TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 3

[BlueLantern]

Snyder in my opinion is a good director, the man just lacks patience. He always seems to be in a hurry to get to the next big scene.

This.

 

[TheForgotten]

I personally would have enjoyed the action more if it felt unique to Superman. There was a lot of throwing through buildings and crashing and explosions and...it felt generic to me. I could see the same action from like Transformers.

The action that will always stick out to me was when

Spoiler

Zod and Superman have an aerial fight after he takes his armor off. That was amazing!!! That's all I had wanted the entire film action-wise!

I also loved the Smallville fight. That was great too.

When I talk about unique action, I mean the heat ray vision, the aerial fights, and stuff like Faora jumping from target to target, pretty much Nightcrawler except for the fact that...you know...she intended to kill people.

 

[marcvader]

The action became monotonous after a while to me.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

^^F.Y.I i took conclusion from all views on this movie, good AND bad.

But don't worry, i know that i'll like this movie. Flaws and all.

Snyder can only piece the movie together based on the material he is given. That is where the conflict manifests in this movie. I'll say it again, Goyer really let him down.

Snyder,Goyer and Nolan it's just a weird mix IMO. All three of them have conflicting styles when it comes to movie making process.

 

[The Shape]

I'm bothered by how much Nolan's role in this production is being overstated. He was a producer and helped come up with the story. That so wildly different than directing a film in which your hands are on pretty much every scene and nearly every aspect of production.

If anyone has problems with MOS, the blame should really rest on Snyder and Goyer.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Well, he was part of the creative team.I very much doubt that his creative input for the movie was pretty much: Yo WB, i want you to make this Superman movie and this is the outline...okthnxbai!
And according to many people, part of the problem with the movie was with the story/scripts, not just the directing...so including him in that list seems pretty fair to me

 

[C. Lee]

Hmmm..does these kind of things happened pretty much throughout all the fight scenes?

To me it sounded like it's missing proper build up, no sense of escalation.

The major thing that made the action scenes in Avengers so satisfying is because it had proper build up.There was a sense of escalation.

Snyder in my opinion is a good director, the man just lacks patience. he always seems to be in a hurry to get to the next big scene.But he did things properly in Watchmen, so not sure what happened here. Maybe it's a case of too many hands in the cooking pot.

I've only seen it once, so I may not be totally right in my explanation here....

I'll just talk about the end battle in Metropolis....There's actually limited scenes of people in peril (sure, a lot run around in the streets...but no people are seen in the buildings, falling from buildings, in any cars or trucks thrown around)...so it's almost like there is really no one to run off and save. You assume that thousands die in the city destruction...but you don't see anyone die or get hurt (at least in old movies like Earthquake and such, you saw people crushed by falling debris or explosions...here, once the buildings started dropping, the people disappeared.....so actually, maybe, Superman moved so super fast at saving all the people we couldn't even see it....yeah, that's it)

 

[The Shape]

Well, he was part of the creative team.I very much doubt that his creative input for the movie was pretty much: Yo WB, i want you to make this Superman movie and this is the outline...okthnxbai!
And according to many people, part of the problem with the movie was with the story/scripts, not just the directing...so including him in that list seems pretty fair to me

You have to understand that coming up with a story concept, or even a script treatment, is much less of an undertaking than writing a completely screenplay or directing a film with literally dozens of scenes and thousands of shots. Certain scenes and story points (early on the film) seemed to have the "Nolan touch" or were emulating his style, but is there anything about that last portion of the film that screams "Chris Nolan"? He didn't direct scenes, and according to what we've heard, was hardly ever on set. So despite playing a part on the production of the film, his role was 1,000x more understand than his work on TDK trilogy in which he was on set every day (not even using a second unit director) pouring over designs, storyboards, cinematography, VFX, actors, and everything else involved in a big budget blockbuster.

He was described as having a "godfather" role, helping out early on, passing it off to SNyder and his team, and then helping out when needed. If you think TDKR sucked, you'd blame Nolan...not Charles Roven. TDKR was Nolan's baby as much as MOS was Snyder's. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact.

So yeah, Nolan did have a hand in MOS, for sure. However, I'd imagine that the story he and the other laid down before production sounded better on paper than what was ultimately put on screen. The pacing and editing issues can't be blamed on him.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

@ Lee

Might sounds weird, but i would be fine with that scale and desturction...casualties and all, if they adress it somehow at the end.Might be a good scene too because people will gets to see something they've never seen after a superheroes battle...the cleanup.

The old Ultimates comic done this too. After an almighty battle with the Hulk in which building collapses, hundreds of people died ( i think the Hulk ate some of them), the next couple of issues was mainly about dealing with the aftermath.

 

[Metallo]

Hmmm..does these kind of things happened pretty much throughout all the fight scenes?

To me it sounded like it's missing proper build up, no sense of escalation.

The major thing that made the action scenes in Avengers so satisfying is because it had proper build up.There was a sense of escalation.
.

Totally agree, Hoss. This was one problem I had with the film. Especially the fight scenes near the end. Good call on Avengers too. I've said the same thing. Even Superman II is a good example of this. You can't really compare the effects to MOS's but as far as storytelling goes even the frankensteined version we have does a better job of building the emotion and tension in a more compelling way.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

You have to understand that coming up with a story concept, or even a script treatment, is much less of an undertaking than writing a completely screenplay or directing a film with literally dozens of scenes and thousands of shots. Certain scenes and story points (early on the film) seemed to have the "Nolan touch" or were emulating his style, but is there anything about that last portion of the film that screams "Chris Nolan"? He didn't direct scenes, and according to what we've heard, was hardly ever on set. So despite playing a part on the production of the film, his role was 1,000x more understand than his work on TDK trilogy in which he was on set every day (not even using a second unit director) pouring over designs, storyboards, cinematography, VFX, actors, and everything else involved in a big budget blockbuster.

He was described as having a "godfather" role, helping out early on, passing it off to SNyder and his team, and then helping out when needed. If you think TDKR sucked, you'd blame Nolan...not Charles Roven. TDKR was Nolan's baby as much as MOS was Snyder's. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact.

So yeah, Nolan did have a hand in MOS, for sure. However, I'd imagine that the story he and the other laid down before production sounded better on paper than what was ultimately put on screen. The pacing and editing issues can't be blamed on him.

True, but my point he WAS part of the creative team. To what extent, nobody really knows.

What i'm pretty sure of, this movie started whit his vision on what the Superman should be like, based on that i guess would be Nolan looking for what he thought would be the best team to bring that vision to life.

Of course his influence on MOS would not be comparable to the bats movies which he directed, that's only logical.But when the most mentioned complaints about this movie is the story and scripts too-Nolan, which laid the foundation for MOS- should also share some of the blame.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Totally agree, Hoss. This was one problem I had with the film. Especially the fight scenes near the end. Good call on Avengers too. I've said the same thing. Even Superman II is a good example of this. You can't really compare the effects to MOS's but as far as storytelling goes even the frankensteined version we have does a better job of building the emotion and tension in a more compelling way.

Heh..Superman 2 was the first movie i've seen on theatre

 

[marcvader]

Superman: The Movie was the first CBM I saw in theaters.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Where did these folks plug their TV into...?

They have these things called generators.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I would give this film a 7 out of 10. I enjoyed it pretty much throughout, but the choice to write Superman into a corner that "forces" him to do what he does to Zod, as well as his indiference to the potential collateral damage in certain scenes, definitely bothered me. If the character was called Megadude instead of Superman, i wouldve added a full point. I guess that's a fanboy complaint, but there you go.

I had some other issues with the film - the overuse of shaky cam for one - but i did think it had some heart and Cavill was good and should be more than serviceable going forward. I recognized the pacing issues, but it didn't bother me that much. maybe because i was expecting it hearing/reading all the criticism.

Its laughable to put it on par with TA or TDK, but its still worlds better than the Transformers crap. And its a helluva lot better than anything that Snyder's done since Dawn of the Dead. A good time at the movies, with just enough poignancy (barely).

Question: did they EVER refer to the city as Metropolis? If they did, I missed it.

 

[Ubba Dubba]

Its laughable to put it on par with TA or TDK, but its still worlds better than the Transformers crap. And its a helluva lot better than anything that Snyder's done since Dawn of the Dead. A good time at the movies, with just enough poignancy (barely).

Laughable? In your opinion, in mine it is better than both. Especially Avengers which I found to be a good movie but that's all. TDK was great but I think MOS beats it. Now I admit I am a bigger Superman fan than Batman and MOS is still fresh, so this may change if I watched both a year from now.

 

[The Guard]

I sometimes do wonder if some of the people complaining actually watched the film.

It's funny some of the things people failed to see and questions they have

Yup. It’s getting a little absurd.

Yeah the film really lacked a sense of wonder with Superman. Probably much by design, but it was missed.

How did this movie, in any way, shape or form, lack a sense of wonder?

Oh my God...the scene that may have been the absolute worst in the film was this:

Jenny Olson gets trapped under rubble. Kal-El has no connection to this character. The audience has NO connection to this character. I should say, I didn't care that they made Jimmy Olson a girl but at least if this had been Jimmy in peril, at least the audience would know "oh, that's Jimmy, eventually he'll be Superman's pal. I hope he doesn't die." But no one in the audience knows that except internet geeks. So we don't care about this girl.

And then we have Perry and House of Cards guy trying to save her, which is nice, but shouldn't we see them doing this as a direct result of being inspired by Superman? Isn't the theme of this movie, or one of them, that Superman will inspire us to be a better species? If Perry is already a good enough dude to try to save Jenny, then superman isn't really here to raise us to new heights, just prevent us from dying. And we're only dying because he's on our planet.

So we shouldn't care about our fellow human being's pain and fear because...we don't know her very well?

(blinks)

And there's a problem with this scene because Perry White and this other guy decided to show the best of humanity...without being inspired by Superman to do so? So people can't be good on their own or the concept of Superman inspiring a planet doesn't work? Why can't the scene be about THEIR characters, and what they all mean to each other? I thought it was an incredible scene, and very revealing about the character of Perry White in particular, and HIS ability to inspire others.

I'll just talk about the end battle in Metropolis....There's actually limited scenes of people in peril (sure, a lot run around in the streets...but no people are seen in the buildings, falling from buildings, in any cars or trucks thrown around)...so it's almost like there is really no one to run off and save. You assume that thousands die in the city destruction...but you don't see anyone die or get hurt (at least in old movies like Earthquake and such, you saw people crushed by falling debris or explosions...here, once the buildings started dropping, the people disappeared.....so actually, maybe, Superman moved so super fast at saving all the people we couldn't even see it....yeah, that's it)

True. You do see some shots early on in the sequence that pretty much suggest that a LOT of the people fleeing in the streets were killed by the gravity weapon.

My guess is they didn’t address the destruction in a sort of denoument, because structure Metropolis wasn’t really a focal point in this film. It wasn't Superman's home. It was just where Zod's ship showed up due to logistics, but we were never really connected to Metropolis, which is a bit of an issue I think, but also, may well have been intentional, as Clark/Superman was not really initially connected to ANYONE in this film. The alienation themes continued into the structure of the movie.

Had Metropolis been more a core part of the film and had it been developed as such (other than just a location), we probably would have seen a sequence like that, where people mourn the dead, etc. It's hardly necessary, though. Common sense tells you what happened there. We may well see this concept in a sequel, which would be fine by me.

 

[Tra-El]

Well, 5th viewing tonight. At the *****ing drive in with a huge group of people! AWE YEEEAH!

Sorry guys, I just CAN'T get enough of this movie! Crazy how big of an impact it left on me.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

Well, 5th viewing tonight. At the *****ing drive in with a huge group of people! AWE YEEEAH!

Sorry guys, I just CAN'T get enough of this movie! Crazy how big of an impact it left on me.

I'm so Jonesing to see it a fourth time. must say i'm kind of jealous. Have fun.

 

[Tra-El]

I'm so Jonesing to see it a fourth time. must say i'm kind of jealous. Have fun.

I'll pick you up at 8:15 Eastern Time! PM me addressing details, lol. This may be it for me. 5th time and ending in a drive-in is a perfect closing until the release of Blu-Ray. Let it all sink in.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

True. You do see some shots early on in the sequence that pretty much suggest that a LOT of the people fleeing in the streets were killed by the gravity weapon.

My guess is they didn’t address the destruction in a sort of denoument, because structure Metropolis wasn’t really a focal point in this film. It wasn't Superman's home. It was just where Zod's ship showed up due to logistics, but we were never really connected to Metropolis, which is a bit of an issue I think, but also, may well have been intentional, as Clark/Superman was not really initially connected to ANYONE in this film. The alienation themes continued into the structure of the movie.

Had Metropolis been more a core part of the film and had it been developed as such (other than just a location), we probably would have seen a sequence like that, where people mourn the dead, etc. It's hardly necessary, though. Common sense tells you what happened there. We may well see this concept in a sequel, which would be fine by me.

Hmm..isn't Superman supposed to be 'connected' to people regardless wheter or not he's had personal connection with that place?

People dubbed him the big blue boyscout for a reason. It's supposed to be in his nature. His core character if you will. It's what sets him apart from other heroes.

 

[BlueLantern]

Yeah, but realism! I hate that ****ing word. Realism.

 

[Doc Samson]

I'll just talk about the end battle in Metropolis....There's actually limited scenes of people in peril (sure, a lot run around in the streets...but no people are seen in the buildings, falling from buildings, in any cars or trucks thrown around)...so it's almost like there is really no one to run off and save.

Or, and it seems pretty obvious to me, there just wasn't anyone left standing around looking dumbfounded anymore by the time he got back to Metropolis. The World Engine created 95% of the destruction we see in Metropolis, I think it's naive to think many people inside those buildings actually survived that. Same for the folks on or near "ground zero" if you will. Outside of Perry, Lois and Jenny, the city looked pretty quiet and decimated. People are crying that the movie was too dark as it is, they couldn't show thousands of bodies all over the place. Watchmen didn't even go there...

Well, 5th viewing tonight. At the *****ing drive in with a huge group of people! AWE YEEEAH!

Sorry guys, I just CAN'T get enough of this movie! Crazy how big of an impact it left on me.

Not at all. I've seen it 4 times myself, and it's f****** awesome!! Everyone is entitled to their opinions but I couldn't have been happier.

 

[KalMart]

How did this movie, in any way, shape or form, lack a sense of wonder?

It felt like it provided the information and story almost 'bullet-point' style, but didn't immerse you personally. Especially the first debut of him in his suit, which felt almost matter-of-fact...followed immediately with him stumbling out of the gate while trying to fly. Again, perhaps some of that detached feeling that many had was part of the intent, but it was in many of the wrong places. Also probably not helped by the fact that it was more about fighting in Metropolis than saving, but that's the story they went with.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

hehe... this whole 'realism, gritty, grounded etc 'fad in CBM reminds me of the similiar fad in the comics in the 90's...

Back then there were like 5000 clones of Wolverine and Punisher. even Spiderman got bit by the 'grim and gritty'bug back then.