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

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?

Comments

Piracy much eh?

[Pieroxy]

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.

Re:Piracy much eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[bluefoxlucid]

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?

Re:Piracy much eh?

[sjames]

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?

[Pieroxy]

Ok, in order: Yes, No, No.

Re: Piracy much eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Pieroxy]

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?

[jittles]

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?

[Pieroxy]

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?

[jedidiah]

> You realize that successful blockbusters aren't the norm right?

Are you kidding? They have been the norm probably longer than you've been alive.

Every single gamble doesn't necessarily payoff. However, that's how it is in ALL businesses. Unless you have a gold mine, you don't have a magic money making machine.

Although on average it works out.

Re:Piracy much eh?

[jedidiah]

...except stopping piracy is more like creating the kind of police state that the NSA is trying to create.

It's pretty easy for a single entity to stop breaking the law.

It's much harder to police 300 MILLION individuals in an open society with readily available technology and a high speed planetary communications medium.

Telling the NSA no is a lot easier (and far less harmful) than pulling Gestapo tactics on the entire population of a democracy.

Re:Piracy much eh?

[Aryden]

That's complete bullshit. There are too many instances here where laws do not get changed even though millions desire it.

Re:Piracy much eh?

[SuricouRaven]

I'm guessing that almost all the viewers for this film are in the 18-30 male demographic. Prime audience for piracy. The same is true of Avatar, and the Iron Man series, and the Avengers movie. If piracy could ruin the profits on any movie, it would be these.

Yet they all made gigantic piles of money.

Re:Piracy much eh?

[metrix007]

Eh. Given the majority of people who download, literally millions upon millions, most people don't seem to have a problem with it.

Most societies through history didn't have a concept of IP or a problem with copying for millenia, far longer than those 230 years you mention.

Now that we have a way to make flawless copies with technology with no cost, thoughts, ethics and laws are going to have to change to reflect that. As they should.

Re:Piracy much eh?

[Sabriel]

I think I agree with all but one of the statements in your post:

"Your fantasy futuristic free-content utopian vision does not justify breaking IP laws that society has agreed are valid for 230 years (and longer)."

How is that different (by more than severity) to:

"Your fantasy futuristic free-person utopian vision does not justify breaking slavery laws that society has agreed are valid for 230 years (and longer)."

I'll also state that while I agree with "the ends do not justify the means" in general, that with respect to IP laws both means and ends have been of dubious character from the very beginning (Stationers Company, etc). IP laws are economic duct tape, a "necessary evil" that only exists because we've so far failed to properly address the structural flaws. Instead? Bono, CTEA, DMCA, etcetera. More and more duct tape.

+1, Flamebait

[girlintraining]

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

[FunkeyMonk]

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

[GodfatherofSoul]

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

[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 "somewhat watchable"...which, sadly, is more than I can say for most summer blockbusters of recent history.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[Isca]

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

[prelelat]

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

[rwise2112]

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

[ThePyro]

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.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[nine-times]

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 character.

Depictions of Batman, for example, tend to be about striving for control of the world around you. It's important that his origin story begins as a damaged child. It's symbolically important that Batman has no superpowers. It's relevant that his arch-nemesis is a clown, a figure linked with childhood, and that he plays the part of the embodiment of chaos. Batman is about a man who is essentially powerless in a world of chaos, and he's trying to take control and make sense of his own life.

Superman is kind of in the opposite situation, which is part of the reason why his nemesis resembles Batman so closely. Superman is about a man who has power and control, and he's struggling with the attempt to be perfect. He is not perfect. He's a normal human being who is put in the position where his decisions have massive consequences, and the stories tend to be (and should be) about the attempt to make good decisions while under the responsibility and pressure of having almost god-like powers, which gives him almost god-like responsibilities.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[Frobnicator]

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't care about who died or what was destroyed as long as he stopped (and usually killed) the bad guy. When Ellsworth took over he banned the character from ever killing again. This movie Superman took no notice of those who died, didn't care about the buildings or lives lost. Seems like Nolan took his cues from the wrong era of Superman.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[Aryden]

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.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[lgw]

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.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[SuricouRaven]

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, with some annoyance, that it is easy for Superman to be good: He can walk into a firefight of a warzone and calmly incapacitate everyone present at no risk to himself, while Batman places himself in great danger on a weekly basis by trying to use non-lethal means to take down villains that would shrug off a tank shell to the face.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[SpectreBlofeld]

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.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[SuricouRaven]

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 later, it'll keep you alive for now."

Re:+1, Flamebait

[H0p313ss]

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.

Re:+1, Flamebait

[bill_mcgonigle]

Any idiot can write ignorance like spinning the Earth backwards to save a girl.

Uh, he didn't spin the earth backwards. He exceeded the speed of light to go back in time - the mythical reference frame of the camera on Superman saw the earth "spin backwards" as the direction of time reversed.

the children liked it

[turkeydance]

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

[Sponge Bath]

Nope, just Gigli and Ishtar.

Re:the children liked it

[roc97007]

That's child abuse.

Re:the children liked it

[mmcxii]

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

[bluefoxlucid]

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"

[saturnianjourneyman]

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

Re:Bleh...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Tired of reboots

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Wasn't interested before, but...

[Bieeanda]

I read this 'stream of consciousness review' 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.

Hulk Like Explosions!

[TWiTfan]

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

Re:Hulk Like Explosions!

[Remus Shepherd]

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

Re:Hulk Like Explosions!

[H0p313ss]

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...

my meta-review/review

[elblanco]

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.

I hated it

[nurhussein]

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.

Slashdot 101

[Swampash]

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

[wonkey_monkey]

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!

It requires storytelling

[sjbe]

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.

Time for a Reboot

[Graydyn Young]

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

I enjoyed it

[Jethro]

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

[paulpach]

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:that money

[gl4ss]

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?!?#?!#

The problem with CGI- it's not real

[Maxo-Texas]

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).

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

[medv4380]

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.

Metric should be number of tickets, not revenue...

[QuietLagoon]

...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.

Re:that money

[alen]

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.

Lex Corp?

[RavenousRhesus]

*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?

[__aagmrb7289]

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.

[sunking2]

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.

Re:that money

[dywolf]

thou shalt not speak ill of Donner's Superman 1 and 2.

Re:that money

[lgw]

There's nothing wrong with a simple "Good Guy vs Bad Guy" presentation in a 2-hour format. If it's an action movie and not a drama, why would you expect any depth of character? Your ability to explore anything in 2 hours of screen time is limited, and different genres spend that time in different areas.

Also, Superman is the canonical "Good Guy" - that's his whole shtick. He's the one true White Hat, and his stories (in longer formats) explore the difficulties in being that.

B and C are good...

[gentryx]

...because a hero that is just and purely good and a villain that is only evil are boring. That's just me generally speaking, I haven't seen the movie. But I like it if characters have flaws and the enemy has good traits. It makes decisions and jugement more difficult. This is no Hollywood invention. Japanese movies have this since... there are Japanese movies.

Re:that money

[markhb]

Since almost all movies ship as hard drives now rather than film prints, I don't think that opening weekend means as much for picture quality as it once did. Unless, of course, you think the studios are using such cheap hard drives that they start losing sectors after 2 weeks.

Myself, I've got a pretty decent HD/5.1 setup at home, and this is still one I'm planning to go see at the IMAX.

Re:Bleh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it'll have a watered down plot and shallow, salty characters. Hollywood's not deep enough for the true Aquaman.

Great movie!

[houbou]

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!

Re:that money

[metrix007]

Good guy vs Bad guy isn't idiotic, or specific to the USA. It's timeless, because it works.

Re:that money

[Anonymous Coward]

You got married too?