TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to Autonet, I have to say, I don't know what he saw, but if he is going to defend this guy's work, he better get his facts straight. If he actually did see "Man of Steel" and Marvel's "Avengers", then he can't deny the fact that both films are basically about alien invasions and that there are battles that wantonly destroy property with disregard for innocent human life. At least you get see Superman actually saving people (other than Super heroes) in his film, which should at least indicate that his intentions are not to harm the innocent. I know that much just from the trailers alone. To say that I am defending this film and bashing "Avengers" based on "nothing" as Autonet claims, is just ridiculous. I was just pointing out the similarities of the two films and how one so called critic showed bias to one film over the other based on his review of the two films. That is something, and to deny that by saying it's based on "nothing" brings in to question whether he actually saw the films (or even the trailers) or not.

Yes, the films are similar (alien invasion in a city), but you can't compare the two without actually seeing it. When people say that Metropolis gets basically obliterated - it's true. In Avengers the city was mostly still there.

Of course in Man of Steel I'm pretty sure tens of thousands of people got killed or injured. They don't address that, and that's fine with me. It's still a talking point. Avengers handled it differently. The action is on a completely different scale as well. Just because both cities are under attack does NOT make the the same.

You're questioning if I saw the film because I said something that goes against what you think you saw in trailers? What?
 
Anyone else getting flashbacks of the Green Lantern Review thread? you know with all the "screw the critics", "critics don't matter", "any one who cares about critics is an idiot".

That fiasco didn't end well, I sure hope this does because Supes is my 2nd favorite hero.

It happens with every single comic book movie on this board...especially when the reviews don't come in as expected. I've been on this board for a decade now. The cycle just repeats itself and it's never going to break lol.
 
Anyone else getting flashbacks of the Green Lantern Review thread? you know with all the "screw the critics", "critics don't matter", "any one who cares about critics is an idiot".

That fiasco didn't end well, I sure hope this does because Supes is my 2nd favorite hero.

See I don't think its the same situation at all as Green Lantern had negative press right from the moment the first trailer dropped and upon its release barely had any good reviews. Man of Steel has gotten more good reviews than bad and most SHH users that have seen it have either loved it or thought it was good. So I don't think it's the same situation at all really.

Whose your favourite hero btw?
 
I've just become a member in the last year or so, but I remember watching these boards all the way back when Spider-Man 3 was released. The hypsters went nuts when negative reviews came out. Little did they know, the movie sucked.

I don't think this is the case, considering a lot of hypsters here confirmed that the movie is good. But technically, SM3 still has a better RT score. Not trying to stir anything, just stating facts.
 
This is head and shoulders above Superman Returns - which I think had so much potential in it's attachment to 1 & 2, but ultimately blew it with said attachment ultimately being it's downfall. I have nothing positive to say about that movie, other than it was nice to see the Superman titles once again. Actors, wrong (apart from Langella who is a favourite of mine). CGI, terrible. Story, wrong - I mean, come on...!?! A story about a maybe Superboy, Supes stalking Lois at home, getting *****-whipped by an inferior Lex Luthor, and then lifting a Kyrptonite continent into space? I know I'm talking about the new film in terms of belief, but Returns was supposed to honour the Reeve canon. It 100% did not.

Someone already mentioned that this has gone above the heads of many a critic, and I agree. The familiarity of Returns helped boost it's ratings, with everyone getting all misty eyed over Routh's similarity to the recently departed Reeve. That's all the talk was when he was announced, during production, and after viewing the movie. The reaction to the first leaked pictures of Routh as Kent was a media hysteria.

Iron Man 2 sucked - no two ways about it. What a let down, but still visually engaging because they have that CGI nailed. Iron Man 3 just plain pissed me off, but I thought it better than 2 without the impact of 1. Could have been better, but the support character development, particularly Pepper, carried it more than 2.

Thor is another one in the Man of Steel vein, but it is a story that is embedded in folk lore, fantasy and magic - elements we seemingly associate more with than aliens. I still like Thor, because it is the first proper big effort for the character, Asgard was well conceived, but the Earth story was not good enough.

The thing with Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk and Thor that made you overlook there individual failings was their collective greatness in ultimately setting up The Avengers. The Easter Eggs were the main talking points, the connected world and storyline made you pay attention and think ahead to what was coming next. We had context to this movie, and we couldn't wait for what comes next. The Marvel cinematic universe has been very well executed on screen.

With Batman, we all really knew from the start (despite the lack of confirmation), that there was going to be a three picture story arc. It's what we expect of all these comic book movies these days, particularly as they have so much back story to choose from. The arc gives Batman it's context in his own DC world. There was never a need for other movies to link on or tie up, and I'd say we weren't really looking for it given the issues with JL and Returns. At the time, we just wanted good Batman movies. Period. Plus, the origin story had never been captured on screen yet, so this was a win win situation for the new franchise.

The critics for MoS haven't forgotten the cinematic canon from before, and the majority grew up with that canon. This is literally an 'alien' depiction of Superman for them, and I dare say they are pissed off because it's not what they expected. Trouble is, no-one told them beforehand, that this really ISN'T a movie about Superman. It's about Kal-El.

I don't think the ratings will rise much more, simply because critics read other critics reviews, and some bias will play into the new reviews because some thoughts or inklings one reviewer may have had are actual issues for other reviewers. It gives more meat to the bones of their issue. Agreeing on the good points is a given, so the mentality behind a positive review is too simple. How do you describe something you've never seen before and that blew you away? "I've never seen anything like this before, and it blew me away." How do you describe something that wasn't right or not what you expected? "I didn't like this because....I was expecting....(and continue to pour our what you expected - the Superman movie you would have written or directed, because everyone has done that in their head)."

It is what it is - an EPIC movie about iconic characters. There are three people in one here - Kal-El, Clark Kent & Superman. We've now met the first one, and we're waiting to see the other two in all their cinematic glory.

You know how I felt after watching this? I felt like crying....crying because a long lost friend has finally come home :super:

Interesting,that is what i was thinking.
Thanks.

Oh one more thing,how has the review embargo influence the critics?
That could have a big influence on thier reviews has well.

It seem to do so with other films when there is a later review or and not a real early one or when they have to wait to see the film close to the open date.
 
It happens with every single comic book movie on this board...especially when the reviews don't come in as expected. I've been on this board for a decade now. The cycle just repeats itself and it's never going to break lol.

yeah but the difference is that despite the mixed reviews , people are loving it. I watched it feeling very down after reading every single review and while I have problems with certain aspects I will defend this movie and claim it's a good movie. I don't know if you guys did it when Green lantern or other disappointments came out.
 
A reboot of sorts for the Spider-Man comics which erased any significant development int the past 20 years or so (marriage with MJ, becoming a professor.. etc)

He means you may have wanted to say "One More Day". At least, that's my thought.
 
Yes, it is way better than Returns, even though I liked Returns..
This is a very different and you could say refreshing approach, this superman is not yet the one we know, he is finding it in himself, dealing with whatever goes his way.
 
It's a reboot for Pete's sake!

It's just flat out good story telling to not have a character be this complete hero in movie #1.

I have read where people have actually cried during & after the film.

I could give 2 shakes about what some critic thinks. This movie is going to be HUGE!
 
This movie might do well in the BO, and the GA might love it... But it'll never be considered one of the elite superhero movies because of it's reviews. What I'm saying is there will always be someone saying, "Well no cause this movie was rotten on RT." and that's what bothers me... Oh well. I'm seeing it tonight with zero expectations and I'm hoping I get blown away.
 
Yes, it is way better than Returns, even though I liked Returns..
This is a very different and you could say refreshing approach, this superman is not yet the one we know, he is finding it in himself, dealing with whatever goes his way.

Sounds like the Superman I know, albeit always looked at the character differently due to also being an alien from another country. SV tapped into it with some really awesome episodes too such as 'Memoria' but it's the first time they've really tackled this on film and seems to be a lot more than in SV.
 
A reboot of sorts for the Spider-Man comics which erased any significant development int the past 20 years or so (marriage with MJ, becoming a professor.. etc)

Ohh I thought you were having some sort of a dig at Amazing Spider-man which for the record is one of my fave CBMs.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else getting flashbacks of the Green Lantern Review thread? you know with all the "screw the critics", "critics don't matter", "any one who cares about critics is an idiot".

That fiasco didn't end well, I sure hope this does because Supes is my 2nd favorite hero.

Lot's of people said that on the TF forums as well.

Seems pointless to bring it up.
You never hear anyone really say "Screw the GA" though now do you.
 
This movie might do well in the BO, and the GA might love it... But it'll never be considered one of the elite superhero movies because of it's reviews. What I'm saying is there will always be someone saying, "Well no cause this movie was rotten on RT." and that's what bothers me... Oh well. I'm seeing it tonight with zero expectations and I'm hoping I get blown away.

It's a good point. And that's probably why some of people on the forums are rally against the score.
 
Lot's of people said that on the TF forums as well.

Seems pointless to bring it up.
You never hear anyone really say "Screw the GA" though now do you.

Sure you do. It happens whenever the general audience either likes a film that fans hate or does not like a film that geeks adore. Iron Man 3 is a good example of this. "It only made money because ignorant people (non-fans) went to see it in droves," is something I saw countless variations of here and on other geek sites. Conversely, when something like Scott Pilgrim fails to find favor beyond comic book geekdom and critics, the GA's ignorance and alleged bad taste in films is usually blamed. "What the hell do they know?" "That film deserved to make more money!"
 
Some iffy exposition? Nothing more than in TDK trilogy. Actually, a lot less.

Some hammy dialogue here and there? Nothing more than in TDK trilogy.

Some bad editing? Not imo. The editing was pretty damn great imo. I said in my review a few pages back that the non-linear aspect actually absorbed me more into the narrative and I liked it's approach.

I'm not saying these flaws aren't in the film. I just either simply do not understand or agree with them, or I don't find them to be NEARLY as troublesome as some reviews have made them out to be.
 
Is that what they mean by editing? I thought it referred to the handheld cam.
 
Sure you do. It happens whenever the general audience either likes a film that fans hate or does not like a film that geeks adore. Iron Man 3 is a good example of this. "It only made money because ignorant people (non-fans) went to see it in droves," is something I saw countless variations of here and on other geek sites. Conversely, when something like Scott Pilgrim fails to find favor beyond comic book geekdom and critics, the GA's ignorance and alleged bad taste in films is usually blamed. "What the hell do they know?" "That film deserved to make more money!"

I agree with the latter example, fans do pull that often.

I've personally never heard fans of a product(and that's who we are talking about here on these superman boards at this point in time) go there before.
 
Is that what they mean by editing? I thought it referred to the handheld cam.

A lot of critics are having problems with the narrative flow as the film is told in a non-linear fashion. They say it keeps them at an arms length and never really becomes engaging. That's far from the truth in my experience. The flashbacks added a more heartfelt and intimate tone to the film.

The handheld is very minor. It's nowhere near anything resembling shaky-cam or the like.
 
The trailers already hinted at a non-linear narrative (buses) and it was easy to get engaged in my head, so I hope that works out for real.

All I know is people on another forum welcomed that prospect after Amazing Spider-Man (which I fairly like) was completely linear just like Spider-Man I - added to the "more of the same" effect. Here "it's not the same".
 
I find it rather humorous how people here are assured that the GA will like the film even though critics are mixed on it. People aren't mindless drones who like anything you put in front of them and, having seen the movie, a lot of the complaints critics had with the film are valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,324
Messages
22,085,754
Members
45,886
Latest member
Shyatzu
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"