×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Of Steel Leaps Over Record With $125.1 Million To Mixed Reviews

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the It's-a-bird-it's-a-plane-it's-a-guy-in-front-of-a-green-screen dept.

Movies 364

The Superman reboot Man of Steel broke the record for the biggest June opening weekend ever with a whopping $125.1 million. Reviews have been mixed so far, ranging from: "DC and Warner Brothers have opted to produce a movie that foregoes a character-driven story. Instead, we're left with a trite blockbuster that holds beautiful special effects, an inspiring music score, a story that panders to the movie-goer who refrains from looking deep into the story, and neglects to define Superman as character, leaving him only as a hollow symbol and stock character, which ultimately leaves the movie about the events that transpire rather than the characters involved in them," to " What this version of the iconic DC Comics superhero does is emote convincingly. Thanks to director Zack Snyder and a serious-minded script by David S. Goyer (who shares story credit with his The Dark Knight collaborator, Christopher Nolan), Man of Steel gives the last son of Krypton an action-packed origin story with a minimum of camp and an intense emotional authenticity. Not bad for somebody who spends half the movie wearing blue tights." Personally, I found it to be the best 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to see this summer. What did you think?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

364 comments

Piracy much eh? (4, Interesting)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 10 months ago | (#44030237)

OMG, those pirates will steal from us and are the reason the whole movie industry is going bankrupt.

Bankrupt my ass, if those suckers are able to make $1000000+ on one weekend with a bullshit movie, I don't want them complaining anymore about the death of their business.

that money (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030309)

that money comes for 50% suckers that don't know about piracy and the other 50% is all the actors musicians and friends of there's and familly in the industry just shoveling cash into it to try and make it sound good

A) this is not the same super man we all know and love
B) its dark like all hollywood movies since 2001
C) there is no distinction as you might think between good and evil anymore .....why cause hollywood itself is evil and hte movies are showing it.

2.6 billion people on the net.....and all they can get is 125 million?
yup the net voted this movie as IT SUCKS right there....

Re:that money (3, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44030701)

that money comes for 50% suckers that don't know about piracy and the other 50% is all the actors musicians and friends of there's and familly in the industry just shoveling cash into it to try and make it sound good

A) this is not the same super man we all know and love
B) its dark like all hollywood movies since 2001
C) there is no distinction as you might think between good and evil anymore .....why cause hollywood itself is evil and hte movies are showing it.

2.6 billion people on the net.....and all they can get is 125 million?
yup the net voted this movie as IT SUCKS right there....

eh.. it's opening weekend. piracy has nothing to do with it or people not knowing about piracy. I doubt they could have made much more in the opening weekend even in theory short of raising ticket prices.

but after seeing the latest star trek.. omfg don't do reboots goddamn!!

though how spaced out you need to be to think that actors are putting money _into_ opening weekend sales? you would think that people would notice those empty seats... like what the fuck, you think clooney is buying sympathy tickets for other peoples movies?!?#?!#

Re:that money (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44030739)

2.6 billion people on the net.....and all they can get is 125 million?

Yep, that's because of piracy. Otherwise the film would have made close to half a billion. It's time to arrest everybody who is running a torrent client. Give 'em all the gas chamber!

Re:that money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030985)

and the other 50% is all the actors musicians and friends of there's and familly in the industry just shoveling cash into it to try and make it sound good

Congratulations. You have successfully said the dumbest thing ever.

Re:that money (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#44031063)

the 80's Superman wasn't all that good, i remember it very well. the USA was still in the idiotic Good guy vs bad guy phase

and there is no way a crappy pirated copy is in any way equivalent to seeing the movie in a decent theater.

Re:Piracy much eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030399)

That's just ticket sales. That I know of, this Superman movie has an 'official' candy, razor, phone, fast food, and reserve branch of the US military.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that between the reviews and previews that this movie is pretty awful.

Re:Piracy much eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030427)

... forgot official truck.

Re: Piracy much eh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44031069)

I read all the terrible reviews, but the movie wasn't that bad. Superman Returns was almost shot-for-shot homage to Donner's Superman. And everybody panned it.

This movie is basically Superman 2, but makes a lot more sense. I think pa Kent got shafted as a character, but they did a lot better job of Jo-El and Zod being real characters with motives that were good. That there wasn't a clear "bad guy" fits our time now versus a comic book version that makes charactitures of important conflicts.

I think it's realistic.. Clark is out there trying to save people in little ways until his cover is totally blown and he moves on.

Re:Piracy much eh? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030417)

Yes. Because this is the one film they'll make this year and flops like The Interns aren't at all a problem for the industry.

Don't get me wrong, Hollywood talks a tough game but this is also a record setting film. At this rate it'll likely be the top grossing film this year for whatever studio put it out there so the movie certainly isn't 'bullshit' from the consumer standpoint. You're acting like this is a typical result and thus missing most of the point as to why this is on the front page of Slashdot at all.

Is Hollywood floundering? Not at all. Is piracy part of a larger issue. It is. Both "sides" to this are making things out to be better/worse than what they are.

And if you don't want to hear them complain then stop following their news and stop using Slashdot. It's not going away anytime soon. You're certainly not going to bother to look at it objectively.

Re:Piracy much eh? (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 10 months ago | (#44030573)

Yes. Because this is the one film they'll make this year and flops like The Interns aren't at all a problem for the industry.

The Interns wasn't that *bad* a movie, really... I saw it yesterday with a friend. If you're expecting high brow intellectual humour, you're going to find it sorely lacking, and it's slow to start, but if you can sit through the whole thing it's entertaining. I'd wait for it on Netflix, though. With the amount of product placement in the film, I'm a bit surprised they had the gall to charge a ticket price in the first place.

I had a few good laughs at parts of the movie that weren't even supposed to be funny though, like one scene where they were having a discussion about whether vi or emacs would be a better code editing environment, and they had a bar graph showing usage statistics up on the wall, which showed vi and emacs about even, and nano a distant third....

Re:Piracy much eh? (1)

rockout (1039072) | about 10 months ago | (#44030775)

He was talking about it being a box office flop ($31 million in 10 days - not good), and how that relates to studios making big money on some films while losing millions on others. He wasn't commenting on the content of the film at all. But thanks for thinking that the rest of us cared about your off-topic review of some movie unrelated to the one being discussed.

Re:Piracy much eh? (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 10 months ago | (#44030989)

Hollywood makes more money every year. They are one of the few industries that didn't see a big downturn in the crash.

They are renowned for the 'creative' accounting they use to avoid paying out money they owe, so much so that it's now known as 'Hollywood Accounting". Finally, Hollywood only exists because they moved from the East Coast so they could pirate Edison's patents freely for a few years.

It is AWFULLY hard to have any sympathy for them.

Re:Piracy much eh? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 10 months ago | (#44031073)

Oh I'm looking at it objectively. In all objectivity, the only prediction one can make is that piracy is here to stay and NOTHING will ever deter it. It's the nature of data to flow freely.

So instead of fighting the (IMO) inevitable they should embrace it and make the best of it. But no, they'll spend down to their last penny to lobby against wet water and then go bankrupt (remember, they lobbied down to their last penny)

Note that I don't advocate piracy. I'm just stating what I think is unavoidable.

Re:Piracy much eh? (-1, Flamebait)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#44030469)

You realize that successful blockbusters aren't the norm right? But, I guess that doesn't matter since you're trying to rationalize your pirated DVD collection. I bet you're sitting at home right now complaining about how much the free version you torrented "sucks".

Re:Piracy much eh? (2)

jittles (1613415) | about 10 months ago | (#44031083)

You realize that successful blockbusters aren't the norm right? But, I guess that doesn't matter since you're trying to rationalize your pirated DVD collection. I bet you're sitting at home right now complaining about how much the free version you torrented "sucks".

I think that movies aren't making the money they used to because they don't tell a good story any more. They just try to come up with ludicrous ways to add as much special effects to a movie as possible. I'd rather watch a foreign film with a good story any day of the week over 99% of what Hollywood puts out these days. If I want to watch a special effects laden movie, I'll pay $1 to rent it, or watch it through a streaming service. But they are cutting their deals with Netflix, Amazon Instant, etc. You put out a good movie with a good story and I'll probably see it in the theater. I'll probably buy the DVD. And I'll probably think fondly of it for the rest of my life. You put out garbage, and you'll be lucky if I watch it from Redbox.

Re:Piracy much eh? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030497)

OMG, those pirates will steal from us and are the reason the whole movie industry is going bankrupt.

Um... duh? If it weren't for all those pirates, they clearly would've made upwards of $953.9 billion, just like they deserve. Why do you hate America so much?

Re:Piracy much eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030751)

OMG, those pirates will steal from us and are the reason the whole movie industry is going bankrupt.

Bankrupt my ass, if those suckers are able to make $1000000+ on one weekend with a bullshit movie, I don't want them complaining anymore about the death of their business.

I don't give a shit about this remake, like I didn't give a shit about the last remake.
Superman on the silver screen will always be Christopher Reeve.

Re:Piracy much eh? (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#44030821)

There is very little difference between the NSA's argument
The spying is OK because it stops terrorist plots
and the typical P2P apologist argument that
piracy is OK because it doesnt drive publishers out of business

They both suck, and theyre both wrong.

Re:Piracy much eh? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 10 months ago | (#44031141)

And they're both unavoidable. When the car got out 100 years ago, the horse carriage industry tried to fight it. Yet, some things are unavoidable. Do anyone regret those times?

You can't forbid people to share information with other people (well, you can but that'll look worse than soviet russia). Why are they trying so hard?

Re:Piracy much eh? (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 10 months ago | (#44030871)

Stock market up!

Movies bring in more money!

Has anyone considered counting out the patronage of movies instead of the box office revenue? $2 tickets in 1980 become $20 tickets in 2008. Do you fucking monkeys know what inflation is?

Bleh... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030279)

Personally, I found it to be the best 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to see this summer. What did you think?

Since there is not likely to be another Superman movie this summer that's not saying much.

Re:Bleh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030377)

thatwasthejoke.jpg

Re:Bleh... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030393)

That is the best clueless "whoosh!" comment by an anonymous coward within the first five posts on a slashdot thread about a 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to read all morning!

Re:Bleh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030407)

Since there is not likely to be another Superman movie this summer

Would you bet on that? I sure wouldn't... It seems Batman and Superman is all DC has.

Haven't even seen it... (0)

MikeRT (947531) | about 10 months ago | (#44030299)

But if given the choice of watching 15 minutes of the other movies and watching the main trailers on repeat for 15 minutes, I'd choose the new trailers...

+1, Flamebait (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 10 months ago | (#44030305)

and neglects to define Superman as character, leaving him only as a hollow symbol and stock character,

(dons asbestoes flame suit) Superman's character definition is as a hollow symbol and stock character. I mean seriously, he's supposed to be perfect. No major character flaws. Unerringly good. Massively overpowered... and only weakness is a special mineral that fell to Earth and can only be found in small amounts, glows to alert you of its presence, and can be detected by the hero when brought nearby. In other words, the only weapon that can defeat him he's given ample warning is in play.

There's not a lot of character development to do there; How exactly do you improve on a guy that's the very personification of "good"? All you can do with a character like that is create dramatic tension and a sense of moral conflict. Superman's only plot device is thus conflict. There will never be any real character change per-se.

Let the nerd rage boileth over now... for I have smote a loved hero upon the mountainside. (pulls down face mask)

Re:+1, Flamebait (5, Interesting)

FunkeyMonk (1034108) | about 10 months ago | (#44030361)

I agree completely. When my wife and I were leave the drive-in Saturday night, I said "The problem is that when anything is possible, nothing is impressive."

Re:+1, Flamebait (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030563)

While what you say is true, the interesting thing about Superman is (would have been) to see him remain all perfect and good around people that aren't, people that can't or don't want to as perfect/good as he is, and their reactions upon seeing him be what he is seemingly without effort.

If Nolan & Co. had made the movie about that, and then added the whole eyecandy, awesome fights and whatnot, it would have been a much better movie.

As it stands now, it's not "bad", it's not "perfect", but it is "somewhat watchable"...which, sadly, is more than I can say for most summer blockbusters of recent history.

Re:+1, Flamebait (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#44030513)

One of the great things about Christoper Reeve's version is that Superman had subtle "flaws". He did have a bit of arrogance to him; e.g. when as a teen he raced his friends (and the locomotive) home.

Re:+1, Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030521)

I agree with GIT. If you want to see a super with issues, watch Hancock (ugh... the first half of the movie is fine). Compare and Contrast these two characters. Now, I know SM has had downs, but his overall character is quite pristine.

Of course, Superman does get angry... when he gets angry, the world spins backwards, reversing time. >_>

Re:+1, Flamebait (3, Interesting)

Isca (550291) | about 10 months ago | (#44030619)

Mod this parent up, he's explained Superman and his character very well. I thought given the restrictions to the character they did exceedingly well. They handled his upbringing and explained his motivations to be such an "undynamic superhero". And I suspect that in future installments the introduction of alien technology will be a potential vulnerabilities that will differ from the more traditional storylines (i.e. lex luthor with new toys)

The scenes with Lois as a romance were cheesy but this is a summer movie. I liked how they even changed that dynamic up from the traditional storyline and enhanced the fact that she is a smart, successful resourceful reporter even without having superman around. (I don't want to say much because I don't want to spoil things).

Re:+1, Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030987)

I was quite impressed with the character. Superman as a character has always been some what boring. In that universe, I'd pick pretty much any other hero to cheer for before him, such as The Flash.

Nolan makes great films about the source character. For Batman, he made Bruce Wayne movies, but for Superman he made a Kal El movie. This was the most interesting Superman movie or even arc I've ever seen, so I'm quite happy with the result. The movie shows how he grows into becoming a symbol. I don't think it will be possible to ever create a better creation story for Superman, at least not with current aesthetics. The era of campy blockbusters is over. If they made such a movie in an effort to relive the glory days, it will fail to be successful. Reeves may have been a fun Superman, but his character was not the best Superman. This movie takes it closer to an ideal form. I would consider the Reeve's Superman comparable to The Expendables. People enjoy those movies because they expect them to be campy or bad-in-a-good-way by modern standards. If they made one of these movies as a serious attempt, it would be laughed out of the theaters.

The camera work in this movie was perfect as well. Ignoring the odd romance aspect which I think they cut scenes out of based on information known which wasn't stated, the ending was great. The final show down between gods. Unable to kill each other, but keeps trying. A shield fighting a shield. What feels like wasted effort makes the ending to the fight have that much more impact, aside from the emotional aspects.

This Superman is not a dick.

Re:+1, Flamebait (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#44030623)

I was thinking that too, but plenty of past series have managed to make Superman into an interesting character. So I would say the flaw is not in the character, but in how the writers try to write about him.

Interesting guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44031119)

Superman can be interesting, in the hands of the right writer. I think it was Superman II in which he gave up his powers to be with Louis. That's an interesting struggle between love and power, or personal happiness vs public good. Stories like that can make Superman an interesting dude. But if it's just him flying fast or being strong, then yeah, nothing too interesting about that.

It requires storytelling (3, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 10 months ago | (#44030655)

There's not a lot of character development to do there; How exactly do you improve on a guy that's the very personification of "good"?

It can be done. What you do is give him challenges that his powers and decency are limited to help. How does he stop us from killing each other for example? How does he protect us from our own bad decisions? How does he protect other species from humans when we are behaving badly?

Put him in situations where there is no obviously correct moral choice. You humanize him. Heck make him a bad guy for a while.

You have a guy who is something close to perfect and yet seeks to be "normal" among us imperfect humans. Why? What are the consequences? There has to be some interesting tension and character development somewhere in there.

Re:+1, Flamebait (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 10 months ago | (#44030693)

I am going to have to disagree with you. I have not seen the movie but I have read quite a few comics.

Grant Morrison’s All-Star superman comes to mind. Stuff by Frank Miller and Matt Wagner comes to mind as well.

Is Superman a challenge to write? Yes. Is he a Boy Scout? Yes – but that is not who he inherently is. Most of the Supermen comics that I have liked contains that struggle or illustrates that choice, that he could be something very different.

I also think the point about character development is a bit off. How much character development can one do with a 75 year icon who is still in his 30s. Batman, Captain America, etc. just don’t do character development. Not to say that you can’t have complex characters but there is some limit to the superhero genre.

Re:+1, Flamebait (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 10 months ago | (#44030733)

Yeah I can't get behind the whole superheroes thing in general. Look, it's an unkillable one dimensional godling dressed in spandex, swanning around far above the common herd. I'm not going to say wish fulfilment here but...

Obviously some incarnations of batman and wolverine are exempt from this criticism.

Re:+1, Flamebait (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 10 months ago | (#44030809)

I've never read it so succictly put before. This is the problem with superman in general and why I think this movie looked good in the previews -- ie, it seems to be about him adapting to us, which is interesting. 'course, I haven't seen it, so who knows.

Re:+1, Flamebait (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030819)

Well, being perfect is in itself a character flaw.

It's a huge psychological burden being effectively a god, and the expectation put on him because of that. The world is lucky that the strain doesn't turn him in to a complete monster.

Much of the more recent Superman material explores a lot of that, and exposes in many ways that he's emotionally immature. Small town farmboy Clark Kent was not prepared well for much of the existential cosmic horrors he deals with on daily basis. Modern Superman is a bitter character.

Re:+1, Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030951)

Let the nerd rage boileth over now... for I have smote a loved hero upon the mountainside. (pulls down face mask)

nice finishing reference.

Re:+1, Flamebait (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#44030959)

He's not perfect in "The Dark Knight Returns" comic books if I remember correctly. He's a stupid tool for a tyrannical government who gets beat up by batman with kryptonite gloves and then comes around. Or something, it's been about a decade since I read it. At any rate, he can be a more interesting character, and "should" be for it to be an interesting movie. Jerry Siegel might say he's all around perfect, I don't know, but I do know that rules of interesting characters don't make an exception just because someone said that superman was "supposed" to be perfect."

Re:+1, Flamebait (5, Insightful)

prelelat (201821) | about 10 months ago | (#44031041)

It's hard but it's not impossible. There is a lot more to Superman than just being good, doing good and being super strong. He's lonely, fear full and caring. Yes he had a large amount of affection from Martha and Johnathan but he has no one who completely understands him in the whole Universe. His parents aren't just dead his whole species is dead. While he isn't hesitant to be a hero he sure is scared about people knowing who he really is. He might be indestructible but his friends and adopted family are not. There are a ton of instances where he fears for the safety of those that are close to him.

The man would die for Earth, to him they have given so much without knowing what he could have given them in return. Superman isn't just the man of steel he's smart. In some cannons of the story he's working on diseases in his fortress. A fortress of solitude. While he might be lonely he still needs a fortress, some connection to home to make him feel whole. His fortress, is pretty much the only thing he has left to remind him of home. It's his one place where he can feel whole. Superman at one point had to send Zod back to the Phantom Zone. I wonder how that must have felt to him. Sitting there fighting against someone who was his only other link to a life he will never know outside of his fortresses computers.

Then there is the time that he died. Doomsday came and decimated the justice league I believe he still had a hand tied behind his back. Superman comes in and holds his own against someone who took out the justice league in short order. Not only that he takes him out while at the same time supposivly dying. Everything turns to shit, the world needs him back. But Superman can't die, he awakens after considerable time under intense sunlight. He doesn't have all his powers, he's not the man of steel. He suits up iron-man style, doesn't bother to chop off his mullet and heads out to fight. He shows he's not just a man who fights because there's no fear for him he fights because he loves everything about humanity.

You can draw a complex feeling god from another world. He's not an emotionless lump. His convictions might be strong but he's second guessed things and made mistakes. He's learned from them and had his mistakes haunt him. He's might be a man of steel but there's so much to Superman that people just don't see because it's so easy to make him fall in love with Louis Lane and beat the crap out of everyone. Everyone knows he's going to win, superman isn't about that. It's about him doing what's right no matter the conflict that's in his head tells him. He can't kill Lex Luthor in cold blood even if he's destroyed millions of peoples lives. He's just a man, an Superman at some level kind of envies that. It might not be easy to make superman a complex character but it's been done a number of times, and when it's done right it can be amazing.

Re:+1, Flamebait (5, Interesting)

rwise2112 (648849) | about 10 months ago | (#44031097)

I mean seriously, he's supposed to be perfect. No major character flaws. Unerringly good. Massively overpowered

For this reason I've never really been a Superman fan, but the Kill Bill quote made me rethink that a little:

Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is there's the superhero and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears – the glasses, the business suit – that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, he's unsure of himself, he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.

the children liked it (5, Funny)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 10 months ago | (#44030315)

took 4 11-y-o boys, and they said it was the best movie they had ever seen in their whole lives!

Re:the children liked it (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 10 months ago | (#44030443)

so, they haven't seen "Lord of the Rings : the Two Towers", "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", "28 Days Later" or "Catch Me If You Can"?

Terrible Storytelling in Man of Steel (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 10 months ago | (#44031157)

so, they haven't seen "Lord of the Rings : the Two Towers", "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", "28 Days Later" or "Catch Me If You Can"?

Or even the first two Superman movies..

People forget all about them, but there was a reason Christpher Reeves& Margot Kidder are considered stars, and thats because he was in such a perfect story. Superman II had the best storytelling of all comic-book movies, because it was actually written by Mario Puzo (from Godfather).. It had NONE of the nerdy dialogue that was in this reboot ("HEY GUYS IF THE CORE DRIVE ACTIVATES AND WE UPLOAD A VIRUS WE CAN STOP THE HYPER DRIVE SHIELD OMG SHUT UP")

That kind of horrible dialogue only exists in shitty japanese anime.

Re:the children liked it (2)

mmcxii (1707574) | about 10 months ago | (#44030725)

Disclaimer: I have not seen the film and probably won't see it anytime this decade.

I hate to tell you but maybe the 11 year old demographic is the target audience at this point.

I know that us middle aged geeks have become accustom to Hollywood trying to string us along but maybe they're finding the gulf between the camps of the younger consumers and the disgruntled middle age so-and-sos a bit wide so they're finally giving up. After all, your parents went to films they had no interest in but you did. I can hardly imagine the thrill my parents felt by me dragging them to great spectacles of cinema like The Dark Crystal and The NeverEnding Story (and these were the good ones!). Now it's your turn to ante up for all kinds of inane crap drummed up by some ex-advertising executive who's decided to try his hand at film making.

The sooner that people start to realize that Hollywood (and pretty much all major entertainment industries) sees the aging consumer as a second class market the sooner the aging consumers will let go of pop culture. And it's a good thing too. It's not like there isn't a market for the adult consumer, it's just not the same market as what you embraced 20 or even 10 years ago. Comic book/fantasy-adventure movies just aren't going to target the adult market, at least on any great scale.

Re:the children liked it (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 10 months ago | (#44030961)

You people are retarded.

*Money* is the demographic, you idiots! MONEY! Don't you understand the meaning of the word RICH?!

"symbol and stock character" (3, Insightful)

saturnianjourneyman (2913341) | about 10 months ago | (#44030321)

Pretty much describes Superman from his first appearance. Not a whole lot of character complexity there to dig out.

Re:"symbol and stock character" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030467)

To add to this, why must a character be the center of the universe? Why can't a movie, story, or book be about the events that transpire and be entertaining or even thought provoking? Are some people too shallow to see the big picture?

Re:"symbol and stock character" (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 10 months ago | (#44030855)

Well, how would a movie like this work? First A happens, then B. Just sterile facts? Why would I want to see it? One of strengths of movies is the conveyance of emotion.

Take a look at Ken Burn’s The Civil War (o.k., not a movie per say, but one can think of it as a very long one. ) or any other disaster / based on true life events film you like. Lots of facts and you can see what is happening. But the reason why these films work is that you engage with the characters.

Re:"symbol and stock character" (1)

stymy (1223496) | about 10 months ago | (#44030991)

Film makers don't have to be slaves to the comics. Just look at Tim Burton's Batman films, for example. An easy solution would be to just make the real main character a complex, interesting villain, like Lex Luthor.

Good movie (-1, Redundant)

Halo5 (63934) | about 10 months ago | (#44030325)

I thought it was a really good movie. The acting was well-done and the action sequences were awesome. I also thought that the alien tech of Krypton was really cool. It was a better movie than Iron Man 3, IMO (and I'm a HUGE Iron Man fan!).

Re:Good movie (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 10 months ago | (#44030709)

IM3 was very entertaining, and I walked out thinking I'd go see it again. But before I got home I was already in "that was just dumb" mode.

fuck you and your gritty hipster reboots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030353)

Russell Crowe as Jor-El ?!!

And fuck your raping of Wrath of Khan, too!

This story brought to you by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030363)

Buy! Buy! Buy more shit! And here's some action sequences to numb the pain of a two hour commercial.

I didn't hate it ... (1)

mbaGeek (1219224) | about 10 months ago | (#44030395)

... My 14 year old nephew loved it. I was looking at my watch a lot - the best thing I can say is that it is definitely a "reboot" of the franchise - Superman as Greek hero ...

Tired of reboots (2)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 10 months ago | (#44030447)

So many reboots lately.

Thought Superman was a very good $5 movie with poor character development and lots of fast blurry special effects. Unfortunately tickets were $10.

I will never watch this film again in my life. I didn't hate it. It's just not worth a second viewing.

Re:Tired of reboots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030691)

I have to agree about reboots.

If you don't know about Superman going into the film there is a good chance the moving pictures will beguile and bedazzle a fellow much more than a back story.

Wasn't interested before, but... (4, Informative)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 10 months ago | (#44030461)

I read this 'stream of consciousness review' [ambarb.com] by Tom Scioli, and I'm intrigued enough to watch it on a cheap day now. To his mind at least, it's loaded with unspoken references to the weirder elements of Superman's canon and earlier films, and visual homages to Heavy Metal magazine and artists like MÅ"bius.

Movie Critics & Hollywood Accounting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030499)

1. I find movie critics to be a mixed bag with varying tastes, its almost as if they were human or something. What they normally have in common is a job that requires them to go to a lot of movies and try and say something about them. I think they become jaded and evaluate more and more on "artistic merit" instead of "good entertainment" .I have a hunch that most are "into film" and therefore lose touch with why most people read reviews, to decide whether to go see a movie and be entertained ( for various values of "entertain" ;-). I remember a guy named Clyde Gilmour who panned just about every movie he saw until he came across a little known film called "Star Wars", he said it was all right and that it would probably do well.

2. Talking about how much a movie grossed in box office sales without discussing how much it cost to make doesn't make sense. Of course Hollywood is known for its highly accurate, fair and transparent accounting practises so the data is always easily accessible and totally accurate ;-) ;-) ... .

Hulk Like Explosions! (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#44030531)

Hulk tired of scripts, talk. Hulk want MORE ACTION, LOUD NOISES!!!! Hulk like new Superman movie!

my meta-review/review (2)

elblanco (132993) | about 10 months ago | (#44030551)

http://elblancoswhitespace.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-man-of-steel-meta-reviewreview.html

Short answer, there's a massive disconnect between the critics and the audience on this one.

Re:my meta-review/review (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 10 months ago | (#44030683)

Short answer, there's a massive disconnect between the critics and the audience on this one.

8.2 on IMDB right now.

I've never had any use for critics, but OTOH I still haven't heard anything from non-critics that makes me want to go see it.

I hated it (4, Insightful)

nurhussein (864532) | about 10 months ago | (#44030597)

Spoilers abound, so stop reading if you haven't seen it yet.

----

The beginning of the movie started promisingly enough. Okay, over the top action sequence on Krypton, but I liked Russell Crowe's Badass Jor-El. Moving on to Superman's beginnings on Earth, the introspective moments and the slowing pace helps. Then finally Clark becomes Superman, and then... shit explodes everywhere. Superman seems completely unconcerned about the tens of thousands of people that are dying from his battle with Zod. In the Christopher Reeve movie with Terence Stamp as Zod, Superman had the sense to draw the bad Kryptonians away to the North Pole. Here, pft, he just doesn't care.

Also, this is the first time the people of earth has seen Superman. They have no reason at all to trust him, especially not the military (since they were playing that angle). There were no character-establishing moments where Superman doesn't just save the president, he also pulls kittens from trees (see Superman: The Movie).

Finally, didn't Superman practically lead the army to his mom's house where his spaceship was hidden? Didn't they figure out his identity already from there?

Frankly I'm tired of huge flaming spectacles with no substance to them. ALIENS! BIG BATTLE IN THE CITY! SPACESHIPS! SUPER-POWERED BEINGS! That describes every final act of most major tentpole summer movies I've seen in recent years - Transformers, Avengers, even Star Trek. Now this.

Sigh.

Re:I hated it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030977)

Superman seems completely unconcerned about the tens of thousands of people that are dying from his battle with Zod. In the Christopher Reeve movie with Terence Stamp as Zod, Superman had the sense to draw the bad Kryptonians away to the North Pole. Here, pft, he just doesn't care.

This point is brought up so much in the criticism of the movie and is flat out wrong. Zod had just told Superman that he was going to make the humanity suffer for his actions. If Superman tried to draw Zod to the North Pole or somewhere remote, Zod would just stay in Metropolis massacring all humans he came across until Superman came back and stopped him. Superman had no choice but to take down Zod right then and there.

Re:I hated it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44031101)

Also, this is the first time the people of earth has seen Superman. They have no reason at all to trust him, especially not the military (since they were playing that angle). There were no character-establishing moments where Superman doesn't just save the president, he also pulls kittens from trees (see Superman: The Movie).

He went out of his way to save the general who was trying to kill him, and stopped in the middle of the fight in which he was outnumbered and outgunned to take a moment to ask if he was okay.

Re:I hated it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44031107)

Also, this is the first time the people of earth has seen Superman. They have no reason at all to trust him, especially not the military (since they were playing that angle). There were no character-establishing moments where Superman doesn't just save the president, he also pulls kittens from trees (see Superman: The Movie).

They did not trust him at first. The military was firing on him as well as the other Kryptonians. It was only after he saved multiple service men that he gain their trust. People really need to let go of the 70's movie. This is not the same Superman. Just like the current Batman isn't the Batman from the 70's. Campy superhero movies do not do well anymore.

Finally, didn't Superman practically lead the army to his mom's house where his spaceship was hidden? Didn't they figure out his identity already from there?

They scanned both Louis and Superman's memories. Did you even watch the same movie?

Frankly I'm tired of huge flaming spectacles with no substance to them. ALIENS! BIG BATTLE IN THE CITY! SPACESHIPS! SUPER-POWERED BEINGS! That describes every final act of most major tentpole summer movies I've seen in recent years - Transformers, Avengers, even Star Trek. Now this.

Sigh.

Superman is an alien, brought to Earth on a spaceship, and has super powers. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

Sigh.

I liked it a lot (3, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44030609)

I liked it. Henry Cavill is from my tiny little island and was awesome enough to bring Russell Crowe and Amy Adams over to our one-and-only 10-screen cinema for a red carpet premiere, which is two more Oscar winners than we'd normally see (although apparently Hans Zimmer likes to take his holidays here).

Thanks Henry!

Time for a Reboot (4, Funny)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about 10 months ago | (#44030663)

This iteration of Superman has been going on for 2.5 hours?! It's definitely getting stale by now. Time for a reboot.

Re:Time for a Reboot (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 10 months ago | (#44030803)

This iteration of Superman has been going on for 2.5 hours?! It's definitely getting stale by now. Time for a reboot.

Don't worry, there will be a dupe story in a few days. Or maybe tonight.

Re:Time for a Reboot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44031151)

This iteration of Superman has been going on for 2.5 hours?! It's definitely getting stale by now. Time for a reboot.

Don't worry, there will be a dupe story in a few days. Or maybe tonight.

You might want to check to make sure it's actually a dupe and not a movie studio rebooting the series again. "Damnit, it's a COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO MOVIE. What the hell is WRONG with these nerds? Listen, we're going to just keep rebooting this until it works, just like our computers, so you'd better get comfortable..."

Reboots and sequels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030671)

I decided this year I was going to try to avoid any movie that was a reboot or a sequel. Which pretty much will keep me out of the theatre this summer. Looking at the list of summer films we see Iron Man III, a new Superman reboot, Hangover III, a new Star Trek film.... Seems just about everything is just a rehash. That's fine, I'll put the money toward something else.

Re:Reboots and sequels (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 10 months ago | (#44030779)

Like a lot of other businesses, the film industry is averse to risk.

Which, unfortunately, is probably the best business strategy for mass-market products. If you want art you'll have to look for something where big money isn't involved.

I enjoyed it (2)

Jethro (14165) | about 10 months ago | (#44030675)

I enjoyed it, but I fear I may be getting old - a lot of the time I was thinking "Oh god, sooooooo much property damage...."

Some of it did seem gratuitous. And there were some "WTH" plot-holes... but it was a fun movie and I think pretty well made.

Unable to get hurt (4, Insightful)

paulpach (798828) | about 10 months ago | (#44030677)

For the whole second half of the movie, the characters repeatedly pound each other. No matter how hard they hit, no one seems to be able to get hurt at all.
At some point superman coughs, and the bad guy gets dizzy that is about it.

You become numb after a while, there is really no excitement in the fights because they have no consequences, absolutely nothing is at stake in the fights. As stunning visually as they are, the fights are nothing but fillers.

Re:Unable to get hurt (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 10 months ago | (#44031105)

Nevertheless, the movie is rated 8.2 on IMDB [imdb.com] - pretty good. Besides the so-powerful=boring argument, there must be something enjoyable in this movie... (didn't see it yet)

Re:Unable to get hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44031195)

This annoyed me as well. I found myself sitting there wondering what the point of the battles are if its just going to go back and forth, destroying everything in sight, until someone gives up.

Man's Man of Steel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030707)

I'm just glad they didn't feminize him. I think they did a superb balance of Superman being a man with feelings without going metrosexual. I really liked the touch of Wolverine in his finding himself retcon for this version of Supes. Superman feels like the uncorruptible Patriarch with compassion but will still slap your ass silly if not a good guy.

To damn with faint praise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44030761)

Personally, I found it to be the best 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to see this summer.

Wow, burn.

Sure. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 10 months ago | (#44030835)

DC and Warner Brothers have opted to produce a movie that foregoes a character-driven story. Instead, we're left with a trite blockbuster that holds beautiful special effects, an inspiring music score, a story that panders to the movie-goer

In other words, they made a movie that movie goers want...

The Hollywood movie with a story is long gone, people that buy tickets don't want to see them. CGI and babes, none of that old shit with human "stunt men" and real explosions. This is what sells tickets.

The problem with CGI- it's not real (2)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 10 months ago | (#44030867)

Okay- so when you had a film in the 70's and they actually blew up a small city for a scene in the movie- that was impressive in its own right because you *saw* a real city being blown up.

The first aspect is that- as good as they are- special effects are not real. Something is missing. I'm sure they'll figure it out at some point. Or it may be there are just too many things to keep track of.

This was part of what made Inception so effective. Most of the "special effects" were not done with CGI. They built and destroyed a real fortress. They built a real elevator on its side and they built an entire bar on tilted it to tilt the water in the glasses. You looked at it and thought "but this is just CGI" but some part of your brain was saying "but it's real".

The second part is more critical tho. If you can literally portray ANYTHING then the act of portraying it no longer has emotional weight in itself. If you are going to show three cars being thrown around and destroyed because it is stupidly easy with computers- then the three cars should be saying something. Advancing the plot.

Don't ask me to sit there for 5 minutes looking at CGI and think I'll be impressed. I wasn't for star trek the motion picture, I won't be for your film. You need a story. You need plot. You need ideas. You need character development. You need character conflict. CGI only exists to provide the setting. CGI is not impressive. It should be seamless and allow you to get your point across (like the master in TAI CHI ZERO walking up the side of a wall.)

Superman's effects seemed to be a lot of "ooh look isn't this COOL!". Like the spacesuit helmet things. They wasted time showing them peel on and off the actors. What did it say to have the helmets do that?

A useful effect was things flying up and down to communicate the idea that gravity was reversing back and forth (tho how that was terraforming I don't know but I forgive movie makers a lot).

Re:The problem with CGI- it's not real (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 10 months ago | (#44030907)

OH by the way... Tai Chi Zero and Tai Chi Hero were quite good.

A very weird comedy drama steam punk kung fu movie series. The third is still to come out.

And IDEAS. Wow- it had so many ideas crammed into the film.

And nice character growth and change (esp on the part of the villain).

Not "perfect" and soulless but damn good.

It's a bit inflated it really only sold about 111M (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 10 months ago | (#44030915)

Walmart bought a bunch for pre-sale. Only a bout 2 million of the presale was actually sold over the weekend, but the entire thing is being reported in the 125 million number.

box office numbers (1)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about 10 months ago | (#44030919)

the reason for the "record breaking" takings is down to increases in ticket prices and nothing more. if you look at a graph of audience numbers you'll see it peak in the mid 1940s, It drops off sharply in the early 60s and continues to fall until the early 80s. If you adjust it for percentage of population then you'll see a slope more suited to a ski-jumper. record breaking sales are not what them appear.

Plots ARE Important (1)

slapout (93640) | about 10 months ago | (#44031035)

"which ultimately leaves the movie about the events that transpire rather than the characters involved in them"

I'm sick and tired of movie critics who think a movie should only be about the characters. Any story and two major pieces: the characters AND the plot. Without the plot, the characters don't change. Without facing the crisis (brought to them via the plot) they don't grow and become the interesting characters that they are.

Without a plot the characters are just sitting around doing nothing.

Metric should be number of tickets, not revenue... (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 10 months ago | (#44031053)

...a whopping $125.1 million....

With the ever-increasing price of tickets, using revenue as a judge of "record-breaking" is grossly inaccurate, as it erroneously compares unequal ticket prices and ignores the effect of inflation over the years.

.
It would be more accurate (though still not completely accurate) to use the number of tickets sold as the basis for judging whether all-time records have been broken.

Lex Corp? (2)

RavenousRhesus (2683045) | about 10 months ago | (#44031139)

*Spoiler* (sort of)

I wonder how many people were numbed by the never-ending action and missed Zod kicking the Lex Corp tanker at Superman.

As if anyone would make a Superman reboot and leave Lex Luther out of the multi-movie arc.

*End Spoiler*

No character development? (2)

javelinco (652113) | about 10 months ago | (#44031165)

Are these the same critics that praised the shit out of the most recent Star Trek movie? The movie is all about Superman's journey - not just about Superman himself, but the people around him - and while it doesn't SHOVE the development in your face, it's there. Do people REALLY need everything so obvious and overdone in movies these days that they cannot even recognize character development unless they are told "this is how I am changing and becoming a different person through my experiences"? These people must have REALLY been confused by the "short" life story of the old man in "Up". But they probably don't even know what they missed. I am now very sad - yes, I already knew all this, but I am still sad to be reminded of it.

I love the 'not another reboot' crowd. (2)

sunking2 (521698) | about 10 months ago | (#44031203)

They seem to think that only their childhoods deserved to see these characters on the big screen. I took my son and he enjoyed it as much as I remember enjoying the original in 1978. And from the consumers side that is kinda the whole point.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...