G.Godfrey
Sidekick
- Joined
- May 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,539
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Haha, that's actually awesome. Also because now I know I don't have to do that!Yes hahahaha![]()
t: Haha, that's actually awesome. Also because now I know I don't have to do that!Yes hahahaha![]()
t:
Sounds like character development is a consistent flaw touched upon in a lot of reviews.
He gave MU 100/100 though... so, if MU turns out that good, it'll surely dig deep into MOS's box office...
Sounds like character development is a consistent flaw touched upon in a lot of reviews.
The somewhat 'tame' reviews has kinda shifted my ridiculous hype for this film in my head as 'the movie the world needs right now', to just a really good film.
She can't be any worse than Rachel Dawes ... so that's likely a good thing.Sounds like Amy Adams' Lois is the weak link in the cast. Goyer can never get those love interests right.
Yeah it's kinda ridiculous, I don't remember backslash in 2005 for Alfred and Gordon not getting 'developed enough'.The only character who TRULY matters in this film from a development standpoint is Clark ... just as was the case in Batman Begins. People like Lois & Perry will likely get more fleshing out in a sequel.
Basing this on....what exactly? (Not saying it won't be good. No one bets against Pixar.)
I'm unsure why it's a flaw really. You can't flesh out every character, it's impossible. Ma Kent not being given a lot of development seems normal to me. I can understand the complaint with Lois Lane perhaps, but not his mom.
Yeah. Though what concerns me is that Workman liked STID more.
Yeah, I guess. It's just 3 years of hype can do that to ya. I'm settling into more level-headed expectations now. I hope it's still an 'event' film.As it should have always been really.
I wonder why he thinksis stupidJonathan's death