The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - Part 154

Status
Not open for further replies.
The funny thing is, MoS was all out scifi craziness. It was easily the most "sci-fi" Superman movie yet, full of funky sci-fi-isms like the World Engine, Genesis Chamber, The Codex, etc. Jor-El rides a freakin' alien dragon for crying out loud. Sure, the tone is psuedo-"realism" a bit to give the world's reaction to the events more weight, but at the core it was a first contact/alien invasion movie, just set in a recognizable version of our world. That alone didn't make it good though.

Every sci-fi element in the film was grounded in its own internal logic. It wasn't sci-fi crazyness like All Star was.

Jor El rode a dragon, but Superman in All Star kept a baby sun eater in the fortress of solitude and fed him miniature suns.

Different levels of sci-fi here.
 
Maybe it was merely an issue of having the right ideas and the execution faltering, but we still don't really have a modern reference for what a universally-loved Superman movie looks like. In other words, there's still no way to definitively say that even someone with the "right" sensibilities for the character would produce something that resonated with the majority of moviegoers and critics. That's just my theory, because I honestly think Superman simply doesn't have the same appeal to the GA as a lot of other superhero characters, regardless of how you dress it up. I think the idea of Superman is something that appeals to people, but translating that into a great film is a different story. Not impossible though, I just think it would take someone with a really strong vision. I heard some rumors that George Miller is being looked at by WB to possibly do the solo Supes sequel. Now that is something I'd be interested in.

That's almost always what it comes down to for me. How you say somethings vs. what you're actually saying. There are a lot of great ideas in Man of Steel that were not fully done justice by its writers or director.
 
Superman just seems to be cursed with "damned if you do damned if you don't." Try to embrace the wish fulfillment empowerment fantasy and people complain. Try to give him some realistic flaws and/or limitations to challenge him so an audience can more easily relate to him and people still complain. Sometimes it's hard not to get the feeling that people just want Superman to fail no matter how he's approached.
 
the two aspects aren't mutually exclusive. Take Batman or (certain iterations) of James Bond, both are flawed but are also the ultimate adolescent power fantasies.
 
Superman just seems to be cursed with "damned if you do damned if you don't." Try to embrace the wish fulfillment empowerment fantasy and people complain. Try to give him some realistic flaws and/or limitations to challenge him so an audience can more easily relate to him and people still complain. Sometimes it's hard not to get the feeling that people just want Superman to fail no matter how he's approached.

That's sort of the sneaking suspicion I've had at times too. It's a tricky balance to walk.

No one said that making Superman all out crazy sci fi is the only thing you have to do to make a good Superman film. It should go without saying that execution is just as, if not more important.

If Superman didn't have the same level of appeal as other heroes, he would've fallen by the wayside already. To say people only like the idea of Superman is strange to me. Superman has consistently been one of the biggest and most popular Superheroes of all time. You don't become or stay that popular by people merely liking the idea of you. The problem isn't Superman's appeal, its that there hasn't been a good Superman film since 1980 (IMO), there's yet to be a good Superman video game, and he doesn't have the constant media push that Batman gets.

Fair enough. Just to be clear, I know you guys weren't saying that sci-fi was the only thing needed in order to make a good Superman movie. I just thought it was kind of ironic that in many ways MoS really did have a very solid modern take on the mythos, on paper (for me at least). Sometimes I wonder if I'm being too harsh on the film when I reflect on the things I like about it on paper, but then every time I've tried to watch it I just find it hard to continue watching.

I should clarify that I'm specifically talking GA people that don't read the comics. Superman obviously has a very large and passionate fanbase, so I'm leaving them off the table. I just think Superman is a character that's tied up in nostalgia and childhood memories for a lot of casual folks. The "S" symbol is pervasive in pop culture and tends to function as a real life symbol of hope, optimism, perseverance, etc. Think of how many pop songs there are that reference Superman. That's kind of what I'm talking about. I think that legacy of Superman would always stick around even if they never made another movie or TV show. I think as of now, there seems to be this disconnect between the sentimentality that exists for Superman as a cultural artifact and the actual enthusiasm in the general moviegoing audience for Superman as a modern movie character. Leaving MoS's quality aside, the movie did 'solid' box office numbers but nothing outstanding. I don't think mixed reviews alone can account for that, otherwise how do you explain movies like the last three Transformers films cracking a billion? Even Superman Returns, with fairly good reviews and a less dark tone in the marketing, underperformed. Granted, its own inflated budget definitely was the nail in the coffin there. Whether you want to blame it solely on WB hiring the wrong filmmakers, the long dry spell with no Superman movies, times changing, or some combination of everything...Superman has underperformed in the modern era for such a massive, global IP.

I also have admit that I know I'm probably projecting a bit when I talk about people like the idea of Superman. Superman is a character I'll go through phases with, where I try get myself psyched about the character...but at the end of the day, I tend to settle on just being kinda lukewarm towards him. Even the Donner films, which I have a tremendous amount of respect for, don't really make me love the character. Before MoS, I was in one of those phases (just like I was before SR) and totally went in thinking it was going to be the film that changes everything and converts me into a fan once and for all. I think a lot of people went into MoS with that mindset. Ironically it seems like BvS is going to be one big exercise in getting the audience to care about Superman. Cast him as the villain through Batman's eyes- the natural underdog and proven audience favorite, and then eventually get to a point where Batman gives Supes his seal of approval. Once he's on team-Batman, automatic audience brownie points. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing- on paper that arc is true to both of their characters, but it's a smart strategy that might end up paying off for WB/DC.
 
Last edited:
I don't think mixed reviews alone can account for that, otherwise how do you explain movies like the last three Transformers films cracking a billion?

The transformers franchise has been an anomaly in the sense that it's completely unaffected by its critical reception, whereas almost every other franchise is affected atleast on some level by it.


BTW, I wonder how being marketed as gloomy and overly serious in both Superman Returns and MOS had an impact on an icon that is known to be bright and optimistic.

At first glance do these really attract you to the character

superman-returns-brandon-routh-kevin-spacey-kate-bosworth-movie-poster.jpg


man-of-steel-poster.jpg




Over something like this would?

All_Star_Superman_Cover.jpg
 
Last edited:
The transformers franchise has been an anomaly in the sense that it's completely unaffected by its critical reception, whereas almost every other franchise is affected atleast on some level by it.


BTW, I wonder how being marketed as gloomy and overly serious in both Superman Returns and MOS had an impact on an icon that is known to be bright and optimistic.

At first glance do these really attract you to the character

superman-returns-brandon-routh-kevin-spacey-kate-bosworth-movie-poster.jpg

I always thought this was a beautiful poster and was certainly fitting for the character.

Singer could have done something unique but was sadly blinded by nostalgia.
 
I always liked that poster too.

I'll also go on record of saying that I think Superman's flight looked much better and less fake in Returns than it did in MoS.
 
Returns had some darn beautiful and amazing scenes. Like Superman hovering over earth to listen to everyone's pleas. Or when Superman goes up to recharge himself by the sun. Or when Superman falls after sending the kyrptonite island off. Or when Superman saves Lois, the Kid and Cyclops.
 
Indeed.

And it's a sad day for Superman fans when Batman has to give his "seal of approval" so Superman can be loved again. Sigh.
 
I grew up thinking Superman was boring and cheesy. I still feel the same, to an extent. Man Of Steel was probably the only version that i could really connect with, and that's not saying much since i thought the movie had a ton of flaws and the character wasn't that interesting. I just never got with the whole Superman smiling all the time, saving cats in trees, picking up anything like it's nothing and flying away while Lois stands there confused. Snyder is at least making me feel some kind of sympathy for the character and i can take some scenes seriously. He's also pretty badass when he gets to that place. My problem with MOS was with some of the CG, direction, cinematography, dialogue, structure. Technical things. Not so much the overall concept or story which i think is really solid. Cavill is fine casting too.

Superman just doesn't interest me like Batman does. And he's not as fun or funny as a Deadpool or Spidey (when written properly).

It's just a taste thing. People can love Superman all they want. I get it, because of what he represents. But i'd rather something with more teeth, more dynamics as a character. Sometimes he's portrayed as something very light and one-dimensional, and there are people like me who roll their eyes at that unless that character can make them laugh their ass off. Not gonna lie, i like dark and damaged characters, plain and simple. This is why Batman is my guy.

A lot of folks find Supes to be old fashioned. Vanilla. Boring. Unbeatable unless there's kryptonite, which at this point probably annoys the viewer because it's been done to death. "Ughhh that green rock again". People have moved on, and so Snyder needs to step his game up with these cross-overs in order to make people love Superman again. Or for the first time.
 
Where does this whole "unbeatable unless there's kyrptonite" thing come from? He's been beaten up by countless bad guys and I'm sure some other heroes, too. Just like everyone else. As for being too powerful... Again, beaten up countless times. If on a 1-10 scale, Superman's power's a 10, then so are a bunch of his enemies and whoever else. Even in the Silver Age, there were physical threats to him. I have no idea where this misconception comes from.
 
Returns had some darn beautiful and amazing scenes. Like Superman hovering over earth to listen to everyone's pleas. Or when Superman goes up to recharge himself by the sun. Or when Superman falls after sending the kyrptonite island off. Or when Superman saves Lois, the Kid and Cyclops.

Returns is almost good. It's a little frustrating. There are a lot of great things about it that get mucked up by the poor decisions like the over-reliance on Donner, the suit, Luthor's plan, etc. Now that I think about it it really isn't much different than Man of Steel in that way. MOS was another mixed bag that had the potential to be much greater than it was.
 
^ That's where I'm at on both movies, too. So many great ideas and decisions -especially MoS - and it's so let down by other ideas and decisions and most of all execution.
 
Didn't realize that TDKR aniversity was a few days ago. Happy birthday to the best CBM of all time! I know a lot of people say dark knight but I think while great dark knight is overrated some and dark knight rises underrated. Dark knight had better action, score and I loved the story to and I thought both bane and catwoman where great. I think out side of joker bane and catwoman had the best acting of any body in the trilogy.
 
The transformers franchise has been an anomaly in the sense that it's completely unaffected by its critical reception, whereas almost every other franchise is affected atleast on some level by it.

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise as well. Three out of four of them got worse reviews than MOS, and they all made over a billion, or very close to it.
 
^ That's where I'm at on both movies, too. So many great ideas and decisions -especially MoS - and it's so let down by other ideas and decisions and most of all execution.

That's how I feel too. I also wonder if tonally, there's a sweet spot for a Superman movie that's somewhere between the two.
 
I think the main interest for Batman vs Superman comes from the fact that Batman is in it. He's a much hotter cinematic property right now. If this was just another Snyder directed Superman solo movie, the lukewarm reception MOS got is what this movie would be getting now interest wise.
 
Agreed. Same goes for Suicide Squad by having Batman's greatest enemy, the Joker, in the film. Half of the Squad have a history with Batman (Harley, Deadshot, Croc, Katana), Arkham Asylum is featured, and of course, Batman hmself gets a scene where he chases Joker and Harley. They are banking hard on the Bat.
 
Oh, without a doubt. Here's a cool quote from Snyder in the new Empire article.

Zack Snyder could have done anything he wanted in the DC Extended Universe after Man of Steel was released. With Warner Bros. turning to him for assistance in creating this world, the filmmaker could have jumped straight into a Superman sequel, the Justice League, or even a Batman movie for that matter. However, it turns out that he's quite relieved to just have the Caped Crusader as a co-star in next year's Dawn of Justice. "If it was a Batman movie it would be a much more difficult proposition because of how good Chris' movies are. We live in gratiitude to those movies. Chris set a tone for the DC Universe, and separated us from Marvel in a great way. We are the legacy pf those movies." The pressure is obviously on Ben Affleck and Geoff Johns to deliver now then.

Couldn't agree more with Zack, and it's nice to see him open up about this. Even though TDKT is its own contained continuity, it definitely does feel like it is the spiritual forebearer to the DC Universe films- not in terms of "realism", but in terms tone, consequences, etc.
 
"If it was a Batman movie it would be a much more difficult proposition because of how good Chris' movies are. We live in gratiitude to those movies. Chris set a tone for the DC Universe, and separated us from Marvel in a great way. We are the legacy pf those movies."

Well now that quote's a keeper. Going to bookmark that :up:
 
The difference is Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean have a monopoly on the market. The same goes for Fast & Furious. People know what they're getting when they go in to one of those films and since there's no competition and they only put a single film out every 1 - 3 years, they generally won't mind.

By contrast, no superhero film has a monopoly on the market in this day and age. If WB wants to make a billion, there's no other way but to put out great films that can compete with (or surpass) the competition.
 
Oh, without a doubt. Here's a cool quote from Snyder in the new Empire article.



Couldn't agree more with Zack, and it's nice to see him open up about this. Even though TDKT is its own contained continuity, it definitely does feel like it is the spiritual forebearer to the DC Universe films- not in terms of "realism", but in terms tone, consequences, etc.

Awesome. It's comforting to know that no matter how many new superhero movies or Batman movies come out in the near future, the TDK trilogy has left it's mark and it won't go away.

The difference is Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean have a monopoly on the market. The same goes for Fast & Furious. People know what they're getting when they go in to one of those films and since there's no competition and they only put a single film out every 1 - 3 years, they generally won't mind.

By contrast, no superhero film has a monopoly on the market in this day and age. If WB wants to make a billion, there's no other way but to put out great films that can compete with (or surpass) the competition.

And that's a wonderful thing for superhero fans!
 
Couldn't agree more with Zack, and it's nice to see him open up about this. Even though TDKT is its own contained continuity, it definitely does feel like it is the spiritual forebearer to the DC Universe films- not in terms of "realism", but in terms tone, consequences, etc.

I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing honestly. Man of Steel felt very much like it was trying to recreate what Nolan did with Batman Begins without having the strength of vision behind it (despite Nolan having a producer and story credit). This movie could easily fall into the same trap. Tone should be secondary to a quality writing and directing and all that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,398
Messages
22,097,301
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"