I SEE SPIDEY
Eternal
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 54,611
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 31
Yes and I would be sad about that if SR was a quality product.
sure...Seriously, can you say something better positive instead of negative?
That was the plan before SR did poor box office. Because they each cost anywhere from 150 to 200 mill north on Superheroes the GA doesn't really know about. It is too much of a risk. It is far more effective to spend it on one movie, introduce the characters in one movie at one time, and then do solo movies. It is all about money.
what strike?
what strike?
Yeah its genius, introduce the characters in one movie, which may flop itself, and the 2 characters who have only recently been re-introduced to the GA, will be interpreted differently and by different actors.
Man, WHAT A PLAN!
It was a quality movie. Fanboys and execs complain because they wanted more of a product than a movie.
Not the case. The movie may have visual/technical quality... but it lacks quality, thought and craft in the editing, storytelling, pacing, dialogue, action, symbolism, acting and characterisation.
Nothing wrong with making Superman relatable and realistic, but make him likeable and don't put him in such a dark and nasty movie. Making him seem so irresponsible and selfish in abandoning Lois and earth is not making him relatable and realistic. Who wants to be like that? Who wants to be such a super-loser? Who wants to be mean and cruel enough to throw a ball miles too far for his own pet? (We can thank Mike Dougherty for the sadistic nastiness) Who wants to abandon a sexual partner and leave earth for five years without saying anything? And let's not have excuses about going to rescue people on the shattered remnants of a planet destroyed thousands of years before!? If they'd survived thousands of years, they wouldn't need rescuing; if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't need rescuing. He was shown abandoning a world that had descended into war and terrorism - not a good message to send to the people in the world of the movie or the people in our world who are the audience.
A visually well-shot movie isn't enough. Don't think that those who don't like it just want movies that are just explosions, or giant robots, or buildings smashing. The basic ideas in this movie were not carefully considered. All that money poured into fancy new cameras and cornfields and expensive sets and childhood flashbacks and edited-out $10m sequences does not make this a good Superman movie. Clearly, it did not resonate with the general public as well as hoped.
Not the case. The movie may have visual/technical quality... but it lacks quality, thought and craft in the editing, storytelling, pacing, dialogue, action, symbolism, acting and characterisation.
Nothing wrong with making Superman relatable and realistic, but make him likeable and don't put him in such a dark and nasty movie. Making him seem so irresponsible and selfish in abandoning Lois and earth is not making him relatable and realistic. Who wants to be like that? Who wants to be such a super-loser? Who wants to be mean and cruel enough to throw a ball miles too far for his own pet? (We can thank Mike Dougherty for the sadistic nastiness) Who wants to abandon a sexual partner and leave earth for five years without saying anything? And let's not have excuses about going to rescue people on the shattered remnants of a planet destroyed thousands of years before!? If they'd survived thousands of years, they wouldn't need rescuing; if they hadn't survived, they wouldn't need rescuing. He was shown abandoning a world that had descended into war and terrorism - not a good message to send to the people in the world of the movie or the people in our world who are the audience.
A visually well-shot movie isn't enough. Don't think that those who don't like it just want movies that are just explosions, or giant robots, or buildings smashing. The basic ideas in this movie were not carefully considered. All that money poured into fancy new cameras and cornfields and expensive sets and childhood flashbacks and edited-out $10m sequences does not make this a good Superman movie. Clearly, it did not resonate with the general public as well as hoped.
he is flawed like us
Disagree with all of this, how was Superman to know that Krypton did explode? Or that there werent any survivors, he has gone back to Krypton in the comics for similar reasons so whatever you say it isnt out of character. He left Earth to help people who could have been in need, survivors could have been living in poverty on chunks of the planet, for all he knew, his parents could still be alive. And people saying Superman should represent the best in us, he is human, so he is flawed like us, its not like he doesnt make regualr mistakes in the comics.
As for the 'it didnt resonate with the general public' comment, how come it won 1 Empire and 2 Total Film awards (one of which was best 2006 movie) which you were voted by who? Yes, the general public.
Routh looks like a Super-boy-toy rather than Superman.
I just don't buy him as Superman. Christopher Reeve embodied the character in every way possible. Routh simply doesn't come close to filling his shoes.
but not AS flawed AS us.
Oh I can understand why he might want to go and look at the location of Krypton to see what, if anything, was left.
But thousands of years had passed since he was sent to earth, as Jor-El tells him in the first movie ("By your reckoning, I shall have been dead many thousands of years."). In thousands of years, any survivors would have learned to cope, or moved on, or perished from the radiation. Did he not consider that anything left of the planet would be lethally irradiated so that he would die if he went near it!?
Also, if the initial trip from Krypton to earth as a baby took 2.5 years but, because of faster than lightspeed travel, thousands of earth years had passed, then twice as many thousands of earth years should have passed in his trip to Krypton and then back to earth again.
The flaw isn't in him going to Krypton, it's in not saying goodbye to a woman with whom he had some kind of sexual relationship. I also think it feels wrong for Lois to not know he was Clark Kent if she was having a relationship with him.
As i said above, I also hated the fact that he threw the ball too far for his dog, and seemed mean and cruel. Yes, there was a scene where the dog later retrieved it, but that was cut. Why was it cut? Why did they want him to appear mean and cruel? It was an extremely lame attempt at humour. Is this part of his flawed character too? That he is cruel to those he loves, that he does things to upset them without even thinking? Is that what we are supposed to believe - that he is so mean, cruel, irresponsible and selfish?
As for awards and such, I think critics and awards would recognise the art Bryan put into the movie, which is fair enough. But I'm talking more about the shocking underperformance of this film.