Man of Steel Box Office Prediction Thread - - Part 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
If everyone was like TheNextNolan22 this movie would have made 6 billion.

And if everyone else shared your views on the movie, it would've bombed faster than Green Lantern.
 
Even if I like a film I can't see it more than twice in the theaters. If I don't like a film it may get a second chance on TV.
 
Exactly, that's the only criticism I have. I liked his visual take in 300.

I think the style in 300 only works in how it recreates Frank Miller's HIGHLY stylized art from the graphic novel. It worked for that movie, and for Rodriguez' Sin City, but it's not a style I'm too keen on seeing in other movies.

Like I said, I actually loved Zack Snyder's directing and visual style in this one (both in style and from a character- and story-telling point of view, and this coming from someone who thinks he's had HUGE problems with the latter two until Man of Steel). I loved the handheld camera, and how visceral the action scenes are, I could just do with less crash-zooms -which didn't bother me as much as the many, overused, unneeded and infantile gimmicks of his previous movies, though!
 
I loved the way this film looked. Separates it from other comic book films.
 
I'm going to try and see it for the ninth time this weekend, maybe Saturday after work.
 
I feel like half the box office has come from this forum.
 
I loved the way this film looked. Separates it from other comic book films.

When a director with personality and vision is on board, these movies usually don't look all the same.
 
I think the style in 300 only works in how it recreates Frank Miller's HIGHLY stylized art from the graphic novel. It worked for that movie, and for Rodriguez' Sin City, but it's not a style I'm too keen on seeing in other movies.

Like I said, I actually loved Zack Snyder's directing and visual style in this one (both in style and from a character- and story-telling point of view, and this coming from someone who thinks he's had HUGE problems with the latter two until Man of Steel). I loved the handheld camera, and how visceral the action scenes are, I could just do with less crash-zooms -which didn't bother me as much as the many, overused, unneeded and infantile gimmicks of his previous movies, though!

That's why I liked 300 so much...love and appreciation for the source.
 
I don't understand how some of you on here can watch the same movies so frequently so soon. I can watch my most beloved movies frequently but it has to be over time not 3 weeks. It just amazes me.
 
You make me feel ashamed of my pitiful three viewings.

Actually I just checked and there is a 3,40 showing today so I think I'll hit that lol. Just remembered Red Cross called me and I'm giving blood after work Saturday. I guess that's what I'm doing for MOS as well, but it's blood sweat & tears lol!
 
I don't understand how some of you on here can watch the same movies so frequently so soon. I can watch my most beloved movies frequently but it has to be over time not 3 weeks. It just amazes me.

We are SUPER fans...up, up and away!
 
Last edited:
DC and Marvel each have their own things going for themselves. As far as box office it's clear who's out in the lead. Quality of movies though? It's a hard decision. I'd say DC but then again I'm not a fan of GL, SR or MOS. Marvel has its baggage too. SM3, IM2, Hulk, The Incredible Hulk and so on. The only reason I would consider DC as the deciding factor is because of Batman. On Marvel's side, they put out some quality Spider-Man movies, a solid Iron Man and a good Avengers movie. Props, very difficult and timely to pull off.
 
Actually I just checked and there is a 3,40 showing today so I think I'll hit that lol. Just remembered Red Cross called me and I'm giving blood after work Saturday. I guess that's what I'm doing for MOS as well, but it's blood sweat & tears lol!

That's awesome.
 
That's why I liked 300 so much...love and appreciation for the source.

It's a nice experiment for such stylized fare as Sin City and 300, but it doesn't have to be the norm, nor does it mean that other comic book adaptations have less love and appreciation for the source. Comic book adaptations are just like a new author's take on a comic book: in comes Frank Miller, for example, and makes Selina Kyle a prostitute. A movie is no different. It's a nice, full circe: the source material informs the director, the director adds his vision to the mythology. The best adaptation respect the heart of the character and his lore, while featuring the filmmaker's vision and point of view.

Shane Black, who has been verbally punched to mush by whiny geeks, has plenty of love, appreciation and knowledge of the comics - but he's creative enough to have something to say himself, and to add to the lore. The way he adapted the Mandarin was in no way disrespectful (which hardcore geeks will never get, because they're all about complaining, unless something's taken directly from a page, a story that's already been told, for God's sake!): he just deconstructed the concept of the character, and showed him in different forms (in the "mission" of the villain,
the character of Aldrich Killan, played by Guy Pearce, and the decoy played by Ben Kingsley
). But we're way off-topic, I guess.

Man of Steel is, too, the Superman myth as viewed through the lens of Zack Snyder (and David S. Goyer). And thank God for that. Thank for these guys taking risks, and featuring their own point of view. It's no different than having different versions of Superman in John Byrne's or Grant Morrison's stories.
 
It's a nice experiment for such stylized fare as Sin City and 300, but it doesn't have to be the norm, nor does it mean that other comic book adaptations have less love and appreciation for the source. Comic book adaptations are just like a new author's take on a comic book: in comes Frank Miller, for example, and makes Selina Kyle a prostitute. A movie is no different. It's a nice, full circe: the source material informs the director, the director adds his vision to the mythology. The best adaptation respect the heart of the character and his lore, while featuring the filmmaker's vision and point of view.

Shane Black, who has been verbally punched to mush by whiny geeks, has plenty of love, appreciation and knowledge of the comics - but he's creative enough to have something to say himself, and to add to the lore. The way he adapted the Mandarin was in no way disrespectful (which hardcore geeks will never get, because they're all about complaining, unless something's taken directly from a page, a story that's already been told, for God's sake!): he just deconstructed the concept of the character, and showed him in different forms (in the "mission" of the villain,
the character of Aldrich Killan, played by Guy Pearce, and the decoy played by Ben Kingsley
). But we're way off-topic, I guess.

Man of Steel is, too, the Superman myth as viewed through the lens of Zack Snyder (and David S. Goyer). And thank God for that. Thank for these guys taking risks, and featuring their own point of view. It's no different than having different versions of Superman in John Byrne's or Grant Morrison's stories.

Very informative and insightful, have you a background in film?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"