View Single Post
Old 01-22-2014, 03:23 PM   #16
bluearth
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 258
Default Re: Superman TM 1978 vs Man of Steel 2013, was the world ready, what do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
So the fan community is the only people guilty of this? Yeah right. Ask any critic and they'll tell you Gravity and All is Lost are two of the best films of the year, even though both are void of story and offer little more then decent acting and special effects. They obviously talk up the positives of their favorites while downplaying or outright ignoring the negatives, so why cant fans of Man of Steel? Or are only critics allowed to get away with it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
How does none of that make it good? Man of Steel finally gives us the top end action the character is capable of and we've always waited for, yet that shouldnt be seen as a positive? What should be then? The story? It has a better story then critical darlings like All is Lost and Gravity. Acting? Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburn, Russel Crowe werent any good? Character development? Again I recall very minimal if any development in Gravity and All is Lost. So just where exactly does Man of Steel fall so short?

Anyways, believe me, I noticed flaws in Man of Steel. I simply choose not to dwell on them, because theres so much this film did great the negatives got crushed under the weight of the positive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism.
No, no no, your getting it wrong. The people, like myself who think Man of Steel is one of the best comic book films ever simply didnt 'like' it, we loved it. Thats why we defend it so passionately.

I remember an early critic coming out a day before its public releasing talking about how he wanted to punch the young clark Kent character in the face for being too much of a crybaby. Knee jerk criticisms can go either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist to illustrate certain points.
The first half of this paragraph conflicts with the second half. You claim critics didnt care how much Man of Steel was like Superman the Movie, and then you go on to tell us how they compared them but 'it doesnt count because they featured the same character and it was only to illustrate certain points'. Sorry, but I dont buy for one second this idea of Superman The Movie not affecting the critical response to Man of Steel. You had everything like critics saying Chrisopher Reeve repsented the blue collar American more then the 'too good looking' GQ Henry Cavill. But let me guess, the comparision was made to just illustrate a point. Even if the Donner films never existed people would still be hating on Cavill for looking too good. Right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Visualiza View Post
We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
I gave Super Man The movie credit, didnt I? It had better romance and it gave us a better idea of what people think of Superman. I know of lots of people who cant stand the Donner films anymore after watching Man of Steel. That doesnt make the first 2 Donner films bad, I still like them, the 2nd more then the first, but still I dont think there anywhere near as good as Man of Steel.

bluearth is offline   Reply With Quote