TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 2

[TWayneP]

Those are my order yes. Obviously not everyone will agree. I enjoyed Spider-man 3 and Dark Knight Rises more than most, but it'll give you a sense of my taste so you can listen or disregard as it suits you.

Hmm, well thats a good placement for me, TDKR is my favorite Batman movie and I really enjoy Spider-man 3, though I wouldn't put it in my top 10.

 

[X Knight]

I also felt it was a bit contrived. I'm still digesting though. Here are more answers:

Spoiler

does Clark feel guilty/responsible for his dad's death during the tornado?? like, he feels because he failed to act, his father died??

--He screams in a horrific way as you've seen in the trailer. The tornado is not anything huge or impressive. The shot of that truck flipping in the trailer is about all the action you see. Jonathan goes back for a dog in the car and can't make it back to safety in time. Clark looks like he wants to go help, but Jonathan just holds out his hand, signaling him to stop...accepts death...and then Clark just starts screaming as he watches his father get swallowed up. He obviously feels terrible. He was scared to act. He's been taught to do this. It's not unimaginable, but it also felt like a moment where he might act. Basically, we needed a little more convincing or explanation as to where his character was in this moment to justify his choice. We didn't get that.

does he express this feeling to his mom or Lois when thinking about the incident?

--Yes, he clearly tells Lois "I let my father die" as they stand at his grave. That's how she meets him again. She stands at the grave and he finds her there. He explains the cost he payed to keep his secret as a way to ask her not to run the story she's writing. That's what convinces her to drop the story. Again, not the worst on paper...just something about the execution was rushed. Had the scene with Lois explaining things been a little better, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem. It was just a bit rushed. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it...if I could expand on one scene to really make this movie...it would be this one. You could have a better exchange between Lois and Clark, build their relationship, build his character, and have a better foundation.

also, do you feel he tries to "atone" for failing to act during the tornado by wandering the country, helping people when he can, like in the oil rig scene?

--Yes, this definitely set him on his path...but because of the non-linearity of the story...you don't get to FEEL this decision. And I wanted to.

thanks.

that makes me feel a little better. guess I'll just have to see how it plays out myself this Saturday!!

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I just don't understand the obsession over critics. I mean, isn't the best critic you yourself? I just can't imagine listening to someone that says they don't like/like a movie. If a movie looks good to me, I'm going to go see it regardless if a critic says not to. I dunno, I just don't get it. It just amazes me to see people jumping ship because there are negative reviews. I'm sorry, but those people have issues.

 

[mmbrown7L]

I just don't understand the obsession over critics. I mean, isn't the best critic you yourself? I just can't imagine listening to someone that says they don't like/like a movie. If a movie looks good to me, I'm going to go see it regardless if a critic says not to. I dunno, I just don't get it. It just amazes me to see people jumping ship because there are negative reviews. I'm sorry, but those people have issues.

I agree, but critics are good at noting structural problems imo. For me, the enjoyment of a movie is like this: 70% general agreeable structure (critics are good for predicting this) and 30% what I bring to it personally.

 

[Agent Orange]

Those are my order yes. Obviously not everyone will agree. I enjoyed Spider-man 3 and Dark Knight Rises more than most, but it'll give you a sense of my taste so you can listen or disregard as it suits you.

Rises was critically acclaimed and made several 2012 top ten lists. SM3 and Rises don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I just don't understand the obsession over critics. I mean, isn't the best critic you yourself? I just can't imagine listening to someone that says they don't like/like a movie. If a movie looks good to me, I'm going to go see it regardless if a critic says not to. I dunno, I just don't get it. It just amazes me to see people jumping ship because there are negative reviews. I'm sorry, but those people have issues.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Why do so many people feel that the critics need to validate how they will rate a certain film? 67% isn't bad. Hell, I wouldn't even call it lukewarm. 50s would be lukewarm. RT is highly flawed anyway. Anything 50-59 is rotten when all logic says it should be fresh.

 

[mmbrown7L]

Rises was critically acclaimed and made several 2012 top ten lists. SM3 and Rises don't belong in the same sentence.

I felt SM3 and Rises had similar issues in that they were so bloated and tried to do too much. BUT, and this is where I felt they were superior to MOS in some ways, they each took their time being bloated. They were bloated, but felt long. They did too much, and took too long to do it. So there were boring stretches, but everything was developed at least. MOS does too much and rushes a bit more. It's easier for me to delete scenes in my head than it is for me to add them where there are none.

 

[LaserBees]

What matters is your review, nothing more.

That's not true at all. It matters what the critics think, and the GA, and what the box office is, because those are huge factors which determine whether or not we get more Superman movies. If I'm the only one who likes this movie then that's terrible because I won't get any more and I can't enjoy and share it with the culture around me.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

That's not true at all. It matters what the critics think, and the GA, and what the box office is, because those are huge factors which determine whether or not we get more Superman movies. If I'm the only one who likes this movie then that's terrible because I won't get any more and I can't enjoy and share it with the culture around me.

No. He's right. Critics shouldn't mean jack***** to anybody.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

That's not true at all. It matters what the critics think, and the GA, and what the box office is, because those are huge factors which determine whether or not we get more Superman movies. If I'm the only one who likes this movie then that's terrible because I won't get any more and I can't enjoy and share it with the culture around me.

Critics have NO bearing on whether a movie gets a sequel or not.

 

[bullets]

I just don't understand the obsession over critics. I mean, isn't the best critic you yourself? I just can't imagine listening to someone that says they don't like/like a movie. If a movie looks good to me, I'm going to go see it regardless if a critic says not to. I dunno, I just don't get it. It just amazes me to see people jumping ship because there are negative reviews. I'm sorry, but those people have issues.

I'll be interested to see what the fans really think. I know some posters will try to mimic critics by jumping on the hate bandwagon. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate criticisms , but sometimes the hate is overblown.

 

[LaserBees]

Critics have NO bearing on whether a movie gets a sequel or not.

I don't think that's entirely true either. Superman Returns made a good deal of money, more than Batman Begins, but it got a lukewarm response from critics and the GA, and so we didn't get a sequel. Not saying critics were the only factor in that, but they were a factor.

 

[bullets]

I don't think that's entirely true either. Superman Returns made a good deal of money, more than Batman Begins, but it got a lukewarm response from critics and the GA, and so we didn't get a sequel. Not saying critics were the only factor in that, but they were a factor.

Batman Begins cost less and did more profit. I thought Superman Returns did well enough to make a sequel , but it was close to being unjustifiable. The sequel would of cost more and been a bigger risk.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I don't think that's entirely true either. Superman Returns made a good deal of money, more than Batman Begins, but it got a lukewarm response from critics and the GA, and so we didn't get a sequel. Not saying critics were the only factor in that, but they were a factor.

You do realize the difference between the budgets for Batman Begins and Superman Returns was a mile wide, right? So on the surface it looks like SR did really well, but it really didn't.

 

[BH/HHH]

I have a question, is Jor El that we see on Earth AI? I only ask because on the trailers it looks like Jor El interacts with Zod after Krypton has gone with the "my son is twice the man you are"

 

[Jheri Curl]

You do realize the difference between the budgets for Batman Begins and Superman Returns was a mile wide, right? So on the surface it looks like SR did really well, but it really didn't.

True, but similar numbers of people went to go see each. That Singer paid double what it should have cost doesn't change that.

 

[Ozymandias]

I have a question, is Jor El that we see on Earth AI? I only ask because on the trailers it looks like Jor El interacts with Zod after Krypton has gone with the "my son is twice the man you are"

Spoiler

Yep, it's an AI.

 

[BH/HHH]

Spoiler

Yep, it's an AI.

Awesome thank you

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm confused some people say it has strong character development while others say that it has weak character development. Is it that character development is given to Clark Kent and his families rather than Lois and the Daily Planet staff? Or basically the opposite from S:TM, the staff got the development rather than his family?

 

[Autonet]

I'm confused some people say it has strong character development while others say that it has weak character development. Is it that character development is given to Clark Kent and his families rather than Lois and the Daily Planet staff? Or basically the opposite from S:TM, the staff got the development rather than his family?

Some people have a weird definition of "character development." So the only person who can answer that question is yourself. I think it could've been better for the characters that mattered.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Some people have a weird definition of "character development." So the only person who can answer that question is yourself. I think it could've been better for the characters that mattered.

People even have a weird definition of that - to me it's Clark Kent, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Jor-El, Lara, and Lois. Others seem to be stating the staff (or at least from reviews).

 

[Autonet]

People even have a weird definition of that - to me it's Clark Kent, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Jor-El, Lara, and Lois. Others seem to be stating the staff (or at least from reviews).

From least to most:

Lara
Martha
Jonathan
Lois
Jor-El
Clark

 

[Ozymandias]

From least to most:

Lara
Martha
Jonathan
Lois
Jor-El
Clark

I've seen it, and I agree.

 

[Marvin]

I just don't understand the obsession over critics. I mean, isn't the best critic you yourself? I just can't imagine listening to someone that says they don't like/like a movie. If a movie looks good to me, I'm going to go see it regardless if a critic says not to. I dunno, I just don't get it. It just amazes me to see people jumping ship because there are negative reviews. I'm sorry, but those people have issues.

It's because of the fact that people do listen to critics that it's a pressing concern to some.

Obviously it's a nigh pointless establishment in the grand scheme of things(my opinion), but if every critic in the universe said don't watch a certain movie(and that movie had no momentum whatsoever) than it would have some bearing on the many people that evidently do listen to critics(some of whom are in this very thread). Ergo the issue.

 

[The Englishman]

So does Clark Kent get a job at the Daily Planet and wear the Glasses at all in the movie?