• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - Part 88

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can I just say that I am actually disappointed with the posters here who had me believe that the Zod vs Superman fight was going to be 30 minutes long. lol

I actually sat back and relaxed when the fight started so I could enjoy all of it and before I knew it it was over. Would have really liked it to have lasted 30 extra minutes. Also would have loved an extra 30 minutes of Krypton, maybe Zod's preparation to take over or some such story. I just want to see more of all that cool alien tech.

After my first viewing I gave it a 99/10 but on further thought I think I'll give it 98 out of ten because there were 2-3 shots where the camera shake was too violent for the nature of the shot. Everything else rocked. I am trying to make a case for MOS to be my No. 1 movie of all time but can it beat Kingdom of Heaven?

Chalk it up to hyperbole.
I find it funny that it actually raised your expectations. It's so tragic that some critics have a term for people like you(us), and it's not all that glamorous.
 
That film always felt like it needed Brainiac in there somewhere. :o

Ha ha it sure did, its funny cause I read Salkinds original treatment which was pretty horrible but it was on the right lines to introduce a more cosmic villain.

The one Superman script I wished had been done was the Cary Bates one with Brainiac, I think that could have been really good.
 
I demand you present it to me! :argh:












Please. :D
 
I think the whole “No emotional stakes in the final battle” thing is a bit misleading, and the complaints about it are a little bit elitist, to be honest, the more I read of them. There are several characters we care about in danger, etc, during the climax.

The Perry White/Steve Lombard/Jenny sequence alone is one of the best of its kind that I’ve seen in a superhero film. And you’d have to be heartless not to recognize the impact of the destruction of Metropolis on its people, which the movie does show, along with their terror at the event.

The main complaint about the final battle though, continues to be that Superman doesn’t seem to care, and I just don’t think people were watching the movie. Just because he doesn’t have time to go zipping off saving people, and that wasn’t the focus of the filmmakers, doesn’t mean he’s not upset about the situation. He's trying to stop it. He's trying very hard to stop it. He's not doing it for the hell of it. Some of this is just common sense, and always has been in other superhero films. There's something of a double standard being applied here in places.

A lot of people are lumping the Zod fight in with the World Engine scene, which I think is a little misleading. The actual Superman fighting Zod was fairly brief in comparison.
That whole scene together was only 25 minutes total. Zod fight had to have been around 6 minutes or less I'm guessing off of that

It’s probably honestly more like 10-15 minutes total for the “destruction of Metropolis” and “Superman VS Zod” sequences. Maybe 20 minutes.

People are being really hyperbolic about how much action there was in this movie, how long it went on, etc.

And statements that somehow Chris Nolan did a better job of stacking story and action so forth, especially in his climaxes, just doesn’t hold any water for me. As well as the idea that there’s no sense of fun in MAN OF STEEL...because...wow. Starting to think people just want to be pandered to with cheesy, hand holding dialogue (not that we didn't get some of it here). That, or there’s just some obvious Snyder/Goyer bias going on. Might well be the latter.
 
Chalk it up to hyperbole.
I find it funny that it actually raised your expectations. It's so tragic that some critics have a term for people like you(us), and it's not all that glamorous.

Well all except 1 of my top 5 movies of all time prior to MOS were rotten on RT because of the critics. So I was one who was hoping that critics would destroy MOS which would mean that I would love it :woot:

They can call me whatever they want. I'll stay down and crush a metal fence and not respond. But then I'll have the last laugh flying across the African plains :word:
 
I think the whole “No emotional stakes in the final battle” thing is a bit misleading, and the complaints about it are a little bit elitist, to be honest, the more I read of them. There are several characters we care about in danger, etc, during the climax.

Lois Lane. Only one that was developed enough for me to care about.

The Perry White/Steve Lombard/Jenny sequence alone is one of the best of its kind that I’ve seen in a superhero film. And you’d have to be heartless not to recognize the impact of the destruction of Metropolis on its people, which the movie does show, along with their terror at the event.

You mean the destruction it basically glossed over at the end by not addressing it in order to end in a faux-upbeat way?

The rescue sequence would've worked far better if I actually knew any of those characters within the confines of this film. Steve Lombard? Poked Lois a bit. Jenny? Did some product placement for Nokia. Perry White? Told off Lois a bit. Yeah, I don't really care for them. Call me heartless. I don't care for them.

The main complaint about the final battle though, continues to be that Superman doesn’t seem to care, and I just don’t think people were watching the movie. Just because he doesn’t have time to go zipping off saving people, and that wasn’t the focus of the filmmakers, doesn’t mean he’s not upset about the situation. He's trying to stop it. He's trying very hard to stop it. He's not doing it for the hell of it. Some of this is just common sense, and always has been in other superhero films. There's something of a double standard being applied here in places.

Saying he 'doesn't have time' is assuming the situation wasn't written by someone. Forcing a hero like Superman into unconventional situations just to not give him time is taking away key traits of the character. If they wanted to truly show a proactive Superman, they could've written it appropriately. They chose not and instead concentrated on disaster porn and repetitive action. They could've chosen to make a more focused film that covered all the relevant basis and established Superman as the character he's known and loved to be.


It’s probably honestly more like 10-15 minutes total for the “destruction of Metropolis” and “Superman VS Zod” sequences. Maybe 20 minutes. People are being really hyperbolic about how much action there was in this movie, how long it went on, etc.

It's around 10 minutes of Faora/Nam-Ek vs Clark and 20 minutes of the Battle of Metropolis. The latter is going from 'RELEASE THE WORLD ENGINE' till Murdergate. It felt much much longer since the emotional stakes weren't high. You can disagree if you like, but I didn't see the point of the first action sequence besides the need for it to be an action sequence. The Battle of Metropolis would've been far more effective had the city been established as a strong presence throughout. But it wasn't.

And statements that somehow Chris Nolan did a better job of stacking story and action so forth, especially in his climaxes, just doesn’t hold any water for me. As well as the idea that there’s no sense of fun in MAN OF STEEL...because...wow. Starting to think people just want to be pandered to with cheesy, hand holding dialogue (not that we didn't get some of it here). That, or there’s just some obvious Snyder/Goyer bias going on. Might well be the latter.

In my opinion, Chris Nolan does a better job of handling all the different aspects of such films. It's not bias since I think the story David Goyer came up with for the three Batman films was fantastic and Snyder's work on Watchmen and 300 was praiseworthy.

For me they didn't do as good a job here and the film excels in flashes and lets itself down in other places. As a cohesive long form film, it doesn't hold up to the Batman films, not because the character is different, but purely because the film making and storytelling on display in those films is superior.

If those two elements were consistently strong in this film, most of the flaws even would be happily dusted under the carpet. But that's my opinion.

Though the two comics alliance articles touch on similar situations and others. Most of which I thoroughly agree with.
 
Last edited:
Lois Lane. Only one that was developed enough for me to care about.

I don't really understand why this is even an issue for adults watching a movie.

Are people incapable of understanding a human being's plight without knowing them intimately?

This is the worst kind of nonsense that goes around regarding writing in my eyes. It's one thing to be concerned about your PROTAGONIST. Yes, if a protagonist is underdeveloped, that's an issue. But this is something else entirely. To say that every character in peril needs to be developed to a certain extent to feel for their predicament?

That just seems absurd to me.

You mean the destruction it basically glossed over at the end by not addressing it in order to end in a faux-upbeat way?

How can it in any way, shape or form be "glossed over" when it's very clearly shown?

There's no way to gloss it over. It's front and center, to the point where people are claiming "disaster porn". It happened. On a massive scale. Just because it's not dwelled on does not mean the film somehow minimizes it or ignores it.

The rescue sequence would've worked far better if I actually knew any of those characters within the confines of this film. Steve Lombard? Poked Lois a bit. Jenny? Did some product placement for Nokia. Perry White? Told off Lois a bit. Yeah, I don't really care for them. Call me heartless. I don't care for them.

Look, if that's all you got about Perry White's character...you didn't get Perry White's character.

And as far as you not caring for them...so?

They're movie characters. You're (one assumes) an intelligent adult who knows they're watching a movie, to the point where you're worrying about a character's writing/pacing during. Why would you actually, logically care for them anyway?

We're not kids who scream "No, don't go in there!" anymore. At least most of us aren't.

I dunno.

Saying he 'doesn't have time' is assuming the situation wasn't written by someone.

And by the same token, ignoring that it was, and that he doesn't have time, is ignoring the context of the film.

We can wax poetic all day about what could have been done, in any number of respects and various types of focuses, but in the end, you have to assess what is going on in context to a point when deciding if an existing piece of writing/action is flawed.

Forcing a hero like Superman into unconventional situations just to not give him time is taking away key traits of the character. If they wanted to truly show a proactive Superman, they could've written it appropriately. They chose not and instead concentrated on disaster porn and repetitive action. They could've chosen to make a more focused film that covered all the relevant basis and established Superman as the character he's known and loved to be.

"Written it appropriately?"

Whatever that means.

I guess it means "Written like the other Superman movies"? That's seems to be what people are implying in the scent few examples they've given.

Here's the bottom line. In fighting Zod, Superman is saving the city. You and some others just seem to want to call it "disaster porn"...I dunno, because there weren't enough scenes of...something or other in the midst of it. But there's an idea set up, and that is a very clear idea...Zod is going to destroy the city and kill people. Metropolis is terrified and panicked over this. Superman is stopping him before he can succeed.

That just seems to be LOST on people. Yes, this is a more militant Superman. By design. But let's not pretend there aren't some very key "savior" sequences in there as well.

It's around 10 minutes of Faora/Nam-Ek vs Clark and 20 minutes of the Battle of Metropolis. The latter is going from 'RELEASE THE WORLD ENGINE' till Murdergate. It felt much much longer since the emotional stakes weren't high. You can disagree if you like, but I didn't see the point of the first action sequence besides the need for it to be an action sequence. The Battle of Metropolis would've been far more effective had the city been established as a strong presence throughout. But it wasn't.

Yeah, it probably would have been a bit more effective if Metropolis had a stronger presence. I won't argue that. But to suggest that it has no impact whatsoever would be a bit much.

In my opinion, Chris Nolan does a better job of handling all the different aspects of such films. It's not bias since I think the story David Goyer came up with for the three Batman films was fantastic and Snyder's work on Watchmen and 300 was praiseworthy.

For me they didn't do as good a job here and the film excels in flashes and lets itself down in other places. As a cohesive long form film, it doesn't hold up to the Batman films, not because the character is different, but purely because the film making and storytelling on display in those films is superior.

This sounds kind of vague to me. In what sense? Specifically, what kinds of things are you missing from this movie that you like so much about Nolan's approach to his films?
 
Is it me or did this place get boring? I miss anticipating the movie lol.
 
Something I thought about today. The criticism of this Superman in MOS and all the damage/lack of caring etc and comparing him to older incarnations. Even by critics in their reviews.

Yet, I seem to remember in Superman 2 that he gave up his powers to be with a woman. He virtually stuck two fingers up to the whole reason he was sent to Earth to be with Lois, for his own selfish reasons. He decided not to help anymore because he wanted Lois.

Now, I know which version of the character I would rather pin my hopes on. And it isn't the one in the red undies.
 
People are being really hyperbolic about how much action there was in this movie, how long it went on, etc.

One of the things that struck me when the movie was finished. I'd read post after post on here and in reviews around the web from people who had advanced screenings and criticized the over-abundant action.

My response: "Movie had action. But too much? How?"

MoS made me more critical of the critics. Professional and layman alike.
 
Too much criticism can be a bad thing. So here is an attempt at levity :)
Superman2_zps20d5de86.jpg


Is not quite finished yet, but I am working hard on the textures. Haven't been able to get a good man of steel texture for the suit yet
 
One of the things that struck me when the movie was finished. I'd read post after post on here and in reviews around the web from people who had advanced screenings and criticized the over-abundant action.

My response: "Movie had action. But too much? How?"

MoS made me more critical of the critics. Professional and layman alike.

The time of the critic is over. Their opinions are no more valid then any of ours. Actually, scrub that. Going by some people on here I value my dogs options more.

Anyway, in the past a critic was all you had to go on. Now there is much more you can go on.
 
Saw Man of Steel again today for the 2nd time and man it was so much better. All the little criticism I had before kinda went away.
 
‘Man Of Steel’ Speeds To $345.6M Worldwide

http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-speeds-to-345-6m-worldwide-box-office-in-first-9-days/

The Superman reboot is a super-hit internationally. Warner Bros‘ Man Of Steel co-financed by Legendary Pictures pulled in strong numbers on Friday, grossing $19.7M from 52 markets now in release. This brings the overseas cume to date to $135.6M. With a domestic cume reaching $210M as of Friday, that makes for a worldwide total of $345.6M in just 9 days of release. Last weekend, Man Of Steel ranked #1 everywhere with a gross of $71.6M from 24 overseas markets in release and a speeding worldwide cume of $196.7M in its first 4 days. The Christopher Nolan-Zack Snyder-David S. Goyer-Henry Cavill pic has 27 more markets opening this weekend, including the major countries France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia and China. Asia has been very strong so China opened as expected Thursday with Superman taking almost 80% marketshare. The preliminary gross was $5,886,285 for 899,027 admissions on approximately 5,500 digital 3D screens and 109 Imax Screens and 22 ‘China Giant Screen’ screens. This is the 2nd highest opening day for Warner Brothers in China, behind only the final Harry Potter film. The estimated Friday figure for China is another outstanding $5.9M with a 2-day total now of $11.7M. In other markets, Spain grosses $1.5M (almost as much as Iron Man 3, Russia came in with a new cume of $3.15M, France placed #1 with a new cume of $4.2M, Germany also ranked a strong #1 with a new fresh of $1.9M, and Italy continues to rank #1 with a new cume of $1.1M. Australia opens on June 27, Brazil July 12, and Japan August 30.
 
I don't really understand why this is even an issue for adults watching a movie.

Are people incapable of understanding a human being's plight without knowing them intimately?

This is the worst kind of nonsense that goes around regarding writing in my eyes. It's one thing to be concerned about your PROTAGONIST. Yes, if a protagonist is underdeveloped, that's an issue. But this is something else entirely. To say that every character in peril needs to be developed to a certain extent to feel for their predicament?

That just seems absurd to me.

Look, if that's all you got about Perry White's character...you didn't get Perry White's character.

Perry/Steve/Jenny were poorly developed. Then, they're put in a blatant situation that supposedly showcases the human tragedy during this apocalyptic sitution. But as the faces of this, they're not well developed, so I don't give a ****. They have no place in any sub plot, they have no bearing on the fate of any of the main characters and are generally just there because two of them exist in the comic books. They're glorified name dropping.

Yes, Perry acts as the moral compass for Lois Lane, but let's be honest, she didn't need that. She was a good person anyway. He was just there to spout the 'what would the world do if there was such an alien amongst us?' question to the audience. But the awful truth is that such a question is impossible to answer. And worst still, the film itself doesn't answer it because it doesn't hold a proverbial mic to the world and ask that question. So why bother throwing the dialogue in? Because it's deep!

How can it in any way, shape or form be "glossed over" when it's very clearly shown?

There's no way to gloss it over. It's front and center, to the point where people are claiming "disaster porn". It happened. On a massive scale. Just because it's not dwelled on does not mean the film somehow minimizes it or ignores it.

You're either intentional being stupid about what I said or missing the point. The point is after Zod dies, we cut to Clark throwing a drone at a General's feet with a smile on his face and then talking to his mother about the wonderful adventure he just had. Clark then gets a job at the Daily Planet. The Daily Planet where three folks were supposed to be in mortal danger but seem absolutely happy now. No looking into the aftermath and no consideration of even what's happened.

It puts it front and center for the spectacle and then throws it away. Why? You tell me! Was it because it served its spectacular blockbuster action purpose? Was it because the filmmakers were trying to show them all moving on? You tell me! Actually don't. We'll disagree anyway.

And as far as you not caring for them...so?

They're movie characters. You're (one assumes) an intelligent adult who knows they're watching a movie, to the point where you're worrying about a character's writing/pacing during. Why would you actually, logically care for them anyway?

So hold on. You're one minute telling me to feel the plight of the characters and then you're pulling out the 'they're movie characters' card? Just don't. I would logically care for these characters because that's what I do. I go into a cinema, I watch a film and I invest the two or three hours into watching the characters play out this life and hope to hell it all works out for them. I care for them. If you don't, that's your issue. I do. And if I don't, I ask myself why.

We can wax poetic all day about what could have been done, in any number of respects and various types of focuses, but in the end, you have to assess what is going on in context to a point when deciding if an existing piece of writing/action is flawed.

Forcing a hero like Superman into unconventional situations just to not give him time is taking away key traits of the character. If they wanted to truly show a proactive Superman, they could've written it appropriately. They chose not and instead concentrated on disaster porn and repetitive action. They could've chosen to make a more focused film that covered all the relevant basis and established Superman as the character he's known and loved to be.
"Written it appropriately?"

I guess it means "Written like the other Superman movies"? That's seems to be what people are implying in the scent few examples they've given.

Look, whether you want to acknowledge to it or not, there's writers behind this. It's not a documentary. As a result the film can be written to address different facets of a character or subject to ensure the most serviceable rendition. In my eyes, and this maybe only in my eyes, this film intentionally decided to put Clark in such a situation and specifically so in his early days. So that it would be interesting to see what organic developments such a scenario would yield.

And that's fine. But here's the problem. Despite desiring this, the majority of the film felt contrived to a point that the situations did not develop organically. Instead certain mandates and sequences were shoehorned in. Particularly regarding action. As a result, the feel they were going for became less and less authentic or realistic as they went along. It strayed into generic blockbuster territory and descended from a potentially great film with flaws to an okay film with major flaws.

Why? Because to me if a film is truly great, I'll forgive the occasional weird bits. But if the film as a finished product suffers from major problems, then those flaws become more visible. It's really not hard to understand.

Here's the bottom line. In fighting Zod, Superman is saving the city. You and some others just seem to want to call it "disaster porn"...I dunno, because there weren't enough scenes of...something or other in the midst of it. But there's an idea set up, and that is a very clear idea...Zod is going to destroy the city and kill people. Metropolis is terrified and panicked over this. Superman is stopping him before he can succeed.

That just seems to be LOST on people. Yes, this is a more militant Superman. By design. But let's not pretend there aren't some very key "savior" sequences in there as well.

I don't disagree that Superman is saving the world. But the truth is it's a broad stroke. It's the world. It's not the people. The people have no identity. The world has no identity. Look at Chris Nolan's Gotham. It has an identity. More so, you know people in that city. Good or bad. Not just in the final film but even the first one. It builds the city as something worth saving despite its flaws. Here the world is given as a granted of 'come on, he's saving the world'.

So? I want to go into a film and root for the good guy and feel good when he saves people and like the people he's saving too. Here? Meh. That's the word. Sure, he should save them, but it's just because he has to. He has no other choice. The entire film talks about choice but the truth is Clark is just put in situations where he has to do stuff. That's not a glowing endorsement for choice but a force fed implication of having a 'destiny'.

You spoke about me wanting this film to be written like the other Superman films. So? Superman Returns had a lot of things going for it and a lot of things going against it. But it definitely got the actual actions of Superman right. He protected the world and saved it to when needed. It was the other bits it got wrong. The other two got almost all of it right within the context of the times they were made in.

I have no doubt that if Richard Donner were to have made Superman films in this time, he'd have made two fantastic movies all over again. But that's a discussion that can go on forever. You and I see the film differently. That's fine. But I'll say this in the nicest way possible. Stop condescending. I saw what I saw and I didn't like it. You saw what you saw and liked it. Fine. Just stop implying that everyone who disliked the film or has criticisms of the film are idiots who don't get it.

For me, the film's the ultimate experience in heavy handedness. From its philosophy, to its drama, to its action. It's all over the top and broad strokes whilst ignoring the innate details of what makes Superman and his world tick. It tries to undo that all and create this world that's bleak and deals more with enduring through the worst of times than aspiring for the best of times. And that's even though Jor-El talks about reaching for the sun and accomplishing wonders. Superman and the values behind the character is standing up for the weak and making the world a better place. He didn't do that here. Why? Because the filmmakers wanted to showcase a destruction scenario where Superman's forced to make difficult decisions. That's fine.

But the irony is that every decision he makes is foreshadowed by someone or the other and made by someone or the other. Jonathan Kent tells him he has to make a decision one day to stand proud in front of the world but needs to hide till then. So he does exactly that. Worse still, he keeps doing it long after his father dies. Sixteen years to be precise. Then he bumps into Jor-El. He tells him to go save people and be the guy who to lead them into the Sun. He puts on a suit and goes flying. But before he can or can't do that, trouble comes calling. So that mission's put on hold. But regardless, he's told that the time is right. He doesn't decide for himself. He just gets told. Then the priest tells him to take a leap of faith. So he does. Then he goes and 'saves' the world by punching everything. Then he faces off Zod at the end who says 'you'll have to kill me to stop me'. So he does.

I'm not being funny, but for a hero who's strength is in an infallible moral code, compassion and in the sense of what's right, he has to be told an awful lot of what to do and not to do. Worse still, I'm not entirely sure that if such a character existed, that I'd trust him. He's the least decisive and mature person around. He has to get told everything. Do this. Do that. Don't do this. Don't do that. Bleh. He's not Superman. He's a manchild in a suit who then at the end of the film, gets a job.

At its best, it's a coming of age film with alien as the protagonist. At its worst, it's a clunking action adventure that ignores the sense of unbridled joy of seeing a man fly and focuses on the bleak nature of disaster striking a planet. A planet that only fell into dangers because of said alien. Good job.

This sounds kind of vague to me. In what sense? Specifically, what kinds of things are you missing from this movie that you like so much about Nolan's approach to his films?

I actually enjoyed watching them. Even when I had sky high expectations. The characters weren't bastardized to satisfy a 'modern audience' and weren't 'revamped' to make anything 'cool' again. They were great films that grounded themselves in realism without then mocking themselves by creating outlandish and illogical situations that stretch and change the character. They were great. This wasn't.

It's 4:30 here. I haven't proof read this. There maybe typos or random bits where sentences don't complete.
 
Last edited:
So MoS is opening in 27 countries this weekend? Nice, cant wait to see the figure boost from that.
 
One of the things that struck me when the movie was finished. I'd read post after post on here and in reviews around the web from people who had advanced screenings and criticized the over-abundant action.

My response: "Movie had action. But too much? How?"

MoS made me more critical of the critics. Professional and layman alike.

Like you and many others, and my friend with whom I watched the 2nd viewing with. We were all like "lolwut, so much action? Talk about hyperbole." I'll admit, the first time my heart was actually pounding with how amazing the action was. At the 2nd viewing, I thought to myself "wow, the amount of action was fine."

The critics' comments pertaining to action were definitely overblown and hyperbolic.
 
went to see the movie today and LOVED IT :D :D Holy Zod was this movie great !!! loved the pace loved the characters, Cavill was awesome, Zod was great, Faora was hot( i live in germany but i dont think Antje did the german dub for Faora) the 3D looked good, i hate 3D but it looked good and the Action on a big screen... WOW WOW WOW !!! i was so sad the fight was over. I wanted even more. Couldnt get enough and the music. The whole theater was shaking from the bass when Superman was flying up the World engine. Hans Zimmer is a music god.



looking forward to the blu ray now . Want to see as much behind the scenes stuff as possible.

and i`m happy to be part of the current $345M. Worldwide :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"