View Single Post
Old 01-24-2014, 03:38 PM   #29
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
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?
Never watched All is Lost, but i can talk with you about Gravity, it was not void of story, it did what it was supposed to do and told the story in a "realistic" way, not every film has to be told in the same way, Unfortunatelly The Man of Steel failed at the way it was telling the story, while Gravity gave us something we had not seen before with a lot of intricate film techniques and a brand new experience.

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?
Better story? It was longer, but it was not better told at all, character development? Gravity was about the journey, and the little that was shown of the characters was relativelly well done and realistic (not a fan of that word, but in this case i fits). Criticism that may apply to a certain film may not apply to another by the way, it all comes down to how it is constructed, The Man of Steel is supposed to be the origin of a superhero and an alien invasion, while Gravity is about a person in a terrible situation, in an alien environment to us that was delivered in an original and ambitious way that we haven't seen much.

Look at stuff like Star Wars in the 70s, it was a simple story in a time full of films with a more complex storyline, yet it was nominated for Best film, and deservedly so, because it was something new, done in an interesting way, same as Raiders of the Lost Ark, and they were executed flawlessly. Nowadays this type of film is the bread and butter of Hollywood, so it's understandable how you would start evaluating all of them from the same standards.

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