TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 2

[Compi716]

Come to think of it, does anyone know if we actually get a scene with Lois in her apartment since I can't recall reading any posts where there could have been a moment to show her apartment within the film.

We do, right before [BLACKOUT]the FBI comes for her[/BLACKOUT].

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yeah that's why I don't mind it too much. [BLACKOUT]She had just fallen out of an airplane (the got destroyed too). Her shaking is actually pretty good acting in that scene, since her adrenaline must've been through the roof. Most of the movie you sense Lois really has a crush on him, moreso than he does on her, which adds an extra layer.[/BLACKOUT]

Spoiler

Does he randomly start to like her at a point in the movie? Or is it gradual?

 

[Bran-El]

Anybody who has seen the movie, can you describe the priest scene? I'm curious what the point of that is.

 

[Autonet]

Spoiler

Does he randomly start to like her at a point in the movie? Or is it gradual?

Spoiler

It's not random, but I felt Lois liked him first. Just how it felt portrayed. He had other stuff to think about, like flying.

Anybody who has seen the movie, can you describe the priest scene? I'm curious what the point of that is.

Spoiler

Zod arrives and broadcasts to the world. Clark is at home at the time and at some point goes to a church and sits down and tells the priest that he's the one they are looking for, and he doesn't know what he should do exactly.

I personally would rather him have this conversation with his mother, or even just himself, about it rather than some random priest. Of course if this scene was taken straight of a comic then that's another story.

 

[DKDetective]

It's not a spoiler that they kiss---it's in the trailer.

I got the impression from a reliable source that it's more a moment of exploration and adreneline.

It's also pretty in-character for Lois and Superman. Lois and Clark kiss in one of the first episodes of "Lois and Clark." It doesn't mean they were madly in love yet. But I can see how in a moment of intense adreneline she might kiss him.

I view it more that there is a strange connection between them. There is something chemical. Sometimes you just go with it. I imagine the next film will be used, in part, to explore what they mean to each other and how they are dealing with working together at the Planet.

Frankly, there's a Lois/Superman scene that I've heard takes place near the very end after the incident with Zod that I'm shocked no one has talked about. It's been described to me as being very touching and an interesting look at how vulnerable he allows himself to be with her....

Do you mind spilling the beans on that?

 

[Bran-El]

Thank you, Autonet.

I understand the context now.

 

[Autonet]

Do you mind spilling the beans on that?

Spoiler

After he snaps Zod's neck he screams out in devastation. Lois (somehow) runs into the train station at that moment and she holds him etc etc.

This is part of the reason why I don't find the scene too controversial, but I'll never understand how Lois even got there in the first place considering the city-wide epic battle that just took place.

 

[Audrey]

Do you mind spilling the beans on that?

Sure.

Spoiler

[BLACKOUT]
After Clark kills Zod he is devastated and screaming in agony. Lois has followed him because she was concerned for him. She goes to him and holds him while he grieves. He's on his knees with his head on her stomach. I've heard it's actually very touching.
[/BLACKOUT]

 

[DKDetective]

Sure.

Spoiler

[BLACKOUT]
After Clark kills Zod he is devastated and screaming in agony. Lois has followed him because she was concerned for him. She goes to him and holds him while he grieves. He's on his knees with his head on her stomach. I've heard it's actually very touching.
[/BLACKOUT]

Sounds awesome. Stuff like that is very reassuring in the face of the mixed critical reception the film is getting. Maybe films critics aren't just ready for this sort of interpretation of Superman. I've been seeing a lot of reviews seemingly indicating a preference for a version of the character similar in tone to the Donner/Reeve iteration.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Spoiler

After he snaps Zod's neck he screams out in devastation. Lois (somehow) runs into the train station at that moment and she holds him etc etc.

This is part of the reason why I don't find the scene too controversial, but I'll never understand how Lois even got there in the first place considering the city-wide epic battle that just took place.

Sounds like crap. Way to ruin Superman again.

 

[metaphysician]

Regarding the matter of collateral damage, its not just a matter of showing/not showing. Its also how the characters react to it. In the case of Avengers, there is a lot of collateral damage happening. . . and throughout the battle you have various Avengers doing all kinds of stuff specifically focused on minimizing it, from rescuing people from the infantry, to diverting leviathans away from buildings, to tactical plans that explicitly say "keep the fighting contained and focused on us."

Did they prevent everyone from dying? No, but the movie made quite plain that they *did* care. Thus why the fact that they didn't zoom in on giant piles of dead bodies is kind of irrelevant.

 

[super-t]

Was the cameo question ever answered?

 

[Anita18]

Regarding the matter of collateral damage, its not just a matter of showing/not showing. Its also how the characters react to it. In the case of Avengers, there is a lot of collateral damage happening. . . and throughout the battle you have various Avengers doing all kinds of stuff specifically focused on minimizing it, from rescuing people from the infantry, to diverting leviathans away from buildings, to tactical plans that explicitly say "keep the fighting contained and focused on us."

Did they prevent everyone from dying? No, but the movie made quite plain that they *did* care. Thus why the fact that they didn't zoom in on giant piles of dead bodies is kind of irrelevant.

It also has to do with the tone of each one. Avengers was generally a pretty light-hearted movie, and no one really cares to see the dead bodies in the carnage - all they want is to see things go boom.

What MOS is doing is going to be harder, as TDKR proved. They're going to try and balance a sense of realism (ie, "how would we really react to superpowered aliens' existence, and causing all this destruction") with a sense of comic book spectacle.

I mean, hell, some people STILL have an issue with TDK because it wasn't realistic ENOUGH. Like, how does Joker get all those bombs in places where he shouldn't have? Because...it's still a comic book movie? Its only crime is that it wants to be a crime thriller too. It's just that most people were caught up in it, in how real it FELT, that they didn't really care about the lack of realistic details like that.

Avengers was all comic book spectacle. At one point I was like, "Pfft of course they were going to destroy Grand Central Station" but I didn't really think about the potential casualties. It wasn't the kind of movie where you thought about it.

From these reviews so far, it doesn't sound like MOS hit the right balance quite yet. But it still doesn't mean it won't be a great time at the movies. -shrug-

 

[Ultimatehero]

How are the adoption/orphan angst handled in this? Did we see all there was from the trailers or is there a lot more there that we have yet to see? (This is actually the main draw for me - Spiderman promoted it yet didn't have much outside of the trailers, hoping for a real TDKR approach here especially due to how awesome their take on John Blake was)

 

[Autonet]

How are the adoption/orphan angst handled in this? Did we see all there was from the trailers or is there a lot more there that we have yet to see? (This is actually the main draw for me - Spiderman promoted it yet didn't have much outside of the trailers, hoping for a real TDKR approach here especially due to how awesome their take on John Blake was)

Could've been portrayed better.

 

[BestGirl]

I personally think it's ok that this movie appears to lay the groundwork and saved the rest for the sequel. But there is a legit argument that a Superman narrative that pushes Lois to the sidelines is a failure because she's that central to the story. I'm not sure that actually happened here. I think they laid some groundwork. But I do get the complaints.

Especially when you consider that several reviewers have complained that the action scenes drag a bit. Sounds like some of that time would have been better spent on Lois and Clark.

 

[serendipity]

For those who have seen the movie:

Does the Metropolis battle really evoke 9/11? Or is "9/11 imagery" what critics like to call city destruction in movies these days? My suspicion is the latter.

Like Into Darkness:

Spoiler

"Whoa, the USS Vengeance took down a lot of London buildings on its way down! That's deliberate 9/11 imagery."

 

[superman2090]

I just got back from seeing the movie. I have to get this out. It was awesome!!!

now to lois. i thought she was very integral to the story. And I thought there was a good balance between action and plot/character development.

It was just a good movie (way better than avengers and amazing Spider-Man and far and away better than ironman).

 

[superman2090]

For those who have seen the movie:

Does the Metropolis battle really evoke 9/11? Or is "9/11 imagery" what critics like to call city destruction in movies these days? My suspicion is the latter.

Like Into Darkness:

Spoiler

"Whoa, the USS Vengeance took down a lot of London buildings on its way down! That's deliberate 9/11 imagery."

For anyone who experienced 9/11, it's just ingrained into the consciousness. I see 9/11 in 80's movies. It's an unfair comparison. I didn't see anything in the movie that was in bad taste or even attempted to allude to 9/11.

 

[Autonet]

If anyone compares it to 9/11 they need to get a grip. Same **** they spew about the tornado and Oklahoma.

 

[BH/HHH]

I just got back from seeing the movie. I have to get this out. It was awesome!!!

now to lois. i thought she was very integral to the story. And I thought there was a good balance between action and plot/character development.

It was just a good movie (way better than avengers and amazing Spider-Man and far and away better than ironman).

Where do u rank it amongst the best CBMs?

 

[TheVileOne]

Regarding the matter of collateral damage, its not just a matter of showing/not showing. Its also how the characters react to it. In the case of Avengers, there is a lot of collateral damage happening. . . and throughout the battle you have various Avengers doing all kinds of stuff specifically focused on minimizing it, from rescuing people from the infantry, to diverting leviathans away from buildings, to tactical plans that explicitly say "keep the fighting contained and focused on us."

Did they prevent everyone from dying? No, but the movie made quite plain that they *did* care. Thus why the fact that they didn't zoom in on giant piles of dead bodies is kind of irrelevant.

Thank you metaphysician. I mention this in my review of the movie. It greatly bothered me throughout the film.

The imagery is a hard thing to ignore. But at the same time it's concerning that Superman doesn't really seem to care or take cause to try and limit it. Unlike The Avengers.

 

[bestever23]

I'm confident Man of Steel will be a 80-85% at Rotten Tomatoes after 200 reviews but when I look on that website and see Warm Bodies got a 80% I can't help but think "who the ***** Cares?" lol Rotten Tomatoes really isn't important now after seeing that.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'm confident Man of Steel will be a 80-85% at Rotten Tomatoes after 200 reviews but when I look on that website and see Warm Bodies got a 80% I can't help but think "who the ***** Cares?" lol Rotten Tomatoes really isn't important now after seeing that.

Warm Bodies was hella fun and did the job it set out to do. Why is that a bad thing? I don't think a lot of people on here understand how RT works.

 

[TheVileOne]

Spoiler

There are no cameos .