|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 18, 2013 5:39:27 GMT -5
I saw it, and while I didn't come out of it as frustrated as with Star Trek, you're right, there was something off.
For me, there was too much deconstruction of the origin story. In a way, too much Batman in my Superman. They haven't grasped exactly what the character represents. It also seemed odd to me to have a planetary threat this early when Superman is primarily an American hero (and more specifically, Metropolis' hero).
I'm soooo tired of the "reluctant hero" cliche. I don't think it's outdated for good people to want to do the right thing and aspire to heroics. A bit too much Last Temptation of Christ for me.
And I could have done without the blue grading on everything. I didn't mind that it was handheld, but it was just too shaky. It's possible to shoot handheld without bouncing around in every shot!
The flying sequences were the best since Superman II. In Superman Returns they were obviously CG and felt like it most of the time. But they were handled very well and believably here. With one exception, I never felt like the effects were obviously CG. The movie did start to get into Transformers territory with all the destruction toward the end though.
And I remain confused about just what exactly Zod wanted.
Is it too much to ask for the title of the movie to be at the start of the movie? I grow weary of this Christopher Nolan thing of putting it at the end.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 18, 2013 8:27:19 GMT -5
Saw the movie last night, and time to write out the thoughts...
SPOILERS...
It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. It was just ok.
I thought it was at least better than Superman Returns since Superman wasn't such a wuss.
But I still came away feeling that the writers just didn't get it. It was off.
Last movie, they character assassinated Superman. This time around, they character assassinated Jonathan Kent.
Yes, he was still a good man, but this was not the man that could raise Superman.
Jonathan Kent wouldn't raise his son to hide out of fear. And NO WAY would Jonathan Kent teach his son to let people die when he could save them. That was by far the weakest part of the movie for me.
The worst part of that was Kevin Costner is a very good casting choice.
I felt that the writers just didn't get what makes Superman so awesome. It's not just his raw power.
It's his morality and what he does with it.
Maybe missing the iconic music hurt the movie. I wonder how those fight scenes might have looked if they were scored with that music.
Even Superman's face wasn't right. He was stoic. Dark. He didn't project the warmth that Superman is supposed to project.
I watched that battle, taking place in Metropolis, and essentially, the whole time I was thinking of the financial cost of rebuilding that city, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives that had to have been lost in that throw down.
Not sure the writers even gave consideration to that. Superman would.
It wasn't just about cool effects, which this movie had.
The battle that seemed the best for me was the first confrontation with Zod, when Superman was protecting his mother.
It kind of gets back to Jonathan Kent, who basically even allowed his own senseless death for no reason.
I didn't like that Lois essentially discovered Superman by walking up to Clark's door.
That pretty much kills the whole love triangle thing.
Superman's debut in the original movie--with Superman saving Lois from the helicopter, is chilling every time I see it. From the classic, "you got me, who's got you" line to this random unseen lady saying, "I don't believe it. He got her," to the music, you had to smile.
Not everything is about special effects.
Superman won the hearts and minds of the people instantly and that's the way it should be.
The destruction of Krypton? Two things I had issue with--first, I didn't like that it was the Kryptonians themselves that caused the core of their planet to deplete. That was just dumb. A people that advanced would not put themselves in that kind of danger. And with that kind of notice, there's no way they would simply throw their hands up and say, "screw it, we're all dead."
Second, I hated that Zod killed Jor-El. I enjoyed everything we saw about Jor-El up until that point. But Jor-El is supposed to die with Lara, hand in hand. This way, his death was senseless.
I did like the way they stored his consciousness. I hope that if there is a sequel, they can recover that key again.
It really sucked that they had Superman kill Zod. Zod totally deserved it. Superman did not murder him. It was a justifiable homicide, and he saved that family.
But that is so not Superman. The writers should have found a way to send Zod to the Phantom Zone, or depower him like in Superman II. That's what Superman does. He doesn't just save the day. He does it without killing, even when killing is easier and justified.
In the next one, if they reuse this cast, they should get a new writer, and a new director. Get someone who gets the character for what he was, because what he was is what will work. The idea that audiences today won't accept Superman is garbage. They haven't seen him. There is no evidence of that. They haven't done the character justice since 1980.
I realize these characters are super fast, but they should slow down the fight so the audience could appreciate it.
Compare the fights in this movie to Superman II.
Yes, the 1980 fight could have been better. And yes, visually, Man of Steel wreaked havoc and was much more high budget.
But after all Zod had done in Superman II, that first scene when the newspaper blows away, and they change that music and you see Superman flying, to when he simply says, "General, would you care to step outside," it's chilling.
THAT is writing.
THAT is Superman.
And to top that off, you have the people of Metropolis cheering Superman on, as if they were the movie audience themselves. Having a citizen say, "man this is going to be good?" BRILLIANT.
The cartoons have been good. Maybe get THOSE guys to write the script. Give him more heart. Get me Jimmy Olsen. Let's see Superman do some things to win over the hearts of the people, and the audience. THEN give him a bad guy that he can fight.
So much potential in this character. I'm sick of Hollywood writing this character wrong, and then blaming the audience for not being into Superman. It's not the character. It's the writers.
It was a decent movie, better than the last one, but something was missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 18, 2013 11:31:02 GMT -5
So...did anyone see Man of Steel yet?
I may not get to see it until it hits home video though, which sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 18, 2013 13:36:43 GMT -5
At best, see a matinee so it's cheaper.
It could have been better.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 18, 2013 21:44:35 GMT -5
SPOILERS... But I still came away feeling that the writers just didn't get it. It was off.
Last movie, they character assassinated Superman. This time around, they character assassinated Jonathan Kent. The worst part of that was Kevin Costner is a very good casting choice. Maybe missing the iconic music hurt the movie. I wonder how those fight scenes might have looked if they were scored with that music. I watched that battle, taking place in Metropolis, and essentially, the whole time I was thinking of the financial cost of rebuilding that city, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives that had to have been lost in that throw down. I didn't like that Lois essentially discovered Superman by walking up to Clark's door.
It actually bothered me more the way she kissed him and then he kissed her back. They don't have a history yet. It seemed forced and wrong to me.The destruction of Krypton? Two things I had issue with--first, I didn't like that it was the Kryptonians themselves that caused the core of their planet to deplete. That was just dumb. A people that advanced would not put themselves in that kind of danger.
But thinking about the advanced society, what bothered me was Jor-El flying home on his dragon beast or whatever it was. I just don't buy that in an urban environment of technologically advanced people they would be using beasts of burden as transportation like that. I mean, when was the last time you rode a horse to work?Second, I hated that Zod killed Jor-El. I enjoyed everything we saw about Jor-El up until that point. But Jor-El is supposed to die with Lara, hand in hand. This way, his death was senseless. It really sucked that they had Superman kill Zod. Zod totally deserved it. Superman did not murder him. It was a justifiable homicide, and he saved that family. But that is so not Superman. The writers should have found a way to send Zod to the Phantom Zone, or depower him like in Superman II. That's what Superman does. He doesn't just save the day. He does it without killing, even when killing is easier and justified.
Funnily enough I was just reading today that in the script it called for Zod to be sent back to the Phantom Zone and that it was Zack Snyder who suggested Superman just kill him.I realize these characters are super fast, but they should slow down the fight so the audience could appreciate it. The cartoons have been good. Maybe get THOSE guys to write the script.
-TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 19, 2013 7:08:27 GMT -5
Back in the day, Pete Ross was Clark's best friend. At one point, he found out that Clark was Superboy. Clark didn't even know. Pete kept the secret because he figured Clark would tell him if he wanted.
Compare Jonathan in the original movie to this version. Can you see Jonathan Kent advocating letting a school bus full of children DIE? Children of his neighbors? Children he KNEW?
Jonathan Kent?
It was a horrible character assassination. It would have been the exact opposite. Jonathan Kent would have been extremely proud of Clark for that.
Keep in mind that this is not the real world. The writers should not write Superman into this jam.
And worse was Jonathan's death. In the original movie, his death showed that Clark had limitations. As badly as he wanted to save his father, a guy who could move mountains literally, was absolutely powerless. It was a great lesson that taught Clark that even he had limits.
In this movie? Clark learns how an idiot lets himself die when it's easily preventable. Seriously--it was a dog. And why not let the invulnerable kid save the dog? Clark could have done everything Jonathan did, without breaking his leg, and then run to safety.
Clark's lesson here was not that he was powerless in certain situations. It was that if you listen to a moron, people die.
What's interesting is how much better the battle in II was. The set up was brilliant. Superman was already a hero. These 3 bad powered people come and take over the world. Where is Superman?
Finally, as all seems lost, you see the newspaper detailing the White House surrender blow away, hear the music and see Superman flying. And when he says, "General, would you care to step outside," the audience's adrenalin gets going.
When the cabbie says, "man this is going to be good," he's speaking for the audience.
Superman DID have a weakness. He did care about the people.
Someone on another board questioned how realistic it would be that the people would cheer him on. I say that's very realistic.
How would you feel if you saw an American soldier punching out bin Laden?
Superman represented the only chance to fight back. Of course people are going to stop and encourage him. I would bet anyone reading this has seen a fight at some point. We always stop and cheer.
Only when the danger gets close do you worry about taking cover and common sense prevails.
Even if they keep the cast, I hope the writing team is better next time. The only problem with Timm and Dini is that they would make a JL movie Batman centric, when it should be Superman centric.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Jun 19, 2013 8:07:23 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, how much is a matinee in NY? Here, Eastern Washington, the price was just raised to $9. 3D matinee movies are $11.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 20, 2013 10:10:23 GMT -5
If you can find a theater that actually does a matinee, it's about $8.00 now, give or take. I thought this picture was kind of funny:  Pretty accurate. In some ways, I see a parallel between this movie and Star Trek 2009. In both movies, I could see an effort, but they both made some fairly major mistakes with characterization. When I saw STID, I could see that Abrams and his team, despite the financial success, heard the criticism and incorporated the changes into their movie. The result was a much better film. Will Snyder and Nolan follow the same path? |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 21, 2013 11:41:51 GMT -5
Oh, Brother.
Over at Digital Spy:
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 22, 2013 8:15:54 GMT -5
It doesn't necessarily mean Batman VERSUS Superman.
I think that's actually kind of cliche at this point, and worse, writers are so dumb that they think Batman would actually have a shot.
I don't care if Batman is walking around in a kryptonite suit with 20 years to prepare. Superman would flick him like a booger.
The guy can move at the speed of light if not faster. Batman just couldn't react.
And Superman is not all brawn and no brains. He's a genius too.
But what will likely happen is they will meet, fight, and Batman of course will win, despite the insane notion, and then they will team up and get mutual respect in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 22, 2013 8:40:01 GMT -5
I don't care if Batman is walking around in a kryptonite suit with 20 years to prepare. Superman would flick him like a booger. Imagery I could have done without to be sure. What would make the most sense is these two guys have different views as to how to deal with a mutual adversary that's out to take over or destroy Gotham City or Metropolis (or some such thing), and so they decide to try and trip each other up with respect to their individual plans to stop and/or apprehend said villain. That could also make for some comedy regarding how they get in each other's way and try and foil the plans of each other. That way, they're at odds even though they have a similar goal and agenda despite their not agreeing on how to best deal with the situation. In the end, they can somewhat begrudgingly part as friends while not exactly liking each other all that much, but having a mutual respect for one another nonetheless. Otherwise, I can't really see how it could go over all that well because Batman really is no match for Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 22, 2013 12:11:52 GMT -5
Comedy could be done on how they find out each other's identity, which was like it was in the cartoon.
One issue is that Superman wasn't established as all that different from Batman. If anything, Superman was more violent since Batman never snapped his adversary's neck.
That said, there's no chance Batman won't know who Superman is, since LOIS figured it out before he even debuted.
Unfortunately, it does look like it will be Batman vs. Superman, which is idiotic.
|
|
