Originally Posted by The Batman
Um, no. I did not miss out on anything.
I love how MOS defenders constantly try to undermine STM to justify their love for MOS. Its not enough for some people to just like MOS. It really bugs some that STM is still loved more in some quarters.
First, I'm not trying to undermine SMTM, it's awesome today, and was awesome back in 1978.
Second, People are entitled to their opinions, that's the whole point of this thread. If someone likes MOS better than STM and points out bits of STM that they felt were inferior, which explains why they prefer MOS, quite frankly they're entitled to do that, and I started this thread to hear different points of view.
Strangely, nobody seems to berate those who say that they prefer STM and point out MOS' weaknesses to explain that opinion. Personally, I still think STM has one of the weakest resolutions to it's crisis point in any superhero movie, ever - but I still enjoy the movie, and have no problem with anyone who prefers it over MOS.
If you have that much of a problem with people's opinions, you shouldn't trouble yourself by reading this thread.
Third, in respect of you missing something, I suspect you have.
This is what you said:
And that is one of the reasons why this movie is not and probably wont be as well regarded as STM. You look at the kind of films being made in the 70's, and Superman stands out. As for MOS....
Again, Superman the movie stands out, because.....there were no other superhero films being made in the 1970's. As far as campy action films, there were plenty.
"Realistic" superheroes with dark color palettes? Saw that in The Dark Knight films, along with the non linear origin story.
Alien Invasions with epic fight scenes? You can See that in "The Avengers" and "Transformers".
Another brooding hero who feels isolated and is burdened with responsibility. That's basically every 21st Century Superhero.
MOS may stand out among Superman films, but in the current, competitive climate? IMO, not really. It wasn't exceptional in the same way STM was, or the way "The Dark Knight" and "The Avengers" are. But we won't ever know how successful MOS really was since Superman isnt getting a follow up solo flick.
Again, you completely undermine your own point there by stating that MOS has a whole bunch of competition, which do similar things.
STM is certainly an exceptional film, precisely because there were no other superhero films to compare it to, and it was the first appearance of Superman on screen.
Also, the "Dark Knight" analogy is a flawed one as well, Dark Knight stood out because it was a brilliantly made and acted film, but it too reflected on current trends in superhero cinema. It didn't stand out because it was doing something radically different (in fact it covered well-used ground in terms of story) and the more realistic tone of superhero films had been steadily increasing, even since the first Spider Man and Xmen films.
So saying MOS isn't exceptional because its doing things other superhero films are doing, isn't really that valid an argument.
Saying its not exceptional due to weaknesses in story, acting or execution, now that would be a fair point.
Also, I don't think your point that MOS isn't an exceptional film because it features epic fight scenes and alien invasions. Again, because epic fight scenes and alien invasions are part of the genre. Second, the alien invasion is a classic Superman story-line, (seen Superman II ?) and doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to those depicted in Avengers or Transformers.
Back to STM for a moment, and what made it exceptional.
Now I would go one further to say it was exceptional because it was a great movie, compared to other movies made at that time as a whole, in terms of its production values, its acting and because it jump started a new genre of cinema- the Super-hero film (because, again the superhero film genre didn't really exist. Okay, there was the Batman film from the late 1960's and the Saturday serials but these don't begin to compare to STM in terms of scope - in fact STM is much more serious and realistic than the 60's Batman movie, interesting how that trend continued ).
Also, there was an enthralling performance from Christopher Reeve (RIP) as the Man of Steel, so much so that no matter how rubbish the films became (Quest for Peace !) he was still great, and no one could detract from his portrayal of Krypton's last son.
STM has gone one to become, IMO, a timeless classic (even though I don't like the end) and a crtical consensus backs that up. Will MOS achieve that ? Probably not, although for me personally, it's gone into my list of favourites.
I can't really argue in favour of Avengers, because to me that was a bit of a bland film, with zero character development -great set pieces but not really that engaging. But that's just my opinion. However, I still found it tremendous fun and a good superhero film - but not destined to become a timeless classic.
I've already stated why the Dark Knight was such an exceptional film. Nolan might have taken the trend a bit further but not to
an extreme place, it was the overall package of the film, the production quality, visuals, and of course the performances (Bale as a solid Batman, and Ledger as a mesmerizing Joker) that make this film stand out.
It's not doing anything that different from other Batman films, or superhero films, but what it is doing, it does brilliantly.
So, your argument that MOS doesn't stand out the way STM did, and using a comparison with other superhero films, is a fundamentally flawed argument.
Saying STM stands out because it's objectively a great film, compared with all other films made at that time, now that has some traction, and I would agree with you there.
However, going back to comparing MOS with other current superhero films:
- In terms of heroes being burdened with responsibility or feeling isolated....well that's not just 21st century superheroes, that's part of the entire genre, since it started (Spider Man 1963, With great power comes......you know the rest).
You are correct in saying that it reflects current trends in Superhero cinema, particularly in that it adopts a darker palette and a more serious tone, and strives for an increasing sense of realism - or at least a more effective blending of fantastical and realistic elements. Perhaps it would have, stood out if it had been a musical comedy, with dance numbers?
Sorry, that was unnecessary sarcasm. Anyway, does MOS stand out from
contemporary superhero films, in bucking current trends, no -which makes sense as I suggest that 21st century audiences have different sensibilities than 1978 audiences.
But the real question, is it better than other superhero movies of today or movies today as a whole ?
If you go by the lack of critical consensus, no. (I don't put much faith in the box office myself, as I thought Iron Man 3 complete garbage compared to Avengers, yet IM 3 did nearly as well).
However, on a personal level that does come down to opinion. For me, I vastly preferred it to Avengers (which I still enjoyed) and put it on the same level as the first Iron Man, and the Dark Knight. But that's just my opinion.
At the end of the day, if you prefer STM, more power to you. I would love to hear why, not to argue about it, but because I respect the opinions of others.
However, if you're just keen to slag off people who enjoyed MOS or belittle their opinions, go start a thread for that.