State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - Part 16

[Donnie Darko]

What do you think Supes was so mopey about?

I think him doing a Superman version of hiding in the bushes at his ex-girlfriend's house shows that he wasn't into men.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I think him doing a Superman version of hiding in the bushes at his ex-girlfriend's house shows that he wasn't into men.

He was waiting for James Marsden.

 

[Majik1387]

He was waiting for James Marsden.

I would be too, considering the alternative was Kate Bosworth.

 

[The Endless]

I know for me at least that one of the main problems I had with Captain America was how quickly it rushed through his career in WWII. Of all the Marvel films, I think his suffered the most in the rush to put together The Avengers.

I actually really loved the way some of Cap's missions were done in a news reel way in the film. Made it feel like propaganda footage, which makes sense. I also really loved the ending with that last line by Rogers. I understand how some people feel it was abrupt though.

 

[terry78]

^Haha, it's funny because you don't like girls.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I actually really loved the way some of Cap's missions were done in a news reel way in the film. Made it feel like propaganda footage, which makes sense. I also really loved the ending with that last line by Rogers. I understand how some people feel it was abrupt though.

I didn't mind so much the montage, but I never really felt the transformation from Steve to Captain America if that makes any sense. I thought the first 45 minutes or so were really strong in regards to his developing his character but it seemed as soon as he physically transformed they dropped any additional character transformation, as if all it took was a six pack to turn Steve into a leader.

 

[The Endless]

True, it did kinda feel like the "cliff notes" version. And the first 45-60 mins are brilliant. Right up there with the best superhero origin stories on film for me.

They are making use of the gaps in the new film apparently though.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Sure I do. I just don't see what it has to do with my point at all. I am not addressing their popularity, but specifically how people are comparing DC and Marvel's respective approaches to building a "cinematic universe". And the consensus for the most part seems to be that DC is rushing it, while Marvel "took their time", which I disagree with for the most part, as I have pointed out that Cap, Hulk, Thor and Superman all have had one film before jumping into a team up. So the issue here is development of the character, not his popularity, which I honestly don't understand its relevance to my point. If anything else, people's familiarity with Superman over Thor or Cap would argue the opposite of your point; audiences being more familiar with Superman would be better prepared to add another superhero into the mix, whereas they aren't as familiar with Cap or Thor.

And to your point about Clark Kent barely being introduced yet; does that plot point really require a whole solo film to itself? Could you not see it possibly being developed or essential to a plot of Superman Batman film?

One thing I didn't mention is that the next movie is still called "Man of Steel sequel" when it should be "JLA Assemble" or something like that. Avengers didn't fully kept everyone's story going on as much as it was a shared adventure.

Captain America, for example, had little time to show him trying to adapt to the modern era, as it should have been in a proper sequel. And if you felt his movie "rushed through his career in WWII" I'd say he couldn't have more time because Avengers was coming, not a sequel. Thor's story with Jane was on hold for no reason (other than it wasn't a proper sequel to Thor so they didn't have enough time to develop it. One minute he's all depressed because he can't go back to earth, next minute it was possible to come back all along). Hulk... well, nothing happened about the Leader or Abomination.

Clark the journalist. Last time I checked, Donner made a movie where the whole origin and Clark the journalist were properly introduced in one movie. So, not another entire movie is necessary.

But at least Superman and his relationship with Luthor deserve its own movie. Did Batman against Joker needed Superman and Wonder Woman in between? No. In fact that would have ruined what TDK ended up being.

I can't imagine the "man" that fought back in an alien invasion doomsday scenario possibly being overlooked, but then again, there is nothing in the film to support that he was, so I don't know where you extrapolated that from. If anything else, a main theme of the film was Superman being prepared for the impact he's going to make.

In the movie only the army and few people saw Superman and/or knew about him. Was there a scene where Metropolis's people were cheering and talking about Superman?

The "preparing for the impact" thing was only in the paper though. He didn't even "prepare" for that. He started saving lives, his dad told him not to, he died so he wouldn't save lives, he kept saving lives anyways... one day there's an alien invasion so, no matter what happened before, he had to go and fight them. And there was no impact shown on people of earth except for a few (Army, who are not regular people, and a few people here and there).

 

[MrMaooz]

I love the humor in Iron Man 3 and Thor 2. I think it's well done and actually funny. I don't mind Darcy either.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

What do you think Supes was so mopey about?

Be specific: in Superman Returns or Man of Steel?

 

[The Endless]

He was mopey in both of them. I surprised Cavill hasn't got a permanent wrinkle on his forehead from how much his brow was furrowed in MoS.

 

[hammerhedd11]

One thing I didn't mention is that the next movie is still called "Man of Steel sequel" when it should be "JLA Assemble" or something like that. Avengers didn't fully kept everyone's story going on as much as it was a shared adventure.

Captain America, for example, had little time to show him trying to adapt to the modern era, as it should have been in a proper sequel. And if you felt his movie "rushed through his career in WWII" I'd say he couldn't have more time because Avengers was coming, not a sequel. Thor's story with Jane was on hold for no reason (other than it wasn't a proper sequel to Thor so they didn't have enough time to develop it. One minute he's all depressed because he can't go back to earth, next minute it was possible to come back all along). Hulk... well, nothing happened about the Leader or Abomination.

Clark the journalist. Last time I checked, Donner made a movie where the whole origin and Clark the journalist were properly introduced in one movie. So, not another entire movie is necessary.

But at least Superman and his relationship with Luthor deserve its own movie. Did Batman against Joker needed Superman and Wonder Woman in between? No. In fact that would have ruined what TDK ended up being.

I'm... not exactly sure what you are arguing. Because it seems that you are pointing out negatives of the Marvel structure, which would be in agreement with what I've been saying, so I don't exactly understand your insistence in pointing those out. I was never exactly pro-Superman going right into a team-up in my argument, just pointing out that Marvel was guilty of the same. So, if you're in agreement about that, I'm not really sure why/what we are debating.
And anyway, we don't know enough about the Superman sequel to make those sort of judgements. Wonder Woman doesn't seem to have much of a role, let alone in costume from what I've heard, so she could be a glorified cameo à la Hawkeye in Thor. All the talk about Green Lantern and Flash are rumors, and there aren't going to be any Batman villains.

In the movie only the army and few people saw Superman and/or knew about him. Was there a scene where Metropolis's people were cheering and talking about Superman?

The "preparing for the impact" thing was only in the paper though. He didn't even "prepare" for that. He started saving lives, his dad told him not to, he died so he wouldn't save lives, he kept saving lives anyways... one day there's an alien invasion so, no matter what happened before, he had to go and fight them. And there was no impact shown on people of earth except for a few (Army, who are not regular people, and a few people here and there).

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to "was only in the paper"?
Either way, I think showing people cheering and talking about Superman isn't really necessary and is more of a cheap/superficial way of making that point. And seeing that Superman had a gigantic fight over/in Metropolis, no, not only army people saw him. I think we can understand the implications of our first contact with an alien race being a near genocide and one of those aliens living among us and saving us. That has pretty giant implications on its own that are conveyed simply by that happening. I don't know if having the people of metropolis stop and think out loud would convey it as well as simply as the event itself.

And saying that "he had to go and fight them" is really missing the point of his internal conflict. Sure, because he's the hero, basically the archetype superhero, we think he has to fight, but in real life, basically outing yourself as an alien and fighting your own people (your first contact with them as well) to save another planet? No, he didn't have to. He could've chose not to and started a New Krypton. It was his choice to save Earth, and I don't think that's as simple as a choice as you make it out to be. There's a reason why in real life not everyone is pulling children from burning buildings. Not everybody can make that "simple" choice to put someone else before them.

Be specific: in Superman Returns or Man of Steel?

Well it was a joke anyway, but I was quoting Donnie Darko's post about Superman Returns.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

In my opinion, it's still the best comic book movie, period.

It's not my number one comic book movie, but it is closet: In my opinion, it was unnecessary to reboot the series because of Spider-Man 3...if Raimi didn't want to direct, they could just have replaced him. Here's a few reasons why I love this movie:

1. I love the scene where the powerless Peter Parker (sounds like a comic book titlet saves the little girl from the burning building. Even without his powers, he's still a hero.

2. The train fight, and when the unmasked Spider-Man (also sounds like a comic book title) saves all the passengers. That's one of the greatest superhero moments in a movie. It's as exciting now as when I first saw it...

3. The music (and I'm not talking about the violin-playing asian woman). It's as good as the music from Batman 1989 and Superman 1978. I'll never forget it.

4. The scene where Peter Parker tells aunt May about what really happened the night uncle Ben died.

5. At the end, when "Norman" shows up. I believe I got chills the first time I saw it.

6. Aunt May's hero-speech.

I could write more about it, I'm just a bit lazy today.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is one of the best movies ever made. More, please...

 

[The Endless]

Yea, Elfman's Spidey theme is as iconic as his Batman theme imo.

Coppola's Dracula is unbelievable. It deserves more love. And Oldman not getting any award recognition for his performance is a travesty.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

And I don't care about Quicksilver's look. The comic book version looks like a gay ice dancer or ballerina anyway...

 

[Majik1387]

That comment has a touch of bigotry...

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Yea, Elfman's Spidey theme is as iconic as his Batman theme imo.

Coppola's Dracula is unbelievable. It deserves more love. And Oldman not getting any award recognition for his performance is a travesty.

Coppola's Dracula wasn't that bad. Too "pervy" in some parts, though. I actually like the 90's Frankenstein.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

That comment has a touch of bigotry...

I don't think so, but I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

 

[The Endless]

Coppola's Dracula wasn't that bad. Too "pervy" in some parts, though. I actually like the 90's Frankenstein.

Well he did intend it to be an erotic horror. I think the story of Dracula works like that.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Well he did intend it to be an erotic horror. I think the story of Dracula works like that.

Yeah, most vampire stories have erotic undertones. The best version of the story in my opinion is Nosferatu, the silent one. Creepy...

 

[Figs]

I like Eisenberg as Luthor, he is a great actor and it looks like an interesting direction for the character. Not too fond about Irons as Alfred though, too cold, I would have preferred someone like Geoffrey Rush. But he's also a good actor and he will be fine probably.

I think Irons as Alfred is a great choice. Irons will be able to play that droll or dry humor side of Alfred we've seen a lot in the 90's animated series.

 

[Sawyer]

Not to mention that I think he's got a much better voice/accent for the role than Caine.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Better than Moy Cocain? Nivahh

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Avengers didn't fully kept everyone's story going on as much as it was a shared adventure.

Captain America, for example, had little time to show him trying to adapt to the modern era, as it should have been in a proper sequel. And if you felt his movie "rushed through his career in WWII" I'd say he couldn't have more time because Avengers was coming, not a sequel. Thor's story with Jane was on hold for no reason (other than it wasn't a proper sequel to Thor so they didn't have enough time to develop it. One minute he's all depressed because he can't go back to earth, next minute it was possible to come back all along). Hulk... well, nothing happened about the Leader or Abomination.

That what one of my dislikes about Avengers. I really enjoyed Thor & Cap movies and felt that the Avengers just got in the way of their stories.

Like you said we never see Cap adjust to this new world, he just joined the first people to give him a job without stopping to see if they were the good guys or not and never mourned Peggy or his old life.
It was such an emotional and big thing that Thor couldn't get back to Earth then it just turns out he could and when Loki was subdued at the end and captured Thor zipped back to Asguard for two years without even stopping by to see Jane for half an hour first. That hurt The Dark World a lot imo.

It's not my number one comic book movie, but it is closet: In my opinion, it was unnecessary to reboot the series because of Spider-Man 3...if Raimi didn't want to direct, they could just have replaced him. Here's a few reasons why I love this movie:

1. I love the scene where the powerless Peter Parker (sounds like a comic book titlet saves the little girl from the burning building. Even without his powers, he's still a hero.

2. The train fight, and when the unmasked Spider-Man (also sounds like a comic book title) saves all the passengers. That's one of the greatest superhero moments in a movie. It's as exciting now as when I first saw it...

3. The music (and I'm not talking about the violin-playing asian woman). It's as good as the music from Batman 1989 and Superman 1978. I'll never forget it.

4. The scene where Peter Parker tells aunt May about what really happened the night uncle Ben died.

5. At the end, when "Norman" shows up. I believe I got chills the first time I saw it.

6. Aunt May's hero-speech.

I could write more about it, I'm just a bit lazy today.

Imo it perfectly balanced the emotion, drama, humour, action and heart. Very few CBMs have managed that.