View Single Post
Old 01-27-2014, 05:15 AM   #86
All Mighty
Lord's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,505
Default Re: Superman TM 1978 vs Man of Steel 2013, was the world ready, what do you think?

Originally Posted by bluearth View Post
There was no story in Gravity. When I left the theater it came upon me all I had watched for the last 90 minutes was empty special effects which led to a predictable ending. Man of Steel failed at telling a taut hero origin story? Well, thats your opinion.
And the opinion of a lot of people too, and there were various problems with the pacing. And empty special effects? You must be kidding, the effects were there for a reason, the entire film was strong due to good coordination between cinematic techniques and script, it wasn't gratuitous, that is strictly a word to describe Zack Snyder's style of directing. It seems like you went to watch Gravity expecting something else, something a bit more generic i believe.

Again, there is no story in Gravity. Its a minimalist survival film, like All is Lost. Because there is no story the film had no weight to me. Sunshine (2007) was something of a survival movie in space, but its story is what gave the film weight and made every action and outcome worth something. If Sandra Bullock's character perished, what would change, what would be different, who would care? She was disposable. Thats why a story is needed. Theres a weak attempt involving
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
her child
to get you to care about whether or not she makes it, but it falls flat.
Never watched Sunshine, so i can't talk about that, but Gravity was not an empty film, it was an experience first and foremost, its plot didn't involve gratuitous moments or used film techniques that were not fitting, unlike The Man of Steel, which used shaky cam in still and quiet scenes. The film was also strongly told, without weird moments, unlike in MoS, when Clark and Lois kiss in the middle of destroyed debree and human ashes flying around.

Are we really putting all the worth of a film on the shoulder of its special effects because they felt new and different? Funny how critics are so quick to dismiss special effects in super hero or sci-fi films as mindless while refusing to credit them for improving the film, yet they praise Gravity in large part due to its special effects. Maybe they're relieved they finally got a film with special effects they could publicly praise without feeling guilty because it doesnt feature super heroes or Transformers?
You're completelly missing the point, i enjoy the action the Transformers 3 a lot, but are you actually trying to put those film on the same level as Gravity? SERIOUSLY? Does Gravity have any of those dumb dumb moments or tasteless comedy? Critics have no problem with special effects, unless they're just gratuitous and are too exagerated and make the film harder to follow for those who are older and have less attention span for those type of scenes.

Critics don't just evaluate just the special effects, they evaluate the whole structure. In Gravity they are absolutelly necessary, another director could have exagerated it even more and made it more Hollywoodish than it already was, but Alfonso was not like that, he had control. The problem is that in many of the blockbusters the critics b*** about the action is exagerated and sometimes unecessary, once again, it's gratuitous.

Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote