Man Of Steel Soars @ Comic Con - Part 2

[Marvin]

SR was a remake/rehash.

Structure wise that is.

-Farm
-Superman lands
-Lois aircraft rescue
-Introduced to the world(with rescue)
-Lex Schemes with corny henchmen
-Lois and Superman fly around night sky(accept in STM superman conveys emotion)
...
skip to end where Superman finally meets the villain(really dumb way to do things(especailly in a remake ugh)).
-Lex explains plan to confident superman
-Kryptonite disables superman
-toss in water
-all hope lost
-Lex's hench woman has a change of heart
-Superman saved by woman in water(role reversal)
-Super feet against overwhelming inanimate objects.(of course stm added more exciting elements such as rescues and time reversal).

Yes there were many differences(like the hospital and the stupid kid) but there is so much similar that it could be considered an almost beat for beat remake. Right down to that fly by at the end there.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Jason is awesome.

 

[superman2090]

SR was a remake/rehash.

Structure wise that is.

-Farm
-Superman lands
-Lois aircraft rescue
-Introduced to the world(with rescue)
-Lex Schemes with corny henchmen
-Lois and Superman fly around night sky(accept in STM superman conveys emotion)
...
skip to end where Superman finally meets the villain(really dumb way to do things(especailly in a remake ugh)).
-Lex explains plan to confident superman
-Kryptonite disables superman
-toss in water
-all hope lost
-Lex's hench woman has a change of heart
-Superman saved by woman in water(role reversal)
-Super feet against overwhelming inanimate objects.(of course stm added more exciting elements such as rescues and time reversal).

Yes there were many differences(like the hospital and the stupid kid) but there is so much similar that it could be considered an almost beat for beat remake. Right down to that fly by at the end there.

And that's why it was stupid. I used to defend the movie because I loved seeing superman on screen again with updated sfx, but after a month or two I had to admit that it just sucked and that the writers were too lazy to script something new.

 

[Project862006]

zod was needed imo

has no one heard what nolan has said when it comes to crafting a script

he picks the story and theme he wants to tell before he picks a villain then he chooses a villain who will fit with the story and zod easily works for this story

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Its hilarious how people sh** on Superman Returns for feeling like a remake of Superman: The Movie yet want to Man of Steel a free pass despite being an obvious remake of Superman II.

Fanboys are a funny (Read: stupid) type.

 

[BH/HHH]

Fanboys are a funny (Read: stupid) type.

Awesome post makes me laugh how he acts like he has all the facts, they're remaking Superman II lol I can't believe he's already seen the movie

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And that's why it was stupid. I used to defend the movie because I loved seeing superman on screen again with updated sfx, but after a month or two I had to admit that it just sucked and that the writers were too lazy to script something new.

SR was a labor of love. Nothing lazy about it at all.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Awesome post makes me laugh how he acts like he has all the facts, they're remaking Superman II lol I can't believe he's already seen the movie

I don't want to speak for Jamie, but I think he was speaking on the fickle nature of fanboys and their downright denial. For example, how many were adamant Zod couldn't possibly be the villain because of how associated he is with STM and SMII. But once he is announced, these same people are like well he really doesn't belong to those films and really isn't all that associated with them. And you know what, I bet he won't even be anything like that Zod.

zod was needed imo

has no one heard what nolan has said when it comes to crafting a script

he picks the story and theme he wants to tell before he picks a villain then he chooses a villain who will fit with the story and zod easily works for this story

And am I to believe that a lot of these themes are not similar to those Donner was playing with?

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, I was never wild about having Zod as the villain in this movie because it will undoubtedly make people think of Superman II, regardless of how different they make him. Still, Shannon is a great actor and I hope that he really can bring something new to the character.

That said, the claims that SR is a bit of a rehash of Superman '78 are valid... like Marvin pointed out, they are very similar structurally. Whether you want to interpret that as Singer creating a "love letter" to his favorite movie or that the creative team had no idea how to create something new is up to you. But for me at least, SR was a massive disappointment.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

SR was a labor of love. Nothing lazy about it at all.

To quote Oscar Wilde - "All bad poetry is sincere."

Whether it was an homage, a half-assed semi-sequel, or a regurgitation of the Donner films, in the end SR just wasnt a very good movie. Period. What's love got to do with it?

I am faaar from being a Snyder fan (imo its been all downhill since Dawn of the Dead), but Im still excited and cautiously optimistic about the prospect of the first fresh take on SM in 30+ years. Vee shall zee.

And thank god they finally retired the Williams theme. Enough already.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To quote Oscar Wilde - "All bad poetry is sincere."

Whether it was an homage, a half-assed semi-sequel, or a regurgitation of the Donner films, in the end SR just wasnt a very good movie. Period. What's love got to do with it?

I am faaar from being a Snyder fan (imo its been all downhill since Dawn of the Dead), but Im still excited and cautiously optimistic about the prospect of the first fresh take on SM in 30+ years. Vee shall zee.

And thank god they finally retired the Williams theme. Enough already.

I find it to be very good movie. Also even if you find it bad, to accuse it of being lazy is far off the mark.

 

[MOS2013]

I find it to be very good movie. Also even if you find it bad, to accuse it of being lazy is far off the mark.

You must be able to see why people might come to that conclusion though given the severe lack of originality in SR?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You must be able to see why people might come to that conclusion though given the severe lack of originality in SR?

I find this statement quite funny, because everyone seems to complain about the originality in the film. How dare Superman be a father? Why would Superman leave? No villain for Superman to punch? Boring.

And no, considering how well crafted the world, scenes, performances and special effects are, calling it lazy makes no sense. You can not like it, but most that complain probably haven't seen it in 6 years, if at all, and obvious don't know much about what they are talking about when it come to the film. They complain about things that don't make any sort of logic. Like calling it lazy.

There was also a clear and obvious reason why the film was made the way it was.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The difference between thinking SR is a remake of Superman: The Movie is that I have actually seen both films. If it's not a remake, then it ties into a continuity and had way too many references to the previous films which brought the movie down instead of trying to be its own thing. Regardless, it just wasn't a compelling or interesting movie. I have not seen Man of Steel yet. The only similarity these two things have is Zod as a character only who hasn't been on screen in 30 years. And a major difference is that this is not connected to Donner and is actually trying to be its own thing. It's hard for me to appreciate a labor of love when it's not very good and boring.

 

[MOS2013]

I find this statement quite funny, because everyone seems to complain about the originality in the film. How dare Superman be a father? Why would Superman leave? No villain for Superman to punch? Boring.

And no, considering how well crafted the world, scenes, performances and special effects are, calling it lazy makes no sense. You can not like it, but most that complain probably haven't seen it in 6 years, if at all, and obvious don't know much about what they are talking about when it come to the film. They complain about things that don't make any sort of logic. Like calling it lazy.

There was also a clear and obvious reason why the film was made the way it was.

You're just saying that because people don't like the film and you do. If you have other evidence to back up your claim lets see it.

It might not be lazy, but its definitely a dull, unoriginal film and it was a failure in terms of putting Superman back on the map.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

SR was a remake/rehash.

Structure wise that is.

-Farm
-Superman lands
-Lois aircraft rescue
-Introduced to the world(with rescue)
-Lex Schemes with corny henchmen
-Lois and Superman fly around night sky(accept in STM superman conveys emotion)
...
skip to end where Superman finally meets the villain(really dumb way to do things(especailly in a remake ugh)).
-Lex explains plan to confident superman
-Kryptonite disables superman
-toss in water
-all hope lost
-Lex's hench woman has a change of heart
-Superman saved by woman in water(role reversal)
-Super feet against overwhelming inanimate objects.(of course stm added more exciting elements such as rescues and time reversal).

Yes there were many differences(like the hospital and the stupid kid) but there is so much similar that it could be considered an almost beat for beat remake. Right down to that fly by at the end there.

To be honest, while I wasn't exactly wowed by Superman Returns, a lot of sequels are guilty of the same thing. Repeating lines, reusing plots, etc. Look at the BttF sequels and Terminator 2.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

SR was lazy in its reliance on the previous films. It was lazy in it's ideas, in it's aspirations. It was content to be (at best) an homage. Im sure Singer & co. worked very hard on this movie as far as time and effort go. But the film needed to be a true reboot, with ZERO connection to the Donner movies. They had decades of Superman stuff (comics, novels, animated series/films, pre-donner material, etc.)to draw from, and instead they went back to the same old well. Terrible decision. With the result being utter irrelevance from a cultural standpoint, and tedium from an entertainment standpoint. Its telling that by far the most spectacular sequence in the movie was a mash-up of two scenes from SM1 (the air force one and lois falling rescues).

The re-use of the Williams theme is a perfect example of this laziness. Just awful.

Of course casting and characterization were also a big issue. Spacey playing a con artist version of Hackman's Lex and a flat out terrible Kate Bosworth didnt help matters either.

Anyhoo, back on topic: Do we know if there will be a Lex cameo in this?

 

[BH/HHH]

I always said I don't mind who they pick and when Zod was announced well I just said he must be the right choice for the story they are telling. I'd rather that than just have a villain thrown in there just because he/she is so and so (I.e. Venom in Spider-man 3.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Venom did not make Spider-Man 3 bad. Sam Raimi made Spider-Man 3 bad.

 

[BH/HHH]

Venom did not make Spider-Man 3 bad. Sam Raimi made Spider-Man 3 bad.

I know that but Venom is an example of what can happen when a character is forced on a director.

 

[az824]

I think SR was a good film, just not a good Superman film. And I agree with everyone that I'm glad they finally are deviating from the dinner films. I grew up in the 90s and 00s and so the dinner films I always considered an old classic version, but I always wanted to see a Superman for my generation. That's why SR was sooooo disappointing for me and that's why I'm squirming with anticipation for the Man of Steel XD

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're just saying that because people don't like the film and you do. If you have other evidence to back up your claim lets see it.

It might not be lazy, but its definitely a dull, unoriginal film and it was a failure in terms of putting Superman back on the map.

Completely inaccurate "facts" about what happens in the film is one.

SR one big sin is that it was a simultaneous attempt to retell/refresh STM, to lay ground work for future films, while also being a sequel.

 

[BH/HHH]

I think SR was a good film, just not a good Superman film. And I agree with everyone that I'm glad they finally are deviating from the dinner films. I grew up in the 90s and 00s and so the dinner films I always considered an old classic version, but I always wanted to see a Superman for my generation. That's why SR was sooooo disappointing for me and that's why I'm squirming with anticipation for the Man of Steel XD

I like SR's but that wasn't good enough for me it should have been a film I loved, when the opening credits started I was in awe then it went straight to Lex and I felt bored. I loved the plane sequence probably my fave scene in any film but after that when Lois fully comes into the film I just started to get annoyed with her character. The only other good point for me was the elevator change and that's it. The ending was also zapped of any emotion for me cause it went on and on. I really can't wait for Man of Steel cause I finally feel we're getting the Superman film we should have gotten.

 

[MOS2013]

Completely inaccurate "facts" about what happens in the film is one.

SR one big sin is that it was a simultaneous attempt to retell/refresh STM, to lay ground work for future films, while also being a sequel.

you kidding?

With the kid in the story they backed themselves into a corner, and the film didn't get a sniff of a sequel.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

SR has a lot of merit and its most definitely a big time homage to the original superman movie. Routh was likeable and the plane sequence was awesome.

That being said, it was not the superman movie people wanted to see. If its something to watch here and there its cool but as a main feature big event kind of thing its just not a take that made people go wow that was cool. Lacked the cool factor in a big way.