Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies

Man Of Steel Leaps Over Record With $125.1 Million To Mixed Reviews 364

Posted by samzenpus
from the It's-a-bird-it's-a-plane-it's-a-guy-in-front-of-a-green-screen dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Piracy much eh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pieroxy (222434) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:02PM (#44030237) Homepage

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:20PM (#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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:49PM (#44030871) Journal

      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?

  • +1, Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:09PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FunkeyMonk (1034108) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:13PM (#44030361) Homepage
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 "somewha

        • Well, yes. I'd like to add that while some measure of character development for comic book heroes is nice in movies like these, I hated the recent "super deep and profound and dark" reboots of other formerly beloved cardboard cutout heroes, most notably Batman and James Bond. These rebooted movies made decent movies, but the protagonists weren't "our" Batman or Bond. This Superman at least stays closer to the original.
          • Re:+1, Flamebait (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Aryden (1872756) on Monday June 17, 2013 @02:15PM (#44031951)
            I'll say this, you are correct that they aren't "our Batman and James Bond" but the younger generations aren't our generation either. They have different views of what is good and what isn't. Honestly, I would rather have new movies that cater more towards them to keep the story and characters alive and kicking for the next few generations than to lose them to obscurity.
          • Regarding James Bond: The 2006 Casino Royale reboot brought the character MUCH closer to the character from the original 1950's Ian Fleming novels that many of us cherish, and have wanted to see on the big screen for decades.

            • by H0p313ss (811249)

              Regarding James Bond: The 2006 Casino Royale reboot brought the character MUCH closer to the character from the original 1950's Ian Fleming novels that many of us cherish, and have wanted to see on the big screen for decades.

              Oh hell yes. As much as I like Roger Moore, he turned James Bond into a clown.

        • The interesting thing about Superman is (would have been) to see him remain all perfect ... 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.

          The comic book Superman goes to a trainyard to save lives, not to get ammunition.
          The comic book Superman saves the buildings from destruction, he doesn't destroy them.
          The comic book Superman prevents the bad guy from knocking over skyscrapers 9/11 style, he doesn't join in.

          If you treat it as a movie about a random superhero it was passable. But it absolutely was not classic Superman from the late '40s to the present in terms of the comic book.

          The early 1940's Superman was an apathetic murderer who didn'

      • Re:+1, Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17, 2013 @02:30PM (#44032113)

        There are two major comments I have on any such discussion about Superman.

        First, the fact that he is even an okay guy with godlike powers is impressive. Most stories of power (whether fantasy super-powers or just regular influence) are about people abusing it. Sometimes, we agree with the character and don't even admit to ourselves that it's an abuse. (For example, we may openly cheer for anti-heroes like the Punisher, Charles Bronson's Paul Kersey in Deathwish, "Dirty Harry" Callahan, or even more shallow characters like Kick Ass). Sometimes the whole story is about characters coming to grips with the fact that power has made them horrible people. Sometimes the story is just about the powerless guy succeeding against all odds (read: against the powerful people who are inherently evil). But fundamentally a story about power that doesn't demand the empowered be corrupt is a lot more novel than those that do. You can call such heroics childish, but after a while you're happy there are at least a few stories that don't openly embrace cynicism.

        Second, you have to look at how all of Superman's abilities (generally, being the best guy around) tie together. He doesn't get injured... he doesn't hunger... he doesn't want. And he also doesn't retreat into himself, or waste his life away in lazy hedonism, or try to dominate everything around him. The message of Superman is a message that people are fundamentally good. Stripped away of their wants, their vulnerabilities, and their anxieties, people are at their most free, and still will tend towards good. The message of Superman is that there is a light at the end of the tunnel for people if they can get their shit together. That problems, once solved, actually can stay solved. It won't be nearly as easy for us, but he is the "proof" that what's being presented to us as the end state isn't an impossibility. It's the same optimism of the early twentieth century that (for example) made people believe science and engineering were delivering an unambiguously better world as we built bridges, quashed diseases, and connected the globe.

        Real life is ambiguous, of course. Nothing is perfect; everything is a mixed bag. A lot of the point of more cynical stories is to drive that point through. If you get stuck at that point, though, you haven't done yourself any favors. You're still not accepting the world as it is: no good without some bad, but usually a lot more good than bad. That's the time to circle back to the "childish" stories. The stories that remind you that there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The stories that remind you -- just as they taught you as a child -- that we're actually going somewhere. That's what Superman does.

        This of course is to say nothing about the most recent film. I haven't seen it, though I've managed to pick up that there's an origin story (again... really, who DOESN'T know the origin of Superman at this point?) and the usual action.

    • Re:+1, Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:21PM (#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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Isca (550291) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:28PM (#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).
    • 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.
    • by roc97007 (608802)

      Shrug. Even nerds call him "the big blue boy scout".

    • by sjbe (173966) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:31PM (#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.

    • 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 developm

      • by lgw (121541)

        Is Superman a challenge to write? Yes. Is he a Boy Scout? Yes â" 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.

        Yep - the character development, such as it is, is that he chooses to remain on the path he's chosen despite significant temptation to leave it. That can make for satisfying stories.

    • 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.

    • 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.
    • People want JLU Superman, not DC Comics 1st Edition Superman.
    • 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 bec
    • Re:+1, Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prelelat (201821) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:00PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rwise2112 (648849) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:04PM (#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.

    • Re:+1, Flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ThePyro (645161) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:24PM (#44031341)

      Despite his nigh-infinite power and goodness, there are a number of themes that can make a good Superman story interesting:

      1) Superman can't save everyone. His character can be forced to make difficult decisions about how and where to apply his efforts, knowing that he can't be everywhere at once. I don't recall this plot device being used much in the movie. Yeah, there are lots of civilians getting killed, but that doesn't even seem to phase our hero. I don't recall any critical decision moments.

      2) Superman can't save everyone, again. Despite his powers, there are some things he just can't fix. As the recent Wired review mentioned, this is why Jonathan Kent usually dies from a heart attack - that's something that Superman's powers cannot help. The movie doesn't pick up on this theme at all.

      3) Superman may be _good_, but he doesn't have to be omniscient. Well-meaning application of his powers can result in unintended consequences, and his character can be forced to play clean up and also show a does of humility.

      There are plenty of others. The character has spawned multiple television and comic book series, after all.

      I didn't really enjoy this latest portrayal of Superman; it feels like the writers didn't understand his "good" nature and how to properly create _interesting_ conflict. An hour of Superman employing brute force (the one thing that he has no problem with) is just not compelling.

      • 2) "Heart attack? Ah... give me thirty seconds. I'm on first-name terms with about six magic users with healing powers, have access to a space station with teleporter system and the most advanced hospital in the solar system, and half my friends could read the book on heart transplants in under a minute and perform the procedure in less. Oh, and my co-worker has a ring that can trap people in stasis. If all else fails, I'll grab the phantom zone machine from my fortress - we can worry about getting you back

    • I would disagree. Many of the large superheros are more "mythological figures" than "characters", and as such they sometimes don't have realistic character development, but that doesn't mean they have no character. The characters traits that they have tend to shift a bit with the person telling the story, because we keep retelling the same stories over and over again. That's the nature of the thing. However, they have important symbolic/metaphoric meaning which is revealed by the depictions of their cha

    • Superman has to be crippled with an unbreakable moral code just to stop him breaking the entire DC universe. Several stories have dealt with what happens when Superman gets fed up of holding back and just declares himself ruler of the world - because if those petty nationalistic factions can't be trusted not to wage war, he'll just have run things himself.

      That, and if Superman didn't have a 'no killing, ever' policy, the universe would run out of villains in short order.

      Batman has routinely pointed out, wit

  • by turkeydance (1266624) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:09PM (#44030315)
    took 4 11-y-o boys, and they said it was the best movie they had ever seen in their whole lives!
  • by saturnianjourneyman (2913341) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:09PM (#44030321)
    Pretty much describes Superman from his first appearance. Not a whole lot of character complexity there to dig out.
    • by stymy (1223496)
      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.
      • Luthor was telegraphed as the next Big Bad the whole way through the film, with numerous LexCorp trucks and billboards throughout.

  • ... 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 ...

  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:18PM (#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.

    • by PRMan (959735)

      I saw it at a matinee for $5. Sounds like I made the right decision.

      Actually, my brother and I (long time comic fans) were expecting worse. I could have written a couple scenes better, but overall I liked the movie. It had a lot of character development for a Superman story. And for seemingly the first time, you got put in his shoes of trying not to be misunderstood and feared by everyone, which I thought was pretty cool.

  • by Bieeanda (961632) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:19PM (#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.
  • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:23PM (#44030531)

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

    • It's funny, because Hulk/Banner is one of the deepest, most complex characters in all of comic books.

      • by H0p313ss (811249)

        It's funny, because Hulk/Banner is one of the deepest, most complex characters in all of comic books.

        And that's why I spent my early teens reading Heinlein, Asimov and Tolkien (.. among others too numerous to mention) and trying to figure out what was wrong with my classmates who thought that comic books were the bomb.

        I respect the medium, but guys... they're comic books...

  • 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.

    • 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.

      • by PRMan (959735)

        Is it the best superhero movie ever? No. I would take any installment of the Avengers series over this (OK, not counting the Hulk movies). I would take Spider-Man 1 & 2 (not the new one, that sucked), Fantastic Four 1 and X-Men 1, 2 & First Class over this as well.

        But Marvel has raised the bar so much. I would take this over any DC live-action movie besides Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. It was that good. It's EASILY the best Superman movie of all time (as if that were hard). And it was

  • I hated it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurhussein (864532) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:26PM (#44030597) Homepage
    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.
    • by unixisc (2429386)
      I didn't hate it, but it was nowhere near previous Superman movies or serials I've seen. Conspicuous by its absense was 'Truth, Justice & the American way'. In the movie, Jonathan Kent dies b'cos he prevents Clark from saving him in a tornado so that the secret of his powers doesn't get exposed. And in another scene, he rebukes Clark for saving a bus full of schookids. This is a major distortion of the Kents' character than anything that's been seen before.
  • Slashdot 101 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swampash (1131503) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:27PM (#44030607)

    If the editor appends "what do you think?" on to the end of the article summary, it's just linkwhoring for ad impressions.

  • I liked it a lot (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:27PM (#44030609) Homepage

    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!

  • by Graydyn Young (2835695) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:32PM (#44030663)
    This iteration of Superman has been going on for 2.5 hours?! It's definitely getting stale by now. Time for a reboot.
    • 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.

    • by PRMan (959735)
      I know, right. What is it with superhero movies that they feel like we need to retell the origin story every 3 movies (5 in this case). James Bond has been going for 50 years but his origin is only told twice in all that time. We all know who Superman and Batman are. Make a movie about something else already.
  • by Jethro (14165) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:32PM (#44030675) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paulpach (798828) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:33PM (#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.

    • 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)
      • by PRMan (959735)
        That's way too high. I'd give it a 6 or 7, but it's worth seeing. It really wasn't as bad as the critics were saying. But they hated Star Wars when it came out, so what do they know?
  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday June 17, 2013 @12:49PM (#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).

    • 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.

  • 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.
  • "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.

  • by QuietLagoon (813062) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:01PM (#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.

  • *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*

  • by javelinco (652113) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:09PM (#44031165) Journal
    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.
  • by sunking2 (521698) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:11PM (#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.
  • by houbou (1097327) on Monday June 17, 2013 @05:43PM (#44034041) Journal
    Not for kids, I don't care if they are selling toys.. But it's an awesome movie, I had a blast.. nothing boring. intense and well done. This isn't your kid's Superman. And whether this is by design or not, you will see a lot of resemblance to Tom Welling's Clark Kent in this movie, in all the characters portraying Clark Kent (young and old). Especially at the end when Cavill's Clark Kent meets the Daily Planet staff. Strong story and great effects. Amazing action scenes. there are some plot holes, but it's not that bad. I was surprised at how solid the writing was. However this is what I found. The Kryptonian suits are supposed to be filtering everything in/out. When their suit broke during battle, because they have no experience with the surges of powers they are getting, their senses become super-charged and makes them confused. It means that while in the suits, there are no Yellow sun radiation, no atmosphere, nothing. So, Kryptonians shouldn't have any powers, while in their suits. I had no problems with the super-surges, but, I had a problem that they shouldn't have been able to fight Superman to a stand still while in the protections of their suits.
    I need to see this movie again, I'm sure there are other things, but seriously, that seems to be the only thing I can think of which I found could be better handled. Not bad at all when all things are considered!

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...