"Man of Steel" Is a Winner, but Did DC Destroy Superman In the Process?

Man of Steel broke the June record for a box office debut and has raked in more than $400 million in ticket sales as of this writing. But is the payoff worth it? Fool contributor Tim Beyers says DC Entertainment parent Time Warner (NYSE: TWX  ) is taking a big risk by making Superman unrecognizable at times during the film.

A darker tale, spun by director Zack Snyder with help from screenwriter David S. Goyer and executive producer Christopher Nolan, Man of Steel saw a 65% drop in grosses in its second weekend, according to data compiled by Box Office Mojo.

Could it be because Henry Cavill's Superman is no boy scout? Unlike the common legend of the hero who stands for "truth, justice, and the American way," Snyder and Goyer show us a shy, confused, and angry "hero" who transforms into a living weapon of mass destruction on screen, Tim says.

Audiences say they enjoy the film. Of the more than 81,000 to rate it at Rotten Tomatoes, 82% say they like it. Iron Man 3 earns a similar score, but on more than 200,000 ratings.

Meanwhile, Man of Steel is left to contend with another surprise Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS  ) hit, Monsters University, as it continues its run in theaters. (The return of Mike and Sully -- the lovable characters from Pixar's Monsters Inc. -- opened with $82.4 million at the U.S. gate.)

Will Man of Steel regain box office momentum this weekend? Maybe. For investors, what matters is that Snyder and Goyer have introduced a version of Superman that is materially different from what watchers of the earlier movies and old TV shows will remember. Think of it as an all-in bet on the future of Warner's oldest and perhaps most vital brand, Tim says.

Do you like the new Superman? Please watch the video to get Tim's full take on Time Warner's strategy, and then let us know whether you saw Man of Steel, and if so, what you thought of the film.

A super stock
The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for this year. Find out more in the special free report: "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2013." Your copy, and access to the name of this under-the-radar company, is just a click away.


Read/Post Comments (49) | Recommend This Article (6)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 10:05 AM, hasanahmad wrote:

    Perfectly timed article as the 3rd weekend drop was just 52 %. The author of this article should research box office phenomena called front loaded movies which have a bigger opening then expected, then fall the second week to compensate and then steady which is exactly what iron man 3 just did as this the dark knight rises.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 10:45 AM, VeritasEtceteras wrote:

    Henry Cavill's Superman is no boy scout?

    -- You mean like Superman 2's Reeve who's first act after saving the world is to Pick a fight with the Diner patron or Like Singer/Routh who apparently is content to Seduce his co-worker in his Superman Persona and upon doing so Promptly runs away at the drop of a hat with no care to the state of either relationship thus leaving her alone and pregnant

    The hero who stands for "truth, justice, and the American way,"

    -- Was in not the cited IronMan who states in his first Film something akin to ... "That's the way dad did it, that's the way America does it, and it's worked pretty good so far."

    A shy, confused, and angry "hero" who transforms into a living weapon of mass destruction

    -- did you watch the Movie?...Those flashbacks to his childhood were there for a reason

    1 Shy -- an 8 year old has what to his class looks like a mental breakdown in the middle of class; He's going to end up being 'the Weird Kid' as long as he's in that school system

    2 Confused -- 14 year old pushes a Bus from the river, Saves a dozen people and his father tells him, 'You should have let them Die"

    3 Angry -- 18 year old stands down on his father's order and Promptly watches as a Tornado kills his father (This after his father ran out to save a Dog, Leaving him on Crowd control.)

    Traditionally most versions have stayed away from looking at the 'psychology' of Getting Powers... it has almost always been

    -- I'm Normal, Now I'm Different, How do I use it, I know what to do. Now I shall be a hero (or Villain)--

    MoS Clearly looked at what it means to his psyche to Get Powers, to Use them in front of people, and then finally to show what happens when He Can't Use them or else be exposed to the world.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:02 AM, jjmarroq wrote:

    the only reason I saw this movie was the expectation of the story line that I grew up with....I wasted my time and $$$ money with this movie...if there is a sequel I would not waste my time. Fool me once shame on me....you know the rest.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:25 AM, JacksTake wrote:

    Superman in 'Man of Steel' was portrayed very closely to how the character has acted in the comic books of the last two decades. People are still hung up on how George Reeves and Christopher Reeve played him in the 50s and 70s, and those were classic takes on Superman, no doubt about it, but starting with the modern age of comics in 1986 DC made a point to have realistic takes on their characters. Non-readers are still taken aback by the idea that most comics are much more mature nowadays than they were in the 50s. People give credit to the filmmakers for crafting a "deep" version of a superhero when often times they're simply patterning their take on what has already come before in the books (Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan included. Burton's Batman owes a lot to Frank Miller's take on the character, while Nolan's is very close to the writings of Dennis O'Neil and Jeph Loeb). Superman was much more quiet and introspective in this film than non-comic readers are used to, a stranger in a strange land trying to find his place. Take a look at J. Michael Straczynski's graphic novel Superman: Earth One. I'm surprised he didn't receive an on screen credit during 'Man of Steel' because the movie is so close to his book. Clark Kent will likely be more comfortable with himself in the sequel now that he's found his path in life. And maybe a slightly happier Superman will sit better with the movie-goers that were turned off by his portrayal in this film. That said, the film is still doing quite well at the box office, despite the large second weekend drop, which was not unexpected considering the two huge, long anticipated blockbusters that opened just seven days after it did. 'Man of Steel' became the third highest grossing film of the year this last week, and will likely become the second biggest movie of 2013 by the time it's out of theaters. BoxOfficeMojo.com has the numbers.

    So it's safe to say that the majority of filmgoers are ready for a darker take on the Big Blue Boyscout.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, tioga60 wrote:

    My wife and I went to see Superman, excited by the previews. We couldn't wait for it to end. We will not see it again, in any form. It was nothing but fighting and destruction of a city. AND Lana Lang had red hair , not Lois Lane. It sucked at so many levels. It was embarrassingly bad. Worst of all it was boring.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, HerbieJPilato wrote:

    Yes, they did...and here's my own full review of the movie, which I call: "Man of Steel": DC's Less Than Worthy Attempt to "Avenge" Marvel.

    http://classictvpg.blogspot.com/

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:33 AM, libra13132002 wrote:

    When are people going to realize that the version of Superman they have in their heads has been dead and gone for decades?

    They're is nothing in this movie that is off or wrong or anything like that in comparison to the current modern Superman.

    Obviously, these people are living in the past with some vague childhood memory of something long gone.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:35 AM, viaouhfpiUAS wrote:

    is this story a joke? hollywood destroies every story............ even romeo and juilet......... they take super heros and turn them into half bad guy....... when the whole point was to have a role model for kids who does GOOD......... they turn romeo and juilet into sex and fighting......... and they seek out gay people to play roles so they can "reveal" later "look so many people are gay"

    i wonder, do athiest believe in gay people? you cant see they are gay, and there is no proof, so do they believe it exists?

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:42 AM, werewuf wrote:

    My wife and I just saw "Man of Steel". This film stands out as THE worst movie I have seen in the past thirty years. No heart and no soul. Way too much special effects (yes I said that) they have turned this property into an H.R.Geiger/Alien/Transformers style movie that doesn't resemble anything to do with Superman. The special effects destruction of everything was so far over the top as to ruin any... credibility that could have possibly been had. Amy Adams (who I love) is poorly cast as Lois Lane, and the story decimates how Clark and Lois meet and develop their relationship. The wife despised the entire film (in her words: "The best thing about the movie was Russell Crowe, and I hate him!")

    When Christopher Reeve's "Superman" came out, the tag line was: "You will believe a man can fly" "Man of Steel's" tag line should be: "You will believe nothing"

    Christopher Nolan once again proves he has absolutely no understanding of the DC comics pantheon, his guidance truly ruined this attempt. Any previous Superman movie is better than this one, even the black and white TV show was better. A complete waste of $32.00 worth of 3D money. Two thumbs way down.....

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:52 AM, funnybiz wrote:

    Grew up with Superman--reading comics. etc. Fan of Smallville. Until Man of Steel, though, the movies were just unwatchable -- unless it was to enjoy a room full of people making fun of it. Man of Steel is finally a believable movie version. Now we get to point our fingers and laugh not at the movie...but at the people who expect Superman to remain a boring and entirely unbelievable boy scout and somehow still make for a decent movie to watch. It was time for a Superman movie that wasn't destined for be a popular culture joke.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:53 AM, kriggsb wrote:

    I thought the movie was slow and boring. I would not go see it again if it were free. Just not my kind of move and now I am done with Superman. This is for the new generation not the old comic readers. If you were going to change the story that much you should just start over. It is like the Xmen movies, they screwed those movies from the start. Now they change the legend of Superman. To me this is unacceptable. Making it better doesn't mean you have to change the man himself. The uniform change I was ok with. I get that some things have to be changed but not the myth or legend. I'm going back to reading old comics and screw the movies. That was about 3 hours of my life wasted that I can never get back.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 11:55 AM, sparta64 wrote:

    I loved this movie....really enjoyed it as I enjoy many superhero movies.I thought Henry was wonderful and very impressive as Superman. I was mesmerized by the movie.I did not feel this way at all in Superman Returns. However, from the point of view from the man and his wife not liking it because it wasn't what you grew up with, this is a reboot and this is in his earliest stages of being Superman, this is his beginning (unlike Superman:The Movie) and he has not perfected his role as Superman and all that he stands for. I hear this constant complaint and I think it is expected as so many people go to see a movie merely as an escape, or to be transported back in time or they don't know the actual story so they are disappointed and view it is in a bias manner. Zack Snyder ran the risk of this kind of reaction I suppose but it just seems some people simply won't explore any reasoning behind the story and why it is this way and just decide to shun it without asking questions. This was the beginning of Superman. This was a reboot and a slightly different take on the story-I did not want a carbon copy anyway-who would? It also follows the comics pretty well from what I understand. But some people just aren't into a movie enough to explore any reasoning or thought behind why it is the way it is. My only complaint really for the movie was that the fight sequence in the end was a bit long....I really enjoyed it but would have appreciated more story like in the first half. That being said, I still really enjoyed it and look forward to the continuation of this movie when Clark starts working for the Daily Planet. I really appreciated this film and all the hard work involved by the actors...especially the 9 months Henry spent getting physically ready. He put his all into that and making his loo authentic and he truly embodied this character both physically and emotionally. He, in my opinion, is the best we've had to play Superman. I adored CR as Superman but I am even happier with Henry's take on him and I think we truly have a lot to look forward to as his character develops further in the sequel. I'm glad he wasn't perfect and isn't perfect. I for one cannot wait.for the next one and I've already seen this 3 times and will see it again for sure and look so forward to owning the bluray.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Amsepyy wrote:

    Lets me be honest first, I wasn't impressed with the movie I expected it to be better. Saying that the whole darker approach to superman is a good idea we have seen the same superman over and over again you can only play the same role so many times. Dark knight and all the darker batman movies seemed to pay off. Obviously people that are in love with the superman that is perfect and can't do no wrong wont like these movies. But what makes this superman so good is the fact that he is struggling with his identity this whole movie and the fact that he isn't perfect shows his humanity.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Ozzyzig wrote:

    Man of Steel was the best superman has ever been! Its about time superman is in a movie that not only held my interest, but turned out to be surprisingly awesome! Ive always been a huge Batman fan and always will be, But i have to say, Man of Steel was waaaaay better than the Dark Knight Rises. There was just too much to like in this movie. I really dont understand these negative reviews. I read them, but they make no sense to me....anyway, If you haven't seen it go see it, and believe me, It is worth your time and money, because this is the way Superhero action movies should be made

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:20 PM, pernellc wrote:

    My kids and I went to see Man OF Steel last night and I did not like it. I think they spent way too much time on cripton and let the young character grow up too fast. Yes they had flash backs to fill in some of it but this movie did not work for me. I understand wanting to make it more this generation but did they have to change it that much. My 16 year old son who loves the comics also thought it was way too much time on cripton but loved all the special effects but also didn't agree with how fast he grew up either. All in all it's a no go for me and yes from him but isn't that what movies are all about. We will be watching the next film coming out because I am not giving up on of my favorite corny romantic couples....it's has be better right?

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Whatisamovie wrote:

    I might have enjoyed the movie if it was a superman of old in values. I was destroyed in embryo by the man? of steel?.... fool me once but not twice, superman is dead until he comes back to truth, justice, and the American way....

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Dee177 wrote:

    This movie and the performances were fantastic. The Superman franchise was dead and this breathed new life into it. For some reason the critics want to tear this one down but the majority fans loved it. Sorry but the cartoon super hero's saving the day is not what is popular or sells. these days, times have changed. I thought it was far superior to the Batman movies which are overrated in my opinion.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Brains913 wrote:

    I get where the author of the article is coming from. I was born in '71 and grew up to the Christopher Reeves version of Super Man.

    Cavill is WONDERFULLY likable, yet the film didn't embrace that as much as it should. I kept waiting for the scenes of kitten rescue or bad guy capture. The school bus rescue scene was a little of that, but not enough. Iron Man did a much better job - think of scenes with kids asking for autographs or high fiving him.

    This film lacked that and I was hoping for more of that. Hopefully the next film will allow more of that and the people getting behind Super Man as a super hero (go figure)

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:30 PM, ferbuffer wrote:

    I hate Dark Knight of Nolan. But this movie is the greatest he did. I will not be tired of replaying this.

    I love the ocean scene, it's gloomy and perfect. The tornado scene too. I felt the loneliness and sadness of Superman in those settings.

    Man of Steel is the movie of the year. It's not dragging and the setting is really believable. Unlike other Superman movies, this version showed his powers and the action parts were really exciting!

    He is Superman and as a viewer, I need to see his powers and strength. It would be really unfair if they restrained him while The Avengers and X-men were kicking a**. This movie is a dream come true. His personality is quite held back and mysterious. It's really exciting when we get to know him more in the upcoming sequels.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:36 PM, eamon66 wrote:

    The vitriol by which some of you have commented on this film is ridiculous. If you had taken the time to watch the trailers before you went to see the movie you would have found out very quickly that this version of the Superman saga is not a rehash of the Donner/Reeve's versions of the 70's and 80's. That version won't fly in the post 9/11 era. The vast majority of the public want a more realistic take on those we hold up as role models. We want to see that they are not perfect so we as not so perfect people ourselves can identify with the characteristics that make our heroes great but also appreciate their failings and accept them as kindred spirits who also can fall from pedestals that our friends or family often put us on.

    I think that the Synder/Nolan version is the most honest version of Superman ever made. The time of saving cats from trees and chasing bank robbers has been consigned to a time that doesn't exist anymore in the post 9/11 psyche. Those of you who are determined to live in that reality are unfortunately going to be very limited in your viewing options. Try to embrace the brave new world of CGI. One thing is for sure, there will only be more of the same not less as we move forward.

    Legions of new Superman fans have been created with this new and gritty version. They will not accept a return to the good ole' days of flag waving and apple pie. That dream is over and the new reality is just awakening. The day of zero casualty super hero movies ended the day the towers fell...

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:41 PM, BlairgowrieBard wrote:

    *Spoiler Alert*

    After an eternal wait since the epic failure of Superman Returns, I counted the sleeps until I could watch Man of Steel. What a disappointment.

    I never really felt that I was "in" the movie... I was always aware of what they were "trying to do"... which is not a good thing. The story was slow, confusing and disjointed.

    For example, early on we see a bearded man half-saving an oil rig then figure that must be "superman". As a mortal, I want to see fellow mortal Clark Kent finding out that an oil rig is burning, changing his kit, then flying in to save the day. Is that too much to ask?

    And how did Clark shave? If we see him with a beard we need to know which Super-razor can cut it. Or is that only me?

    In the fight scenes, Superman is always smarter than his supervillains. That's how one can beat three.... not just by keeping going and then finally "winning". Another unforgivable blunder: Clark must always keep his "secret" - that only he and his mom and dad know of. Lois Lane is not supposed to be included, unless Clark confesses to her who he really is.

    How can professional film makers be such idiots? I can only conclude they are psychopaths who have no qualms about prostituting a cultural legacy so that they can buy themselves bigger houses.

    At least we still have the incredible 1978 Superman The Movie, with that insane John William score, and the perfect Superman and the perfect Clark Kent - Christopher Reeve. Not forgetting those flying credits. Written by the same bloke who wrote the Godfather trilogy: Master writer Mario Puzo. Superman Returns and Man of Stell will forever languish in the shadow of that masterpiece, which defined the superhero movie.

    Next time I most certainly won't be fooled.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 12:46 PM, John552 wrote:

    I really enjoyed it. I've often thought if virtually indestructible super beings got into a fight the mess around them would be tremendous, and that's what we got.

    The story itself was not as epic as the trailers led us to believe, but it had a very serious tone, which I enjoyed. It was a film obviously made for adults, while the 1978 movie was made for children of all ages and Superman Returns was made for Twilight fans.

    I also liked the fact that human beings, especially those in our military, didn't automatically trust him. That made sense.

    I really liked the tone of this movie, and if DC is going in this direction it'll being a nice counter position to Marvel's comic book movies, which I love.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Allend406 wrote:

    I'm getting so sick of all the nerds coming out the woodwork to bitch about this movie. Comparing to the old movies that I think most people today would agree we're dorky and terrible. Old batman movies were bad nobody denies that there proud that everything changed in the new ones. But why is it superman cannot he has to stick to the old campy movies.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:02 PM, sukisan3 wrote:

    I admired this movie, I feel like there was something there that wasn't there before. I feel like there were actual emotions. We all know and love Christopher Reeve and his Superman persona, and that will always be the respected original. Yet, for a movie that takes place in this time and place, I feel like it was very appropriate. We saw a side to Superman that we hadn't seen before, we saw the internal conflicts that he faced as he realized that he really was much more different than everyone else, and as he came to decide between the chances of reviving his originating planet (Which he was desperate to know all about.), and caring for the planet and people whom had been made up his true home.

    I also loved the detailing and actually presentation of Krypton's destruction. Never really saw that in detail like I did in this movie, I loved that.

    There's much more to a superhero than just flying around and saving people before they get hit by a rolling car. Superheroes have personalities, they have stories, and this movie hit the bulls eye.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:04 PM, TruthIsMe wrote:

    All Of U People Talk On Behalf of the urselves and pretend to care.Superman relates to mainly the young society. No one cares about a bunch of old guys who talk about a dead man reeves no disrespect but if u want him back so much go and look for him in a cemetery. We are in darker times and we need something we can relate to which gives up hope. Not some fool in underwear flying around looking like micheal jackson on stage. We need the truth. So Stop complaining about how slow and fast being contradictory about the movie and let it shine for what it stood for. And yes im 16 and believe that this movie gives hope to a brigther furture for all children.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Devildude512 wrote:

    There were quite a few good and bad things about the film. Cavill and the cast in general were outstanding. The main problems were the direction and script. Some scenes were particularly unbelievable.. e.g. the scene where his father is lost when he could have saved him easily.. over a dog. Also the military/alien/city fight has been beaten to death a long time ago.. Independence Day, Transformers, Battle L.A., Battleship, Avengers..e tc. It is exceedingly stale. No more military + hero team up to defeat alien menace as it destroys a city - destroying more of the city in the process.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:14 PM, ygiagam wrote:

    I have been a Superman fan for many years, I have read Superman comics since the mid 50's and have seen many changes in Superman over the years, some I liked, some I did not, I have seen most of the movies of Superman and yes they have changed him in many ways. I went to see the latest and enjoyed it, I liked the changes they made. Everyone has an opinion, and we are all entitled to what we think, but after following Superman I liked what they did with him and will go see the sequel.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:15 PM, georgetag wrote:

    If that's what will happen if a Superman comes to Earth I would want no part of him. I kept looking at the time on my cell waiting for the movie to end. I was very disappointed.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:25 PM, jb2015 wrote:

    Yes thus Superman is no boy scout. But in the Reeve movies he did things that would not be looked upon as being a good boy scout. The diner incident with the trucker for example (handle more of a humorous way than in the new film but still kinda of a nod to Reeve).

    I liked how he fought and caused damage unlike the Reeve one where he had the stupid power to repair and rebuild structures like the Great Wall of China and the Hover Dam.

    I liked how the people of earth did not trust him at first. Which makes since as he is a alien and all. Someone from another planet would have to gain my trust.

    I loved how the Kents tried to protect Clark by telling him that people are not ready which is different from the Reeve film where he just showed up and people excepted him right off the bat.

    I (before the film came out) did not like the idea of a darker Superman film. But to me it is not darker than it is realistic. The only dark in the film is the color (compare the Reeve and this fim and you will see it).

    I dont care for the Christian theme so much, but they dont over do it so that is ok.

    Overall I loved the film, this is what DC Heros have been missing........Realism!!. You can look at Marvel and see every heros problems.

    Cap America being a man out of time

    Ironman being a drunk and nothing more than a high tech cripple.

    Spiderman using his Uncles death to fight crime,

    FF team is just like any other family out there....Dis-functional.

    Xmen shows the whole discrimination issue.

    Only one DC hero I can say has a bad past, and that is Batman.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:44 PM, PAT1923 wrote:

    The only good thing about this movie was Russell Crowe was in it.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Jsonicman123 wrote:

    I loved the movie and I am huge fan if the dark knight trilogy. Honestly I think people just wanna bitch and moan about anything and everything. I deal with this at my work everyday. It doesn't matter if someone shuttled these people to the theater gave them free passes and free concessions the point is they will still find something to bitch about and that makes sad that I am part of the human race. This movie was superman it was exactly what superman in the dark comics was and that's what the filmmakers were going for just like in the dark knight films really people if you wanna see a movie about a gay guy going around saving cats and chasing cheesy bank robbers then stay home and watch the terrible older films and leave the new films to the more sophisticated people who understand what the film makers were going for. Stop bitching about everything.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Astriaicow wrote:

    Funny how this dude didn't compare how MOS did with Superman Returns, which was very faithful to the Christopher Reeve version...and it didn't do much at the box office. MOS did very well, as well as a superman movie could have done. Sorry folks, superman is the least interesting and complex super hero there is, but Zack Snyder and his team managed to make it more interesting so I applaud them for that. People went to watch it for some nostalgia and found something else and they are surprised? I guess America is called stupid for good reason.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:58 PM, bottlesflying wrote:

    The movie failed to respect the Superman tradition. Of course the Christopher Reeve version didn't either, portraying Clark Kent as a bumbling idiot.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 1:59 PM, bedlam6666 wrote:

    SPOILER alert!!! Do not ready this comment if you have not see the movie!!

    It is difficult to compare movies about the same character made in different periods, and it might not be fair. But, good movies, especially great movies, regardless of era, usually have the following things in common:

    -there is a compelling story that you don’t want to miss one second of

    -you deeply care about the characters, or hate the villain because he or she is just sooo bad—this is due to character development.

    -you have a plot twist that shakes you out of your seat and makes you think “oh my God I never would have thought…” or there is a moment in the movies where you think “gee, how the HELL are they going to get out of this one?”

    -the movie leaves you breathless, satisfied, and yet wishing there was a little more.

    You can file Man of Steel under “none of the above.”

    But first, let me tell you what I liked about it.

    They did a great job depicting the dying Krypton. In fact, it was reminiscent of the TV series 1st episode, “Superman on Earth” in the way it showed a cynical “high council”

    Russel Crowe adid an excellent job as young Kal’s father. And Jor-El’s murder scene was unexpected and a twist on the original idea. All in all, the movie started out great.

    And the segue to a 20-something Clark working on boat, saving some sailors was excellent. What began the movie’s decline was the appearance of Lois Lane. It wasn’t her first line, but one of her first utterances was “can we stop measuring d*cks?” From there, the movies went straight into the toilet. After that I didn’t care about her. She was plain, she was ordinary, she was vulgar, and the actor playing her not was only just OK looking but was clueless in this part and was clearly in over her head. Lois Lane is not just any part. It is iconic. She was following in the footsteps of the heart-filled Noel Neil, the snippy but tough Phyllis Coates, the funny Margot Kidder, and the gorgeous Teri Hatcher and Kate Bosworth. But this one was a lightweight. Her d*ck just didn’t measure up.

    Then, the flashbacks. Kevin “I’ll now be in anything” Costner played Mr. Kent, who was just so concerned about anyone finding out about Clark “being different” that he let a twister come and take him away.

    Are you kidding me?

    But before that, his scenes with the young Clark, in which I expected to well-up bit, were flat, and crushingly disappointing when Kent showed Clark the spaceship he arrived in. I think if my father brought me down to the cellar and showed me a space ship I arrived in...I might have reacted a bit more than this kid did, which was not react at all.

    Then, in the beginning of the scene that eventually led to Mr. Kent’s death, Clark said “you’re not my real parents.” He was a 20something. I mean, you would say these things at 20something? And the reaction of Mr. and Mrs. Kent? “Clark!”

    That’s it?

    And that is the entire movie was. No plot. Bad acting. No character development. Nothing to make us want to watch unless we are just into any of the conventional action-thriller movies of the day. This Superman was really Iron Man or Transformers or Avengers or Green Latern or Batman or any other super-hero movie where it is 99% CGI and 1% story. I mean, how many explosions can you deal with per second until it becomes white noise?

    In the 2006 movie, which was really Superman 5: The Return of….him…there was a story of some sort. Superman had been away for 5 years, gone to find the remnants of Krypton. He left a hotter than hell Lois behind. Sure, they rehashed the previous 4 (leaning mostly on the 1st two), but there was a Lex Luthor, there was Kryptonite, there was a Jimmy Olsen, and there was a new wrinkle: Superman had a kid. I thought that movie was lame, but it was great compared to this one, which had none of the above. No Lex. No green nemesis. No Jimmy. And no plot.

    And the lamest Perry White you will ever see. They cast Laurence Fishbourne, a black actor, in the part. He was your token, and he was asleep. He wasn’t even as exciting as Frank Langella, who was also useless and clueless in the ’06 flick. Even the Elvis-loving Perry, as dopey as he was, was better on Lois & Clark—at least he was funny. Fishbourne was an amateur compared to Jackie Coogan and couldn’t hold a ink cartridge to the iconic John “don’t call me chief!” Hamilton. They were better off casting him as the Zod assistant from Superman II, the big oaf that couldn’t control his X-ray vision.

    But the worst part of the movie was the story itself. I mean, the best you can do is smack each other around, knock down buildings, blow up airplanes, and repeatedly save a wooden, flat-chested, plain-jane Lois Lane? And could we find a better way to save Superman than for the numerous deus ex machina appearances of the dead Jor-El? We know the space guys are bad and have invaded. We know they will try to kill Superman. We know they will fail and we know Superman will end up at the Daily Planet in the end. So, couldn’t you give us a little more along the way, like put Superman in real deep danger? Or make us wonder how would get out of the inconceivable mess he was in?

    No. They couldn’t. Or didn’t. Superman was never really in trouble. He was just…tortured…the feelings of every post-modern metro-sexual male. And there has to be a reason why Superman suddenly over-powered Zod. Why? He get in a lucky punch? Zod get tired? That’s original. In the 1970s movies Superman outsmarted Zod. Or he used a greedy Lex Luthor to assist him. Not in this movie. In fact, the Zod in this movie, while admittedly not bad, was no where near as amoral or evil as The Great Terrence Stamp.

    And finally, you have Superman himself. I'll grant you he’s a hot dude. I’d kill to look like that. But this was not the boyscout of the 1950s nor the classy and funny Superman of the 1970s or even the watered-down, Reeves wanna-be of 2006. Cavill was…boring. The young Clarks were much better. But Superman grimaced a lot. Screamed a lot. Got mad more often than most Supermen of the past. But he just died there. And his screams? They were always the same. They were lame and the same, as if screaming in some sort of mental anguish was the only way to show the “tortured, dark, brooding soul.” He showed none of that—she showed he was in over his head, and that his director couldn’t get it from him. You want a tortured Superman? Check out “Panic in the Sky” from 1952 or “The Stolen Costume” from 1951 when Superman actually caused the death of a couple of loser, two-bit crooks.

    In the end, this Superman was the worst of all the Superman movies of my lifetime. You put any episode from the 1950s or any of the poorer Reeves renditions—I speak of III and IV—or any Smallville episode up against Man of Steel and the steel melts down every time. My God, they couldn’t even do better than Spacey-invaded, over-the-top, mailed-in rehash of 2006?

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 2:10 PM, RoserE79 wrote:

    First I do and don't agree with the man in the video. I walked out on the "Man-of-Steel" because that was not Superman. I also know more about Stan Lee's work than DC's works. What I do know about DC characters has always been messed with by people trying to make a quick buck. Marvel has keep most of the back ground of their characters intact unlike DC's. I learned about DC from my brothers and then they told me about Marvel in which I liked due to more female leaders. DC has some powerful female in which they never use in movies. If boys where the only readers that would be fine but girls read comics too. WonderWoman has yet to come out and she is as strong or stronger than superman so what's up? I have one last reminder for you, Man of Steel came out after the death of Superman in comic and he was a black man called "Man of Steel" not just Steel like Hollywood did. Why is Hollywood out of ideas? Why do they keep recycling all the movies we have seen? Could someone in Hollywood please email me and let me know!

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 2:25 PM, MsLissaKC wrote:

    Man of Steele was AWFUL! 95% special effects, with story sprinkled in only when necessary to justify it. (And, of course, obvious product placement). Here, let me save you 8 bucks: baby born on planet with people fighting and blowing it up. He gets flown to earth. Soon, bad people from his old planet show up and start blowing things up! Including: IHOP, Sears, 7-11, and a Uhaul van you can rent for $19.95!

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 2:32 PM, theStrawboss wrote:

    Everyone ripping on this movie needs go back and watch the Chris Reeve versions again. Great for their time, but they do NOT hold up. I tried watching Superman II with my kids, and I was so ashamed of what I thought was one of the greatest movies ever. Very cheesy. Man of Steel had a less Polyanna take on superhero lore. I enjoyed it.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 2:40 PM, knottreel wrote:

    Old farts like me consider this movie just one more indication of our decline. As one of our national treasures, Superman was a trusted symbol for most baby boomers. This is only an endemic sign of our times, along with the gutting of our space program, and the crippling of our military and the wasting of our economy. All our heroes are dead and Superman no longer stands for the "American way."

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 2:47 PM, mazdaspdracer wrote:

    They are basing this superman on the darker superman that returned after being presumed dead

    when he fought doomsday.

    Only thing for me is I would have rather seen Superman change because of that fight with doomsday. Make him the boyscout in the first film.

    2nd film he fights doomsday and then changes.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, oldgamer56 wrote:

    I enjoyed the first two Nolan Batman movies, but the third left me dissatisfied, there were so many unbelievable plot problems. Rented it on Redbox (impulse, LOOK new shiny), but then never watched it, there was no interest.

    Followed the development of MOS and began to get an uneasy feeling about it, seemed another movie where the writer and director forget what their job is, to entertain. Add in Hollywood's inability to say anything good about America and their smugness and I figured we would get the Tarantino version, which is something I avoid.

    Superman was an uniquely American icon, A place with strong values that a powerful alien could be proud to defend. But Hollywood hates that, we must be made to be no better, if not worse than any third world hell hole.

    So we didn't bother and will skipped it when it comes out. There is enough other entertainment and uplifting things to see and do, we don't need more feel bad, hate America trashing movies delivered by spoiled brats with the emotional development of slacker teens.

    Predict this will ultimately not work well for Warner. All of the recent Marvel movies have a very high rewatchable value, this we won't watch once.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Devildude512 wrote:

    Fully agree with everyone who said Superman needs to get back to his traditional American roots. He needs to save the day with a square jaw and a smile of his face. "Aww shucks ma'am, just doing what I had to!" That's what Superman should be, we need that kind of hero, that's what made him different than everyone else.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, davidng5 wrote:

    Superman is a real model for all illegal aliens in the United States because superman does not have a green card and still able to stay in the United States!

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 9:26 PM, ibdjoker wrote:

    As an old fart that can relate to all the Superman tv shows, movies and comics I too had a few problems with this movie. My problem stems from changes in the background...

    a. Superman allowing his "Father" to die.

    b. His "Father" making a statement in re to the fact that he shouldn't have rescued the kids on the bus!

    c. The internet guy stating on TV that Lois Lane KNOWS who Superman is!

    I had no problem with the Krypton scenes, actually pretty good.

    Will I add it to my DVD collection....probably.

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Speedracer69 wrote:

    I really tried to like this movie but it really really sucked! Me and my sister left after an hour of nonsense and the total rewritings over the story of Superman was horrible. To me Christopher Reeves will always be the best....

  • Report this Comment On July 01, 2013, at 7:36 PM, TMFMileHigh wrote:

    All,

    Thanks for the rich variety of comments. Lots of disagreement among you.

    I'll reiterate that I considered "Man of Steel" a decent but not great film, about on par with "Iron Man 3" far as I'm concerned.

    The big question, I think, is whether Warner succeeded in setting up a new DC franchise, and whether it has the stuff to move us closer to a "Justice League" film. So far, the box office results look promising but there's also a lot we don't know about DC's plans.

    I hope to remedy that when I'm at San Diego Comic-Con later this month. DC is holding a press event the day before the doors open.

    Thanks again for reading and Foolish best,

    Tim

    --

    TMFMileHigh in CAPS and on the boards

    @milehighfool on Twitter

    http://about.me/timbeyers

    http://timbeyers.me

  • Report this Comment On July 02, 2013, at 1:35 AM, Noman786 wrote:

    YES .... I THINK THEY DID THE MOMENT SUPERMEN TOOK LIFE BY HIS OWN HAND THE CONCEPT OF THE JUSTICE IN AMERICAN WAY IS DEAD ... IT NEVER HAPPENED IN ANY OF THE SUPERMAN MOVIES .... I WAS HURT .... SUPERMAN , BATMAN , AND SPIDER MAN NEVER TOOK LIVES BY THEIR OWN HANDS AND THAT THE BEAUTY OF THEIR ENTIRE EXISTANCE WHICH WE AS A CHILD AND GENERATIONS TO COME ALWAYS CHRISHED UPON .... NOOMAN RIZVI (PAKISTAN)

  • Report this Comment On July 02, 2013, at 1:52 AM, Noman786 wrote:

    BUT AS A MOVIE SCIENCE FICTION IT GOOD ... AND IF THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO JUSTICE LEGUE THEN THEY SHOUD HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE WHAT CONNECTION HAVEBEEN MADE IN HULK AND IRON MAN IN THE END OF THE HULK ... CAUSE SUPERMAN IS A BIGER BANNER THEN JUSTICE LEGUE .....

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 2:38 AM, Dynaryder79 wrote:

    MoS is a great movie...Everyone who thought the movie sucked has no idea what Superman is about and isn't really a comic book reader and just a stuck on the Christopher Reeves/ George Reeves version of Superman. That movie was fine for 1978/1950's but this is 2013 and that "aw shucks Ms. Lane" and "Swell" isn't going to cut it anymore. This isn't your Grandpa's/ Dad's Superman anymore... no more cheesy and bad blue/green screens anymore!

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2013, at 11:55 PM, cturner2424 wrote:

    You people are ridiculous. This was a great origin movie. How was he not all good for truth and justice? He had problems growing up like an alien with those powers living in our society probably would be. you think a 10 year old kid is just going to be ok with those abilities and people thinking he is a freak, heck he thought he was a freak as well. Also, get over him killing Zod. He literally had no choice, it was either that or watch that family die, and that would have been a real outrage. This movie was great and showed a great Superman origin. Cant wait for the sequel.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2516960, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/30/2014 12:18:00 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 17,125.48 151.17 0.89%
S&P 500 1,986.73 4.43 0.22%
NASD 4,544.71 -4.51 -0.10%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/30/2014 12:02 PM
TWX $79.86 Up +1.25 +1.59%
Time Warner CAPS Rating: ***
DIS $89.91 Up +0.38 +0.42%
Walt Disney CAPS Rating: *****

Advertisement