All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 23

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by The Shield

Dude... first I agree. Second... I Absolutely Freakn LOVE you Avatar!

Thanks.
I think I'll stick with it for a while.

[The Shield]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Thanks.
I think I'll stick with it for a while.

It's a gold nugget that. I just realized I've had the same one for years. All the way back to my old forum during the SR count down. lol I'm lame.

*I also just realized I've been a member here for 2 years this month... damn that was fast... and kinda of sad.

[Marvin]

I was kinda disappointed to find that it wasn't leo, and contemplated modifying it, but given that film, this just screams don.

I respect how long you've had yours. shows character lol.

[The Shield]

Originally Posted by Marvin

I was kinda disappointed to find that it wasn't leo, and contemplated modifying it, but given that film, this just screams don.

I respect how long you've had yours. shows character lol.

It's totally a capture of the character in a great movie. And Thanks lol I needed that.

[Alchemy Arcade]

I wonder which film we'll get the 2nd trailer with.

I'm kind of thinking "Jack the Giant Slayer".

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

It'll be Iron Man 3.

[747]

Originally Posted by GreenKToo

I know. the score for me is right up there with the casting and the suit design...hope its done right...
example...everyone can tell you what the theme/scores for star wars, jaws, HP, the first superman sounds like, but can they tell you what the first spiderman, x-men, or even batman begins themes sounded like??? I know I can't, not without looking them up.
I dont want a theme i'll forget in two years time..I guess I may be asking for too much as well. we shall see.

Being easy for everyone to recall, while not hearing it, isn't all that matters. Or being incredibly hummable for that matter. For example I absolutely love Zimmer tracks/compositions like Chaveliers De Sangreal, Molossus and Time, but I can't necessarily tell you exactly what they sound like. Which doesn't mean they can't affect and move me immensely when I hear them.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

The Hobbit was a fantastic film made by one of the most creative filmmakers of our day, someone who absolutely enjoys the environment, the story and filmmaking and spends literally a decade or more of his life bringing the story to us.

The Nolan trillogy completely transformed comic book movies into a respectable art form, one that can even be considered Oscar-worthy.

We're now about to receive what all accounts tell us is a majestic, even described as "poetic", take on the most beloved superhero of all time, one that even tackles what could be considered high-brow dramatic conceits.

And yet somehow people think it's all just a money grab. Well, I agree, it's a money grab. And they've figured out that the best way to make money is to make really, really, really good films.

Well, something being really, really, really good is a matter of opinion. I thought the Hobbit was average. If Hobbit wasn't a money grab they wouldn't have stretched it into three films.

The point was people think the studio is going to put all this thought and care into establishing some kind of shared universe but this is the same studio that had sets built, suits made, and actors ready to go on a JLM film which wasn't in any universe.

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Well, something being really, really, really good is a matter of opinion. I thought the Hobbit was average. If Hobbit wasn't a money grab they wouldn't have stretched it into three films.

The point was people think the studio is going to put all this thought and care into establishing some kind of shared universe but this is the same studio that had sets built, suits made, and actors ready to go on a JLM film which wasn't in any universe.

As much I hated the Hobbit (one of the most boring movie experiences of my life), I wouldn't go so far as to call it a complete money grab. I think it mostly suffered from a filmmaker who loves the source material so much that he couldn't make smart choices when adapting it to film. Books and films do not follow the same dramatic structure -- sacrifices must be made.

[DKDetective]

Originally Posted by Krumm

As much I hated the Hobbit (one of the most boring movie experiences of my life), I wouldn't go so far as to call it a complete money grab. I think it mostly suffered from a filmmaker who loves the source material so much that he couldn't make smart choices when adapting it to film. Books and films do not follow the same dramatic structure -- sacrifices must be made.

I don't know how much Jackson loves the source material because practically none of the added material is actually from the appendices or Tolkien. The movie is so horrendously unfaithful to the books. The thing I've always disliked Jackson for is that he makes changes, but not in service of the themes or spirit of the source material. Typically, the changes undermines those things. Before TDKR, Nolan typically was the opposite, his changes to story or characters arguably served the the spirit or themes of the source material.

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by DKDetective

I don't know how much Jackson loves the source material because practically none of the added material is actually from the appendices or Tolkien. The movie is so horrendously unfaithful to the books. The thing I've always disliked Jackson for is that he makes changes, but not in service of the themes or spirit of the source material. Typically, the changes undermines those things. Before TDKR, Nolan typically was the opposite, his changes to story or characters arguably served the the spirit or themes of the source material.

Well that is definitely a different situation.

I've never read the original series. I was basing that off of the reports about the added appendices.

But as you say, I agree, all changes to any source material should be in the spirit of character and theme.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by Krumm

As much I hated the Hobbit (one of the most boring movie experiences of my life), I wouldn't go so far as to call it a complete money grab. I think it mostly suffered from a filmmaker who loves the source material so much that he couldn't make smart choices when adapting it to film. Books and films do not follow the same dramatic structure -- sacrifices must be made.

Well...it's a money grab because they are spreading it into three films while it's a stretch to even widen it to two films.

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Well, something being really, really, really good is a matter of opinion. I thought the Hobbit was average. If Hobbit wasn't a money grab they wouldn't have stretched it into three films.

The point was people think the studio is going to put all this thought and care into establishing some kind of shared universe but this is the same studio that had sets built, suits made, and actors ready to go on a JLM film which wasn't in any universe.

Jackson had to beg the studio to let him do a 3rd movie. Hardly a money grab.

[Excelsior.]

The film suffered from a bad case of tonal dissonance. One minute the Wizards and the Elves are brooding over ominous portends, backed up by dark and foreboding music, the next minute you have trolls wiping their mucus on Bilbo or a Wizard with bird poop on his head sledging through the meadows of middle earth with rabbits.

It's like Jackson wanted to embellish the Hobbit with the same seriousness of LOTR, but realized some way through that the Hobbit is an inherently silly story that requires a matching tone. Then he tried to reconcile the two varying tones in the same film with questionable results. However, I feel the next two films will suffer less from this tonal problem because the story takes a darker turn once in Mirkwood. I still dread Jackson's Beorn though.

[747]

edit

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

Jackson had to beg the studio to let him do a 3rd movie. Hardly a money grab.

That's the story that is presented. Sure.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

The film suffered from a bad case of tonal dissonance. One minute the Wizards and the Elves are brooding over ominous portends, backed up by dark and foreboding music, the next minute you have trolls wiping their mucus on Bilbo or a Wizard with bird poop on his head sledging through the meadows of middle earth with rabbits.

It's like Jackson wanted to embellish the Hobbit with the same seriousness of LOTR, but realized some way through that the Hobbit is an inherently silly story that requires a matching tone. Then he tried to reconcile the two varying tones in the same film with questionable results. However, I feel the next two films will suffer less from this tonal problem because the story takes a darker turn once in Mirkwood. I still dread Jackson's Beorn though.

Very good observations.

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Well...it's a money grab because they are spreading it into three films while it's a stretch to even widen it to two films.

That's why I said it wasn't a complete money grab. Money will always be a factor but I won't go as far as to say it's the only factor.

[BH/HHH]

I didn't care for LOTR but loved the Hobbit so I'm glad they did it

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by Krumm

That's why I said it wasn't a complete money grab. Money will always be a factor but I won't go as far as to say it's the only factor.

I personally believe it is the only factor that caused them to make it into three films, it's not the only reason they made the movie. If that makes sense.

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I personally believe it is the only factor that caused them to make it into three films, it's not the only reason they made the movie. If that makes sense.

I've never read the book but everyone I know who has doesn't get how they're gonna get 3 films out of it

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

I've never read the book but everyone I know who has doesn't get how they're gonna get 3 films out of it

Yeah. It's questionable.

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

I didn't care for LOTR but loved the Hobbit so I'm glad they did it

I thought the CGI and the cinematography were excellent. I thought Freeman was fantastic.

I really thought Time Warner would put Superman on the cover of their 2013 Preview for Entertainment Weekly.

[Doc Ock]

I haven't finished reading the book yet(The Hobbit) and I don't understand how they are gonna do it. Three films for such a small book....

I will probably love the second and third installments as I loved the first. And I'm sure WB loves having a franchise.

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Yeah. It's questionable.



I thought the CGI and the cinematography were excellent. I thought Freeman was fantastic.

I really thought Time Warner would put Superman on the cover of their 2013 Preview for Entertainment Weekly.

Tbh I thought we'd had some magazine covers by now with a preview for the film

[HighFivingMF]

So, I found an account of the Man of Steel post-credits scene. I think it might be real.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Superman steadies the globe of the Daily Planet (which had fallen off during the final battle). He lands on the roof momentarily to admire the spinning sphere when he suddenly speaks, "I can hear your heartbeat from here."

In the shadows, a figure mutters "I knew you would. I've been keeping tabs on you, Clark."

"Who are you?"

"A hero, like you. Well, I was. Long ago. But it seems like a new batch of them have been popping up left and right. They have... powers. These amazing, completely unprecedented abilities. It all started with you."

"There's nobody like me."

"They haven't made themselves public like you have. Not yet. But they will, you've opened the floodgates, inspired them. Trust me."

"How can I trust you when you won't even tell me who you are?"

"I'm simply a concerned party. Trust is hard to come by, but I think I can trust you."

"I know who you are."

Emerging from the shadows (hope I don't get in trouble for posting a leaked still.)

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!: