Henry Cavill IS Superman: - - - - - Part 14

[sf2]

Honestly if I were to be objective, Thor is much better written, structured, and performed. The action and spectacle is okay but simply the vibe between actors and the drive of the story was much more consistent and pleasurable in Thor. Man Of Steel plays like a very disjointed film. Sometimes its a family drama, sometimes its an implausible sci-fi movie, sometimes it is a blow-em-up actioner. It never quite comes together. And to add to it, it has such a leaden, embalmed and self serious tone, as if it were relating the gravest story in the world.

I think the movie was well made and everything was fine but the story and screenplay were a disaster. All the same elements with a better story and screenplay would have delivered a great superhero movie.

i could say the same to Thor... Sometimes its a family drama, sometimes its an implausible sci-fi movie, sometimes it is a blow-em-up actioner. It never quite comes together. And to add to it, it has such a tv melodrama (rising the enemy's son and get betrayed, which been done to death in tv soap operas)as if it were relating the gravest story in the universe.

well, just try to make a point...

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Honestly if I were to be objective, Thor is much better written, structured, and performed. The action and spectacle is okay but simply the vibe between actors and the drive of the story was much more consistent and pleasurable in Thor. Man Of Steel plays like a very disjointed film. Sometimes its a family drama, sometimes its an implausible sci-fi movie, sometimes it is a blow-em-up actioner. It never quite comes together. And to add to it, it has such a leaden, embalmed and self serious tone, as if it were relating the gravest story in the world.

I think the movie was well made and everything was fine but the story and screenplay were a disaster. All the same elements with a better story and screenplay would have delivered a great superhero movie.

I couldn't disagree more. As a kid, I actually favored Thor comics over Superman, but I was very disappointed with the film centering on the Norse god. Thor himself came across like a buffoon (bumping into walls and what not, which wasn't funny at all in my opinion). The fight scenes were awkward and unrewarding -- especially with The Destroyer, a gross caricature of his comic book counterpart. I didn't really care for any of the character performances as well. It felt like a poorly acted would-be comedy that was incredibly rushed with only one intent: to serve as a precursor for Avengers. Now that the first Avengers is out of the way though, I expect the sequel to be much better. Bringing in the director of GOT was a smart move as well.

MOS, on the other hand, came together for me just fine, with the exception of the first transition from Krypton to Clark on a boat. In later viewings, I didn't have a problem with that particular scene transition, however -- it felt significantly less jarring. Performances from most of the cast members (like Diane Lane, Henry Cavill, Russel Crowe, and Rebecca Buller), were very much on-point for me; and of course, the sci-fi elements were brilliantly done (spectacle and all).

To each their own though.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I still can't get over how arguably for the first time we actually have a superman in live action that almost looks exactly like he stepped out of the comics.

 

[sf2]

I still can't get over how arguably for the first time we actually have a superman in live action that almost looks exactly like he stepped out of the comics.

the second time.
reeve being the first.

yup, lightning did strike twice!!! in almost 4 decades though.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I actually think the comics were redesigned to look like reeve ha.

In terms of modern supes though especially the jim lee superman which i think is the best, it's crazy how well cavill, the suit and everything really came together to capture that right out of the comic pages essence.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I actually think the comics were redesigned to look like reeve ha.

To be honest, I think only Gary Frank came close in that regard. Other incarnations of Supes in the comics don't look much like Reeve to me.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

For the longest time it wasn't that Superman looked like Reeve, but the other way around. He seemed like the Silver Age Supes come to life.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I would say Cavill and Reeve both did phenomenal jobs at depicting superman as he was represented in their respective eras.

I think that's where things went wrong with routh, where he was a modern actor trying to portray an older styled superman that wasn't particularly of the time.

 

[titansupes]

I would say Cavill and Reeve both did phenomenal jobs at depicting superman as he was represented in their respective eras.

Agreed.

 

[BlueLantern]

I would say Cavill and Reeve both did phenomenal jobs at depicting superman as he was represented in their respective eras.

As much as I admire Cavill as an actor, I don't think there was much to represent. His dialogue was restricted to the odd bit of exposition or dialogues regarding the poorly defined themes of the film. When he's actually Superman his time is spent grunting loudly and getting his fists ready for some punching.

He did whatever he could with what was given but the potential was seriously missed. At this point I'm going into the sequel assuming this film never happened and giving all the characters a shot at establishing themselves. This is the prologue that accidentally got released into theaters. Hopefully the sequel portrays Superman.

 

[titansupes]

Honestly if I were to be objective, Thor is much better written, structured, and performed. The action and spectacle is okay but simply the vibe between actors and the drive of the story was much more consistent and pleasurable in Thor. Man Of Steel plays like a very disjointed film. Sometimes its a family drama, sometimes its an implausible sci-fi movie, sometimes it is a blow-em-up actioner. It never quite comes together. And to add to it, it has such a leaden, embalmed and self serious tone, as if it were relating the gravest story in the world.

I think the movie was well made and everything was fine but the story and screenplay were a disaster. All the same elements with a better story and screenplay would have delivered a great superhero movie.

Ew, no. The first Thor was awful.

 

[Project862006]

As much as I admire Cavill as an actor, I don't think there was much to represent. His dialogue was restricted to the odd bit of exposition or dialogues regarding the poorly defined themes of the film. When he's actually Superman his time is spent grunting loudly and getting his fists ready for some punching.

He did whatever he could with what was given but the potential was seriously missed. At this point I'm going into the sequel assuming this film never happened and giving all the characters a shot at establishing themselves. This is the prologue that accidentally got released into theaters. Hopefully the sequel portrays Superman.

which made his performance all the more impressive and it is not always about dialogue

he got to act with his eyes,facial expression and subtlety and got to show anger,sadness,happiness,fear,etc. all with very little dialogue

you have to realize clark doesn't have an Alfred ,Rachael,Lucius fox,or even Ra's al Ghul he was on his own for a good majority of the movie

 

[BlueLantern]

Highlighting that phrase out of context serves your purpose but doesn't reinforce the point I made. The dialogue he had wasn't very good. So whether he did the puppy dog or angry guy look or not isn't related to the point I'm making.

 

[Visualiza]

which made his performance all the more impressive and it is not always about dialogue

he got to act with his eyes,facial expression and subtlety and got to show anger,sadness,happiness,fear,etc. all with very little dialogue

you have to realize clark doesn't have an Alfred ,Rachael,Lucius fox,or even Ra's al Ghul he was on his own for a good majority of the movie

I think you're exaggerating the extent to which Cavill had to use his eyes and facial expressions to show how Clark felt. BlueLantern hit it on the head; for the most part we only saw him balling up his fists, making stern faces, and grunting into the camera.

Otherwise, I challenge your final assertion with the fact that he had his adoptive parents, Jor El, Swanwick, Faora, the priest, and Zod to chit chat with throughout the course of the film, but the unfortunate thing is that Clark ends up being little more than a sounding board for most of these character's exposition. Not much acting you can do when you're being preached to, and that's what most of his performance amounted to.

I don't think he spoke even fifteen lines by the time he put on the suit, which I believe to be a huge lapse in judgment on the part of the filmmakers(Goyer & Snyder especially). We didn't really get to know Clark Kent or Superman based upon what was presented on the screen. Jor El very well may have had more lines than he did. Shame that in the span of over two hours, the titular character didn't have very many lines. That might work for a production like Wall-E, but it's unsat for Superman.

 

[slumcat]

Shame that in the span of over two hours, the titular character didn't have very many lines.

I noticed this as well. While I was watching the movie, I was like give the dude some lines. He was like a supporting character in his own movie. A bit like Batman in The Dark Knight. Batman was part of the ensemble but not front and center. The story was not about him but about Joker and Dent.

I think we can blame Nolan for such ensemble scripts, I don't think they work well in the superhero format. The movie's center feels misplaced and the movie a bit off balance.

Whatever you might say about Marvel films, their heroes and undoubtedly their lead characters with the most footage and most lines and the most development and exploration and drive the narrative momentum forward. Their films are thus stronger on character.

 

[Project862006]

how in the hell was henry not the lead

the whole film was surrounded around superman kal el's character which was developed quite alot

from his self discovery journey of odd job to odd job helping people from place to place

childhood smallville flashbacks

his conversations with jor el

smallville and metropolis action scenes

relationship with lois and his interaction with the military even gaining their trust

saving hardy from faora

saving the world and ending zod's reign of terror

joker took up 80% of TDK not even the same ballpark

 

[Superherofan123]

I completely disagree. The dialogue he had was excellent and wonderfully acted. The bit there at the end with the drone reminded me so much of TAS. Really most of the way Cavill presented Supes reminded me of TAS. His performance was fantastic! I really don't get the complaint that he didn't have enough dialogue either. I feel like I watched a different movie than some of you guys.

 

[sf2]

I noticed this as well. While I was watching the movie, I was like give the dude some lines. He was like a supporting character in his own movie. A bit like Batman in The Dark Knight. Batman was part of the ensemble but not front and center. The story was not about him but about Joker and Dent.

I think we can blame Nolan for such ensemble scripts, I don't think they work well in the superhero format. The movie's center feels misplaced and the movie a bit off balance.

Whatever you might say about Marvel films, their heroes and undoubtedly their lead characters with the most footage and most lines and the most development and exploration and drive the narrative momentum forward. Their films are thus stronger on character.

Lol. U must be drunk while watching or u got into a wrong cinema.

 

[Visualiza]

how in the hell was henry not the lead

the whole film was surrounded around superman kal el's character which was developed quite alot

from his self discovery journey of odd job to odd job helping people from place to place

childhood smallville flashbacks

his conversations with jor el

smallville and metropolis action scenes

relationship with lois and his interaction with the military even gaining their trust

saving hardy from faora

saving the world and ending zod's reign of terror

joker took up 80% of TDK not even the same ballpark

Well, on the one hand I'd like to say it's due to the fact that nearly every scene he shared with another character had him being relegated to the listening role, but there are other films with similar situations that simply did it much better. The Matrix is an excellent example of this, as Neo is a similarly confused hero who's unsure of his place in the world, and nearly everyone who shares the screen with him hams up the exposition quite extensively. Even so, there was a distinct progression involved, and the narrative structure was decidedly superior to that of MoS. Never once did I feel like Neo got lost in the shuffle as I did with Clark in MoS. Heck, I'd go as far as saying that The Matrix was a better Superman origin than this movie was.

Maybe it's the erratic pace of the story, or as others have suggested, the various themes never being explored with any depth by the time he puts on the suit(and the action kicks into overdrive). Either way, Clark's presentation left him very underdeveloped in my eyes, confused savior or not.

 

[~.:/|T-MaN|\:.~]

Well, on the one hand I'd like to say it's due to the fact that nearly every scene he shared with another character had him being relegated to the listening role, but there are other films with similar situations that simply did it much better. The Matrix is an excellent example of this, as Neo is a similarly confused hero who's unsure of his place in the world, and nearly everyone who shares the screen with him hams up the exposition quite extensively. Even so, there was a distinct progression involved, and the narrative structure was decidedly superior to that of MoS. Never once did I feel like Neo got lost in the shuffle as I did with Clark in MoS. Heck, I'd go as far as saying that The Matrix was a better Superman origin than this movie was.

Maybe it's the erratic pace of the story, or as others have suggested, the various themes never being explored with any depth by the time he puts on the suit(and the action kicks into overdrive). Either way, Clark's presentation left him very underdeveloped in my eyes, confused savior or not.

 

[slumcat]

Lol. U must be drunk while watching or u got into a wrong cinema.

sf2 - I must say, your two responses are definitely not conducive to discussion such as we have going on here. Just saying.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

i completely disagree. The dialogue he had was excellent and wonderfully acted. The bit there at the end with the drone reminded me so much of tas. Really most of the way cavill presented supes reminded me of tas. His performance was fantastic! I really don't get the complaint that he didn't have enough dialogue either. I feel like i watched a different movie than some of you guys.

this!

 

[Van Petrol]

For the problems this film may have, Cavill ain't one of them. Really hoping for sequels, with one of the main reasons being to see more of Cavill as Supes.

 

[Nathan]

Yeah, he was really awesome as Superman.

 

[hafizbat]

Superman 78 with Reeve was coming on tv, and the scene where he saves Lois and the helicopter was on. My 15 year old sister happened to stop by, and after she watched a bit her reaction was "Wow the old superman was so awkward and lame...the new superman is actually cool!"

I feel like thats how most of the younger generation who were born after the Reeve era feel like....a lot of younger kids feel Superman is a boring character and prefer Batman, Wolverine, etc.

I feel like Cavill and co have succeeded in bringing Superman to the new generation. Sure the movie might have had flaws, but the future is bright for Cav-El.