BvS The Superman suit Thread

[The Guard]

Oh, you mean the actually architecture, etc? To a point, yes.

 

[John-An]

Regarding the suit, I think Superman should have a belt for practical reasons, like keeping a bluetooth to communicate with other JL members, etc. The question is, yellow, red or another color?

For that they have Martian Manhunter and the psychic connection between the league and I think this would be groundbreaking.

 

[BH/HHH]

I liked the sets from SR, I liked the scale the city had. They were never a problem with that movie to me.

Agreed, that movie has it's fair share of problems but Metropolis looked great in my opinion.

 

[Wise]

Agreed, that movie has it's fair share of problems but Metropolis looked great in my opinion.

I actually watched SR last night for the first time in a long time and I have to admit there are elements of that film that I think surpass MoS.

The sense of whimsical adventure and the light tone (Which is peppered with dark moments) goes a long way to make the film feel like a Superman comic IMHO.

I love the production design. The Kent farm, the Daily Planet building, Lex's boat. All the locations are grounded in real world style but they look breathtaking and interesting. It sort of bothered me how uninteresting the Kent Farm looked in MoS. It seemed like it just sat off the interstate a few doors down from a heroin injecting room. It was depressing. I wouldn't want to grow up there. As I said earlier. Metropolis looks and feels like a real alternate universe city. It doesn't feel like it's filmed in Chicago or New York.

The plane sequence. The classic Superman rescue. This sequence taken from Byrne's Superman used to confirm Superman's return rather than his debut.

The casting. I'm not talking about Routh or Bosworth. I mean Frank Langella as Perry, Sam Huntington aJimmy, Parker Posey, Eva Marie Saint. This film has a delightful supporting cast.

It's just a shame that for all the things it gets right it fall flat completely on plot and characterisations. Superfluous plot lines and a Luthor who's plan is not ridiculous, it's ******ed. Then there's the whole Lex boinking an old lady thing.

But yeah If Singer had cast Cavill
If he hadn't approved the worst suit design ever.
If he had made it a reboot.

I think it had the potential to be the best Superman film ever.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I actually watched SR last night for the first time in a long time and I have to admit there are elements of that film that I think surpass MoS.

The sense of whimsical adventure and the light tone (Which is peppered with dark moments) goes a long way to make the film feel like a Superman comic IMHO.

I love the production design. The Kent farm, the Daily Planet building, Lex's boat. All the locations are grounded in real world style but they look breathtaking and interesting. It sort of bothered me how uninteresting the Kent Farm looked in MoS. It seemed like it just sat off the interstate a few doors down from a heroin injecting room. It was depressing. I wouldn't want to grow up there. As I said earlier. Metropolis looks and feels like a real alternate universe city. It doesn't feel like it's filmed in Chicago or New York.

The plane sequence. The classic Superman rescue. This sequence taken from Byrne's Superman used to confirm Superman's return rather than his debut.

The casting. I'm not talking about Routh or Bosworth. I mean Frank Langella as Perry, Sam Huntington aJimmy, Parker Posey, Eva Marie Saint. This film has a delightful supporting cast.

It's just a shame that for all the things it gets right it fall flat completely on plot and characterisations. Superfluous plot lines and a Luthor who's plan is not ridiculous, it's ******ed. Then there's the whole Lex boinking an old lady thing.

But yeah If Singer had cast Cavill
If he hadn't approved the worst suit design ever.
If he had made it a reboot.

I think it had the potential to be the best Superman film ever.

Pretty damn much. Most of the things I found wrong with Returns I found right with MOS and vice versa. If some super Gandalf-Dumbledore-Shazam editing wizard could magically combine the strengths from the two it would have made a phenomenal Superman movie.

My dream team would be a Superman movie directed by Sam Mendes, written by Paul Haggis off a story by Jonathan Nolan. Alan Taylor as the Art Director. Snyder as the Visual Effects Supervisor. Bryan Singer as an Exec Producer/consultant (in place of Geoff Johns)

 

[Wise]

Pretty damn much. Most of the things I found wrong with Returns I found right with MOS and vice versa. If some super Gandalf-Dumbledore-Shazam editing wizard could magically combine the strengths from the two it would have made a phenomenal Superman movie.

My dream team would be a Superman movie directed by Sam Mendes, written by Paul Haggis off a story by Jonathan Nolan. Alan Taylor as the Art Director. Snyder as the Visual Effects Supervisor. Bryan Singer as an Exec Producer/consultant (in place of Geoff Johns)

The frankenstein Superman movie.

Direction: Snyder's visuals with Singer's ability to convey lore.
Music: Hmm if it's a reboot I have to choose Zimmer
Main Cast: Cavill, Adams and Crowe
Supporting Cast: Langella, Huntington and Saint.
Production Design: Superman Returns
Story: MoS (But with the plane sequence)
Villain: Zod (Shannon)
Dialogue: Superman Returns (Yep)

 

[Poni_Boy]

The frankenstein Superman movie.

Direction: Snyder's visuals with Singer's ability to convey lore.
Music: Hmm if it's a reboot I have to choose Zimmer
Main Cast: Cavill, Adams and Crowe
Supporting Cast: Langella, Huntington and Saint.
Production Design: Superman Returns
Story: MoS (But with the plane sequence)
Villain: Zod (Shannon)
Dialogue: Superman Returns (Yep)

Sounds like a winner. But I wouldn't want to see Snyder and Singer try to co-direct anything. They'd probably just argue for 7 months and then quit. They'd need a Nolan or Mendes or Raimi to keep em toeing the line.

PS I'm still waiting for my David Fincher Batman movie

 

[MrsKent26]

The frankenstein Superman movie.

Direction: Snyder's visuals with Singer's ability to convey lore.
Music: Hmm if it's a reboot I have to choose Zimmer
Main Cast: Cavill, Adams and Crowe
Supporting Cast: Langella, Huntington and Saint.
Production Design: Superman Returns
Story: MoS (But with the plane sequence)
Villain: Zod (Shannon)
Dialogue: Superman Returns (Yep)

Eh. Why replace Lane and Fishburn? Huntington would be nice to have.

The dialogue from SR wasn't anything special. Some of it was verbatim from STM. The rest was hollow. Superman said only these words to his nemesis in SR: "You have something that belongs to me." I'd say SR's dialogue suffered from the same weaknesses as MOS's did to an even greater degree.

The production design of SR didn't know what era to be in. Too retro unless this is a period piece.

And what do you mean about Singer's ability to convey lore?

 

[Poni_Boy]

Singer is a better storyteller than Snyder. At the end of the day that's what a director is.

 

[MrsKent26]

In general, Singer is better. But if I was to judge Singer only for SR and Snyder only for MOS, I would say Snyder is slightly better. Which is what I did here since people were discussing merging the two movies.

 

[Wise]

Eh. Why replace Lane and Fishburn? Huntington would be nice to have.

The dialogue from SR wasn't anything special. Some of it was verbatim from STM. The rest was hollow. Superman said only these words to his nemesis in SR: "You have something that belongs to me." I'd say SR's dialogue suffered from the same weaknesses as MOS's did to an even greater degree.

The production design of SR didn't know what era to be in. Too retro unless this is a period piece.

And what do you mean about Singer's ability to convey lore?

To be honest I thought Lane was a little too pretty to be Martha. Fishburne was great, but Langella can act circles around him.

In terms of conveying lore. i mean what Singer did with Superman Returns and the first X-Men movies to a greater degree. Singer is a pioneer of taking concepts that shouldn't work on screen and making them work. X-Men was the first modern comic book movie. It set the path of Spiderman, Batman Begins, Iron Man, Avengers and MoS.

He then chose to take the 1978 Superman and convey him in modern day setting. Brave if you ask me. And if you look past the costume, the minimalist dialogue, the actor and judge the world, the tone, the mood and the characters around him. I think it somewhat works.

To me Superman works on two levels. He works as a demigod character study on how a boy grows up and copes with the powers f a god.

And secondly it's old fashioned wish fulfillment.

I feel like MoS went for the character study route and did a decent job of nailing it.

But I feel like Snyder went for the wish fulfillment. I have to say that the plane sequence, the flying with Lois, the gas main sequence. Those are what reminded me of wanting to be Superman as a kid. Of wanting to save the world.

MoS simply didn't give me that feeling. But I think MoS was the superior movie.


I understand if you disagree. But personally I don't think MoS or SR are great movies. I think MoS is a good movie and SR was an average one. I'm still waiting for the Superman movie that nails every aspect of the comic and character.

 

[Poni_Boy]

In general, Singer is better. But if I was to judge Singer only for SR and Snyder only for MOS, I would say Snyder is slightly better. Which is what I did here since people were discussing merging the two movies.

In that case I'd say Singer still trumps Snyder in terms of story. All of SR's character and plot point issues aside the pacing, editing, set/production design, musical composition and dialogue were implemented better on the whole. SR isn't as memorable, bold or big as MOS but it's executed more skillfully on a technical level. Best way I've heard it described is that SR is like a steady, low pulse on an EKG while MOS is going tachy. The highs are higher but the lows are lower.

But personally I don't think MoS or SR are great movies. I think MoS is a good movie and SR was an average one. I'm still waiting for the Superman movie that nails every aspect of the comic and character.

Ditto, hence out nonsensical hodgepodge of fan cast(crew?)ing

 

[BatLobster]

I would definitely agree that combining the strengths of SR and MoS would make for a hell of a Superman movie.

I'll say this much though...with MoS I don't think they had any choice but to go in a clear new direction. Being the reboot film that immediately followed SR, I don't think it would've worked to stay within the realm of anything SR and that includes the visual look.

It's more or less just kind of a shame that Singer didn't do what needed to be done in the first place- which is reboot Superman for the modern age. I would've been curious to see his version of that.

 

[STARMAN]

I was entertained by MOS despite it's flaws. I found Superman Returns well crafted but not entertaining. But the biggest reason I choose MOS is I much rather go forward with Cavill and Adams. I also rather go ahead with the world MOS created rather than the homage to Donnor world of Superman Returns. I think it's easier to eventually get to a great film with the path MOS has. I felt like Superman Returns blocks itself from ever moving forward.

 

[MrsKent26]

To be honest I thought Lane was a little too pretty to be Martha. Fishburne was great, but Langella can act circles around him.

I don't think Langella's acting in SR was any better than Fishburn's in MOS. And why can't Martha be pretty? Seems like an odd reason to me.

In terms of conveying lore. i mean what Singer did with Superman Returns and the first X-Men movies to a greater degree. Singer is a pioneer of taking concepts that shouldn't work on screen and making them work. X-Men was the first modern comic book movie. It set the path of Spiderman, Batman Begins, Iron Man, Avengers and MoS.

Yes, Singer conveys lore better in his other movies. But I didn't see that with SR.

He then chose to take the 1978 Superman and convey him in modern day setting. Brave if you ask me. And if you look past the costume, the minimalist dialogue, the actor and judge the world, the tone, the mood and the characters around him. I think it somewhat works.

I wouldn't say it was brave. I think trying something new is brave. He wanted to recreate what once was. And to me, it didn't work. It was a floundering fusion of past and present. The world felt artificial to me and it didn't capture any whimsy or fun of the past. It was bland.

To me Superman works on two levels. He works as a demigod character study on how a boy grows up and copes with the powers f a god.

Agreed. Didn't see see either in SR.

And secondly it's old fashioned wish fulfillment.

SR was a poor imitation of that.

I feel like MoS went for the character study route and did a decent job of nailing it.

Agreed.

But I feel like Snyder went for the wish fulfillment. I have to say that the plane sequence, the flying with Lois, the gas main sequence. Those are what reminded me of wanting to be Superman as a kid. Of wanting to save the world.

I liked the plane sequence (up until awkward Routh says that STM line and stands there looking blank as the crowd cheers). The flying with Lois didn't work for me because there was no chemistry and Lois has a fiance. It makes it all a tad shady. The gas main thing was ok, but not what I would call an interesting action scene.

MoS simply didn't give me that feeling. But I think MoS was the superior movie.

MOS gave me that feeling at some points. When superman rises up against the WE and stops the beam, I got that feeling.

I understand if you disagree. But personally I don't think MoS or SR are great movies. I think MoS is a good movie and SR was an average one. I'm still waiting for the Superman movie that nails every aspect of the comic and character.

I agree with all of this. And it's all about preference. I'm not trying to pick on you, just stating my thoughts on it.

 

[Poni_Boy]

SR was like peeling a bandage off very slowly...a long sting that turns into a disturbing numbness as your body gives out. MOS was more like ripping it off and taking big chunks of skin with it. SR was like dying by Chinese water torture....alone and starving. Whereas MOS was like a guillotine in front of a roaring crowd...stuffing themselves with an 'execution feast'.



Pick your poison.

This is brilliant. On so many levels. You win today's analogy award.

I was entertained by MOS despite it's flaws. I found Superman Returns well crafted but not entertaining.

Well said. That's the general consensus I've noticed.

 

[MrsKent26]

In that case I'd say Singer still trumps Snyder in terms of story. All of SR's character and plot point issues aside the pacing, editing, set/production design, musical composition and dialogue were implemented better on the whole. SR isn't as memorable, bold or big as MOS but it's executed more skillfully on a technical level. Best way I've heard it described is that SR is like a steady, low pulse on an EKG while MOS is going tachy. The highs are higher but the lows are lower.

Eh, I just don't agree. SR was a big nothing, aside from the plane sequence. MOS was flawed, but with SR....there was nothing there. I agree with the ECG analogy for MOS. It was straight up ventricular tachycardia. But SR was a complete and utter flat-line. Stone-cold dead on arrival.

 

[Mindreaper21]

If you're into pain...there's something for everyone.

Yes, there is.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Eh, I just don't agree. SR was a big nothing, aside from the plane sequence. MOS was flawed, but with SR....there was nothing there. I agree with the ECG analogy for MOS. It was straight up ventricular tachycardia. But SR was a complete and utter flat-line. Stone-cold dead on arrival.

Sadly, I also think that SR made a LOT of time for character, even though very little happened. On the other hand, MOS had a lot happening (especially in the action department) that the characters feel a bit underwritten.

It's like they each have opposite flaws. One doesn't throw a punch, the other causes (granted inadvertently) mass destruction.

 

[MrsKent26]

Sadly, I also think that SR made a LOT of time for character, even though very little happened. On the other hand, MOS had a lot happening (especially in the action department) that the characters feel a bit underwritten.

It's like they each have opposite flaws. One doesn't throw a punch, the other causes (granted inadvertently) mass destruction.

It seems more like they have the same flaw in the characterization department, but for different reasons and to differing degrees.

SR had no character development and they were all poorly written and unappealing. And like you said...SR had all the time in the world for character since it wasn't filling the time with action, but none of that time was used. It was just taken up with filler scenes that barely had meaning or entertainment value. That's why I don't get it when people say SR was well-crafted. It wasn't. Characterization is important and it was either totally absent or completely unappealing.

MOS had some character development, but still felt sparse at times. There were meaningful character moments amongst intense action, but it felt like they were cut off prematurely. It was a step in the right direction, but not taken far enough due to Goyer and Snyder's limitations.

 

[Mikelus]

In that case I'd say Singer still trumps Snyder in terms of story. All of SR's character and plot point issues aside the pacing, editing, set/production design, musical composition and dialogue were implemented better on the whole. SR isn't as memorable, bold or big as MOS but it's executed more skillfully on a technical level.

Says who? Oh yeah, the one that rated Green Lantern higher than MOS!

GL review: http://www.gotham-news.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern

MOS review: http://www.gotham-news.com/node/17692



Maybe you should work more on your little website instead of bashing MOS all day long.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I sure did. It's all about perspective, the industry status quo and entertainment factor at the relevant time. Today I would give it one star. Back then I didn't. Today I would give MOS 2.5 instead of 1.5. But I didn't back when I reviewed it. My thoughts, reactions and ratings for movies change over time, multiple viewings and discussion with people.

So... problem?

 

[king666]

Says who? Oh yeah, the one that rated Green Lantern higher than MOS!

GL review: http://www.gotham-news.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern

MOS review: http://www.gotham-news.com/node/17692



Maybe you should work more on your little website instead of bashing MOS all day long.

 

[Mikelus]

Is funny how some of the people that bash MOS then love campy, mediocre Superman films, and other bad superhero movies and tv shows. It just shows how subjective and incoherent people can be.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I know. Opinions just suuuuuuck don't they.