All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - Part 81

Status
Not open for further replies.
great stuff! Glad there were water works, I want to be reduced to a blubbering wreck by parts of this film, my friends know I love this character so they won't rip me too hard :p

Dude, you will be. I never saw it coming. Well, I mean I did see it coming but the way it hits you, I personally thought it was extremely well done.
 
Dude, you will be. I never saw it coming. Well, I mean I did see it coming but the way it hits you, I personally thought it was extremely well done.

Someone should compile a fresh/rotten score for SHHers. It seems like it's very fresh, maybe 80 percent of you guys have liked it so far.
 
If you love Superman, you'll love this.

Anyone else felt just as excited anticipating Daily Planet Clark to show up? That's something I never thought I would say or feel in a Superman movie haha.
 
If you love Superman, you'll love this.

Anyone else felt just as excited anticipating Daily Planet Clark to show up? That's something I never thought I would say or feel in a Superman movie haha.

If they tease that in this movie, it's going to make me very angry the sequel isn't starting directly after

Just like the Joker card in BB.
 
People like TF because they simply get what they want. NOT what the critics tell them they are supposed to want.

The question then becomes, what does the GA want from Superman...
It pretty much goes without saying that if you like a movie you got what you wanted. It's not just critics that dislike those though.

I don't really get the statement about that critics supposedly tell others what they are supposed to want though. When I'm reading these boards I'd say that the die hard fans are coming across as far more arrogant than the critics, claiming that the critics are wrong (despite that it's an opinion) about the movie (that most of those fans haven't even seen). Still those fans act like it's the critics that are the biased ones.

As for the GA I think it varies, but seeing how there's lots of over the top action in it (what I've heard, I haven't seen it) I think it has good chances regardless of how the character building is received. If the latter is seen as good it will be even better.
 
There's no 'I told you so'. I've been impossibly hyped for this film. It's just the critics consensus is that just like Snyder's other films, style over substance, spending too much on CGI fighting. I know the 'who cares what the critics think', 'judge it for yourself', 'wait for the GA to judge'. The truth is if half the critics agree on this. The GA flock to the F&F, Twilight and Transformers movies. It says nothing of the quality of those films.

My argument has always simply been this. Great Superman stories don't always have him punching somebody. S:TM, For All Seasons, Peace on Earth. Superman is to me more about rescuing people than smashing someone's face in. I still love a good fight. But the emotional core is the most important thing to any film first.


What you say is true... but the less action packed, thoughtful, emotion filled stories work better in smaller formats I'd say, comics, animated etc. Fans follow these more than the GA and and know what to expect and bring their "backstory" with them so less is needed to satisfy I think. They can afford to tell a less energetic story because they know they get to come back and tell another and another and weave the life story with many episodes.

In a BIG feature, people Expect more. Example:
You got this guy that you know has incredible powers, but the story is about using them responsibly or hiding them so you never see him use them to his full capabilities,... you are disappointed.

A film is a "moment" out of life. Blockbusters must choose the BIG moments to show off...they only have one shot (theoretically) to grab you.

Sure, most of Superman's life is probably dull, like everyone elses, assuming he is not saving every cat from a tree. I would assume he saves his attention on the big problems the humans can't handle themselves. He must allow humans to do their thing too. He can't let us be so dependent on him that we forget how to help ourselves etc.

So for maybe 300+ days a year he is simply Clark and nothing much happens.

Sure, he lives, interacts and exchanges with the world but in a subtle way, gently teaching the world thru example of how to live a good helpful life thru sacrifice for others,... but that is'nt very exciting to watch or pay $15 for - so they try to mix the soul in small amounts around the action and punching.

The balance of these ingredients is what makes one film better than the next...IMO
 
I thought having Clark [BLACKOUT]hitch a ride on a LexCorp truck[/BLACKOUT] home to the farm was hilarious.
 
There's no 'I told you so'. I've been impossibly hyped for this film. It's just the critics consensus is that just like Snyder's other films, style over substance, spending too much on CGI fighting. I know the 'who cares what the critics think', 'judge it for yourself', 'wait for the GA to judge'. The truth is if half the critics agree on this. The GA flock to the F&F, Twilight and Transformers movies. It says nothing of the quality of those films.

My argument has always simply been this. Great Superman stories don't always have him punching somebody. S:TM, For All Seasons, Peace on Earth. Superman is to me more about rescuing people than smashing someone's face in. I still love a good fight. But the emotional core is the most important thing to any film first.
But, we've never seen superman punching anyone like this. Its the first time.
we got all story and very little action with the last film and the public didnt take to it.:O
 
Mjölnir;26092875 said:
It pretty much goes without saying that if you like a movie you got what you wanted. It's not just critics that dislike those though.
Considering the scale of consistent money, I would think anyone that didn't like it stopped going after the first film, but more and more people just keep going back. Unless you are coming off of StarWars that doesn't(hasn't) happen.

I don't really get the statement about that critics supposedly tell others what they are supposed to want though. When I'm reading these boards I'd say that the die hard fans are coming across as far more arrogant than the critics, claiming that the critics are wrong (despite that it's an opinion) about the movie (that most of those fans haven't even seen). Still those fans act like it's the critics that are the biased ones.
It's simple, I like a film like Blade for(random) example, I get a bunch of critics saying I don't because it doesn't have enough substance. We all look for different things in our art and entertainment. However there is group of opinions that can be measured as the standard of measure of how successful a film is. Sorry, that time I didn't go for substance, yet it get's low scores on substance. no beuno.

As for the GA I think it varies, but seeing how there's lots of over the top action in it (what I've heard, I haven't seen it) I think it has good chances regardless of how the character building is received. If the latter is seen as good it will be even better.
agreed
 
I was trying to be calm about these reviews and just staying out of this whole mess in the first place and then I had the bone headed idea to read David Poland's review of the film and the comment sections and that dreaded word came up all through out the comments section..."fun".

I need a definition of what fun has to mean in cinema. I really do because I just don't get it. Maybe I'm deranged or something but I can watch a film like Aronofosky's Requiem for a Dream, which is a masterpiece by the way, and think about it's themes and whatnot at play during the film and yet...I think it's a fun film to watch, in terms of how Aronofsky put that thing together. That's my idea of fun in cinema.

Am I deranged? Please tell me what fun is in cinema and what fun is in this genre?

The Dark Knight Rises was fun for me...
 
souperman no you're definitely right. Films should definitely utilize the visual medium and go big. I'd love to see a big sequence in space where a space station is falling to Earth (similar to Superman Unchained #1 today).

Just stuff like that. There's no limit to the massive scale you can do with a Superman film. As long as it's balanced out. Characters and drama are what makes films. SR featured a truly great superhero scene where he saves the plane. But the film didn't work because all of the characters just felt 'off'. And we just didn't care for them.
 
I was trying to be calm about these reviews and just staying out of this whole mess in the first place and then I had the bone headed idea to read David Poland's review of the film and the comment sections and that dreaded word came up all through out the comments section..."fun".

I need a definition of what fun has to mean in cinema. I really do because I just don't get it. Maybe I'm deranged or something but I can watch a film like Aronofosky's Requiem for a Dream, which is a masterpiece by the way, and think about it's themes and whatnot at play during the film and yet...I think it's a fun film to watch, in terms of how Aronofsky put that thing together. That's my idea of fun in cinema.

Am I deranged? Please tell me what fun is in cinema and what fun is in this genre?

The Dark Knight Rises was fun for me...

The best I can say, and the only thing I can say is "Watch the movie". I know I had fun watching it yesterday, and the people I spoke to after the movie definitely had fun.
 
I was trying to be calm about these reviews and just staying out of this whole mess in the first place and then I had the bone headed idea to read David Poland's review of the film and the comment sections and that dreaded word came up all through out the comments section..."fun".

I need a definition of what fun has to mean in cinema. I really do because I just don't get it. Maybe I'm deranged or something but I can watch a film like Aronofosky's Requiem for a Dream, which is a masterpiece by the way, and think about it's themes and whatnot at play during the film and yet...I think it's a fun film to watch, in terms of how Aronofsky put that thing together. That's my idea of fun in cinema.

Am I deranged? Please tell me what fun is in cinema and what fun is in this genre?

The Dark Knight Rises was fun for me...
Whoa you though Requiem for a Dream was 'fun' to watch. I agree that it very well may be a masterpiece, but it's one I never much want to see again. ;)

But yeah. I think MOS will be fun in the same way TDKR was.
 
But, we've never seen superman punching anyone like this. Its the first time.
we got all story and very little action with the last film and the public didnt take to it.:O

It would be different it we got "all story" I mean there are drama's out there with nothing but drama and no action. But that wasn't want I got from that film. Unlike Reeve, the superman character didn't really seem like he was bursting with personality and opinions. I remember in STM, Reeve stood in front of luthor and made his opinions known. In Returns it was like watching a cosplay kid getting lectured. Kent wasn't just a fixture at the Planet in STM like he was in Returns.
Not to mention where the film starts in STM, form krypton to the farm and all that texture in between...in Returns it was nothing but routh walking around the barn in SILENCE, then metropolis and the meat of the plot being Lois and her going nowhere romance intercut with Luthor doing silly things. I would love for that film to be a shining example of story of action but to me it was just a pale imitation of a superior but dated film.

I thought it was odd that one MoS review said they were missing that superman fly's lois around the city at night. Really again? Cause it fails as a Superman film without some institutionalized check list being met. Not saying this is the basis of all the reviews I've seen but it's in some. Which sucks imo.
 
I'm taking 5 friends to it. I booked all the tickets, they're each paying me £20 for each ticket, and I'm not worried one bit. Bring it on ;)

£20 :wow::wow::wow:

Where the hell are you going? Mine was £10.50 in IMAX 3D (that is £ not $)
 
I still won't be able to see this movie until tomorrow afternoon!

This media blackout i have been putting myself through has been torture, but waiting another 24 hours to see MOS is turning out to be just as torturous. Time to leave the Hype for a little while, just until I watch the movie. Returning to media blackout.

Tomorrow around 3:00pm, my dear friends, I shall join you in the sun...
 
Its $20.50 here in NYC at midnight IMAX 3-D.

Rip-off but ill make a exception this one time
 
Over here it's $15 for IMAX 3D. (the real deal)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,092,086
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"