TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 2

[Manosman]

I like how people would say, damn SR was boring he didn't even throw a punch. Now they are saying, damn he throws too many punches.

 

[BH/HHH]

Apparently the word is that MOS has too much action. *fist pump*

Came across this.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/man-of-steel-review-the-superman-film-we-needed-97676/

Ha ha love it, this is just can't win situation t:

I can guarantee this film doesn't have too much action for me.

 

[Anita18]

I like how people would say, damn SR was boring he didn't even throw a punch. Now they are saying, damn he throws too many punches.

To be fair, I don't think many of us are making that complaint.

 

[jb007]

To much action in an action film? Now that's rich.

 

[DKDetective]

To much action in an action film? Now that's rich.

Why is that rich? There are things called balance and pacing. Set pieces are often half as thrilling if you don't care about why they are happening or the characters involved. Also, what would otherwise be big, epic moments can lose their special quality if they are a dime a dozen. Moreover, I think a lot of people want a Superman film to be more than just an "action film". The character is iconic and has a lot of thematic depth. It is not unreasonable for people to want a Superman film that is more like Nolan's Batman films than mindless thrill rides like many of the Marvel films or franchises like the Fast & Furious.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Why is that rich? There are things called balance and pacing. Set pieces are often half as thrilling if you don't care about why they are happening or the characters involved. Also, what would otherwise be big, epic moments can lose their special quality if they are a dime a dozen. Moreover, I think a lot of people want a Superman film to be more than just an "action film". The character is iconic and has a lot of thematic depth. It is not unreasonable for people to want a Superman film that is more like Nolan's Batman films than mindless thrill rides like many of the Marvel films or franchises like the Fast & Furious.

???

 

[Iron_Madrigal]

He was making a decent point until his DC fanboi-ism showed.

 

[DKDetective]

He was making a decent point until his DC fanboi-ism showed.

Not a DC fanboy and I admit saying "many of the Marvel" films was unfair, but for the most part, the internally made Marvel films don't try to say too much. They are fun popcorn films that veer away from adult themes. How else do you explain them avoiding the Demon in a Bottle story arc like the plague? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Comic book films can be many things and should be. The X-Men films are excellent on the other hand for trying to examine deeper themes.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Not a DC fanboy and I admit saying "many of the Marvel" films was unfair, but for the most part, the internally made Marvel films don't try to say too much. They are fun popcorn films that veer away from adult themes. How else do you explain them avoiding the Demon in a Bottle story arc like the plague? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Comic book films can be many things and should be. The X-Men films are excellent on the other hand for trying to examine deeper themes.

Avengers had depth in its own way. So did all of the solo movies (IMO).
TASM wasn't a fun popcorn film (but I liked it also).

 

[Visualiza]

I like how people would say, damn SR was boring he didn't even throw a punch. Now they are saying, damn he throws too many punches.

Well, if there is such a thing as too little, then by definition there must be excess as well.

In the context of movies; however, I don't think that criticisms such as "too much/little/long/short" should ever be taken at face value, because they're too relative. I interpret criticisms that point out excess or insufficiency as simply another way of saying that something was not well balanced. This post seems to insinuate that if one criticizes something for being insufficient, then you can't criticize something else for being excessive, which I believe to be a fallacy.

We've all seen long movies and action packed thrill rides that don't seem excessive in the least, and there are also shorter films that seem to drag on for ages; ultimately it depends on how the film is paced and presented to the audience.

You can't simply dismiss one criticism like that since the opposite was frequently cited for a similar film; that's just not looking at the whole picture.

 

[Compi716]

Hey guys, I'm seeing the movie tonight! I'll let you guys know what I think. Although keep in mind, my first impressions tonight will be coming from Compi716 the Superman fan, the purist, the man who lives and breaths comicbooks. I'll only be able to formulate a serious critical analysis after I see MOS for the second time Thursday night.

 

[LordofhouseEl]

???

He was making a decent point until his DC fanboi-ism showed.

His right though, not trying to come across as pretentious but there is zero dept in any of the Marvel/Disney movies they are very light hearted with action at the forefront.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

His right though, not trying to come across as pretentious but there is zero dept in any of the Marvel/Disney movies they are very light hearted with action at the forefront.

In YOUR opinion.

 

[Mjölnir]

Not a DC fanboy and I admit saying "many of the Marvel" films was unfair, but for the most part, the internally made Marvel films don't try to say too much. They are fun popcorn films that veer away from adult themes. How else do you explain them avoiding the Demon in a Bottle story arc like the plague? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Comic book films can be many things and should be. The X-Men films are excellent on the other hand for trying to examine deeper themes.

I'd say that not going into "adult themes" (I don't know where that line is drawn though) and being "mindless" are far from synonymous, nor does being fun remove any chances of depth. Loki became a very popular villain because he wasn't just a shallow "I'm evil and want to see things that don't please me destroyed" (he and Thor is probably the best movie villain/hero dynamic since Xavier/Magneto for me since it's so much more than just antagonistic), The Incredible Hulk didn't really go the easy and fun ride in any shape or form, Iron Man does say a bit about handling conflict in the world, and so on. They don't have incredible depth (not that I don't know if any superhero movie does) and we don't have to agree on it, I'm just stating what I think and I think they are far from movies like Transformers 2.

But otherwise I certainly agree with you that there can be too much action in an action movie. You need to establish the characters and what they are fighting for in order for the action to really mean anything. Some go the character-driven way, some go mainly on plot, but you have to do something. It has to have heart or brain (or both). That said the superhero genre is of course one of those that can handle quite a lot of action if done right.

 

[LordofhouseEl]

In YOUR opinion.

I think that goes without saying.

 

[Mjölnir]

I think that goes without saying.

Not to derail this thread but there is a difference in how you state facts and how you state opinions (which is a fact). I think it's good form to keep to that when arguing with others as it can otherwise come across as pretty arrogant and dismissive of the other person (which is my opinion).

 

[LordofhouseEl]

Not to derail this thread but there is a difference in how you state facts and how you state opinions (which is a fact). I think it's good form to keep to that when arguing with others as it can otherwise come across as pretty arrogant and dismissive of the other person (which is my opinion).

And you stated this why? If you read my initial statement you would see its me pretty much stating "my opinion" and agreeing with another posters opinion. I mean what else would it be when I post but my opinion. It would be beyond ludicrous if every time I posted I had to say in my opinion. Factual statements differ from opinions of self and if someone cant grasp that then posting on forums is something that might not be cut out for them.

 

[Visualiza]

I think that goes without saying.

Indeed, but to say that there is zero depth crosses the opinion barrier right into fallacy territory; it simply isn't true. Every time I hear people say that Avengers was a popcorn action flick, I can't help but think that they missed at least half of the movie. Expendables is a better example of a movie with little depth and a heavy emphasis on action, and Avengers, as well as the rest of the Marvel catalogue, is far from the same thing. Saying you didn't like how it was done or presented is one thing, but to say that it wasn't there at all is another thing entirely.

Whatever the case, it's becoming very difficult for me to take this argument seriously. Seems like most people default to the notion that if a movie is dark and serious, it's enriched with social commentary, relevance, verisimilitude(the latest buzz word), plot depth, and conflict. A lighter approach? Instantly derided as being a campy, empty comedy for the kids crowd. Either argument is provably untrue at every level, but I'm just getting tired of it; it's starting to be upheld like a religious platitude that nobody ever bothers to question.

I can't wait for the day when we all start judging movies for their content rather than their tone.

 

[LordofhouseEl]

Indeed, but to say that there is zero depth crosses the opinion barrier right into fallacy territory; it simply isn't true. Every time I hear people say that Avengers was a popcorn action flick, I can't help but think that they missed at least half of the movie. Expendables is a better example of a movie with little depth and a heavy emphasis on action, and Avengers, as well as the rest of the Marvel catalogue, is far from the same thing. Saying you didn't like how it was done or presented is one thing, but to say that it wasn't there at all is another thing entirely.

Whatever the case, it's becoming very difficult for me to take this argument seriously. Seems like most people default to the notion that if a movie is dark and serious, it's enriched with social commentary, relevance, verisimilitude(the latest buzz word), plot depth, and conflict. A lighter approach? Instantly derided as being a campy, empty comedy for the kids crowd. Either argument is provably untrue at every level, but I'm just getting tired of it; it's starting to be upheld like a religious platitude that nobody ever bothers to question.

I can't wait for the day when we all start judging movies for their content rather than their tone.

Zero dept might have been the wrong term to use but none the less I found the film lacking. I will give an example, at first I was enthralled at the concept of the conflict between Thor and Loki. These are two guys who grew up together and at one point loved each other as brothers. Then Thor shows up in Avengers and comes and takes Loki from the helicarrier and they are on the mountain. You have a moving scene where he still shows affection for his brother and pleads with him to come home and that scene is touching but then after that the film just leaves that all behind with humor action and humor. We could have been presented with great scenes of the two Brother verbally and emotionally unloading on one another. Give us great insight as to Lokis motivation and drive(It was slightly touched on in Thor). There are so many missed opportunities in the movie because they chose the humor route as opposed to creating emotional conflict and drama.

 

[Monicabbm]

ErikDavis ‏@ErikDavis 32s
Stoked Snyder and Goyer are doing MAN OF STEEL 2. You'll see how much I liked their first Superman vehicle in about 2 hours.

 

[Manosman]

http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-sequel-underway-with-zack-snyder-and-david-s-goyer/

 

[Visualiza]

Zero dept might have been the wrong term to use but none the less I found the film lacking. I will give an example, at first I was enthralled at the concept of the conflict between Thor and Loki. These are two guys who grew up together and at one point loved each other as brothers. Then Thor shows up in Avengers and comes and takes Loki from the helicarrier and they are on the mountain. You have a moving scene where he still shows affection for his brother and pleads with him to come home and that scene is touching but then after that the film just leaves that all behind with humor action and humor. We could have been presented with great scenes of the two Brother verbally and emotionally unloading on one another. Give us great insight as to Lokis motivation and drive(It was slightly touched on in Thor). There are so many missed opportunities in the movie because they chose the humor route as opposed to creating emotional conflict and drama.

You just gave a good example of depth within the film, but yet again, you're falling back on humor and the lighter tone as a pretense for why it was lacking. Did you expect the filmmakers to dwell on Thor and Loki the entire time, particularly when there were several other members of the team that needed attention as well? That scene gave us all we needed as an audience from the perspective of the two brothers, and even then, to say it wasn't expanded upon was not true at all, because it was revisited when they met again on Stark Tower during the final battle. A truly forgettable alternative would have been to have them simply pound one anothers faces in whenever they met, but each time that they did meet, personal conflict was most definitely present. In fact, even in spite of the humor that was present, Thor & Loki's interactions were among the most serious and sympathetic of any other two characters in the film.

Every interaction between two characters gave us crystal clear insight into what made them tick. The precaution in BW was readily evident when she approached Banner, as was the apprehension and distrust from him. Starks admiration of Banner was apparent from when they first met to their dialogue in the lab, as was Banners fearfulness of his own condition. Steve had a rather overt disdain for Tony's general disposition from the very outset, and this aspect continued to escalate throughout the film. Really, the only character who IMO didn't get their just due was Hawkeye, for obvious reasons. Again, I think you're trivializing the depth that was very much a part of the film.


In all of these scenarios humor never took center stage over character depth, but people like to act as though the film was a festival of wise-cracks and punchlines, which couldn't be further from the truth. Now I'm certainly not saying that you have to like it, that's just nonsense, but to say that it was dismissed or took a backseat to the humor is a bit crass. One of the best things about the film was the care that was taken with regard to the characters. Avengers did it better than X-Men, IMO.

Seriously, watch Expendables and Avengers back to back and try to say that they're both the same movie. Expendables can get away with it for its self-referential nature wrt to the theme and cast, but when you peel that back, there isn't much else there. Avengers did not do the same, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't believe that the Marvel films are exemplary masterpieces of film making, within the genre or otherwise(Hell, I only like 3 of them myself), but I do think that they have all taken great care to establish and develop their title characters, if nothing else. I simply feel that the general consensus has approached this genre with bias first and objectivity last, in that lighter films = empty camp and darker films = rich depth, and I vehemently disagree. I challenge anyone to tell me that CA:TFA has less depth than Dredd. We're veering off topic here so I'm willing to continue this discussion via PM if you'd like, otherwise I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

 

[Autonet]

Fisticuffs time.

 

[Astrodust]

RT reviews are coming in. Well the first one anyhow.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/

 

[Anita18]

Fisticuffs delayed!