http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4
One of the best trailers for a movie releasing in 2013!
I would agree with that.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi416%2Fjokertdk%2F7982-animated_giftagmethumbs_up.gif&hash=92498d9c28dced770afbee32e4ff2a3598d555ba)
Awesome, this will be my number one movie this year.
Personally this movie should be good, with the talent behind it, we can look forward to something special.
It's awesome. Can't wait to see the movie !
Very nervous about this. It's one I'm either gonna love or hate. A trailer is just a trailer. Remember how cool Prometheus looked at this stage? Hmm. I'm not sure they have the right director for this. I still can't get Watchmen outta my head. Not sure about certain casting choices either (Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams?).
Henry Cavill however remains promising indeed. Hans Zimmer's new Superman score......not so.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 23 Jan 2013, 18:28I still can't get Watchmen outta my head.
What's wrong with Watchmen?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 23 Jan 2013, 18:28Not sure about certain casting choices either (Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams?).
What's wrong with Academy Award nominees/winners?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 23 Jan 2013, 18:28Hans Zimmer's new Superman score......not so.
Has any of the score even been released/leaked yet?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 24 Jan 2013, 01:35
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 23 Jan 2013, 18:28I still can't get Watchmen outta my head.
What's wrong with Watchmen?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 23 Jan 2013, 18:28Not sure about certain casting choices either (Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams?).
What's wrong with Academy Award nominees/winners?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 23 Jan 2013, 18:28Hans Zimmer's new Superman score......not so.
Has any of the score even been released/leaked yet?
Watchmen is no classic unfortunately. Good yes but still very artsy fartsy at least to me.
As for Amy Adams well like Watchmen I can't get her film "Enchanted" out of my head in which she annoyed the crap out of me as a Disney-type Princess lol
Hans Zimmer's style (like every composer from John Willaims to Danny Elfman) is a style you can imagine in your mind. I'm expecting a dark, operatic "Gladiator" style score. One that will no doubt have similarities to his Dark Knight scores. I'm sure it will be okay but only that word. Williams 1978 score was special. That music is engrained in most people's DNA. You can't just write that off as being "well it's only just music". Try to imagine a time of Superman before that music existed. It's difficult to shake something like that (as it is with Christopher Reeve).
I'm sure come this summer I'll be reading letters from fans in my local sci-fi magazines saying "how crap those Reeve Superman movies were to be honest in light of this fantastic new version". Raimi's Spider-Man got that last year in light of it's reboot. I'll just wipe my butt on those comments because it's silly lol
If the Reeve films get a pounding I won't be rushing to their defence. I usually don't have that stance - but I just don't have any emotional investment in them and don't think they're much chop. I have a fear Man of Steel may be pushed too far into emo territory - but in any case will easily be the best film of the franchise. The original Superman theme by Williams won't be topped, but even that became bigger than the actual films themselves. A good theme and performance by Reeve doesn't make the whole show succeed in my view. I think the material in MOS will be fleshed out better and simply be more interesting.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17
Hans Zimmer's style (like every composer from John Willaims to Danny Elfman) is a style you can imagine in your mind. I'm expecting a dark, operatic "Gladiator" style score. One that will no doubt have similarities to his Dark Knight scores. I'm sure it will be okay but only that word. Williams 1978 score was special. That music is engrained in most people's DNA. You can't just write that off as being "well it's only just music". Try to imagine a time of Superman before that music existed. It's difficult to shake something like that (as it is with Christopher Reeve).
This is exactly what people were saying before Zimmer's Batman. Elfman's remains more memorable and hummable, but Zimmer's fit like hand in glove with the films it was composed for. I used to be negative too, but that was almost 2 years before the first MOS trailer was shown. Would you prefer Tyler Bates, Snyder's usual collaborator?
Quote
I'm sure come this summer I'll be reading letters from fans in my local sci-fi magazines saying "how crap those Reeve Superman movies were to be honest in light of this fantastic new version". Raimi's Spider-Man got that last year in light of it's reboot. I'll just wipe my butt on those comments because it's silly lol
I like them (the first two), but... if something like that happens, well, it will be almost like... "vengeance" for all those years where I was seeing in online communities Superman '78 being held as a masterpiece, and Batman '89 as a little flawed film that hasn't aged like wine.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:36
If the Reeve films get a pounding I won't be rushing to their defence. I usually don't have that stance - but I just don't have any emotional investment in them and don't think they're much chop. I have a fear Man of Steel may be pushed too far into emo territory - but in any case will easily be the best film of the franchise. The original Superman theme by Williams won't be topped, but even that became bigger than the actual films themselves. A good theme and performance by Reeve doesn't make the whole show succeed in my view. I think the material in MOS will be fleshed out better and simply be more interesting.
I guess I feel the same way about Smallville and Lois and Clark lol Although Lois and Clark I've gotten into more now on dvd. As a kid in the nineties I thought it was a poor man's Superman compared to Christopher Reeve (and they were old movies then).
I'm surprised you dislike them. For me they are the ultimate Superman projects. No tv show has ever come close to them frankly. I think they do deserve their status and what the filmmakers were able to achieve for their time was pretty remarkable.
Oooh let's not jump to conclusions yet mate. Best in the franchise? Too early to tell. I'm sure people will take to the new Superman Henry Cavill, but Christopher Reeve has mountains of respect from fans like me and the general public. Not least because of his real life events. I'd wish for his legacy to still be remembered and enjoyed in-sync with the new one. I think possible deliberate attempts to erase that from certain fans is a little heartless.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17Watchmen is no classic unfortunately. Good yes but still very artsy fartsy at least to me.
...
Uh, you've read the comic book, right?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17Hans Zimmer's style (like every composer from John Willaims to Danny Elfman) is a style you can imagine in your mind. I'm expecting a dark, operatic "Gladiator" style score. One that will no doubt have similarities to his Dark Knight scores.
He's given interviews aplenty where he's said that he is bringing a different approach to Superman because it's fundamentally a different character. He basically said people should expect a lighter and more melodic type of sound rather than the dark, percussive stuff that defined his Batman material. Assuming he's telling the truth and assuming the tracked music in the trailers is suggestive of what he's up to, I'd be willing to give him a day in court.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17I'm sure it will be okay but only that word. Williams 1978 score was special. That music is engrained in most people's DNA. You can't just write that off as being "well it's only just music".
Actually, you can. Singerman from 2006 pretty handily proved that audiences under the age of about 30 have absolutely no awareness of the Williams score, STM or any major trappings of the Reeve era.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17Try to imagine a time of Superman before that music existed. It's difficult to shake something like that (as it is with Christopher Reeve).
I disagree. The Ruby-Spears Superman cartoon used the Williams theme in the opening credits but otherwise had a hero theme of it's own and it played well.
STAS had a new theme and it fit perfectly.
Smallville had it's own hero theme and that too was awesome, and fit the style the show was going for.
There is (or
can be or
should be) a lot more to Superman than the Williams stuff.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17I'm sure come this summer I'll be reading letters from fans in my local sci-fi magazines saying "how crap those Reeve Superman movies were to be honest in light of this fantastic new version". Raimi's Spider-Man got that last year in light of it's reboot. I'll just wipe my butt on those comments because it's silly lol
Given how lauded Reeve is, I suspect anybody who feels that way would be shamed into silence. Hell, I'm one of the few people I know who's desperate to move on from the Reeve stuff.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:08I'm surprised you dislike them. For me they are the ultimate Superman projects. No tv show has ever come close to them frankly. I think they do deserve their status and what the filmmakers were able to achieve for their time was pretty remarkable.
My gripe with them is that there came a point where they became bigger than Superman himself for some people. They've taken on waaaaaaaaay too much influence. As much as I enjoy Burton's Batman, I've never been prepared for that to subsume the comics continuity. However, that's more or less what ended up happening with Superman. It's annoying. Just because one particular writer has no imagination for Superman beyond Richard Donner doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to put up with that stuff.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:08Oooh let's not jump to conclusions yet mate. Best in the franchise? Too early to tell. I'm sure people will take to the new Superman Henry Cavill, but Christopher Reeve has mountains of respect from fans like me and the general public. Not least because of his real life events. I'd wish for his legacy to still be remembered and enjoyed in-sync with the new one. I think possible deliberate attempts to erase that from certain fans is a little heartless.
People were anointing Heath Ledger as the greatest Joker ever based on far less info than TDK has to work with. Not saying either of 'em are right, mind you, just that he could've spoken up about that a lot sooner.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:25
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17Watchmen is no classic unfortunately. Good yes but still very artsy fartsy at least to me.
...
Uh, you've read the comic book, right?
I tried for about 30 minutes unfortunately before I died of agonising boredom lol Like I said I found it artsy fartsy as a movie and as a comic. I don't exactly care what critics and fans say raving about it being the greatest graphic novel ever written. I go on my own gut instinct on whether I enjoy a story or not and in that case I didn't. Couldn't invest the interest in a lengthy story. I guess I coped better with the movie.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17Hans Zimmer's style (like every composer from John Willaims to Danny Elfman) is a style you can imagine in your mind. I'm expecting a dark, operatic "Gladiator" style score. One that will no doubt have similarities to his Dark Knight scores.
He's given interviews aplenty where he's said that he is bringing a different approach to Superman because it's fundamentally a different character. He basically said people should expect a lighter and more melodic type of sound rather than the dark, percussive stuff that defined his Batman material. Assuming he's telling the truth and assuming the tracked music in the trailers is suggestive of what he's up to, I'd be willing to give him a day in court.
Well that sounds alright. Like I already said I'm sure it'll be fine. Whether it's iconic however...
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17I'm sure it will be okay but only that word. Williams 1978 score was special. That music is engrained in most people's DNA. You can't just write that off as being "well it's only just music".
Actually, you can. Singerman from 2006 pretty handily proved that audiences under the age of about 30 have absolutely no awareness of the Williams score, STM or any major trappings of the Reeve era.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17Try to imagine a time of Superman before that music existed. It's difficult to shake something like that (as it is with Christopher Reeve).
I disagree. The Ruby-Spears Superman cartoon used the Williams theme in the opening credits but otherwise had a hero theme of it's own and it played well.
STAS had a new theme and it fit perfectly.
Smallville had it's own hero theme and that too was awesome, and fit the style the show was going for.
There is (or can be or should be) a lot more to Superman than the Williams stuff.
You realise of course it's John Williams your unimpressed with? lol Pretty much the greatest film composer ever. Just roll off all the themes he's written. Perhaps this was a factor into why the Superman theme was so good?....
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 14:17I'm sure come this summer I'll be reading letters from fans in my local sci-fi magazines saying "how crap those Reeve Superman movies were to be honest in light of this fantastic new version". Raimi's Spider-Man got that last year in light of it's reboot. I'll just wipe my butt on those comments because it's silly lol
Given how lauded Reeve is, I suspect anybody who feels that way would be shamed into silence. Hell, I'm one of the few people I know who's desperate to move on from the Reeve stuff.
No offence to you but you say your "one of the few"? Could that be because so many people still enjoy and love the films? I don't see how a minority can change peoples memories and favourites so easily. I don't think Superman needs to move on from Reeve. That's a little melodramatic. It's already been done on television.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:08I'm surprised you dislike them. For me they are the ultimate Superman projects. No tv show has ever come close to them frankly. I think they do deserve their status and what the filmmakers were able to achieve for their time was pretty remarkable.
My gripe with them is that there came a point where they became bigger than Superman himself for some people. They've taken on waaaaaaaaay too much influence. As much as I enjoy Burton's Batman, I've never been prepared for that to subsume the comics continuity. However, that's more or less what ended up happening with Superman. It's annoying. Just because one particular writer has no imagination for Superman beyond Richard Donner doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to put up with that stuff.
It's inevitable that a successful comic book movie or tv show will influence the comics world like it or not. This happened with the Batman tv show and recently the Nolan films. With all due respect sometimes it makes things better and I believe this was certainly true of Superman. I don't know about you but I happen to like the fortress of solitude as a crystalline pyramid than with the silly giant gold key...thingey lol I'm sure you understand what I mean. Would we also have a character like Harley Quinn without the influence of other media? Might I also direct your attention to the movie "Kill Bill Vol 2" in which the title character, a comic buff no less, states of Superman "Not a very well drawn comic..." Visually at least the movies made some enhancements for the best.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:08Oooh let's not jump to conclusions yet mate. Best in the franchise? Too early to tell. I'm sure people will take to the new Superman Henry Cavill, but Christopher Reeve has mountains of respect from fans like me and the general public. Not least because of his real life events. I'd wish for his legacy to still be remembered and enjoyed in-sync with the new one. I think possible deliberate attempts to erase that from certain fans is a little heartless.
People were anointing Heath Ledger as the greatest Joker ever based on far less info than TDK has to work with. Not saying either of 'em are right, mind you, just that he could've spoken up about that a lot sooner.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 19:14You realise of course it's John Williams your unimpressed with? lol Pretty much the greatest film composer ever. Just roll off all the themes he's written. Perhaps this was a factor into why the Superman theme was so good?....
It's not that I'm unimpressed with him. Far from it. The entire score is phenomenal. I can't think of very many film scores where each track is made up of nothing but awesome... but the majority of entries are composed by Williams.
Nah, what bugs me is this the neverending devotion some people have to all elements of that movie. If it was religion we were talking about, we'd call those people zealots. And the fact is that among casual Superman fans (or just non-fans), I can't blame them for having this attitude. They don't know anything else, mostly. But when even the (supposed) core fans take that attitude... eh, it just makes me wonder what (if any) comics they've been reading that make them think Donner is the end all, be all. Good movie, I dig it, it's one of my faves... but there's more to Superman than that.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:25Smallville had it's own hero theme and that too was awesome, and fit the style the show was going for.
Here's what I mean. It fit the style that the show went for perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuaOoJcqTBw
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:25
Actually, you can. Singerman from 2006 pretty handily proved that audiences under the age of about 30 have absolutely no awareness of the Williams score, STM or any major trappings of the Reeve era.
Exactly exactly exactly. When I say I have very little connection with the Reeve films I mean it.
Sure, people think Reeve did a great job in the role. But I don't think I'm being heartless when I say I believe the story of Reeve became bigger than the movies themselves. Like Ledger's death. For example I think Welling was excellent in the role. He's my Clark Kent. It's is perfectly acceptable to move on do things other things.
Williams Superman theme simply does not make an entire film cinematic gold. If Elfman had his masterpiece B89 score but the movie was a letdown, at the end of the day the movie is a letdown. A good score can help but it doesn't become
the film. It's the whole package.
Superman 78 is an uneven film with weird choices, IMO. It's held up as the best of that era but is far from perfect. If the script and themes are superior but people think Zimmer dropped the ball, the new movie still wins out. And I'm confident that can be done.
I don't want to come off as a hater, it's just how I feel. And I'm sure others out there are with me.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:25
Given how lauded Reeve is, I suspect anybody who feels that way would be shamed into silence. Hell, I'm one of the few people I know who's desperate to move on from the Reeve stuff.
Yes.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:25
My gripe with them is that there came a point where they became bigger than Superman himself for some people. They've taken on waaaaaaaaay too much influence. As much as I enjoy Burton's Batman, I've never been prepared for that to subsume the comics continuity. However, that's more or less what ended up happening with Superman. It's annoying. Just because one particular writer has no imagination for Superman beyond Richard Donner doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to put up with that stuff.
Yes!
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 17:08People were anointing Heath Ledger as the greatest Joker ever based on far less info than TDK has to work with. Not saying either of 'em are right, mind you, just that he could've spoken up about that a lot sooner.
YES!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 01:39
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 26 Jan 2013, 19:14You realise of course it's John Williams your unimpressed with? lol Pretty much the greatest film composer ever. Just roll off all the themes he's written. Perhaps this was a factor into why the Superman theme was so good?....
It's not that I'm unimpressed with him. Far from it. The entire score is phenomenal. I can't think of very many film scores where each track is made up of nothing but awesome... but the majority of entries are composed by Williams.
Nah, what bugs me is this the neverending devotion some people have to all elements of that movie. If it was religion we were talking about, we'd call those people zealots. And the fact is that among casual Superman fans (or just non-fans), I can't blame them for having this attitude. They don't know anything else, mostly. But when even the (supposed) core fans take that attitude... eh, it just makes me wonder what (if any) comics they've been reading that make them think Donner is the end all, be all. Good movie, I dig it, it's one of my faves... but there's more to Superman than that.
I understand what you mean now. It's without a doubt my favourite version of Superman ever and I wasn't even born when they first emerged lol Matter of fact my parents were dating at the time, tried to see it and ended up having to go see John Travolta in "Grease" instead! lol Because the screenings for Superman were totally packed out. I get a thrill when the comics reference the films. To be honest though the Superman comics of the nineties had very little "Donner" in them. They seemed more like the tone of "Lois and Clark" to me. I know they later inspired that show. The Superman comics were in a bad state at the time of the first movie. I think interest was at an all time low so the movies brought them out of extinction. Something to be thankful for so I think it's okay to indulge in the past from time to time in the stories.
I do sort of like Lex Luthor as a known bad guy as seen in the movie because I found the whole "Lexcorp" stuff that came later on too similar to Marvel's The Kingpin/Wilson Fisk. I may be wrong about this but the idea of the Superman logo being a Kryptonian family crest (which Lois interprets as a literal "S") was also a fantastic and creative idea. It even helps to explain how characters like Supergirl can end up wearing the same symbol. Wasn't it Marlon Brando himself who suggested that? I think in the new one their even keeping that idea (Russel Crowe has been seen wearing one) whereas in "Lois and Clark" and John Bryne's "Man of Steel" Martha Kent designed it. While it's a sweet idea that she helps him make the suit, my issues were how could she design so snazzy a logo and costume when she's spent most of her life milking cows (although in Lois and Clark there is a sense she's a part time "artist" lol).
On the subject of Richard Donner while he made a terrific movie I have to say I have a dislike for his attitude toward the Salkinds (who I think are entitled to more credit than they have recieved). I'm sure they were pains in the asses during filming but we never got their side of the story until the 2006 dvd boxset. For me Iyla Salkind is the "father" of the Superman movies as it was his idea to adapt them at a time when the comic book movie genre was unheard of. I think his commentary tracks on the movies were hilarious! The fact they were putting their own money into them they had every right to be concerned about diminishing resources. I think at the end of the day it was merely a clashing of different methods of filmmaking rather than Donner claiming they had no real respect for Superman and it's potential.
QuoteI think in the new one their even keeping that idea (Russel Crowe has been seen wearing one) whereas in "Lois and Clark" and John Bryne's "Man of Steel" Martha Kent designed it.
Just to clarify, Martha didn't actually design the 'S' shield in Lois & Clark. She did make Clark's costume for him, but the 'S' shield was already in his spaceship when he first arrived on Earth. Martha merely attached it to his suit. The series also showed Jor-El and Lara wearing the 'S' shield back on Krypton.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fjor-elandlara_zpse049a606.png&hash=eba8288e855effe9c30dfaeb91c52e8f2e0ba606)
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 18:08
QuoteI think in the new one their even keeping that idea (Russel Crowe has been seen wearing one) whereas in "Lois and Clark" and John Bryne's "Man of Steel" Martha Kent designed it.
Just to clarify, Martha didn't actually design the 'S' shield in Lois & Clark. She did make Clark's costume for him, but the 'S' shield was already in his spaceship when he first arrived on Earth. Martha merely attached it to his suit. The series also showed Jor-El and Lara wearing the 'S' shield back on Krypton.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fjor-elandlara_zpse049a606.png&hash=eba8288e855effe9c30dfaeb91c52e8f2e0ba606)
Ah yes thanks Silver Nemesis! It was in the John Bryne comic were she designed the shield herself.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 16:14I understand what you mean now. It's without a doubt my favourite version of Superman ever and I wasn't even born when they first emerged lol Matter of fact my parents were dating at the time, tried to see it and ended up having to go see John Travolta in "Grease" instead! lol Because the screenings for Superman were totally packed out. I get a thrill when the comics reference the films. To be honest though the Superman comics of the nineties had very little "Donner" in them.
Eh. As far as continuity, yeah, true. But the characters had become a bit more grounded and his world less sci-fi in keeping with the movies. There is an influence there. Granted, it's nowhere near as pronounced as it was starting in, say, 2006 but the creators themselves would be the first to admit that the movies had exerted some influence. Unlike Geoff Johns though, they were still very interested in doing their own thing. Still, some Donner concepts had crept into the comics. For example, Donner invented the idea of Smallville being located in Kansas and John Byrne brought that concept into the comics in 1986. Before then, Smallville was basically a suburb of Metropolis (which is more or less how the Smallville show had it set up).
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 16:14The Superman comics were in a bad state at the time of the first movie. I think interest was at an all time low so the movies brought them out of extinction. Something to be thankful for so I think it's okay to indulge in the past from time to time in the stories.
I've heard that bandied about often. And it is true that in the late 70's and early 80's, DC really only had two bona fide hits (Legion of Superheroes and Teen Titans). But I've never been prepared to believe that the entire line of Superman comics were teetering on the brink of cancellation.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 16:14I do sort of like Lex Luthor as a known bad guy as seen in the movie
I like Luthor as the renegade scientist. The huckster/used car salesman he was in the movie though... not really my thing.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 16:14On the subject of Richard Donner while he made a terrific movie I have to say I have a dislike for his attitude toward the Salkinds (who I think are entitled to more credit than they have recieved). I'm sure they were pains in the asses during filming but we never got their side of the story until the 2006 dvd boxset. For me Iyla Salkind is the "father" of the Superman movies as it was his idea to adapt them at a time when the comic book movie genre was unheard of. I think his commentary tracks on the movies were hilarious! The fact they were putting their own money into them they had every right to be concerned about diminishing resources. I think at the end of the day it was merely a clashing of different methods of filmmaking rather than Donner claiming they had no real respect for Superman and it's potential.
Now this I'll agree with. Understandably, a lot of fans took Donner's side since the Salkind camp never spoke up to defend themselves. But even when they were keeping their silence, I knew
for a fact that Donner had badmouthed all of them to the international press, called them a-holes and other mean names, etc. Now, I'm of the opinion that if someone shoots his mouth off about his boss to anybody who will listen, esp knowing the boss will hear about it, deserves whatever he gets. Donner got canned, which is what he deserved.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 18:15Ah yes thanks Silver Nemesis! It was in the John Bryne comic were she designed the shield herself.
Actually, Byrne kept the idea of Jonathan and Clark designing the symbol while Martha developed the suit, both of which already existed in the canon.
I think you'd better go grab yourself a chunk of Kryptonite my friend as I've just read some interesting news that might make you scream louder than Supes himself at the sight of a dead Lois Lane. Rumour has it a cast member from Superman the Movie is making a cameo appearance in Man of Steel lol Read on here:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=73047
Just rumour right now but if Snyder has done this he's made me a happy fanboy indeed lol Good to hear they at least haven't writ them off totally in the new version it seems. I'm betting it'll be Margot Kidder. Although they say it'll be someone more obscure.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 22:02I think you'd better go grab yourself a chunk of Kryptonite my friend as I've just read some interesting news that might make you scream louder than Supes himself at the sight of a dead Lois Lane. Rumour has it a cast member from Superman the Movie is making a cameo appearance in Man of Steel lol Read on here:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=73047
Just rumour right now but if Snyder has done this he's made me a happy fanboy indeed lol Good to hear they at least haven't writ them off totally in the new version it seems. I'm betting it'll be Margot Kidder. Although they say it'll be someone more obscure.
Jim Bowers is the one who put it out there. Steve Younis has "confirmed" it. Last I heard, it was someone who has appeared in a movie, which Bowers defined as including the serials, Superman & The Mole Men and the Reeve stuff. He pointedly left out any possibility of it being someone from Singerman (which suits me just fine). Frankly, I think the Donner stuff has had more than enough "tribute" paid to it already. If we
must salute the past (and I don't see much point in that), why not throw in a Phyllis Coates cameo (or else someone who hasn't really had their due yet) and then move on?
As a side note, it kind of ticks me off when people pull little stunts like this. It's only a step away from "I know a secret and you don't, I know a secret and you don't". If you have a spoiler, post it. If you can't post it, STFU about it. "Tease" posts like that are just aggravating.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jan 2013, 00:50
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 22:02I think you'd better go grab yourself a chunk of Kryptonite my friend as I've just read some interesting news that might make you scream louder than Supes himself at the sight of a dead Lois Lane. Rumour has it a cast member from Superman the Movie is making a cameo appearance in Man of Steel lol Read on here:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=73047
Just rumour right now but if Snyder has done this he's made me a happy fanboy indeed lol Good to hear they at least haven't writ them off totally in the new version it seems. I'm betting it'll be Margot Kidder. Although they say it'll be someone more obscure.
Jim Bowers is the one who put it out there. Steve Younis has "confirmed" it. Last I heard, it was someone who has appeared in a movie, which Bowers defined as including the serials, Superman & The Mole Men and the Reeve stuff. He pointedly left out any possibility of it being someone from Singerman (which suits me just fine). Frankly, I think the Donner stuff has had more than enough "tribute" paid to it already. If we must salute the past (and I don't see much point in that), why not throw in a Phyllis Coates cameo (or else someone who hasn't really had their due yet) and then move on?
As a side note, it kind of ticks me off when people pull little stunts like this. It's only a step away from "I know a secret and you don't, I know a secret and you don't". If you have a spoiler, post it. If you can't post it, STFU about it. "Tease" posts like that are just aggravating.
I'm not sure if your last paragraph was referring to myself or the link post I sent. If it's the former case I'm sorry. I just thought I'd send you this since it tied into what we were talking about. My sense of humour wasn't written to annoy I was just trying to have friendly "fan" chit chat.
Part of the reason forums are annoying is you can't emphasise your tone of voice correctly. Say if I jokingly criticise a scene in a Bale Batman film it doesn't mean I don't love the thing and some fans interpret it wrongly of my slating it for example. I often include things like *lol* (which I f***ing hate doing in all honesty, text language should be banned utterly) to try and inform a jokey, not at all serious tone. This clearly hasn't worked out here it may seem.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Mon, 28 Jan 2013, 02:39
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jan 2013, 00:50
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 27 Jan 2013, 22:02I think you'd better go grab yourself a chunk of Kryptonite my friend as I've just read some interesting news that might make you scream louder than Supes himself at the sight of a dead Lois Lane. Rumour has it a cast member from Superman the Movie is making a cameo appearance in Man of Steel lol Read on here:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=73047
Just rumour right now but if Snyder has done this he's made me a happy fanboy indeed lol Good to hear they at least haven't writ them off totally in the new version it seems. I'm betting it'll be Margot Kidder. Although they say it'll be someone more obscure.
Jim Bowers is the one who put it out there. Steve Younis has "confirmed" it. Last I heard, it was someone who has appeared in a movie, which Bowers defined as including the serials, Superman & The Mole Men and the Reeve stuff. He pointedly left out any possibility of it being someone from Singerman (which suits me just fine). Frankly, I think the Donner stuff has had more than enough "tribute" paid to it already. If we must salute the past (and I don't see much point in that), why not throw in a Phyllis Coates cameo (or else someone who hasn't really had their due yet) and then move on?
As a side note, it kind of ticks me off when people pull little stunts like this. It's only a step away from "I know a secret and you don't, I know a secret and you don't". If you have a spoiler, post it. If you can't post it, STFU about it. "Tease" posts like that are just aggravating.
I'm not sure if your last paragraph was referring to myself or the link post I sent. If it's the former case I'm sorry. I just thought I'd send you this since it tied into what we were talking about. My sense of humour wasn't written to annoy I was just trying to have friendly "fan" chit chat.
Part of the reason forums are annoying is you can't emphasise your tone of voice correctly. Say if I jokingly criticise a scene in a Bale Batman film it doesn't mean I don't love the thing and some fans interpret it wrongly of my slating it for example. I often include things like *lol* (which I f***ing hate doing in all honesty, text language should be banned utterly) to try and inform a jokey, not at all serious tone. This clearly hasn't worked out here it may seem.
Fair enough. I was referring to Bowers though. He obviously knows, and is sitting on it. If he can't or won't spill the beans, he needs to keep his damn mouth shut. Honestly, the whole thing comes off like a stunt from some attention whore rather than real news... possibly because it's a stunt from some attention whore rather than real news. Anyway. None of my annoyance is directed at you... unless you're Bowers, that is, in which I case I stand by everything I've said.
As long as MOS doesn't have stuff like:
1. Superman spinning the Earth backwards
2. Wiping memories via kissing
3. Superman throwing cellophane S's
4. Rebuilding/repairing objects just by looking at them
I'll be cool.
Nice one Dark KNight LOL. I think we'll have to see that third trailer to have a better idea of the flow of the story but for it's my most highly aniticipated film of the year. But I'm still not going to hype it up to the point where it will not live up to those expectations.
It looks good, but a bit too self-serious at this point. Not that I want cotton candy, bad one-liners, and camp--but the feelings evoked by most of Iron Man 1 is what I'd like in a Superman film. I'd like a hell of a good ride, with a mostly grounded story, and all of the magic realism surrounding Superman/Krypton. For now. :) This looks close--the cast looks great, but I'm tired of whispered-to-be-taken-seriously dialogue, platitudes about becoming a man, etc. etc. It just feels like we're retreading over some already established territory either with Superman in other media, or with comic book caped heroes in general. That said, I'm going to give it a shot, of course. :)
So what do we think of the latest Man of Steel news?
http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/04/10/this-weeks-cover-man-of-steel/
Quote"I'll be honest with you, there's no Kryptonite in the movie," says director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) Those glowing green space rocks – Superman's only crippling weakness – have turned up so often as a plot point in movies, the only fresh option was not to use it. Anyway, if you want to make an audience relate to a character, a galactic allergy isn't the way to do it.
SPOILERS
QuoteDon't expect, or worry, about huge changes to Superman's origin. He is still sent to earth by his father Jor-El to save his life, but there are some different reasons as to the why. In Man of Steel, children of Krypton are genetically engineered to be something specific. Kal-El (Superman) becomes infamous for being a child that was conceived naturally, allowing him to choose his own path in life. But it also means his existence is against the law.
http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/121477-new-info-on-man-of-steel.html
I'm cool with both points. Regarding the Kryptonite, it's really not all that groundbreaking. Excluding the unpublished K-Metal from Krypton story, Superman existed from 1938-1943 without any Kryptonite until the radio series introduced it. This also isn't the first Superman movie to not have it. Neither Superman II nor Superman IV: The Quest for Peace included Kryptonite. If it doesn't fit the story, it shouldn't be there. And besides, it would make defeating Zod and Faora too easy, wouldn't it?
As for the birth idea, it seems to fit into the nature vs. nurture themes that they want to explore, as well as the idea that Superman/Clark could've used his powers to conquer others (like Zod presumably will), but chose to go on his own path.
It is much better than the "genetically engineered/predestined for greatness" premise (a la Ang Lee's Hulk and Marc Webb's The Amazing cut scenes of Spider-Man) that many are misinterpreting this to be.
The genetic engineering thing sounds similar to Byrne's MOS miniseries (and the World of Krypton miniseries). Seems like it's coming at the material from a different angle but there is precedent for this in the comics. I'm fine with it.
As for Kryptonite... yeah, I don't think anybody is going to miss it.
Kryptonite is over used and over exposed. I'm glad it's gone for now.
I would like to see it in future movies, but as something so completely rare. The mentality that there is a seriously limited amount of this substance laying on Earth, and if you can get a snippet of it, Superman is done for. The only thing non-super powered people (Luthor on his own) can hope for when Zod and these types leave. But it's a small percentage of hope. But to stop a Superman....it's all there is.
You could have Luthor sending and spending lots of money on teams hunting for traces of it - also relying more heavily on the synthetic stuff once they get a bit of it to examine, making their own.
If we have crazy action where Superman and Zod are doing things only they can do, I'll be a happy. I want fist pumping destruction.
It's interesting how they're going for Superman being susceptible to human tragedy instead; I only hope they don't make this "emotional kryptonite" aspect too melodramatic.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, 01:45
It's interesting how they're going for Superman being susceptible to human tragedy instead; I only hope they don't make this "emotional kryptonite" aspect too melodramatic.
Absolutely agreed.
All of the points you guys have made are terrific.
I have a feeling this new SuperMan film is going to knock it out of the park. I'm so looking forward to seeing it, I can't wait.
Let me just say something: Kevin Costner is going to give an amazing performance in this. Mark my words.
Quote from: greggbray on Thu, 7 Feb 2013, 01:29
It looks good, but a bit too self-serious at this point. Not that I want cotton candy, bad one-liners, and camp--but the feelings evoked by most of Iron Man 1 is what I'd like in a Superman film. I'd like a hell of a good ride, with a mostly grounded story, and all of the magic realism surrounding Superman/Krypton. For now. :) This looks close--the cast looks great, but I'm tired of whispered-to-be-taken-seriously dialogue, platitudes about becoming a man, etc. etc. It just feels like we're retreading over some already established territory either with Superman in other media, or with comic book caped heroes in general. That said, I'm going to give it a shot, of course. :)
Agreed. That sort of thing is becoming a snooze-fest.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 31 Jan 2013, 14:05
As long as MOS doesn't have stuff like:
1. Superman spinning the Earth backwards
2. Wiping memories via kissing
3. Superman throwing cellophane S's
4. Rebuilding/repairing objects just by looking at them
I'll be cool.
Don't worry I'm sure it'll have plenty of unconvincing/over the top cgi flying! lol
Let's hope it keeps the unconvincing/over the top flying and/or rear projection stuff to a minimum as well.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, 19:36
Let's hope it keeps the unconvincing/over the top flying and/or rear projection stuff to a minimum as well.
Aww c'mon dude I'm joking. Lighten up lol And just how is any form of a man in a red cape flying well not over the top? lol And isn't green screen technology merely an updated form of rear projection anyway?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g2ZSuWyM4
"People will die....I'm a man of my word."
These viral marketing videos such as this is reminds of some kind of early 2000s video clips you see for Deftones and Slipknot.
I say: to hell with viral marketing! Let the film speak for itself or p!55 off! >:(
Feels reminiscent of Tyrell's speech to Earth in JMS's Superman Earth One, though obviously the context is a bit different since Zod is a fellow Kryptonian:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4irVuZamOhA/TN0Nhe0RoAI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/BRD59PT04ns/s1600/scan0055.jpg
The similarity is not surprising since Goyer was a fan of the comic.
I was reading an article online that also noted that it's nice to have a supervillain actor these days who doesn't try to adopt a weird accent (a la Joker, Bane, The Mandarin) and I'm inclined to agree.
The predictable, inevitable, meme comment. He forgot to say "kneel".
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 22:16The predictable, inevitable, meme comment. He forgot to say "kneel".
I hope he doesn't. I'm sick of that.
^ If it's any consolation:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/michael-shannon-won-t-say-kneel-before-zod-in-man-of-steel
A Zod who doesn't have a British accent, using Faora from the comics instead of the Donner movies' Ursa, and no variation on Superman II's infamous "Kneel" catchphrase. So far, the only thing this Zod adopted from the Donner-added traits seems to be facial hair and even that's much different. I see all this as a good sign that they're putting their own mark on the characters and not just trying to bank on nostalgia and love for the older movies.
Besides, Loki already did the "KNEEL!" command to humanity last year in The Avengers :)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 22:49
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, 22:16The predictable, inevitable, meme comment. He forgot to say "kneel".
I hope he doesn't. I'm sick of that.
I am too. It's like the only reason why that portrayal is remembered, and narrowed the whole thing down to one word. It became something to laugh at if anything. I'm sure the new filmmakers can do something better.
If it was the guy's shtick in the comics, I truly would be okay with it. And I don't even begrudge Donner and Mankeywhatsis for inventing it. I don't think they intended to create a catch phrase/meme from hell. But the fans who just won't let it the fvck go already... ugh. I mean, say whatever you want about TDK fans but at least "why so serious" died a natural death after a pretty brief shelf life.
Trailer 3 is up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6DJcgm3wNY
Looking solid.
At first, I thought "Again?" when Zod was yelling at Jor-El, but I realized you kinda need to see Zod and Faora get thrown into the Phantom Zone (or wherever they're going to be taken) in the opening before Krypton blows up for their reappearance to make sense.
What does everyone else think?
On the whole I like the new trailer and it sets up a promising conflict. I like they didn't actually show that much more footage. Just enough new content to get the fans excited. Though on one hand it left me a little underwhelmed.
Already I have noticed:
Zod issuing threats via television signals – Joker issuing threats via television.
Superman in an interrogation room across from Lois – the Batman and Joker interrogation in TDK.
Bearded Clark roaming the world trying to find purpose – Bruce doing this at the start of BB.
I'm not blasting the movie on this, by the way. This is not exclusive behaviour to one character but the similarities are there. Skyfall took influence from TDK – the director is on record saying that. Though again, Superman, Batman and Bond all have prior footing in such material. It's not a new thing, just a resurgence made popular again by TDK. Even I have to admit that.
All in all, this should be good. I'd say it's one of the better Superman outputs already.
???
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm suddenly looking forward to this film!
The last trailer really didn't do anything for me, it came across as too dull and didn't show very much either. But this one shows the movie seems to have emotion and a convincing character arc (even from a few glimpses I get the idea that were being shown why Superman should be a symbol of hope, not only told). And judging from what I read about the movie so far, I don't see the changes made to Superman come across as objectionable look I saw in Nolan's Batman. We'll see how it goes, but so far I can honestly say I am more positive towards this movie than what I was a couple of weeks ago.
I also hope that trailer music will be in the movie, the piano reminds of Lost and the drums remind of NYPD Blue.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 03:24All in all, this should be good. I'd say it's one of the better Superman outputs already.
I don't think that's open to debate. Just this
trailer has more action, heart, drama and humor than all of Singerman combined times whatever number you care to throw out there. Somewhere, I'm sure Bryan Singer wet the bed.
Also, Superman punched Zod, zipped around him and punched him again. None of that Richard Donner "protector" sh!t here; just an old-fashioned butt-kicking. Bring it! I
SO can't wait for this movie!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 10:54
Also, Superman punched Zod, zipped around him and punched him again. None of that Richard Donner "protector" sh!t here; just an old-fashioned butt-kicking. Bring it! I SO can't wait for this movie!
I'm excited for it too, and I'm not the biggest Superman fan out there. Which is a good sign for this movie in terms of winning over audiences.
And indeed, at last Superman has punched somebody, and not just a tap, but a smashing like he means it. Down and dirty Matrix Revolutions style in the air. And also showcasing his super speed, evading those missiles/bullets.
Not just the action, but the story seems engaging - even if 'old' ground is being covered. They seem to be doing it more interestingly this time. And if an alien force arrived on Earth - how modern society would react.
Shannon's Zod should be scene stealing. His shouting seems promising, an unabashed comic book villain having a good time in the role ala Jack Nicholson in 1989.
An updated suit minus trunks - check.
New music - check.
Emphasis on action - check.
All this should have been the go in 2006. But it wasn't. Here it is now.
No matter the end result, they absolutely stepped in the right direction.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 11:38
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 10:54
Also, Superman punched Zod, zipped around him and punched him again. None of that Richard Donner "protector" sh!t here; just an old-fashioned butt-kicking. Bring it! I SO can't wait for this movie!
Shannon's Zod should be scene stealing. His shouting seems promising, an unabashed comic book villain having a good time in the role ala Jack Nicholson in 1989.
I have to admit that I laughed at his hammy shouting "I WILL FIND HIM!" :D Hopefully this is the first Goyer-scripted movie that I will truly like.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 10:54
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 03:24All in all, this should be good. I'd say it's one of the better Superman outputs already.
I don't think that's open to debate. Just this trailer has more action, heart, drama and humor than all of Singerman combined times whatever number you care to throw out there. Somewhere, I'm sure Bryan Singer wet the bed.
Also, Superman punched Zod, zipped around him and punched him again. None of that Richard Donner "protector" sh!t here; just an old-fashioned butt-kicking. Bring it! I SO can't wait for this movie!
I hope we're going to see Superman use other powers in battles and not just endless slug punches. I'd like his heat vision and super breath to be used in some way to broaden the canvas of action. This is what Superman II did so well. Hopefully the filmmakers will give us all that too.
By the way what the heck do you mean anyway by that "Richard Donner "protector" sh*t"??? lol
A very good trailer indeed. But I'll remind myself of producer Peter Guber's comments on the Batman dvd documentary of "might've been a great trailer but would it be a good movie". So until I actually sit in my local theater and see the thing I won't be raving this is the greatest thing ever.
I want to know about that music. Is this really the new Superman theme? Because if it is I am impressed. It's nowhere near a masterpiece as what John Williams provided but like the Nolan Batman movies theme I could accept something like this. Part of my enjoyment of it is that it had a similar thumping base line as what the John Williams theme had that got your adrenaline going. That sort of thing would be nice and exciting to maintain. Now this is the part where somebody tells me it is merely temp music sourced from other film trailers lol
I also noticed Kevin Costner's line about him believing his son to be "for a reason". Now surely that's a nice tribute to Christopher Reeve's Superman? (Glenn Ford had a similar line). Going back to what somebody else said about covering similar ground I don't mind little homages like this. I hope we will have a few little moments such as this (not too overblown as Superman Returns made the mistake of doing). I recently bought Geoff John's "Secret Origin" book in which David S. Goyer provided an introduction and recalled his memories of going to see the original movie on opening night. I'll quote former Dr Who actor Tom Baker's comments on writing in this way: "They don't call it plagiarism anymore, they call it...homage!" lol
Pleased we can actually see Superman flying. Was worried after reading about "supersonic flying" we'd hardly see him. The up close flying shots on Henry Cavill also looked very Christopher Reeve in shot construction except now using the technologies of today.
Krypton has a new mechanical look (further reflected in the Kryptonian's armor). This is a similar idea to the Krypton of the original movie with it's crystalline structure and magical crystal-like robes of the council. Even Jor-El's farewell scene to his son has a Donner vibe going through it. Is that the new Fortress of Solitude Superman is emerging from?
The one thing I haven't yet seen is Cavill as Clark Kent (that is the Daily Planet Clark). We still don't know exactly what will happen plot-wise. I'm assuming hopefully he'll eventually work at the Daily Planet? So surely he'll be wearing glasses at some point. I can't see Cavill playing Clark without something like those to wear. Anyway I'm slightly worried this concept has been totally jettisoned.
Similarly the final moment of Lois suggesting his S could stand for "Super...." holds another geeky worry for me. Is he even going to be called SUPERMAN? I mean Kal-El just isn't catchy. Have we fallen into Nolan territory of "let's not call them what their actually supposed to be"? Hope not.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 20:51I hope we're going to see Superman use other powers in battles and not just endless slug punches. I'd like his heat vision and super breath to be used in some way to broaden the canvas of action. This is what Superman II did so well. Hopefully the filmmakers will give us all that too.
By the way what the heck do you mean anyway by that "Richard Donner "protector" sh*t"??? lol
Superman isn't afraid to beat some ass, human or not. Donner and/or his acolytes, for whatever reason, seem to think Superman can't or won't or doesn't know how to throw and so he does all those lame ass kicks or spinning someone on a bar stool or something. Sorry, no, Superman will beat a maternal-fornicator to the floor without hesitation. Unfortunately, Donner's influence has long permeated comics and fandom to the point where we long had this strange hybrid of Jesus mixed with a hippie pacifist. Pisses me off.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 23:17
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 20:51I hope we're going to see Superman use other powers in battles and not just endless slug punches. I'd like his heat vision and super breath to be used in some way to broaden the canvas of action. This is what Superman II did so well. Hopefully the filmmakers will give us all that too.
By the way what the heck do you mean anyway by that "Richard Donner "protector" sh*t"??? lol
Superman isn't afraid to beat some ass, human or not. Donner and/or his acolytes, for whatever reason, seem to think Superman can't or won't or doesn't know how to throw and so he does all those lame ass kicks or spinning someone on a bar stool or something. Sorry, no, Superman will beat a maternal-fornicator to the floor without hesitation. Unfortunately, Donner's influence has long permeated comics and fandom to the point where we long had this strange hybrid of Jesus mixed with a hippie pacifist. Pisses me off.
Er well, okay then lol
I really can't recall Superman beating the crap out of humans. I get the villains side of that they deserve a kicking (provided they can actually SURVIVE it). Unless your referring to the early early comics of Siegal and Shuster where he's beating on corrupt mine owners? They toned it all down I guess later on. Frankly if Superman went around "beating the crap out of anyone" less than himself he'd look a genuine total jerk than he already is in the eyes of non Superman fans lol I think it's on "The Mythology of Superman" documentary where Greek God theorists and such stated it's in keeping with classic mythology of Superman not wishing harm and using his powers respectably on the ideals and education of his human parents upbringing. So I really don't see how the movies violated that and there are plenty of comics (before and after the movie) where Superman defeats his enemies without deliberately attempting to "murder" them lol For instance he snaps the barrel of a gunman's machine gun in an issue of the "Man Of Steel" miniseries and nothing much else.
As for him spinning people around (ala General Zod) first of all they did that cos it's entertaingly funny and still is lol Secondly as I said it made a change from seeing him punch/punch/punch/punch all the time. Otherwise then you just have "Rocky" in a red cape.
Also if Superman was not a "hippie pacifist" as you claim the plot of say Superman IV would be extremely shorter than it already alas is. He'd be launching those nukes on behalf of the Ruskies for thrills dude lol Aren't all superheroes pacifists at heart??? Otherwise what the heck are they standing up to fight for? But let's keep this forum on the subject matter of the new film trailer so as not to cause confusion further.
Saw this comparison thingy:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2Fxerbyo.jpg&hash=f36d540abfb361867e09888dc01923ba1632ba3a)
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 21:23
The one thing I haven't yet seen is Cavill as Clark Kent (that is the Daily Planet Clark). We still don't know exactly what will happen plot-wise. I'm assuming hopefully he'll eventually work at the Daily Planet? So surely he'll be wearing glasses at some point. I can't see Cavill playing Clark without something like those to wear. Anyway I'm slightly worried this concept has been totally jettisoned.
Similarly the final moment of Lois suggesting his S could stand for "Super...." holds another geeky worry for me. Is he even going to be called SUPERMAN? I mean Kal-El just isn't catchy. Have we fallen into Nolan territory of "let's not call them what their actually supposed to be"? Hope not.
I predict that Clark won't be employed by the Daily Planet until the end of the movie. This movie looks like it will set up how he'll come to terms with embracing his destiny as Superman and then he'll be working as a reporter when the story reaches its conclusion. Maybe he was inspired to become a reporter by Lois Lane? We'll wait and see.
And I have no doubt Superman will be called by his name towards the conclusion too. It's one thing to refuse to call Selina Kyle "Catwoman", but I doubt that they'll be too afraid to call Superman by his name for this and the future movies. It would be funny if they did though. :P
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 00:12Er well, okay then lol
I really can't recall Superman beating the crap out of humans. I get the villains side of that they deserve a kicking (provided they can actually SURVIVE it). Unless your referring to the early early comics of Siegal and Shuster where he's beating on corrupt mine owners? They toned it all down I guess later on. Frankly if Superman went around "beating the crap out of anyone" less than himself he'd look a genuine total jerk than he already is in the eyes of non Superman fans lol I think it's on "The Mythology of Superman" documentary where Greek God theorists and such stated it's in keeping with classic mythology of Superman not wishing harm and using his powers respectably on the ideals and education of his human parents upbringing. So I really don't see how the movies violated that and there are plenty of comics (before and after the movie) where Superman defeats his enemies without deliberately attempting to "murder" them lol For instance he snaps the barrel of a gunman's machine gun in an issue of the "Man Of Steel" miniseries and nothing much else.
As for him spinning people around (ala General Zod) first of all they did that cos it's entertaingly funny and still is lol Secondly as I said it made a change from seeing him punch/punch/punch/punch all the time. Otherwise then you just have "Rocky" in a red cape.
Also if Superman was not a "hippie pacifist" as you claim the plot of say Superman IV would be extremely shorter than it already alas is. He'd be launching those nukes on behalf of the Ruskies for thrills dude lol Aren't all superheroes pacifists at heart??? Otherwise what the heck are they standing up to fight for? But let's keep this forum on the subject matter of the new film trailer so as not to cause confusion further.
-- Human
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fc8mx23afz%2Fsuperman03.jpg&hash=6e39e62bd8f84570717014169e538b8ba453239c)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2F56ozfw6u7%2Fsuperman04.jpg&hash=eeeb62e0a2a5e8687d1b88ceee05651cc44b04f5)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2F4jq2qd9y7%2Fsuperman08.jpg&hash=06f72d04aa5a580567bed7638abb7bcbdea4ba62)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3dVEKJhKQY
-- Not Human
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Ffcxkyvr8f%2Fsuperman01.jpg&hash=849e1090ea2403e08272e1a14b473679132c0710)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fkpmfd0f4v%2Fsuperman02.jpg&hash=9b248d712e9e394d39adc1174683fbe751c23357)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2F6a93rurhb%2Fsuperman05.jpg&hash=a25b7b1bd60c815c9f683201ef65c875843fbcdb)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtTJCeO4ptc
Human or not, Superman will beat your ass.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 08:48
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, 21:23
The one thing I haven't yet seen is Cavill as Clark Kent (that is the Daily Planet Clark). We still don't know exactly what will happen plot-wise. I'm assuming hopefully he'll eventually work at the Daily Planet? So surely he'll be wearing glasses at some point. I can't see Cavill playing Clark without something like those to wear. Anyway I'm slightly worried this concept has been totally jettisoned.
Similarly the final moment of Lois suggesting his S could stand for "Super...." holds another geeky worry for me. Is he even going to be called SUPERMAN? I mean Kal-El just isn't catchy. Have we fallen into Nolan territory of "let's not call them what their actually supposed to be"? Hope not.
I predict that Clark won't be employed by the Daily Planet until the end of the movie. This movie looks like it will set up how he'll come to terms with embracing his destiny as Superman and then he'll be working as a reporter when the story reaches its conclusion. Maybe he was inspired to become a reporter by Lois Lane? We'll wait and see.
And I have no doubt Superman will be called by his name towards the conclusion too. It's one thing to refuse to call Selina Kyle "Catwoman", but I doubt that they'll be too afraid to call Superman by his name for this and the future movies. It would be funny if they did though. :P
Yes I see. I am calmed slightly now lol The Clark Kent thing is still a total worrisome mystery though. He could turn up as "reporter Clark" by the end (that would have a nice tie in with John Bryne's "Man of Steel" series which has a similar ending scene in one issue). A relative of mine suggested on seeing the trailer maybe they'll keep Superman as a drifter type character without his alter ego at all. This would be dreadful. It sounds like an impossible nightmare but critics have always complained about the absurdity of Clark merely wearing a pair of glasses that fools everyone. This got me thinking have they decided to dump it utterly? Surely Nolan/Snyder/Goyer wouldn't be foolish enough to dispose of that "Clark" altogether? Superman practically wrote the book of the superhero double identity (although that concept did exist in pulp adventure stories before comics). To not have it is to me a dreadful mistake and more silly than having a female "Jimmy Olsen"...oh jeez wait, yes we've already got that crap! You can mess with the basics too much and this would be rule 1 to me in that book so fingers crossed this won't happen.
If Cavill is going to play glasses laden Clark I gather he'll be different doing it than Reeve. Perhaps more like the "Man of Steel" comics Clark. No bumping around buffoon like. Course he has to do it his way but I worry about dropping the humor side Reeve brought into it. That was always entertaining stuff for me and made the transformations between Clark and Superman all the more convincing and exciting (going from the clumsy geek to the all powerful heroic side). It was just a nice contrast. More variety. I worry having a 100% serious Clark the audience might get bored of his civilian side. Will he be convincingly different from Superman also? I'm not sure.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 04:21
Saw this comparison thingy:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2Fxerbyo.jpg&hash=f36d540abfb361867e09888dc01923ba1632ba3a)
That is quite depressing seeing that. In all due respect I don't wanna nitpick these type of things. I'm just happy their making a new Superman film in whatever form. All writers say steal from the best anyway lol Nothing really is entirely original. Actually on seeing the trailer myself, while I liked it, there was an awful lot of Reeve-like Superman in it. Scenes with the same intent, just different dialogue, actors e.c.t
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 12:11
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 00:12Er well, okay then lol
I really can't recall Superman beating the crap out of humans. I get the villains side of that they deserve a kicking (provided they can actually SURVIVE it). Unless your referring to the early early comics of Siegal and Shuster where he's beating on corrupt mine owners? They toned it all down I guess later on. Frankly if Superman went around "beating the crap out of anyone" less than himself he'd look a genuine total jerk than he already is in the eyes of non Superman fans lol I think it's on "The Mythology of Superman" documentary where Greek God theorists and such stated it's in keeping with classic mythology of Superman not wishing harm and using his powers respectably on the ideals and education of his human parents upbringing. So I really don't see how the movies violated that and there are plenty of comics (before and after the movie) where Superman defeats his enemies without deliberately attempting to "murder" them lol For instance he snaps the barrel of a gunman's machine gun in an issue of the "Man Of Steel" miniseries and nothing much else.
As for him spinning people around (ala General Zod) first of all they did that cos it's entertaingly funny and still is lol Secondly as I said it made a change from seeing him punch/punch/punch/punch all the time. Otherwise then you just have "Rocky" in a red cape.
Also if Superman was not a "hippie pacifist" as you claim the plot of say Superman IV would be extremely shorter than it already alas is. He'd be launching those nukes on behalf of the Ruskies for thrills dude lol Aren't all superheroes pacifists at heart??? Otherwise what the heck are they standing up to fight for? But let's keep this forum on the subject matter of the new film trailer so as not to cause confusion further.
-- Human
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fc8mx23afz%2Fsuperman03.jpg&hash=6e39e62bd8f84570717014169e538b8ba453239c)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2F56ozfw6u7%2Fsuperman04.jpg&hash=eeeb62e0a2a5e8687d1b88ceee05651cc44b04f5)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2F4jq2qd9y7%2Fsuperman08.jpg&hash=06f72d04aa5a580567bed7638abb7bcbdea4ba62)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3dVEKJhKQY
-- Not Human
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Ffcxkyvr8f%2Fsuperman01.jpg&hash=849e1090ea2403e08272e1a14b473679132c0710)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fkpmfd0f4v%2Fsuperman02.jpg&hash=9b248d712e9e394d39adc1174683fbe751c23357)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2F6a93rurhb%2Fsuperman05.jpg&hash=a25b7b1bd60c815c9f683201ef65c875843fbcdb)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtTJCeO4ptc
Human or not, Superman will beat your ass.
I admire your courage in merely going out there on the net, swiping some images and videos and wrapping it all up with a well placed last line to win the argument lol Exactly the response I expected friend. Those are fairly small examples I must say. Now the non-human stuff is what I was telling you about. No probs with Superman hurling a character like Bizarro through a wall or any other super powered foe. If he did that sort of thing to the Prankster or the Toyman however.... :-\
As for the videos they are not the comics. Furthermore they are from modern cartoon and television shows that have attempted their own Batman-like takes of modernising Superman. We're also talking about nearly 70 or so years of previous comics here buddy (especially in relation to the Reeve movies of the 70's). Some stuff some modern show did a few years ago hardly counts as true canon in comparison to decades of previously established characterization. In Smallville's defence Clark seems to be battling a super powered enemy so throwing a few super punches is acceptable indeed there.
Now the comics images you selected looks like 60's/70's Superman images. Note the sound effect on the first one: "Tapp". Superman is not exactly delivering an uppercut here Mohammed Ali would be proud of. He's clearly limiting his strength so the guy will not end up in a coffin, something he's done plenty of. He even rolls from a punch delivered by Batman in "A Death in the Family" for Batman's well being. I think the other two sound effects are a tad overzealous on the letterer's part: bonk and thud. I'm assuming though their slightly powerful enough to knock these guys out in a harmless manner.
Despite "Man of Steel" being evidently influenced by Nolan's Batman vision, the latest trailer is nothing but aces with me. As it was, most definately, what Superman fans deserved back in 2006, but didn't receive. But yeah, I'm loving the images, trailers, and viral stuff that's been coming our way.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/17/man-of-steel-mysteries-new-trailer/ (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/17/man-of-steel-mysteries-new-trailer/)
^
There's a few spoilers in the article.
Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 05:23Despite "Man of Steel" being evidently influenced by Nolan's Batman vision, the latest trailer is nothing but aces with me. As it was, most definately, what Superman fans deserved back in 2006, but didn't receive.
Absolutely.
I am very pleased about the lack of trunks on this costume. But what do people think about the overall darker colour the suit has, ala in the interrogation scene?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 07:17
Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 05:23Despite "Man of Steel" being evidently influenced by Nolan's Batman vision, the latest trailer is nothing but aces with me. As it was, most definately, what Superman fans deserved back in 2006, but didn't receive.
Absolutely.
I am very pleased about the lack of trunks on this costume. But what do people think about the overall darker colour the suit has, ala in the interrogation scene?
The colour palette is actually a big turn-off for me; muted, dark tones are overdone and not a very good fit for this particular character IMO.
I'm afraid that I'm the hold-out when it comes to MoS; I can't really get excited by it. Despite all the efforts to do more with him, Superman works best (for me) in a much brighter, cartoony, tongue-in-cheek (yet still sincere and intelligent) environment, and not only does this seem a very different (and valid) take, it seems to be overcompensating in its efforts to be a clean break from earlier incarnations. Ironically, the fact that we'll be seeing the origin story - again - and that so many elements of the last major filmic interpretation of that story (Jor-El's inspiring speeches and communicating from beyond the grave, Zod, etc.) seem to be getting revisited undermines that effort at making distance. I really don't know why everyone jumping on the "reboot" wagon feels the need to literally start from square one; James Bond hit the reset button once in 40 years, and otherwise handled changes in lead actor, director, composer, editor, studio overlords, etc. by continuing on, hanging on to key visual and musical signatures, and letting the tone of the series naturally drift. I think it would help these film series' maintain momentum and longevity if they followed that path instead of starting from scratch every time a new team comes on.
And I don't like Zimmer's theme. Sorry.
The music isn't outstanding, but it is uplifting...and somehow has gotten stuck in my head.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 22:50I admire your courage in merely going out there on the net, swiping some images and videos and wrapping it all up with a well placed last line to win the argument lol Exactly the response I expected friend. Those are fairly small examples I must say. Now the non-human stuff is what I was telling you about. No probs with Superman hurling a character like Bizarro through a wall or any other super powered foe. If he did that sort of thing to the Prankster or the Toyman however.... :-\
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs12.postimg.org%2F5ru0es8ml%2Fsuperman10.jpg&hash=99962d8fd82c8987c4fade0eff9838976e1bcae2)
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 22:50As for the videos they are not the comics.
That doesn't diminish their relevance.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 22:50In Smallville's defence Clark seems to be battling a super powered enemy so throwing a few super punches is acceptable indeed there.
He was throwing down with Deadshot. That's why he went down and stayed down so easily.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 18 Apr 2013, 22:50Now the comics images you selected looks like 60's/70's Superman images. Note the sound effect on the first one: "Tapp". Superman is not exactly delivering an uppercut here Mohammed Ali would be proud of. He's clearly limiting his strength so the guy will not end up in a coffin, something he's done plenty of.
He's using a comparable amount of force, whether he has fist balled up or whether he's serving the ol' pimp salad.
Further, the comic panels I included depict Superman fighting only one super-powered being- Bizarro. The rest, their appearances notwithstanding, do not have powers.
^Good rebuttal, colors. If you're human, robot, alien or whatever and bad...Superman will kick your ass. I don't see why he wouldn't. If you stand in his way, you can decide to get out of it. People have got to learn lessons. Learn not to do things. Getting a knock on the head is as good warning as any. Superman has values and morals, sure. But he's not Jesus Christ. He's a
fighter for Earth and its people.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 10:16
The music isn't outstanding, but it is uplifting...and somehow has gotten stuck in my head.
Agreed.
The Donner crowd who accept the Williams theme and nothing else are going to slam Zimmer regardless. So I feel a bit of, I don't know, sympathy on Zimmer's side here. Judging things by saying "he didn't make something as memorable as Williams thus he failed" is silly, frankly. His job is to capture the vibe of this 2013 movie. If he does so, the job will have been successful. So I say good luck to him. I wish him all the best, genuinely so. This new sound should've happened in 06.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 13:36Agreed.
The Donner crowd who accept the Williams theme and nothing else are going to slam Zimmer regardless. So I feel a bit of, I don't know, sympathy on Zimmer's side here. Judging things by saying "he didn't make something as memorable as Williams thus he failed" is silly, frankly. His job is to capture the vibe of this 2013 movie. If he does so, the job will have been successful. So I say good luck to him. I wish him all the best, genuinely so. This new sound should've happened in 06.
The thing that gets me is that Superman has had other hero themes. Lois & Clark had a romantic one, STAS had that almost throwback/1940's tune and Smallville had a GREAT hero theme that was majestic and powerful. The Williams main title wouldn't have suited any of those shows. Superman is and can be something other than the Williams theme. As good as the entire Williams score is, it's limiting to say that Superman can only be that. It's like saying Batman can only be scored by Elfman when Schumacher, Nolan and other things prove otherwise.
This doesn't have anything to do with the new film, but I found this six year-old Live Journal entry by Paul Dini where he gives a so-so review for Superman Returns, while expressing his disappointment that it took too much inspiration from the old Reeve films. And judging by these words, Dini seemed very fed up of the Reeve versions:
QuoteYeah, I saw the new SUPERMAN movie.
Eh, it was okay.
Considering the train wreck it could have been it was outstanding, but as it was, to me at least, it was just okay.
Given Superman's history in comics, movies, radio, television and a dozen other places, I was disappointed that the filmmakers looked only as far as the two movies made in the late 70's for their inspiration. But Superman, both as a character and as an entire concept, is much richer than those films. Clark the bumbler, the barely developed Daily Planet staff (besides Lois), the Superman/Clark/Lois triangle, goddamn wacky Lex and his daffy henchmoll du jour, ugh. Enough. You clowns are spending, when all is said and done, 300 million dollars. Show me something I can't get at the video rental store.
Then again, I saw it for free, so what right do I have to complain?
http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/31840.html (http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/31840.html)
I wonder how he'll react to Man of Steel, assuming he'll ever bother with it at all?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 04:02
This doesn't have anything to do with the new film, but I found this six year-old Live Journal entry by Paul Dini where he gives a so-so review for Superman Returns, while expressing his disappointment that it took too much inspiration from the old Reeve films. And judging by these words, Dini seemed very fed up of the Reeve versions:
QuoteYeah, I saw the new SUPERMAN movie.
Eh, it was okay.
Considering the train wreck it could have been it was outstanding, but as it was, to me at least, it was just okay.
Given Superman's history in comics, movies, radio, television and a dozen other places, I was disappointed that the filmmakers looked only as far as the two movies made in the late 70's for their inspiration. But Superman, both as a character and as an entire concept, is much richer than those films. Clark the bumbler, the barely developed Daily Planet staff (besides Lois), the Superman/Clark/Lois triangle, goddamn wacky Lex and his daffy henchmoll du jour, ugh. Enough. You clowns are spending, when all is said and done, 300 million dollars. Show me something I can't get at the video rental store.
Then again, I saw it for free, so what right do I have to complain?
http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/31840.html (http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/31840.html)
I wonder how he'll react to Man of Steel, assuming he'll ever bother with it at all?
Yikes. Haven't heard Dini with an attitude problem before. Kinda upsetting given my admiration for his work. I don't think it's his place to openly criticize. I'm sure there is plenty Nolan could express his dislike for in older Batman movies but professionally and respectfully never has. If I'm honest I think the "Dini versions" have been done to death too. He's right when he asks what right does he to complain, his own concepts, which I love as much as Reeve, are now as lengthy and old as any Reeve moment. The whole DC Animated Universe thing that's been going for years and years now. Perhaps this is the reason Bruce Timm recently stepped down from Warner's. It's all been done to death maybe it's time to change all that too sad as that will be.
Although Returns is no masterpiece I felt the filmmakers did at least try newer things: Clark's "son" for instance. While I wasn't keen on him assuming his father's mantle (as that hospital scene seemed to suggest) that concept was a genuine surprise revelation to me when I first saw the movie. They clearly would have developed it further in that sequel we'll never have. I think it would have been an interesting and personal (and human) challenge for Superman to deal with becoming a father. After several films having his life shaped by his own father's suddenly he's in that role. For me it could have been a nice "full circle" type thing. They were attempting to build something new (however controversial) for the future and using the Donner originals meantime as a jumping on point.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 13:44
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 13:36Agreed.
The Donner crowd who accept the Williams theme and nothing else are going to slam Zimmer regardless. So I feel a bit of, I don't know, sympathy on Zimmer's side here. Judging things by saying "he didn't make something as memorable as Williams thus he failed" is silly, frankly. His job is to capture the vibe of this 2013 movie. If he does so, the job will have been successful. So I say good luck to him. I wish him all the best, genuinely so. This new sound should've happened in 06.
The thing that gets me is that Superman has had other hero themes. Lois & Clark had a romantic one, STAS had that almost throwback/1940's tune and Smallville had a GREAT hero theme that was majestic and powerful. The Williams main title wouldn't have suited any of those shows. Superman is and can be something other than the Williams theme. As good as the entire Williams score is, it's limiting to say that Superman can only be that. It's like saying Batman can only be scored by Elfman when Schumacher, Nolan and other things prove otherwise.
Yes but the final episode of Smallville used the Williams theme. They obviously felt there is just one kind of music to use in that final sequence. Otherwise why not just make their own? They understood the timelessness of that theme and the excitement it would provoke hearing it again. Why be ashamed of using it?
It may please you to know (given our disagreements on this subject) that I DID enjoy the music Zimmer has "apparently" written used in the new trailer. Nobody answered my question however: is this the real official music?
As for those other themes you mentioned I know them all (fans always do). But they are all unmemorable compared to the sound of Williams theme. The other pieces of music are themes only a fan could love. Not a general audience. In fact some non fans are wondering already on comment bars where the heck the old movie music is lol
Zimmer's battle can never be won let's face it. But if this music really is the new theme he's done alright. John Williams won't have trouble sleeping either so everyone's happy (unless there are people who are war winning fanboys lol). Part of my enjoyment of the new trailer was that it clearly won't "destroy" the Reeve pictures in whatever capacity and hasn't set out to do so on a conscious level. So I can go and enjoy it for what it provides. Full house!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 07:17
Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 05:23Despite "Man of Steel" being evidently influenced by Nolan's Batman vision, the latest trailer is nothing but aces with me. As it was, most definately, what Superman fans deserved back in 2006, but didn't receive.
Absolutely.
I am very pleased about the lack of trunks on this costume. But what do people think about the overall darker colour the suit has, ala in the interrogation scene?
I miss the yellow belt frankly. Which nobody seems to have spoken about at all. Yellow is the color they've gotten rid of the most apart from the background of the shield it seems. We're never going to get a brightly colored Superman on the screen ever again I don't think. Look around you, ever superhero is getting a darker hue on the screen these days. As for the trunks honestly I miss those too. Whereas Superman looked previously like he was wearing boxers over his blue pants now he just looks a little....naked!
I've always liked when artists put the all yellow shield on the back of the cape. For some reason this is the element that keeps disappearing the most. I'd have liked Cavill to have had one on the cape also. For some reason it makes the cape "pop" in design better.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 13:36
^Good rebuttal, colors. If you're human, robot, alien or whatever and bad...Superman will kick your ass. I don't see why he wouldn't. If you stand in his way, you can decide to get out of it. People have got to learn lessons. Learn not to do things. Getting a knock on the head is as good warning as any. Superman has values and morals, sure. But he's not Jesus Christ. He's a fighter for Earth and its people.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 10:16
The music isn't outstanding, but it is uplifting...and somehow has gotten stuck in my head.
Agreed.
The Donner crowd who accept the Williams theme and nothing else are going to slam Zimmer regardless. So I feel a bit of, I don't know, sympathy on Zimmer's side here. Judging things by saying "he didn't make something as memorable as Williams thus he failed" is silly, frankly. His job is to capture the vibe of this 2013 movie. If he does so, the job will have been successful. So I say good luck to him. I wish him all the best, genuinely so. This new sound should've happened in 06.
Again I get robots. I get super powered villains. I slightly accept aliens. But humans? This is where you guys are losing me y'see? In an age where we are constantly being told realism must count in a superhero story you honestly feel Superman will kick the crap out of a human enemy? I mean physically beat him Batman style, as vicious as an artist can imagine? Because if we're talking about realism the chances are the human would be dead at the end of it lol
We're talking about a Hercules-like being, the most powerful man on the planet here. As a character that has always been written to be someone to aspire to I feel it's immensely out of character for DC writers to have Superman use untold force against any species lesser than him. Perhaps they have but to me that is a dreadful mistake. Writers and artists teams come and go at DC, they all have differing opinions on how to write a character situation I guess. And like filmmakers they don't always do the right thing. Roger Stern felt if Superman was selfish in exploiting his powers against humans he'd be our King, ruling humans. This is why we have characters like General Zod who enjoys abusing humans with his powers. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Superman do that also.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:18Yes but the final episode of Smallville used the Williams theme.
And maybe they shouldn't have.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:18They obviously felt there is just one kind of music to use in that final sequence.
They made it clear they did it for fans of that music and no other reason.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:18Otherwise why not just make their own?
They have. And see above.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:18As for those other themes you mentioned I know them all (fans always do). But they are all unmemorable compared to the sound of Williams theme.
They're not supposed to be remotely like the Williams theme. Again, L&C wanted to be a romantic theme first and foremost, STAS was intended to be a throwback and the SV theme was supposed to be over the top big and heroic. Each has their own identity. The Williams theme would clash with each of those depictions of Superman because the Williams theme isn't appropriate for everything. People who think it is are probably more in love with that version of Superman than Superman in general.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:18In fact some non fans are wondering already on comment bars where the heck the old movie music is lol
I think Singerman amply demonstrates how well-known the Donner version of Superman
isn't. But even if non-fans are clamoring for the Williams theme, fvck 'em, they have five movies which utilize it.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:18Zimmer's battle can never be won let's face it.
Sure it can. All anybody needs to do is just give his stuff a fair chance and STFU about John Williams. Simple!
Thing is, there will be younger viewers who are not as 'indoctrinated' on the Williams theme. This movie will be their introduction.
It can't be done, so don't try. Defeatist logic and misses the point. Why would you use a theme which simply does not suit the visuals? The music worked in the context of the trailer. It was hopeful, driving and more importantly - a new sound for a new film continuity. Cut the cord on the Donner/Williams thing that frankly is rivalling or even surpassing the old Nolan nazi gang.
As I said before, if people say Zimmer failed because he didn't create an iconic score rivalling Williams, that's a simplistic and harsh way of looking at things. Looking back at his Batman scores, he did capture a particular mood that suited the films. As memorable as Elfman? I say no, but hey, they're completely different beasts with different aims. The job was done.
If a Zimmer Superman fan likes this score more than Williams, that's fine and not a crime punishable by hanging. It can't all be one way, that Willliams' score is the be all and end all, and everyone must praise it or be shouted down.
Yeah, I'm backing up Zimmer. The need for a new Superman sound for a relaunch has done that.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Again I get robots. I get super powered villains. I slightly accept aliens. But humans? This is where you guys are losing me y'see?
There is no shortage of precedent for it.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53In an age where we are constantly being told realism must count in a superhero story you honestly feel Superman will kick the crap out of a human enemy?
I don't see why he wouldn't or shouldn't or what bearing "realism" has on the argument.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53We're talking about a Hercules-like being, the most powerful man on the planet here.
Your argument then is that he can't control his strength well enough to smack a regular human around? If so, how would such a strong and powerful character, say, hug a non-powered person?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53As a character that has always been written to be someone to aspire to I feel it's immensely out of character for DC writers to have Superman use untold force against any species lesser than him.
I don't see how a more aspirational Superman should be such a pacifist. He's chosen an odd line of work if that's how he feels.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Perhaps they have
Yes. They have.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53This is why we have characters like General Zod who enjoys abusing humans with his powers. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Superman do that also.
That's a bit of a false comparison. Zod's targets, his motives and lack of restraint are part of what distinguish him from Superman. Just because Zod might use his heat vision to fry a small child to death doesn't mean Superman shouldn't backhand some bank robber or something. His use of force was clearly understood and defined in the comics after DC became slightly less uptight about the comics code starting in the late 60's and lasted until just about the time Donner tried to convince us that Superman wouldn't smack a regular human around.
Nobody's arguing he should use lethal force; just that he could, would and has beat some serious ass when someone needs it. The historical record is simply not on your side here.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Apr 2013, 01:58
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Again I get robots. I get super powered villains. I slightly accept aliens. But humans? This is where you guys are losing me y'see?
There is no shortage of precedent for it.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53In an age where we are constantly being told realism must count in a superhero story you honestly feel Superman will kick the crap out of a human enemy?
I don't see why he wouldn't or shouldn't or what bearing "realism" has on the argument.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53We're talking about a Hercules-like being, the most powerful man on the planet here.
Your argument then is that he can't control his strength well enough to smack a regular human around? If so, how would such a strong and powerful character, say, hug a non-powered person?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53As a character that has always been written to be someone to aspire to I feel it's immensely out of character for DC writers to have Superman use untold force against any species lesser than him.
I don't see how a more aspirational Superman should be such a pacifist. He's chosen an odd line of work if that's how he feels.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Perhaps they have
Yes. They have.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53This is why we have characters like General Zod who enjoys abusing humans with his powers. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Superman do that also.
That's a bit of a false comparison. Zod's targets, his motives and lack of restraint are part of what distinguish him from Superman. Just because Zod might use his heat vision to fry a small child to death doesn't mean Superman shouldn't backhand some bank robber or something. His use of force was clearly understood and defined in the comics after DC became slightly less uptight about the comics code starting in the late 60's and lasted until just about the time Donner tried to convince us that Superman wouldn't smack a regular human around.
Nobody's arguing he should use lethal force; just that he could, would and has beat some serious ass when someone needs it. The historical record is simply not on your side here.
Dude all I can say from all this is this advice, go and get yourself laid lol Seriously right now before you have yourself a heart condition. I mean you've got this weird fetish of absolutely hating anything to do with the Reeve Superman pictures. You understand we're talking f***ing movies and comics right? Or are you a retard by any chance? Now I'll accept somebody's opinion gladly but your tone on the subject I find unnecessarily harsh, unfriendly and slightly more creepy. I get the feeling your one of these daft f***s out on a mission on forums throughout the world to purge all trace of the Donner movies lol Good luck to yer pal! Do you not need psychiatric help? Some time away from chat forums should help.
I think you and I both know your intent here. Your tone in these messages above seems very much like a smart arse. I didn't feel like I'm having a mature discussion (hence my regression to childish name calling since that's a level your aiming for). So hopefully you'll sense my tone right now. I won't be having discussions with pricks trying to rule over message boards with their total opinion in place of others kay? Or ganging up on somebody to smash apart their views to suit their own. I have more of a life than to waste my time such as yourself doing that I'm afraid. I'm here for friendly discussion not heated debate or bullying competitions.
I had a similar run in like this once on imdb with a guy who went by the name "Unlimited Vertigo". Seemed to enjoy irritating serious fans by being the end all and be all of discussions. You wouldn't be that little sh*t stain by any chance huh? Wouldn't be too surprised. The nature of your responses to every line I previously wrote seems quite familiar. Either way your clearly one of these forum twats who likes to rule the roost so what's the difference eh? lol
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013, 03:41
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Apr 2013, 01:58
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Again I get robots. I get super powered villains. I slightly accept aliens. But humans? This is where you guys are losing me y'see?
There is no shortage of precedent for it.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53In an age where we are constantly being told realism must count in a superhero story you honestly feel Superman will kick the crap out of a human enemy?
I don't see why he wouldn't or shouldn't or what bearing "realism" has on the argument.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53We're talking about a Hercules-like being, the most powerful man on the planet here.
Your argument then is that he can't control his strength well enough to smack a regular human around? If so, how would such a strong and powerful character, say, hug a non-powered person?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53As a character that has always been written to be someone to aspire to I feel it's immensely out of character for DC writers to have Superman use untold force against any species lesser than him.
I don't see how a more aspirational Superman should be such a pacifist. He's chosen an odd line of work if that's how he feels.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Perhaps they have
Yes. They have.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53This is why we have characters like General Zod who enjoys abusing humans with his powers. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Superman do that also.
That's a bit of a false comparison. Zod's targets, his motives and lack of restraint are part of what distinguish him from Superman. Just because Zod might use his heat vision to fry a small child to death doesn't mean Superman shouldn't backhand some bank robber or something. His use of force was clearly understood and defined in the comics after DC became slightly less uptight about the comics code starting in the late 60's and lasted until just about the time Donner tried to convince us that Superman wouldn't smack a regular human around.
Nobody's arguing he should use lethal force; just that he could, would and has beat some serious ass when someone needs it. The historical record is simply not on your side here.
Dude all I can say from all this is this advice, go and get yourself laid lol Seriously right now before you have yourself a heart condition. I mean you've got this weird fetish of absolutely hating anything to do with the Reeve Superman pictures. You understand we're talking f***ing movies and comics right? Or are you a retard by any chance? Now I'll accept somebody's opinion gladly but your tone on the subject I find unnecessarily harsh, unfriendly and slightly more creepy. I get the feeling your one of these daft f***s out on a mission on forums throughout the world to purge all trace of the Donner movies lol Good luck to yer pal! Do you not need psychiatric help? Some time away from chat forums should help.
I think you and I both know your intent here. Your tone in these messages above seems very much like a smart arse. I didn't feel like I'm having a mature discussion (hence my regression to childish name calling since that's a level your aiming for). So hopefully you'll sense my tone right now. I won't be having discussions with pricks trying to rule over message boards with their total opinion in place of others kay? Or ganging up on somebody to smash apart their views to suit their own. I have more of a life than to waste my time such as yourself doing that I'm afraid. I'm here for friendly discussion not heated debate or bullying competitions.
I had a similar run in like this once on imdb with a guy who went by the name "Unlimited Vertigo". Seemed to enjoy irritating serious fans by being the end all and be all of discussions. You wouldn't be that little sh*t stain by any chance huh? Wouldn't be too surprised. The nature of your responses to every line I previously wrote seems quite familiar. Either way your clearly one of these forum twats who likes to rule the roost so what's the difference eh? lol
I don't know if to burst out laughing or to frown with concern. thecolorsblend rebutted your points in a calm manner and you just spat the dummy.
You are the one who is behaving childishly. You did not even bother to rebut the points.
Filibustering: The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
You called colors a prick.
You are the prick and if you can't have a discussion, get out. This shameful post you have made should be sticked to the forums to forever highlight your moment of madness.
I kind of have to agree. I don't think I have said anything especially provocative to him during this exchange. If he's tired of this line of discussion, he can change the subject or allow it to wither on it's own. It just seems strange to lash out that way over essentially nothing.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Apr 2013, 04:32
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013, 03:41
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Apr 2013, 01:58
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Again I get robots. I get super powered villains. I slightly accept aliens. But humans? This is where you guys are losing me y'see?
There is no shortage of precedent for it.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53In an age where we are constantly being told realism must count in a superhero story you honestly feel Superman will kick the crap out of a human enemy?
I don't see why he wouldn't or shouldn't or what bearing "realism" has on the argument.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53We're talking about a Hercules-like being, the most powerful man on the planet here.
Your argument then is that he can't control his strength well enough to smack a regular human around? If so, how would such a strong and powerful character, say, hug a non-powered person?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53As a character that has always been written to be someone to aspire to I feel it's immensely out of character for DC writers to have Superman use untold force against any species lesser than him.
I don't see how a more aspirational Superman should be such a pacifist. He's chosen an odd line of work if that's how he feels.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53Perhaps they have
Yes. They have.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, 14:53This is why we have characters like General Zod who enjoys abusing humans with his powers. It doesn't make any sense to me to have Superman do that also.
That's a bit of a false comparison. Zod's targets, his motives and lack of restraint are part of what distinguish him from Superman. Just because Zod might use his heat vision to fry a small child to death doesn't mean Superman shouldn't backhand some bank robber or something. His use of force was clearly understood and defined in the comics after DC became slightly less uptight about the comics code starting in the late 60's and lasted until just about the time Donner tried to convince us that Superman wouldn't smack a regular human around.
Nobody's arguing he should use lethal force; just that he could, would and has beat some serious ass when someone needs it. The historical record is simply not on your side here.
Dude all I can say from all this is this advice, go and get yourself laid lol Seriously right now before you have yourself a heart condition. I mean you've got this weird fetish of absolutely hating anything to do with the Reeve Superman pictures. You understand we're talking f***ing movies and comics right? Or are you a retard by any chance? Now I'll accept somebody's opinion gladly but your tone on the subject I find unnecessarily harsh, unfriendly and slightly more creepy. I get the feeling your one of these daft f***s out on a mission on forums throughout the world to purge all trace of the Donner movies lol Good luck to yer pal! Do you not need psychiatric help? Some time away from chat forums should help.
I think you and I both know your intent here. Your tone in these messages above seems very much like a smart arse. I didn't feel like I'm having a mature discussion (hence my regression to childish name calling since that's a level your aiming for). So hopefully you'll sense my tone right now. I won't be having discussions with pricks trying to rule over message boards with their total opinion in place of others kay? Or ganging up on somebody to smash apart their views to suit their own. I have more of a life than to waste my time such as yourself doing that I'm afraid. I'm here for friendly discussion not heated debate or bullying competitions.
I had a similar run in like this once on imdb with a guy who went by the name "Unlimited Vertigo". Seemed to enjoy irritating serious fans by being the end all and be all of discussions. You wouldn't be that little sh*t stain by any chance huh? Wouldn't be too surprised. The nature of your responses to every line I previously wrote seems quite familiar. Either way your clearly one of these forum twats who likes to rule the roost so what's the difference eh? lol
I don't know if to burst out laughing or to frown with concern. thecolorsblend rebutted your points in a calm manner and you just spat the dummy.
You are the one who is behaving childishly. You did not even bother to rebut the points.
Filibustering: The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
You called colors a prick. You are the prick and if you can't have a discussion, get out. This shameful post you have made should be sticked to the forums to forever highlight your moment of madness.
Wanna bet you'd try saying that line you highlighted above there to my face huh? lol Yeah. Love to see it. Learn to keep your big snout out of arguments that either have nothing to do with you or weren't even directed at yourself in the first place. f***in dickhead lol (You might wanna "stick" this to your forehead with those other "forever highlights" you mentioned there)...
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzhLFS.jpg&hash=47464293783ccd0a2518b2c80e13fda0125b3197)
Bob, no need for offensive comments directed at TDK...I don't care if there is an LOL at the end of it. Directing "f***in dickhead" at anyone isn't cool around here.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 00:45
Bob, no need for offensive comments directed at TDK...I don't care if there is an LOL at the end of it. Directing "f***in dickhead" at anyone isn't cool around here.
Sorry mate. The "lol" was for my own amusement by the way, wasn't attempting to smooth over any tension. You mistook me there I fully meant what I said. The guy butted his nose into something I hadn't considered directing at him and felt the need to swear at me at the end of it. Maybe you missed that line. If somebody had said that to me in person I'd have sent him to the emergency ward by now. Given the language I sometimes see on here in comments I wouldn't have thought it that big a deal to insult back? Anyway if it bothers him that much you can always buy him a tissue for his tears. Just informing the bugger to stay out of my argument when it wasn't his. It won't happen again provided he doesn't needlessly continue with an insult of his own.
(Love the Anchorman quote there).
I never did see the Anchorman is it good? :-\
^Yes, good movie. A fun movie. A sequel is being made.
bobthegoon, you're the one who unnecessarily set the tone here. Nobody else.
You are the user that said colors was a 'retard', creepy, a daft f*** who needs psychiatric help, a smart arse, a prick, is wasting his life, a sh!t stain and a forum twat. And you've just gone on and called me a bugger, a 'f**** dickhead who has a 'big snout'.
You are the one throwing all the insults. I threw one back at you – a word that you brought into play, not me. And your behaviour warrants it. Your type of behaviour is not cool around here. This conduct affects everybody. Get in line or leave.
On the contrary, I'd like you to say this stuff to our face. You are in no position to preach morality. I don't recall you behaving like this before.
Anyway, moving on from that...episode.....I'm looking at purchasing some Superman graphic novels. What are the ones I should be looking at?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 08:03
^Yes, good movie. A fun movie. A sequel is being made.
Hm i might look into it thanks for the heads up dark knight
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 08:03Anyway, moving on from that...episode.....I'm looking at purchasing some Superman graphic novels. What are the ones I should be looking at?
There are some good ones.
For All Seasons- This was a four issue miniseries by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. It runs with/ties in to the John Byrne version of Superman. The first issue was partly was inspired Al Gough and Miles Millar with Smallville (which Loeb himself later worked on).
Birthright- This is Mark Waid's take on Superman's origin. I mention it here (A) because it's a good story if you divorce it from DC's efforts to set it up as
the origin rather than the vaguely "what if" or "imaginary story" or "Elseworlds" thing it was originally supposed to be and (B) it's supposedly part of the inspiration behind Man of Steel. For example, the S-emblem being a symbol on Krypton representing hope or some such is taken from this series.
Man of Steel- The John Byrne miniseries which rebooted Superman in the 80's. Nobody has said so but implicitly this seems to be an influence on MOS as well (beyond just the name, I mean). The concept of Kryptonians being genetically engineered for specific purposes was introduced here. Also, this miniseries went pretty freaking far out of its way to "humanize" Superman. This isn't your dad's Superman. Byrne developed a Superman with a far reduced level of superpowers. He's tough, sure, but not the god-like character he was in the 60's and 70's.
I feel like the above should be good primers for Man of Steel.
Since there's probably nowhere else to say so, I picked up some Man of Steel t-shirts the other day. A medium for me and a small for my lady. I like them. They're much better quality than the godawful Singerman shirts, which came off like iron-on shirts with the Singerman poster emblem pressed on there. Freakin cheap! These MOS shirts are pretty far ahead of the curve. The coloring and texture work are all first rate. Hot Topic has a deal going where you can get one shirt at regular price and then a second one at a pretty significantly reduced price (half off or some such). It's worth doing, if you ask me. Of course I'll be wearing my MOS shirt to the MOS midnight premiere.
Thanks for the feedback. Going on that, Birthright and For All Seasons interest me.
Some of the ones I've been looking at are:
Red Son
All Star Superman
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel
I won't be wearing a Superman shirt to my screening, but I really get the impression I'll be leaving the cinema wanting to buy one.
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 03:34I never did see the Anchorman is it good? :-\
Never actually saw it because Will Ferrell is the Jar Jar Binks of any movie he appears in.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 08:34Thanks for the feedback. Going on that, Birthright and For All Seasons interest me.
And well they should.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 08:34Some of the ones I've been looking at are:
Red Son
All Star Superman
Lex Luthor: Man of Steel
I won't be wearing a Superman shirt to my screening, but I really get the impression I'll be leaving the cinema wanting to buy one.
Red Son is an Elseworlds story that I can't recommend highly enough. Batman shows up in it at one point. Brief but memorable. AS Superman typifies the aspirational version of the character that I've fallen in love with over the past couple of years.
I think Secret Origin, Byrne's Man of Steel and Red Son will be the biggest influences on the movie.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 09:04
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 03:34I never did see the Anchorman is it good? :-\
Never actually saw it because Will Ferrell is the Jar Jar Binks of any movie he appears in.
Heheh good one,Never heard that one before.XD
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 10:05
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 09:04
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 03:34I never did see the Anchorman is it good? :-\
Never actually saw it because Will Ferrell is the Jar Jar Binks of any movie he appears in.
Heheh good one,Never heard that one before.XD
There are two versions of the first Anchorman movie - The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Adventure Continues. I recommend the former for a good laugh - but stay the hell away from the latter because it is an abomination. >:(
By the way - I jut don't care for Hans Zimmer in general. Outside his work on The Lion King and Pirates, I find his film work repetitive, unmemorable, and not much more than a bland auditory wallpaper.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 09:36
I think Secret Origin, Byrne's Man of Steel and Red Son will be the biggest influences on the movie.
Byrne's Man of Steel was the very first Superman comic I ever read.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 21:31
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 09:36
I think Secret Origin, Byrne's Man of Steel and Red Son will be the biggest influences on the movie.
Byrne's Man of Steel was the very first Superman comic I ever read.
The first Superman comic I remember reading was that Batman crossover Speeding Bullets. Which I still think is worthwhile. It seems Superman thrives in one-shot type situations, ala Red Son. All Star Superman could be classed as an one-shot as well given the ending.
What I like about All Star Superman, going off the synopsis, is they embrace Superman's power all the way - but it also is his weakness here. His power has become too much and he's dying as a result. I feel this one could be my favourite once I get stuck into it.
Quote from: zDBZ on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 19:24
By the way - I jut don't care for Hans Zimmer in general. Outside his work on The Lion King and Pirates, I find his film work repetitive, unmemorable, and not much more than a bland auditory wallpaper.
I don't necessarily agree with you about Zimmer, but I cannot stand the soundtrack he made for the first two Nolan Batman movies. They were either bland as you said, or were a terrible abuse to the ears (that piss-poor excuse of a Joker theme? >:(). But I thought he redeemed himself when he made the music for the third one.
While everybody (myself included) had been going off-topic, there are new stills released such as this one:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi83.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff83%2F16%2F22%2F78%2F63%2Fcp1nzs10.jpg&hash=b017287da36a4c274507e4aa56d13627f37128b5)
Martha Kent: "You don't need to be so angry. Focus on my voice. Pretend it's an island --"
(*Faora suffocates her out of boredom and frustration *)
...I'll get my coat...:-[
Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=78027 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=78027)
Guys, what's the most memorable SuperMan comic book I can buy ?
Would love to delve deeper into Supes once more now that I am more of a mature human being: as I kid I was into him but then growing up, the Batman took over :), so now I'd love to reacquaint myself with the Son of Krypton.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 23 Apr 2013, 07:18
While everybody (myself included) had been going off-topic, there are new stills released such as this one:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi83.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff83%2F16%2F22%2F78%2F63%2Fcp1nzs10.jpg&hash=b017287da36a4c274507e4aa56d13627f37128b5)
Martha Kent: "You don't need to be so angry. Focus on my voice. Pretend it's an island --"
(*Faora suffocates her out of boredom and frustration *)
...I'll get my coat...:-[
Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=78027 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=78027)
Nah, Mr. Brooks would come and slit the villain's throat with a shovel. ;D
Quote from: Batman88 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013, 07:23
Guys, what's the most memorable SuperMan comic book I can buy ?
Would love to delve deeper into Supes once more now that I am more of a mature human being: as I kid I was into him but then growing up, the Batman took over :), so now I'd love to reacquaint myself with the Son of Krypton.
Best to just go with a trade if you don't mind spending extra. Many of them have already been mentioned already. :)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Apr 2013, 08:03
^Yes, good movie. A fun movie. A sequel is being made.
bobthegoon, you're the one who unnecessarily set the tone here. Nobody else.
You are the user that said colors was a 'retard', creepy, a daft f*** who needs psychiatric help, a smart arse, a prick, is wasting his life, a sh!t stain and a forum twat. And you've just gone on and called me a bugger, a 'f**** dickhead who has a 'big snout'.
And hey we're all wasting our lives so to speak arguing about this comic crap needlessly.
You are the one throwing all the insults. I threw one back at you – a word that you brought into play, not me. And your behaviour warrants it. Your type of behaviour is not cool around here. This conduct affects everybody. Get in line or leave.
Except I hadn't brought that word into play against yourself. That's where you got deluded. Unless your colors twin or something...Seriously though I did send a message offering an apology to this colors member. I simply mistook his tone and intent. Having spoken to some jokers on imdb I simply figured he was deliberately knocking down my opinion and whatever I was trying to explain.
On the contrary, I'd like you to say this stuff to our face. You are in no position to preach morality. I don't recall you behaving like this before.
I really don't think you'd want that mate lol Fair enough I said some things I regret and didn't really mean anyway (I don't even know the guy or yourself remember). However alternatively you don't know me either. Rather than asking me to explain my actions you immediately suggested my posts should be forever used to "name and shame" me lol Now if you'd like to do that go right ahead, be my guest, I couldn't give a f*** in all respects but it annoyed me when I've spoken with you many times before and when this disagreement had no malicious intent toward yourself. We all make mistakes. I don't think your in any position to preach about how I should be represented by this site (or anyone else for that matter) for a total misunderstanding. And I don't recall you "sharpening your knives" for a vendetta so quickly either...
Anyway, moving on from that...episode.....I'm looking at purchasing some Superman graphic novels. What are the ones I should be looking at?
Going back to my argument buy "Secret Origin" a Superman comic with Christopher Reeve's image used as a basis (finally) because any Superman's quality increases with some 1978 movie inspired imagery...nuff said. (kidding). No, I take it you'll have "Man of Steel Vol 1" by John Bryne? If not might wanna pick one up for some new movie inspired tie-ins. Superman Earth One might be important. I own a copy and haven't read the thing but this will surely be the biggest source of inspiration next to Bryne's work. If you want pure fun try "Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite" or go for one of the DC Archive editions (the one featuring the first Mxylptlk appearance as well as early Lex Luthor). See I'm all heart.
Well, the trailer featured a line from issue 1 of Secret Origin...so it's a good bet ;-)
Henry Cavill names four comics that have inspired his performance as Superman:
• The Death of Superman (1992)
• The Return of Superman (1993)
• Superman: Red Son (2003)
• Superman/Batman: The Search for Kryptonite (2008)
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/21/man-of-steel-four-superman-comic-books-inspired-henry-cavill/
A few of my own favourite Superman comics:
The Return of Superman
I was never mad on the whole Doomsday trilogy. The Death of Superman is just one big fight scene with very little plot, and World Without Superman is just plain depressing. For me, The Return of Superman is the most intriguing part of the story. The concept of the four imposters each representing different facets of Superman's identity is really interesting. They tried doing something similar for Batman during the Battle for the Cowl arc, but the Superman writers did a better job of it if you ask me.
Superman: Last Son
This was the storyline that reintroduced Zod into the modern comics. Co-written by Richard Donner, it reimagines a lot of elements from Superman 2. So if you don't like Donner's films, you probably won't enjoy his comics either. But if you like Donner's take on the mythology then you'll love this. It's arguably the best General Zod comic to date. Another Donner story, Escape From Bizarro World, is also worth checking out. It helps if you read Action Comics Annual #10 before reading either of these stories, though it's not essential.
Superman: Red Son
I bought this years ago but only recently got around to reading it. I wish I'd read it earlier now, because its top notch stuff. In many ways it feels like the Superman version of The Dark Knight Returns; a gripping character portrait of a hero caught in the political crossfire of the Cold War. It's definitely up there with Gotham by Gaslight as the best the Elseworlds series has to offer. The artwork's excellent too.
All-Star Superman
I'm not a massive fan of Grant Morrison, but he really knocked one out of the park with this series. At first it appears to be a bit disjointed and unfocused, but the pieces quickly come together in a very satisfying manner. It's funny, it's nostalgic, it's exciting, and it all builds up to a moving finale that leaves you admiring Superman more than ever. Excellent stuff.
Superman for All Seasons
Not only is this my favourite Superman comic, it's quite possibly my favourite comic featuring any character ever. It's a brilliant coming-of-age story that grounds Clark Kent's transition into manhood in very relatable human terms. The artwork is beautiful and gives the story a heady Norman Rockwell-esque feel of Americana. This comic, probably more than any other I can think of, really gets to the core of what Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman is all about. It doesn't dwell on spectacle or superpowers, instead keeping the focus squarely on the man beneath the cape and the people who helped shape him into the person he is. 10 out of 10.
A few others worth reading: Superman Chronicles Volume 1, Tales From the Phantom Zone, the 1983 Brainiac 'Rebirth' storyline (Actions Comics #544-547), Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (overrated IMO, but worth reading), Superman: The Man of Steel, Kingdom Come, Superman: Brainiac, Superman and the Legion of Super-Heroes, and Superman: Secret Origin (sorry colors).
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 25 Apr 2013, 18:09
Henry Cavill names four comics that have inspired his performance as Superman:
• The Death of Superman (1992)
• The Return of Superman (1993)
• Superman: Red Son (2003)
• Superman/Batman: The Search for Kryptonite (2008)
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/04/21/man-of-steel-four-superman-comic-books-inspired-henry-cavill/
A few of my own favourite Superman comics:
The Return of Superman
I was never mad on the whole Doomsday trilogy. The Death of Superman is just one big fight scene with very little plot, and World Without Superman is just plain depressing. For me, The Return of Superman is the most intriguing part of the story. The concept of the four imposters each representing different facets of Superman's identity is really interesting. They tried doing something similar for Batman during the Battle for the Cowl arc, but the Superman writers did a better job of it if you ask me.
Superman: Last Son
This was the storyline that reintroduced Zod into the modern comics. Co-written by Richard Donner, it reimagines a lot of elements from Superman 2. So if you don't like Donner's films, you probably won't enjoy his comics either. But if you like Donner's take on the mythology then you'll love this. It's arguably the best General Zod comic to date. Another Donner story, Escape From Bizarro World, is also worth checking out. It helps if you read Action Comics Annual #10 before reading either of these stories, though it's not essential.
Superman: Red Son
I bought this years ago but only recently got around to reading it. I wish I'd read it earlier now, because its top notch stuff. In many ways it feels like the Superman version of The Dark Knight Returns; a gripping character portrait of a hero caught in the political crossfire of the Cold War. It's definitely up there with Gotham by Gaslight as the best the Elseworlds series has to offer. The artwork's excellent too.
All-Star Superman
I'm not a massive fan of Grant Morrison, but he really knocked one out of the park with this series. At first it appears to be a bit disjointed and unfocused, but the pieces quickly come together in a very satisfying manner. It's funny, it's nostalgic, it's exciting, and it all builds up to a moving finale that leaves you admiring Superman more than ever. Excellent stuff.
Superman for All Seasons
Not only is this my favourite Superman comic, it's quite possibly my favourite comic featuring any character ever. It's a brilliant coming-of-age story that grounds Clark Kent's transition into manhood in very relatable human terms. The artwork is beautiful and gives the story a heady Norman Rockwell-esque feel of Americana. This comic, probably more than any other I can think of, really gets to the core of what Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman is all about. It doesn't dwell on spectacle or superpowers, instead keeping the focus squarely on the man beneath the cape and the people who helped shape him into the person he is. 10 out of 10.
A few others worth reading: Superman Chronicles Volume 1, Tales From the Phantom Zone, the 1983 Brainiac 'Rebirth' storyline (Actions Comics #544-547), Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (overrated IMO, but worth reading), Superman: The Man of Steel, Kingdom Come, Superman: Brainiac, Superman and the Legion of Super-Heroes, and Superman: Secret Origin (sorry colors).
THANKS A LOT - That was absolutely insightful and I am now looking forward to buying those comics that you have mentioned.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 25 Apr 2013, 18:09The Return of Superman
I was never mad on the whole Doomsday trilogy. The Death of Superman is just one big fight scene with very little plot, and World Without Superman is just plain depressing. For me, The Return of Superman is the most intriguing part of the story. The concept of the four imposters each representing different facets of Superman's identity is really interesting. They tried doing something similar for Batman during the Battle for the Cowl arc, but the Superman writers did a better job of it if you ask me.
True as that all may be, I view the whole Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign of the Supermen thing something of a love-letter to fans. Back in those days, it was common for people to look at you sideways for reading Superman. Sometimes they'd actively make fun. But then this story comes out and not only did they have a hard time getting their hands on it, they had an even harder time following it since it's so steeped in continuity they had intentionally ignored and poked fun at other people for absorbing. Tragic irony or poetic justice? You tell me.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 25 Apr 2013, 18:09Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (overrated IMO, but worth reading)
Mmm, I think I agree with that. "Overrated" to me doesn't mean bad; it just means that people have talked it up waaaaaay too much. Still, it's the conclusion to the Pre-Crisis era. Alan Moore did a great job in making the villains threatening. If I have a criticism of the story, it's that it comes out of nowhere. I'd rather the foundation have been laid for it in prior months so that Moore's storyline feels less like it comes out of freaking nowhere.
The people who say this is their favorite Superman story ever... I mean, wow. First, it makes me want to ask them for nine other stories they really love and second, it makes me want to ask them why the story where
Superman gives up is their favorite.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 25 Apr 2013, 18:09Superman: Secret Origin (sorry colors).
Hey man, if you like it, it's cool. No big deal. Speaking of, did you ever read One Year Later/Up, Up & Away? It's out there in trade. It's pretty good too. Nobody is going to tell me that it isn't DC Comics giving Bryan Singer the middle finger though. What, a
very similar storyline comes out in the comics at about the same time as Singerman and I'm supposed to assume one has nothing to do with the other? Please. For sheer cojones if nothing else, the UU&A trade is worth checking out.
QuoteTHANKS A LOT - That was absolutely insightful and I am now looking forward to buying those comics that you have mentioned.
I'm glad to hear it, old chum. And I'll be interested to hear your opinion on these stories once you've read them. I think our message boards could use more discussion on the Superman comics.
QuoteMmm, I think I agree with that. "Overrated" to me doesn't mean bad; it just means that people have talked it up waaaaaay too much. Still, it's the conclusion to the Pre-Crisis era. Alan Moore did a great job in making the villains threatening. If I have a criticism of the story, it's that it comes out of nowhere. I'd rather the foundation have been laid for it in prior months so that Moore's storyline feels less like it comes out of freaking nowhere.
I get the impression it was thrown together at fairly short notice. Maybe if they'd planned it further in advance they could have gone for something larger in scale. But for what it is – a two part story to wrap up the adventures of the Pre-Crisis Superman – it's not at all bad. And Moore's depiction of Mister Mxyzptlk has to be the most menacing take on the character to date.
I can't help wondering what it would have been like if Julius Schwartz had managed to get Jerry Siegel to write it, which I understand was his original plan.
QuoteThe people who say this is their favorite Superman story ever... I mean, wow. First, it makes me want to ask them for nine other stories they really love and second, it makes me want to ask them why the story where Superman gives up is their favorite.
I'm tempted to make an analogy here about people saying a certain Batman film is their favourite, but I'll
rise above it.
Ba-dum-tshhhh!QuoteSpeaking of, did you ever read One Year Later/Up, Up & Away?
I haven't actually, but I will do now you've recommended it. At the moment I'm reading Showcase Presents: The Trial of the Flash (it's almost 600 pages long, and I'm barely 200 pages into it!), but sometime soon I'm going to start reading Superman comics nonstop in the run-up to Man of Steel's release date. Up, Up & Away is now at the top my reading list.
Incidentally, what are your favourite Superman comics, colors? You must have read more of them than anyone else on the site. Are there any that really stick out in your mind as being special?
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 26 Apr 2013, 21:41I haven't actually, but I will do now you've recommended it. At the moment I'm reading Showcase Presents: The Trial of the Flash (it's almost 600 pages long, and I'm barely 200 pages into it!), but sometime soon I'm going to start reading Superman comics nonstop in the run-up to Man of Steel's release date. Up, Up & Away is now at the top my reading list.
Forgot to mention it but "Back In Action" takes place immediately after UU&A and is also well worth checking out.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 26 Apr 2013, 21:41Incidentally, what are your favourite Superman comics, colors? You must have read more of them than anyone else on the site. Are there any that really stick out in your mind as being special?
Generally I'm more into "eras". The Bronze Age, for example, has a lot of awesome stories and a lot of kinda weird ones. But one story I'm in love with is Superman #246/Danger- Monster At Work. It all takes place in one night. Just another night on the job if you're Superman. You see a mad scientist, his creation escapes, a little bit of Clark's private life (including a really preachy B-plot), Superman taking down the mad scientist's creation, Swanderson art, the whole burrito. I seriously doubt this is in anybody's top five greatest Superman stories ever but it's just a solid little done-in-one tale. Stuff like this isn't easily collected into a trade but is still awesome stuff.
But as far as more trade-friendly stories, there's obviously Kryptonite Nevermore, which kicked off in Superman #233 and, for my money, marks Superman's
real entry into the Bronze Age. There's a DC Library Edition of this story that I
DO NOT recommend picking up. It's a swanky hardcover with an intro by Denny O'Neil and high quality, thick paper. The problem is that the art looks like complete crapola. It's as if someone took the original crappy masters from the 70's and just slapped onto the hardcover pages. All this for something like $30. Freaking ripoff! If the art didn't look so horrible (by modern standards) I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this son of a son. But if you can find the individual issues, it's definitely worth it. But now that I think about it, I believe you're already well familiar with this story.
The Byrne Age is another example of stuff that isn't really trade-friendly (Doomsday stuff notwithstanding) but is still full of great stories. Yeah, there's stuff like Panic in the Sky but that kind of thing is fairly common place nowadays even though it was pretty special at the time. The Brainiac trilogy from, oh, maybe 1989 or 1990 is another winner. As I recall, it all takes place in Action Comics. The issues of Superman and Adventures of Superman that were published in between are meant to be part of the "filler" between chapters of the trilogy... otherwise the pacing of the Action Comics stories are shot straight to hell. It's the kind of storytelling you could probably only have gotten away with back in the earlyearlyearly 90's. But it basically transforms Brainiac from the Milton Fine incarnation into the then modern green skinned version.
Exile is another solid story from that era. You need to read starting from the lead up to the Supergirl Saga, the Supergirl Saga itself (where Superman whacks the Zoners from the Pocket Universe), his subsequent nervous breakdown and then his exile from Earth. People who think Superman is too flawed and perfect really need to read this story because it shows that Superman's perfection is in a way an imperfection. Superman doesn't kill. Ever. Period. But when he's faced with circumstances where there is no other choice against foes who are too dangerous to be left alive, he does what he has to do... but it so violates his nature that he simply can't handle it. So he (arguably) made the wrong choice (if for all the right reasons), suffers the consequences and then makes another wrong choice in exiling himself rather than, oh I dunno, seeing a shrink. Superman is undone (however temporarily) by his virtue and morality. Lex Luthor never stood a chance of defeating Superman because he could never imagine how to use Superman's own morality against him. This story is groundbreaking for a lot of reasons.
Dark Knight Over Metropolis (coming soon to a trade near you!) is another winner from the Byrne Age. Back before Batman and Superman teaming was a monthly occurrence, it was always special when those two got together. The concept of Superman giving Batman the Kryptonite ring? That's absolute canon these days... and it happened in this story. To me, this story should have been the beginning of the end of the "uneasy" Batman/Superman relationship but writers have had a boner for it for decades and at this point there's no reason to think it'll ever go away (in spite of how freaking illogical it is). But that's neither here nor there. Point is this is another oldie but goldie.
For the lightning round, I'd also mention Eradication, that "War of Doxes" stuff, Day of the Krypton Man, Krisis of the Krimson Kryptonite, Time & Time Again and Return of the Krypton Man (which is more significant because of the art or subplots than it is the main plot but it's still good).
I've read the Kryptonite Nevermore story arc and some of that Byrne stuff, but I think most of those comics are new to me. I'd love to read them, but when it comes to the Pre-Crisis comics like Superman #246 (which sounds very intriguing, btw) it's the same old problem – trying to find a decent quality edition that's still in print and available at a reasonable price. But I'll be sure to add Dark Knight Over Metropolis to my reading list. I've read most of the Superman/Batman team-ups, but somehow that one's slipped me by until now.
Speaking of Superman #233, I've got to post this awesome scene.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fs233_zpsc4efb140.jpg&hash=e65c36b03c56001fa7ab72e5f33c85cf9351b44d) (http://s396.photobucket.com/user/silver-nemsis/media/s233_zpsc4efb140.jpg.html)
Never let it be said that Superman lacks a sense of humour. Especially when trolling his enemies.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 28 Apr 2013, 18:28I've read the Kryptonite Nevermore story arc and some of that Byrne stuff, but I think most of those comics are new to me. I'd love to read them, but when it comes to the Pre-Crisis comics like Superman #246 (which sounds very intriguing, btw) it's the same old problem – trying to find a decent quality edition that's still in print and available at a reasonable price. But I'll be sure to add Dark Knight Over Metropolis to my reading list. I've read most of the Superman/Batman team-ups, but somehow that one's slipped me by until now.
That might be partly because DC, in their infinite wisdom, never reprinted the story. The Kryptonite ring deal was a huge part of their relationship for years, it even showed up in Batman Beyond if I recall, but the issues in which the handover was made... nada. But the trade is coming soon so I've been encouraging as many people as possible to pre-order it since DC is skittish about reprinting that son of a buck even now.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 28 Apr 2013, 18:28Speaking of Superman #233, I've got to post this awesome scene.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2Fs233_zpsc4efb140.jpg&hash=e65c36b03c56001fa7ab72e5f33c85cf9351b44d) (http://s396.photobucket.com/user/silver-nemsis/media/s233_zpsc4efb140.jpg.html)
Never let it be said that Superman lacks a sense of humour. Especially when trolling his enemies.
Yep. O'Neil's Superman was not just a posing boy scout. He freely mixed it up with his enemies. I'd argue Cary Bates and Elliot Maggin continued that but O'Neil really reinvigorated that aspect of the character.
QuoteSpeaking of, did you ever read One Year Later/Up, Up & Away? It's out there in trade. It's pretty good too. Nobody is going to tell me that it isn't DC Comics giving Bryan Singer the middle finger though. What, a very similar storyline comes out in the comics at about the same time as Singerman and I'm supposed to assume one has nothing to do with the other? Please. For sheer cojones if nothing else, the UU&A trade is worth checking out.
I've heard of this one but haven't read it. Based on your comments, shall I assume this is "The story of Superman Returns done better"?
Precisely. There are too many parallels for me to ever believe it's a coincidence. My firm belief is Geoff Johns and co. saw the script for Singerman, had the same puke-reflex the rest of us did and then decided to do their own version. And to be honest, it takes a lot of balls to take the other guy's move and say "no you moron, THIS is how you do it".
Last Son tackled some ideas from Superman Returns too. Mainly the storyline about the kid. But I thought Donner and Johns did a better job of it than Singer. Now I'm looking forward to seeing which aspects of the movie Johns tackled in Up, Up & Away.
On the subject of Man of Steel, has anyone else heard anything about those Jenny Olson rumours? I hope it isn't true, but some people are saying Jimmy's going to be a girl in the new movie. I know the Jimmy in the comics has a penchant for transvestism, but he's never undergone a full blown sex change before now.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_l9iqxfcx4t1qba8a3.png&hash=c7c08ad7c596c4e51f77b25b80d75babe3b803d1)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleedingcool.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fj1-350x323.png&hash=9ab130f1cd4f60897641a485c804d7542f99d255)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tgfa.org%2Fcomics%2Fjimmy_olsen%2Fimages%2FJOlsen_159_04.jpg&hash=ba43757abb4dbad39a9a7f81cb02dc672e9fb7f6)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_l9grs8ynVj1qba8a3.png&hash=b6fb7102bb6e7e4e5c1ec395f0d9c8938ed77764)
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 29 Apr 2013, 15:33Last Son tackled some ideas from Superman Returns too. Mainly the storyline about the kid. But I thought Donner and Johns did a better job of it than Singer. Now I'm looking forward to seeing which aspects of the movie Johns tackled in Up, Up & Away.
I sort of derailed the thread a bit already or else I would've mentioned how that part Last Son matched up with Singerman... and, again, does a better job of giving Superman a "son" than Singerman did.
QuoteOn the subject of Man of Steel, has anyone else heard anything about those Jenny Olson rumours? I hope it isn't true, but some people are saying Jimmy's going to be a girl in the new movie. I know the Jimmy in the comics has a penchant for transvestism, but he's never undergone a full blown sex change before now.
Only source for this seems to be the IMDB listing, which is notoriously unreliable when it comes to cast lists for upcoming movies. Most notorious example is how, one time, it listed Rosemary Harris (Aunt May) as playing Carnage in Spider-Man 3. (Though that would have been interesting...)
Even then, Comic Book Movie.com (not the most reliable site, either) says that supposedly Jenny is Jimmy's sister and not literally a female Jimmy Olsen:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=75581
For now, I wouldn't believe anything until we get confirmation from legit sources.
What is true is that the actress listed for "Jenny," Rebecca Buller, looks like the woman who's running with Laurence Fishburne's Perry White in the second trailer. There's another shot of her in the latest trailer, too, that could be from the same scene since there are people running. So she may be Perry White's Assistant or Daily Planet Intern #2 for all we know.
It's very much possible someone matched up Rebecca as the woman running with Fishburne, decided to play a joke, and edited IMDB to say she was "Jenny Olsen." Commence fan freakout.
I really wouldn't care if Jimmy was changed to Jenny honestly. I think this movie is going to deal with Superman's reveal to the world and how Clark (the farm-boy Clark from Kansas) comes to turns with this. I'm willing to bet that Clark Kent the reporter/disguise is being saved for a sequel. I can even see the film ending with him putting on the glasses.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/922864_565614883483718_1530680120_n.jpg)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=565614883483718&set=pb.221774371201106.-2207520000.1368625177.&type=3&theater
"Jenny Olsen" :(
Looks like IMDB and CBM were right for once. We'll see how it pans out.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVvyz3wIIpA
The TV spots have left me very optimistic about the film. It looks darn fun with all of that action. This is a Superman I can get behind. Hopefully they cast more heavyweight slogger-type villains in the sequel. Darkseid, Doomsday, Brainiac types where only Superman can fight them. And even then he struggles. This is what I'm interested in seeing.
Whether or not you like Zack Snyder's movies - and believe me I've never liked any films I've seen by him so far - the one thing you can always count on him doing right is making visually stunning pictures. The trend looks like it'll continue, but hopefully it will be the first film of his that I can say I will like.
And I find it comical that Superman appears in that hamburger commercial with this dreadful "No, please don't eat that, it's bad for your health!" look on his face. :D
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 29 May 2013, 13:04
The TV spots have left me very optimistic about the film. It looks darn fun with all of that action. This is a Superman I can get behind. Hopefully they cast more heavyweight slogger-type villains in the sequel. Darkseid, Doomsday, Brainiac types where only Superman can fight them. And even then he struggles. This is what I'm interested in seeing.
There's so many villains that could be brought in for sequels that would be absolutely
outstanding to watch go to-to-toe against Superman (Bizarro, Parasite, Metallo), but yeah, I
really want Brainiac for the followup. As it's really about time that character got a shot in appearing in a big budget live action movie, and there's just so much potential there. Having said that, Lex Luthor is another I have alot of interest in seeing how he could be introduced and presented in this franchise. Seeing Lexcorp FINALLY being brought in made me
very pleased.
I just got back from a press screening of Man of Steel.
Great movie. I will put up a review tomorrow. God I wanna see more!!
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 10 Jun 2013, 23:44
I just got back from a press screening of Man of Steel.
Great movie. I will put up a review tomorrow. God I wanna see more!!
Cool. I'm so jealous of you Ral. :) How did you get a press screening? Through work or through the site?
Through the site, but with the help of other people I know.
Cool stuff, ral.
I know you have always been a Superman fan as well - so did you leave the showing satisfied in that regard?
By the way I have acquired the deluxe version of Zimmer's score. I'll give my thoughts on that later. Maybe even a review for the site. Who knows.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 11 Jun 2013, 10:07
I'll give my thoughts on that later. Maybe even a review for the site. Who knows.
That would be cool.
I left the theatre very happy...and left wanting more.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Tue, 11 Jun 2013, 12:37
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 11 Jun 2013, 10:07
I'll give my thoughts on that later. Maybe even a review for the site. Who knows.
That would be cool.
I left the theatre very happy...and left wanting more.
I'm pleased for you. I've heard there's a lot of action, and I'm very excited to see it. About time I say. You'll get more with MOS2 being confirmed and fast tracked.
Regarding a score review: I'd like to do one and probably will. It could follow up your movie review as part of Batman Online's MOS promotion. I could sink my teeth into it. Especially considering the hoo-ha about not using Williams' march.
For what it's worth, Hans has done a good job. It's no secret I have slim loyalty to the past Superman films. I like the main march and the opening of Krypton's theme. But honestly, I'd say this score is my favourite overall for a few reasons which I could explore.
My review
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2013/6/11/review-man-of-steel-2013
Contains very slight spoilers.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 00:07
My review
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2013/6/11/review-man-of-steel-2013
Contains very slight spoilers.
Thanks for the review Ral.
A few questions. How is Clark, as opposed to 'Superman' or 'Jor El', portrayed in this film and how much screen-time does Henry Cavill get in this persona? My understanding is that this is a very different Clark to the bumbling journalist from the Christopher Reeve films or from the comic-books and various TV shows for that matter.
Also, you suggest that there isn't much sentiment in this film as a possible criticism, but judging from the trailers the scenes between Clark and his adopted father, played by Kevin Costner, strike me as potentially quite powerful (Costner telling his son that he should hide his powers for his best interest etc). Now you've seen the film how do those scenes play in your opinion? Do they live up to the promise suggested by the earlier trailers? My fear from the
latest trailer is that the film is more action-orientated than dramatic and the flashback structure might not leave much room for the more quiet character-development moments and instead merely operate as a prelude to the big action set-pieces.
I also read a review in today's Guardian that suggested Amy Adams' Lois Lane was underwritten. How successful do you think her character portrayal is? My other fear is that writing strong female characters may be Nolan and David Goyer's sticking point if the otherwise generally excellent Dark Knight films are anything to go by (especially bleedin' Rachel Dawes... ::)).
Lois actually given a lot to do.
I won't comment on Clark until the weekend.
I have written a foreword to my main score review, which I will work on later. Here it is:
Foreword
A new sound for the Man of Tomorrow
First of all, let's get this out of the way. I am not a big Superman fan. I am a Batman guy. But that doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of the character. Far from it. Superman is the Man of Tomorrow. Not the man of the past.
Another thing we have to get out of the way is that I only like one Superman film, and that's the glorified 1978 outing with Christopher Reeve. I like the movie, but don't love it. I more respect its place in comic book film history.
As a result, I find the praise thrown in its direction irritating. It is a satisfactory movie, but it's not everything Superman is and will ever be. For a section of the fan base to cling to this belief and to fear change lends me to call them Prima-Donners.
Nothing is sacred. Like all things, Superman '78 is a moment in time.
For an age, John Williams or bust was the message. It was deemed sacrilegious and risky to deviate from it. Some still hold that opinion. So much so the 2006 film Superman Returns was downright fearful to cut the cord.
Composer John Ottman had this to say:
"Bryan said he wouldn't even green light the movie if he couldn't use the John Williams music. It was important for me to preserve the Williams theme right down to every single note for the opening titles."
Ottman goes on to say his Superman Returns score is a homage and not a rip-off of Williams.
To me, that is just all types of wrong. John Williams wasn't particularly caring about the 1940s Fleischer cartoons when he sat down to do his thing.
So when it was announced the 1978 theme would not be used in the 2013 film, people freaked. I knew straight away it was the right decision to start fresh. I said to myself about time. I long held the view Superman is seen as a relic and needed to be jazzed up for audiences today. A relaunch right down to his underpants.
I make it no secret I have criticised Hans Zimmer in the past and was apprehensive about his hiring. But I was all aboard a new sound for a new generation. In that regard, I was happy to get behind his mission.
Come June 2013, I have listened to his complete deluxe score. He has done the job and proved something I knew all along. Of course a new sound is possible. It has been done before, but never has such a big deal been made.
Love or hate Hans' music, these sounds simply would not have existed if Williams' '78 score kept on being paid homage to. Regardless of how revered that main title march may be, these Prima-Donners and their adherence to the past turned me off to the character's future. That has changed.
The goal of Man of Steel is to capture the attention of people here and now. 2013. People like me. And speaking strictly for myself, they have done so.
Track list review to follow.
Great to hear the good buzz, Paul!
Can you confirm whether "Jenny" is ever called "Jenny Olsen?"
Sites have discovered that the character's name badge has a different name and the actress' IMDB page just says "Jenny" now
http://www.themarysue.com/jimmy-olsen-jenny-jurwich/
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 00:07
My review
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2013/6/11/review-man-of-steel-2013
Contains very slight spoilers.
I don't mean to be a anal retentive jerk, but when talking about Zod you accidentally wrote
emphasizing when it should be
empathizing.
Other than that, Nice review. 8)
Quote from: GBglide on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 04:58
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 00:07
My review
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2013/6/11/review-man-of-steel-2013
Contains very slight spoilers.
I don't mean to be a anal retentive jerk, but when talking about Zod you accidentally wrote emphasizing when it should be empathizing.
Other than that, Nice review. 8)
Oops! Cheers. I wrote the thing on my iPad and it keep changing the words I wrote....really irritating! Missed that one!
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 04:19
Great to hear the good buzz, Paul!
Can you confirm whether "Jenny" is ever called "Jenny Olsen?"
Sites have discovered that the character's name badge has a different name and the actress' IMDB page just says "Jenny" now
http://www.themarysue.com/jimmy-olsen-jenny-jurwich/
I can't remember Ben. I went in assuming she was Jenny Olson so did really notice. I don't think she ever has a camera though!
Here in Australia, we don't get Man of Steel until the 27th, so it's a bit of a wait until then. In the meantime, I thought I'd like to share this mondo poster of the movie that I found on Ain't It Cool News. Should've been the official movie poster.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.aintitcool.com%2Fmedia%2Fuploads%2F2013%2Fharry%2Fmartinansin_regular_large.jpg&hash=fcd109ed9e8dd28b9f4253e8fda25b5c3627497a)
The film has only got 66% on Rotten Tomatoes so far. :( That's less than either of the Burton Batman movies.
Has Nolan lost his touch/fallen out of favour with the critics? Are the fanboys up in arms over the reviews/threatened any critics yet?
One particular fanboy gave it an A.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 22:11
One particular fanboy gave it an A.
Are you referring to yourself Ral? I would never call you a 'fanboy', especially not a Nolan fanboy.
Nope not me. 8/10 is a B to me. I liked the film, I think it's hugely important for the future of DCU movies but I really don't think anyone can give it an A if they are being truthful. Think harder...
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 22:53
Nope not me. 8/10 is a B to me. I liked the film, I think it's hugely important for the future of DCU movies but I really don't think anyone can give it an A if they are being truthful. Think harder...
I hope to see the film next week. I must admit, the trailers had got me pretty excited to see this film and I have had high expectations so I hope nobody mistakes my last few posts for schadenfreude, but I do wonder if in view of the generally middling, although by no means bad, reviews so far whether the same fanboys who proclaimed that this would be another victory for Nolan and Goyer will acknowledge their part in the film's shortcomings or will they heap all the blame on Zack Snyder (my personal belief is that if this film was universally adored by critics Nolan/Goyer would be getting the praise, whereas if this film had been attacked by critics Snyder would be getting all the vitriol).
Anyway, I hope at least that 'Man of Steel' is superior to 'Superman Returns' despite the 'Man of Steels' (so-far) inferior Rotten Tomatoes rating.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:04
Anyway, I hope at least that 'Man of Steel' is superior to 'Superman Returns' despite the 'Man of Steels' (so-far) inferior Rotten Tomatoes rating.
I'm glad I don't put too much stock in the RT scoring meter. Johnny, I believe we've had conversations about Superman Returns in the past, and if that's the case, you might recall my opinion on SR. That being said, I just cannot even comprehend the idea of MOS being a
lesser movie than SR.
Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:11
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:04
Anyway, I hope at least that 'Man of Steel' is superior to 'Superman Returns' despite the 'Man of Steels' (so-far) inferior Rotten Tomatoes rating.
I'm glad I don't put too much stock in the RT scoring meter. Johnny, I believe we've had conversations about Superman Returns in the past, and if that's the case, you might recall my opinion on SR. That being said, I just cannot even comprehend the idea of MOS being a lesser movie than SR.
I was going to say that 'SR's' RT score was absurdly high but I don't quite dislike the film as much as you and I do remember half-enjoying it when I first saw the movie on its theatrical release. In retrospect my opinion on the film has sharply dropped but I don't think it's a complete calamity as many of the posters on this forum do.
Still, I agree that MOS must surely be a better film than SR. I also suspect that many of those critics who praised SR back in 2006 have probably had second thoughts since which might also explain why praise for MOS has been so reserved. Nobody wants to make the same mistake again.
I remember the only critic review of SR I read was Roger Ebert's (RIP), pretty much the only critic I halfway paid any sort of attention to, and there wasn't a whole lot of love for the film there. But yeah, I remember alot of praise for SR during it's release, and just did not see what they were seeing apparently.
Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:40
I remember the only critic review of SR I read was Roger Ebert's (RIP), pretty much the only critic I halfway paid any sort of attention to, and there wasn't a whole lot of love for the film there. But yeah, I remember alot of praise for SR during it's release, and just did not see what they were seeing apparently.
I don't want to tempt any negative comments regarding the late great Roger Ebert but what did you make of his Batman and Batman Returns reviews The Joker? There wasn't a whole lot of love for them from Ebert either.
One thing I don't like the sound of is the film being almost humourless. It is perfectly fine to take your material seriously, but for Superman to lack heart is a darn shame. It seems like they still haven't got Superman right, but they're moving in the right direction.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:58
One thing I don't like the sound of is the film being almost humourless. It is perfectly fine to take your material seriously, but for Superman to lack heart is a darn shame. It seems like they still haven't got Superman right, but they're moving in the right direction.
Did the Nolan Batman films have much humour? :-\
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:59
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:58
One thing I don't like the sound of is the film being almost humourless. It is perfectly fine to take your material seriously, but for Superman to lack heart is a darn shame. It seems like they still haven't got Superman right, but they're moving in the right direction.
Did the Nolan Batman films have much humour? :-\
When they did it was cringeworthy. Wisecracking cops and the like. Superman lends itself to a more upbeat, friendly tone. I think it's a shame if the film comes off rather bleak and mechanical.You'd be surprised how easily a simple smile breaks the ice.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 00:02
When they did it was cringeworthy. Wisecracking cops and the like. Superman lends itself to a more upbeat, friendly tone. I think it's a shame if the film comes off rather bleak and mechanical.You'd be surprised how easily a simple smile breaks the ice.
I totally agree on both points. The Nolan attempts at humour
were cringeworthy but like you suggest 'Superman' at least should be fairly light.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, 23:55
I don't want to tempt any negative comments regarding the late great Roger Ebert but what did you make of his Batman and Batman Returns reviews The Joker? There wasn't a whole lot of love for them from Ebert either.
Indeed. Which was surprising to me considering his praise of Batman Begins. As I distinctly remember Ebert appearing on Jay Leno back in 2005, and giving quick bullet points on why he enjoyed the film so much. I also remember his review for TMNT 1990 being less than stellar, which I felt was a pretty good adaptation of the early Mirage issues, but that was the case. Much like with the Burton films. Which, of course, I and alot of others thought were excellent films. Of course I can't say I agreed with every critical review, but his was indeed the only ones I paid any sort of attention to. Largely attributed to the Siskel and Ebert 'At the Movies' show during the '90's.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 00:10
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 00:02
When they did it was cringeworthy. Wisecracking cops and the like. Superman lends itself to a more upbeat, friendly tone. I think it's a shame if the film comes off rather bleak and mechanical.You'd be surprised how easily a simple smile breaks the ice.
I totally agree on both points. The Nolan attempts at humour were cringeworthy but like you suggest 'Superman' at least should be fairly light.
The best superhero movies have heart. Be it Peter Parker's day in the life montage set to 'Raindrops Keep Fallin' on my Head' or yes indeed, the finale of Batman Returns with Selina, Bruce and Max. With MOS, it seems the decision to darken the hue of the picture went across the board. They have given us action, and I am grateful for that. But perhaps have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and gone far one way.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 00:27
The best superhero movies have heart. Be it Peter Parker's day in the life montage set to 'Raindrops Keep Fallin' on my Head' or yes indeed, the finale of Batman Returns with Selina, Bruce and Max. With MOS, it seems the decision to darken the hue of the picture went across the board. They have given us action, and I am grateful for that. But perhaps have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and gone far one way.
I hope you're wrong. One of the reasons I have been so excited about seeing MOS is the trailer depicting scenes of Clark rescuing kids from a school bus and his adopted father's heart-to-heart scenes with him. Those brief shots of Kevin Costner looking out for his kid and advising him to make difficult decisions in order to protect himself struck me as potentially very touching. However, I was a little dismayed by the last trailer that tended to focus more on the action and big screen spectacle of it all.
I hope MOS has more of the former elements (i.e. heart) rather than simply being a dark, brooding, cold action/sci-fi movie.
A comment which struck a cord with me, is that there's no real difference once Clark puts on the super suit. He has a fly around the world but there's no real joy to be had afterwards. The Clark finding his place in the world/loneliness angle may carry over too much. I long had a fear that any emotion would come off as 'emo' and not genuinely heartfelt. Superman Returns had this problem.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 00:58
A comment which struck a cord with me, is that there's no real difference once Clark puts on the super suit. He has a fly around the world but there's no real joy to be had afterwards. The Clark finding his place in the world/loneliness angle may carry over too much. I long had a fear that any emotion would come off as 'emo' and not genuinely heartfelt. Superman Returns had this problem.
Yeah, there's not much joy is these films. I don't think you can really go looking for joy in Nolan or Goyer movies. But that's not the same as being devoid of emotion. Far from it. It's just a different, more melancholy, sad type of emotion which to be fair the Dark Knight movies did pretty well for the most part. But it's also the case that there wasn't many laughs or fun moments either particularly in contrast to the Burton Batman films or the Christopher Reeve Superman films for that matter (and I even include the generally poor but nevertheless enjoyable third and fourth films in that respect).
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 00:58
A comment which struck a cord with me, is that there's no real difference once Clark puts on the super suit. He has a fly around the world but there's no real joy to be had afterwards. The Clark finding his place in the world/loneliness angle may carry over too much. I long had a fear that any emotion would come off as 'emo' and not genuinely heartfelt. Superman Returns had this problem.
Could very well be something that's explored in a follow-up. As it doesn't seem to be enough time allowed, within the film's structure, to permit scenes of Clark's role as Superman being anything remotely joyful.. As it appears to largely focus on his wanting to remain hidden in the world, while doing remarkable things throughout his life for good, and ultimately revealing himself in order to battle against Zod and his forces. His acceptance in the world, and later being more comfortable in his skin is something to look forward to, but doesn't appear to be the case with the initial MOS film. I'm not really getting that overly melodramatic Judeo-Christian comparison vibe from this as I did with SR (which really seemed to want to beat you over the head with that), which really bogged down the enjoyment factor, more so than any sombre tone Nolan/Goyer can offer, but we'll see.
Not to say the movie will be devoid of emotion. You have listed some scenes already - the bus rescue for example. But it's the frequency of such scenes. If melancholy/sad/emo took centre stage I'd be a little turned off, to tell you the truth.
Superman stories do carry a certain poignancy, especially their endings. All Star Superman - flying off into the sun to return one day. Birthright - Lara and Jor-El embracing while Krypton blows up. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? - depowering himself to live happily ever after with Lois after traumatic events.
I'm not about people flashing smiles every second or rattling off puns all the time. But tonal balance is always a good thing. Being Superman isn't all poor old me. I think Birthright captured this balance quite well. We''ll just have to wait and see.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, 01:25
Not to say the movie will be devoid of emotion. You have listed some scenes already - the bus rescue for example. But it's the frequency of such scenes. If melancholy/sad/emo took centre stage I'd be a little turned off, to tell you the truth.
Superman stories do carry a certain poignancy, especially their endings. All Star Superman - flying off into the sun to return one day. Birthright - Lara and Jor-El embracing while Krypton blows up. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? - depowering himself to live happily ever after with Lois after traumatic events.
I'm not about people flashing smiles every second or rattling off puns all the time. But tonal balance is always a good thing. Being Superman isn't all poor old me. I think Birthright captured this balance quite well. We''ll just have to wait and see.
You make some good points. I also think one of the most powerful moments in the 1978 Superman film, the death of Jonathan Kent, was all the more poignant because it came in sharp contrast to all the fun breezy scenes of young Clark testing his powers and zooming around Smallville, outpacing locomotives and so on, that preceded it.
The sad moments were particularly powerful in that film because something was at stake. Like you say, it can't be just relentless misery. There has to be light and darkness, good and bad.
Exactly. Oh, and I just read this:
Quote"Man of Steel" takes a more self-serious approach, constructing a sullen tale involving Superman's emerging commitment that (perhaps due to producer Christopher Nolan's "Batman" influenced hand) almost never cracks a smile. Superman's inviting persona has even been drained from the title. Here, the dreary atmosphere underscores unremitting commitment to a brooding storyline that creates the illusion of meaning behind the abundant CGI.
At first, "Man of Steel" attempts an outstanding fusion of pricey imagery and narrative finesse. By the end, Henry Cavill's subdued performance in the lead role is the sole element of restraint left onscreen. It's an excessively dreary affair that lacks any sense of Superman's personality. Instead, he's just another fancy effect from Snyder's bag of tricks.
On the flip side, sites like AICN, IGN, Collider, Latino Review and others are apparently giving the film favorable reviews. If it is indeed true that SR was tracking better at this time back in 2006 than MOS, one would eventually theorize exactly how many of these negative reviews for MOS is coming from, but perhaps not solely, a reluctance to let go of the Reeve/Donner films ... and if that's the case for some, I would consider that a positive to be perfectly honest. As that was one thing, from the get go, I DID NOT want MOS to be. Yet another retread. Different please. Thank you!
I've checked the movie out twice now, and found it to be a pretty outstanding film, and one that Snyder, Nolan, Cavil, and everyone else associated with making the film should be proud of. As it achieved in getting audiences away from the Donnerverse, and creating something much more different and revitalizing that, in all honesty, has been long overdue. Pay no attention to that tomato BS. This was a great movie! A great Superman movie that's been a long time coming.
I saw MOS again this morning with the family.
We all loved it. Really grows on you the second time...though my minor quibbles still remain.
I've spoken about the po-faced tone fears, but another thing I am uneasy about is the destruction, which one review puts so eloquently:
QuoteAs Zack Snyder absolutely destroys Metropolis, Superman is lauded a hero, despite the massive casualties and damages that had to have been incurred during the melee. These things are apparently inconsequential. By the way, Kal-El is only referred to as Superman once in the film by my count, because you know, calling him by that name would just be uncool and expected.
http://www.examiner.com/review/movie-review-man-of-steel-the-latest-disappointing-take-on-an-iconic-hero
Destruction with these types of characters is unavoidable, but it just makes me feel like Superman is a jerk. Like dropping the Daily Planet globe onto a car or leaving a plane on a baseball field in SR. Apparently in MOS Metropolis is in ruins and emo-Man decides to embrace with Lois. Meh.
I hope he cares when he fights. But I won't hold my breath. If he had chances to limit destruction but kept throwing through buildings, flying through petrol stations and and such...well...
I wonder if this same reviewer had an issue with the Avengers being lauded heroes following the New York battle?
In any event, I'm starting to wonder if some of these guys went in with the notion that if things get too shaky, that Donnerverse goodness can re-insert itself, and Supes can spin the earth backwards once again? Having viewed the film twice, I found the latter half of the film to have a tone of urgency, a serious tone of urgency, which doesn't let up in the slightest. And Superman's plight to save not only Metropolis, but various military soldier's battling Zod's unrelenting kryptonian group, who are depicted as about to go in for the kill before Superman's interference, are conveyed quite effectively. There are casualties in this film, that's a certainty. However, it's not due to a lack of trying on Superman's part. That's pretty clear as well.
Saw it today, wasn't overly wowed but didn't hate it either. The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed. I didn't like Michael Shannon as Zod either, almost every time he spoke the delivery felt off (although his speech about Krypton toward the end was his pretty good). I thought Cavill did fine, and Amy Adams rose above her material, but Christopher Meloni was one of the best aspects of the film.
Best part was the Hobbit trailer! 8)
Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 01:42
I wonder if this same reviewer had an issue with the Avengers being lauded heroes following the New York battle?
To be fair though, there was nothing that the Avengers could do to avoid the destruction of New York since the Chitauri and Loki was looking to invade at all costs. Though I do wonder if that reviewer had any problems with Batman destroying Gotham City every time he drove the Tumbler and Batpod in the first two Nolan movies?
I'll admit that I'm far from Goyer, Snyder or Nolan's biggest fan, but I'm still willing to give this movie a chance. The worst case scenario I could possibly find is the story might be mediocre, but the visual effects and action should make up for it and offer some sort of entertainment value. After all, Snyder knows how to make a movie
look good, I'll at least give him credit for that.
Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 01:42
I wonder if this same reviewer had an issue with the Avengers being lauded heroes following the New York battle?
Didn't the end of the Avengers show that the response to their intervention was quite mixed? Or maybe I'm thinking of the deleted scene where Maria Hill expresses her disgust to the politicians over the reign if destruction left in the Avengers' wake.
Also, isn't there a difference in MOS because I've read in some reviews that Zod and his minions were alerted to the existence of earth because of Kal El's presence on the planet?
Quote from: gordonblu on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 04:06
The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed.
Hmm. I haven't seen the movie yet but as said, I find this a worry. I've seen the clip of Superman tackling Zod, flying across a crop and then through a petrol station (likely with people in it) and then land in a Smallville street, about to endanger everyone with fisticuffs. Way to go Supes, you brought the fight to the public. You chose where this would go down. There's a dilemma with making a filmic spectacle but on the flipside making Supe look a bit silly and reckless.
When it concerns beings as powerful as Superman, it comes across as jerky and I don't know, more preventable. He has more influence over situations than people like Batman do, regardless of the opponent/s. Try and minimise the destruction caused instead of continually throwing Zod and company through buildings which people are inhabiting.
When it gets large scale like that it starts to make me uneasy. Especially if a movie's overall tone feels soulless and - then all of a sudden the two leads kiss with the remnants of the city in the background. Which comes off as feeling like token romance out of left field as well.
The movie wanted this large scale ruin for spectacle, but at least I recall there's a scene in Superman II where Superman shows concern and flies away from the city because he doesn't want to cause any serious damage to the people. Here he seems not to care terribly much. Just keeps throwing through those buildings...
If Luthor showed up in the sequel to rebuild the City - I'd largely find myself on his side to tell you the truth.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 11:04
Quote from: gordonblu on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 04:06
The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed.
Hmm. I haven't seen the movie yet but as said, I find this a worry. I've seen the clip of Superman tackling Zod, flying across a crop and then through a petrol station (likely with people in it) and then land in a Smallville street, about to endanger everyone with fisticuffs. Way to go Supes, you brought the fight to the public. You chose where this would go down. There's a dilemma with making a filmic spectacle but on the flipside making Supe look a bit silly and reckless.
When it concerns beings as powerful as Superman, it comes across as jerky and I don't know, more preventable. He has more influence over situations than people like Batman do, regardless of the opponent/s. Try and minimise the destruction caused instead of continually throwing Zod and company through buildings which people are inhabiting.
When it gets large scale like that it starts to make me uneasy. Especially if a movie's overall tone feels soulless and - then all of a sudden the two leads kiss with the remnants of the city in the background. Which comes off as feeling like token romance out of left field as well.
The movie wanted this large scale ruin for spectacle, but at least I recall there's a scene in Superman II where Superman shows concern and flies away from the city because he doesn't want to cause any serious damage to the people. Here he seems not to care terribly much. Just keeps throwing through those buildings...
If Luthor showed up in the sequel to rebuild the City - I'd largely find myself on his side to tell you the truth.
Why the hell are Christopher Nolan and David Goyer so obsessed in making their superheroes look like reckless, devil-may-care douchebags? Are they trying to test the audience or something? When I saw Nolan's first two Batman films, all I thought was for a guy whose intention was to become a symbol of hope for people to aspire to, Batman really seems not to have any regard for human life at all. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the trend repeated for Superman, though if what gordonblue is saying is true, then this sounds worse than any of Batman's blunders in the recent trilogy. Oh well, looks like I'll have to turn my brain off as much as I possibly can if I'm going to enjoy this. :-X
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 04:33
To be fair though, there was nothing that the Avengers could do to avoid the destruction of New York since the Chitauri and Loki was looking to invade at all costs.
And in all fairness, that scenario is similar to what Superman is faced with in
Man of Steel. It's one kryptonian against many, and this film does anything but harken back to those Silver Age days (much like the Donner films did) where turning back time, or giving a big super kiss can fix things. If that's what some people wanted to see, sure, they'll be disappointed.
QuoteThough I do wonder if that reviewer had any problems with Batman destroying Gotham City every time he drove the Tumbler and Batpod in the first two Nolan movies?
Wouldn't be the first time something gets a pass, while another is heavily criticized. ;)
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 06:55
Didn't the end of the Avengers show that the response to their intervention was quite mixed? Or maybe I'm thinking of the deleted scene where Maria Hill expresses her disgust to the politicians over the reign if destruction left in the Avengers' wake.
Can't tell you, since I've only watched
Avengers once, and bits and pieces of it when it came out on blu ray. I can tell you that with
Man of Steel, the public perception of Superman isn't really addressed to the extent of having common folk being interviewed and giving their opinions if that's what you're thinking. The military don't really view him as a threat like they did prior to Zod's invasion, but it's also shown they don't trust him as well. You'll see what I'm referring to when you see the film for yourself.
QuoteAlso, isn't there a difference in MOS because I've read in some reviews that Zod and his minions were alerted to the existence of earth because of Kal El's presence on the planet?
Zod being alerted to Kal-El's whereabouts is more out of fortuity, which also results in his change from a traveling loner, into becoming Superman, and NOT due by his mere existence on earth. If that was the case, Zod would have arrived
years earlier, and in all likelihood, would have succeeded in his plan.
Quote from: gordonblu on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 04:06
The large scale destruction really bothered me, it felt like Snyder was taking sadistic glee every time a building was destroyed.
I'm going to bet you that the reconstruction of Metropolis is going to be handled by Lex Luthor and that's how he gets his positive public response.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, 11:04
If Luthor showed up in the sequel to rebuild the City - I'd largely find myself on his side to tell you the truth.
That's the idea.
I was ambivalent about this movie... after the utter craptacular Superman Returns I gave up anticipation/interest for anything Superman. So it was with an unbiased mind I went into Man of Steel. I still love Donner's original, but don't care for any of the other films, literally. Not much has changed.
David Goyer crafts a film that's overwritten about small things, has a narrative that feels jumpy and hectic, some dialogue that's stilted (look at the Batman films he wrote... that's par for him), and seems devoid of real emotion even though the pretense of it exists.
Snyder is usually a capable director, but I sense Goyer's script and Nolan's hand involved reduces his direction to a seeming checklist of things each scene must get across. Like Nolan's Bat trilogy, the editing leads the actors/scene, not the other way around. The film's pace within its own scenes (not to mention the film overall) seems rushed. Kind of hard to describe, but the film, even when it's supposed to be a slow moment somehow feels ungenuine, like we're presented with the emotion but it isn't really there.
That's my biggest problem with the film: it lacks a fundamental heart. Which is logical since Nolan and Goyer are involved (and Snyder doesn't strike me as very deep personally). I'm not talking about humor or camp or a wink and a smile... what I'm talking about is a feeling of humanity. Every character except maybe Jor-El seems hollow like they only exist for their dilemma/dialogue and they don't have a thought in their head beyond that. It feels utterly meaningless and two-dimensional.
Moments that pushed against that was anything involving Superman interacting with the military, as that struck a chord and felt like the trustable hero who will still play by his own rules.
And I'll say it: there's TOO MUCH action. I never thought I'd say that, but MOS reeks of Avengers-envy. There's so much action that at a certain point, I didn't care anymore. It was too fast-paced and hyperactive that, instead of being wowed, I was busy processing it. Also, the ENTIRE film is filmed handheld, so there isn't a single shot that the camera isn't jerking around. That was probably my second biggest complaint.
The funny thing is... I can watch MOS over again. No problem. It's entertaining. I even loved all the changes to the canon, and the controversial finale was much applauded by me (I agree that Superman's a bit reckless, but that's part of the suspension of disbelief for me). But Superman Returns is so terrible that I can't stomach even the first scene.
But I think if you took the writing team of SR and Bryan Singer, and gave them this script to polish and let Singer direct... it'd be the perfect Superman movie. Singer has a fundamental heart that permeates with work and makes it feel like a regularly-paced, effective and meaningful movie. Snyder as we can tell from Suckerpunch (which is basically just a mindless male fantasy) is a hollow person. Also, not much a fan of the MOS score, but whatyagonnado?
4/10
Thanks for the review, Doc. I value your opinion a lot around here.
For what is meant to be such an iconic character, it seems Superman is more likely to suffer a dud than a success. His video game history is lousy. Speaking for myself, I care extremely little for the past Reeve movies and Superman Returns. So I'm not terribly surprised to see you give a 4/10 score.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Jun 2013, 02:40
Thanks for the review, Doc. I value your opinion a lot around here.
For what is meant to be such an iconic character, it seems Superman is more likely to suffer a dud than a success. His video game history is lousy. Speaking for myself, I care extremely little for the past Reeve movies and Superman Returns. So I'm not terribly surprised to see you give a 4/10 score.
Feeling's mutual, TDK!
It's honestly because the character is with DC. That's the whole reason. DC as a publishing house has a history with Superman that is, frankly, crap. Crap that can be appreciated with humor, but honestly, Comet the Super Horse and Beppo the Super Monkey? Superman's comics were campy garbage until Byrne's reboot, IMO. The thing is, his history is too goofy and he's simply too powerful. Byrne fixed him, but the thing is, DC's fanbase seems to me to be generally too stuck in the past. People bitched and protested when Wonder Woman's hair was cut for a story arc, for God's sake!
So DC is afraid to alienate its fans, but its fans are too married to crap, so it's all too easy for Superman to be relegated to low quality material because they're afraid to do what's needed. I have a ton of ideas for a ground-up redo of Superman that are a bit more big than even what Bynre did. Maybe sometime I'll share.
To me, the only reason I ever got into Superman and the only reason I think he's even still around is Christopher Reeve. He's the only reason the first film worked for all time, and his subtle humanity brought so much to the character without fundamentally altering him that it's astounding. I prefer Dean Cain's Clark, truthfully, but Reeve's Superman was perfection. Whereas much of STM is dated now, Reeve grounds the film in a way that's everlasting. Impressive for a character who, by default in the comics, is like a piece of cardboard.
I have tried to warm to the character and have taken to Birthright, All Star Superman and a few others. It's ironic the best Superman stories tend to be on-shots and else worlds. I still have lingering issues with the character, though.
Superman's message seems to be if you don't have good parents you're screwed. I always had a problem with Superman's secret identity, too.
We can choose to suspend our disbelief, but it remains an elephant in the room. It's only a pair of glasses. Batman has a cowl and Spider-Man a full body suit - it could be anyone under there.
Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, who while sometimes adheres to a rich playboy act, nonetheless has a position of prestige and reputation. He's not going against his true nature in such a drastic way. Peter Parker is usually finding life hard but he doesn't have to adhere to any strict performance either. More or less he is who he is.
Superman commits himself to a disguise that simply would not work anyway (but for the story it does), and intentionally lessens his self worth. If being Superman means I have to endure such a life where I'm bumbling, stuttering and slouching, I'd be quitting the Daily Planet, freeing those mental shackles and chilling on the moon.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Sun, 16 Jun 2013, 05:36
To me, the only reason I ever got into Superman and the only reason I think he's even still around is Christopher Reeve. He's the only reason the first film worked for all time, and his subtle humanity brought so much to the character without fundamentally altering him that it's astounding. I prefer Dean Cain's Clark, truthfully, but Reeve's Superman was perfection. Whereas much of STM is dated now, Reeve grounds the film in a way that's everlasting. Impressive for a character who, by default in the comics, is like a piece of cardboard.
Christopher Reeve made Superman for me. Rarely has an actor been so perfectly cast in a role, let alone a comic-book part (Reeve did justice to every facet of the character including Kal El, his true personality, Superman, the public image of the super-hero, the bumbling façade of Clark Kent and even the 'evil' Superman in the otherwise maligned Superman 3). No wonder Reeve found it so difficult to make his mark outside of Superman. I feel that's more testament to the power of his definitive performance as Superman and the vast shadow it left than it is a reflection on his lack of range as an actor.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Jun 2013, 06:15
I have tried to warm to the character and have taken to Birthright, All Star Superman and a few others. It's ironic the best Superman stories tend to be on-shots and else worlds. I still have lingering issues with the character, though.
Superman's message seems to be if you don't have good parents you're screwed. I always had a problem with Superman's secret identity, too.
We can choose to suspend our disbelief, but it remains an elephant in the room. It's only a pair of glasses. Batman has a cowl and Spider-Man a full body suit - it could be anyone under there.
Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, who while sometimes adheres to a rich playboy act, nonetheless has a position of prestige and reputation. He's not going against his true nature in such a drastic way. Peter Parker is usually finding life hard but he doesn't have to adhere to any strict performance either. More or less he is who he is.
Superman commits himself to a disguise that simply would not work anyway (but for the story it does), and intentionally lessens his self worth. If being Superman means I have to endure such a life where I'm bumbling, stuttering and slouching, I'd be quitting the Daily Planet, freeing those mental shackles and chilling on the moon.
You might want to check out Byrne's Superman run then, because he basically made a Marvel character out of Supes. He doesn't change much drastically, but the most significant and best change (aside from powering Supes WAYYYY down) was making Clark just a regular guy. It's that take on Clark that influenced Dean Cain's portrayal and Bruce Timm's. It makes perfect sense. He was raised as Clark. It's not like when he finds out about his true heritage, his personality changes and he's suddenly all boring and formal and Kryptonian.
my review will be pretty much spoiler free:
The Good: the film really explored the theme of inner conflict. Clark, Lois, her editor, and both sets of Clarks parents all have difficult choices to make about whom they want to be and what their motives should be, they often question what the right thing to do is. The acting itself is outstanding, all the major characters hold up. General Zod was a strong villain, he was multi-layered and not just pure evil; he had his agenda but was hoping Superman joined him rather than simply wanting to beat him. Despite being underwhelmed by the film, the ending was strong enough to make me excited for a sequel.
The bad: Suffers from many of the flaws as the dark knight rises; very little heart and fun. My theatre laughed only once and it was a very small chuckle. It did take an awfully long time to get some action in, the pacing was weak. The musical score was severely underwhelming. Often in superhero films, the city and setting itself becomes an important character in the film but Metropolis as well as Smallville were severely underdeveloped.
The verdict; Editing and running time become drawbacks but not to the extent of the Dark Knight; Man on steel does cover quite a few plot points and solid ground albeit takes two and a half hours to do so. 5/10
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Sun, 16 Jun 2013, 07:05
You might want to check out Byrne's Superman run then, because he basically made a Marvel character out of Supes. He doesn't change much drastically, but the most significant and best change (aside from powering Supes WAYYYY down) was making Clark just a regular guy. It's that take on Clark that influenced Dean Cain's portrayal and Bruce Timm's. It makes perfect sense. He was raised as Clark. It's not like when he finds out about his true heritage, his personality changes and he's suddenly all boring and formal and Kryptonian.
With Superman, there's essentially a couple of ways he's been often depicted in the books for years now. One way, and this one centers on the Pre-Crisis Superman especially, is something along the lines of a "archetype play". Where basically, the character was more of a representative of psychological archetypes and/or symbolic of things beyond himself.
The Superheroes genre, following Stan Lee's reinvention of the genre, became more "psychologically realistic". To which the workings of a character's mind and personality are brought to the forefront, and ultimately, the main thrust of the story. By doing that, superheroes in general, some more quickly than others, became more psychologically realistic on what was previously a more archetypal form.
With John Byrne's 1986 MOS limited series, the direction was decidedly much more the latter, than the former, and was met as a commercial success. With it's influence being easy to spot in other mediums pertaining to Superman, be it in the animated form, tv series, or in Snyder's
Man of Steel movie. Make no mistake about it, there is
still some displeasure by some fans with the changes Byrne implemented on Superman, but all in all, the limited series did it's job by reigniting interest in Superman at a crucial time.
Just got back from it. As I told a friend, Superman Returns was criticized for being boring and lacking action, so instead, this one gave us boring action. I know Nolan didn't direct this, but his DNA was all over it and his approach to superhero films is getting incredibly tiresome.
I'll go more into my thoughts later, but here's a link about the current hot-button debate on the finale:
http://badassdigest.com/2013/06/15/why-the-destruction-in-man-of-steel-matters/
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 16 Jun 2013, 23:46
Just got back from it. As I told a friend, Superman Returns was criticized for being boring and lacking action, so instead, this one gave us boring action. I know Nolan didn't direct this, but his DNA was all over it and his approach to superhero films is getting incredibly tiresome.
I literally laughed out loud over "...Returns was criticized for being boring and lacking action, so instead, this one gave us boring action." Still laughing. Good show!
This is a film I had been excited for--but then the early trailers made it appear to earnest, and rather dull. As if 'dark' and 'thoughtful' were somehow synonymous. The first action-oriented trailer had me excited, so I skipped everything else--I wanted this to be an experience unhampered by any kind of expectation. But then I got spoiled. It's ok. Not a big deal. But I know the ending. Having had major bits spoiled for me (though I tend to avoid those), I skipped it this weekend, and don't know if I'm going to see it in the theater. I don't need IMAX 3-D, razzle dazzle, just a good story told well. Not sure if this delivers from what I'm reading. Jett at BOF likes it, which is another red flag....
colorsblend, have you seen it?
Quote from: greggbray on Mon, 17 Jun 2013, 18:46
. Jett at BOF likes it, which is another red flag....
The entire film could have been Clark sewing his suit and BOF would have called it a masterpiece due to Nolans name being attached.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 17 Jun 2013, 22:37
Quote from: greggbray on Mon, 17 Jun 2013, 18:46
. Jett at BOF likes it, which is another red flag....
The entire film could have been Clark sewing his suit and BOF would have called it a masterpiece due to Nolans name being attached.
Nolan could film himself taking a dump, release it in IMAX, and people would still call it a masterpiece. I've never seen such fanatical fandom for such an undeserving director in my whole life. >:(
It is a good film. But it's not A grade. Yes it does make mistakes with the character, but he's not in his element in the story yet. As Zod points out...he's had no training.
I'm hoping the criticisms influence the sequels...though I fear arrogance might prevail.
They are very arrogant filmmakers, that's the other part of the equation I don't care for...
I may see it, but I'm bracing myself for the ending. It's an ending I don't need to see.
I'm going to expand on my thoughts now and keep them as vague as I can for those who haven't seen it yet.
Picture the first hour or so of Superman: The Movie. You've got the doomed Krypton. Zod being sent off into the Phantom Zone with his minions. Jor-El begging the council that the planet is doomed. The Jor-El and Lara good-bye scene to their child before sending him off. The destruction of Krypton as the ship goes to Earth. Young Clark Kent feeling like an outcast, being mistreated by his peers, and frustrated that he can't take out his anger on them. Pa Kent lecturing him that he was sent here for a reason. The death of Pa Kent, which instills Clark with guilt for being unable to save him. Clark discovering the spaceship he was sent in and that he's an alien. Clark going up north in the snow and discovering his true heritage by meeting a hologram consciousness version of Jor-El, who tells him about Krypton and gives him the Superman suit.
Got it? Now picture Batman Begins. We start out in the past when the main character is just a child, then flashforward to when he's a grown man and he's a bearded drifter. Right after meeting this grown-up version, we gets a nice sequence that shows off his skills and he eventually heads up into the mountains to meet a bearded father figure, who waxes philosophical and provides him a path in life. Out in the snow, our hero learns more of the skills that will help him become the superhero we know and love. Eventually he returns home to the remaining adoptive parent figure in his life.
During all this, we've got flashbacks to his childhood and see his father teach him lessons shortly before a major tragedy hits him and the family. The main character feels guilty for what happens and it's affected his actions ever since.
Alright, you probably get the point. Combine the above together, shift the order around a bit, and I've pretty much described the first hour of Man of Steel by using two other movies. And the thing is, I like how those two movies did it better.
At least in Batman Begins, Bruce was doing something in present day, so you felt some forward momentum between the flashbacks. Here, though, the only thing that happens between two flashbacks is Clark getting out of water and finding clothes.
Man of Steel, in a nutshell, is Superman done through the lens of the Dark Knight Trilogy, with Snyder's explosive action brought to the max. In the interviews leading up to the movie, I kept hearing the filmmakers ensure that Superman isn't Batman. Superman is about hope. The only similarity would be the "What if this character really existed?" approach.
And yet, the movie is, without a doubt, the darkest Superman film yet, right in line with the Batman approach. In spite of a few lines of dialogue, it's really tough to buy that any of this movie is about hope when half of Metropolis gets leveled and the climax ends with Superman sobbing (and no, it's not out of joy).
Another example I'm going to use is that there's a tornado scene in Smallville. This isn't really anything new. We saw this in the Smallville TV show, when they used it as the Season 1 finale cliffhanger. Superman For All Seasons used it to have Clark realize that he could use his powers to save people. Secret Origin uses it for Clark to discover flight when he saves Lana.
But how does Man of Steel use a Smallville tornado? To kill off a character.
Mind you, there's nothing inherently wrong about these choices. But it's disappointing since I didn't find this darker approach to be necessary at all.
On top of that, as I said previously, Nolan's DNA is all over this. Again, it's not necessarily a flaw, but since we've seen it before, it doesn't feel fresh at all. Aside from the Batman Begins flashback approach to Clark's backstory, you've got Hans Zimmer's pounding, relentless score.
With the exception of Krypton, there's the dullifying of familiar comic book elements. For example, the Daily Planet. The bullpen here looks like any other office. And this has to feature the most mellow versions of Lois and Perry that I've ever seen.
There's the superhero causing tons of property and collateral damage in the action scenes (whether Clark/Superman will learn from this remains to be seen. Batman certainly didn't learn after endangering cops in Begins when he blew up more cars in Dark Knight).
Much like Begins, there's the supporting characters practically guiding the main character's path to becoming a superhero at the risk of him becoming reactive.
Also, remember how Nolan's trilogy had a ton of intercutting away from Batman with action involving side characters? It's here, too. Just with alien villains this time and a different Zimmer score booming through the sequences.
And then, of course, there's the controversial ending. It's honestly nothing that Batman fans haven't seen before from Nolan (though funny enough, he's reported to have been against the creative decision). But to see it close out the first Superman movie of a potential franchise is, again, disappointing.
Now, there are still some elements that I liked. I thought any scene with Crowe's Jor-El was solid. I got chills in the "You can save them. You can save all of them" scene (that you can see in the Nokia trailer).
I actually thought the dark/drabness of the film was appropriate for Krypton since it's a doomed planet and they did everything they could to separate the look of it from the ice planet of the Donner film.
Lois Lane felt much less of a damsel in distress than in past interpretations and gets to have some action of her own.
We also got to see Clark experience his first flight, which was awesome- something we hadn't seen in the Christopher Reeve movie and was played very well by Cavill. Likewise, my next favorite Superman moment has to be when he gains acceptance from the military.
Goyer's take on Kryptonians needing adapt to their powers on Earth was cool, too.
But all of this gets weighted down, for me, by the tiredsome action sequences and destruction in the second half. Much like The Dark Knight Rises last year, it feels like they tried so much to hit you with multiple things happening onscreen that they forgot to make you give a damn about it. By the time we got to the final Superman and Zod fight, I just didn't care anymore.
I thoroughly enjoyed it but it certainly has its flaws.
The way I see it the movie is a culmination of all previous Superman incarnations. I'd like to think that the filmmakers purposefully didn't spend much time with a teenage Clark Kent struggling with his powers because that was covered in Smallville.
Likewise, they didn't spend too much time developing the Clark/Lois romance because that was already covered in Lois & Clark.
And they didn't want to do a standard Superhero origin movie because it's already been covered in all of the above plus the Reeve movies, cartoons, etc. Hence the reason we never see scene where the Kents discover Clark.
In that sense, there's nothing wrong with "cutting to the chase" except that it creates some pacing issues with the film. But to be fair, the one thing we've never seen is a modern live-action Superman slugfest with plenty of sci-fi elements. That's what we've all been waiting for and that's what we got.
Aside from the pacing/editing issues, I'd say there were a number of tropes, but no more than you typically see in this genre.
Probably my biggest complaint is that the rumored easter eggs (Wonder Woman cameo? Justice League reference?) weren't in the movie.
I'll give my full opinion later but one thing I did appreciate was Superman chastising the Obama-lookalike general at the end of the film for his use of drones. I could be way off the mark here but I like to think there was a timely political message behind this scene not least in the casting of Harry Lennix. I wonder if the White House has had a 'Man of Steel' screening yet. ;)
Saw it yesterday and must say I really enjoyed it and so did the almost packed house audience. I appreciate that they did something different, with the non-linear storytelling. Wonderful performances and epic action, with some nice dramatic scenes. Jonathan Kent dying was quite emotional, you could hear a pin drop in the cinema at that scene. Looking forward to a sequel! A solid 8/10.
I thought the way Jonathan Kent died was one of the stupidest plot points I've seen in a long time. I don't care if Jonathan thought the world wasn't ready for Kal, rescuing his adopted father surely should have been worth the risk and only gave this version of Supes more "angst". His chastising Clark for rescuing the school bus was also overtly harsh.
Quote from: gordonblu on Thu, 20 Jun 2013, 00:30
I thought the way Jonathan Kent died was one of the stupidest plot points I've seen in a long time. I don't care if Jonathan thought the world wasn't ready for Kal, rescuing his adopted father surely should have been worth the risk and only gave this version of Supes more "angst". His chastising Clark for rescuing the school bus was also overtly harsh.
I thought the Jonathan Kent-Clark heart-to-hearts were pretty poignant, as was his death although it kind of annoys me he died for a dog. ::) I am an animal lover but still...his death would have been more powerful and heroic if it had been for say a child trapped in their car.
I got a chance to see Man OF Steel last Tuesday, and right now my feelings toward it are very mixed. Understand, that I am a huge Superman fan as well as a comic book fan. The week before I went to go see it, I did a Superman movie marathon which included all the movies: STM, SII (lester Cut) SII (Donner Cut) SIII, SIV, and SR. I understood that MOS was a reboot and was loosley based on the comics of Earth One, Superman Birthright, and John Byrne's Man Of Steel series as well as a reimagining of Superman: The movie and Superman II.
The problems I have with the film are mostly due to the storyline/character development and how it was executed. Hans Zimmer's score was just another generic action score there was nothing special about it. The movie at times seems to lack heart.
The visuals were okay and the action scenes were intense. We finally got to see superman have his slugfest, but at what cost?
All in all I thought the film was just okay when compared to the source material and previous superman films. However, I still enjoyed it alot more than most of marvel's films. Maybe with more viewings I might have a better perspective on it.
Quote from: gordonblu on Thu, 20 Jun 2013, 00:30
I thought the way Jonathan Kent died was one of the stupidest plot points I've seen in a long time. I don't care if Jonathan thought the world wasn't ready for Kal, rescuing his adopted father surely should have been worth the risk and only gave this version of Supes more "angst". His chastising Clark for rescuing the school bus was also overtly harsh.
As a devoted Reeve fan I was surprised how much I enjoyed the film in the end. I don't think it's the best nor definitive Superman movie though. And several things bothered me but still had a great time watching it.
But yes this death of Johnathan Kent scene did not convince me at all. I guess it's wrong to compare this with Donner's 1978 original but that death scene of Johnathan (played by Glenn Ford) is still just so brilliant and a good example at proving in this case the Reeve films can and do still outclass this newer film in numerous ways. I love the fact it's something as simple as a heart attack that takes him from Clark's life (and something that Clark with all his powers and lack of experience cannot prevent). Having recently lost my own father (himself a massive Superman fan) it's amazing how much you relate to a believable, beautifully shot scene like this when you do finally experience a loss in that way.
I found it quite strange therefore in the way they disposed of him this time. Largely because Nolan, Snyder and Goyer have gone on and on and on about this being a far more grounded, realistic film than any previous Superman films. Yet when Johnathan is taken by the tornado he is gracefully consumed by the swirling cyclone in almost a ghost-like disappearing act. Elegantly shot material for film but realism? Er well. I mean who would stand there in real life and allow themselves to be taken in a situation like that? Wouldn't you not be screaming in terror as you realize your life is about to end? Isn't that not realism Mr Goyer? I just thought it was a moment that betrayed all their over-spoken intentions.
Superman: Birthright writer, Mark Waid, had a negative reaction to the film as well.
http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/
Waid did defend Jonathan Kent's characterization and death scene:
QuoteAnd I think you'd be surprised to find that I loved everything about Jonathan Kent. I loved his protectiveness, even when it made him sound like an asshole. ("Maybe.") And I loved, loved, loved that scene where Clark didn't save him, because Goyer did something magical–he took two moments that, individually, I would have hated and he welded them together into something amazing. Out of context, I would have hated that Clark said "You're not my real dad," or whatever he says right before the tornado. And out of context, I would have loathed that Clark stood by frozen with helplessness as the tornado killed Jonathan. But the reason that beat worked is because Clark had just said "You're not my dad," the last real words he said to Pa. Tearful Clark choosing to go against his every instinct in that last second because he had to show his father he trusted him after all, because he had to show Pa that Pa could trust him and that Clark had learned, Clark did love him–that worked for me, hugely. It was a very brave story choice, but it worked. It worked largely on the shoulders of Cavill, who sold it. It worked as a tragic rite of passage. I kinda wish I'd written that scene.
Personally, I'm in the camp that says that Jonathan Kent didn't have to die at all (and in perhaps the most traumatic version yet of killing the character). When the movie already has Clark exposing himself by using his powers to rescue others, having him risk exposure to save his father would've been a better fit for the movie and for the spirit of the character. I bought that this version of Jonathan Kent would die to protect his son, but I didn't for a second believe that Clark would obey that or that Martha would let that happen either. It felt extremely contrived and a way to add unnecessary angst to Clark's character, complete with cribbing the "You're not my father" final argument from Raimi's Spider-Man.
A great parody on the whole movie: http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-from-man-of-steel-as-i-remem-516405346
Quote
Pa Kent: Goodbye, Clark.
Young Clark: Okay, you are literally going to die. I'm coming to get you.
Pa Kent: You'll do no such thing! I've told you, you must not use your powers to save people's lives!
Young Clark: Then when in the holy !@#$ should I use them?
Pa Kent: I don't know! Later sometime.
Young Clark: But not when my dad is about to die right in front of me and I could easily save him.
Pa Kent: Right.
Young Clark: Even though I could run and get you and be back in about a second, and most people would never believe their eyes thanks to the chaos of the tornado.
Pa Kent: Exactly.
Young Clark: Or I could grab you, run you someplace safe, get back here almost instantly, and we could pretend the tornado blew you someplace and you miraculously survived but without my involvement.
Pa Kent: Right. Don't do that.
Young Clark: Look, I can't help but feel we have a lot of solid options here that can save your life and preserve my secret simultaneously. I really don't think this needs to happen.
Pa Kent: Don't you sass me, boy!
I personally enjoyed the hell out of this. It's pretty much all I could ask for in a modern Superman movie, and I don't really buy the argument that it changes or re-imagines Superman (young Kal-El seemed pretty alienated even in the first Donner film). It's taking Superman and placing him in a contemporary context and seeing how it would play out.
Anyway some random thoughts I had already posted at BoF:
*Loved the Krypton scenes, and loved how it was all integral to the plot. Krypton was not just something to show and them move on from, Krypton was felt throughout the movie. I would actually be totally down with a prequel set completely on Krypton staring Crowe and Shannon. I wanna know more about that society, it's tech, it's fauna , it's flora, etc, etc. And I loved the nods to Man of Steel with the Birthing Matrixes.
*Loved the effects of young Clarks x-ray vision messing with him. And how they colored his face when he used his heat vision. Love all those little touches (and of course he emotional core of the film was great).
*Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I gotta say I like the notion that the people of Smallville think of divine intervention before they think alien or military tech when it comes to Clark's abilities. Makes for a good cover I guess. Also really liked how Pete went from a bully to friend for Clark.
*At first I thought Clark's costume reveal was too sudden and almost comical. But when I saw that it's essentially his "training sequence" and him learning to fly (and enjoying it!) I really liked that scene.
*Amy Adams is awesome. The Doctor Who fan in me couldn't help but think of her as Superman's "companion" specially in the way she went with him to Zod's ship and figured out how to beat the Kryptonians with AI Jor-EL's help. She going to the Kryptonioan ship is my one narrative nit-pick for the film (why do they need her on the ship to read her mind if they can read Superman's mind as well?) but it's a minor element that doesn't bother me.
*Zod is scary, layered, complex, tragic, and despicable. Michael Shannon continues to hit it out of the park.
*Cavill is great in the role, he embodies Superman perfectly. His Superman, is strong, confident, funny, conforming, powerful, respectful, ie everything Superman should be. It's yet to be seen if he plays "disguise" Clark as well (if it's even the angle that they go for, seems like the may stick with "regular guy Bryne Clark", more on this latter), but I loved how he played it. I really don't think the "Superman Curse" will strike again, because this guy seems like a bona-fide movie star to me.
*The action was amazing. While I understand why some people may have been turned off by this, I loved how the destruction felt real, like it's going to take years to rebuild. This makes Avengers look like Sesame Street.
*The final fight was an intense at it needed to be, and the way it ended... It ended really the only way it could, and it still showed Superman in in pain over loosing the last of his people. He really didn't want to kill Zod, just like he didn't want to leave Pa Kent to die. But in both cases he absolutely did what he had to. While I understand the shock of seeing Superman do this, it was played in a way that I actually buy, as opposed to Superman #22 and Superman 2 (I don't think Superman would choose to execute anyone after they where no longer a treat). Funnily enough this also reminded me of Doctor Who, as the scene is extremely similar to the Tenth Doctor and the Master's final scene together in "Last of the Time Lords".
"Welcome to the PLANET". Lord did I love that last scene. And while they modernized Clark's wardrobe wearing jeans and everything, in the end it's just Clark Kent again, dude in glasses. No different hair or anything, just eye glasses (glasses that he only puts on in the elevator mind you). It's like the filmmakers where telling the audience "sure we're going for semi-realistic and everything sure, but Superman's disguise is just glasses. Nothing more nothing less, just glasses. Get over it". I cannot overstate how much I love that. And the fact that Lois knows works so damn well....
Anyway yeah. Cannot wait to see this again. It it's not a perfect film, but I haven't been this satisfied by a superhero film since TDK. Can't wait to see more of this series. 8.5/10
Quote from: ElCuervoMuerto on Fri, 21 Jun 2013, 06:29
I personally enjoyed the hell out of this. It's pretty much all I could ask for in a modern Superman movie, and I don't really buy the argument that it changes or re-imagines Superman (young Kal-El seemed pretty alienated even in the first Donner film). It's taking Superman and placing him in a contemporary context and seeing how it would play out.
Anyway some random thoughts I had already posted at BoF:
*Loved the Krypton scenes, and loved how it was all integral to the plot. Krypton was not just something to show and them move on from, Krypton was felt throughout the movie. I would actually be totally down with a prequel set completely on Krypton staring Crowe and Shannon. I wanna know more about that society, it's tech, it's fauna , it's flora, etc, etc. And I loved the nods to Man of Steel with the Birthing Matrixes.
*Loved the effects of young Clarks x-ray vision messing with him. And how they colored his face when he used his heat vision. Love all those little touches (and of course he emotional core of the film was great).
*Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I gotta say I like the notion that the people of Smallville think of divine intervention before they think alien or military tech when it comes to Clark's abilities. Makes for a good cover I guess. Also really liked how Pete went from a bully to friend for Clark.
*At first I thought Clark's costume reveal was too sudden and almost comical. But when I saw that it's essentially his "training sequence" and him learning to fly (and enjoying it!) I really liked that scene.
*Amy Adams is awesome. The Doctor Who fan in me couldn't help but think of her as Superman's "companion" specially in the way she went with him to Zod's ship and figured out how to beat the Kryptonians with AI Jor-EL's help. She going to the Kryptonioan ship is my one narrative nit-pick for the film (why do they need her on the ship to read her mind if they can read Superman's mind as well?) but it's a minor element that doesn't bother me.
*Zod is scary, layered, complex, tragic, and despicable. Michael Shannon continues to hit it out of the park.
*Cavill is great in the role, he embodies Superman perfectly. His Superman, is strong, confident, funny, conforming, powerful, respectful, ie everything Superman should be. It's yet to be seen if he plays "disguise" Clark as well (if it's even the angle that they go for, seems like the may stick with "regular guy Bryne Clark", more on this latter), but I loved how he played it. I really don't think the "Superman Curse" will strike again, because this guy seems like a bona-fide movie star to me.
*The action was amazing. While I understand why some people may have been turned off by this, I loved how the destruction felt real, like it's going to take years to rebuild. This makes Avengers look like Sesame Street.
*The final fight was an intense at it needed to be, and the way it ended... It ended really the only way it could, and it still showed Superman in in pain over loosing the last of his people. He really didn't want to kill Zod, just like he didn't want to leave Pa Kent to die. But in both cases he absolutely did what he had to. While I understand the shock of seeing Superman do this, it was played in a way that I actually buy, as opposed to Superman #22 and Superman 2 (I don't think Superman would choose to execute anyone after they where no longer a treat). Funnily enough this also reminded me of Doctor Who, as the scene is extremely similar to the Tenth Doctor and the Master's final scene together in "Last of the Time Lords".
"Welcome to the PLANET". Lord did I love that last scene. And while they modernized Clark's wardrobe wearing jeans and everything, in the end it's just Clark Kent again, dude in glasses. No different hair or anything, just eye glasses (glasses that he only puts on in the elevator mind you). It's like the filmmakers where telling the audience "sure we're going for semi-realistic and everything sure, but Superman's disguise is just glasses. Nothing more nothing less, just glasses. Get over it". I cannot overstate how much I love that. And the fact that Lois knows works so damn well....
Anyway yeah. Cannot wait to see this again. It it's not a perfect film, but I haven't been this satisfied by a superhero film since TDK. Can't wait to see more of this series. 8.5/10
I too enjoyed that final scene you mentioned: the intro of glasses laden Clark Kent. I'll even go so far as to say it's my favorite scene in the entire film. I'd heard in interviews a lot the film would have a new take on Clark. Heard Lois would immediately know all about him and that there seemed to be a definite lack of "Daily Planet Kent" featured in the movie. So I'd geared myself up prior to seeing it with the belief they had totally thrown out secret identity Clark and we're just going to have Superman at all times. There had also of course been a kind of running joke in fandom that Lois is so stupid in that a pair of mere glasses always fool her. With Nolan involved I dreaded here we go, they've utterly deleted the Clark Kent concept for being too silly, unreal blah blah blah. I figured if they had done that it would have been slightly ironic since it was Superman in comics who popularized the super hero double identity in the first place. Taking that of the equation in a highly popular film would no doubt have given DC a "loaded gun" to removing his human disguise from the books and trying it themselves. As I added it up it all got a bit frightening for this fan who enjoys Superman acting the part of a meek individual.
So you can imagine my utter joy of seeing that last scene having managed to avoid spoilers. That scene has completely excited me for sequels I previously had no interest in or felt had been too quickly raced into production. To see how Cavill fully acts his Clark Kent side next time in Daily Planet mode. Already we have something exciting, new and different for the follow up that unlike in Batman Begins (we heard about the Joker card) we actually got to see a glimpse of the future here.
Some have expressed a worry Lois actually knows it's Superman under those glasses. I too am unsure if this will really work out for future movies, at the moment it's fine. Critics felt it denies the character's the fun stuff of Lois completely unsuspecting his identity. I love for instance scenes like in Superman II when Reeve as Kent clumsily "rescues" Lois from the wild river she jumped into looking so unlike Superman lol To not be able to have new takes on moments like this seems a bit of a shame. However for those completely unhappy with Lois being in on Superman's identity look at the famous diner scene in Superman II. Clark, still wearing his Daily Planet "disguise" and yet Lois knew at that point everything about him. Had they used Margot Kidder fully in Superman III I suspect the Salkind's may have gone totally with this concept (a similar idea was seen in Spider-Man 2 and 3 also). So in a way the Reeve films have already flirted with that idea and for me it gives them the licence to flesh it out larger for Cavill's second outing and see what works and what doesn't.
I don't know how the Clark/Superman and Lois Lane dynamic will now work with Lois knowing Superman's identity.
Something I particularly enjoyed in the previous incarnations was the poignancy surrounding Clark's affection for Lois and his self-imposed inability to open up his heart to her, instead putting on the protective façade of her bumbling, ineffectual subordinate (although he's a journalist in the comic-books and earlier films it is still implied that Lois is already a veteran on 'The Daily Planet' and effectively the newbie Clark's mentor). In those earlier versions it's almost heart-breaking to watch poor Clark suppress his 'manliness' and risk Lois's stinging, albeit light-hearted, mockery. The concealed identity trope was a potentially rich source of drama that is seemingly limited now that the object of Clark's affection knows who he is.
Which is starting to make me think the following:
The film makers way around the 'it's only glasses' disguise in the sequel could be that mostly everyone at the Daily Planet knows, just like Lois does. But they decide to say nothing and go along with it. Honoured/happy that this hero is amongst them. Which could play up to a trust theme.
It would be a whole new dynamic. Which to tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind. It would be a way for Clark to be more or less Clark without bumbling around and having to be something he's not. There could be traces of it, but not full on Reeve mode. Especially if they're trying to differentiate this series to the Donnerverse.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, 01:14
Which is starting to make me think the following:
The film makers way around the 'it's only glasses' disguise in the sequel could be that mostly everyone at the Daily Planet knows, just like Lois does. But they decide to say nothing and go along with it. Honoured/happy that this hero is amongst them. Which could play up to a trust theme.
Here's how you resolve it: Have a scene where Superman saves Clark in front of all of his Daily Planet colleagues and a cable news crew. After everyone leaves, Clark winks at Superman. As Superman flies off, we see Clark turn into the Martian Manhunter, providing a segueway into the Justice League movie.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, 01:14
Which is starting to make me think the following:
The film makers way around the 'it's only glasses' disguise in the sequel could be that mostly everyone at the Daily Planet knows, just like Lois does. But they decide to say nothing and go along with it. Honoured/happy that this hero is amongst them. Which could play up to a trust theme.
It would be a whole new dynamic. Which to tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind. It would be a way for Clark to be more or less Clark without bumbling around and having to be something he's not. There could be traces of it, but not full on Reeve mode. Especially if they're trying to differentiate this series to the Donnerverse.
That's the thing. A lot of people have seen Superman close-up and people know that Lois journeyed to Smallville, Clark's home-town, for her sources. In this day and age it's very hard to keep such a secret especially from the media. In a more fantastical version of Superman one could easily suspend one's disbelief but this is the 'realistic' version.
On my idea again:
Superman says to the general at the end "you are looking to find where I hang my cape, but you won't".
This says that indeed, he isn't Superman all the time. In previous incarnations - TV, comic, film, the concept and assumed deceit was Superman was Superman, always in the suit and such. That is ruled out here. He is saying he does indeed do something else in his spare time.
And he also firmly believes his identity is watertight with his "you won't" comment. I think he's mistaken, as johnnygobbs posted above. "I'm as American as you can get, I grew up in Kansas" narrows things down a lot too.Though it could come down to the trust thing, as Superman says as well. "Then I'll just have to trust you." Lots of people knowing, Superman thinking they don't – going on that model. That trust could be reciprocated.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 24 Jun 2013, 07:39
On my idea again:
Superman says to the general at the end "you are looking to find where I hang my cape, but you won't".
This says that indeed, he isn't Superman all the time. In previous incarnations - TV, comic, film, the concept and assumed deceit was Superman was Superman, always in the suit and such. That is ruled out here. He is saying he does indeed do something else in his spare time.
And he also firmly believes his identity is watertight with his "you won't" comment. I think he's mistaken, as johnnygobbs posted above. "I'm as American as you can get, I grew up in Kansas" narrows things down a lot too.Though it could come down to the trust thing, as Superman says as well. "Then I'll just have to trust you." Lots of people knowing, Superman thinking they don't – going on that model. That trust could be reciprocated.
All though it's a massive stretch to believe that many people could keep and be willing to keep a secret of such magnitude in this day and age (or any era for that matter) it might be an interesting angle for the filmmakers to develop with further films: the theme of trust, and whether Kal El's adopted planet will continue to let him live his life as a 'regular' human being irrespective of his alien identity.
I find it hard to buy though, not least because of all the panic the existence of such a super-powered being might evoke in a world gripped by fear and at the moment, terrorist paranoia. Perhaps that's an angle Lex Luthor might exploit in a future film possibly as part of his run for the presidency. It would certainly make for a more 'grown-up' and potentially political Superman movie.
It is hard to buy. Though when it concerns Superman's secret identity remaining a secret, everything is. I think this angle could be something interesting, though. The humans let Kal-El live as a human.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 24 Jun 2013, 09:52
It is hard to buy. Though when it concerns Superman's secret identity remaining a secret, everything is. I think this angle could be something interesting, though. The humans let Kal-El live as a human.
I agree. It's a very positive, if admittedly far-fetched message. The decency, humanity if you will, of humans, and whether they will end up proving Kal El/Clark's adopted father's fears wrong and as you state 'let him live as a human' or whether they will in fact end up betraying his trust. Although by taking a job to get 'close to the action' I suppose Kal El is not entirely forsaking an extraordinary life and means to exist as a superhero.
I saw the movie last Tuesday with my brother and a friend.
Theater was almost packed.
Always have been a big SuperMan comic book fan (although, the Batman has always been my number one guy :D ) since I was a kid but never totally bought into the 1978 movie because I always felt that the humorous part was too prevalent and knew there was more to the character than a "light-approach": at least, that's how I have always envisioned the character.
Christopher Reeve I always have loved in the role, though. He was the one who made those movies work.
Basically, in my mind Man of Steel is the SuperMan movie I'd always imagined: somewhat brooding, philosophical and with this great, huge "global" humanistic feel to it.
And this movie delivers just that !
The whole atmosphere you breathe watching the film is exactly what I hoped the filmmakers would go for and treasure about the best moments and characteristics of the comic book and its world.
All of the cast was terrific and needless to say the fact that Kevin Costner was in this, playing Pa Kent, the one character I've always felt a lot of connection to for the values he stands for, was beyond awesome.
And I know I must have been the only going to the movie last night anticipating Kevin's scenes the most (though, I'd been fervently anticipating the movie for two years, make no mistake) : he played Pa Kent with such gravity and dignity that I really , really wish there had been many more scenes with him. Really, I felt the best part of the movie, and this is what I hoped the filmmakers would go all out about, was the relationship between Kal-El and his earth parents and what they understatedly and through practical example imbued in him.
Henry Cavill was terrific : I always felt like no one else could come close to Chris Reeve's performance and embodiment of the character, but Henry did and went beyond it. He's the SuperMan for my generation and this movie is, too.
Now, you can all start tearing me apart ;D
Glad you liked it, Batman88.
I genuinely like Hans Zimmer's score for MOS. Surprising I know. I'm working on a review now.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 25 Jun 2013, 11:01
Glad you liked it, Batman88.
I genuinely like Hans Zimmer's score for MOS. Surprising I know. I'm working on a review now.
I look forward to your review Dark Knight. I wish I had your initiative. I guess if I felt more passionately about the film one way or another I'd feel more compelled to draft a review but I neither hate nor especially love MOS. It's good but not great and although it is plenty flawed none of its flaws are fatal.
However, like you I do think Hans Zimmer's score was a genuine success and might even be regarded as a classic in years to come (although it's doubtful whether it will ever supplant John Williams' iconic 1978 theme), and like Batman88 says, Kevin Costner did a great job as Jonathan Kent.
I'm doing my best with the review. So it should be good enough. I don't think Han's theme will be ingrained into society or anything like that. But I think he did a good job here, and the criticisms are overboard IMO. I won't say too much here. I'll save it up for the article.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 25 Jun 2013, 11:12
I'm doing my best with the review. So it should be good enough. I don't think Han's theme will be ingrained into society or anything like that. But I think he did a good job here, and the criticisms are overboard IMO. I won't say too much here. I'll save it up for the article.
I have to say the music was the 1 thing I totally (and I mean totally! lol) despised in the film. Watching the climatic battles in the cinema I remember thinking y'know these images would be even ten times more exciting than what they already are with the Williams music. I confess I did have a slight smirk on my face when most movie critics in Hollywood lambasted the score for being quite boring in comparison. I just thought well, not that we didn't expect this right?
When I first heard the brand new theme in trailers I was surprised by how alright it was. It sounded like it had maintained the same pumping adrenaline bassline of the Williams theme although very different. I like when it gets really fast with the drums booming in. That's good stuff. The problem is this score fades very quickly in memory and sheer enjoyment. Once it's played ten times over during the course of the film or even it's album I'm fed up with it. Some critics highlighted how overly repetitive it all was too. I recently spotted the soundtrack on sale in my local HMV store and just couldn't buy the thing (much as I tried willing myself to do so lol). I think it was Jerry Goldsmith who said, in regards to his own score on the Alien dvd, that certain film scores don't always work outside the context of the films their in. I think the Man of Steel score is a victim of this circumstance. It's fine when I hear it with the images on screen but I can't listen to the thing on home cd separately for entertainment. Now you might say so what, the point is it's relation to the film not home music entertainment. True but the Williams score also played extremely well on it's own merits without needing you to hear it along with movie.
Usually in a Superman movie I won't move until the credits are over and after hearing the Williams march lol It never gets tiring for me and those swooshing credits are just exciting to look at. How disappointed I was with the end credits of the new one. I'm not even sure if I missed a scene after the credits or something because I got up and left. I gave it about 2 mins but Zimmer's score (and the rather bland "Dark Knight" style simple movie credits) couldn't root my ass to the spot as movies gone by. A bit more imagination next time guys please. The Superman credits used to be pretty much the only entertainment in movie credits in film history (next to James Bond of course!).
Looking forward to reading you review of the film's music score, Dark Knight !
What do you guys think about Costner's performance as Pa Kent ? I think it's the highlight of the movie. He and Russell Crowe really nailed their roles.
I know Superman Returns is pretty much reviled by most of the regulars on this site so I don't suppose this article (http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-the-muchmaligned-superman-returns-got-right,99469/ (http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-the-muchmaligned-superman-returns-got-right,99469/)) is going to get much love around these parts, but I thought the following paragraph was interesting:
"The film is a kneeling homage to everything great about Donner's work on the series—the John Williams theme, the eternal period trappings of Metropolis (especially in the Daily Planet offices), the overwhelming gentleness of it all. Superman isn't punching people through skyscrapers or warring with the suspicious U.S. military. In one notable sequence, he walks calmly towards a man pelting him with bullets from a chaingun to subdue him. In another, he catches the falling globe on the Daily Planet building and softly brings it to the ground in the best, most stirring representation of the character's Golden Age iconography."
The difference between Reeve/Routh's gentleman Superman and Cavill's brooding emo outcast is quite striking, with the former demonstrating 'none of the crunching bombast of Snyder's action-fest, but also none of its disdain for innocent citizens' while the latter goes about 'punching people through skyscrapers'. I wonder how, if Warners does eventually ever get around to making a JLA movie, this Superman will be easily contrasted with his teammates who have ordinarily been portrayed as the dark, brooding, morally conflicted ones.
"the eternal period trappings of Metropolis"
What? How is that a homage to Donner's Superman?
Donner's was set in 1978! The offices were modern for the time. Returns's Daily Planet was fugly!
Quote from: Batman88 on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 11:08
Looking forward to reading you review of the film's music score, Dark Knight !
What do you guys think about Costner's performance as Pa Kent ? I think it's the highlight of the movie. He and Russell Crowe really nailed their roles.
For me he was certainly no Glenn Ford (who made so much more out of a smaller but still crucial role in the 1978 original). But he was just fine. I'm disappointed they killed him off however. Bit of a waste. I'd have liked to have seen him be an ongoing character this time (ala the Lois and Clark tv series). I remember being surprised that Morgan Freeman stayed on for the Batman series and it would have been nice if Costner had been given the same chance. But who knows, there is always flashback sequences...
Anyway his performance in this erased terrible nightmares of movies like "The Bodyguard". And that hilarious time during Madonna's 1990 tour documentary "In Bed with Madonna" when she pulled a disgusted look behind his back for referring to her show as...."Neat" lol
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 18:24
"the eternal period trappings of Metropolis"
What? How is that a homage to Donner's Superman?
Donner's was set in 1978! The offices were modern for the time. Returns's Daily Planet was fugly!
I'm not sure about the period trappings but I do think the characters in both the Donner films and Returns were dressed in rather anachronistic 40s-style clothing with the wide-brimmed hats, bow-ties and three-piece suits etc (which is not to say people don't wear those suits today or wore them in the 1970s but just that they haven't really been in fashion for several decades). The behaviour of the characters in the Donner films also harkened back to an idolised version of the 1940s with a wide-eyed 'gee-whizz' type Jimmy Olson and a bumbling, gentlemanly Clark Kent straight out of a Cary Grant screwball comedy.
Also, I don't agree with you about Returns looking ugly. The glossy art direction, particularly for the Daily Planet offices, interior and exterior (with the giant golden globe on top of the building) was one of few elements I thought Returns actually got right. Whatever else one might say about the film, and certainly in terms of story focus and casting in particular I feel it falls way short, it's a pretty good looking movie in terms of effects, art direction and cinematography, particularly in 3D.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 19:22
Anyway his performance in this erased terrible nightmares of movies like "The Bodyguard". And that hilarious time during Madonna's 1990 tour documentary "In Bed with Madonna" when she pulled a disgusted look behind his back for referring to her show as...."Neat" lol
I actually consider Costner's 'cameo' in "In Bed with Madonna" to be one of the highlights of his career and certainly the funniest scene in that film.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 18:24
"the eternal period trappings of Metropolis"
What? How is that a homage to Donner's Superman?
Donner's was set in 1978! The offices were modern for the time. Returns's Daily Planet was fugly!
I very much enjoyed Returns and would always defend it's qualities. But the Daily Planet and Metropolis with all it's modern technology has always bemused me given that this film is meant to be a sequel to the 1978 film. Whoo, the city came a long way in just five years.
Y'see when that film was released the creators made it clear it was a sequel of sorts to the first two movies but ignoring III and IV. I never liked this because it really does screw up the continuity aspects. Superman IV I'm guessing was set in the 80's and Supes does state he has now lived among them "for many years". Much time has clearly passed. If Returns is a sequel and ultimately a rebooted third movie that's quite a timeline leap between the look of 1978-80 and the modern aspects of a clear 2006!
The Daily Planet is almost certainly NOT the same building as in the previous movies. It just can't be. It's all souped up with a lavish new design and the outside foyer is completely different. Superman IV's Daily Planet, ironic given the budget, really did look and feel like the same place with some newly built additions. In Returns there is a small park it seems next to the building. Not crowded New York streets as in the first film. The helipad on the roof has totally vanished too in place of the rotating globe logo. They've clearly upped offices. Had they kept the last two films in context maybe they could have explained it by having the Warfield's run the original offices into the ground in some revenge act lol
The worst aspect of Superman Returns for me was being expected to believe that Kate Bosworth was a veteran Pulitzer Prize winning journalist when she looked about 21 in the film, which would have made her 16 when Superman first disappeared from Metropolis?!?
Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's as the rebooted 3rd film.
It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.
Superman IV states that Martha Kent had passed away, while Returns had her still living.
Random useless fact pertaining to Man of Steel: Both performers to appear as Superman's biological and adopted fathers have also played Robin Hood. No profound point, just thought it was funny.
I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.
She's no class act. He is.
Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 08:16
I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.
She's no class act. He is.
What's this about?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 11:17
Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 08:16
I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.
She's no class act. He is.
What's this about?
Madonna's
Truth or Dare 1991 documentary chronicled her 1990
Blond Ambition tour.
Madonna parties with several celebrities, including
Dick Tracy co-stars Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin, and Olivia Newton-John.
Kevin Costner "offends" Madonna by calling her show "neat". Madonna pretends to gag after he leaves.
But, it seems Madonna patched things up years later: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=263753
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 01:34
Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's as the rebooted 3rd film.
It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.
Superman IV was pretty atrocious. I personally enjoy it as a piece of campy fun (although I believe Christopher Reeve genuinely believed he was making a fairly earnest polemic about the nuclear arms race) and there are plenty of incidental pleasures such as the return of Gene Hackman who at least seems to be enjoying himself, Jon Cryer 'break-dancing', the beautiful Mariel Hemingway as Clark's new spoiled rich love interest, the screwball comedy of the 'double-date' scene and a brief comedy cameo from Jim Broadbent along with William Hootkins ('Eckhart' from Batman '89 and of course, 'Porkins' from SW: Episode IV). However, it was still a pretty bad film and I can entirely understand why Bryan Singer would want to disassociate 'Superman Returns' from it.
It's completely unlikely but how cool would it be if somebody did a belated sequel to the Burton Batman films ignoring 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin'? Maybe one should be grateful to Singer for at least demonstrating that the concept is feasible.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 14:18
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 01:34
Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's as the rebooted 3rd film.
It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.
Superman IV was pretty atrocious. I personally enjoy it as a piece of campy fun (although I believe Christopher Reeve genuinely believed he was making a fairly earnest polemic about the nuclear arms race) and there are plenty of incidental pleasures such as the return of Gene Hackman who at least seems to be enjoying himself, Jon Cryer 'break-dancing', the beautiful Mariel Hemingway as Clark's new spoiled rich love interest, the screwball comedy of the 'double-date' scene and a brief comedy cameo from Jim Broadbent along with William Hootkins ('Eckhart' from Batman '89 and of course, 'Porkins' from SW: Episode IV). However, it was still a pretty bad film and I can entirely understand why Bryan Singer would want to disassociate 'Superman Returns' from it.
It's completely unlikely but how cool would it be if somebody did a belated sequel to the Burton Batman films ignoring 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin'? Maybe one should be grateful to Singer for at least demonstrating that the concept is feasible.
Well I think Tim Burton's superman film would have taken place in the same continuity as his batman films. Even though forever and robin were out at the time, I doubt he would have included them in the continuity.
Wes craven kind of did when he returned to the nightmare on elm street series; basically ignored everything that happened since the 3rd film.
Sadly has there ever been a sequel to a film which had since been rebooted or remade? It would be completely unprecedented to revisit the Burton series now that the Nolan series rebooted it.
QuoteSadly has there ever been a sequel to a film which had since been rebooted or remade? It would be completely unprecedented to revisit the Burton series now that the Nolan series rebooted it.
I can't think of any but reboots are a relatively recent trend.
QuoteWell I think Tim Burton's superman film would have taken place in the same continuity as his batman films. Even though forever and robin were out at the time, I doubt he would have included them in the continuity.
That's interesting. Do you know who was set to star in the film apart from Nicholas Cage as 'Superman'? If not who do you think should have been cast around the period 'Superman Lives' was set to be made?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, 11:50
I know Superman Returns is pretty much reviled by most of the regulars on this site so I don't suppose this article
Admittedly, I was one of the "revilers" but I've recently changed my opinion for several reasons:
1) I can appreciate the film for what it tried to be- a love letter to the Reeve films
2) Now that we got a "real" Superman reboot there's no need to bash SR anymore. Mission accomplished
3) I recently met Routh and he's a really nice guy.
It still has a lot of flaws but I'm going to overlook them from now on...
Quote from: gordonblu on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 03:01
Superman IV states that Martha Kent had passed away, while Returns had her still living.
Random useless fact pertaining to Man of Steel: Both performers to appear as Superman's biological and adopted fathers have also played Robin Hood. No profound point, just thought it was funny.
It was Superman III actually. Lana mentions it at the High School Reunion. It's such a loud scene you can barely hear her say it. In IV of course the farm is up for sale and there is a deleted scene (not on the dvd but I've seen the pic) where Clark visits his parents grave at the cemetery from the first film.
Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 11:46
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 11:17
Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 08:16
I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.
She's no class act. He is.
What's this about?
Madonna's Truth or Dare 1991 documentary chronicled her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.
Madonna parties with several celebrities, including Dick Tracy co-stars Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin, and Olivia Newton-John.
Kevin Costner "offends" Madonna by calling her show "neat". Madonna pretends to gag after he leaves.
But, it seems Madonna patched things up years later: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=263753
Hahaha read the posts some time back. I tossed this into the conversation we were having about Costner.
On a side note as a fan of the Dick Tracy movie it's interesting that tour documentary to see Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin all featured. Clearly around the time of the film's release. And then there's Warren Beatty himself who has a rather awkward moment here and there. Clearly not enjoying the camera guys being around filming him. Lots of tension.
Poor Costner. Doubt he was being offensive. Just chose a bit of a naff word that might have been a bit too cutesy for the slightly tougher Madonna. Given the nature of that "Like a Virgin" segment I personally would have chosen a more suitably impressive description to sum up my enjoyable astonishment lol
Ironically his language seems very in keeping with the Clark Kent lingo using words like "swell" (to Lois' unease) don't you think? No wonder he got the job playing his dad lol
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 14:18
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 01:34
Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's as the rebooted 3rd film.
It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.
Superman IV was pretty atrocious. I personally enjoy it as a piece of campy fun (although I believe Christopher Reeve genuinely believed he was making a fairly earnest polemic about the nuclear arms race) and there are plenty of incidental pleasures such as the return of Gene Hackman who at least seems to be enjoying himself, Jon Cryer 'break-dancing', the beautiful Mariel Hemingway as Clark's new spoiled rich love interest, the screwball comedy of the 'double-date' scene and a brief comedy cameo from Jim Broadbent along with William Hootkins ('Eckhart' from Batman '89 and of course, 'Porkins' from SW: Episode IV). However, it was still a pretty bad film and I can entirely understand why Bryan Singer would want to disassociate 'Superman Returns' from it.
It's completely unlikely but how cool would it be if somebody did a belated sequel to the Burton Batman films ignoring 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin'? Maybe one should be grateful to Singer for at least demonstrating that the concept is feasible.
When Sylvester Stallone made Rocky Balboa he was quite unashamed to emphasize it as a sixth film (although the title didn't do so). There were plenty of references in it to previous movies I loved seeing. The most unpopular (and ultimately irrelevant) film in the series at that point was of course Rocky V, an installment I actually think is underrated as hell. While there wasn't as many references to it inside the new one it was clearly still regarded as part of the series. Rocky still being back in his run down, tough neighbourhood being the obvious example. So it's possible for even the worser parts of a series to still be taken into context as having happened. I wish Superman Returns had been braver to do the same.
I imagine like myself fans have been watching the old Superman movies in historical order to coincide with the new one? Yesterday I actually saw Superman IV and you know what, I actually had fun and enjoyed the dreaded thing! lol I think I've gotten so sick and tired of criticism toward the films (and the old Batman films) that I just wanted to get myself back to a more innocent minded time. As a kid I never gave a twat about the differences in quality or which director did what e.c.t. As long as Chris Reeve was still in the red cape they were all A pictures to my 6 year old self. I think if your prepared to see past the limitations and mistakes you now have as cynical adults you can still have a good time with it as a bit of silly fun. Superman IV also features the best comedic moment from Reeve to me. The scene were after changing into Clark Kent he bumps into Mariel Hemingway and skids across the floor in surprise lol How on earth did he do that??? Bet it took a few takes (and a couple of falls) but it never fails to make me raise a smile.
I've never hated Superman Returns. I was disappointed when I first saw it on the cinema. But I gradually grew to appreciate it after repeated viewings of the DVD. It's very flawed, yes. But not to the extent most people make it out to be. Most of the core criticisms have now been exaggerated to the point of hyperbole. Ask someone to explain why they don't like it and chances are they'll regurgitate the usual "boring stalker deadbeat dad" arguments; most of which don't really stand up to analysis, in my opinion. When I sat down to rewatch the Blu-ray last week, I'd almost convinced myself it was as bad as the haters make it out to be. But after rewatching the film, complete with the deleted 'Return to Krypton' opening sequence, I've got to say – it's a pretty decent film. Nowhere near as good as Superman I and II, but certainly not as bad as III and IV. I see it as being to the Superman franchise what Batman Returns is to the Batman franchise; a deeply flawed, but also deeply misunderstood film that has more going for it than its detractors will admit.
With regards to Man of Steel, here's an online game that perfectly encapsulates the heart and soul of the movie:
http://www.qualityjollity.com/MMOSGAME/MassMurdererOfSteel.html
Quote
Sadly has there ever been a sequel to a film which had since been rebooted or remade?
It's a rare occurrence, but it has happened once or twice.
Hammer Studios Frankenstein series. Between 1957 and 1969, Hammer made five films starring Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. The producers then decided Cushing was getting too old and they wanted a younger actor to replace him, so they rebooted the franchise with the 1970 film The Horror of Frankenstein. This movie starred Ralph Bates as a younger Frankenstein and disregarded all the previous films, instead reimagining Marry Shelley's novel in a more contemporary light. But it proved unpopular with both fans and critics, so Hammer abandoned the new series and revived the old one, bringing back Cushing to star in Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell (1974). Reboot unrebooted.
Planet of the Apes. There were five Planet of the Apes films produced between 1968 and 1973, then the franchise lay dormant until Tim Burton readapted Boulle's novel in 2001. Then in 2011 they made the surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which ignored the Tim Burton reboot and instead connected with the old series of films. There is some confusion about whether Rise of the Planet of the Apes is actually a prequel or a reboot, and even the filmmakers themselves seem unsure when asked about this. Personally I consider it a reboot of the 1972 film Conquest of the Planet of the Apes – which depicts the ape uprising led by Caesar – and a prequel to the 1968 film. The filmmakers have expressed their intent to make a series of films leading into the events of the original Planet of the Apes, so that would make it a prequel trilogy. And since they're clearly aiming to connect with the 1968 film rather than the 2001 version, then this would be another case of a reboot being unrebooted.
Conan the Barbarian. In the eighties Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in two Conan films loosely adapted from the stories by Robert E. Howard: the fantasy classic Conan the Barbarian (1982) and its awful sequel Conan the Destroyer (1984). For years afterwards there were rumours of a third film, though no such project ever came to fruition. Eventually the franchise got rebooted with the 2011 film Conan the Barbarian starring Jason Momoa. But the reboot was trashed by critics and only recouped around half its budget. So now the latest word is that they're bringing back Arnold to star in The Legend of Conan, a direct sequel to the 1982 film that will depict the adventures of the aging Conan as hinted at in the first film's closing epilogue. Another reboot unrebooted.
QuoteWith regards to Man of Steel, here's an online game that perfectly encapsulates the heart and soul of the movie:
http://www.qualityjollity.com/MMOSGAME/MassMurdererOfSteel.html
That's hilarious if slightly disturbing, yet it totally and utterly reflects my biggest gripe with the film.
Actually there's another series I thought of which outright ignores sequels; Universal soldier. There were two direct to video sequels before JCVD made two sequels of his own which were follow ups to the originals.
Yeah I thought rocky balboa did it right; they don't directly reference the fifth film and I believe there's clips from the first 4 films but it is implied that the fifth film did happen; Rocky was rich at the end of IV but poor at the end of V and relatively poor in Balboa.
Back to man of steel, I'm not a heavy supes fan so my comprehensive views would not be nearly as good as the others but heres how I view each actor/character
Henry Cavill as Superman; he did well with the serious tone he was given but I question whether he can carry the load in the future films; maybe he'll prove me wrong but I have a hard time picturing him capturing the bumbling goofy Clark Kent nearly as well as Reeves or even Routh did.
Amy Adams as Lois lane; she played the character the same way as Kate Bosworth only better but that doesn't necessarily make it good. Margot Kidder is still the ideal Lois Lane, I think Adams comes off too serious, I prefer Kidders flirty yet smart Lois.
Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent; the only scene which was somewhat questionable for him was his death scene, he seemed just a tad too happy to be going. But overall he was outstanding in his scenes along with Diane Lane. He did provide a good role model for Clark. Not costners fault but I didn't like the way he was written; the death scene was a little too cheezy as was his motive that Clark can't save people. If god didn't want him saving people, he wouldnt have given him the power to do so. It is a terrible burden he forced on Clark to basically force him to stand by and do nothing and let people die and get hurt.
Michael Shannon as General Zod; I actually was pleasantly surprised by the handling of the villain, he was layered and did have strong motivations and convictions. It wasn't a case of him being evil or selfish like most villains, in his mind he was the hero and Jor El and Kal el were the villains.
Russel Crowe as Jor El: Outstanding, maybe the best performance in the film.
Laurence Fishburn as Perry white: did a good job but underused.
This is a film that sees me doing drafts of a full review; it's been almost a week and I'm not done yet. But until I get the long version done, here's a brief summary of my thoughts:
Man of Steel is a visually bleak, tonally heavy and morose re-tread of material that has already been mined in film, TV, and animation, and falls short of its predecessors in every sense despite having (in some cases) more to work with (on paper). Divorced from previous incarnations and taken on its own merits, it's a film that tries to cram too much into one movie, is largely devoid of colour, life, and personality for its leads, and makes some very questionable choices in the ending, considering the character that is being adapted. And having said all that, I was expecting to have a much tougher time sitting through this thing, and I was pleasantly surprised in some respects, mostly in the portrayal of Clark himself.
It's a perfect 10 for me. It surpassed all my expectations. It was the modern Superman film I always wanted to see.
Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 11:46
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 11:17
Quote from: Batman88 on Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 08:16
I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.
She's no class act. He is.
What's this about?
Madonna's Truth or Dare 1991 documentary chronicled her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.
Madonna parties with several celebrities, including Dick Tracy co-stars Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin, and Olivia Newton-John.
Kevin Costner "offends" Madonna by calling her show "neat". Madonna pretends to gag after he leaves.
But, it seems Madonna patched things up years later: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=263753
Off topic, but I like Madonna's attitude. She
knows how to rile people up and empower herself. Not really caring what other people think, having a particular sense of humour, doing what she wants etc.
*SPOILERS - in case there is anybody reading this who still hasn't seen the film yet*
I finally saw this today.
Overall, I thought it was merely okay. It has its fair share of great moments, and moments were things could've been better.
I liked the Krypton scenes the most in the movie; really enjoyed the fight between Jor-El and General Zod. I found it curious to see how in this version people are secretly aware of Clark's powers, and Clark himself tries to earn the military's trust by revealing information about himself; which made the end where he disguises himself by wearing glasses to be very laughable. It had a fair bit of emotion too, i.e. Lara giving birth to her son, the chemistry between Martha Kent and Clark, Jonathan Kent revealing Clark's true origins when he was a teenager.
There were some questionable moments though: why did Zod bring Lois into the spacecraft for? It felt like a contrived excuse to insert the codex into the ship so Superman could regain his powers. Fair enough if Jonathan Kent was afraid of his son's exposure to the rest of the world, but he could've at least do something when Clark was being attacked by that jock scumbag. And yeah, it got a bit ridiculous how Superman was tearing up the city as he was fighting Faora and Zod. But then again, that is one of many reasons I didn't like Nolan's first two Batman movies or Superman II either; those movies were just as guilty of having heroes being reckless.
But I can't understand the complaints about Superman killing Zod. It wasn't like he killed in cold-blood, Superman was caught in a life and death predicament; he was either going to let Zod kill that family or he was going to prevent it from happening. He carried out a necessary evil. And besides, I don't recall people ever having a problem with Superman killing Zod at the end of Superman II. Nor do I see people complaining (never mind acknowledging) that Nolan's Batman goes against his morals by killing people whenever it was convenient to the story (which only made his refusal to kill the Joker even more incomprehensible). I mean, how is Batman killing Two-Face to save Gordon's son any different to what Superman did under the circumstances? And hey, at least Man of Steel doesn't have Superman saying murder is wrong in one moment, then proceeds to kill everybody else in the next i.e. Batman Begins; thus undermining the character's moral standpoint in the first place. Too bad Nolan and Goyer weren't smart enough to avoid writing themselves into a corner when they were doing Batman.
I liked the cast as well. Cavill does fine with Superman despite not giving enough lines to say. Amy Adams is good enough as Lois, as are Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as the Kents. Russell Crowe is good, but Michael Shannon is a little bit over the top - made me laugh a bit when he screamed "I will find him".
Like I said, it was alright, albeit flawed. I think it owes a lot to Superman: Earth One Vol. 1 storywise (which I read recently but I'll go into detail another time) If I had to give it a rating out of ten, it might be six.
Saw it twice. Loved it both times.
A lot of the Prima-Donners are all butt-hurt that this isn't a retread (or better yet a sequel!) to Donner. Fvck off. If some "big fan" only knows Superman from two or three trade paperbacks, an episode or two of STAS and the Donner stuff, this movie probably will leave them out in the cold and I'm glad about it.
There was humor in the movie. "Careful with those bags, they're heavy", "Nice suit, son", "That's what they're calling him, Superman", etc. No, it's not Richard Pryor skiing down the side of a building but I still thought those lines were amusing.
For the first time since 1983, Superman is now a viable film franchise. It's curb-stomped Singerman, Batman Begins, The Amazing Spider-Man, any Marvel Studios film that doesn't include Iron Man and tons of other movies (and if it wasn't for some insane competition the past few weeks, I'm positive it would've beaten the piss out of the first Iron Man because it was tracking to do so). It's the most successful reboot film ever, the casting choices were uniformly great and Snyder has done a lot to ease the pain of Singerman.
This isn't more of Richard Donner's "protector" bull$#!+. This Superman will beat your ass if you deserve it. There's more action any five minutes of MOS than there was in the entirety of Singerman. That alone makes it all worthwhile.
Yeah, there was collateral damage in the film. He's Superman, not SuperGod. Part of his objective is enabling mankind. There's a reason returning the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone rested primarily on the army and those civilians rather than directly on Superman. Superman isn't necessarily there to fix all their problems for them. He's supposed to inspire them as much as anything. They need to stand up. Now and then they need help doing so, and that is where Superman comes in. He's supposed to be their inspiration and champion, not their nanny, "god" or anything else.
Oh, and another thing? If he'd bailed out of the fight with the Kryptonians everytime he needed to rescue somebody, he never would've been in the fight and while he was gone, the Kryptonians would've found other things/people to smash. Superman went where he was needed most. I have no problem with his actions and I don't care if anybody else did. Sorry but I don't trust anybody else's viewpoint of Superman. When you've spent over three-quarters of your life reading his comics, let me know. Until then, you've got no cred with me.
Superman killed Zod. Strictly speaking, I've regarded Superman's no kill policy as more of an ideal than anything. The people most bothered by Zod's death in MOS seem perfectly okay with Superman killing Zod in Superman II (take your deleted scenes outside, nobody cares; if it's not in the movie, it didn't fvcking happen), Singerman killing Kumar and Keyser Soze's other thugs or other things. But I guess if you blare the Williams march in the background loud enough, "fans" can overlook anything. And once again, they can fvck off.
Is this the Superman movie I wanted right now? Not really. I would've preferred a science-fairy tale like the Silver and Bronze Age comics were. I don't think realism will ever be a perfect match. You have a freebie with Zod but sooner or later you're going to need to introduce other costumed supervillains for Superman to duke it out with. And, in a realistic setting, then what do you do? But since my Silver Age-lite type film is unlikely to ever be made, I can live with Man of Steel.
Guys, BE HAPPY!!! It can factually be said that the new Superman movie has outgrossed the new Spider-Man movie! Who among us would've predicted that back in 2007?
Viva Snyder! Viva Cavill!
^ What a colorful reply. :) ;) Glad you enjoyed, I thought it was WAY better than Batman Begins as well (which honestly isn't that hard to do), although I still liked movies such as Thor, CATFA and The Avengers better, but each to his own. I have a feeling that if they're careful and don't rush things, the sequel will be even better.
If the Donner Superman fans annoy you about the no-kill policy, I wonder what do you think of those Nolan Batman fans who still believe Batman never killed anyone, yet they actually have a problem with Superman killing Zod? Delusional fools like them drive me up the wall, to the point of having a Mel Gibson-style rage at their blindness and stupidity.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 08:55
Off topic, but I like Madonna's attitude. She knows how to rile people up and empower herself. Not really caring what other people think, having a particular sense of humour, doing what she wants etc.
Off topic, but her success is her weapon.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 00:35^ What a colorful reply. :) ;)
Glad you approve.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 00:35I thought it was WAY better than Batman Begins as well (which honestly isn't that hard to do),
I think BB is actually decent in retrospect. Not great but enjoyable.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 00:35If the Donner Superman fans annoy you about the no-kill policy,
Actually, that's not it. I just don't like the moving targets they set up. My attitude is whoever I'm debating can pick the test or standard or whatever but let's apply it evenly to
everything. No need for a double standard; one will do fine.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 00:35I wonder what do you think of those Nolan Batman fans who still believe Batman never killed anyone, yet they actually have a problem with Superman killing Zod?
My answer is "Superman didn't kill Zod; he just chose to not let Zod live". It's about as logical as the idiotic excuse Batman used in BB.
QuoteI think BB is actually decent in retrospect. Not great but enjoyable.
I thought apart from Michael Caine and Gary Oldman there is nothing redeemable about that film. It suffers from boring, constant exposition and it is just a poorly made movie overall (subpar acting, TERRIBLE editing and action sequences - by far the worst I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie). At least Man of Steel did have a great cast and it
was well-made; which is something I've always admired about Zack Snyder - even if you don't like his movie at least he will make it look good. And like I said, at least Superman doesn't say "I want to become an incorruptible symbol", and then proceeds to destroy the city like Batman did. And I was worried how the word 'hope' would be repeated like 'fear' was in BB but thankfully that wasn't the case.
QuoteActually, that's not it. I just don't like the moving targets they set up. My attitude is whoever I'm debating can pick the test or standard or whatever but let's apply it evenly to everything. No need for a double standard; one will do fine.
Unfortunately I've noticed this myself, the double standard is widespread and many people actually lack critical thought. But I still believe that Nolan Batman fans who somehow disregarded that Batman broke his code many times throughout the three movies are way more delusional than anyone who simply prefers Donner's god-like take on Superman.
QuoteMy answer is "Superman didn't kill Zod; he just chose to not let Zod live". It's about as logical as the idiotic excuse Batman used in BB.
Agreed.
I liked Superman lecturing the General on the use of drones at the end of the film and the theme of the US learning to accept outsiders/'alien' civilisations on their shores. Hopefully you enjoyed these aspects too colors. :)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 00:15
Saw it twice. Loved it both times.
Enjoyed it too. Best Superman film since Superman II (although I do happen to like Superman III still).
A lot of the Prima-Donners are all butt-hurt that this isn't a retread (or better yet a sequel!) to Donner. Fvck off. If some "big fan" only knows Superman from two or three trade paperbacks, an episode or two of STAS and the Donner stuff, this movie probably will leave them out in the cold and I'm glad about it.
There was humor in the movie. "Careful with those bags, they're heavy", "Nice suit, son", "That's what they're calling him, Superman", etc. No, it's not Richard Pryor skiing down the side of a building but I still thought those lines were amusing.
The humor was disappointing. I can see exactly what critics were saying and they are right. I did chuckle when Clark turned the guy's truck inside out. I thought it was a nice nod (steal perhaps?) from the revenge match at the Diner from Reeve's II. But there were more awkward moments like "I just think he's kinda hot"....urgh. If that's your kinda humor fair do's. It felt like a juvenile college script to me. I can't really identify any more humor from the movie now thinking about it. I much prefer Otis attempting his hot air balloon escape. The "wide selection" speech of the Sheriff and his deputy and even Zod's frustration lines like "These humans are beginning to bore me!" lol It's silly and wonderfully so and adds to my entertainment. So I could tell this new script was hardly by the writer of The Godfather, screwball seventies comedies like What's up Doc? or say James Bond's Live and Let Die but hey this can be forgiven. The humor needs sharpening next time. It's only David S Goyer after all.
For the first time since 1983, Superman is now a viable film franchise. It's curb-stomped Singerman, Batman Begins, The Amazing Spider-Man, any Marvel Studios film that doesn't include Iron Man and tons of other movies (and if it wasn't for some insane competition the past few weeks, I'm positive it would've beaten the piss out of the first Iron Man because it was tracking to do so). It's the most successful reboot film ever, the casting choices were uniformly great and Snyder has done a lot to ease the pain of Singerman.
This isn't more of Richard Donner's "protector" bull$#!+. This Superman will beat your ass if you deserve it. There's more action any five minutes of MOS than there was in the entirety of Singerman. That alone makes it all worthwhile.
Tons more action in fact! And about as less heart to it's characters as there are hairs on Lex Luthor's head I'm afraid. They seemed to have done the opposite this time to Bryan Singer: pile on the action, less of the spirit he did. And paid a slight price for it. The Reeve films had more to them than popcorn slugfests especially the original movie. They had both. Look at the flying scene between Clark and Lois. It may be too long and as a kid my least favourite scene from the movie, but it perfectly established that relationship that's essential in Superman. And did so in an entertaining way by showing off some breathtaking flying stunts. Cavill and Adams had no such moments. There wasn't the time for it when Mr Snyder wants to smash over hundreds of buildings to compete with The Avengers. I didn't see why they would even WANT to love each other lol It was all just that this script demands it. Ironically the one moment that did look romantic was the scene (clearly stolen from Superman Returns!) where they hover and glide down in a spiral towards the ground in Smallville. Bryan Singer must have given Snyder some pointers there for that best described "ooze" of a connection lol Critics spotted all this instantly in the new one. You can't have too much of one or the other and so Man of Steel to me is merely as mistaken as Singer's now in it's action department.
Yeah, there was collateral damage in the film. He's Superman, not SuperGod. Part of his objective is enabling mankind. There's a reason returning the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone rested primarily on the army and those civilians rather than directly on Superman. Superman isn't necessarily there to fix all their problems for them. He's supposed to inspire them as much as anything. They need to stand up. Now and then they need help doing so, and that is where Superman comes in. He's supposed to be their inspiration and champion, not their nanny, "god" or anything else.
Having seen Superman II in which a mere 3 Kryptonians had the power to bring a planet to it's knees and pretty much humiliate the human races forces in the process I was a bit taken aback in this film to now have a whole army of them and yet they were pretty ineffectual. I didn't buy at all how the humans were able to fight back against them when they have the power to pull tanks apart. The threat of a million Phantom Zoners seemed so miniscule in contrast to II. That planet should not have been left in orbit. I thought it was far too ambitious giving Zod an army. Why don't they just all pile into Superman? Problem solved. With having just 3 in the second movie I felt there was a still genuine threat, a chance Superman could be overwhelmed and much more focus than having millions of evil Kryptonians off somewhere not getting involved in dealing with Superman.
Oh, and another thing? If he'd bailed out of the fight with the Kryptonians everytime he needed to rescue somebody, he never would've been in the fight and while he was gone, the Kryptonians would've found other things/people to smash. Superman went where he was needed most. I have no problem with his actions and I don't care if anybody else did. Sorry but I don't trust anybody else's viewpoint of Superman. When you've spent over three-quarters of your life reading his comics, let me know. Until then, you've got no cred with me.
You seem a bit tetchy here. Maybe you'd like a statue of yourself next to Supes advocating how vast your knowledge is? lol Superman, like all comic characters in my opinion, is a character that can be for anyone and everyone. Not an exclusive club of comics nerds. If that were entirely the case nobody would give two craps about him frankly and why as fans would we want that to happen? We want him to be a broad character. And just cos you've read "three-quarters of life reading his books" doesn't give you automatic authority over his character anymore than I have or a three year old discovering him for the first time. It's a big melting pot of ideas from comics writers to tv show and movie people boiling in their own takes as well as the public who have their expectations. What's with the stupid aggressive attitude??
Superman killed Zod. Strictly speaking, I've regarded Superman's no kill policy as more of an ideal than anything. The people most bothered by Zod's death in MOS seem perfectly okay with Superman killing Zod in Superman II (take your deleted scenes outside, nobody cares; if it's not in the movie, it didn't fvcking happen), Singerman killing Kumar and Keyser Soze's other thugs or other things. But I guess if you blare the Williams march in the background loud enough, "fans" can overlook anything. And once again, they can fvck off.
Never had a problem with Chris Reeve killing. People forget he also "kills" himself, the Evil Superman. By strangling. In such a violent moment I think it's far worse than the snapping of Zod's neck in fact. And the guy only straightened the tower of Pisa for goodness sake lol As a kid I always thought when Zod fell into the depths of the Fortress of Solitude he had somehow been sent back to the Phantom Zone. Surely the place had technology capable of inter-acting with it. It's Kryptonian technology after all. If Superman really did kill them they kinda deserved it for the murders of men like those astronauts.
On the subject of the Williams music I did sadly overlook the credits for Man of Steel. It was just so dull sounding and repetitive I couldn't keep my ass still to stay and read frankly. Had the Williams music been playing there may have been a universal urge. When I saw Superman Returns the cinema audience actually remained until the Williams music stopped playing and then got up and left. In Man of Steel it cleared out within a minute except for little ol me. So I thought might as well get myself a pint too lol
Is this the Superman movie I wanted right now? Not really. I would've preferred a science-fairy tale like the Silver and Bronze Age comics were. I don't think realism will ever be a perfect match. You have a freebie with Zod but sooner or later you're going to need to introduce other costumed supervillains for Superman to duke it out with. And, in a realistic setting, then what do you do? But since my Silver Age-lite type film is unlikely to ever be made, I can live with Man of Steel.
Guys, BE HAPPY!!! It can factually be said that the new Superman movie has outgrossed the new Spider-Man movie! Who among us would've predicted that back in 2007?
Viva Snyder! Viva Cavill!
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 13:42The humor was disappointing. I can see exactly what critics were saying and they are right. I did chuckle when Clark turned the guy's truck inside out. I thought it was a nice nod (steal perhaps?) from the revenge match at the Diner from Reeve's II.
I thought it was a nod to Smallville, where Clark does something kind of similar to someone's pickup truck. That moment in MOS rang a bit false for me because I couldn't imagine that Clark would ruin someone's livelihood that way. It's small potatoes but worth noting.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 13:42But there were more awkward moments like "I just think he's kinda hot"....urgh. If that's your kinda humor fair do's. It felt like a juvenile college script to me. I can't really identify any more humor from the movie now thinking about it. I much prefer Otis attempting his hot air balloon escape. The "wide selection" speech of the Sheriff and his deputy and even Zod's frustration lines like "These humans are beginning to bore me!" lol It's silly and wonderfully so and adds to my entertainment. So I could tell this new script was hardly by the writer of The Godfather, screwball seventies comedies like What's up Doc? or say James Bond's Live and Let Die but hey this can be forgiven. The humor needs sharpening next time. It's only David S Goyer after all.
Eh. Stuff like that is the movie acknowledging the following that Cavill has from other stuff. Is it for me? No. But it doesn't really bug me too much either.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 13:42Tons more action in fact! And about as less heart to it's characters as there are hairs on Lex Luthor's head I'm afraid. They seemed to have done the opposite this time to Bryan Singer: pile on the action, less of the spirit he did. And paid a slight price for it. The Reeve films had more to them than popcorn slugfests especially the original movie. They had both. Look at the flying scene between Clark and Lois. It may be too long and as a kid my least favourite scene from the movie, but it perfectly established that relationship that's essential in Superman. And did so in an entertaining way by showing off some breathtaking flying stunts. Cavill and Adams had no such moments. There wasn't the time for it when Mr Snyder wants to smash over hundreds of buildings to compete with The Avengers. I didn't see why they would even WANT to love each other lol It was all just that this script demands it. Ironically the one moment that did look romantic was the scene (clearly stolen from Superman Returns!) where they hover and glide down in a spiral towards the ground in Smallville. Bryan Singer must have given Snyder some pointers there for that best described "ooze" of a connection lol Critics spotted all this instantly in the new one. You can't have too much of one or the other and so Man of Steel to me is merely as mistaken as Singer's now in it's action department.
After Singerman, the consensus was that we all wanted more action. Snyder gave that to us. I won't complain.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 13:42Having seen Superman II in which a mere 3 Kryptonians had the power to bring a planet to it's knees and pretty much humiliate the human races forces in the process I was a bit taken aback in this film to now have a whole army of them and yet they were pretty ineffectual. I didn't buy at all how the humans were able to fight back against them when they have the power to pull tanks apart. The threat of a million Phantom Zoners seemed so miniscule in contrast to II. That planet should not have been left in orbit. I thought it was far too ambitious giving Zod an army. Why don't they just all pile into Superman? Problem solved. With having just 3 in the second movie I felt there was a still genuine threat, a chance Superman could be overwhelmed and much more focus than having millions of evil Kryptonians off somewhere not getting involved in dealing with Superman.
The movie pretty clearly sets up that they don't have mastery over their powers, or even a really solid understanding of what they are. They also never really spread out around the world either. Under the circumstances, I can understand how Superman managed to keep the upper hand.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 13:42You seem a bit tetchy here. Maybe you'd like a statue of yourself next to Supes advocating how vast your knowledge is? lol Superman, like all comic characters in my opinion, is a character that can be for anyone and everyone. Not an exclusive club of comics nerds. If that were entirely the case nobody would give two craps about him frankly and why as fans would we want that to happen? We want him to be a broad character. And just cos you've read "three-quarters of life reading his books" doesn't give you automatic authority over his character anymore than I have or a three year old discovering him for the first time. It's a big melting pot of ideas from comics writers to tv show and movie people boiling in their own takes as well as the public who have their expectations. What's with the stupid aggressive attitude??
Because, as I said, I'm sick and tired of someone whose sole knowledge of Superman comes from Richard Donner telling
me "how things ought to be".
QuoteYou seem a bit tetchy here. Maybe you'd like a statue of yourself next to Supes advocating how vast your knowledge is? lol Superman, like all comic characters in my opinion, is a character that can be for anyone and everyone. Not an exclusive club of comics nerds. If that were entirely the case nobody would give two craps about him frankly and why as fans would we want that to happen? We want him to be a broad character. And just cos you've read "three-quarters of life reading his books" doesn't give you automatic authority over his character anymore than I have or a three year old discovering him for the first time. It's a big melting pot of ideas from comics writers to tv show and movie people boiling in their own takes as well as the public who have their expectations. What's with the stupid aggressive attitude??
Exactly. This is the problem I have with a lot of the hardcore Nolan fanboys who keep putting the Burton Batman films down because they 'know the character better than anyone else' and consider Batman '89 and Batman Returns an invalid interpretation because 'Burton took liberties with the comic-books'.
Who cares as long as the films work on their own terms?
Anyway, it's disappointing and ironic that some posters who have previously been quite robust in standing up to the know-it-all nerds (read 'Nolanites') who were constantly carping about the Burton Batman films are now doing something similar with respect to the earlier Superman films.
Um, I'm standing up to the exact same mentality on the Superman side... and using my better-than-average knowledge of Superman comics to justify it. Really, the only difference here is my schadenfreude at their distress over MOS rebooting Superman and moving away from the Donner stuff. They're losing their minds over it and I couldn't be happier. I even couched my praise with the acknowledgement that MOS is far from my ideal Superman while recognizing that my ideal Superman isn't likely to ever be seen on the big screen.
On top of all that, now that the Nolanverse has faded into history, I've gone on the record saying I'm done with bashing on Nolan. The movies are done, some kind of reboot is inevitable so we can all move on now. Whining about it now isn't going to accomplish much except make a bunch of immature forum drama where there doesn't really need to be any.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 18:33
On top of all that, now that the Nolanverse has faded into history, I've gone on the record saying I'm done with bashing on Nolan. The movies are done, some kind of reboot is inevitable so we can all move on now. Whining about it now isn't going to accomplish much except make a bunch of immature forum drama where there doesn't really need to be any.
I agree. I feel the same about people still sore over
Superman Returns or
Batrman & Robin.... it's over now, get over it. Anger over those two made sense when the franchises were stuck on that path with no improvement in sight. B&R
and SR left the Batman and Superman series in trouble, but both series have bounced back. I feel the same with the Nolan Bat films (though they never made me angry anyway). We're guaranteed that his universe is at an end, so all is well. I can even enjoy the trilogy for what it is.
People who still have a burning hatred for old, irrelevent things piss me off more than a bad movie could any day. Not only because it's over with, but in the first place... it's just a movie. No fictional product, no matter how much you love it, should bring you to that kind of behavior. If it does, you need a life.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, 18:33
Um, I'm standing up to the exact same mentality on the Superman side... and using my better-than-average knowledge of Superman comics to justify it.
The last comment, unless meant ironically, seems at odds with you standing up to the self-proclaimed Batman know-it-alls. You're committing the same mistake by suggesting that you are better qualified to argue whether a Superman movie is valid or not because of your extensive comic-book collection. With all due respect, this is not too dissimilar to some of the crap I read from certain Nolan fanboys on other forums, the whole 'I have collected Batman since issue one and therefore my opinion on Burton's Batman overrides the lot of you' type of mentality.
I always stood up to the Nolanites. And my point was generally that they don't have the depth of familiarity with the comics that they would have you believe. By and large I find that to be a very true statement. You don't need much knowledge of Batman's publishing history to be able to refute that.
Their Superman analog is the Prima-Donners, who cannot accept any other Superman in spite of the fact that they're not terribly familiar with Superman outside of Donner's own. Their "case" is even easier to disprove than the Nolanites because Donner invented so much stuff that was absolutely foreign to the canon at the time. Well and good, worked for his movie, blah blah blah, but it shouldn't become Superman's gospel anymore than Nolan's vision should be for Batman. I do know more than they do about Superman comics. There are people out there who know oodles more than I do but I trust my knowledge and can defend other versions of the character with ease. And that seems to be the part you're not getting. I can justify L&C, Smallville and other adaptations of Superman and demonstrate their worth and value. I'm not giving a "my way or the highway" type attitude; I'm knocking a bunch of pretentious jerks out of their ivory towers by showing that other adaptations have at least as much merit (if not more) than Donner's movie.
I suppose we're on the same side on this one colors because like you I have little time for the hardcore Nolan fanboys and their assertions that they are the authorities on Batman but I would just be wary of committing the same mistake yourself with Superman. Also, there are quite a few Batman fanboys I have spoken to on other forums who keep telling me they are essentially authorities on the character and can confidently dismiss the Burton films because like you they are an expert on the comic-books. This high-and-mighty attitude sucks in my opinion and I don't think any of us who feel this way about the Nolan fanboys should be repeating the same mistake elsewhere.
I think any complaints about a movie, as long as you can explain why and as long as they're valid criticisms, is acceptable every now and then. Only every now and then though, not all the time.
Glad you liked the movie, colors. I see you've adopted my Prima-Donners tag, and I am right behind your philosophy there.
I saw the movie recently and honestly feel people were overly harsh on it. I walked in with no expectations after reading people ripping into it, and hell, I enjoyed myself quite a bit.
I think no matter what is said, a lot of it is people loving Donner's movie and not being able to shake it. I was harsh on MOS issues beforehand, and while I still have some of those views, it was not due to past clinging. To be straight up honest, it's mostly in part to me having a love/hate relationship with the character. Man of Steel moved me more in the love direction.
I did not miss John Williams and frankly, hearing that guy's name being brought up all the time is really old. I did not find Cavill 'brooding'. If anything he was thoughtful. I didn't have an issue there. Russell Crowe was excellent as Jor-El. He really was.
I didn't really rate the other movies, but MOS is easily my favourite live action outing.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 02:26
Glad you liked the movie, colors. I see you've adopted my Prima-Donners tag, and I am right behind your philosophy there.
I saw the movie recently and honestly feel people were overly harsh on it. I walked in with no expectations after reading people ripping into it, and hell, I enjoyed myself quite a bit.
I think no matter what is said, a lot of it is people loving Donner's movie and not being able to shake it. I was harsh on MOS issues beforehand, and while I still have some of those views, it was not due to past clinging. To be straight up honest, it's mostly in part to me having a love/hate relationship with the character. Man of Steel moved me more in the love direction.
I did not miss John Williams and frankly, hearing that guy's name being brought up all the time is really old. I did not find Cavill 'brooding'. If anything he was thoughtful. I didn't have an issue there. Russell Crowe was excellent as Jor-El. He really was.
I didn't really rate the other movies, but MOS is easily my favourite live action outing.
I still like the 1978 movie despite its plot holes, but I can still say that Man of Steel is decent enough to come in second place. I didn't think Cavill was brooding, and if he did it wasn't overbearing. All the talks of him never smiling are false.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 02:26Glad you liked the movie, colors. I see you've adopted my Prima-Donners tag, and I am right behind your philosophy there.
Figured you might be.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 02:26I saw the movie recently and honestly feel people were overly harsh on it. I walked in with no expectations after reading people ripping into it, and hell, I enjoyed myself quite a bit.
Can't remember if I've ever said so around here but basically I went into this thing with an attitude of not
needing Man of Steel. I mean, I'll always regard Singerman as a betrayal. There will never be a day when I look back on it and think "y'know, it really wasn't half-bad". For those of you of this disposition, imagine waiting 19 years for a new Batman movie and what you get is Batman & Robin. I like B&R but a lot of you don't so just imagine how pissed off you'd be. To carry the analogy forward, again for those of you given to this disposition, you had to wait seven years for Batman Begins and really enjoyed it.
I've got different opinions than a lot of Superman fans so bear that in mind when I say I've got four seasons of Lois & Clark, four Reeve films, the first two seasons of Adventures of Superman, all of Fleischer, aspects of that Superboy TV show, 10 seasons of Smallville, the entire run of STAS and JLU stuff and, oh yeah, 46 years worth of comics (from 1960 to 2006). All of that's mine to choose from when I want a Superman fix.
On that basis, I didn't "need" Man of Steel and I didn't "need" it to be good. The fact that it turned out as well as it did is cause for celebration but I'm in a much different place now than I was back in 2006.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 02:26I think no matter what is said, a lot of it is people loving Donner's movie and not being able to shake it.
Nothing will ever convince me otherwise at this point. I'm sorry but the comparisons to Donner have popped up too many times for me to think that's not a major factor. Plus, Zack Snyder has a crap reputation with the critics and with an entire segment of fanboys.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 02:26I did not miss John Williams and frankly, hearing that guy's name being brought up all the time is really old. I did not find Cavill 'brooding'. If anything he was thoughtful. I didn't have an issue there. Russell Crowe was excellent as Jor-El. He really was.
I hadn't realized how badly I wanted a new take on Jor-El until Crowe did his thing. I ate his performance up with a spoon.
The best part of all this is that we
finally have a new benchmark for Superman flying effects. Up to this moment, the peak of the mountain, the creme de la creme, the best, most realistic, most inventive and most dynamic flying sequence featuring Superman ever committed to film was Smallville's season 4 premiere. A
TV SHOW had a better flying sequence than a $250+ million film! But the flying stuff from MOS blows the doors off anything that's come before, and I'm glad for that. It is how it should be.
Speaking of which, let me finish this tirade by saying that Snyder clearly understands what makes for a dynamic flying sequence. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=7xiwISrp1H4
It's even harder to watch that stuff post-MOS these days than ever before. First, as an action beat, it's not very impressive. Worse though, the sequence never really gets moving until the 3:21 mark... by which time it's almost over.
But second, you can't help but think how Snyder would've handled this scene. Snyder would understand that you have to keep Superman BIG inside the frame. It helps sell the majestic, heroic, powerful angle. Stick with medium shots, heavy close ups or otherwise positioning Superman HUGE inside of the frame. Singer used a lot of wide shots where Routh looked like a speck against that huge plane and it's hard to convince yourself he has any prayer of stopping it.
There was insane potential here and Singer completely squandered it. It's even more frustrating when you already know Snyder would've knocked it out of the park, sent someone to bring it back and then knocked it out of the park again just to prove he
can. Ugh...
It's funny. Reviews said the film went overboard in the action department. There was action, but I truly did not think it was slanted one way. With the flashbacks and such, the movie felt like a movie and not an extended videogame sequence.
Agreed about the flying effects. For the first time, I felt Superman's raw power. And how impossible it would be for someone like Batman to defeat him. It just would not happen. Get a load of his take-offs. In particular at the end of the film where he speaks to the army dude. He is in the air and out of sight in the space of a second. No other Superman media has matched that.
Importantly, I felt this movie was very 'now' and modern feeling without sacrificing the character. I think those zoom-ins, even though they were a bit overused, contributed to this. It made it feel like a documentary in a way. The shots of the polar bears and such gave it grounding too.
I can and can't believe some people out there prefer 'Singerman' or say Man of Steel is better but only marginally. But then again, these people say Cavill did not smile and there was zero humour, which is flat out untrue. Bottom line, I was willing to get on board a reboot. I'm not so sure if these people were. And if they were, when it actually came and they saw what it meant, they got cold feet.
Just as Hans Zimmer's score roundly got 1/5 reviews, again, mostly due to comparisons to Williams. Comparisons that simply don't equate to the aims of a 2013 film. Things get silly like that.
Yes indeed. One thing I heard a lot of Batman fans say after BB came along was how much they enjoyed watching Bruce's arc toward becoming Batman. It felt very genuine to them.
I got the same enjoyment from seeing Clark go through a similar thing in MOS. I may be completely alone on this one but I probably could've survived a full hour of Clark working odd jobs, going through flashbacks or whatever else. Maybe I've just watched too much Smallville but I don't need to see Superman loud and proud two minutes after an origin movie starts. I didn't think wide audiences would either and I think the movie's success bears me out.
Now that I think about, if you compared time stamps you'd probably find that Clark becomes Superman at roughly the same points in MOS and STM.
Apart from ticking off certain parts of the fanbase, another thing MOS has done has been to make it okay to take an objective view of the previous films. Superman II has arguably suffered the most. People have become a lot more vocal about that movie's problems ("Superman gave up his powers just to get with Lois," "Superman murdered Zod in cold blood," "the Metropolis battle could've used a lot more physical combat and fewer comedic gags," etc). It sort of reminds me of what happened to Ang Lee's Hulk after TIH came out. It wasn't politically incorrect to have not liked the 2003 Hulk anymore. In the wake of MOS, it seems the same thing is happening with other Superman media, particularly the Reeve films. S3 and S4 have been picked on for years but now the first two are going under the microscope as well. I don't want it to get out of hand (like things did with Burton and Schumacher after the BB came out) but those films are long overdue for some objective evaluation. The consensus has come to be that it's okay if you don't think they're perfect as Superman stories go.
I know what you mean about the scenes prior to Clark donning the suit and becoming Superman. Unlike some, I thought the flashbacks merged pretty well and were paced pretty well.
Talking about comparing the films:
Give me the MOS diner scene over Superman II's any day. Depowered or not, Clark comes off as a useless sook who can't defend himself in the slightest. The conclusion of the fight in the Donner Cut makes this scene off too.
In MOS, Clark stands up for someone, shows restraint in not bashing the human - gets punched but stands firm no worries. It's a mix of public humiliation but also coming off strong. Instead of spinning a bar stool the truck is absolutely trashed. He's only targeting the truck and nothing else. He's not sliding anyone down bar tables smashing every plate, etc.
It's funny. With Batman I defend the past films with Burton. With Superman I defend the latest film and critique the past films. Goes to show old isn't always necessarily gold. It's what matches your tastes.
MOS has put me on the path to being a Superman fan. It's the first Superman movie I can say yep, I like that quite a bit.
^ I agree. MoS was awesome from start to finish. I hope they will manage to make a decent sequel.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 10:33
I know what you mean about the scenes prior to Clark donning the suit and becoming Superman. Unlike some, I thought the flashbacks merged pretty well and were paced pretty well.
Talking about comparing the films:
Give me the MOS diner scene over Superman II's any day. Depowered or not, Clark comes off as a useless sook who can't defend himself in the slightest. The conclusion of the fight in the Donner Cut makes this scene off too.
In MOS, Clark stands up for someone, shows restraint in not bashing the human - gets punched but stands firm no worries. It's a mix of public humiliation but also coming off strong. Instead of spinning a bar stool the truck is absolutely trashed. He's only targeting the truck and nothing else. He's not sliding anyone down bar tables smashing every plate, etc.
It's funny. With Batman I defend the past films with Burton. With Superman I defend the latest film and critique the past films. Goes to show old isn't always necessarily gold. It's what matches your tastes.
And alternatively flashy "newness" isn't always necessarily "gold" either. It works both ways I'm afraid buddy. Some people prefer Christopher Reeve's and always will, like it or not. What's wrong with that anyway? Like you said it's a matter of taste and opinion. And it doesn't mean they'll have any less enjoyment of the new film either. I know plenty of casual Superman viewers who enjoy any film of the character despite all their differences in style. It's not a question of which movie is the best for them. It's all about entertainment and the fact it's purely the thrill of watching "Superman". I think too many comics fans spend far too much of their time these days coming up with endless (and boring) forum discussions about which is the better version in every department of said movies. It really means nothing to me if a Superman movie was made in 1978 or 1938 or the more modern (and seemingly cooler for some) age of 2013. I was born in 1988, long after Reeve debuted, and they are and always will be my favourite pictures. I think it's a great shame if in today's society newer fans are so insensitive as to not want to watch any older versions simply because of age, or because more dim witted/aggressive Nolan devotees set out to stop them like some bizarre Nazi propaganda machine. That's sad. That was never a problem for guys like me. Recently I was delighted to see some little kid's youtube video blog with his dad on the Chris Reeve Hot Toys figure. To my surprise he stated his wish for (wait for it...) a Hot Toys version of NUCLEAR MAN! His favourite villain of the films. An astonishing statement but I was delighted to see his enthusiasm for a character despised by older fans with not enough childhood amusement left in their brains. It proves it's all utter bullsh*t that older Supes movies and tv shows will never be appreciated by new audiences and so there best left forgotten. They will love them as much as any new installments.
On the subject of the Reeve films coming under fire as the earlier Batman movies did in the wake of Nolan well this does not worry me. They'll be doing just fine. Far as I can see Man of Steel didn't eradicate the memory of Christopher Reeve. And I don't believe Chris Nolan and co set out to do such a thing either. Nolan even supported the Donner version vocally at the British premiere of Man of Steel and spoke of his love for it. Even Charles Roven stated much of the new cast and crew were fans of the previous films especially Amy Adams. Through the Reeve pictures you got the quality of this new one. Isn't that to be appreciated? I believe so. I got the impression that some "fans" wanted the old films to be erased almost but it wasn't exactly a great success. Just go look at the critical opinions you disagreed with. I don't think I read one where a reviewer didn't mention how much better the Reeve films still were in certain respects. I don't think you can seriously call Man of Steel either a true masterpiece nor a classic. Great film which I personally very much enjoyed but I doubt in 15 or 20 years time critics and audiences will consider Cavill's outing a vital aspect of movie history as Reeve's. And yet here we are, over 30 years from Donner's film, still talking about that 1978 movie. The jokes always told better first time round they say lol Peace....
MOS has put me on the path to being a Superman fan. It's the first Superman movie I can say yep, I like that quite a bit.
What I appreciate the most about MoS that Crowe and Cavill never once made me think of Brando and Reeve, who were also great. They did it their way.
C4M- All due respect but that makes no sense. None. I'm sure you typed something in there but if you don't separate TDK's post into individual quotations under which you write your reply, it's a pain to figure out what you're trying to say.
Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
He must be Penguin's PR agent typing and clicking with flippers. :-\
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 23:24
Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
Appreciate your help. Far more considerate than the above sly comment from that Colors dude. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn't sure what I needed to do. I was eventually going to ask about it anyway.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:01
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 23:24
Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
Appreciate your help. Far more considerate than the above sly comment from that Colors dude. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn't sure what I needed to do. I was eventually going to ask about it anyway.
That's cool. I'm glad you didn't think I was being rude or condescending. :) I know I struggled to get my head around the icons when I first started posting here way back when, and that others have had problems too. Overall though, this is an extremely user-friendly site, much more so than most other forums I am familiar with (well done Ral), but as with anything, you need to know what you're doing first and that often takes time.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:01Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 23:24Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
Appreciate your help. Far more considerate than the above sly comment from that Colors dude. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn't sure what I needed to do. I was eventually going to ask about it anyway.
Hey dude, I prefaced my comment with respect, I then pointed out the problem and never once expressed or implied anything personal. If I had, somebody would've warned me (or banned me) by now. But nobody has. Simmer down.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 01:10
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:01Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 23:24Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
Appreciate your help. Far more considerate than the above sly comment from that Colors dude. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn't sure what I needed to do. I was eventually going to ask about it anyway.
Hey dude, I prefaced my comment with respect, I then pointed out the problem and never once expressed or implied anything personal. If I had, somebody would've warned me (or banned me) by now. But nobody has. Simmer down.
I'm afraid it didn't read that way to me mate. Sounded like a cleverly disguised jibe at my inability to post properly. That and that "Penguin's PR agent" comment strangely. No need for it. If you couldn't see the large body of text I'd written, whether presented accurately or not, you must be pretty stupid at reading. A six year old can still read text like that it's just common sense.
Hey guys, no need for such hostility. I'm sure Dark Knight and colors didn't mean any real malice by their comments Cobblepot4Mayor. We should all make an effort to be nicer around here I do agree but once you get to know them you'll find that these two guys and a few others have a playful sense of humour and they don't mean anything really nasty. :)
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:08I'm afraid it didn't read that way to me mate. Sounded like a cleverly disguised jibe at my inability to post properly. That and that "Penguin's PR agent" comment strangely. No need for it. If you couldn't see the large body of text I'd written, whether presented accurately or not, you must be pretty stupid at reading. A six year old can still read text like that it's just common sense.
Pop on over to the Batman Returns section in that Ice Princess thread. I popped off about something and then someone else jumped in.
THAT is me belittling another member.
Just for comparison.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:25
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:08I'm afraid it didn't read that way to me mate. Sounded like a cleverly disguised jibe at my inability to post properly. That and that "Penguin's PR agent" comment strangely. No need for it. If you couldn't see the large body of text I'd written, whether presented accurately or not, you must be pretty stupid at reading. A six year old can still read text like that it's just common sense.
Pop on over to the Batman Returns section in that Ice Princess thread. I popped off about something and then someone else jumped in. THAT is me belittling another member.
Just for comparison.
Why would you do that to anyone on this forum colors? There's too much of that nastiness on other sites' forums. You know that Ral and others including myself don't tolerate that rudeness here. I'm not having a go. As you can see from my last post I've defended your good name but I would have hoped that you wouldn't feel the need to be snarky about any other poster on this forum.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:32Why would you do that to anyone on this forum colors? There's too much of that nastiness on other sites' forums. You know that Ral and others including myself don't tolerate that rudeness here. I'm not having a go. As you can see from my last post I've defended your good name but I would have hoped that you wouldn't feel the need to be snarky about any other poster on this forum.
I brought it up only to say that's more or less what it's like when I talk smack (out of exasperation). I think there's a marked difference between that and the post in this thread where I tried to put the problem into the proper context without making moral judgments, questioning anybody's maternal lineage or speculating on their likely destination in the afterlife.
Frankly, I think my restraint is to be applauded in this case since there was absolutely no ill will behind it.
QuoteI brought it up only to say that's more or less what it's like when I talk smack (out of exasperation).
Yes but there was no need to be 'exasperated'. Anyway, I hope CobblepotForMayor appreciates that you didn't intend any malice.
Let's try this the Cobblepot4Mayor way:
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 01:10
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:01Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 23:24Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
Appreciate your help. Far more considerate than the above sly comment from that Colors dude. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn't sure what I needed to do. I was eventually going to ask about it anyway.
I am well aware 'flashy newness' isn't automatic gold. I am a detractor of Chris Nolan Batman movies. You are not educating me on something I don't know here, 'buddy'. As said, I prefer the 89/92 Batman. That's not as far as I go back. For example check out the 1920 German silent horror film 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari'. That old is gold. I could not give a rats about Superman's checkered past. I gladly jump aboard the Man of Steel reboot bus because it presents a clean slate. The reviewers got it wrong in this instance. Man of Steel is significantly better than the Prima- Donner loyalists claim. They are the one's dictating the rules here trying to make it a one sided argument.
Hey dude, I prefaced my comment with respect, I then pointed out the problem and never once expressed or implied anything personal. If I had, somebody would've warned me (or banned me) by now. But nobody has. Simmer down.
Presented accurately or not, if you can't understand the above you must be pretty stupid at reading. A six year old can still read text like that it's just common sense. :-X
Luv ya, Cobbles. All is cool.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 08:14
Let's try this the Cobblepot4Mayor way:
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 01:10
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 00:01Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 23:24Cobblepot4Mayor, your posts would be far easier to read if you copied and pasted the parts of the other members' posts you wanted to quote and then highlighted the text before clicking on the 'insert quote' icon from above the text panel (it's the speech-bulb icon). You could then type your response underneath.
Appreciate your help. Far more considerate than the above sly comment from that Colors dude. Apologies for the confusion. Wasn't sure what I needed to do. I was eventually going to ask about it anyway.
I am well aware 'flashy newness' isn't automatic gold. I am a detractor of Chris Nolan Batman movies. You are not educating me on something I don't know here, 'buddy'. As said, I prefer the 89/92 Batman. That's not as far as I go back. For example check out the 1920 German silent horror film 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari'. That old is gold. I could not give a rats about Superman's checkered past. I gladly jump aboard the Man of Steel reboot bus because it presents a clean slate. The reviewers got it wrong in this instance. Man of Steel is significantly better than the Prima- Donner loyalists claim. They are the one's dictating the rules here trying to make it a one sided argument.
Hey dude, I prefaced my comment with respect, I then pointed out the problem and never once expressed or implied anything personal. If I had, somebody would've warned me (or banned me) by now. But nobody has. Simmer down.
Presented accurately or not, if you can't understand the above you must be pretty stupid at reading. A six year old can still read text like that it's just common sense. :-X
Luv ya, Cobbles. All is cool.
I sincerely hope so Dark Knight. I'd hate having a quick word with the site administrator. Wouldn't want you "demoted" to "The Boy Wonder" now would we? ;)
Amusing response. See I could quite clearly read your message in that body of text despite being brief. Mine was at least 2 big paragraph chunks I double spaced out trying to distinguish from the rest. Which made it slightly bemusing how it couldn't be spotted.
I never said I was "educating" you. Merely describing my feelings on the matter. Your comments about critics getting it wrong was very funny because that sure was a lot of critics. Your a little fish in a big big pond on that score. Much like Colors you seem to be the seminal authority of all things Superman must be. You guys aren't Siegel and Shuster's relations are you? lol Peace. ;D
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:25
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 02:08I'm afraid it didn't read that way to me mate. Sounded like a cleverly disguised jibe at my inability to post properly. That and that "Penguin's PR agent" comment strangely. No need for it. If you couldn't see the large body of text I'd written, whether presented accurately or not, you must be pretty stupid at reading. A six year old can still read text like that it's just common sense.
Pop on over to the Batman Returns section in that Ice Princess thread. I popped off about something and then someone else jumped in. THAT is me belittling another member.
Just for comparison.
Ah I see. You must have quite the reputation here it seems. Your track record for getting people pissed must be genius surely lol
Anyway excuse me if I misunderstood your intent. Let's hope things don't get messy eh? You seem to have done quite brilliant things on this site with your comics to film comparison articles. I imagine all that hard work keeps you immune from being banned despite your conflicts with certain people you spoke of. Still perhaps you should tone down that aggression. It'd be a shame if you couldn't print new articles in future. I have fun reading them all. It's good to know someone's doing such work and all I have to do is sit on my arse and wait to read it lol Seems fair :)
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 18:46Ah I see. You must have quite the reputation here it seems. Your track record for getting people pissed must be genius surely lol
I'm really not a people-person. Other people handle that whole "diplomacy" thing better than I do.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 18:46You seem to have done quite brilliant things on this site with your comics to film comparison articles.
Unfortunately, I can't take too much credit for those things, especially the Batman comparisons. For other things, I made modest contributions.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 18:46I imagine all that hard work keeps you immune from being banned despite your conflicts with certain people you spoke of.
Actually, what's saved me from being banned is Ral's fairly laissez-faire attitude regarding moderating. My experiences with him (on this forum and off) tell me that he believes in free expression... so long as it doesn't become some immature flame thing. Then he or one of his admins have to step in and tell The Guilty Parties to STFU and play nice. But as I'm sure you've noticed, this forum is probably the best for Batman comic, film and TV discussion online. Other forums may do one of those individual media better so far as discussion but none of them do
ALL of them with the same level of quality you get around here. We've got the Ice Cat Princess Woman, TDK, SE, SN, ral, the Good DocLathropBrown and a bunch of others to keep the discussions running along smoothly. Plus, some of the features are written by people with actual training and education in that type of writing so they're already a cut above 99% of fan pages out there. Bottom line? I'm sure you'll find this place very much to your tastes.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, 18:46Still perhaps you should tone down that aggression.
Eh. Don't bet on it.
Just speaking aloud here with a bullhorn and to no one inparticular.
Holding a majority of someone else's opinions isn't important to me in the slightest. Nor is box office gross. Just doesn't come into the equation. Batman Returns is my favourite of the Batman movies by far and that gets roasted from time to time. I disagree with the critics there too. There are millions of believers of various religions for example, and I'm an aetheist. I'm in the minority. But I'm no less 'right' or 'wrong' than those folks.
I am not much of a Supe fan (love soup though) and I'm definitely not an authority. But this film got my attention. I'm pretty much the target audience for Man of Steel. Someone who barely remembers/appreciates/has baggage with the 1978 and 1980 film and wants a modern film. Someone who isn't interested in confusing, messing continuations ala Superman Returns. But hey, that film had Williams' score, so all is forgiven. Lol peace. ;D
I consider myself a major Superman fan. I'm definitely part of the MOS core audience. That's one reason I'm so happy right now. A very John Byrne-esque Superman is now part of the cultural zeitgeist. The movie is nearing the $600 million mark in terms of the worldwide gross. I understand your point about numbers not necessarily being representative of quality but at the same time you don't get to $600 million worldwide unless a crapload of people enjoy your product. It's one thing that the movie turned out so well. It's quite another when so many people love it too.
The critics adored Singerman, a film which I think is a stain on Superman and everything he stands for. The fact that they hated MOS told me that it was likely to be a movie I would appreciate. Without getting specific, I think a lot of comes down to ideology and worldview, things about which critics and I tend to be on completely different pages. Ergo, something that royally pisses off that many movie critics is probably going to be something I will enjoy.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 11 Jul 2013, 20:45
I consider myself a major Superman fan. I'm definitely part of the MOS core audience. That's one reason I'm so happy right now. A very John Byrne-esque Superman is now part of the cultural zeitgeist. The movie is nearing the $600 million mark in terms of the worldwide gross. I understand your point about numbers not necessarily being representative of quality but at the same time you don't get to $600 million worldwide unless a crapload of people enjoy your product. It's one thing that the movie turned out so well. It's quite another when so many people love it too.
The critics adored Singerman, a film which I think is a stain on Superman and everything he stands for. The fact that they hated MOS told me that it was likely to be a movie I would appreciate. Without getting specific, I think a lot of comes down to ideology and worldview, things about which critics and I tend to be on completely different pages. Ergo, something that royally pisses off that many movie critics is probably going to be something I will enjoy.
A lot of people love the Transformers and Adam Sandler movies too... ::) Thankfully those damn liberal critics you seem to hate rightly call them out for the pieces of crap they are.
What's wrong with Transformers?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 11 Jul 2013, 23:16
What's wrong with Transformers?
If you're talking about Michael Bay's films - there is a lot wrong with them!
I second that about Bayformers. The original show and Beast Wars are so much better.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 01:21Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 11 Jul 2013, 23:16What's wrong with Transformers?
If you're talking about Michael Bay's films - there is a lot wrong with them!
Let's hear it.
They depress me so much that I'm not going to dwell on them, however I will say.
The Transformers are secondary characters (and I use the word "characters" with a little hesitance - because they are at best non-dimensional and at worst indistinguishable from each other)
Too much focus is spent on humans to the point that it's their movie. It's all part of this strange idea in Hollywood that the audience needs a human to relate to - even if it's human characters who are useless, irritating and non-essential to the plot
The humour in the films is wholly inappropriate for the target audience - I cringed during most of Revenge of the Fallen
Basically they are films that I would not let my child sit through...and there is something quite wrong when that is the case
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 03:02They depress me so much that I'm not going to dwell on them, however I will say.
The Transformers are secondary characters (and I use the word "characters" with a little hesitance - because they are at best non-dimensional and at worst indistinguishable from each other)
Too much focus is spent on humans to the point that it's their movie. It's all part of this strange idea in Hollywood that the audience needs a human to relate to - even if it's human characters who are useless, irritating and non-essential to the plot
The humour in the films is wholly inappropriate for the target audience - I cringed during most of Revenge of the Fallen
Basically they are films that I would not let my child sit through...and there is something quite wrong when that is the case
I can agree with a good bit of that. I get that big studios want these movies to appeal to a bunch of different audiences but few movies can be all things to all people. What a teenager/college kid thinks is cool in an action movie might well be something parents do want their children to have anything to do with.
And yeah, being indistinguishable from each other doesn't help much either. I'll agree with that. Part of me thinks it'd be a big help if the Autobots wore white cowboy hats and the Decepticons wore black hats.
SOMETHING to at least identify which side is which. I'm not even asking to be able to identify a given character on sight. Just tell me which side they're on.
Apart from that though, I've heard some pretty odd criticisms of the movies. They're based on a cartoon which was itself based on a toy line. The cartoon was intended to market the toy line. The movies aren't much else than that. Why some people apparently went and expected some kind of Wes Anderson quirkfest is beyond me. I do see a lot of your complaints though.
Not all movies should be Wes Anderson quirkfests I agree, although I wouldn't personally object to a few more being so. ;)
However, franchise movies do not have to be as witless, incoherent and obnoxious as the live-action Transformers films. The current spate of Marvel comic-book movies, not to mention the various non-Schumacher incarnations of Batman, and yes, even Man of Steel, are testament to that.
I echo all of Ral's criticisms and concur with colors regarding the confusion separating the Autobots and Decepticons. If it's sometimes impossible to distinguish the 'goodies' from the 'baddies' how are you going to be able to distinguish between the members of the various factions?
The focus on the human-beings wouldn't be so bad if they weren't such an unlikeable, two-dimensional, clichéd bunch lumbered with a stream of smug one-liners and short-lived pop-culture references masquerading as dialogue. I won't even go into Bay's infamous and embarrassing use of racial stereotypes which he somehow manages to incorporate into extra-terrestrial robots.
I thought the new general Zod was a better character but a worse villain than the old. Tie.
Like I said before, Cavill and Crowe can't be compared to Reeve and Brando, but Margot Kidder > Amy Adams for me.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 05:21
I thought the new general Zod was a better character but a worse villain than the old. Tie.
Like I said before, Cavill and Crowe can't be compared to Reeve and Brando, but Margot Kidder > Amy Adams for me.
I stand by Terence Stamp. Easily. What a superb voice he had for the character. Many great memorable lines and excellent humor against all the villainy. Zod being a two-dimensional "moustache twirling villain" was intentional as he revealed on the Superman II making of tv special. He wanted him to be purely evil and predictable and the audience's enjoyment to come out of all that. So I do hope I never see comments insulting Stamp's version of the character for being not fully rounded. Besides offending his good work it'll more serve to please him lol
Sometimes having villains who are less rounded is more interesting and enjoyable to watch. Villains I especially like are characters such as Davros in Doctor Who. He's hardly a flawed misunderstood bad guy. He's a pure lunatic ranter and that's great and refreshing to see. I don't think every bad guy should be a tragic, misunderstood figure but these days sadly you can't move for them.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 03:02
They depress me so much that I'm not going to dwell on them, however I will say.
The Transformers are secondary characters (and I use the word "characters" with a little hesitance - because they are at best non-dimensional and at worst indistinguishable from each other)
Too much focus is spent on humans to the point that it's their movie. It's all part of this strange idea in Hollywood that the audience needs a human to relate to - even if it's human characters who are useless, irritating and non-essential to the plot
The humour in the films is wholly inappropriate for the target audience - I cringed during most of Revenge of the Fallen
Basically they are films that I would not let my child sit through...and there is something quite wrong when that is the case
The best Transformers movie for me has and always will be the 1986 animated feature film. For those who haven't watched it go see it immediately. Still has absolutely stunning animation, an amazing soundtrack (however cheesey it may sound to some) and an insane body count of character deaths that blew my young mind. My dad was pretty taken with it's edginess too as well as the soundtrack that puts the modern films to shame to the point he'd learn to play the rockin tracks on his Gibson Les Paul guitar lol Wish there was sheet music or something available for it.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 04:48
Not all movies should be Wes Anderson quirkfests I agree, although I wouldn't personally object to a few more being so. ;)
However, franchise movies do not have to be as witless, incoherent and obnoxious as the live-action Transformers films. The current spate of Marvel comic-book movies, not to mention the various non-Schumacher incarnations of Batman, and yes, even Man of Steel, are testament to that.
I echo all of Ral's criticisms and concur with colors regarding the confusion separating the Autobots and Decepticons. If it's sometimes impossible to distinguish the 'goodies' from the 'baddies' how are you going to be able to distinguish between the members of the various factions?
The focus on the human-beings wouldn't be so bad if they weren't such an unlikeable, two-dimensional, clichéd bunch lumbered with a stream of smug one-liners and short-lived pop-culture references masquerading as dialogue. I won't even go into Bay's infamous and embarrassing use of racial stereotypes which he somehow manages to incorporate into extra-terrestrial robots.
If your worried about Transformers think what he's about to do to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles too.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 19:55The best Transformers movie for me has and always will be the 1986 animated feature film. For those who haven't watched it go see it immediately. Still has absolutely stunning animation, an amazing soundtrack (however cheesey it may sound to some) and an insane body count of character deaths that blew my young mind. My dad was pretty taken with it's edginess too as well as the soundtrack that puts the modern films to shame to the point he'd learn to play the rockin tracks on his Gibson Les Paul guitar lol Wish there was sheet music or something available for it.
Eh, after Prime bites it, I can pretty much take or leave it... mostly because the characters I knew from the show were dead by that point. Of the new characters, only Cup, Blur and Ultra Magnus caught my eye; I could take or leave all the rest. I mean, I never gave a flying $#!+ about Hotrod. Talk about a boy trying to fill a man's shoes.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 19:58
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 04:48
Not all movies should be Wes Anderson quirkfests I agree, although I wouldn't personally object to a few more being so. ;)
However, franchise movies do not have to be as witless, incoherent and obnoxious as the live-action Transformers films. The current spate of Marvel comic-book movies, not to mention the various non-Schumacher incarnations of Batman, and yes, even Man of Steel, are testament to that.
I echo all of Ral's criticisms and concur with colors regarding the confusion separating the Autobots and Decepticons. If it's sometimes impossible to distinguish the 'goodies' from the 'baddies' how are you going to be able to distinguish between the members of the various factions?
The focus on the human-beings wouldn't be so bad if they weren't such an unlikeable, two-dimensional, clichéd bunch lumbered with a stream of smug one-liners and short-lived pop-culture references masquerading as dialogue. I won't even go into Bay's infamous and embarrassing use of racial stereotypes which he somehow manages to incorporate into extra-terrestrial robots.
If your worried about Transformers think what he's about to do to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles too.
Can it be any worse than the previous Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies? It's Michael Bay so it's sadly possible but the previous films have been so dire and at least the Bay version will be a big production.
The first TMNT movie is epic!
Oh, and Hot Rod is one of my favourite Transformers...I always wanted a Rodimus Prime figure but never got one :-(
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 21:45
The first TMNT movie is epic!
I couldn't get past the murky, incoherent cinematography and the relentlessly dark tone which I realise now was much closer to the comic-books than the TV show but at the time I felt it was unnecessarily 'adult' for a film featuring six foot pizza-loving turtles. However, the first film was at least far superior to what came afterwards.
I didn't grow up with TMNT so can't really comment on it. I was a little kid in the Pokemon days :D
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 12 Jul 2013, 23:12
I couldn't get past the murky, incoherent cinematography and the relentlessly dark tone which I realise now was much closer to the comic-books than the TV show but at the time I felt it was unnecessarily 'adult' for a film featuring six foot pizza-loving turtles. However, the first film was at least far superior to what came afterwards.
That's unfortunate. Being 8 years of age at the time, I thought the darker tone was refreshing. As it provided a contrast to what the Fred Wolf toon was presenting. Which was a toon that lead to me being a lifetime TMNT fan, but even back in 1990, I wasn't exactly clamoring to see the film incorporate such a lighthearted touch with the live action film. Similar to my feelings on watching the Adam West Batman series, and eventually seeing
Batman in 1989.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 11 Jul 2013, 20:45
I consider myself a major Superman fan. I'm definitely part of the MOS core audience. That's one reason I'm so happy right now. A very John Byrne-esque Superman is now part of the cultural zeitgeist.
Indeed. And something of which I was very glad to see upon my initial viewing of
Man of Steel. As it was quite evident that John Byrne's fingerprints was all over this film. Speaking as as a fan who started reading during the Post-Crisis era, with Byrne's MOS being a very definitive take, this felt long long overdue, but at the same time, quite joyous.
QuoteThe critics adored Singerman, a film which I think is a stain on Superman and everything he stands for. The fact that they hated MOS told me that it was likely to be a movie I would appreciate. Without getting specific, I think a lot of comes down to ideology and worldview, things about which critics and I tend to be on completely different pages. Ergo, something that royally pisses off that many movie critics is probably going to be something I will enjoy.
Following having seen
Man of Steel, the fact that SR was getting a more positive reception was just flat out incomprehensible to me at first. But without trying to think about Singer's abomination too much, I think some of that reception stems from a purely superficial standpoint in that it emulated, although in noticeably lackluster fashion (to say the least), what had already been presented previously. Which, as stale as that really turned out to be, was ultimately appreciated by critics who probably, and not surprisingly, only heed to the Reeve/Donner version. With Snyder's film, publicly adoring the Donnerverse became much less of a priority, and having steered away from that familiarity, the critical backlash became inevitable. With so much focus being on the destruction, and Zod's demise.
Which is unfortunate. As Superman did what Superman is typically depicted to always doing; whatever it takes to save lives. Ultimately, even with the toll that had already surely accumulated, Superman's act certainly saved more lives in the long run. Pragmatism, his chief virtue, was in full display, and even weighted with the idea of there being an emotional consequence for his actions. Superman's world isn't black and white, it's X-Ray; he can see more than the rest of us and consequently, probably suffers more for it.
In the end, since every fictional character is, open to many, many, often contradictory interpretations - no one here is wrong. All one can do, is have their own conclusions about if the take fits well enough with their sensibilities or not. For some, perhaps many, it will be successful, and for others it will not - and for most it will likely not matter all that much. And life goes on.
What is it about this Superman that corresponds with your world view colors, and Joker (assuming you agree), particularly in contrast to some of the other ways Superman has been presented on film?
I'm not a MOS-hater but I'm not entirely comfortable with all the mindless destruction at the end of the film. I don't think obliterating half of Metropolis to shreds was a necessary sacrifice for the 'greater good'.
Why do you ask?
Well to behonest when my mom took me & my brother (who is a big superman fan btw)to see it in theaters at first i liked it because there was alot more action in then the last film superman returns which i love btw & don't care what anyone says about it anyways after awhile i started to analyze & realize the things i saw in the film & my liking for the film started to go down!First let me just say i didn't mind the cast at all i thought they did a good job except for Amy Adams i uh...didn't really like her as lois lane at all anyways i felt the flashbacks going back & forth in the film was annoying,There was too much destruction for my taste & felt superman oh wait forgive me KAL should had led them or tricked them to fight in another place with no civillans i mean with all the blows they were trading it caused to buildings to crumble & people to get killed in the crossfire & don't give me the whole "Well he's just learning"skitch cause that's no excuse to not think first when your fighting a villain i mean that should have been kals mind when fighting everyone,2 i felt the moral in the film was weak & i felt empty when i was done watching it,3 bottom line at first i liked it cause there was alot of action in it that made up for what superman returns failed to delivery yet after awhile of thinking about the film i started to remember things that weren't very umm superman in the film & it's lack of moral to the story so yeah i still prefer the donner & singer version of superman mainly cause they had more emotion to their stories & made me feel for the characters man of steel just had action flashback action flashback that's pretty much it other thent that i didn't like the film. :(
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 22:41
Why do you ask?
Because you brought up the point and I'm curious to find out what you mean. Don't worry, I'm not going to attack you or engage you in a political argument once you've given your answer, even if the answer to my question requires a political rather than a simply philosophical answer. ;D
If you present your POV in a diplomatic, matter-of-fact way rather than as a prelude to a debate then I'm sure they'll be no need for any confrontations.
I'm always interested in reading into movies particularly subtexts etc so it's always interesting to find out what other people take from the films they enjoy. :)
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 22:55
Well to behonest when my mom took me & my brother (who is a big superman fan btw)to see it in theaters at first i liked it because there was alot more action in then the last film superman returns which i love btw & don't care what anyone says about it anyways after awhile i started to analyze & realize the things i saw in the film & my liking for the film started to go down!First let me just say i didn't mind the cast at all i thought they did a good job except for Amy Adams i uh...didn't really like her as lois lane at all anyways i felt the flashbacks going back & forth in the film was annoying,There was too much destruction for my taste & felt superman oh wait forgive me KAL should had led them or tricked them to fight in another place with no civillans i mean with all the blows they were trading it caused to buildings to crumble & people to get killed in the crossfire & don't give me the whole "Well he's just learning"skitch cause that's no excuse to not think first when your fighting a villain i mean that should have been kals mind when fighting everyone,2 i felt the moral in the film was weak & i felt empty when i was done watching it,3 bottom line at first i liked it cause there was alot of action in it that made up for what superman returns failed to delivery yet after awhile of thinking about the film i started to remember things that weren't very umm superman in the film & it's lack of moral to the story so yeah i still prefer the donner & singer version of superman mainly cause they had more emotion to their stories & made me feel for the characters man of steel just had action flashback action flashback that's pretty much it other thent that i didn't like the film. :(
Your mum took you and your brother to see MOS BatmanFanatic93? May I ask how old you are?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:03
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 22:55
Well to behonest when my mom took me & my brother (who is a big superman fan btw)to see it in theaters at first i liked it because there was alot more action in then the last film superman returns which i love btw & don't care what anyone says about it anyways after awhile i started to analyze & realize the things i saw in the film & my liking for the film started to go down!First let me just say i didn't mind the cast at all i thought they did a good job except for Amy Adams i uh...didn't really like her as lois lane at all anyways i felt the flashbacks going back & forth in the film was annoying,There was too much destruction for my taste & felt superman oh wait forgive me KAL should had led them or tricked them to fight in another place with no civillans i mean with all the blows they were trading it caused to buildings to crumble & people to get killed in the crossfire & don't give me the whole "Well he's just learning"skitch cause that's no excuse to not think first when your fighting a villain i mean that should have been kals mind when fighting everyone,2 i felt the moral in the film was weak & i felt empty when i was done watching it,3 bottom line at first i liked it cause there was alot of action in it that made up for what superman returns failed to delivery yet after awhile of thinking about the film i started to remember things that weren't very umm superman in the film & it's lack of moral to the story so yeah i still prefer the donner & singer version of superman mainly cause they had more emotion to their stories & made me feel for the characters man of steel just had action flashback action flashback that's pretty much it other thent that i didn't like the film. :(
Your mum took you and your brother to see MOS BatmanFanatic93? May I ask how old you are?
Uh 19 why? btw before you get the wrong idea keep in mind i told her i didn't want to see it at first because i wasn't really feeling up to it but she kept telling me to go just for my little brother so after a moments of feeling bad that she laid on i caved in & went :P
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:09
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:03
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 22:55
Well to behonest when my mom took me & my brother (who is a big superman fan btw)to see it in theaters at first i liked it because there was alot more action in then the last film superman returns which i love btw & don't care what anyone says about it anyways after awhile i started to analyze & realize the things i saw in the film & my liking for the film started to go down!First let me just say i didn't mind the cast at all i thought they did a good job except for Amy Adams i uh...didn't really like her as lois lane at all anyways i felt the flashbacks going back & forth in the film was annoying,There was too much destruction for my taste & felt superman oh wait forgive me KAL should had led them or tricked them to fight in another place with no civillans i mean with all the blows they were trading it caused to buildings to crumble & people to get killed in the crossfire & don't give me the whole "Well he's just learning"skitch cause that's no excuse to not think first when your fighting a villain i mean that should have been kals mind when fighting everyone,2 i felt the moral in the film was weak & i felt empty when i was done watching it,3 bottom line at first i liked it cause there was alot of action in it that made up for what superman returns failed to delivery yet after awhile of thinking about the film i started to remember things that weren't very umm superman in the film & it's lack of moral to the story so yeah i still prefer the donner & singer version of superman mainly cause they had more emotion to their stories & made me feel for the characters man of steel just had action flashback action flashback that's pretty much it other thent that i didn't like the film. :(
Your mum took you and your brother to see MOS BatmanFanatic93? May I ask how old you are?
Uh 19 why? btw before you get the wrong idea keep in mind i told her i didn't want to see it at first because i wasn't really feeling up to it but she kept telling me to go just for my little brother so after a moments of feeling bad that she laid on i caved in & went :P
Okay, it just sounded like your mother was still taking you to the movies. Sorry if I'm seeming like a jerk. :-\
I have a lot of friends who still go to the cinema with their mother or father on occasion but they don't
take them if you get what I mean.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:17
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:09
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:03
Quote from: BatmanFanatic93 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 22:55
Well to behonest when my mom took me & my brother (who is a big superman fan btw)to see it in theaters at first i liked it because there was alot more action in then the last film superman returns which i love btw & don't care what anyone says about it anyways after awhile i started to analyze & realize the things i saw in the film & my liking for the film started to go down!First let me just say i didn't mind the cast at all i thought they did a good job except for Amy Adams i uh...didn't really like her as lois lane at all anyways i felt the flashbacks going back & forth in the film was annoying,There was too much destruction for my taste & felt superman oh wait forgive me KAL should had led them or tricked them to fight in another place with no civillans i mean with all the blows they were trading it caused to buildings to crumble & people to get killed in the crossfire & don't give me the whole "Well he's just learning"skitch cause that's no excuse to not think first when your fighting a villain i mean that should have been kals mind when fighting everyone,2 i felt the moral in the film was weak & i felt empty when i was done watching it,3 bottom line at first i liked it cause there was alot of action in it that made up for what superman returns failed to delivery yet after awhile of thinking about the film i started to remember things that weren't very umm superman in the film & it's lack of moral to the story so yeah i still prefer the donner & singer version of superman mainly cause they had more emotion to their stories & made me feel for the characters man of steel just had action flashback action flashback that's pretty much it other thent that i didn't like the film. :(
Your mum took you and your brother to see MOS BatmanFanatic93? May I ask how old you are?
Uh 19 why? btw before you get the wrong idea keep in mind i told her i didn't want to see it at first because i wasn't really feeling up to it but she kept telling me to go just for my little brother so after a moments of feeling bad that she laid on i caved in & went :P
Okay, it just sounded like your mother was still taking you to the movies. Sorry if I'm seeming like a jerk. :-\
I have a lot of friends who still go to the cinema with their mother or father on occasion but they don't take them if you get what I mean.
No no i understand but to be honest the only time we go to the movies is only when there's a movie that we want to see & that's rarely cause i hardly have any interest in seeing any of the movies that are playing right now heck i'm just waiting for next year so i can see the new godzilla 2014 movie which i been dying to see.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:01If you present your POV in a diplomatic, matter-of-fact way rather than as a prelude to a debate then I'm sure they'll be no need for any confrontations.
Ah, I see. So you can ask about or say whatever you like but the burden is on me to be "civil". Got it. So hmm, I don't think I'll answer your question.
Joker can do as he likes.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 00:02
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 23:01If you present your POV in a diplomatic, matter-of-fact way rather than as a prelude to a debate then I'm sure they'll be no need for any confrontations.
Ah, I see. So you can ask about or say whatever you like but the burden is on me to be "civil". Got it. So hmm, I don't think I'll answer your question.
Joker can do as he likes.
No, the burden is on
all of us to be civil.
Heck, if you want to turn your answer into a political point be my guest. I won't take any umbrage since I asked the question. Even if I don't agree with whatever answer you give I will refrain from arguing since as I state, I asked the question and am, or at least was, genuinely interested in your answer from an entirely objective POV rather than as a prelude to a debate. Not everything has to be an argument.
My only concern when I made the point about being civil was about avoiding posting anything that would get any of our posts deleted for infringing the forum rules or whatever. That point applies to all of us but in all honesty, over the last few weeks you and I are the two posters most likely of falling foul of the rules so I just wanted to ensure that we
both agree to abide by them. Not for my sake but to avoid any of our posts getting deleted again. I don't see what's unreasonable or unfair about that.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 01:16My only concern when I made the point about being civil was about avoiding posting anything that would get any of our posts deleted for infringing the forum rules or whatever.
There's the rub. I believe Ral has modified the rules to eliminate political discussion. My answer to the worldview thing partially incorporates a political angle. Even if I was inclined to answer your question (and I'm not, btw), I couldn't do so in full without running afoul of his rule.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 01:16That point applies to all of us but in all honesty, over the last few weeks you and I are the two posters most likely of falling foul of the rules so I just wanted to ensure that we both agree to abide by them.
If we abide by his rules, we can't get political.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 01:16Not for my sake but to avoid any of our posts getting deleted again. I don't see what's unreasonable or unfair about that.
Nor do I. But it's not my rule; it's his.
But let's not kid ourselves, even if he suspended the rule this one time, I'm still not answering your question.
Well you could always pm me your answer. Like I stated, I am interested to read your analysis, and that of other posters on this site for that matter.
I hope your reason for not answering my question is nothing personal against me (despite our differences I don't see why we can't all get along - we're not BOF or the IMDb - we're more reasonable than those guys) and is simply just your concern about falling foul of the rules. If it's the latter reason I sympathise with your POV. Even though I was being genuine when I stated that I was prepared to read your views without commenting (thus avoiding any debate/argument) it is probably for the best that we don't infringe Ral's sensible rules about politics/religion firstly as a matter of principle and secondly because another poster might not be so willing to refrain from arguing.
I've given you my answer. And I think we've derailed this thread quite enough.
Right now, Man of Steel is sitting pretty at $282 million in the US and $620 million worldwide (according to Box Office Mojo). I suppose MOS will finally land somewhere around $290 million domestically and, oh, maybe $650 worldwide (that last is a guess based on no data whatsoever). When MOS first came out, haters aplenty were complaining about what a flop it is. Heh. The movie cost $225 million to make. It has (far) exceeded that number both domestically and internationally. That's not a flop. That's the textbook definition of success, in fact.
Go Singerman's numbers from 2006. Go on, I'll wait. You back now? See what I mean? THAT is a flop. It didn't earn back its production budget in either territory. Apologists love saying "it grossed $400 million worldwide", as if production costs mean nothing. News flash: When your movie has an actual budget between $220 and $240 million, you need to hit at least $450 million worldwide. Singerman was nowhere near that even after four months in theaters. MOS? It passed that mark shortly after Weekend #2.
White House Down, The Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim? Those are flops. Some people doubt some of those will even break $100 million domestically. They sound like they're smarter than me so I'll roll with it.
But anybody who's ashamed of Man of Steel's numbers should have his head examined.
There's no need for me to check MOS's numbers. I'm a box-office nerd and I've seen the numbers. It's the second biggest film of the year so far and in view of the competition for the rest of the year I don't suspect that position will change by much (the second Hobbit film which is one of the few remaining guaranteed blockbusters still to be released this year might, although the first film did slightly disappointing business last year and MOS is currently only about $20 million short of that film with a good few weeks/months left on release). Whatever one thinks about the film, and for the most part I genuinely like it even though I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic as some posters on this thread, it's clearly a hit. Also, I'm certainly no big fan of Superman Returns, although once again I don't hate it half as much as many posters here. On balance I'd say MOS is a comprehensively superior movie to Superman Returns even if I don't consider either film to be a 'classic'.
It's still a pity that you don't want to answer my question though since it was asked in all sincerity and without malice.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 21:44
What is it about this Superman that corresponds with your world view colors, and Joker (assuming you agree), particularly in contrast to some of the other ways Superman has been presented on film?
Since I have something else on the brain (to which I'll be posting about in another thread shortly), I'll just say that much of my affinity for MOS boils down to the film presenting a take that is (A) undoubtedly for a new generation, and (B) one that perhaps broke down the popular
misconception that the character, is, and always has been in the past, submitted in a certain light. And from a audience perspective, it appears to be a very successful approach as well. As I recall following the film's release, and subsequently posting positively about it, some posters in this thread appeared to have a already preconceived negative view of MOS due to, I suppose, the critical backlash the film was met with following it's release (just too lazy to go back and be specific). Even going to the extent, i think, of saying such and such was a red flag because whoever did a review, and liked it. :(
QuoteI'm not a MOS-hater but I'm not entirely comfortable with all the mindless destruction at the end of the film. I don't think obliterating half of Metropolis to shreds was a necessary sacrifice for the 'greater good'.
Collateral mass property damage is an inherent part of superhero combat. And a logical consequence when you have a couple of physical gods go at it in an urban area. This is however, the best, most realistically portrayed example in live action movies that I've ever seen.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 05:59
QuoteI'm not a MOS-hater but I'm not entirely comfortable with all the mindless destruction at the end of the film. I don't think obliterating half of Metropolis to shreds was a necessary sacrifice for the 'greater good'.
Collateral mass property damage is an inherent part of superhero combat. And a logical consequence when you have a couple of physical gods go at it in an urban area. This is however, the best, most realistically portrayed example in live action movies that I've ever seen.
Realistically though, it wasn't just mass property damage. Surely there were casualties in the destruction, perhaps even several deaths. I didn't get a feeling that Superman had done everything he could to remove the conflict from such a built-up area.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 06:14
Realistically though, it wasn't just mass property damage. Surely there were casualties in the destruction, perhaps even several deaths. I didn't get a feeling that Superman had done everything he could to remove the conflict from such a built-up area.
A lot of people lay the blame for the destruction of the brawl on Supes, because we didn't get scenes of him sweeping and clearing the area before the battle with Zod, or taking the fight to Jupiter or something, rather than placing it upon Zod...which seems odd. This Zod, by the time of the final battle, is enraged, and much more aggressive. Which is clearly displayed by just the way he goes up buildings, which is akin to something like a rabid bulldog. And if you know anything about combat, when your opponent is being aggressive, you don't have as much time to plan and think, you have to be on your toes constantly to survive. That being said, and with this Superman being for a extremely short amount of time, I thought it was a valid interpretation of such a battle, and the 'collateral damage' being honest.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 04:47It's still a pity that you don't want to answer my question though since it was asked in all sincerity and without malice.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_liqcyupGac1qi9q4ko1_500.jpg&hash=af9b9968fca60a1cc92c67bd15c5cbeebefeb6d2)
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 06:34
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 06:14
Realistically though, it wasn't just mass property damage. Surely there were casualties in the destruction, perhaps even several deaths. I didn't get a feeling that Superman had done everything he could to remove the conflict from such a built-up area.
A lot of people lay the blame for the destruction of the brawl on Supes, because we didn't get scenes of him sweeping and clearing the area before the battle with Zod, or taking the fight to Jupiter or something, rather than placing it upon Zod...which seems odd. This Zod, by the time of the final battle, is enraged, and much more aggressive. Which is clearly displayed by just the way he goes up buildings, which is akin to something like a rabid bulldog. And if you know anything about combat, when your opponent is being aggressive, you don't have as much time to plan and think, you have to be on your toes constantly to survive. That being said, and with this Superman being for a extremely short amount of time, I thought it was a valid interpretation of such a battle, and the 'collateral damage' being honest.
Of course it's Zod's fault. Nobody is saying it isn't. But he's the bad guy. He's attempting to obliterate an entire species so it's what we'd expect from him. Superman is the hero so unfortunately the onus does fall on him and take the fight elsewhere if he can. I could understand if Zod was using the population of Metropolis as pawns and daring Superman to come in and save them, like when Zod, Ursa and Non toy with the bus passengers in 'Superman 2' but I didn't get the impression that this was happening on this occasion.
I'll level with you. I'm probably not as avid an expert on the comic-books as you but I always saw Superman as being an advocate of less extreme means of justice, something which had gotten him and Batman into conflict on many occasions, and yet here under the aegis of Christopher Nolan we have a Batman who emphatically doesn't kill (of course in practice he does, but the speechifying in the TDK trilogy keeps trying to tell us he doesn't) and conversely a Superman who does kill and seemingly has minimal regard for collateral loss of lives. Seeing as Superman is an alien, and a guest on our planet, his strong convictions about not wanting to harm human beings makes sense in contrast to Batman/Bruce Wayne who was damaged at an early age by the actions of a fellow human and thus learned to be wary and suspicious of most people, in contrast to Clark Kent who was raised by two loving adoptive parents, his first contacts from Earth. Since Zod is a fellow Kryptonian, I have less issues with Superman taking his life at the end even though I had hoped that we'd at least start the franchise with a more optimistic and positive (i.e. non-killing) portrayal of Superman with room to move into possibly darker territory as the series progressed.
I don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod, though I wish it was less gruesome. The was no way out for Superman. Plus Zod was basically pleading for a warriors death during the finale...so in some way Superman granted him what could be viewed as his "Kryptonian" right to die.
I don't buy Snyder's lame "after the event" excuse for it though - that this is where Superman's no killing rule comes from.
Superman doesn't kill because he has strong morals. Morals he gained from the Kents. Unfortunately we never see that moral guidance in the movie. My morals/work ethic stem from my parents. While it is a lifetime of influence I could probably cite a few examples of things that my dad may have said or done that have shaped me as an individual...it's a pity the film didn't try to do more.
I'm not Superman, but I don't need to kill someone to know killing is wrong.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 07:53
Of course it's Zod's fault. Nobody is saying it isn't.
The destruction being Superman's fault is an often used slight against the movie I've seen ALOT on the net. It wasn't necessarily aimed directly towards you, but it's just another often touted, or certainly implied notion that doesn't hold weight under scrutiny.
QuoteBut he's the bad guy. He's attempting to obliterate an entire species so it's what we'd expect from him. Superman is the hero so unfortunately the onus does fall on him and take the fight elsewhere if he can. I could understand if Zod was using the population of Metropolis as pawns and daring Superman to come in and save them, like when Zod, Ursa and Non toy with the bus passengers in 'Superman 2' but I didn't get the impression that this was happening on this occasion.
Anyone could easily rationalize that Superman was young, had never really been in a fight before meeting his brethren, and didn't yet have the full instincts of his comic book version, so loss of life was unavoidable. For most of the film, he was fighting a numerically superior foe with better training and better weapons plus most of his powers, and he still managed to save lives and keep the bad guys off balance enough to eventually win the day. Was he "Superman"? Yes, absolutely. Superman is 75 years old, and he's had a lot of interpretations over the years - this is just one of them, and better than some.
As for your point about Superman not taking the fight out of the city (Mark Waid hated this too, right?), it's not like we've never seen this in comics before. Not every fight happens outside of a populated area in the comics...I mean when buildings get demolished in an issue, am I suppose to believe that no one died? Hell I'm pretty sure Death of Superman had a higher if not equal amount of destruction(and assumed body count) as this movie. It's why we always say that it would suck to live in the DCU...every day there's pretty much a 50% chance that you're going to die 'cause of stuff like this.
And besides if I'm Zod and Superman tries to lead me away...I stay right where I am and start killing civilians. 'Cause, you know, it was made pretty clear I'm fully aware of his love for humanity by that point (to say the least).
QuoteI'll level with you. I'm probably not as avid an expert on the comic-books as you but I always saw Superman as being an advocate of lee extreme means of justice, something which had gotten him and Batman into conflict on many occasions, and yet here under the aegis of Christopher Nolan we have a Superman who does kill and seemingly has minimal regard for collateral loss of lives. Seeing as Superman is an alien, and a guest on our planet, his strong convictions about not wanting to harm human beings makes sense in contrast to Batman/Bruce Wayne who was damaged at an early age by the actions of a fellow human and thus learned to be wary and suspicious of most people, in contrast to Clark Kent who was raised by two loving adoptive parents, his first contacts from Earth. Since Zod is a fellow Kryptonian, I have less issues with Superman taking his life at the end even though I had hoped that we'd at least start the franchise with a more optimistic and positive (i.e. non-killing) portrayal of Superman with room to move into possibly darker territory as the series progressed.
Superman is Superman. He's not Infallible-Man (as some might like to think). And I believe the events, and actions that transpired and took place in MOS will indeed have an effect on his character and code with future installments. In the latter stage of the film, Superman was one man trying to stop the terraforming ship, and then against a madman intent on killing Superman and killing random people to 'punish' Superman. Which makes it clear Zod knows Superman's weakness, and it's not kryptonite this time. Sure, something like a scene of Superman rescuing people in the aftermath would have been cool. But then I have absolutely no reason to believe that Superman doesn't do this, either. It's not like we see him fly away immediately after Zod dies. It's just a conclusion many are quick to jump to, in spite of all the prior actions Superman takes in the film where he clearly cares, and saves people whenever possible.
Ultimately, Its our mortal folley to not have conveniently available wastelands for super powered fights, and villains who are nice enough to oblige such a request.
To be honest, I would've liked it if Zod was put back in the phantom zone. But he was really too dangerous for Earth to be left alive IMO.
Done.
Let me get this out of the way up-front; on top of my local critic's lack of discretion and my aesthetic tastes (more on that later), I am absolutely in love with the original Donner film, and with his cut of Superman II. I am aware that the comics and character have evolved since then, and I hardly consider that take on Superman the only valid one, or the only good one. I can't honestly say that my affection for the old films (well, for its two romantic leads, its Kryptonians, and its score specifically) didn't colour my ultimate opinion on Man of Steel, but I was as open as I possibly could be, and I leave any comparisons out of this review. I also don't think I would compare the two takes so much in my head if Man of Steel didn't feel so much like a repeat.
A common charge thrown at Superman Returns by its critics is that it was too close to the original Donner film; Luthor is the villain again and he has a real estate scheme, Brando was brought back from the dead, etc. But Man of Steel feels much more like a retread to me – not just of Superman I and II (though it shares so many of their basic plot points), but of other recent interpretations of the character, such as the Timm/Dini animated series and "Smallville." Compounding the problem, certain aspects of these previous adaptations have since been incorporated into the comics. I liked Superman Returns, and have no problems with its close ties to the first two films. When no one involved in the production made any secret that that connection was intentional, it's hard for me to understand why that became such an issue for others. But with Man of Steel, precisely because everyone involved with the picture was determined for this to be a fresh start, suffers much more from a sense of "been there, done that" IMO. Even worse, Man of Steel, if you were to look at it on paper, has far more potential than its predecessors; it creates more complicated motives, back stories, and feelings for the characters. But very little of that came across as intended in my eyes. In every area where Man of Steel shares plot or thematic material with a previous adaptation, I find the predecessor to be superior, often getting a richer stew out of simpler ingredients.
But, setting that aside and taking this film on its own merits – as I said, I found the film visually bleak, tonally heavy, with an uneven pace, severe editing issues, a tendency to tell rather than show when it came to anything emotional, a lack of real characterization for anyone outside our main hero and villain, too much crammed in to the ending, and some questionable choices made in that ending.
And yet...in some respects, I was pleasantly surprised.
My biggest concern going in, given what I had seen and read, was that Superman himself was going to end up a depressed, brooding figure devoid of the charm and confidence that the character typically exudes. Those fears were – partially –assuaged. I would not call Henry Cavill "perfect casting;" I cannot say I found his a stellar performance. But he did give a very good one, and he did manage to capture that, for lack of a more appropriate term, Boy Scout quality that Clark has. The moment where he comforts Lois as he treats her wounds in the Fortress of Solitude (I know it isn't really the Fortress, but it's as good as and it's a cooler name than "the Genesis ship") in particular stood out in my mind. It was also neat to see Superman, in costume, testing his powers (though – and this is a nitpick, to be sure – wouldn't you think that he would have found out he could fly by age 33?) In short, my biggest fear became my greatest pleasant shock, although I do wish he had more confidence in his interactions with Lois and the military, and I had issues with the depiction of his childhood.
Quick detour- the flashback structure, where the flashbacks were done out of order, is technically more realistic to how memory works and (for the most part) worked, though I understand complaints I've read that having them occur sequentially could have been easier to read. At least one instance towards the beginning saw the gap in the flashbacks last only a few seconds; very awkward.
I did enjoy the scene where a grade-school Clark has an episode, struggling to control his powers. That one scene alone was enough to sell the growing pains that would come with such abilities. It would have been nice to see a teenaged Clark getting some enjoyment out of his powers, but that's a fairly minor point. I liked Ma Kent throughout the film. But I really had a hard time with this film's Jonathan Kent. Part of this problem is just an issue with some technical matter of writing; like the Dark Knight Trilogy, the amount of exposition and theme-stating dialogue in Man of Steel wore me down pretty quick, and Jonathan got a lot of it. But Jonathan's character really bothered me. It's one thing to advise your son with superpowers that it's best for him to keep them hidden until the right time: it's quite another to tell that same kid, since before he's old enough for his voice to crack, that he will alter all religion, philosophy, and perceptions of man's place in the universe, and that it was possibly OK to let a bus full of school children – his classmates – die. The amount of pressure he applies to this kid goes to the point where it should be causing some serious damage IMO. This amount of concern – I'd go so far as to say paranoia – also seems to be at odds with the sort of upbringing and morals that the Kents are supposed to instill in Superman.
I'm going to have to echo every complaint and issue I've seen raised over Jonathan Kent's death. As many have already noted before me, we've gone from "all these powers and I couldn't save him" to "all these powers and I didn't save him." On top of the moral issues, which have been sufficiently covered by other reviewers, the set-up for the death feels very arbitrary. Jonathan handing off that little kid to Clark didn't read as Jonathan trying to mask Clark's powers; it read as him trying to shepard everyone else to safety before he'd join them. And if Jonathan could make it over to the car to let the dog out at normal human speeds, so could Clark, and with the other cars obscuring peoples' vision and the general chaos caused by the tornado, there was no reason not to let Clark grab the dog. Thematically, the death doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond emphasising a theme that had already been stated in dialogue over and over; that Clark shouldn't reveal his powers until the right time. And by "the right time," Jonathan and Clark apparently didn't consider anything short of "evildoers with the same sorts of powers coming to Earth and threatening to destroy it, creating a climate of panic in which no one has any reason to believe that you're on the level since you haven't revealed yourself before now" to fit the bill.
I can't be too hard on that last point though, because I didn't feel the film really gave much of a sense of the world's reaction to Superman. For all the dialogue and all the weight put on that point, the only people who are really shown reacting to the reveal are Lois and the military.
Lois; I love Amy Adams, and she's an amazing actress, but I got very little sense of a personality from this Lois Lane. She and Henry Cavill have some chemistry, but I think the film would have been better served by saving their romantic turn for the sequel. Up until their first kiss, their relationship is one of mutual gratitude and some sort of affection; the sudden shift into romance felt very forced. I was also confused as to why Lois needed to be around in the second half of the story. Zod didn't need to take her along; they probed Superman's mind anyway, which had to have given them the location of his pod. The plot demanded someone else be around in Zod's ship to upload Jor-El and learn how to defeat the villains, but that person being Lois; I dunno. It was a lot like Jonathan's death; the set-up seemed very arbitrary. The same applies for Lois being on the plane that flies the pod into Zod's ship. When it turned out that she wasn't even the one who activates the Phantom drive, it became really hard to find any sort of justification for her to be there other than to let Superman save her – a note they had already played twice.
Zod – honestly, this was my biggest problem in casting. If Richard Lester undermined the menace of Zod through sight gags and eye rolls, Michael Shannon undermines, not only Zod's menace, but his believability as a commander through his performance. It's the first time I can remember thinking an actor was wooden and hammy at the same time. This story has Kryptonian destinies set at birth, and Zod's was that of the warrior, but I don't remember anything that said he had to become the supreme general tasked with security of Krypton. Shannon's Zod doesn't seem to have any of the charm or commanding presence such a post would demand; he comes off as a foot-soldier, a rather insecure and mentally unstable one. Granted, that did seem to be the point, but Shannon's performance creates a character who is so obviously off-balance that it's hard to believe that no one would have suspected that maybe – just maybe – this guy shouldn't be given the keys to the kingdom. For all the attempts in the dialogue to create moral ambiguity and nuance in our main villain, little to none of it was tangible as an organic, believeable feeling; "tell, don't show" at its most frustrating IMO. This Zod also doesn't seem to be the brightest tool in the shed: when I want to persuade the son of Jor-El to join me in planetary conquest while probing his mind, I tend not to show him images of his beloved childhood home aflame or oceans of human skulls.
The Codex didn't seem to be much more than an excuse for the Kryptonians to come a-calling, and once it's revealed that it's inside Superman, there's never any situation that pays that information off. Couldn't they just decide Earth was a suitable terraform candidate and move in? As for how their conquest goes; I thought Smallville, Metropolis, and the not-quite Fortress of Solitude getting destroyed all in one movie was too much, especially for a first entry in a new serie. The shift in action from Smallville to Metropolis is rather abrupt IMO. I also found the editing in the action sequences terrible; I had a very hard time following anything that happened. And I agree with all complaints about Superman's property damage; telling people "get inside" doesn't do much good when you and the U.S. military end up destroying the whole town anyway (and shouldn't the army have at least some qualms about launching an airstrike on a town not yet evacuated?) In the finale, the fight moves from the already-destroyed part of Metropolis to the thriving part that is clearly not evacuated, as we can see all the cars lining the streets. I realize Zod drove the fight there, but Superman does nothing to resist this and does nothing to take the fight away from the populated area. I don't need Superman to fly around fixing and saving every last building and kitten, but shouldn't he at least be a little bothered by it?
The ending: I read Goyer and Snyder's explanation and defense of it, and in theory, I accept their decision. However, in execution, I had four big problems:
1. I'm sorry, but those people in the museum were the equivalent of the woman who thought throwing herself over her baby carriage was better than pushing it out of the way of the radio tower in Superman II. If the idea was that the rubble of that pillar had them trapped, then the blocking and the shooting both dropped the ball, because it looked like all they had to do was run forward and to their left to get away from Zod, who was inexplicably holding the heat ray steady on the wall.
2. Superman had Zod in a headlock, and he can fly; just lift Zod out of the museum.
3. If Superman can snap Zod's neck –a bit odd when they both can smash each other through buildings without a scratch – he can also break his arms, legs, and back. Leaving Zod a cripple in prison is extreme, but it's another choice besides killing him.
4. The arc Snyder and Goyer described – that killing Zod and ending his race was enough to drive Superman to never kill again – gets no set-up or pay-off. The moral issue that is stated (and re-stated....and re-stated) prior to this is – should Clark expose himself to the world? How to use those powers, the rules and limitations Clark/Kal-El should set for himself, never comes up, nor does any sort of thought on the subject of killing people. And the scream of frustration did not feel like enough to sell the point Snyder and Goyer wanted. Of all the points in the film that could have used some speechifying, that was a big one. That the loss of all things Kryptonian would be that much of a blow to Superman is a bit hard to swallow anyway when he has no qualms about taking out the Genesis ship – the ship that, as far as he knows at that point, is the only means of connecting with his father. There was a comic where Superman – speaking to Mr. Mxyzptlk, of all people – declares why he doesn't kill, as plain as Batman's declaration of his One Rule. That this got no mention in the film outside of statements by its makers is rather troubling, and I'm surprised by the defense that it's gotten.
And while I don't have a problem with Snyder and Goyer's reasoning on this scene, I read an interview with Mark Waid where he follows up on his issues with Man of Steel. He made a good case for not only not having this sort of scene to begin with, but not trying to play Superman as "one of us."
As I've said, I felt the pacing was uneven. For example, the Kryptonian sequence gets off to a very abrupt start, then drags on past its welcome. Tonally, the film doesn't quite echo the sentiments that the dialogue tries to convey. I didn't get a sense of "hope" so much as "extremely cautious first steps towards guarded optimism." The one time I laughed, it was at an inappropriate time; something Zod said while being sentenced made me crack up, thanks to Shannon's delivery.
There were also two points about the Kryptonian technology that threw me. I won't call them plot holes, because I had a hard time catching all the lines in the scenes where these issues came up, so if there's an explanation, tell me. The two points are:
1. If those suits of armour are blocking out the effects of Earth's sun, how are the supervillains able to get super strength and speed?
2. When Lois uploads Jor-El to Zod's ship – he's able to change the atmosphere, open doors, and activate escape pods. I don't remember any moment where any of Zod's crew wipe Jor-El from the ship, and the ability to do so isn't established until Zod pulls out his crystal and commands the Genesis ship to get rid of Jor-El. If Jor-El wasn't erased, couldn't he have stopped the terraforming device?
As far as the aesthetics go, some might dismiss these matters as nitpicking; I wouldn't, but I will concede that it is (mostly) a case of personal preference. The aesthetics of this film are almost completely opposite to my own tastes and instincts, particularly when it concerns a character like Superman. Be it the degree of desaturation in the image, the amount and type of handheld work in the cinematography, the style of editing, the design of anything Kryptonian, or the sort of musical score employed, Man of Steel is just not my cup of tea, and the trailers and previews I had seen were enough to tell me that going in. Again, for the most part this issue is a matter of personal taste rather than actual quality, although I do think the editing is a real problem in the film. I also think that the music is rather ineffective. I haven't made much of a secret of the fact that I'm not a Zimmer fan, but I can at least recognize, recall, and hum a fair number of his themes from the Dark Knight Trilogy. I can't recall a single theme from this film. Literally the only piece of music I remember is one note played by the horns in the trailer, and I remember that only because I was struck by how small the horn section of a major motion picture score sounded.
Now, this is a pretty negative review. On a numerical scale, I'd give this film 5 out of 10. Editing aside, I found the film technically well put-together. Despite my total lack of interest in seeing the origin story – again – I did enjoy certain aspects of it, and I enjoyed Russell Crowe as Jor-El. As I've already said, I liked the portrayal of Superman himself. This was far from a terrible film. But as a whole, the aspects that struck me most were those that rubbed me the wrong way.
You've offered an intelligent, scholarly review so I would like to offer a hopefully as intelligent and scholarly reply.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53A common charge thrown at Superman Returns by its critics is that it was too close to the original Donner film; Luthor is the villain again and he has a real estate scheme, Brando was brought back from the dead, etc.
I can't speak for anybody else but my main problem with Singerman is not so much how dependent it is upon Donner. If anything, it's that it doesn't depend on Donner
enough. I thought Singerman was an intentional repudiation of what the character had long stood for and which Donner made some effort to depict. I thought it was so horrifying that I refuse to use the character's name in reference to that movie. From my point of view, Singer made a film starring completely original characters and slapped familiar names on them.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53But Man of Steel feels much more like a retread to me – not just of Superman I and II (though it shares so many of their basic plot points), but of other recent interpretations of the character, such as the Timm/Dini animated series and "Smallville."
I think a lot of the "retread" argument can be answered rather easily with a simple statement of undeniable fact.
Wide audiences have not seen a new version of Superman since 1978.
Ten seasons of Smallville, four seasons of Lois & Clark, two seasons of STAS, four seasons of JLU and everything else don't amount to a hill of beans. More people saw MOS in the first two weeks than likely ever watched all those other things
combined. As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, those other things may as well not even exist. As familiar as some aspects of MOS may be to seasoned fans, a huge majority of it was a revelation to wide audiences. Snyder had to truly reboot the character and introduce him under the philosophy that this is the moviegoing public's first exposure to Superman.
This same issue cuts through a lot of other common gripes about MOS but we'll sift through things as we going along.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53Compounding the problem, certain aspects of these previous adaptations have since been incorporated into the comics. I liked Superman Returns, and have no problems with its close ties to the first two films. When no one involved in the production made any secret that that connection was intentional, it's hard for me to understand why that became such an issue for others.
Hopefully I've addressed that (at least for my participation) above.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53It was also neat to see Superman, in costume, testing his powers (though – and this is a nitpick, to be sure – wouldn't you think that he would have found out he could fly by age 33?)
He's been told his entire life that he has to hide and keep his abilities on the d/l. On that basis,
my quibble is how fast he seemed to master the full extent of his abilities as quickly as he did. Film must deal with things in short hand, I realize. And I also realize this is a quibble rather than a deal-breaker. Even so, I feel like I have to argue your point from the other complete other direction.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53
But Jonathan's character really bothered me. It's one thing to advise your son with superpowers that it's best for him to keep them hidden until the right time: it's quite another to tell that same kid, since before he's old enough for his voice to crack, that he will alter all religion, philosophy, and perceptions of man's place in the universe, and that it was possibly OK to let a bus full of school children – his classmates – die. The amount of pressure he applies to this kid goes to the point where it should be causing some serious damage IMO. This amount of concern – I'd go so far as to say paranoia – also seems to be at odds with the sort of upbringing and morals that the Kents are supposed to instill in Superman.
My answer to that is that this is a new take on a relatively familiar (to fans anyway) character. Jonathan is a confused man stuck in a seemingly impossible situation and he doesn't have all the answers. He's just trying to do the best he can with the resources available to him.
Maybe it's because I'm such a big Smallville fan but this seemed to me like SV's Jonathan taken somewhat to the next level. In SV, Clark's natural instinct was to use his powers to help people. Jonathan would've preferred Clark do whatever's necessary to keep a low profile. The uneasy compromise they eventually reached in SV is that Clark would use abilities on anonymous basis.
The main difference with MOS is that Jonathan suggests (not demands; not insists) that Clark's privacy should be his utmost concern... and then he explains why.
Let's face it. If a superpowered alien came to Earth, all the factors Jonathan mentioned
would be affected. But the driving issue of MOS is that it took Clark 33 years, a brush with his true origins, the "extinction" of what remained of his race and a lot of Christian imagery to learn that
Jonathan Kent was wrong.
Jonathan was a good man, he had nothing but the best intentions for his son and, love him or hate him, he was willing to die for what he believed... but he was ultimately wrong and Clark was ultimately right.
Speaking of...
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53I'm going to have to echo every complaint and issue I've seen raised over Jonathan Kent's death. As many have already noted before me, we've gone from "all these powers and I couldn't save him" to "all these powers and I didn't save him."
Not to argue the point or change the subject but that idiotic "all these powers" line has always bothered me. We just saw Clark outrun a freakin train
and Brad's car. STM's teenage Clark had a
very good idea of at least some of his powers.
And you mean to tell me he couldn't have at least
TRIED to zoom Jonathan to the hospital? Maybe Jonathan was dead when he hit the ground but nothing in the film is clear on that either way. Bottom line? I've never bought that Clark couldn't have saved Jonathan in STM.
But to answer your point, Jonathan specifically told Clark to stand down. Whether anybody likes it or not, Jonathan chose to sacrifice himself rather than even risk the possibility of revealing Clark's secret. The people who quibble over Jonathan's death also quibble over his "willingness" to let others die. Whatever, but the thing that bothers me is that few or none of them bother to close the loop and recognize that Jonathan was walking it as he talked it. Love or hate the guy, he lived and died by his principles. Wouldn't it have been hypocritically self-serving for him to say "maybe" in one scene and then demand Clark rescue him just a while later?
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53On top of the moral issues, which have been sufficiently covered by other reviewers, the set-up for the death feels very arbitrary.
I can't argue the mechanics of the scene. I look at the bigger picture of it. If people are bothered by the essential setup of it, hey, I can't argue with them. It's not particularly well done but, as I say, there is a point being made there so I let it slide.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53This story has Kryptonian destinies set at birth, and Zod's was that of the warrior, but I don't remember anything that said he had to become the supreme general tasked with security of Krypton.
My reading of it (again, film relies on shorthand) is that Zod was seizing power as part of his genetic programming to preserve and defend Kryptonian society and he didn't see The Big Hat Council making decisions that resulted in the general good of the people. You said earlier the Krypton stuff dragged too long. Frankly, I thought this part of the film was almost anemic. Shorthand, yes, I understand, but these are core character motivations we're going through here. I understand Snyder was under narrative pressure to bring Superman into play as quickly as possible but clarification on some of the conflicts relating to Zod, Krypton, The Big Hat Council and other stuff would've resulted in greater pathos both in the short term and the long term. I understand the reasoning behind zipping through the stuff; I just don't think it served the long term interests of the film.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53The Codex didn't seem to be much more than an excuse for the Kryptonians to come a-calling, and once it's revealed that it's inside Superman, there's never any situation that pays that information off. Couldn't they just decide Earth was a suitable terraform candidate and move in?
Zod's programming was to preserve Kryptonian society. Kal-El serving as the codex would permit the return not just of Kryptonian society but of proper
Kryptonians. He needs the codex to do that. Why choose Earth? Why not, they're already there. Earth is as good as anything else. Now, this is me reading between the lines. The fact is that I don't think anything in the film is so explicit. I therefore acknowledge that a line or two of dialogue might have clarified some of Zod's tactical decisions vis a vis the codex, terraforming the Earth and so on.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:53I realize Zod drove the fight there, but Superman does nothing to resist this and does nothing to take the fight away from the populated area. I don't need Superman to fly around fixing and saving every last building and kitten, but shouldn't he at least be a little bothered by it?
How do you know he wasn't? Also, it's easy for me to overlook the property damage because as much as anything Snyder is keeping up with the Joneses. Lots of other films feature a similar amount of devastation. Well, it's not like that kind of thing is foreign to Superman comics. Wide audiences haven't seen it, to be sure, but it's not new territory for Superman and as far as an action quotient is concerned, audiences expect high stakes like that. Scenes of Cavill fretting over potential casualties or, worse, abandoning the fight to save one or two people while Zod and co. continue curb-stomping Metropolis wouldn't help matters.
The other thing though is that this Superman isn't necessarily here to just be a guardian angel. As much as anything, Jor-El wants Superman to equip mankind. Prepare them, enable them, guide them, teach them... and ultimately
trust them to do their part. Evacuations, rescues, fire-fighting and so forth are all things humans are perfectly capable of doing themselves. But
only Superman can face off with Zod. He's forced to triage the situation and decided that his best efforts should be directed toward shutting Zod down.
Now, is that how Superman "should" be depicted? Personal taste. But there is a marketing method (let's blow a bunch of stuff up, it'll look great in the trailers and puts butts in the seats!) and a story method (Superman is there to gently lead mankind into the sun) to it. On those grounds, it's easy for me to see what Goyer and Snyder were up to.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:531. I'm sorry, but those people in the museum were the equivalent of the woman who thought throwing herself over her baby carriage was better than pushing it out of the way of the radio tower in Superman II. If the idea was that the rubble of that pillar had them trapped, then the blocking and the shooting both dropped the ball, because it looked like all they had to do was run forward and to their left to get away from Zod, who was inexplicably holding the heat ray steady on the wall.
As above, I can't argue the mechanics of it. The principle underlying the scene is that Zod has positioned himself to be a scourge to humanity. Only Superman can deal with it and how can he deal with a seemingly unstoppable, unreasonable foe?
And, as I suspect the sequel will deal with, what are the consequences of using extreme measures to do so?
If you find the setup unconvincing, hey, I got nuthin. But the principle of it... the way I see it, Superman
shouldn't kill. But if he does, these are the circumstances where he would do so.
What Superman would never
EVER do is crush a mortal being's hand, toss him across the room and let him plummet to his death because that character died because there is no DVD you can buy that shows the character surviving
integrated into the movie which means
Reeve's Superman killed Zod and to this day I seem to be almost a voice in the wilderness when it comes to having philosophical problems with that. He especially wouldn't do that when he'd already in effect won.
Frankly, I find the MOS Superman's actions a helluva lot more justifiable than I do the S2 Superman's.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:531. If those suits of armour are blocking out the effects of Earth's sun, how are the supervillains able to get super strength and speed?
Those are the effects of Earth's lesser gravity. For shorthand, Donner established that Superman's powers came from Earth's sun and that's become absolute canon. In MOS, Snyder and Goyer reinstated the two-fold nature of Superman's powers. Earth's sun gives him certain abilities while things like speed, strength and others are due to Earth's lesser gravity relative to Krypton. On that basis, the Kryptonians wouldn't need Earth's atmosphere in order to utilize certain abilities.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 03:532. When Lois uploads Jor-El to Zod's ship – he's able to change the atmosphere, open doors, and activate escape pods. I don't remember any moment where any of Zod's crew wipe Jor-El from the ship, and the ability to do so isn't established until Zod pulls out his crystal and commands the Genesis ship to get rid of Jor-El. If Jor-El wasn't erased, couldn't he have stopped the terraforming device?
What I assumed based on Zod's ability to delete the Jor-El AI in that other ship is that anybody can do it on any ship the AI has been installed onto... and that's what happened off-screen.
As I said, you wrote something very intelligent and scholarly so no matter how hyperbolic I got up there, I do hope you understand I'm not arguing or looking for trouble or any other drama. I tried to use a bit of humor to make the point... or concede the point when you clearly have the upper hand. I'm bending over backwards to say this because I want to maintain and contribute to the maturity you just injected into this thread.
By the by, not sure how much of this thread you've dug through but what I've tried to be clear about is that I'm a HUGE Superman fan (if that wasn't obvious) but that doesn't mean that MOS is the Superman film I've dreamed about my whole life. When it comes to comics, my preference is the Silver/Bronze Age Superman where he was written as a Myth rather than basically a human with superpowers as he was during the Byrne Age. I love the Byrne Age and nobody can deny how much MOS relies on Post-Crisis stuff for a lot of inspiration but just because I enjoy that era doesn't mean that's my favorite or that's what I would've wanted in a film.
I say all of this to emphasize that I'm not blindly overlooking what I acknowledge to be faults with MOS simply because I'm in love with the presentation of it. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact. If I made a Superman film, it would look virtually nothing like MOS or even have all that much in common with it.
Those are good points you raise, zDBZ. And good responses from you, colors. A very interesting read.
A few observations of my own:
• The film is released during the anniversary (50th/75th) year of the main character's comic book debut
• The hero's origin story is revised so that the main villain is responsible for killing his father
• The hero's armoured costume features sculptured musculature and ditches the comic book trunks for the first time
• The hero's back story is revealed through flashbacks
• The main love interest is an investigative journalist who spies on the hero and follows him around with a camera, gradually piecing together his past and learning his true identity
• The villain uses a pirate television broadcast to call out the hero. The authorities are powerless to resolve the situation on their own and don't know who to trust
• In contrast to the hero's no kill policy in the comics, he is shown to kill the main villain at the end of the movie
Sounds a lot like a certain other DC film we're all familiar with.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 08:13
As I said, you wrote something very intelligent and scholarly so no matter how hyperbolic I got up there, I do hope you understand I'm not arguing or looking for trouble or any other drama. I tried to use a bit of humor to make the point... or concede the point when you clearly have the upper hand. I'm bending over backwards to say this because I want to maintain and contribute to the maturity you just injected into this thread.
Well, that was a perfectly mature and intellectual response :)
So far as the property destruction and the death of Zod are concerned - I wouldn't dispute either Superman's purpose or that Superman might find himself in circumstances where he had no choice but to kill. As you say, there's not much to argue when my problems are mostly with technical matters (writing, blocking, etc.) When it comes to Superman's involvement in flattening Smallville and Metropolis, I think all that would have been needed to allay most peoples' complaints (or at least mine) was a few seconds worth of shots after the fighting of Superman surveying the damage and looking guilty about it.
I'd forgotten about how gravity factored in to their powers - thanks for the reminder.
With Zod's fate in
Superman II - my understanding (could be wrong, just what I've read) is that the scene establishing that the villains had survived was cut from the American release, which is what you can get on DVD, but was included in international and television releases.
Quote from: zDBZ on Sat, 20 Jul 2013, 00:18With Zod's fate in Superman II - my understanding (could be wrong, just what I've read) is that the scene establishing that the villains had survived was cut from the American release, which is what you can get on DVD, but was included in international and television releases.
My attitude has been "if it's not in the movie, it didn't happen". The movie released to theaters didn't include that scene. The majority of TV broadcasts didn't include that scene. The DVD's which include that scene do not include that scene in the context of the film. Even Richard Donner's horrid cut of the film didn't include that scene.
Ergo, that scene didn't happen. Superman killed Zod in Superman II.
While I'm not a fan of Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel either, I will say the moment was better executed (get it? get it?!) than in either cut of Superman II.
Also, maybe next time, Superman should turn to AI Jor-El sooner...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 08:13But to answer your point, Jonathan specifically told Clark to stand down. Whether anybody likes it or not, Jonathan chose to sacrifice himself rather than even risk the possibility of revealing Clark's secret. The people who quibble over Jonathan's death also quibble over his "willingness" to let others die. Whatever, but the thing that bothers me is that few or none of them bother to close the loop and recognize that Jonathan was walking it as he talked it. Love or hate the guy, he lived and died by his principles. Wouldn't it have been hypocritically self-serving for him to say "maybe" in one scene and then demand Clark rescue him just a while later?
This hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it; while I still don't care for how Jonathan Kent was portrayed, this is a fair point.
And BatmAngelus - to give the film credit, I never thought of that little detail until HISHE pointed out. That video is great, though.
I agree with colors. At the end of the day, Clark being able to save Jonathan is a moot point. Jonathan did not want Clark to save him. He made a choice to accept death. In his heart it was all for Clark. As colors said, he walked the talk. He was a good man doing what he thought was best.
His philosophy isn't completely dead, though. Clark did decide to use a secret identity of sorts, while using his powers like Jor-El wanted. A balance.
I didn't have a problem with snapping Zod's neck. I laugh at people who compare it to flying around the world to reverse time and throwing cellophane S's. They're not in the same galaxy. Zod, unlike Jonathan, was not going to stand down and the Phantom Zone portal had been closed. Death was the only option for him.
A couple of pages are running with this story.
QuoteThe Man of Steel Followup is Actually Superman/Batman
July 20th, 2013 at 10:36 am by Jeremy Conrad
Right as this is written, Warner's big Hall H panel at SDCC '13 is getting underway; and we already know one of their big reveals.
According to the LA Times, the followup Man of Steel is actually going to be a Superman/Batman team-up movie. They say Zack Snyder will return to direct, with David Goyer writing the movie. Nolan is also expected to be involved in some way.
This news comes after the revelation that a Man of Steel sequel was fast-tracked after the success of this summer's reboot. This Superman/Batman movie is the next outing for Supes on screen, but it's still possible we'll be seeing a solo Superman sequel sometime in the future.
URL- http://furiousfanboys.com/2013/07/the-man-of-steel-followup-is-actually-supermanbatman/
I've suggested doing this very thing on more than one occasion so as you can imagine, this is fine by me. If it turns out to be true.
Please be true! And please be called
World's Finest!
Snyder just announced it at Comic Con. The logo has the Man of Steel S, but the bat insignia is NOT the Nolan bat insignia and looks closer to the big bat on the Frank Miller Batman's chest in TDKR.
EDIT: you can see the logo here http://www.slashfilm.com/zack-snyder-will-direct-supermanbatman-movie-inspired-by-frank-millers-the-dark-knight-returns/
QuoteNEXT DC SUPER HERO MOVIE IN PRE-PRODUCTION
Director Zack Snyder Unites Superman and Batman in One Explosive New Film
BURBANK, CA, July 20, 2013 – On the heels of the worldwide success of "Man of Steel," director Zack Snyderis bringing together the two greatest Super Heroes of all time—Batman and Superman—for the first time on the big screen. The announcement was made today by Greg Silverman, President, Creative Development and Worldwide Production, and Sue Kroll, President, Worldwide Marketing and International Distribution,Warner Bros. Pictures.
The current hit, "Man of Steel," has taken in more than $630 million at the worldwide box office to date, and climbing. Along with its star, Henry Cavill, the upcomingfilm brings back Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane. The new Batman has yet to be cast.
Snyder is co-writing the story with David S. Goyer, who will then pen the screenplay. Production is expected to begin in 2014, with an anticipated release date inSummer 2015.
Silverman stated, "Zack Snyder is an incredibly talented filmmaker, but beyond that, he's a fan first and he utterly gets this genre. We could not think of anyone better suited to the task of bringing these iconic Super Heroes to the screen in his own way." Kroll added, "We are thrilled to be back in business with Zack and his team on this next movie. The success of 'Man of Steel' is a wonderful testament to the love and support that both fans and new audiences, worldwide, have for these characters. We are very excited to see what Zack has in store for all of us."
Also important to note that, in the report above, Snyder clarified that they're not adapting the fight from Dark Knight Returns (which I think is a good thing since, as I noted in the TDKR thread in the comic forum, the fight has more impact when Batman and Superman have been friends and allies for years), but that the story will "help us tell the story."
Oy. My hope is that we don't see yet another "Batman beats the piss out of Superman" thing. Otherwise, there's nothing about this that isn't completely punk rock!!!
I worried about that at first, too, but what gives me hope that they'll avoid it is the fact that this is a Superman film guest-starring Batman, not vice versa. After a whole movie of trying to sell Superman as a badass, I don't see Snyder and Goyer turning around and saying "Now let's see Batman kick his ass!"
While Snyder said that they're using the comic as inspiration, I'm personally hoping for the dynamic to be more along the lines of Byrne's Man of Steel team-up or S:TAS' World's Finest, which were both slightly inspired by TDKR by having them antagonistic (initially), but had them as mostly allies throughout.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 20 Jul 2013, 21:08
Oy. My hope is that we don't see yet another "Batman beats the piss out of Superman" thing. Otherwise, there's nothing about this that isn't completely punk rock!!!
I don't think they should do that, either. I'd like to see this:
Luthor and Batman are suspicious of this superpowered being, but Superman earns Batman's trust while Luthor becomes his permanent enemy.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 03:15Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 20 Jul 2013, 21:08Oy. My hope is that we don't see yet another "Batman beats the piss out of Superman" thing. Otherwise, there's nothing about this that isn't completely punk rock!!!
I don't think they should do that, either. I'd like to see this:
Luthor and Batman are suspicious of this superpowered being, but Superman earns Batman's trust while Luthor becomes his permanent enemy.
If this were to be a halfway adaptation of Byrne's MOS #3 and the WF movie (with, yes, maybe just a
few TDKR elements thrown in), that'd be fine.
Still, this brings up the question of how exactly Superman and Batman will relate to one another in the Cinematic DCU. I've never really bought into the "uneasy alliance" BS as I think I've gone into a few times. It makes sense in certain context (MOS #3 and TDKR) but otherwise it just feels forced. My hunch is that Snyder and Goyer will go with that, irrespective of how retarded it is and that's a real shame.
Anyway. Another point. This thing is apparently going to be MOS II. Not "World's Finest". MOS II... costarring Batman. From a lot of points of view, that puts a different spin on Batman (and Superman) in the movie. So hmm.
Superman deserves to have the story centric material, but I think there will have to be some decent amount of screen sharing between them, given they've blasted the bat logo behind the Superman shield.
In any case, I'm pleased about the news. Batman is coming back to the big screen sooner than I thought. And so is Superman. What's not to like?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 03:38Superman deserves to have the story centric material, but I think there will have to be some decent amount of screen sharing between them, given they've blasted the bat logo behind the Superman shield.
In any case, I'm pleased about the news. Batman is coming back to the big screen sooner than I thought. And so is Superman. What's not to like?
Quite a bit if you're some butt-hurt Singerman Apologist. I've seen a few of those turd-burglars trying to say this is WB trying to "resuscitate" Superman because MOS "flopped". Most of you are intelligent so I won't insult you by going through what a success MOS is. I'll just say that it doesn't matter how cool an announcement is, there's always some dipstick out there who'll find a way to take issue with it.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 03:38
Superman deserves to have the story centric material, but I think there will have to be some decent amount of screen sharing between them, given they've blasted the bat logo behind the Superman shield.
In any case, I'm pleased about the news. Batman is coming back to the big screen sooner than I thought. And so is Superman. What's not to like?
As long as we get another Batman that completely differs from the Nolan version as much as possible, and the chemistry between him and Superman works, I think this should be even better than Man of Steel. I wonder when will casting begin, never mind filming? If they had to go for someone who is somewhat already known, then maybe Karl Urban (Dredd) wouldn't be too bad.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 03:46
As long as we get another Batman that completely differs from the Nolan version as much as possible
I hope so. I'd like to see something Arkhamverse oriented, with Snyder behind the lens. A Batman that jumps off buildings, glides around the place and kicks serious ass in a stylised manner.
Hans Zimmer will almost certainly score this. So it opens up an interesting scenario. He can use his Superman score material no problems. But given his Batman stuff is from another series, would he use it? Should he use it? Is this where his unused theme comes out of the box?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 03:52
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 03:46
As long as we get another Batman that completely differs from the Nolan version as much as possible
I hope so. I'd like to see something Arkhamverse oriented, with Snyder behind the lens. A Batman that jumps off buildings, glides around the place and kicks serious ass in a stylised manner.
I think that is one thing you can always trust in Snyder - he has the visual flair to make something surreal, otherwordly and spectacular. I expect him to direct the best Batman fighting sequences to come; if you seen Nite-Owl in Watchmen then you'll know what I mean.
One possibility though is given that Metropolis looks like modern day city, I wouldn't count on the filmmakers to make an Arkham City looking Gotham aesthetic. I'd imagine Gotham will still look similar to the last three movies, but with a tiny bit of gothic, otherwordly feel.
QuoteHans Zimmer will almost certainly score this. So it opens up an interesting scenario. He can use his Superman score material no problems. But given his Batman stuff is from another series, would he use it? Should he use it? Is this where his unused theme comes out of the box?
I've been wondering about this, as well.
The unused theme from Begins had a small part in the BB trailer and at the end credits of the movie, but was absent from everything else. If Zimmer resurrected it, only hardcore fans like me would really notice and I think it'd fit in with the tone of Man of Steel's score (at 1:01-1:38):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3nR2Pt1geM
Still, he may think of something new. Christopher Drake has managed to provide multiple Batman themes, scoring two segments of Gotham Knight, Under the Red Hood, Year One, and The Dark Knight Returns, not to mention Justice League and Superman/Batman films, so if he can do all that for the same character, Zimmer can certainly do the same.
Something like that theme would be okay, I think. Chances are he will use something like that, given he invested a lot of time into the Batman character. In this instance I wouldn't call doing so lazy. That segment could be front and centre as the main theme, while not betraying the Batman sound he already established. Whereas the Nolan stuff had all sorts of themes and not one.
Is this for real? Batman and Superman team-up in live-action? Holy awesomeness! ;D
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 20 Jul 2013, 21:08
Oy. My hope is that we don't see yet another "Batman beats the piss out of Superman" thing. Otherwise, there's nothing about this that isn't completely punk rock!!!
To go by the quote they read from TDKR, I suspect we may be in for that.
Colour me...unenthused by this news. I like me some "World's Finest," but I'm
really ready for Goyer to bow out of these films, and I am not a fan of Snyder. Rushing right to a team-up story, even in the context of "a Superman film with Batman," seems counter-productive to the effort to re-establish Superman in his own right.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:01
Is this for real? Batman and Superman team-up in live-action? Holy awesomeness! ;D
Yes. And a solo Batman film featuring the same guy would follow afterwards, I'm sure.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:25
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:01
Is this for real? Batman and Superman team-up in live-action? Holy awesomeness! ;D
Yes. And a solo Batman film featuring the same guy would follow afterwards, I'm sure.
I just hope they get the right guy for Batman.
Whatever else one thinks of TDK franchise a large swathe of the internet Batman-fan community were crossing their fingers for Christian Bale to play the part years before Christopher Nolan put Batman Begins into production and disregarding Bale's laryngitis-infected voice in some Batman-scenes, which I don't personally have a huge problem with, I think we really lucked-out on that piece of casting. Here's hoping that we end up with another actor who embodies the part, and somebody who compliments Henry Cavill well.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:37
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:25
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:01
Is this for real? Batman and Superman team-up in live-action? Holy awesomeness! ;D
Yes. And a solo Batman film featuring the same guy would follow afterwards, I'm sure.
I just hope they get the right guy for Batman.
Whatever else one thinks of TDK franchise a large swathe of the internet Batman-fan community were crossing their fingers for Christian Bale to play the part years before Christopher Nolan put Batman Begins into production and disregarding Bale's laryngitis-infected voice in some Batman-scenes, which I don't personally have a huge problem with, I think we really lucked-out on that piece of casting. Here's hoping that we end up with another actor who embodies the part, and somebody who compliments Henry Cavill well.
Although Bale can be excellent actor in the right roles such as in American Psycho, Rescue Dawn and The Fighter - I thought his portrayals as Batman would have to be his worst performance of his career by far. But thankfully that's in the past now.
Anyway, Goyer mentioned that Zod's death will not be swept under the carpet in the sequel.
Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=83780 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=83780)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:45Although Bale can be excellent actor in the right roles such as in American Psycho, Rescue Dawn and The Fighter - I thought his portrayals as Batman would have to be his worst performance of his career by far. But thankfully that's in the past now.
I thought he killed it in The Prestige. The entire movie rocked my socks but Bale really was a highlight.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:45Anyway, Goyer mentioned that Zod's death will not be swept under the carpet in the sequel.
Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=83780 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=83780)
Maybe the whiners will settle down then. This won't get pushed aside and forgotten about... you know, like it did in Superman II, Superman IV and Singerman.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 07:00
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 06:45Although Bale can be excellent actor in the right roles such as in American Psycho, Rescue Dawn and The Fighter - I thought his portrayals as Batman would have to be his worst performance of his career by far. But thankfully that's in the past now.
I thought he killed it in The Prestige. The entire movie rocked my socks but Bale really was a highlight.
I liked The Prestige too - it's one of the few Nolan films I can stand. That being said, I thought Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine both stole the show. Bale was competent but didn't impress too much. Although my favourite scene of him would have to be where he gets his hand shot off by Jackman in disguise at a bar, while everybody else laughs and drink. ;D
A thought just occurred to me - since the upcoming sequel will be inspired by The Dark Knight Returns, I hope it doesn't mean they'll be stupid enough to hire an older actor to play Batman.
If the idea is to use this as a springboard to reboot Batman, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they don't hire someone who's roughly contemporary to Cavill. It's not like I have some kind of special, insider connection but I just can't picture them casting Clint Eastwood in the role.
Yep. I see them casting someone in their 30s. The whole point would be Superman has started out, and Batman pretty much has as well. They don't know who each other are and meet.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 07:51
If the idea is to use this as a springboard to reboot Batman, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they don't hire someone who's roughly contemporary to Cavill. It's not like I have some kind of special, insider connection but I just can't picture them casting Clint Eastwood in the role.
Agreed. I wouldn't mind someone a few years younger than Cavill to be honest. I prefer it when Bruce Wayne is presented as a callow, seemingly shallow young playboy in contrast to Superman/Clark's more soulful, serious character. MOS did a particularly good job of presenting Clark as a substantial, melancholy character in the scenes of him as a peripatetic drifter and it would be interesting to contrast that with a Bruce who initially comes across as a spoiled, arrogant punk. Also, if Batman is somehow going to go up against Superman at some stage it makes no sense to further disadvantage the non-superpowered Batman by portraying him as a much older and presumably less physically adept older man.
I would prefer Batman to be maybe 2 or 3 years older than Superman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 08:03
I would prefer Batman to be maybe 2 or 3 years older than Superman.
Definitely a world weary Batman to contrast the naive/optimistic Superman.
I don't want to see the conflict from The Dark Knight Returns between them...but I think if the filmmakers are smart they can bring in the dynamic (a clash of ideals) from DKR whilst still having them be allies.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 07:57Yep. I see them casting someone in their 30s. The whole point would be Superman has started out, and Batman pretty much has as well. They don't know who each other are and meet.
Pretty much. I think it's implied in MOS that there are no other superheroes out there yet. That makes Superman the first... which is fine by me.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 09:11
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 08:03
I would prefer Batman to be maybe 2 or 3 years older than Superman.
Definitely a world weary Batman to contrast the naive/optimistic Superman.
I don't want to see the conflict from The Dark Knight Returns between them...but I think if the filmmakers are smart they can bring in the dynamic (a clash of ideals) from DKR whilst still having them be allies.
Exactly. And nor do I want to see an angry, adversarial match-up here. The World's Finest animated movie was pretty much perfect. Both of them having a rivalry but not full blown war. Batman leaving the tracking device on Clark and spying on him from across the skyscrapers before waving and running away, for example.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 09:11
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 08:03
I would prefer Batman to be maybe 2 or 3 years older than Superman.
Definitely a world weary Batman to contrast the naive/optimistic Superman.
I don't want to see the conflict from The Dark Knight Returns between them...but I think if the filmmakers are smart they can bring in the dynamic (a clash of ideals) from DKR whilst still having them be allies.
Perhaps you could have Batman showing his cynicism by clashing with Superman's willingness to reveal his identity to the military, and warning him it could possibly backfire against him if a corrupt official uses that information to make Superman their pawn.
I wonder if that Bat-insignia is the final product, or will they redesign it? If they don't use the Arkham games as an inspiration for the Batsuit design, I wouldn't mind if they used something like Earth One, but with longer ears.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 09:11
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 08:03
I would prefer Batman to be maybe 2 or 3 years older than Superman.
Definitely a world weary Batman to contrast the naive/optimistic Superman.
I don't want to see the conflict from The Dark Knight Returns between them...but I think if the filmmakers are smart they can bring in the dynamic (a clash of ideals) from DKR whilst still having them be allies.
But is this Superman 'naïve/optimistic'? He seemed pretty world-weary to me.
I wouldn't mind seeing an impetuous, live-wire Batman in contrast to a cooler, more aloof, slightly more seasoned Superman.
I don't know whether there will be any references to TDK series, regardless of Bale's absence, in the same way Batman Forever and Batman & Robin felt like an unofficial continuation of Batman '89 and Batman Returns despite a few continuity differences but like colors states, it seems more likely that Batman, nor any other superheroes, if Batman counts as one, are yet established in MOS's world and Superman is therefore the first of his kind, which I am personally happy with.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 10:20
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 09:11
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 08:03
I would prefer Batman to be maybe 2 or 3 years older than Superman.
Definitely a world weary Batman to contrast the naive/optimistic Superman.
I don't want to see the conflict from The Dark Knight Returns between them...but I think if the filmmakers are smart they can bring in the dynamic (a clash of ideals) from DKR whilst still having them be allies.
But is this Superman 'naïve/optimistic'? He seemed pretty world-weary to me.
I wouldn't mind seeing an impetuous, live-wire Batman in contrast to a cooler, more aloof, slightly more seasoned Superman.
That's the kind of Batman I want to see. From a character-building point of view I would like to see Superman earn his place as the leader of JL. Batman to me has always been the drummer of the band - watching everything that goes on, doing the hard work and keeping a low profile (unless that drummer is Phil Collins or Keith Moon)
Got mixed feelings on a Superman/Batman film being the follow-up to MOS, but I'll certainly give it go.
It's one of those movie idea's that's been in discussion for years, and even was being developed at one point during the early 2000's. So I guess it's nice to see it finally being brought to the forefront. And this unveiling did it in a big way.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jul 2013, 05:32
Something like that theme would be okay, I think. Chances are he will use something like that, given he invested a lot of time into the Batman character. In this instance I wouldn't call doing so lazy. That segment could be front and centre as the main theme, while not betraying the Batman sound he already established. Whereas the Nolan stuff had all sorts of themes and not one.
I agree. Zimmer and James Newton Howard may have believed that the theme was too "front and centre," as you say, for Nolan's approach, so they toned down the themes and Batman's music turned into the two-note theme that lasted through all three films. (I also realized, in listening to the theme again, that it
was actually used in the movies as the piano theme played when Bruce was mourning his parents after the funeral in Begins and when Bruce was mourning Rachel in The Dark Knight).
It's possible that Snyder's approach will require a more obvious theme than the one in the Nolan trilogy, in which case, I wouldn't blame Zimmer for doing some variation of his "unused" one.
This also ties into what johnnygobbs has been saying (and that I agree with), which is that there obviously needs to be contrast between Superman and Batman. This applies to musically as well. Zimmer's Superman theme already sounds hopeful and heroic. Whatever he does for Batman- whether it's recycling cues from the Nolan trilogy or coming up with a new theme- will probably sound dark and driven.
I could see a confrontation between Batman and Superman about trust.
Superman x-ray visions Batman's cowl, saying I know who you are.
Batman says, well, that's a push. I know who you are too.
You're the guy who said you're from Kansas. The military are still looking into you.
"That wasn't too smart, Clark."
You will just have to trust them, just as you'll just have to trust me.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Jul 2013, 00:02
I could see a confrontation between Batman and Superman about trust.
Superman x-ray visions Batman's cowl, saying I know who you are.
Batman says, well, that's a push. I know who you are too.
You're the guy who said you're from Kansas. The military are still looking into you.
"That wasn't too smart, Clark."
You will just have to trust them, just as you'll just have to trust me.
Agree!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 22 Jul 2013, 00:02I could see a confrontation between Batman and Superman about trust.
Superman x-ray visions Batman's cowl, saying I know who you are.
Batman says, well, that's a push. I know who you are too.
You're the guy who said you're from Kansas. The military are still looking into you.
"That wasn't too smart, Clark."
You will just have to trust them, just as you'll just have to trust me.
Yep. And worldviews too. Superman is inherently more optimistic than Batman is. So work with that.
Incidentally, I realize that a fight is inevitable. This is Hollywood. What I want is a sort of Stan Lee-style hero vs. hero thing where Superman rolls with Batman but there's not a clear winner in the fight.
Personally I don't want to see a physical fight until they have been in a few movies together - more pay off IMO.
While I agree, the use of the TDKR line to announce the film, the confession that it will "inform" their story, and Goyer slipping that "Batman vs. Superman" was one of the many potential titles leads me to believe that we'll see these two in some kind of fight, likely in their first meeting. When that happens, I agree with colors that I'd much prefer a Marvel-style fight (think Thor vs. Iron Man in The Avengers) than an adaptation of the TDKR fight where Batman continually beats on Superman. Since this crossover film is taking place in the Man of Steel sequel, I have faith.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 22 Jul 2013, 01:25
Personally I don't want to see a physical fight until they have been in a few movies together - more pay off IMO.
I like slow-burn stories as much as anyone but in this case surely Superman and Batman should grow over their initial mistrust and become allies, albeit occasionally uneasy ones which is why I'm all for having them 'fight' (in as much as a conflict between a super-powered being and a mere human being can be a proper fight) in this film.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jul 2013, 00:59
Incidentally, I realize that a fight is inevitable. This is Hollywood. What I want is a sort of Stan Lee-style hero vs. hero thing where Superman rolls with Batman but there's not a clear winner in the fight.
A fight is inevitable, and something like that would be ideal. Let each fan base get their kicks, so to speak. In TDK Returns, the angle is Batman is older, pissed off and anti-authority. He wants to take Superman down because he is helping to enforce that system.
Here, the dynamic would be different. Batman would be younger and wanting a sense of control given Zod's destruction. He doesn't know if he can trust Superman. So the quote read from TDK Returns at Comic Conn "remember I'm the one that beat you", wouldn't apply. Not jealous or revenge fueled.
Having a rivalry and testing the waters is another thing compared to all out war. Once they get a feel of each other, I'm sure it will calm down. What would be very interesting if is Superman initially views Batman as a villain. Yes, a villain. Batman is a dark guy who walks a fine line. We know Batman is a 'hero', but he doesn't. Superman could find out Batman is looking into creating artificial kryptonite or some jazz, and gets nervous.
In Superman's mind, Batman is the aggressor. In Batman's mind, Superman is a threat that may snap one day, just as he did so to Zod's neck. Neither are wrong, just looking at things from different perspectives.
I'd be happy with Superman going mad and Bats using kryptonite to stop him, and since kryptonie didn't appear in MoS, it would show that Batman really is the greatest detective.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 22 Jul 2013, 14:13
I'd be happy with Superman going mad and Bats using kryptonite to stop him, and since kryptonie didn't appear in MoS, it would show that Batman really is the greatest detective.
I don't want to see Superman go mad. Superman should be the calming influence. I would love to see a crazy Captain Marvel if they ever get around to adapting 'Kingdom Come'.
I'd be OK with a vengeful Batman and a calm Superman as well. There needs to be a contrast between the two, otherwise it'll be dull IMO.
The more I think about it, the more logical it seems that, as with Byrne's MOS #3, Superman may go looking for Batman. There's really no way you could call Superman a freelancing vigilante after MOS. He surrendered to and then worked with the US military. The one thing Superman isn't doing is taking matters into his own hands.
The dark side there is Superman could be said to be aligned (however superficially) with the US government while I assume Batman is the freelancer in all this... just as things were in TDKR. True, Superman made it clear he's helping out on his terms and nobody else's but this still bothers me.
I think this is a viable scenario, given what happened between Superman and the military in MoS (they gave him his name after all) and that Snyder said that the TDKR comic would help them tell the story. This is also a good way to make Superman the active one from the outset- after all, this is the MoS sequel and the audience will more likely identify with him at the beginning- given that they're familiar with him from MoS- than with the new Bruce/Batman.
I'd just love to see a finale action sequence where the two of them team up and foil the villain's plans. Each character taking the lead in their respective fields. Superman doing the heavy lifting and Batman the infiltrating and such. The fans, including me, would go wild.
I agree with Superman seeking out Batman. It's happened in numerous comics, namely Kingdom Come. And as we know, The Dark Knight Strikes Again. I'd like the concept of the US military planting the idea in Superman's brain. In very simple terms it's Superman = company man, Batman = his own man. Each character can learn something from the other. Superman to be a little more aware, Batman to learn he doesn't always have to go it alone.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 22 Jul 2013, 21:01
I think this is a viable scenario, given what happened between Superman and the military in MoS (they gave him his name after all) and that Snyder said that the TDKR comic would help them tell the story. This is also a good way to make Superman the active one from the outset- after all, this is the MoS sequel and the audience will more likely identify with him at the beginning- given that they're familiar with him from MoS- than with the new Bruce/Batman.
I don't know, Superman's relationship with the military seemed pretty testy at the end with him warning them about using their drones. I don't know if Superman and the military would make for an easy alliance in this universe. Plus, if this is still based on the Nolan Batman bear in mind how Bruce Wayne made much of his fortune...has he really got a right to be such a critic of the military?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 05:27I don't know, Superman's relationship with the military seemed pretty testy at the end with him warning them about using their drones. I don't know if Superman and the military would make for an easy alliance in this universe. Plus, if this is still based on the Nolan Batman bear in mind how Bruce Wayne made much of his fortune...has he really got a right to be such a critic of the military?
He's Bruce Wayne, not Tony Stark. Besides, I think his attitude might be that it's one thing for the military to have nukes in the ol' arsenal; it's quite another for them to
appear to have a superpowered alien on speed dial. If this is the route they go with, Batman might look at the damage Zod and his minions did and have trust issues with anybody on Superman's power level.
I am
so friggin stoked about this. If WB does this thing right... man, the sky really is the limit. I'm a DC boy from way back so I'm for anything that gets their cinematic universe rolling. I'm clearly not alone either. The MOS II announcement even blew the Avenger's SDCC panel out of the water.
I think it depends on the context. Yes, Superman isn't buddies with the military at the end and probably won't be in the sequel either, but if he agrees with them that Batman is a threat to people, then he would certainly seek him out, regardless of his own opinion of General Swanwick and company.
QuotePlus, if this is still based on the Nolan Batman bear in mind how Bruce Wayne made much of his fortune...has he really got a right to be such a critic of the military?
We don't know how much or how little this Batman will be similar to the Nolan Batman, so who knows. In Batman Begins, it seemed to me that the military contracts didn't come into play until Mr. Earle took over, which means that Bruce was already rich (and an orphan) before his dad's company started making weapons.
Either way, I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting that Bruce/Batman will be critical of the military. Colors' theory is the reverse- that the government and the military would be critical of Batman due to his extreme vigilante activities in Gotham, ala TDKR. Batman would only be against them if they got in his way and, as colors suggested, could be critical in general that anyone- military or non-military- would trust a superpowered alien capable of the destruction that Zod and company caused.
What I like the sound of with this 'World's Finest' flick is the following:
Batman will no doubt just show up on the scene, ala B89. Nothing overly explained. Just seeing him in action and hearing from others what he's like. More mystery and more of a myth.
^ That's how I like The Shadow to be written. He's everything Batman pretends to be.
That's how I like my Batman, mysterious. No need to focus on Bruce Wayne like Nolan did.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 09:03
That's how I like my Batman, mysterious. No need to focus on Bruce Wayne like Nolan did.
I wouldn't mind if another focus on Bruce Wayne were to be about his true obsession in becoming a crime fighter where he puts his body and mind to the test. Not like the useless degenerate in BB who foolishly travels to the other side of the world without thinking of the consequences of what he was doing - never mind that he learned absolutely nothing about the criminal mind in the process. >:( ::)
But for Batman/Superman, I'd still prefer to have Batman played as the mysterious figure like he was in '89. :P ;)
EDIT: Speaking of which, there is a rumour that the Man of Steel sequel is going to be called
Batman vs. Superman. Not a very creative title if true.
Source: http://www.slashfilm.com/next-superman-movie-likely-called-batman-vs-superman/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/next-superman-movie-likely-called-batman-vs-superman/)
World's Finest sounds better.
I hope they would refrain from vs in the title. I'm hoping Batman is more of a introductory character - a bit like Electra in Daredevil but with less screen time.
I like Man of Steel: World's Finest.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You know, thinking about this and taking my own opinion out of it - I'm expecting them to call it Batman vs Superman. Straight to the point and evoking strong cash grab imagery. Even if that title 'vibe' doesn't necessarily last the whole run time of the film.
That billboard from I Am Legend is coming to fruition.
I would imagine Batman vs Superman to be the title WB likely will go with.
Of course they could always go with The Dark Knight vs The Man of Steel if their not into the whole brevity thing.
If the animated movie didn't exist, then Superman/Batman: Public Enemies might have been possible. :-X
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 12:35
I would imagine Batman vs Superman to be the title WB likely will go with.
Agreed. Batman vs Superman. The two character names front and centre, just like the Bat emblem and Superman shield they revealed at Comic Con.
Please not 'The Dark Knight vs The Man of Steel'. Talk about a mouthful, and it's time to move on from that TDK branding.
I say they should call it either Man of Steel II (with whatever subheading they want) or World's Finest. I read some idiot on Stupidity Hype or some such try to argue that the title must include both characters names for marquee value or else you'll lose Joe Sixpack (or Nigel Pint for those across the pond). Had to wonder where that nitwit has been the past five years.
Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.
Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 13:56Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.
Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.
Ditto. I mean, look, it's a good (sometimes great) comic book page but a prolonged struggle between those two would "realistically" end with Batman as a stain on the wall inside of five seconds.
For those same reasons, I also can't picture Clark sweating Batman through the movie. "Oh no, what if that puny mortal figures out my secret identity and comes looking for me while I'm making out with Lois or writing another Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé? I might have to divert part of my attention for almost half a nanosecond and thump him into orbit somewhere above Pluto!" Nobody wants that.
Whatever their confrontation is, do it like a 90's comic book- it lasts a page or two
AT MOST and then the rest of the thing is a true blue team-up. No BS, no irony, no self-deprecation; just good old fashioned superheroics.
Speaking of, this concept should be
FUN. A Batman/Superman team-up movie isn't the vehicle for pondering life, politics and morality in a post-consumer age. Just make with the punchy-punchy run-run and leave the deeper mysteries and big questions to somebody else.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 14:14
Speaking of, this concept should be FUN. A Batman/Superman team-up movie isn't the vehicle for pondering life, politics and morality in a post-consumer age. Just make with the punchy-punchy run-run and leave the deeper mysteries and big questions to somebody else.
Another positive thing I realized while watching Man of Steel was I didn't feel any preachy, heavy-handed pretentiousness like I did watching Nolan's Batman films. But I'm worried that the writers' egos could always inspire them to come up with something clever than it actually is. If they try to come up with themes at the expense of telling a coherent and logical story again then BvS will just be an incomprehensible borefest.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 14:14
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 13:56Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.
Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.
Ditto. I mean, look, it's a good (sometimes great) comic book page but a prolonged struggle between those two would "realistically" end with Batman as a stain on the wall inside of five seconds.
For those same reasons, I also can't picture Clark sweating Batman through the movie. "Oh no, what if that puny mortal figures out my secret identity and comes looking for me while I'm making out with Lois or writing another Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé? I might have to divert part of my attention for almost half a nanosecond and thump him into orbit somewhere above Pluto!" Nobody wants that.
Whatever their confrontation is, do it like a 90's comic book- it lasts a page or two AT MOST and then the rest of the thing is a true blue team-up. No BS, no irony, no self-deprecation; just good old fashioned superheroics.
Speaking of, this concept should be FUN. A Batman/Superman team-up movie isn't the vehicle for pondering life, politics and morality in a post-consumer age. Just make with the punchy-punchy run-run and leave the deeper mysteries and big questions to somebody else.
I 100% agree with the first part of your post. A prolonged Batman v Superman fight would be stupid. They're so unevenly matched. The vast bulk of the film should be some type of team-up, albeit an uneasy one ala your typical buddy-buddy cop movie.
But I disagree with the last part of your post. I definitely think the film should be fun but there should be at least some food for thought too. My favourite parts of MOS were the philosophical discussions between Clark and Jonathan Kent as to whether he should use his powers and whether he'd be accepted by mankind. As strong and imposing a villain Michael Shannon's Zod was I found the fight scenes in 'MOS' rather relentless and wearying. They were too brutal and joyless to be considered 'fun' and they went on and on. I'm not saying the Donner films are necessarily superior overall but when it came to 'Superman II's' fights scene versus 'MOS' I definitely think the inventive and purposefully artificial-looking face-off between Superman and Zod, Non and Ursa in the earlier film made for a far lighter and therefore more palatable and 'fun' action sequence than Superman and Zod's slugfest in 'MOS'.
If these new films are going to have such a serious, dour tone than they can't simply be relentless punch-ups. If these movies want to sit at the adults' table they have to have something to say.
It's OK if some want the movie to be fun, but let's think about it for a while... we have a man whose parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid and an alien who is the last of his race and is both loved and feared by humanity. Not exactly the most joyful of protagonists :D
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 14:43
It's OK if some want the movie to be fun, but let's think about it for a while... we have a man whose parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid and an alien who is the last of his race and is both loved and feared by humanity. Not exactly the most joyful of protagonists :D
I think the Christopher Reeve Superman films were shamelessly fun and so to some extent were the Burton/Schumacher ones but post-Nolan DC movies all seem to be brooding, earnest and ultra-serious. That's fine I suppose but if you're going to take such a serious tone you better back it up with some thematic weight too.
Of course the great thing about the Burton Batman films is that they're both fun/funny and substantial/smart, which is another reason why I don't think they get the half the credit they deserve. They're not going around drawing attention to themselves with a sign saying 'feel my pain'.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 14:51
Of course the great thing about the Burton Batman films is that they're both fun/funny and substantial/smart, which is another reason why I don't think they get the half the credit they deserve. They're not going around drawing attention to themselves with a sign saying 'feel my pain'.
Agreed. I enjoy the Nolan films, however Burton's run presented alot about the psychology of the characters, and mythology of that world, but in a decidedly more subtle manner, than what we've had the Nolan Trilogy which tended to overtly dip into being melodramatic in terms of scenes, and dialogue.
Burton was subtle, Nolan was "in-your-face". It's not hard to see why Nolan is so praised by the maionstream while Burton gets bashed...
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 23 Jul 2013, 13:56
Apparently a Batman vs Superman domain has been aquired by WB recently or some jazz. Make of that what you will.
Such a title grabs the attention, but I hope it's not an entirely truthful title. Meaning they're at at each others throats for a solid chunk.
Very excited about this announced movie. We'll never have Chris Reeve and Michael Keaton onscreen together so this is the next best thing.
I too don't want them against each other. I imagine there will be a little of that. I think the whole "Dark Knight Returns" thing Frank Miller did with Superman caused damage to the character's popularity. I mean who would really side with the nice blue boy scout against the much cooler no rules badass Batman? Kind of one sided from the get go. But I also think it hurt Batman too. For me it made him a bit of a twat and a tad stupid even. Heroes like that should be smarter and maturer enough to understand who there allies are from their true enemies. Although their methods conflict Superman and Batman are always on the same cause. The fact that Batman wanted to beat the crap out of poor Clark Kent and not those Mutant punks (who had done a fair share of twisted things throughout the book) staggered my mind. All Superman did was follow orders.
Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed, 24 Jul 2013, 19:25
Very excited about this announced movie. We'll never have Chris Reeve and Michael Keaton onscreen together so this is the next best thing.
I too don't want them against each other. I imagine there will be a little of that. I think the whole "Dark Knight Returns" thing Frank Miller did with Superman caused damage to the character's popularity. I mean who would really side with the nice blue boy scout against the much cooler no rules badass Batman? Kind of one sided from the get go. But I also think it hurt Batman too. For me it made him a bit of a twat and a tad stupid even. Heroes like that should be smarter and maturer enough to understand who there allies are from their true enemies. Although their methods conflict Superman and Batman are always on the same cause. The fact that Batman wanted to beat the crap out of poor Clark Kent and not those Mutant punks (who had done a fair share of twisted things throughout the book) staggered my mind. All Superman did was follow orders.
I never cared much for 'The Dark Knight Returns' or Frank Miller's brand of base nihilism/misanthropy (although I do rather like 'Batman: Year One'). Sure, there are elements of TDKR in Burton's Batman seeing that he's a killer and he's based in a particularly dystopian vision of Gotham but I consider Burton's vision to be
cynical rather than nihilistic. Burton pokes fun at the power structures and a world that has given up all sense of measured justice and instead invested in the hands of a lone vigilante but he doesn't present worlds that are so utterly pessimistic, brutal and irredeemable world as the ones offered by Miller, nor does he revel in the thuggery and limited roles society has assigned his male and female characters. Plus with such a fascinating roster of rogues in Batman's history why would you limit him to fighting a bunch of mutant punks?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 24 Jul 2013, 20:02
Plus with such a fascinating roster of rogues in Batman's history why would you limit him to fighting a bunch of mutant punks?
Because this is the far flung future where the next generation has taken over. They're violent, rough and aimless. Joker and these sorts are older and out of the game. Batman was their excitement. The mutants are younger, know little or nothing about Batman and took over.
All Superman did was follow orders, that is true. And that was part of Batman's beef. Batman brought crime under control in Gotham upon his return. This embarrased the US Government, as crime was rampant everywhere else. They sent Superman to do their bidding. To bring Batman in. Superman did as they asked.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 01:17All Superman did was follow orders, that is true. And that was part of Batman's beef. Batman brought crime under control in Gotham upon his return. This embarrased the US Government, as crime was rampant everywhere else. They sent Superman to do their bidding. To bring Batman in. Superman did as they asked.
You're exactly right but you're touching on a nuance which kind of owes back to one of my main beefs with TDKR. In-story, Superman's logic makes a lot of sense. To make the peace between The Government and The Costumes, Superman agreed to work
FOR the government. He was doing it to protect his fraternity.
If you ask me, that's a pretty noble goal but a generation and a half of "snarky", Cheetoh-munching, unemployed bloggers have turned this into "Superman is the government's bitch". Um, no, it isn't quite that simple. They're completely ignoring the nuance you mentioned in your post.
God I hate that word "snarky". Anytime somebody uses it, I find myself hoping they got run over by a potato-picker or have their paired reproductive organs chewed up by a shark or something.
Anyway, my fear is that because TDKR has informed a lot of peoples perceptions about both Superman and Batman, the nuances that Miller was careful to insert for each character will once again be completely ignored.
http://www.wordofthenerdonline.com/skeptical-sam-is-skeptical-supermanbatman
The idiot who wrote this is living proof that not all opinions are equally valid.
And again, the movie is successful. It will have made $650'ish million worldwide before all's said and done. It cost $225 to produce. Even if you believe it cost another $100 million to market, it's STILL profitable.
Y'know, everything Singerman WASN'T but people still want to argue somehow made money?
Bloggers, I swear, get a job!
I personally like the Batman and Superman ideologies in the context of TDK Returns, because I can see where each character is coming from. Especially considering their respective ages. Gotham is Batman's stomping ground and he came back to bring back order. He did so. He's older and pissed off but has a fire in his belly. A point to prove mentality.
Superman likes to get along and maintain positive relations, thus he did what the Government asked. He doesn't want any flare ups. As said, quite a noble thing to do, but I can definitely see what Batman thinks about it. In a way yes, Superman is the "government's bitch", but he's not really. He has his reasons for it and is not completely turning off his mind.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 09:39
I personally like the Batman and Superman ideologies in the context of TDK Returns, because I can see where each character is coming from. Especially considering their respective ages. Gotham is Batman's stomping ground and he came back to bring back order. He did so. He's older and pissed off but has a fire in his belly. A point to prove mentality.
Superman likes to get along and maintain positive relations, thus he did what the Government asked. He doesn't want any flare ups. As said, quite a noble thing to do, but I can definitely see what Batman thinks about it. In a way yes, Superman is the "government's bitch", but he's not really. He has his reasons for it and is not completely turning off his mind.
It's unlikely that we'll get that for this movie though, since Superman keeps telling the military that he won't be manipulated.
I think people have been reading too much into the Dark Knight Returns inspiration; if anything they'll come up with something that is vaguely similar to that storyline.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 04:15
http://www.wordofthenerdonline.com/skeptical-sam-is-skeptical-supermanbatman
The idiot who wrote this is living proof that not all opinions are equally valid.
And again, the movie is successful. It will have made $650'ish million worldwide before all's said and done. It cost $225 to produce. Even if you believe it cost another $100 million to market, it's STILL profitable.
Y'know, everything Singerman WASN'T but people still want to argue somehow made money?
Bloggers, I swear, get a job!
If there's one thing I hate more about bloggers who always complain and overanalyse, it's those who have nothing interesting to say at all, like whoever wrote that article.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 09:52
It's unlikely that we'll get that for this movie though, since Superman keeps telling the military that he won't be manipulated.
Yep. These are just general TDKR comments here. I don't call it 'being manipulated' per se if Superman more or less agrees with the idea. If he helps out and maintains a lower superhero profile, he can still save people. Batman did reduce crime. But as a result his behaviour, no matter how 'silent' he operates, became loud due to the
effectiveness. Batman clashed with his agreement. He became a focal point, and the Government didn't want these kinds of people making a scene.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 09:57
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 09:52
It's unlikely that we'll get that for this movie though, since Superman keeps telling the military that he won't be manipulated.
Yep. These are just general TDKR comments here. I don't call it 'being manipulated' per se if Superman more or less agrees with the idea. If he helps out and maintains a lower superhero profile, he can still save people. Batman did reduce crime. But as a result his behaviour, no matter how 'silent' he operates, became loud due to the effectiveness. Batman clashed with his agreement. He became a focal point, and the Government didn't want these kinds of people making a scene.
That's true, Superman did believe he was keeping the peace. Although I'm sure that I remember him having some doubts about his place in the world in that comic.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 09:52It's unlikely that we'll get that for this movie though, since Superman keeps telling the military that he won't be manipulated.
I think I'm the one who first introduced this aspect of the discussion. So forgive me. But I think I also predicated my introduction of it that Superman
appears to be in league with the government. The actual truth is as you say but someone observing the situation may think Superman's a lot cozier with the military than he actually is.
The premise could therefore revolve around that.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 09:52If there's one thing I hate more about bloggers who always complain and overanalyse, it's those who have nothing interesting to say at all, like whoever wrote that article.
It's the dark side of the Internet. Yeah, it gives everybody a
VOICE... but at the same time it gives
EVERYBODY a voice. It doesn't matter how many times something gets completely debunked, some idiot's misunderstanding of the situation is still out there ten years later as fresh and "relevant" as when it was first posted.
This is going to sound elitist but there's no way around it; there are a lot of people out there who just shouldn't have a bullhorn. But then, I also happen to think not everybody should have the right to vote either so what do I know?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 04:15
http://www.wordofthenerdonline.com/skeptical-sam-is-skeptical-supermanbatman
The idiot who wrote this is living proof that not all opinions are equally valid.
And again, the movie is successful. It will have made $650'ish million worldwide before all's said and done. It cost $225 to produce. Even if you believe it cost another $100 million to market, it's STILL profitable.
Y'know, everything Singerman WASN'T but people still want to argue somehow made money?
Bloggers, I swear, get a job!
To be fair, while his description of
Man of Steel's box office performance is off, I have read buzz is that Warners
is disappointed with the film - not because it was a flop, but because it wasn't as big a hit (or critical success) as they expected. If that's true, then they're the idiots.
The way I see it, WB is happy enough with Man of Steel's numbers to commit to a sequel just over a month after the US release. That obviously never happened with Singerman.
That tells the real tale, if you ask me.
Just some random thoughts which anyone is free to ridicule or ignore. It is very easy to kick someone when they're down. When they've made a mistake. It is another thing to lend them a hand and move on. We all get this feeling in our guts when we're the culprit. In this aspect, I've welcomed Superman. Call it naïve, turning a blind eye or whatever - we can't all be grit and pessimism all the time.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 25 Jul 2013, 10:08
It's the dark side of the Internet. Yeah, it gives everybody a VOICE... but at the same time it gives EVERYBODY a voice. It doesn't matter how many times something gets completely debunked, some idiot's misunderstanding of the situation is still out there ten years later as fresh and "relevant" as when it was first posted.
This is going to sound elitist but there's no way around it; there are a lot of people out there who just shouldn't have a bullhorn. But then, I also happen to think not everybody should have the right to vote either so what do I know?
Well, you're going to love this - some sport reporter ( ???) of the UK version of the Huffington Post gave his misinformed opinion why Batman vs Superman shouldn't happen:
Source - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/samuel-luckhurst/batman-vs-superman-film_b_3643745.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/samuel-luckhurst/batman-vs-superman-film_b_3643745.html)
QuoteThe reaction to the Batman/Superman film literally brought tears to some fans' eyes at Comic-Con on Saturday. A project which previously failed to take off with Wolfgang Petersen at the reins in 2004, it is an aggressive and bold effort by DC Comics to match Marvel's output.
But it is the wrong approach, and as a lifelong fan Batman fan, it is demeaning to the character after three thrilling pictures.
HA! I for one that think those so-called 'thrilling pictures' were demeaning and a huge disservice to Batman, especially if you put them under the slightest scrutiny. But anyway...
QuoteHe has an unrivalled rogues gallery and, via the camp 60s TV show, was firmly imposed on popular culture to the extent that the majority of media outlets shoehorn a tedious "holy" line into a Bat-related story. Christian Bale said, ahead of Batman Begins' 2005 release, "If all the other superheroes were sitting together here in this room, they'd all be getting along fine with each other, but they'd be thinking, 'What's wrong with that dude sitting over there?'" Batman is not a team player.
Last time I checked in the comics and cartoons, Batman is a fellow member of the Justice League and works well with others if the time calls for it. And please don't give me that it won't work in a "reality-based" world - that's just an apologist's way to justify this faux-reality that certain filmmakers have made.
QuoteNolan, a cerebral filmmaker responsible for four masterpieces this century, is an essential cog in the DC machine if they want to be known for quality over quantity.
Don't make me laugh - his films are filled with plenty of out of character moments and guilty of their own plot holes - probably more than your standard superhero film. Apart from Memento and The Prestige, the guy is nowhere near what he's cracked up to be. Cerebral? :D
In fact, despite its own share of flaws, I'd also take Man of Steel over Nolan's own Batman films any day. It's probably the only comic-based film with Nolan's involvement which I can appreciate for what it is.
QuoteMarvel, meanwhile, are synonymous with quantity, rather than quality. The Avengers was such an enjoyable blockbuster because of the slew of ambivalent pictures which preceded it. Iron Man was promising until the final act, but the sequel was risible. Edward Norton, the titular The Incredible Hulk, was annoyed at the final cut, Thor was an accomplished precursor to the Avengers but Captain America wasn't. All of those films were released within a hectic four-year period.
Please, Captain America: The First Avenger was by far a better origin story than Batman Begins, and a good movie too. Again, I thought the only black mark in Marvel's recent movies was Iron Man 2, the rest I can appreciate their actual quality instead of pretending to be arthouse cinema, and sucking hard at it.
Call me spoilt by Marvel, but I for one am sick of heroes living in their own universes. If this movie is done right, then I see no reason why it's a terrible idea.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 27 Jul 2013, 03:09Call me spoilt by Marvel, but I for one am sick of heroes living in their own universes. If this movie is done right, then I see no reason why it's a terrible idea.
I was done with the immaculate universe concept after seeing Batman89. I freely admit that it makes no sense now but back then I was desperate for a Michael Keaton/Christopher Reeve team-up film. I didn't understand that it wasn't so simple back then and that DC weren't in possession of the Superman movie rights at the time. But still, it's what I wanted. And WB has wanted the same thing. Ever since they got the movie rights back, they've tried to build a shared universe. Hell, go back and read the various scripts and drafts for Burton's Superman movie. DC has been angling toward something like this for a long time. This is something we could have and should have gotten back in the 90's in a fair and just world.
I've wanted something like this my entire life and now that we're finally getting it, I suffer naysayers badly. As the rest of your post says, the Nolan fans have their trilogy now. It's perfect and undisturbed. Nobody can ever or will ever take that away from them. Now they need to STFU and let the rest of us get on with our shared universe.
Fun fact: A year before breaking the scoop, LA Times actually predicted this would be the follow-up to MoS in a fun feature article speculating different movies for Batman, post-Nolan.
One was World's Finest, directed by Zack Snyder with Henry Cavill as Superman to continue Man of Steel
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/after-dark-knight-what-if-tim-burton-took-back-gotham/
Looks like we got our next Batman.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/ben-affleck-set-play-batman-man-steel-sequel-011253917.html
EDIT: I figured I would place the news here as well since it's regarding the sequel.
I found a video that defends the film for its common criticisms, and makes an argument that Superman has killed before in the comics - with references.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONza8T0cBZ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONza8T0cBZ4)
It looks like it came from this article, since they both make nearly identical arguments, with evidence from comics showing Superman responsible for killing villains, or getting villains killed.
Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/theSentry/news/?a=93008 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/theSentry/news/?a=93008)
The only few problems I have with some of the rebuttal though is the point about only Batman had a moral code, not Superman. That's not true. Also I didn't like how the author argued why did people never had a problem with Burton's Batman for killing villains, but didn't mention Nolan.
***EDIT***: It's quite possible, according to that article, that Superman snapping Zod's neck was inspired by Action Comics #805.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicbookmovie.com%2Fimages%2Fusers%2Fuploads%2F56276%2FAction%2520Comics805.jpg&hash=ab798c7ed0e0b60c69189a116a33069aabc62f59)
However, the author did get something half right, half wrong. He said that Superman just stopped within an inch from killing Zod instantly. That's correct. But he's wrong that Superman struck Zod with his the elbow, and Zod succumbed to his death. I've the read that issue was from a five-part mini-series called The Harvest. Long story short: Zod was a dictator of the nation of Pokolistan and then tricked Superman and stole his identity. He disguised himself as Supes and outsmarted the entire world and President Lex Luthor by taking over as global dictator. Superman came back from his imprisonment from outer space and agreed to free all off his worst enemies to join him in overthrowing Zod. Lex and Metallo agreed to get the yellow sun back, which turned red thanks to Zod, in the hopes that Superman can survive long enough to subdue Zod till the disappearance of the red sun would make Zod's powers obsolete. Zod survived Superman breaking his neck, but exposure to the yellow sunlight caused Zod to die from his his fatal injury. Before that, Superman backed away right at the last second from instantly killing him because he didn't want to undermine his sense of morality. Nonetheless, while Superman snapping Zod's neck was an apparent indirect cause of death, it still doesn't change the fact that it got Zod killed.
Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel isn't such a deal breaker for me, because, while I love the Richard Donner Superman and the animated Superman shows in which he doesn't kill, I didn't feel too bad for a character like Zod dying, he was basically going to commit genocide, it's not like he was an innocent that Superman killed, and I don't think it such a big deal for a hero to kill the villain in a film.
It's the same thing with Batman, I am well aware he doesn't kill or use guns in most incarnations, but I'm not going to be very critical if he kills a villain in a film, unless of course it is established in the film that he does not kill and yet he breaks his " one rule " and people conveniently forget about it , *cough* Nolan ::)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 26 Mar 2015, 15:32
Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel isn't such a deal breaker for me, because, while I love the Richard Donner Superman and the animated Superman shows in which he doesn't kill, I didn't feel too bad for a character like Zod dying, he was basically going to commit genocide, it's not like he was an innocent that Superman killed, and I don't think it such a big deal for a hero to kill the villain in a film.
It's the same thing with Batman, I am well aware he doesn't kill or use guns in most incarnations, but I'm not going to be very critical if he kills a villain in a film, unless of course it is established in the film that he does not kill and yet he breaks his " one rule " and people conveniently forget about it , *cough* Nolan ::)
On one hand I'd rather the new Superman franchise didn't begin with Supes killing someone. :-\ On the other hand, he was protecting innocents from being killed by Zod and he also felt completely distraught whilst he was doing it. Plus, I always figured that Superman's rule was that he didn't kill
humans. I'm not saying Krytonian lifeforms are worthless and that the killing of other species is justified, but Superman sees himself as a guest on Earth, and one who greatly outmatches ordinary mortals in terms of his powers. Thus, he doesn't kill
humans, no matter how evil they may be (i.e. Lex Luthor).
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 26 Mar 2015, 15:32
Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel isn't such a deal breaker for me, because, while I love the Richard Donner Superman and the animated Superman shows in which he doesn't kill, I didn't feel too bad for a character like Zod dying, he was basically going to commit genocide, it's not like he was an innocent that Superman killed, and I don't think it such a big deal for a hero to kill the villain in a film.
True. Some apologists will try to make up excuses why killing Zod off was a betrayal to Superman's character e.g. "why didn't Superman use his heat vision to lobotomise Zod instead of killing him?". Well, here's my rebuttal: if you're going to argue that, you might as well demand Superman to do the same thing against Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman II, especially during the battle of Metropolis, or Superman every comic that involves a big crisis against a villain. There's no need for a double standard.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 26 Mar 2015, 15:32
It's the same thing with Batman, I am well aware he doesn't kill or use guns in most incarnations, but I'm not going to be very critical if he kills a villain in a film, unless of course it is established in the film that he does not kill and yet he breaks his " one rule " and people conveniently forget about it , *cough* Nolan ::)
Exactly. People can say whatever they want about Man of Steel, but at least Superman never made any promises that he couldn't keep. He never pledged to become "an incorruptible, everlasting symbol" or "declare "I'm no executioner". Unlike Nolan's Batman.
Quote
Superman Legend Dan Jurgens: Man of Steel Handled Zod's Death Better Than The Comics
It's rare that a comic book creator says the movie did it better -- but that's just what happened recently when one of the best-selling Superman writer/artists of all time was asked about Man of Steel's controversial climax.
When fans first started to complain about the death of General Zod in Man of Steel, one of the defenses that writer David S. Goyer came up with was the idea that John Byrne had done something fairly similar during his status quo-shattering run on Superman and Action Comics in the late '80s.
"Superman has killed Zod before," the writer told me at Comic Con International in 2013. "We didn't invent that."
That year, the 75th anniversary of Superman's first appearance took center stage, and fans were eager to ask about the then-new movie and its implications for the cinematic Superman.
"Our advantage was that we had another thirty comics we published that year," former Superman group editor Mike Carlin said at the time, noting that they faced controversy when they did it, as well.
Still, he maintained, fans could much more quickly and easily see that the events of the story had taken a toll on Superman and what that meant for the character and the comic going forward.
Nevertheless, in a new podcast interview, longtime Superman writer/artist Dan Jurgens was asked about the challenges of joining the Superman books shortly after those events took place -- and said he felt Man of Steel did it better.
In Superman #22 by John Byrne, the character was faced with Zod and two of his cohorts, who had extinguished all life in a parallel universe that included a version of Earth. Superman, who had been called in by that world's Supergirl to help, ultimately executed the Kryptonian criminals using Kryptonite (which did not affect him because he was from a different universe and Kryptonite was slightly different -- something that would be used again in Infinite Crisis and other stories dealing with Superboy Prime). The Kryptonians had been previously rendered powerless by gold Kryptonite, and while they threatened -- as Zod did in the movie -- that they would never stop, that they would find a way to travel to Superman's world and kill everyone there as well -- they gave up their bluster and pleaded for mercy when Superman produced the Kryptonite. As you can see in the panel at top, Superman was unmoved, putting them to death for their crimes against humanity.
"It was hugely controversial and I think if the Internet had existed at that time, it would have been that times three," Jurgens told Comicosity. "I always thought that if Superman was going to be put in that position, that it had to be a more immediate threat. It didn't bother me so much, Superman killing the Kryptonians, as it was him being just a stone-cold executioner. If you think of that cover -- there's a green cover and I think it was Superman itself where he's actually wearing the hood like an executioner would wear. That was, to me, the problem. If you wanted to have Superman kill the Kryptonians, I think it had to be a situation where innocent life was in immediate peril and the only way to stop them from taking innocent life was to kill them. At that point, Superman makes the same decision, but he's much more Superman as part of that. And the funny thing is, everybody gets twisted in knots over of that scene in the movie -- yet that's what Superman did. When Superman kills Zod in the movie, it's because there are human beings there who are in immediate danger. The problem with the comic book was, I always thought, not that Superman did it as it was the way he did it, because he was judge, jury and executioner right there. And it was a police officer walking right up to an individual who had dropped his gun, dropped his knife, said 'I surrender,' waved the white flag...and still [blowing] his head off. That's basically what it was."
So...why did Jurgens leave that storyline intact for years during his run on Superman, rather than writing something that would have minimized the perceived damage?
"I think that would have been unfair to the readers," Jurgens argued. "And frankly it would have been unfair to John and to the character himself. It's important to remember, at that time, Superman was experiencing a new height in popularity, more people were reading the book, more people were on board with it, and there were people who liked that story. It wouldn't have been for me to go retcon it. I wouldn't have felt right doing that. I wouldn't have written it the way it was done, but that doesn't mean I thought it was something that should be done away with."
Seemingly agreeing with Carlin's assessment, he said that "the story became the device that was used for him to say 'I will never kill again.' So I think you take that story and then turned it into a greater asset for the character, and agan it was making lemonade out of the lemons and I think it's a story that still serves the character well for what he ended up becoming."
That lemonade? The Exile storyline, one of the most popular stories of that era, in which Superman fled Earth after becoming concerned that he could be a threat to humanity. The ramifications of the storyline continued on and on throughout the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths, pre-Infinite Crisis Superman comics, though, reverberating through stories like Dark Knight Over Metropolis, where Superman gave Batman a Kryptonite ring and asked him to be Earth's failsafe in case Superman should ever become a threat -- and even The Reign of the Supermen!, when a character introduced in Exile was key to resurrecting a then-dead Superman.
Whether anything like that is planned for Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice and other DC Cinematic Universe films is as yet unknown, although filmmakers have stated repeatedly that fallout from Man of Steel would be felt in Batman V Superman in some form.
Source: http://comicbook.com/2015/07/06/superman-legend-dan-jurgens-man-of-steel-handled-zods-death-bett/
Good to see that Dan Jurgens having some sense about the so-called "controversy", unlike bloody Mark Waid and Neal Adams. Man of Steel does have some imperfections that I wished it handled better, but Zod's demise is definitely not one of them. I haven't read that final issue of Superman executing Zod and his cronies. I've only read Bryne's classic mini-series but haven't had the opportunity to read his other Superman comics.
Nice find, I hadn't heard from Jurgens before. I agree that Man of Steel probably gave us the most believable instance where Superman would kill, in comparison to that comic (which I've read) and both cuts of Superman II, where the villains were already defeated.
That said, my issues with the film weren't so much the destruction or Superman killing Zod, as much as it was that I just didn't care about what was going on onscreen. Before we even got to the Metropolis fight, the action just got repetitive and really bored me. Zod's death gave me more of a "Finally, it's over" feeling than anything else. Maybe my feelings will change with another viewing before BvS.
I found a video thesis of Man of Steel from someone who regards it as a masterpiece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p5-14rjWUM
I think the analysis is spot on regarding Clark's faith in humanity is justified, with him confiding his identity to Lois - a woman who keeps it a secret and proves that people can be trusted, and Clark could inspire a bully like Pete Ross to change and become his friend. The military become convinced that Clark is on their side when he didn't retaliate as they were shooting at him during the attacks in Smallville.
The comparison between child birth and Zod's attack on Earth and Metropolis is quite bold, but I have to admit that he is convincing by the way he presents his argument.
The Jesus Christ imagery such as the birth and the cross has been done in past Superman films as well.
But in my opinion, there is a lot of the baptism talk feels that there is a lot of over-analysis going on in this video.
What does anyone else think about this thesis? Thought-provoking, or pretentious rubbish?
I'll have to give it a watch, TLF.
But generally speaking, I quite like Man of Steel. I think the opening segment on Krypton is fantastic. I really enjoyed watching that on the big screen. We're given a completely different aesthetic for the planet, and it felt fleshed out and fully realised. Gone are any attempts at evoking the past. It's all new from here. Russell Crowe's Jor-El was a revelation. Seeing him flying the lizard, freefalling, swimming and generally kicking ass was so refreshing to me. It was such a promising start and contrast to what we saw with Brando's Jor-El. This felt exciting and contemporary.
I also enjoyed the differences in the origin - being familiar enough but also different. That's precisely what they needed in my opinion. Having Jor-El killed by Zod before the planet explodes. Kal-El's rocket nearly being shot down by the militia shortly after being launched, and Kara's final moments alone without giving her husband a loving embrace. In some ways it made proceedings even more emotional and bleak. Because of this, I nearly fist pumped the air when Kal's rocket raced away from Krypton on it's journey to Earth. He really was their last hope.
Cavill plays the part just fine. I think he's the true replacement for Reeve, mainly because he's not trying to evoke that performance at all. He's doing his own thing, unlike Routh who was forced to have one foot in the past. He's a big guy and believable as a man mountain. Plus, it helps when you're given what I consider the best Superman outift in live action history. There's not really an area Cavill's Superman can be lampooned on.
We do get the neck snap jokes, but I still don't see that as a big problem. Nor do I see an increase in physicality as a negative. After many films without having a proper battle, we were given just that. Batman v Superman is destined to make MoS better by association as well. So called negatives will become main plot points for the characters to debate.
This thread should be moved to the "Other DC Films and TV" forum.
A history of Snyder's various defenses of the Man of Steel finale:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-zack-snyder-defending-the-end-of-man-1763888746
It's spilled milk now and there's nothing we can do about it, but I still feel the final act of Man of Steel was a horribly ill-judged conclusion to what should have been a triumphant cinematic relaunch for Superman. It ended the whole thing on a needlessly morbid and contentious note that could've been avoided if they'd simply stuck with the original ending from the script. I wouldn't have minded so much if they'd done something similar in a second, darker film. But to have Superman's first movie, the first film of the entire DCEU, end with such an overblown, overlong spectacle of death was a miscalculation IMO. I thought the first half of the film was decent, but that final act really let it down. And the blame has to rest solely with Snyder since he was the one who pushed for the revised ending.
The fact he's been so inconsistent with his justifications suggests one of two things: A) he didn't have a well thought out reason for doing it in the first place, or B) he did have a reason, but it was so flimsy he had to abandon it in search of alternative justifications. Regardless, I still believe his real reason for doing it was crude visceral impact. I think he wanted to shock the audience and draw a line of demarcation between his Superman and the earlier versions, and what better way to do that than by having Superman trash half of Metropolis and snap his enemy's neck? Ultimately it's his take on the character and it's as legitimate as anyone else's. And I get that a lot of people like it, which is fair enough. So I won't say any more on the matter. I just wish they'd handled it with more tact. I'm still hopeful that Batman v Superman will retroactively fix some of its predecessor's problems.
Meanwhile I'd recommend the animated film Superman vs. The Elite (2012) for a more effective exploration of Superman's attitude to killing, even in situations which offer no apparent alternative. Adapted from 'What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?' (Action Comics Vol 1 #775, May 2001), I felt it succeeded thematically where Man of Steel fell short.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 18:09
A history of Snyder's various defenses of the Man of Steel finale:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-zack-snyder-defending-the-end-of-man-1763888746
I haven't had the time to read the entire article but the gist I'm getting is that Goyer and Snyder have said conflicting things about how they expected the audiences would react to the ending.
However, the final paragraph here caught my attention.
Quote
Which is actually really worrying, because it could indicate that, instead of learning from Man of Steel, he's going to double-down in Batman v Superman. You can't learn from a mistake that you refuse to admit you made.
::)
I bet the imbecile who wrote this article never complained when Superman killed Zod in SII or Batman killing in the Nolan films despite claiming he had a moral code. I guarantee you that she never asked Nolan to explore Batman's failure to maintain his moral code, or condemned him for breaking his rule in the first place...but liked those movies anyway.
If Superman killing Zod was an act of 'murder' (which you have to be a moron to believe that's what was presented in the ending), then apply the same standard to the other films I mentioned.
The pathetic hypocrisy from people like her tells me more about how biased and flawed their mindset is than the ending itself.
It's funny how the myth of 'Superman trashed half of Metropolis' continues. The opposite is true.
Zod was fully in charge of the fight, constantly threw Supes around and brought down a building via his erratic heat vision. These videos demonstrate it pretty well.
Supes was green and took his first and only chance at ending the fight. It was either neck snap or nothing.
Check these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwMwrFipAxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZZIEkFk_NQ#t=127
I agree.
Although I found the final Metropolis fight a little tiresome and lacking in fun compared to Superman II's similar battle, I do agree that Superman was not responsible for the mass destruction that took place in Metropolis. I also believe that Superman's 'no kill' rule applied to humans (i.e. people without superpowers), and in snapping Zod's neck before he blasted the civilian family in the Metropolis train station, he was protecting his adopted planet and its inhabitants from a fellow Kryptonian. The yell he gave out as he proceeded to snap Zod's neck also demonstrates what a conflicting choice it was for him.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 20:35
The fact he's been so inconsistent with his justifications suggests one of two things: A) he didn't have a well thought out reason for doing it in the first place, or B) he did have a reason, but it was so flimsy he had to abandon it in search of alternative justifications.
Give me a break. Nothing that Snyder said was anywhere near as flimsy as Nolan having Batman break his rule, and then the director himself acknowledged it but played it down at the same time in that screenwriting book.
And if you're going to try and justify that Batman "accidentally" killed Two-Face, and he didn't mean to kill Talia again, don't bother, because you did NOT originally hold this opinion:
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
Quotebut Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia).
I can't argue with that.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr 2014, 19:22
Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic.
As you can see for yourself, you agreed with me that Nolan didn't bother to address this inconsistency when we had a discussion about this in April 2014.
Four months later though, you started twisting things to suit your interpretation and wrote some rather unflattering remarks to me along the way:
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug 2014, 21:11
Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 25 Aug 2014, 21:12
For every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.
I just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins.
I like how you sugarcoated all the contradictory things in that trilogy, and yet you're bothered by Superman reluctantly killing Zod. I find it especially hysterical that you disregarded my complaints by accusing of being "locked in a mindset" too by the way, despite you once acknowledged that some of my complaints were legitimate.
Bottom line: if you can turn a blind eye to these things and try to justify in your head over Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, then you have no right to complain about Superman killing Zod. Continuing to do so is blatantly hypocritical.
TLF, I can't speak for the io9 writer or Silver Nemesis on their opinions and I get that you want to call out hypocrisy in how Man of Steel is criticized while the Nolan trilogy gets revered for the same choices, but I think you're taking this way too far.
The "imbecile" writer for that article didn't bring up Superman II or Nolan's Batman. She shares no opinion in the piece (or in anything she wrote in the past) about either of them, other than describing Snyder's comment toward the Reeve films as "condescending."
And in a way, it was. Instead of actually discussing how it worked with the film thematically or even citing the comic where Superman killed Zod (or even citing that Superman killed Zod in Superman II), he went for the tiresome "Oh, you just wanted to see Donner's Superman again. That's why you didn't like it" argument and said a whole lot of nothing about how he made Superman "real."
It'd be one thing if the writer had said "If only Chris Nolan did the movie instead 'cause his Batman films were flawless" or "I'd rather just rewatch Superman II." But she didn't. I don't see any evidence that the writer committed hypocrisy and I think it's unfair and irrational to call her an idiot over something that you simply assumed.
All that's evident is that she disagreed with Snyder's choices for the ending and is calling him out for being inconsistent in why he made those choices, which I think is more than fair.
As for SN, again, I'll let him speak for himself. But the point of his post wasn't that Superman killed Zod. It was about the way Snyder included a final act that was full of destruction and death- from Superman and Zod facing off in all the Ground Zero-like rubble to Superman snapping his neck. It deliberately ended the film on a dour note. A film meant to kick off a new Superman franchise and was marketed as Superman inspiring "hope" in people.
SN even said that he wouldn't have minded if the same ending happened in the next film. So I didn't read his post as another "Superman would never kill. #notmysuperman" and I haven't seen Superman vs. The Elite to know how it plays into the character's morality. I'd say it probably does better simply on the fact that it seems that the whole story is thematically about Superman's methods vs. the rougher criminals, whereas Man of Steel only really takes a stance on Superman's morality in one scene.
Speaking for myself, I guess I'm an anomaly since I don't fall into any of the typical categories that people try to classify fans who disliked the movie.
I didn't want a retread of Donner's Superman. If anything, I think Snyder actually took too much from Donner. (Not as much as Singer, but still more than he should have)
I didn't like it when Superman killed the Phantom Zone criminals, after they were depowered, in Superman II.
I didn't like it when Batman blew up cars and endangered cops in the Nolan trilogy.
I didn't like it when Batman broke his rule and killed the villains in each of the Nolan trilogy.
And I didn't like Man of Steel's final act.
I get that Superman was a rookie fighting trained soldiers, that he had to kill Zod to save the family, and that Superman's killed in the comics before. I even read that comic where he killed Zod about a day or so before I saw the movie.
And at least Superman didn't spend the whole movie refusing to kill people only for him to kill the criminal at the end anyway.
But I still found it a loud, boring finale that, as SN indicated, desperately tried to hit people over the head that "THIS IS NOT THE SUPERMAN YOU THINK YOU KNOW!" and that "See? See? Superman can be dark. He can be real! Like Batman! We've even got the Zimmer music blasting and him killing the bad guy at the end!"
Snyder's justification that this was all so that we'd "see how Superman gets his no-killing code" is incredibly weak. Partially because most sane people don't need to kill in order to learn not to kill. But more than that, it wasn't even portrayed this way in the movie. He kills Zod, screams, and then the rest of the movie plays out like it didn't happen. At no point does he reference having to kill the only other one left of his kind. Or that he feels guilty over taking a life. Or that from now on, he'll never kill again.
If this was the intention, Snyder should've made something of it in the scenes that followed. He didn't, which is why it feels more like it was done to create shock value than anything else.
For me, Snyder did something different, I especially enjoyed the non-linear storytelling, as it flashes back to important parts of Clark's life. I enjoyed the storytelling, score, costumes, visuals and the performances were top notch not to mention that showdown with Zod at the end is one of the best battles I've seen on screen up to that point.
Great job Snyder! 8)
I take your point, BatmAnglus, and yes, now that I've taken a proper look at the article, I'll admit you're right that it's terribly presumptuous of me to insult the writer's intelligence or accusing her for having a bias when she didn't mentioned anything about Nolan or SII in that article.
Except all the parts where she described Superman's actions as "murder". I still stand by what I said that anyone would have to be a fool to believe that's what was presented on screen.
Anyway, the problem is I'm used to seeing too many people not applying the same standard when it comes to scrutinising films like this, and it certainly doesn't help when I'm used to seeing them behaving badly towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Nor does it help that the article comes from io9 because every time I visit that website, I notice that a lot of the visitors and the journalists themselves are full of snarky people who enjoy insulting others. You'll have to excuse me if I jumped the gun a bit, and I guess I should be careful not to let that behavior influence on mine.
I don't mind people criticising the ending if they weren't convinced that the director shot it for the right intentions. After all, it's certainly not a perfect film by any means; hell, it's not even my favourite Superman movie. All I'm asking for people to do is apply the same criticism consistently and fairly, that's all.
I won't defend Snyder's inconsistent justifications, because he needlessly dug a hole for himself. It's not hard to justify the ending by simply saying that Superman, in his first time out to save the world, had to stop a genocidal maniac by any means necessary. It doesn't get any clearer than that, but he can't do it for some reason, and resorts to strawman arguments instead.
Quote
SN even said that he wouldn't have minded if the same ending happened in the next film.
For what it's worth, Silver Nemesis and I had a discussion about this awhile ago, and he argued that the MOS ending could be seen as justifiable homicide, but he claimed that Superman murdered Zod. That's absolutely ridiculous. Murder is a crime where you take another person's life with malicious intent. Again, that's not what happened on screen.
Nonetheless, I don't care if he doesn't like the film, or he doesn't like the idea
alone, of Superman killing at any cost. He's entitled to have an opinion, so that's not my issue.
What is my issue, however, is not only does he not mind that Batman does the same thing, he had a go at me for not liking the Nolan trilogy, and tried to use strawman arguments to justify the moral code nonsense and accuse me of being negative on purpose. The latter is uncalled for, especially when it turned out that he acknowledged these complaints were valid in the past. I don't know why he did this, and I find it very bizarre. If he simply disagreed with me but didn't behave like this, I wouldn't called him out right now. I'm still waiting for his explanation.
Quote
Speaking for myself, I guess I'm an anomaly since I don't fall into any of the typical categories that people try to classify fans who disliked the movie.
But at least you're consistent. You're standing on solid ground when it comes analysing the film, and I respect that. Whereas, there are too many people criticising this movie or another for certain flaws, while completely ignoring or making excuses for the same (or worse) mistakes that other highly regarded films have. Apologies for beating a dead horse, but I've had enough. I've lost my patience over this.
Quote
If this was the intention, Snyder should've made something of it in the scenes that followed. He didn't, which is why it feels more like it was done to create shock value than anything else.
I understand. It's actually somewhat similar to how TDKT never followed up with Batman coming to terms with his actions - whether it's breaking his moral code, covering up for Two-Face or how he felt when the secret he and Gordon kept over Two-Face got exposed. Except, as you already pointed out, the only difference is Superman never swore to take another life, nor did he ever declare to intend to become an incorruptible symbol like Bale's Batman did. Nevertheless, I can see your point judging by what Snyder has said.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 18:09
This thread should be moved to the "Other DC Films and TV" forum.
Done. Good call.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 21:02I bet the imbecile who wrote this article never complained when Superman killed Zod in SII or Batman killing in the Nolan films despite claiming he had a moral code. I guarantee you that she never asked Nolan to explore Batman's failure to maintain his moral code, or condemned him for breaking his rule in the first place...but liked those movies anyway.
This seems like an intense assumption made without something as a foundation to make it. Killing accidentally isn't the same as not having a moral code as well. And Superman 2, despite me having not a great deal of love for those films in their quality, didn't make a problem out of Zod's deatht in it, and instead of having him murder Zod onscreen, cleanly just tossed him into a hole. MOS made an issue out of their thing, showed it onscreen, forced the audiences to watch it and did it brutally, without dealing with it.
QuoteIf Superman killing Zod was an act of 'murder' (which you have to be a moron to believe that's what was presented in the ending), then apply the same standard to the other films I mentioned.
The pathetic hypocrisy from people like her tells me more about how biased and flawed their mindset is than the ending itself.
You've said that Batman broke his rule, when allowing someone to die isn't killing. The same thing you're saying here about this person applies to what you've said, if that logic is to be gone by.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 11 Mar 2016, 11:06Give me a break. Nothing that Snyder said was anywhere near as flimsy as Nolan having Batman break his rule, and then the director himself acknowledged it but played it down at the same time in that screenwriting book.
Nolan was factually wrong by saying that Batman broke his rule in BB. How is it just as flimsy though to admit it, but downplay it at the same time? It doesn't contradict it.
QuoteAnd if you're going to try and justify that Batman "accidentally" killed Two-Face, and he didn't mean to kill Talia again, don't bother, because you did NOT originally hold this opinion:
It was accidental.
QuoteAs you can see for yourself, you agreed with me that Nolan didn't bother to address this inconsistency when we had a discussion about this in April 2014.
Four months later though, you started twisting things to suit your interpretation and wrote some rather unflattering remarks to me along the way:
Admitting that an inconsistency wasn't addressed isn't the same as saying it wasn't accidental.
QuoteI like how you sugarcoated all the contradictory things in that trilogy, and yet you're bothered by Superman reluctantly killing Zod. I find it especially hysterical that you disregarded my complaints by accusing of being "locked in a mindset" too by the way, despite you once acknowledged that some of my complaints were legitimate.
It wasn't sugarcoating. It was a statement of that there are good things and bad things in both sets of stories. There aren't really contradictory things in the trilogy though, the ones that you've said are anyway.
QuoteBottom line: if you can turn a blind eye to these things and try to justify in your head over Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, then you have no right to complain about Superman killing Zod. Continuing to do so is blatantly hypocritical.
One could say the same about the complaints that you have. If you try to justify Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Burton film, then you have no right to complain about his inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, by that logic.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 23:22It's funny how the myth of 'Superman trashed half of Metropolis' continues. The opposite is true.
Zod was fully in charge of the fight, constantly threw Supes around and brought down a building via his erratic heat vision. These videos demonstrate it pretty well.
Supes was green and took his first and only chance at ending the fight. It was either neck snap or nothing.
Superman did engage Zod in a fight, in a city. He had a hand in it. I don't blame him for the destruction. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for that action. Have a very great day both of you!
God bless you both! God bless your families and everyone else in your lives! God bless everyone!
I'm in the process of rewatching this for the first time since I saw it in theatres, I just passed the halfway point (stopped at the scene where Zod meets superman)
My thoughts on the first half;
I liked the non-linear telling as well, specifically for an origin story. While I liked Batman begins, one of its downsides is it takes a long time to even get to a modern bruce wayne let alone Batman and this is repeated in the dark knight rises. A linear story would have bogged this one down, while the child Clark Kent parts were important to the story, they are not the strong part of the film and it would have made the first act awfully boring if it took 40 minutes before seeing Cavill on screen.
While I think Costner did a good job in his role, I didn't like the way it was written; his death scene was cringeworthy, he makes no attempt to save himself, it's almost as if the character purposely wants Clark to be tortured. In my opinion this film tries too hard to make Clark a tragic hero and while that works for some, Superman is not supposed to be as dark of a character as this film portrays. It clearly doesn't let the hero ever enjoy victory at any point, Costner makes him feel bad every time he uses his powers.
Amy Adams is a good actress but she's no Margot Kidder (far better than Kate Bosworth though). Like the rest of the film she's humorless and lacks personality. I did like how she does act noble and heroic in her own right trying to tell the story that needs to be told.
Halfway through this film is completely deprived of humour. I didn't laugh once and I don't think there was even a single attempt at humor. While not terrible it's obvious it attempts to be a superman version of the dark knight series rather than its own film.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 19:20I'm in the process of rewatching this for the first time since I saw it in theatres, I just passed the halfway point (stopped at the scene where Zod meets superman)
My thoughts on the first half;
I liked the non-linear telling as well, specifically for an origin story. While I liked Batman begins, one of its downsides is it takes a long time to even get to a modern bruce wayne let alone Batman and this is repeated in the dark knight rises. A linear story would have bogged this one down, while the child Clark Kent parts were important to the story, they are not the strong part of the film and it would have made the first act awfully boring if it took 40 minutes before seeing Cavill on screen.
We see modern Bruce Wayne in the second scene of BB.
QuoteWhile I think Costner did a good job in his role, I didn't like the way it was written; his death scene was cringeworthy, he makes no attempt to save himself, it's almost as if the character purposely wants Clark to be tortured. In my opinion this film tries too hard to make Clark a tragic hero and while that works for some, Superman is not supposed to be as dark of a character as this film portrays. It clearly doesn't let the hero ever enjoy victory at any point, Costner makes him feel bad every time he uses his powers.
I kind of agree.
QuoteAmy Adams is a good actress but she's no Margot Kidder (far better than Kate Bosworth though). Like the rest of the film she's humorless and lacks personality. I did like how she does act noble and heroic in her own right trying to tell the story that needs to be told.
I liked Kate Bosworth as a character more personally.
QuoteHalfway through this film is completely deprived of humour. I didn't laugh once and I don't think there was even a single attempt at humor. While not terrible it's obvious it attempts to be a superman version of the dark knight series rather than its own film.
TDKT had humor. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote
Nolan was factually wrong by saying that Batman broke his rule in BB. How is it just as flimsy though to admit it, but downplay it at the same time? It doesn't contradict it.
What a load of nonsense. If Nolan truly believed Batman didn't break his rule, he would have strenuously said so - or even better - re-write the scene where Ra's al Ghul died by other means without Batman getting him killed.
Instead, he tries to give a weak "yes and no" answer in the TDK Screenplays Book - where even his brother Jonathan acknowledged that Batman broke his rule including the first film. Hell, if Nolan really wanted to convey his belief that Batman didn't kill Ra's al Ghul, he would've had the character say so. Instead, he directs a scene where Batman justifies doing it when confronted by Talia in Dark Knight Rises, because innocent people's lives were at stake. Despite the fact in the previous film, refusing to kill Joker resulted in putting everyone else in harm's way.
The fact that you keep saying there's a difference between killing someone and letting them die - as well as ignoring the fact that Batman set Ra's al Ghul up in a death trap to ensure he didn't survive - is downright foolish and desperate to say the least.
Quote
It was accidental.
Keep telling that to yourself. That's not what was presented on screen or in the script. Besides, you even acknowledged in another discussion last year that Batman had to have been aware that knocking Two-Face off the edge of the building was going to put him in grave danger. Common sense tells me that an incident is not accidental when one is aware that they're putting somebody else at risk.
Quote
One could say the same about the complaints that you have. If you try to justify Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Burton film, then you have no right to complain about his inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, by that logic.
Again, nonsense. The only inconsistent thing I saw Burton's Batman do was saying the "wrong on both counts" line when Catwoman claimed the law doesn't apply to both of them. I've never liked that line by the way, and I've always complained about it; so I think I've got every right to criticise the inconsistent behavior in Nolan's films.
Quote
TDKT had humor.
The humour was disappointing. Then again, the humour in MOS wasn't particularly good either.
Quote
While I think Costner did a good job in his role, I didn't like the way it was written; his death scene was cringeworthy, he makes no attempt to save himself, it's almost as if the character purposely wants Clark to be tortured. In my opinion this film tries too hard to make Clark a tragic hero and while that works for some, Superman is not supposed to be as dark of a character as this film portrays. It clearly doesn't let the hero ever enjoy victory at any point, Costner makes him feel bad every time he uses his powers.
I don't believe Costner's Pa Kent meant to hurt Clark. Nor do I believe that he actually wanted Clark to let those kids drown in the bus.
The whole idea was that Jonathan knew that Clark exposing himself to the world would change things forever, and would result in Clark carrying a great burden of responsibility. He also knew that it was highly possible that Clark could face scrutiny and persecution and thought the world isn't ready to cope with the news that an alien from another planet exists among people (with powers, mind you). Jonathan didn't want Clark to overwhelmed by that possibility yet because he was still too young to cope any of that. As misguided that "maybe" line is, Jonathan did everything he could to protect his son's secret. Like it or not, he stayed true to what he stood for.
Now here is something that I don't like about Clark letting Jonathan die: in my opinion, it gave him a sense of tragedy that the character didn't need at all. Clark was already tragic enough as a lonely being from another world who was unsure of his place in the world, and when humanity eventually accepts him, it will only make his father's death even more painful. I'd prefer that Jonathan Kent didn't get killed off at all.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 24 Mar 2016, 21:47What a load of nonsense. If Nolan truly believed Batman didn't break his rule, he would have strenuously said so - or even better - re-write the scene where Ra's al Ghul died by other means without Batman getting him killed.
Instead, he tries to give a weak "yes and no" answer in the TDK Screenplays Book - where even his brother Jonathan acknowledged that Batman broke his rule including the first film. Hell, if Nolan really wanted to convey his belief that Batman didn't kill Ra's al Ghul, he would've had the character say so. Instead, he directs a scene where Batman justifies doing it when confronted by Talia in Dark Knight Rises, because innocent people's lives were at stake. Despite the fact in the previous film, refusing to kill Joker resulted in putting everyone else in harm's way.
The fact that you keep saying there's a difference between killing someone and letting them die - as well as ignoring the fact that Batman set Ra's al Ghul up in a death trap to ensure he didn't survive - is downright foolish and desperate to say the least.
I didn't say anything about what Nolan believed. I said he was wrong. If he was ever going to set up a death trap, then he never got the chance because Ra's stabbed the console and set up his own death. Batman justifying doing it doesn't mean he actually did it. If there's an inconsistency it's in TDKR.
QuoteKeep telling that to yourself. That's not what was presented on screen or in the script. Besides, you even acknowledged in another discussion last year that Batman had to have been aware that knocking Two-Face off the edge of the building was going to put him in grave danger. Common sense tells me that an incident is not accidental when one is aware that they're putting somebody else at risk.
I don't remember that. But him being aware of danger doesn't mean that he's trying to kill him or even thinks about it in that way. What's depicted on screen is that Batman tackles Harvey to save a kid. He killed him, yes, but it wasn't why he did it. I've never read the script.
QuoteAgain, nonsense. The only inconsistent thing I saw Burton's Batman do was saying the "wrong on both counts" line when Catwoman claimed the law doesn't apply to both of them. I've never liked that line by the way, and I've always complained about it; so I think I've got every right to criticise the inconsistent behavior in Nolan's films.
There's also his attitude towards her when he pulls out the gun. But it goes both ways. You take extreme issue with inconsistencies that aren't there. There are problems with TDKT. But the ones you cite aren't what they are. Do you take as an extreme of an issue with one inconsistency as you do the other? It doesn't seem so.
QuoteThe humour was disappointing. Then again, the humour in MOS wasn't particularly good either.
Taste may vary. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life! God bless everyone!
seems the only attempt at humour in this one was the female captain remarking Superman was hot.
Upon final viewing I really don't get the hate for the killing of Zod; it's obvious Superman did everything he could to avoid it; he pleaded with Zod, wrestled with himself but it came down to the moment of truth where it was to be either the bad guy or innocents and the hero made the right choice.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 15:15
Upon final viewing I really don't get the hate for the killing of Zod; it's obvious Superman did everything he could to avoid it; he pleaded with Zod, wrestled with himself but it came down to the moment of truth where it was to be either the bad guy or innocents and the hero made the right choice.
This old chestnut again, but here we go.
Superman was out-horse-powered by Zod. If anyone watches the film, Superman gets pounded. He barely manages to inflict any damage on his opponent. Zod is the one who throws Superman around. Zod is the one who freaks out on heat vision and causes Wayne Financial to topple. So when Superman manages to get a grip around Zod's neck, he takes it. Otherwise it's back to being belted down to the ground and through buildings.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Apr 2016, 04:38Quote from: riddler on Mon, 28 Mar 2016, 15:15Upon final viewing I really don't get the hate for the killing of Zod; it's obvious Superman did everything he could to avoid it; he pleaded with Zod, wrestled with himself but it came down to the moment of truth where it was to be either the bad guy or innocents and the hero made the right choice.
This old chestnut again, but here we go.
Superman was out-horse-powered by Zod. If anyone watches the film, Superman gets pounded. He barely manages to inflict any damage on his opponent. Zod is the one who throws Superman around. Zod is the one who freaks out on heat vision and causes Wayne Financial to topple. So when Superman manages to get a grip around Zod's neck, he takes it. Otherwise it's back to being belted down to the ground and through buildings.
The issue has never really been that he kills. It's how it was done that it's not dealt with, the reason made to have it happen makes no sense and the movie doesn't show Clark caring about the people killed in Metropolis' destruction, then switches gears to make him care suddenly about people's lives. Have a very great day!
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Good news:
http://www.thewrap.com/warner-bros-puts-man-of-steel-sequel-into-active-development-exclusive/
I'll believe it when it happens. I want this... but considering where Snyder left the ball, I'm a bit concerned.
I'm not. It leaves the Superman universe exactly where it needs to be. He can come back as a loved, mythic figure. People ready to accept him in the sun. And the Clark side of things can be resolved in a number of ways.
If they make it, I'll be first in line. I loved the first one. But with DC, I don't believe anything until they actually start production.
On a related note, when I went to see Suicide Squad the other day, they showed a trailer for the Man of Steel prequel:
https://youtu.be/S-UPJyEHmM0
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 9 Aug 2016, 02:29I'm not. It leaves the Superman universe exactly where it needs to be. He can come back as a loved, mythic figure. People ready to accept him in the sun. And the Clark side of things can be resolved in a number of ways.
I've assumed Snyder won't be coming back for another Superman movie. I have nothing to base that on other than my gut. But I don't see it happening.
This potentially opens the door for a new director.
I've gotten pounced on for suggesting Michael Bay by people on a different forum who are frankly not worth responding to but I stand by it. Bay's flare for visuals, action and American iconography is a good match for Superman.
I've long been in a place where I just don't trust Hollywood with Superman. All I really want is lots of action. Bay would deliver that and probably not do much else in terms of damage to the character.
Henry Cavill Man of Steel audition photo.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F1517%2F812566929991e50441dd1b8aaeca8c3a.png&hash=38e95baa0271786e4e45266db3fb90a52312b660)
I don't want to get off on a rant here or anything but the fact that all these photos keep getting released in black and white bugs the hell out of me. Would it kill anybody to release color versions of these things?
Cool picture though.
That costume is awesome. Obviously this pic was taken before Cavill bulked up for the role. I'd like to see a colour photograph of him wearing it now, complete with the spit curl. He'd look just like the comic book Supes.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 17:37That costume is awesome. Obviously this pic was taken before Cavill bulked up for the role. I'd like to see a colour photograph of him wearing it now, complete with the spit curl. He'd look just like the comic book Supes.
Circa 2008 or so, I found a computer-generated amalgamation of Dean Cain, Christopher Reeve, Tom Welling and Brandon Routh. The idea being that such an amalgamation would pretty much be Superman.
I question the logic of that. But nobody cares what I think.
So anyway, the picture, right? So not long ago I ran it through a free online facial recognition system. Of all people, it showed Adam Brody as the closest match at something like 85%. But the runner up was Henry Cavill at 80% (or thereabouts).
Not bad, eh?
Adam Brody? I... kind of see it. Looks a lot more like Cavill though.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 17:37
That costume is awesome. Obviously this pic was taken before Cavill bulked up for the role. I'd like to see a colour photograph of him wearing it now, complete with the spit curl. He'd look just like the comic book Supes.
As far as I am concerned, Cavill puts the man in Superman. The character doesn't need to have muscles to lift mountains and punch moons out of orbit, but it's sure as hell is more satisfying if he does.
I saw this new photo of Henry Cavill wearing the Reeve Superman costume, this time in colour.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcZ6sCFVwAAV28I.jpg:large)
Back on MOS, I've been thinking about the tornado scene again, and I remember there used to be a lot of criticism over Jonathan Kent running back to the car to rescue the family dog. Lots of people were saying how "stupid" it was of him for doing that.
Do you want hear my rebuttal? I guarantee you that these people never owned a pet before.
I'd say there's more of an issue to me that he didn't send Clark to get the dog.
Vero has uploaded that MOS Watch Party held by Zack Snyder. Under the circumstances, I think it's safe to say it has become historic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mj5FZ_FxG8
Gave MoS another look recently, and it holds up very well - still my favorite Superman movie.
It did everything that I think needed to be done for a contemporary Superman relaunch. This is the exact template. A new soundtrack, a suit overhaul, a darker tone without sacrificing the sense of hope and current day social commentary. Hopefully AT&T can get this train back on the track.
One part struck a chord with me, particularly as the same theme was highlighted in the S:TAS two parter Blast from the Past. It's Superman being peer pressured to abandon his Earth friends and upbringing in favor of his Krypronian heritage, and when he doesn't he's deemed a sellout. This applies to many people in real life who walk away from others when their values/life direction no longer align. It can be hard, and they want you to feel shame, but you've got to do the right thing. Because we all know what the right thing is. In Superman's case, the real shame would be siding with criminals who seek to rule and trash society.
What does Zod being a Kryptonian have to do with anything when his morals are warped? It makes Superman feel all the more alone, which is great for character depth. The idea he technically ISN'T alone, as other Kryptonians such as Zod exist, but ultimately he is alone.
I see Superman's Kryptonian heritage as only one small part of him, and something he's always learning about. The upbringing on Kansas is his true soul, with the rest being an echo.
The fact characters such as Brainiac know way more about Krypton than him is a cool dynamic and power imbalance, giving the villains leverage over the hero.
What works for me about MOS is that Jor-El explicitly says that Superman is the bridge to between two worlds. Clark Kent is too alien to ever be human. But Kal-El is too human to ever be truly Kryptonian. Thus, Superman is the space between them, the best of both worlds. It speaks to the idea that we can all be our best selves. Nothing's holding us back.
I enjoy that. There's an unsung Grant Morrison/All-Star Superman influence going on with that approach and I cherish it.
This quote captures the idea of Superman being a
creation for the benefit of humanity.
QuoteSUPERMAN: All this time I've been living my life the way my father saw it. Righting wrongs for a ghost. Thinking I'm here to do good. Superman was never real. Just the dream of a farmer from Kansas.
LOIS LANE: That farmer's dream is all some people have. It's all that gives them hope. This means something.
SUPERMAN: It did on my world. My world doesn't exist anymore.
And this quote from Zack:
Quote"The House of El's family suit would be the black suit, but the suit facing out into the public, the suit he says 'you'll help them attain wonders,' that suit is the suit of optimism in my opinion. The red and blue suit, to me, is more inclusive. It's a friendlier suit."
That's the big one that solidifies the point, IMO. The real suit is black, but having that from the start communicates something different to the public. To be pure Kryptonian is to be alien. The red and blue adds the human element – the dream element.
You raise a good point.
And I'm ashamed to say that I'm only just now realizing that there might be a theme of regret/mourning present in seemingly all three films. In MOS, Zod experiences some regret at having killed Jor-El. That haunts him. His hatred for Superman doesn't somehow magically blight out his affection for Jor-El or his own regret for killing Jor-El. He even visibly expresses regret at erasing Jor-El's AI from the ship, "killing" Jor-El again in a sense.
In BVS, as per your quote, Superman expresses a desire to live up to Jonathan's idea and his regret at being unsuccessful so far. Jonathan's memory is what teaches Clark about the occasional disconnect between heroism and acceptance.
In ZSJL, I assume that Batman will be motivated by his own regret of Superman's death and the role he unwittingly played in bringing it about. Penance will come, I assume, from Superman's resurrection.
Still, in each case, this regret over a dead person's memory seems to be a catalyst driving a character forward. Sometimes, a character is able to make peace with the dead person's memory (Superman in BVS) while other times that's not possible (Zod in MOS) or, at best, it's uncertain (in ZSJL, I assume).
It's late and I might be formulating all of this badly. Sorry!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 3 Jun 2020, 04:18
You raise a good point.
And I'm ashamed to say that I'm only just now realizing that there might be a theme of regret/mourning present in seemingly all three films. In MOS, Zod experiences some regret at having killed Jor-El. That haunts him. His hatred for Superman doesn't somehow magically blight out his affection for Jor-El or his own regret for killing Jor-El. He even visibly expresses regret at erasing Jor-El's AI from the ship, "killing" Jor-El again in a sense.
In BVS, as per your quote, Superman expresses a desire to live up to Jonathan's idea and his regret at being unsuccessful so far. Jonathan's memory is what teaches Clark about the occasional disconnect between heroism and acceptance.
In ZSJL, I assume that Batman will be motivated by his own regret of Superman's death and the role he unwittingly played in bringing it about. Penance will come, I assume, from Superman's resurrection.
Still, in each case, this regret over a dead person's memory seems to be a catalyst driving a character forward. Sometimes, a character is able to make peace with the dead person's memory (Superman in BVS) while other times that's not possible (Zod in MOS) or, at best, it's uncertain (in ZSJL, I assume).
It's late and I might be formulating all of this badly. Sorry!
Zod says he's debating the merits of genocide with a ghost, which seems dismissive to me.
IMO, Zod has elements of regret, but he's a test tube creation in the way he thinks - which pushes him beyond psychopathy. People are responsible for their actions, but with Zod it's almost like he can only be what he is. Zod was bred for one specific reason and that's all he works towards. That type of focus is on the unnatural side, which seems fitting given it contrasts with the natural birth of Kal.
I imagine Zod's bigger regret would be Jor-El not seeing things his way, as he then saw his murder or incarceration as the only option. Zod is an ally if you see things his way, but if you don't, so be it. Having superpowers under a yellow sun doesn't change his ambitions, even though it would for anyone else. He cannot restore Krypton
as it was, so the next best thing is Earth, and he doesn't think twice.
It's not a mistake that Clark and Bruce reflect about their parents before the clash in the rain, as those ghosts still dictate their future - but in different ways. Batfleck was reflecting upon the fact he's now older than his father ever was, which is a negative energy. Clark sought peace from a chaotic world, and through Jonathan's lesson he accepted his peace was Lois - just as Martha was Jonathan's.
The biggest lesson Batfleck seems to have about his parents is that they died - which is evidenced in the dialogue. This makes sense given his memories are that of a young child which would have faded with time. He has a flashback involving their crypt with blood dripping out, which further highlights their death is the number one part of their existence from Bruce's POV. They are never manifested in his dreams in comparison to Clark's experience.
Bruce's parents are not inside the tomb - only the bat remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/G361tA4.jpg)
From Adventures Of Superman #477, which was part 04 of the Time And Time Again storyline. Superman uses his heat vision to burrow through a gigantic sheet of ice, whereupon he finds a spaceship.
Seems a bit familiar, doesn't it? Even the shape of the tunnel looks similar to what we saw in Man Of Steel. I'm not prepared to guarantee that this page inspired that sequence from Man Of Steel. But the similarities are interesting, yes?
EDIT- Since I'm here tho, rewatched Man Of Steel. I still adore the sequence where Clark tunnels through the ice using his heat vision and Lois follows him. I love the pacing of it, the atmosphere of mystery and suspense, the aesthetics, the music, all of it. The whole movie is good. But this scene has always stood out to me. Even in theaters, I remember being absolutely engrossed with the movie when this bit of business started. It's not rly that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. But we're all allowed to get a little fanboy once in a while.
Upon hearing about Snyder's ideas for a standalone Superman sequel today and how he might've used Brainiac as the villain, I remembered reading fan theories speculating one of the World Engines in MOS had a Brainiac Easter egg.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/gLRMxcmSmVeD44NEKiytLb6iLJsjJgWwfo1lpYqz_NQ.jpg?auto=webp&s=b141f45e134d29252a1080bab8bd62298ae77d6d)
Interesting video analysing Jonathan Kent in MOS and addressing the criticism surrounding two key scenes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joyfXc7RnQM
David Goyer revealed how utterly clueless the studio were when it came to making MOS.
Quote
Where the ending involves Superman utilizing the pod that he arrived in as a child in order to bring down General Zod's ship. The note we got from the studio said, 'You have to change that.' We asked why. They said, 'Because if Superman uses that pod and it's destroyed while saving the city, how is he ever going to get back home to Krypton?'
There was just this long pause and we said, 'Krypton blew up. You saw 30 minutes of it!'
https://comicbook.com/dc/amp/news/man-of-steel-writer-reveals-baffling-studio-note/
Warner is a lost cause. If they're not sabotaging their own productions due to malicious motives, they don't even seem to have the ability to follow a story. It's a farce, and it's these sort of issues that ruin any enthusiasm I might've had for any new film coming out.
Eternals director Chloe Zhao spoke to a French media outlet and revealed MOS was an inspiration for the latest MCU movie.
If that's not all, the movie namedrops Superman and compares him to one of the Eternals characters, Ikaris.
Quote
Superman is mentioned in the Eternals. Who is he in the MCU? Does he just exist in pop culture or is he a real character?
Chloe Zhao: He's whatever you want him to be (laughs). In this sequence, he seems to exist in pop culture. But we never know.
We take away that Ikaris could have been the inspiration for the creation of Superman in the comic books.
Chloe Zhao: You say it, not me! Superman is the Übermensch, the ultimate man, the superman, a concept that exists in all cultures. Of all modern interpretations of Superman, this is Zack Snyder's with Man Of Steel, which inspired me the most because he approached this myth in an authentic and very real way. I remember thinking it was Superman by Terrence Malick when I saw the trailer. This film left a strong impression on me. But Ikaris is of course our own take on Superman.
Source: https://cinema.jeuxactu.com/news-cinema-les-eternels-superman-chez-marvel-la-realisatrice-chloe-zhao-s-explique-34878.htm
https://youtu.be/Yl1vD0CZQg4
While an MCU director cites MOS as artistic and an inspiration, we have the f***ery going on at Warner and always talk about catching up to Marvel. How ironic.
Here is another look at Henry Cavill wearing Christopher Reeve's Superman costume.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEH_NJVVgAoNEpl?format=jpg)
I thought it was Photoshopped at first, but it's from this collection, so it seems legit.
https://propstoreauction.com/m/lot-details/index/catalog/299/lot/80965/
George Miller was once quoted explaining why he thought Superman is such a hard character to adapt on film.
Quote
I think it's been said many times before: he's potentially a very boring character because he has no faults. So you really have to find his demons really to get an internal conflict going. You've really got to do that. Whether that's by an external agency or something deep inside himself. You need that conflicted character
That's what made the Greek gods so great. I mean they were jealous, vengeful, hubristic. They had all these things going for them. I think that's why Batman's such an interesting character because he's human, so he's just like us. He's relatable, rather than someone who's just perfect.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210121215929/https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/10/07/what-george-miller-would-do-with-superman
Greg Silverman, the former chief of WB, tweeted this in response to those old quotes.
Quote
Superman is not boring. He was conceived by immigrants desperate to fit in. He's insecure like they were, desperate to be good enough to fit in, to be worthy of love. He's torn between two worlds, two fathers. I think Zack [Snyder] and Henry [Cavill] (&&&) captured all of this beautifully in MOS.
https://twitter.com/gregsilverman/status/1474392470083489798
Guess who replaced Silverman as the head of WB? Toby Emmerich.
No wonder why Superman on film and WB as a whole has gone to sh*t.
Miller's line of thinking is sort of flawed.
In a sense, I would compare Superman to Paddington in the Paddington Bear movies. In those movies, Paddington doesn't change a whole lot. Rather, he influences others. Essentially, he motivates the people he meets to be their best selves.
That's Superman. I'm not saying you can't tell great stories where Superman faces some kind of inner turmoil. Obviously, you can. I consider Superman III to be a great Superman story and Superman has to literally face his own dark side in that film. It might be fan wankery on my part, but I see Superman in Superman III resolving the frustration and grief from the first two movies. He suffered losses in those movies and I think he came to terms with it in Superman III.
Meanwhile, in STM, you're hard-pressed to find Superman experiencing some kind of inner conflict. At every step of the way, he knows he is, what he has to do and broadly he knows how to do it. Nobody seems to despise STM even tho Superman has a basically arc-free story in that film.
I mean, I get where Miller is coming from in a sense. Superman has a perfect soul and he has absolute power. You need to have your thinking cap on to write a good Superman story. Whereas (with all due respect) a good Batman story practically writes itself. Batman is infinitely easier to write than Superman. But this idea that Superman is a boring character or that he has to overcome some type of personal struggle just plain isn't true.
A pretty good video going over all the behind the scenes stuff pertaining to Superman in the DCEU post-MOS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG4AZjXbHN0
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 13 Jan 2022, 06:40
A pretty good video going over all the behind the scenes stuff pertaining to Superman in the DCEU post-MOS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG4AZjXbHN0
It's a great tragedy what happened after Man of Steel. I adore Dawn of Justice and the Snyder cut, but I do envision a world where Cavill appeared in a couple more sequels before anything else happened with a shared universe. I like how Man of Steel has the general genetics of the first two Reeve films in terms of plot, which gives the audience enough familiarity as an entry point. But it does something completely different with it. Man of Steel is an all time great Superman product but also a frustrating glimpse of what else could've been.
Clay Enos uploaded this brilliant photo of Cavill's Superman and Shannon's Zod.
(https://i.imgur.com/atmbzjx.jpg)
While I'm at it, I saw watched this video analysing the theme of restraint in the Snyderverse, specifically in MOS. The best observation is when Superman surrenders himself to the military, as he restrains himself in order to gain their trust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX0OxJN_fwQ
Jay Oliva tweeted these really nice storyboard sketches from MOS. A lot of these shots were replicated in the final cut quite well.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtKemnVgAEfXPD?format=jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtLKaiVUAAhU6s?format=jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtLc15UUAEZWtN?format=jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtLiyBVEAM-0eR?format=jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtLoDTVcAAbZot?format=jpg)
More storyboard sketches uploaded by Jay Oliva. It includes Superman fighting the tentacles of the World Engine, the Kryptonian giant Nam-Ek rampaging against jet pilots, and what appears to resemble Faora approaching from the pilot's point of view, moments before she was struck by Superman.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtMX-wVIAEGAUa?format=png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRtMJqBUUAAo-ow?format=png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRs-uRlVkAANDVK?format=jpg)
I came across a bitter anti-Snyder critic on YouTube complaining about Kal-El's apocalyptic dream sequence in MOS, where Zod reveals his intentions to terraform the Earth with the Codex. He believes one of the problems is Snyder went way too dark with the image of Superman sinking into the pit of skulls, and thought it was too morbid.
I think any complaints about this scene being too morbid is rather petty because it overlooks the fact that Zod was a genocidal villain who justified his horrific actions by doing whatever it took to restore the Kryptonian race. In my opinion, the scene had to get a strong reaction from Kal-El to understand what was at stake, and playing down the doomsday scenario wouldn't have made the scene all that effective. Besides, I don't find that scene to be any more morbid than watching the Kryptonians screaming and falling to their deaths, as their planet collapses and explodes in front of them in S78. Growing up as a kid, that scene frightened the hell out of me, together with Lois getting suffocated to death when her car sunk into the earthquake. One might argue that Donner was too gratuitous in showing the terror and destruction of Krypton, but I disagree with that too. The Kryptonian council was too ignorant to take Jor-El's warnings and advice seriously, and we had to see the disastrous consequences of not listening. We had to feel and see what was at stake, otherwise, the experience would've been much poorer if it cuts off to baby Kal-El leaving Krypton and in the next scene the planet exploded.
Just because Superman is held to some standard as some feel-good mascot, doesn't mean his filmography and comics is all bright and sunny.
Also, I interpreted that scene as a vision that Zod was forcing on Superman. It wasn't actually a "dream". It was more like "enhanced interrogation techniques" employed by Zod.
Is there something wrong with the bad guy BEING a bad guy?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 15 May 2022, 15:01
Also, I interpreted that scene as a vision that Zod was forcing on Superman. It wasn't actually a "dream". It was more like "enhanced interrogation techniques" employed by Zod.
Technically it might not have been a real dream, that's true. But Zod probing Kal-El's unconscious mind definitely gave him a nightmarish vision of what was about to come.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 15 May 2022, 15:01
Is there something wrong with the bad guy BEING a bad guy?
Well, you'll be surprised at how some people still complain about the action in the movie. Jay Oliva replied to somebody who made some petty remarks about Superman flying over the petroleum truck because Snyder "prioritised cool shots instead of story", explaining why he storyboarded the scene the way he did.
Quote from: Jay Oliva
I had superman fly over because I needed a way for the parking structure behind him to collapse so that in the next part of the fight cars would fall down on both of them. One car would temporarily stun Superman leading to Zod getting the upperhand. It's called fight story.
This would lead to Superman getting knocked up the side of the building and leads to Zod eventually learning to fly. There's nothing "pointless" about it. If you've ever choreographed a fight you know that you need to tell a story with the choreography and bridge the main points.
I've done hundreds of superhero fights in my almost 30 year career from marvel characters to DC ones and every one of my fights are memorable. thanks for watching! I've done enough of these to know how to choreograph and shoot them well! ;D
https://twitter.com/jayoliva1/status/1520920799221215232
By the way, you remember about that anti-Snyder critic I mentioned in my last post? It turns out he is the same guy who tried to lecture and talk down to Oliva over that scene, how Superman "destroyed buildings rather than saved people" and called the scene "weak connective tissue". This is Oliva's response:
Quote from: Jay Oliva
"weak connective tissue" .. The events lead up to Zod learning to fly which opens up the next part of the fight and raises the stakes. The one thing Superman had as an advantage throughout the movie is taken away. That "contrived" idea was in the script written by Nolan and Goyer
https://twitter.com/jayoliva1/status/1521078050942640129
It's amazing to me, how YouTube nobodies who barely even gain 1k views for their videos and hide behind an anonymous avatar to lie about how they work in the film industry, go on and talk down people like Oliva, who put themselves out there. Talk about delusion of grandeur.
Snyder has uploaded fourteen photos of actors in their MOS costumes, leading up to the hype of his Snyderverse convention later this month.
(https://i.imgur.com/Uu4Ax52.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/LQTt0Yy.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/X6VTEMx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nfqNz2L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/435EHCy.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3ktETnD.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/PsYzL0s.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/U1yRzxO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EaXIvTR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HbhdZwD.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/voftdvh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JIUvsGb.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nEHGrI8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Xopw2eT.jpg)
Russell Crowe looks back on MOS, and spoke about how he would've liked to do a prequel show about Jor-El.
https://youtu.be/UUN3UyzN3C4?t=2245
Michael Shannon was rather honest about his thoughts about The Flash before it came out, and even revealed he asked for Snyder's blessing to appear in the film because he didn't feel comfortable about the troubles that happened between him and WB:
Quote"I'm not going to lie — it [The Flash] wasn't quite satisfying for me, as an actor. These multiverse movies are like somebody playing with action figures," Shannon said. "It's like, 'Here's this person. Here's that person. And they're fighting!' It's not quite the in-depth character study situation that I honestly felt 'Man of Steel' was."
"I was hesitant [to come back] because I wasn't really happy about what happened to Zack Snyder in that whole deal," said Shannon. "I talked to ['The Flash' director] Andy Muschietti about it, and I said, 'Andy, look — I just want to get Zack's blessing on this because it just doesn't feel right without that.' And Zack, to his credit, was very understanding. He gave me his blessing, and I went to do it."
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/michael-shannon-the-flash-general-zod-wasnt-quite-satifsying-1235639997/
Nolan went on record saying the "You are my son" scene was his favourite film moment by Snyder.
QuoteThe moment in Man of Steel where Kevin Costner tells young Clark that whatever his origin, he's still his son puts a lump in my throat every time. Zack is best known for his facility with iconic image making, but his casting instincts are second to none.
https://view.email.hollywoodreporter.com/?qs=97b3ca3cc46d7695aaded2d29face4a98114f9a3565e5cda65268f401ccf1d1e9948eb859fd7b580a2e2e2a6bedd70308ffb221b3316d509668506b1f77ad1043b616a76e12e9d10
He may not get the casting 100% right all the time, but Snyder gets it more right than wrong, and Costner nailed the part as an emotional Jonathan Kent wanting to comfort his adopted son and teach him the weight of the consequences his decisions will cause.
Nolan continues to praise Snyder:
Quote"There's no superhero science-fiction film coming out these days where I don't see some influence of Zack," Nolan said. "When you watch a Zack Snyder film, you see and feel his love for the potential of cinema. The potential of it to be fantastical, to be heightened in its reality, but to move you and to excite you."
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/christopher-nolan-zack-snyder-influence-superhero-movies-1235850715/
Aside from Eternals, I remember GOTG Vol. 2 had Kurt Russell's Ego looking like he was dressed to resemble Russell Crowe's Jor-El, and some glyph animation of Ego's plans looked very similar to the glyph 3D animation of Jor-El showing Krypton's history to Clark in MOS.
Not too surprised about Nolan's endorsement, he was the reason why Snyder got the job to direct MOS in the first place. This is taken from the official MOS artbook:
(https://i.imgur.com/KHF3lDi.jpg)
I can't remember if anyone has posted these before, but here is a collection of photos of Henry Cavill posing in a prototype Superman suit.
https://dailyplanetdc.com/2022/10/07/new-photos-show-henry-cavill-as-superman-on-the-set-of-2013s-man-of-steel/
(https://i0.wp.com/dailyplanetdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/IMG_7649-1.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/dailyplanetdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/IMG_7650-1.jpg)
I've never seen those, that's actually really cool. I dunno, I may like that design a little more?
Thanks for the share. Very cool! 8)