Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Man of Steel' started by Thread Manager, Jun 18, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]459963[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]459883[/split]
Better ? Idk
I would give mos a 75/100
3.5 stars out of 5
Batman Begins: 7.9
Man of Steel: 7.4
I'd be OK with BB rounding up to an 8, but it's different for MOS. The pacing, unfolding of the plot... there were problems.
IMO MOS is a better movie as a whole, I have mayor issues on BB third act, it's really messy, and i was really disappointed on how fight scenes were filmed.
I think Zacks does a more complete job on this one, and the issues where 90% character driven, meaning that some people felt they were like "out of character things" (mostly).
Remember in the Wayne Manor party, the lady comes up to introduce Ra's Al Ghul to Bruce? And then she sorta... disappears from the scene, like a bit character in a dream?
BB's riddled with little awkward things, yeah, but never to the point of dragging the movie down to me.
BTW didn't the filmmakers say something about kryptonite being a silly contrivance? And yet in this film they have a ship that has the exact same effect on Superman and for the exact same reason as kryptonite. What difference does it make if it's a rock instead of a ship?
I dunno if it was the exact same reason. I took it as Superman would have eventually adapted to the Kryptonian atmosphere over time. He wasn't exactly dying in the ship when he was strapped down, just powerless. With kryptonite however, he would get sicker and sicker and eventually die from the radiation.
True but from what they've established Kryptonite would actually make a lot of sense now. If he is weakened by the atmosphere of the planet then it doesn't seem like too much of a leap that a radioactive part of that planet would cause more harm.
Humans can also die from radioactive elements that are found on Earth so I don't see it as being so contrived.
Batman Begins definitely has it's flaws too. Katie Holmes being the main one. For two reasons horrible unconvincing acting, and just a poor addition to the Batman mythos as a whole, Bruce does not need a lost love childhood sweetheart, and the whole move seemed very studio mandated. And yeah, the 3rd act does kind of betray the entire other 2/3s of the movie by going the 'generic action movie' route. Not to mention some horrible Goyer dialogue, and some questionable 'character moments' like the 'I don't have to save you.'
It's funny 'generic action movie finale', 'poor dialogue in places', 'questionable character moments'. It sounds awfully familiar to what is being levelled at MOS. I do wonder how BB would go down with critics were it released today. It came at a time when superhero films definitely weren't at the maturity they are now, and such it seems critics were much more forgiving.
Also what's more hokey. Microwave Emitter or World Engine?
Ooooh! I missed that one
Definitely the microwave emitter!
Just came back from another showing, man it is true that the film gets even better when you see it a second time. A lot of stuff i missed the first time, the fight scenes especially benefited form sort knowing what to focus on this time.
It's weird but the film actually seemed less dark to me the 2nd time around? and it seems there were some little humorous moments here and there that were just missed the 1st time around.
On a side-note though faora stole the show.
Is it wrong that I wish we could get our sequel already?lol
hell, if I had a time machine, I'd travel into the future where I could hopefully watch the completed trilogy with Superman and with the Justice League.
Have any of you on here seen this in IMAX? I'd like to see it in that format, but I'm not sure if it would be too overwhelming during the action sequences.
Well the nature of one is other-worldly so fair game I think. Microwave Emitter was such a contrived plot-device which made no sense. Seriously it's just another comparison you can draw between the two films, and yet BB was universally hailed by critics, and MOS mixed.
I'm cautious about the sequel while it would be great to see it as soon as we can i wan't to know that it isn't a rush job and they will be really focused on its quality.
MoS was super enjoyable but it wasn't perfect and i really hope the sequel will sort of end up as the "TDK" of superman films.
Well I'm finally gonna see it for a second time this weekend, I don't like to rush into watching things again so quickly but I feel a week is enough time to go see it again. Ill rank it after I've watched it again. For me already though its better than the Dark KnightnRises but on a par with Dark Knight just under Batman Begins and Avengers which are the best modern day CBMs in my opinion.
The only comic book sequel that I saw being done right within a 2 year difference after its previous film was released was "Spider-Man 2". I hope they can have lighting strike twice in regards to making MOS 2 just as great if they were to release it in 2 years from now.
Curious, do you guys see Snyder/Goyer and Warner Bros. ever slowly transitioning the DC Franchise to following the new 52 continuity route? Or do you guys think that they'll probably just stick closely with the continuity prior to the new 52?
Nolan's Batman is a version of the character especially tailored for general audiences, so that's no surprise. He's not the physical and mental prodigy residing in the same universe as Superman and WW. He's from Nolan's finite land of "hyper-realism". That's why he retired at the end of TDKR.
Snyder's Superman, on the other hand, (even though MOS was written by Goyer) is a lot closer to the comics version in my opinion -- at least so far it is.
I just hope that when the Justice League film happens with Cavil's superman, that he doesn't take a back seat to the new version of Batman. I'm getting quite tired as it is seeing Batman always portrayed as the "better hero", more importantly, as the only hero who can't be tainted, in just about every portrayed version of the group. Superman is always shown being the one that doesn't have the brains or skills when put against Batman and he's always the one that's more likely to become evil whereas Batman cannot.
wasn't man of steel the TDK of superman films?
Batman doesn't have godlike powers, superman does, its give superman a much more grandeur view on the world then batman, and how his powers could change it if he were to get more involved.
Unfortunately no. It didn't feel like it really transcended the genre as they say with TDK and there were too many flaws here and there to put it on par with TDK which was near perfection.
I'm not sure if it's even been settled whether or not this is even the best superman film ever? I enjoyed it the most out all of them but i know others have differing opinions on that.