Lincoln movies last years ... great point!

PS -- I don't think Hangover/Bridesmaids fits this category. Bridesmaids is nothing more than a female ripoff of Hangover. It came out two years after Hangover. That's not the same as two similar movies that come out at the same time.

I was more referring to the point about no new ideas. Every time a new idea is successful, you seem to get a ripoff or two within a couple of years.

[alteran]

Don't forget that two movies about turn-of-the-century magicians came out together in 2006 -- the Illusionist and The Prestige. As noted, two movies about comets/asteroids threating the earth in 1998 -- Armageddon and Deep Impact. And it's not just movies -- I still remember that ER and Chicago Hope debuted the same month.

I do know that in the late 1970s, two disaster movies about burning skyscrapers were in production -- the Tower and the Glass Inferno. Only in that case, the producers got together, combined projects and came up with one movie -- The Towering Inferno.




One more-- two animated movies centered on ants in '98 -- Antz and A Bug's Life.

Didn't know that about Towering Inferno.

[Wander]

One more-- two animated movies centered on ants in '98 -- Antz and A Bug's Life.


One last one - The Descent (my favorite horror movie of all time) and The Cave (terrible movie). How many of the examples that we've listed have huge gaps in quality between the two films?

[bjornolf]

One more-- two animated movies centered on ants in '98 -- Antz and A Bug's Life.

Didn't know that about Towering Inferno.

What about mix of animation and live action... Cool World and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

[jjasper0729]

so to bring this thread back around :-) I'm going to see Man of Steel this weekend at IMAX. They offer both a 2D and 3D. Is it worth it to get 3D or will the 2D on the huge screen be the better viewing?

[JasonEvans]

so to bring this thread back around :-) I'm going to see Man of Steel this weekend at IMAX. They offer both a 2D and 3D. Is it worth it to get 3D or will the 2D on the huge screen be the better viewing?

As I said upthread (and others have confirmed), go 2D. This is not one of those flicks worth your 3D dollars.

-Jason

[Atlanta Duke]

Agree with Jason's initial review

The first half of the movie involving the Krypton back story and Kal-el aka Clark aka Supe attempting to assimilate was excellent (Russell Crowe as Krypton dad Jor-el + Kevin Costner & Diane Lane were great, as was Amy Adams as Lois Lane). After Zod arrives on Earth the second half with all the fights and stuff blowing up dragged.

Nine to fourteen year old me might have enjoyed the second half more - current me prefers the character development in the first half, but I suppose it is the younger demographic that was the target audience

Seems like a good cast set up for the sequel ( but who plays Lex Luthor?), although I wish someone other than Zach Snyder would be the director for the next movie

[Udaman]

OK, let's get into the spoiler side of things......


You've been warned......


Stop reading if you haven't seen it......


OK. I'll say this. I was horribly disappointed by this movie. HORRIBLY DISAPPOINTED. There are parts of it worth liking, and the special effects are incredible. But I would rate this as the worst blockbuster movie I've seen this summer. Below Iron Man 3 (which I didn't like that much). Below Hangover 3. Way below Star Trek and Fast Five 6. Below Great Gatsby. I haven't seen After Earth or The Internship, but I would be hard pressed to feel that it was better than either of those two (maybe not worse, but no better). It's not even in the same breath as World War Z (best movie of the summer thus far, and by a wide margin)

I liked the beginning...well the beginning of showing him on Earth. It was fun to think of a kid struggling with his powers, and how to handle them. I liked him as a wanderer going from town to town unable to really figure out what he should be doing. But that's pretty much it. Truly. Here are my top 12 reasons for being so disappointed and not liking it.

12. The ship that landed on Earth is stored in the barn? Really? Um, Mr. Costner - how did you possibly move something that large and heavy. Now if you said you built the barn around it, I could have believed that. But nope. Minor point, but boy I laughed at that.

11. Russell Crowe as his dad. Just didn't buy it. Kept feeling like I was watching The Gladiator. And so many of his parts as a ghost was unbelievable. How can a computer know all of those answers, and know to trust Lois Lane, and tell her how to get everybody back in the box.

10. What he did after the café fight with the bully. The entire point is that he keeps his cool in situations like that. So he's really going to lift the rig and smash it into a telephone pole? When he hasn't really learned all of his powers yet? Completely unbelievable and out of character. Just for effects, and about the only time the movie tried to be funny (more on that later) and it missed big time.

9. The fight scene on Krypton. So been there done that. It was Avatar with the flying things, and the fight with the bad guy where he stabs you in the side, and the good guy winning at first, but then ultimately losing and the "I thought you were my friend, but now you're just a bad guy that I don't even recognize anymore" and blah, blah, blah. It was like a highlight reel of things already done in dramatic fight scenes.

8. The red cape. Where the hell did that come from? Why did he have one?

7. Beat into our head morality #1. It's bad to predispose people to one way or another. Make sure you tell us that about 6 times in the movie in case we missed it the first time.

6. Beat into our head morality #2. You are here for a reason, and whatever that reason is, you can either help or harm the people of Earth. Said over and over and over and over and over and over and redone and over and then again, and again, and again. By Costner and Crowe, and Superman, and Lois, and the army guys, and his mom, and his other mom. Rinse, wash, repeat. So annoying.

5. Messing with the original Superman 2. I loved that Zod was a bad guy who got put into a horrible prison cell. LOVED in the first movie how once they are there they are all begging for forgiveness (must have been truly, truly awful). Loved the anger that the felt when they finally got released, and then them coming to realize how powerful they were on Earth. This movie abandoned all of that. Zod's trying to overthrow the government? But why? And it didn't really last very long. And so they put them in some kind of animation on a ship, knowing full well that their planet would soon blow up, and then when it does they are all simply released? What? I'm sorry, but that's horrible writing. Horrible.

4. Lois Lane. I thought Amy did fine....but it's more that EVERYONE knows in this that Lois Lane knows Superman, and that he protected her, and that she was the link to him.....I mean that's fine and all, but then at the very end Superman is going to be Clark Kent working right there with her, and the government is trying to find him, and they wouldn't....I don't know....actually follow her and see if he might show up? Again, makes no sense.

3. The way Costner died. So Superman, who loves Costner with all of his heart is really going to let a tornado take him away because Costner raises his hand? And Costner is going to tell Superman not to save the dog. "No, no, let me do it. I mean it's not like you can't even be hurt or anything like that." Might have been the most unbelievable part of the movie. Have him die from a heart attack. It's the perfect irony...."All of my powers, and I couldn't save him." That's right. Sometimes being Superman isn't enough. But when there's a tornado coming, no, don't be Superman then.

2. The fight scenes. As JE and others have said, they are incredible to watch....but pretty much right away you realize that none of them can kill each other. So let's just show them fly into each other and hurl each other into building after building after building after building after building. I bet they easily flew into more than 25 buildings in the movie. Maybe 50 (there was one scene alone where he went through nearly a dozen in a row). And so after a while you're like, "Yawn. They can't kill each other, I get it. What do you do? So what do you do......."

1. Well, you make it so at the end...."Oh, I can kill you. I just have to break your neck? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? After all that, a snapped neck does the trick? Um, wouldn't they have tried that? Better yet, wouldn't holding onto your head and flying it into a building while being held still by another superman break it? This was just so inane it almost defies logic for me. I hated the ending. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated.

So completely disappointed in this film. I left bummed out and feeling like I had wasted my time and money. I also thought the editing was atrocious. The story jumped back and forth and suddenly had things happen that made you wonder how on Earth that happened (Superman being at the site of the spaceship landing? Him coming to Lois at the grave in Smallville? And none of this covers the complete lack of humor that JE also pointed out. I get that Batman is moody and dark - he's the Dark Knight. He should be. But Superman? He's the silly guy. He's the guy with the heart of gold. They guy who plays the bumbling reporter that nobody suspects is the strongest man on Earth (boy would Bill from Kill Bill dislike this movie). This movie gave us none of that. It was intense, and sad, and sullen and dark......and boring and unbelievable.

Yeah, I know, ask me how I really felt.....

Udaman

[brevity]

Yeah, I know, ask me how I really felt.....

Udaman

I share many of your concerns, but I guess they didn't bother me as much. But then, I wanted to see a different take of Superman than the Richard Donner one. Duplication would have been the waste of time. We know this because we saw that waste of time in 2006.

Man of Steel, like Batman Begins, succeeded in proving that there is more than one way to tell a superhero's story. No Marlon Brando? No John Williams? No problem. I saw the movie today, and I think it has numerous flaws, but the storyline of Superman/Clark Kent's character is actually pretty strong. I like that the origin story is told in flashbacks. I like that the present day focus is on him quietly finding his purpose. And I like the idea that the flying guy is fully developed before the mild-mannered reporter.

With the notable exception of Jonathan Kent's cause of death -- I agree with you there -- the film tended to be stronger when it deviated from the Donner films, and weaker when it tried to recreate them. The Phantom Zone did not work for me -- this time it just seemed like the Kryptonian leaders ended up preserving the traitors. I think Zod was an interesting creation, but I think Michael Shannon would have been a better fit if he were playing the old-fashioned, power-delusional Zod. Similarly, I liked what they did with Lois Lane this time, but the less I could have seen of The Daily Planet, the better. I saw no point of having a female Jimmy Olsen if her character served no purpose.

There's probably a good discussion to be made about how Superman can best dispense of Zod. The neck snap was a bad idea -- give us a Kryptonian weapon or something -- but what bothered me more was that Superman was too easily convinced that killing was the only option. Superman II gave us a hero who uses his brain when his brawn is simply not enough. He beats Zod by outsmarting him. But here's the problem: Superman never actually gets rid of him. Zod is clearly defeated, but his disposal is not clear. He just falls down some deep ice pit. The film skirts the issue.

[luburch]

Anyone who rates Fast 6 or Hangover III above Superman automatically loses all credibility.

[davekay1971]

I had no problem with the way Superman finally defeated Zod. The earlier fights between the Kryptonians showed that they could hurt each other, although they were obviously very, very hard to harm in any significant way. But there were plenty of scenes of Superman, after he was hit by one of the Kryptonians, laying on the ground, clearly hurt. Never, before that moment, did we see a Kryptonian having another Kryptonian in such a firm hold, and therefore it didn't seem to violate what we'd seen before when Superman was able to break Zod's neck.

Also, I really liked the way Superman was so distraught that he had been forced to kill Zod. He was shocked, upset, angry with Zod for forcing him to go that far.

The biggest beef I had with the movie was not with the logic points Udaman listed...I was "into the movie" enough to either not notice them or for them to not take me out of the movie experience. My biggest problem was with the way the movie glossed over what must have been a monumental death toll in Metropolis. We get these moments of isolated people being dramatically saved (the female intern reporter, the family of four at the end, Lois Lane 3 times), but there isn't a moment of thought for the hundreds of thousands of people who must have died as Metropolis was half turned into rubble. Heck, when Clark shows up for his Daily Planet job, it looked like Metropolis was as good as new. I get it - it's a popcorn movie - but one major problem with these Hollywood blockbusters is that the cool spectacle of the destruction of buildings must clearly involve a ton of dead people...but that's all in the name of fun, right? The exact same thing could be said about The Avengers and a ton of other blockbuster action movies. It's always refreshing when a movie actually pauses to reflect on the fact that a lot of people in the story died. In contast, I felt like The Dark Knight, which was clearly a story taking a more "realistic" and darker tone, did a great job addressing the way a city would be affected by this kind of chaos and destruction...with a lot less of Gotham destroyed.

[CameronBornAndBred]

-Jason "Avengers 2 comes in summer 2015, but Marvel is much more on the ball about movies. DC currently has nothing in development for 2014" Evans
But we will still see Supes, Batman AND Wonderwoman all in the same movie, and in 2014!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lego_movie/trailers/

[BD80]

But we will still see Supes, Batman AND Wonderwoman all in the same movie, and in 2014!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lego_movie/trailers/

Wonder Woman sure is built!