Apologetic Preamble - We had attempted to get this posted right after the movie, and we had discussed it and edited it together, and then ... we forgot to post it. Oops. So this might not be current, but I didn't want to see the time and effort of our participants go to waste. Here goes:

So here we go as always, I will be the hostess of the Superman community review, Razzatazz, or for those that don't like my arbitrary username - Tammy. I am joined by Deranged Midget (confirmation of real name withheld), Delphic (confirmation of real name pending) and Sora The Key (Geo). Ssejllenrad also joined us for some answers. We are getting together to discuss the new Superman movie. I haven't seen it, but I am notoriously resilient to spoilers so I am not afraid (editor's note - I saw the movie hafl way through leading this group review). As I have been informed the others joining me today have seen it, so let's get going, shall we?

Say Hello everyone!

Deranged Midget: Ladies and gents of ComicVine! KNEEL BEFORE... Wait... wrong crowd. *yells at the stage crew* So uhh... comics amiritie?

Delphic: Darn it, how does Superman do that. Changing in those phone booths are next to impossible...Oh! Hello Comic Vine, didn't see you there. I even put on my Superman T-shirt and cape for you. So what are we talking about? Oh, Man of Steel, such a good film. By the way, I'm Delphic, but my friends call me Daniel.

Sora-thekey: You're probably wondering why Tammy is hosting this and I'm not... On the other hand, you probably didn't give it much thought until I brought it up. Anyway, I'm Geo, the adjacent member of this review since I'm not a Superman fan.

So let me break down how this will work, we will have a spoiler free section where we discuss what we thought of the movie without giving away too much, then the good and the bad (spoilers) and then the verdict (spolier free-ish).

Spoiler Free Section

So generally what did you think of the movie?

Deranged Midget:Alright, before I continue on with my thoughts with the film, it should be established that I have seen the film twice now (third and fourth viewing imminent!). I'd have to say that my first viewing was an overload of emotions, especially in particular to one scene which we can't discuss in the spoiler-free section. Although, I am happy to state that my second viewing increased my enjoyment for the film substantially and probably because I grew to accept that one particular moment that conflicted my feelings! Just to state it outright though, Man of Steel is in no way a perfect film, either in production or plot but personally, I believe it to be the one of the most enjoyable origin films and it has easily grown to top my favourites list regarding superhero films.

The film covers most of it's bases, some better than others, but it's still basically all there. You want action? You won't see much better than Man of Steel. You want emotion? There's some extremely powerful moments that will keep you on the edge of your seat and get your heart pounding. You want some character development? We see Clark evolve greatly over the course of the film.

Delphic: Like the fellow before me, I've saw it twice as well, and my reaction was a little different. I went into this movie excited and came out ecstatic and with a grin so big you would have considered the Joker second rate. By the second time my fanboy bias had worn off, and even though I had already acknowledged some of the flaws, I was able to watch the movie without foaming at the mouth. Though, I still had that big toothy grin.

Sora-thekey: Like I mentioned, I'm not exactly a Supes fan, I respect the stance this character has gained as the "first" super hero and all, but I've always found it really hard to like the man in general. To answer this first question I'm going to be as concise and spoiler free as I can: This movie was AWESOME!

The origin of Superman has been changed a little bit. As fans of the character does this bother you? (this question I derived from the K4tzm4n CV review)

Deranged Midget: Concerning the origin story, I personally do not believe that Man of Steel should be compared to the Superman films of old. Why? Well first off, those films were based off a Superman who has long since aged and disappeared. The character has changed quite a bit since then in the modern age, both Pre and Post new 52. Secondly, this is an origin story for a new age and a new audience. To keep it fresh, you change it up a bit as evidently seen in the comics, there have been numerous origin reboots i.e (John Byrne's) Man of Steel, Secret Origin (Geoff Johns), and Birthright (Mark Waid). The Kryptonian elements are handled brilliantly and arguably better than any other Superman film and it's a delightful treat to witness the redesigned Krypton and it's surviving inhabitants.

Delphic: I agree with Deranged Midget. It's not a perfect movie, and it's not fair to compare it to Donner's Superman. They are two totally different films with the only connection being the subject matter. Where the Donner films were extremely campy this movie had a serious tone, and I think that is what threw some people off. Though it had it's flaws in some areas, I felt it was an excellent portrayal of a young Superman that is just beginning to take his place in the world, and overall a very well done film.

Sora-thekey: While I've only watched this movie once, unlike the other participants of this review, I did go into the theatre with a well-established critical eye. It is not the perfect comic book movie, but, in my opinion, it does stand up there with past CBMs like X2, The Dark Knight and Avengers.

It can be seen just by the trailers that they are trying to root the character much more in a realistic setting, much like the Marvel Cinematic Universe has done. It has been mentioned above that the Donner movies were campy, but did you walk away from this movie thinking "maybe it could be real"? Not really real of course but more how one might look at the movies like Thor or Batman Begins, with a lot fewer suspensions of disbelief?

Sora-thekey: Unlike previous Superman on-screen incarnations, this one did make it more believable or as believable aliens with capes can get. The secondary characters did establish something amazing that previous Superman films never did: While Kal-El is often described as god-like, he still lacks a sense of omnipresence.

Delphic:Well for this movie I have mixed feelings as far as a suspension of disbelief is concerned, and I have a pretty large suspension of disbelief . While there were a lot of moments where I could see what was going on happening, there were a couple moments that I just have a hard time believing.

Deranged Midget: That's the thing, Snyder's Man of Steel does take some inspiration from the Dark Knight films in regards to a more "grounded" universe. It basically demonstrates how our world would potentially react to not only a godlike being, but an alien first and foremost.

Without giving away any of the major differences in the characters, how did you feel about the design of the costumes and especially of Krypton?

Sora-thekey: The costumes were amazing. I don't know enough about Superman's comic book history to really say this, but there was never a definitve look to Krypton's attire until now. Or at least one that looks this good. Even Superman's outfit seemed alien in texture. (At least it wasn't spandex!)

Delphic: When I first saw the design for the Superman costume, I was a little uneasy. My problem with this costume, I also had with the new 52 Superman costume when it first debuted, and that was because it was new, and things that are new are always uncertain. I loved the redesign of Krypton, and not just the costumes. I wanted to actually learn more about that Krypton than I had any other that had been shown before.

Sora-thekey: I did too! Did anyone else get a Pandora from Avatar vibe? (Can't really tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing)

Delphic: That was the exact vibe I got.

Deranged Midget: The costumes are very modern and I love the redesign. It seems that Clark's suit has taken some inspiration from the New 52 and I'm perfectly fine with that! Sorry to say, but those red undies had to go! As for Krypton, it was easily the most visually impressive spectacle of the entire film! The technology, the culture and the suits of armour they had symbolized a far more advanced civilization!

All right, let's get into the BAD (the bad has spoilers)

There is a lot of controversy from this movie, so let's start with the question I already alluded to. Are the change to Superman's background story a betrayal of the character? Think about this in terms of him potentially being used to colonize Earth, or that Krypton is in a sense a dystopian society.

Sora-thekey: I wouldn't consider it a betrayal to his comic book counterpart, I think of it more as a grounded interpretation. This new origin makes more sense to me. I would always wonder what made Kal-El, Kara and Krypto so special that they would have to survive this catastrophe of a planet. Now, he's even more special than he was before, but not just to the humans but to the Kryptonians as well.

Delphic: It's not a betrayal at all and the origin is still technically the same. Krypton was going to be destroyed, so Jor and Lara sent their son to earth. Now the interesting change was Jor-El's motives. Jor believed his people were a mistake, so he used his son as a restart button for the Kryptonians. In a way you could say he was genocidal against his own people. When you think about it Zod and Jor weren't that different. Jor was bent on his own people fizzling out to make way for a new kind of Kryptonian, while Zod was bent on bringing back the Kryptonians as they were even though it meant eradicating the human race.

Deranged Midget: Changes are expected, especially when these comic book films at large are altered a bit to help appeal to a wider audience. Having said that, I feel that they added a little twist to the origin and revamped it a bit, which is perfectly fine in my opinion. Other than that, they did payed their respects to the source material while adding a bit of their own flair to it.

OK more controversy, Lois knows about Clark Kent from the very start of his introduction to the Daily Planet. Nice update on the story? Or is it taking away a vital aspect of the character's dynamics?

Delphic: I felt Lois was one of the flaws in this film, because I felt her role was very rushed and forced at many points. Her knowing who Superman is from the beginning doesn't really take away from the character, but it does change how the character can be used in the future. I feel that her knowing who he is from the beginning can actually be used for the better, but at the same time it does have potential to be used properly.

Sora-thekey: I agree with Delphic, one of my biggest, if not the biggest, problems I had with the film was Lois Lane. Not because of what you mention Razz, I actually liked that Pulitzer Prize winning Lois Lane wasn't easily fooled by Clark Kent's glasses. Aside of the good plot, my biggest problem was Amy Adams interpretation. Again, not the biggest Superman fan, but my idea of Lois is that she has a demanding presence, and while this Lois was very brave and very direct, she was not demanding.

She didn't spit into her captor's eye, she didn't jump in at the inappropriate time, she was just there. If not for Zod's request for her to go to the ship she could've easily faded in the background.

Excuse my mini rant here.

Deranged Midget: As for Lois' knowledge of Clark's secret, I don't really have a problem with it. A tiny concern I did have with the film was that instead of taking the time to flesh out what their potential relationship could be, it seemed a little rushed just for the sake of being there. It's something that can definitely be improved upon in the sequel though so it doesn't bother me as much.

ssejllenrad: I don't feel it's a fresh take. Yes, it's new that she already knows at the start of his Daily Planet Career but her not knowing is much more stupid. And I say it isn't a fresh take because the interaction between the two of them in recent years was that she already knows who Clark is.. That is until the New 5 arrived.

But like DM said, the relationship was quite pushed. I had a bit of a problem with that and they really need to improve on it. Well, at least it wasn't as forced as the Talia-Bruce thingie in TDKR. Nyehehehe...

Sora-thekey: Actually, I thought it was even more forced than the Talia-Bruce relationship. The kiss seemed like a simple, lets just kiss for the sake of kissing... There was actually not romantic development, it sort of just appeared. The chemestry was there but the plot didn't cater to this eventual love story. I would've loved it if they didn't kiss and Snyder decided to tease the ineviteble relationship rather than just jump the gun.

Man, I'm ranting way too much about Lois!

So the reasons that I came up with for people not liking this film weren't necessarily such a big deal, anything else I missed? I saw the film in 3D and thought it was better as a result, anyone want to comment on that? Or any other things that they saw wrong with the movie?

ssejllenrad: Ok, that is something that just sucks balls on my part. My eyes have different grade levels and so the 3D thing hasn't been much of a help for me lately. I can honestly say that my wife who is not a fan of 3D thoroughly enjoyed the movie much more in 3D than in 2D. Why? Because the film was in-you-face all the time. Not that it's a bad thing. But if you have a movie that is in-your-face, might as well go ahead and up it a notch with 3D.

Deranged Midget: I personally haven't seen the film in 3D yet, nor do I have any plans to. I have nothing against it guys, it's just that most of the time, I feel that it ends up being tacked on just for the sake of raising their sales.

Delphic: I saw the movie early thanks to a wal-mart promotion, and that was in 2D, but I saw it again a few days later in 3D, and to tell the truth I didn't really notice that much of a difference. I too had a bit of a problem with the Lois and Superman relationship being rushed, but my biggest problem with the movie was with Jenny Olsen. For those, who don't know Superman's best pal Jimmy Olsen has had a gender change. Now at first I didn't even really care about this, but the execution of it in the movie was just god awful. Jenny Olsen was only in the movie so she could exchange a dramatic stare with Perry White (played by Laurence Fishburne) during the climax of the movie, and to serve as a damsel in distress. The role was pointless, and the movie could have done without it completely. Also I suppose Kevin Costner has the ability to stand up and not be blown away by a tornado until it's right on top of him (anything for dramatic tension right?).

I forgot about the Jenny Olsen part, that does seem odd.

ssejllenrad: She didn't really seem to affect me that much. I felt the change in gender didn't ruin the character but it sure as hell wasn't necessary either.

Deranged Midget: As for Jenny and the lack of Jimmy, it didn't really matter to me that much as the Daily Planet and the majority of Clark's life to be played such a small part in the film that they could just focus on it much, much more in the sequel. I don't really know what their plans with the character is or if Jimmy will even appear but I don't think it should be causing an outrage, if there is one to begin with.

Sora-thekey: I didn't mind 3D, I'm not sure if it enhanced the experience but at least I wasn't bothered by it like when I saw Thor. As for Jenny, how I understand it, that wasn't the Jimmy Olsen replacement since her nametag said: Jenny Jurwich. I'm not aware if that's a relevant comic book character but they did make her more prominent than she should've been.

The introduction of Jimmy is probably being withheld until the sequel.

Delphic:Oh so it wasn't, a Jimmy Olsen replacement. I'm not a fan of Jimmy Olsen, but I had gone into the movie with the impression that replacing him was what was being done. Now that I know that's not the case I guess the only thing I didn't really like about the movie was what I said earlier. The forcing of Lois, and how the death of Pa Kent was handled.

The GOOD

So what did you like about the movie?

Sora-thekey: What did I like? We already covered it a bit, but I loved getting to see Krypton pre-apocalyptic crisis. Have we ever gotten such a good look at Kal's home planet? It looked amazing!

Deranged Midget: What did I love about the film. I feel like I covered some of this before but alrighty! *cracks fingers*

I loved the influence, guidance and inspiration that the writers portrayed with Clark's two fathers. They shaped the man he was going to be but allowed him to find that path himself. The film was all about choice and Russel Crowe and Kevin Costner did brilliant jobs as those influential figures in Clark's life.

Tying into that, I loved the flashbacks and the performances handled by the two main leads; Henry Cavill and Michael Shannon. Every scene between the two was gripping and fantastic. I fel that the two actors really succeeded in modernizing the iconic characters they most definitely had the pleasure of bringing to the big screen!

Sora-thekey: I loved the flashbacks, it made this movie even more intense! Simply, another way for the repeated origin story to be told in a different and original way.

Something which I felt was extremely well handled was the aspect of super speed. Unlike some other times when this is shown, the characters simply appeared in a new place.

Delphic: I really enjoyed Russel Crowe's interpretation of Jor-El. His performance was magnificent, and that shall be what I think of when I think of Jor-El from now on, but that wasn't what I loved about the movie. What I absolutely loved was Michael Shannon's performance as General Zod. That scene near the end when Zod let's the ash fall from his hands and says, "Everything I do, no matter how violent or cruel, I do for the greater good, of my people, and now I have no people. You have taken my soul." this scene gives me the chills, and it did make me feel a sense of pity for Zod when Superman was forced to kill him. That scene was just so full of raw emotion, and easily makes it the best part of the film.

Sora-thekey: Wait what?!? Spoiler alert-- Oh wait, we covered that already!

I'm actually glad you brought this up. According to you guys is this ending categorized as Good or Bad? 'Cause I was incredibly surprised by it. I actually gasped out loud and one of my friends looked at me and asked: "What?". I whispered back: "B-but Superman doesn't kill!".

Delphic: Well as I pretty much stated, I loved the ending. I really felt the pain that Kal was feeling as he killed the only other one of his kind. You could see in that whole scene that he didn't want to. He had tried everything he knew, but was left with no other choice. Also Superman does kill (it's happened in the comics, and it happened in Superman II) it's just an absolute last resort for him. A lot of people can argue how it could have went down differently, but if you really step back and think nothing would have stopped Zod.

Sora-thekey: I know Superman has killed in the past, it's just the idea of Superman killing his enemy is uncommon.

Did you guys catch the Lexcorp references?

Deranged Midget: I barely caught the LexCorp references beyond the blatant one on the truck, although I caught them on the second time around. A nice hint at what is most likely to come and how a certain benefactor may now be able to twist the people's favour into his hand.

Sora-thekey: I did catch the Lexcorp reference; I also caught the Wayne Enterprises reference, the Booster Gold reference and even the Chloe Sullivan from Smallville reference. Like I said, I went full-critic mode.Oh, I got something else I didn't like. Was I the only one bothered by the constant commercials for IHOP, Sears, and more?

I didn't really interpret those as commercials so much, the fighting has to happen somewhere right?

Delphic: I saw the Lex-Corp references, but I didn't see all the other references that Geo is referring too. I did see the product placements though. I actually found those to be kind of funny. I mean they throw a train at Superman and it lands inside Sears, yet somehow the sign is still perfectly intact.

So give me your overall impression of the movie in one or two sentences with no spoilers please

Sora-thekey: This movie should come with a disclaimer assuring it is not faithful to the source material, but even so, if you think about it, the best comic book movies don't follow the comics exactly. They stay true to characters and don't stray from the tone. That's what makes a good CBM, and Man of Steel is not different. To my surprise I enjoyed this movie quite a lot.

Delphic: This movie is enjoyable, fun, and one huge action packed blast. Not everyone will like this movie, because some things will bother people more than others, but that is no reason not to go see this movie. It's a must see.

Deranged Midget: Man of Steel is not a perfect film nor should it be assumed that it is. Although, it's a fantastic re-imagining of the character for a modern audience and one that most definitely does the character justice.

OK thanks everyone for joining in, time to say goodbye

Sora-thekey: It's been fun; we really need to make this Community Reviews a more constant event. Thanks everyone. As Superman would say: "To infinity and beyond"... or at least I think that's what I would say if I was learning how to fly.

Delphic: This was fun, and I hope we can do this again soon. Until next time CV.

Deranged Midget: So uhh... I guess this is where we part ways then huh? Do I just leave the mic here or...? Guys? This always happens to me...

Huzzah!

If you honestly think that's the best part of the film, you don't understand Superman at all. This is far too generous a 'review' for Man of Steel. It has way more flaws than this and it's a shame they aren't covered here. A lot of things were unnecessarily changed to make the film seem more 'realistic' which betrayed the core concept of Superman. If Snyder thinks Superman needs tragedy for his no killing code, he doesn't get the character at all. AND there are ways for Superman to stop Zod without killing him. I never thought I'd be dissatisfied with a community verdict but I guess there's a first for everything.

SPOILERS BELOW!

I have to agree with you and more. I've been a huge Superman fan for thirty years and have almost every issue he appeared in since 1990. When it comes to Superhero movies I am pretty liberal - I understand that some things don't translate well to real imagery and some comic book elements look silly on the screen. I also like alternate versions of superheros as long as they pay homage to the core values of the character. (For example - I loved Smallville.) Man of Steel slaughtered the character. Killing Zod was one. Another was destroying a city in a fight (hundreds if not thousands of people must have died in those buildings.) Allowing his father to die (even when his father told him not to save him) - I can't imagine Superman (or Clark in his youth) ever letting family or friend perish if it was in his power to save them. I also didn't like the way they handled his meeting and friendship with Lois. I don't know why they felt they needed to have her in on his identity right off the bat - I might have accepted it if handled better but just seemed weak to me I also felt Lois was miscast - she didn't feel she played the part 'strong' enough - she came off too 'girlish' to me.

While I was certainly happy to see the Superman logo on the screen again - I was very disappointed in the handling of the character. I hope this is worked out in the sequel.

This is great!

This isn't the first time Superman has killed, be it in movies, or comics. He has killed before when forced to and I'm confident he will again. People keep putting Superman on an even bigger pedestal than all ready is on.

• Superman has killed before - as I said above. This isn't the first time, I don't know how this slaughters this character if it isn't the first time its happend.
• The city was being evacuated - whenever we get an inside shot of a building (Zod incinerate one for example) no one is inside
• Furthermore this isn't the first Superhero movie to have a fight inside of a populated area. Why is this is a problem for Superman but not other movies? Especially when you consider Zod is quite easily the most powerful single villain potrayed thus far.
• You completely failed to understand John's death. Clark WASN'T Superman at that point in his life. He was an immature 17 or 18 year old kid - as evidenced by the fact that he calls his Father "some guy who found me in a field" just prior to his death during their argument. Pa Ken'ts whole message to his son is "You cannot reveal yourself until you're ready. You're going to change the world Clark. You have to decide what kind of man you want to be." John knew his 17 or 18 year old kid wasn't ready to show himself to the world and was willing to DIE to protect him. The scene is pretty powerful. (Going back for a kid instead of a dog would be better, but thats not really the point)
• I'm sorry but Lois being unable to figure out who Clark/Superman is, just isn't acceptable in this day and age - especially since at the end of hte movie its etsablished he's working at the Daily Planet. If you try to say Lois can't figure out that Clark is Superman just because he has glasses on - you're making that character seem very stupid. Which doesn't work if she's suppose to be a "Pulitzer prized winner reporter". Superman was created in the 30's. Women were seen differently then. That WOULD NOT fly in this day and age.
• Previous point being said - I agree their relationship was underdeveloped and they probably should not have them kiss.

So again. Superman killing isn't a betrayal of character - he has done it before and probably will again. Batman's no killing rule is just as absolute as Supermans no? Yet in Batman Begins - Batman leaves Ra's al Ghul to die and no on cares. And Batman causes tons of collateral damage to his city via the Batmobile blowing through or driving on top of rooftops. Still don't care right? New York is friggen destroyed and invaded by an army causing how much damage and casualties in the Avengers - do you complain about that?

The only different is Superman is a god and was fighting another god-like being. The mass collateral damage was to show you what Zod was capable of if he wasn't stopped (and it looked badass). After stopping any possible way Zod could remake Krypton Zod tells him Superman has taken his soul away from him and wants him to suffer as he is suffering.

Zod even says mid fight "The only way this ends Kal is either you die or I die". Zod wasn't going to accept anything else.

So the fact of the matter is Superman killing Zod is perfectly believable and justified via the story the movie tells. And its not like Superman was glad to do it, he cries out in agony after the fact.

So in closing I will say, just because the movie didn't fulfill some preconceived (and false) notion that Superman has never and will never kill before doesn't mean its a betrayal of character. Especially since has killed before.

The movie isn't perfect, but its pretty good too.

You are entitled to your opinion, sir. Though, the reason I like that scene so much has less to do with Superman, than it does with Zod. Now I'm not very familiar with the Comic version of Zod, nor am I that familiar with the Zod from Superman II. In this particular instance when I saw Shannon's Zod on his knees and muttering his reason for why he does why he does, and how he is now broken by Kal-El's actions, and the way Shannon delivered those lines had a whole lot of power to them, and that is what I loved about that scene so much. The way it was deliver you could literally feel the pain he was feeling.

@fallschirmjager: Interesting points, though in Batman Begins I think it was rationalized that he was not killing him, simply not saving him.

Also as an aside, I have read that in the wake of massive amounts of destruction that there can be a natural impulse to copulate, to replace what was destroyed. So sharing a kiss after the chaos is maybe not as bizarre either.

What is strange is the aftermath. A city of that size suffering that much damage would have an effect on the US and the world economy. That is never alluded to.

A phenomenal film that is much better than "Superman Returns," can't wait for "Man of Steel" sequel.

@fallschirmjager: All the times Superman has killed have either been in the Golden Age when he was a much rougher character, Elseworld stories or poor writing. The famous John Bryne story is an instance of very, very poor writing. Superman kills Zod when he's already depowered them and could have left them in a lifeless universe but instead he gets it into his head that they're a threat somehow. Bring me all the instances you want and I'll debunk them with ease. I'm known as a Superman expert on here so trust me, I KNOW what the character is about. And he does not kill when he's being well written. So sorry, but I've debunked your incorrect assertion that it was believable for Superman to kill. Feel free to cling to it if you want to though.

@lvenger: How conceited are you? "I'm a Superman expert. I'm right, you're wrong"

Who made you the judge on what's believable for Superman to do? I for one dont see a problem with the scene. Its an opinion. And with any opinion, there are going to be multiple ones. There are no right or wrong answers. Feel free to cling to that idea if you want to though.

@redlantern23: I'm only using that in regards to my knowledge about the character. My post speaks for itself on how it betrays the core of Superman's character. I'm not the judge of anyone but I am someone who knows what he's talking about when it comes to Superman. And I felt utterly despondant and betrayed when Superman killed Zod. It crushed my expectations and desires for the DC Cinematic Universe when he did that and meant I couldn't see this Superman as a symbol of hope or inspiration or anything of the character I love in there.

So when someone knows a lot about the character and feels passionately about him being interpreted right, I'm bound to come out strongly about misinterpretations of my favourite character. But again, feel free to stick to the idea that I'm being conceited and superior no matter how much in the wrong you are.

@lvenger: Thats exactly what you are doing. Your post proves nothing. There are tons of fans who hated the act, and there are an equal amount of fans who didnt. So what makes your opinion so "right" and mine so "wrong?"

Honestly, I found this film to be servicable in the same way I did Batman Begins. As a standalone film decent, but definitely needs to be expanded upon before I can give full judgement.

@redlantern23: What exactly am I doing? You're not making yourself clear. And I'm well aware of subjectivism in the area of comic books so subjective interpretations are what you and I are doing. I concede that. Neither of us are right or wrong. But as a Superman fan, I was disappointed by the film. That's the core of what I'm saying. I'd give it 7 out of 10 but before you say that it's a decent score (which it is) I was expecting better from all the hype this film had generated.

@lvenger: Well There is the time he killed Doomsday. Superman will kill if need be and only if it's the last resort like Doomsday. but the way they did it in Man of Steel was terrible. It's the pointless Superman killing that get's to me. In Injustice it makes sense and is well done. In this and Trinity War it's terribly done and is pointless all around.

Max Landis said it best.

http://youtu.be/aw_GlYve_Lg

Lois Lane was too sweet and not gritty enough.

Too much religious heavy handedness. I mean, evolution is bad, faith is good -- gotcha. No need to bukkake it all over me.

Ridiculous amount of destruction -- I was more put out that there were people still in the downtown core of the city (as in, going to work) when destruction of their world was eminent. I think everyone could have just stayed home for the 24 hours that the fate of the world was in the balance.

Lois and Clark got romantic a little too quickly. Plus, her being conveniently there after Zod was killed and him clinging to her -- nah, didn't feel it.

Zod had to die. After a speech like that (which I did enjoy -- very much), he had to. How he died? Meh -- it could have been done better.

I did enjoy the film although the first half was much, much better than the second. By a big enough margin that I I had a hard time not rolling my eyes. I think every actor played their part well (except for that bad guy who took his one liner a little too seriously -- about Superman not needing to stay alive? Yeah, tone it down buddy -- that scene must have been at the end of a hard day of filming to have been let through).

Henry Cavill has replaced Christopher Reeve in my mind when it comes to Superman -- Kevin Costner was spectacular, as was Diane Lane and Russell Crowe. I love Lara so similar to Kal in physical appearance as well. I can get really nit picky and point out things like just how long was procreation taken out of utero -- and how that would have affected the ability to carry a physical pregnancy and birth but nah, that's all good. I think it could have been done better -- I think I would have enjoyed the film more had I been aware a sequel was already being worked on to excuse some of the things that didn't sit well but all in all -- like most people I have spoken to -- I would call this a 7 out of 10.

Two more things to add. One -- friends I watched the film with who pretty much know nothing about comics and Superman were put out by a non brunette Lois, lol and two -- my favourite scene was Keven Kostner's death. I don't have to quantify it -- if it came across to you the way it did to me, then you will agree.

Either way -- fun read everyone! Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. :)

@theacidskull:

You know, I agree. The destruction was very, very realistic. I meant more the people still hanging about -- riding their courier bikes and walking with their briefcases. I mean -- STAY HOME. There were far too many people walking about with the world potentially about to come to an end.

Gotta disagree on the death scene. Those people could have ducked under -- his head pulled up -- lots on sensical things but I do believe Zod had to die. Dying at the hands of Superman - hmm, I can go either way and having humans be the catalyst in killing him makes the most sense but the scene itself? It left me kinda like "WAH?"

You can be right. I can be perfect. You know, the usual. :P

@theacidskull:

You are. :)

You convinced me you loved the movie. And on the eyeball thing. But I still think those humans were idiots and if it was a simple glance that would have made the difference -- the moment should have been in slo-mo or something that really drove it home.

Although -- the scream afterwards? The devastation felt by Superman? Very well done. I just could have done with the Lois waist grab and sobbing into her stomach.

Better? ;p

Leaving someone to die and killing them is one in the same. Batman could have saved his life if he wanted to, he choose not to. He might not have pulled the trigger,but he loaded the gun and pointed it at him and despite being physical able to stop the gun from firing, he let it go off. There's no difference here.

The kiss was less about going off to save people that it was for me, the fact that they barely knew each other. Lois learns a lot about Clark/Superman but Clark learns almost nothing about Lois personally during the film and I felt the relationship was underdeveloped. Just my opinion.

Personally I think the destruction of the city comes into play for Batman/Superman (Bruce lending aid, possibly opposing Superman, etc) and will also be part of Luthor's motivations as combats Superman.

And this is your problem right here sir. You, before going into the movie, had a set vision for what Superman can be, can only be, and can never be anything else. And thus you will never be happy with anything but.

The film makes it perfectly believable why Superman has to kill Zod. Did you not watch the movie? Zod was not going to be stopped and the whole scene of Kal-El sinking into the pit of skulls shows you what Zod was willing to do to remake Krypton.

After that plan fails he states that his soul, his purpose in life, and the hope that his people will ever leave again - has all been taken from him and he wants revenge. And he will do that by killing everyone Kal-El loves and the entire people of earth that he protected. Zod even states in middle of the battle one of them is going to die and thats the only way it would end. By the end of their fight is so overcome with rage and want of revenge Zod is willing to ignore the fact that he is in a compromised position to try and kill an innocent family just to hurt Kal-El the worst way possible.

Within the context of the film, Superman had no choice. It was perfectly believable. If you fail to see that, then you are the one clinging to some incorrect notion or belief.

Characters change and change more when they are adapted to film. All of them have and Superman is no exception. Superman even kills Zod in Superman 2 for crying out loud, along with numerous other times in comics (along with many other heroes). The fact that you refuse to only accept some of the stories, and not others, is clearly your problem and not mine. But who I am to say whats right I suppose, after all, I'm not the self-titled Superman expert here.

I watched the movie recently. Superman has been my favorite superhero ever since I can remember myself.

The movie was pretty nice and.."satisfactory" I can say. It gave you an understanding of what it means to be a hero. I had my complaints- at one point, near the end, I thought to myself "We didn't get much action with Superman, darn" just before Zod came up looking for trouble. It was sure heavy emotionally seeing Superman having to kill Zod to protect the people and his emotional pain afterwards.

When I heard that Nolan was into this movie as well (though not as deep as with the Batman trilogy) I had my "fears"- returning Batman to his darker roots sure was a great job but I was afraid that he might try to.."darken" Superman as well- which simply can't be done.

Henry Cavill did a fine job as Superman (his body building..wow!) though I don't think that he was as good as Christopher Reeve- or anyone else will be as good as Reeve for that matter.

And at some parts, they made Superman look like carboard (like him being "hurt" and blown away by US military fire) of which I've had enough already.

Nice work on the review guys (and gal) :)

P.S. Why everywhere there are people lurking to throw hate on Superman? For the love of God... Thanks to those who beated me to saying things right.

yup, it's this. he has the obligation not to kill but he has the right to choose not to save. something like that

I really can't understand people who say that scene where Superman kills Zod is good. ok, you guys have your opinions, and the whole killing thing is a bit subjective. It's okay.

but me.... I didn't feel any emotion there, not even one bit. I mean, I don't know if was Cavill's performance or the way the scene was put together, it just seemed silly to me and not dramatic at all. specially if RIGHT AFTER you show Supes smiling and all happy. I really really didn't see any GUILT or anything close for that matter.

also the scream he let out was ridiculous IMO. It felt so fake. that's just my opinion though. I guess other people have different views on what dramatic and mourning and etc... is or looks like

I have many more problems with the ways things were set and made but eh... I'll give it a rest. I may not have liked it as a Superman movie but

it's pointless discussion; the movie is made, it was financially successful and there will be a sequel. All I can do is enjoy what good the movie had (which did plenty, but all the bad I saw kinda turned me off a bit), appreciate it as an action/super hero movie like it was and hope the sequel is way better.

I still give it a positive note but it's not in my top 10 CBM or Super hero movies.

PS: ahahahahaha @lykopis "no need to bukkake it all over me" ahahah I'm totally gonna steal this expression, hilariously handy

@jorgevy: Not saving someone and killing them is the same thing.

1. Someone is sick with a disease and you have the cure. You refuse to use it, they die.
2. Someone is on fire and you have an extinguisher, you don't use it, they die.
3. Someone is drowning and you can swim. You don't swim out to help them, they die.

In all 3 examples, make no mistakes, you killed them. You can rationalize it however you want, you were responsible for them ultimately dying. Just like Batman stood by and watched Ra's die.

The only difference is in one scenario its watered down so that people aren't disturbed by it. This is what happened with Batman. Because we don't personally see Ra's die and its watered down to "not-saving him" we think its ok.

Superman snapped Zod's neck and we saw every second. Not only is that extremely personal, but it leaves no doubt, no grey area, as to what happened. AND THAT is what bothers people. And it SHOULD. Killing is nothing something to celebrate about, but sometimes it has to be done. That is the point of the scene. The fact that so many people haven't understood that is mind-boggling to me.