TMOS Reviews Thread - Non Spoiler Review and Discussion - Part 1

[DeathChill]

His review was probably negative before he'd even seen it

There is no doubt about this. With TASM he said it was absolutely unwatchable before he ever saw it and wouldn't back down from that opinion. He forms an opinion and holds it no matter what happens.

 

[Autonet]

In terms of scale would it be possible to ramp up the action in Avengers 2 to match this, or is it more about the characters and their powers limitations?

Avengers 2 could ramp it up if they wanted, but Captain America/Hawkeye etc can't level buildings no matter what they do so....it's kind of unfair.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Avengers 2 could ramp it up if they wanted, but Captain America/Hawkeye etc can't level buildings no matter what they do so....it's kind of unfair.

Captain America's shield on the other hand.....
No but seriously Avengers 2 has a really tough villain (if they really are using him) so the action could be even bigger.

 

[ares834]

There is no doubt about this. With TASM he said it was absolutely unwatchable before he ever saw it and wouldn't back down from that opinion. He forms an opinion and holds it no matter what happens.

Well, he was correct about that one...

 

[Ms. Marvel]

There is no doubt about this. With TASM he said it was absolutely unwatchable before he ever saw it and wouldn't back down from that opinion. He forms an opinion and holds it no matter what happens.

I think he loved the Raimi trilogy and didn't like idea of a reboot.
Opinions are opinions but he liked SM3 yet didn't want to give ASM a chance...

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

In terms of scale would it be possible to ramp up the action in Avengers 2 to match this, or is it more about the characters and their powers limitations?

What makes me think of this is the Snyder quote from SFX:

And when the interviewer asked Zack about making a superhero film in a genre that’s come to be dominated by Marvel Studios, Snyder infers that when Man of Steel comes out, you’ll be asking other superhero filmmakers that same question.

Zack Snyder: “If you get [Man of Steel] right, that’s the question you’ll be asking everyone else. That should be the question you’re asking Iron Man and Thor. How is it you feel you can be making a superhero movie in a world where Superman and Batman exist?”
-----

I enjoyed the Avengers but going off previews it took 6 of them to handle what seems to sound like a smaller threat. Im wondering how easy it'll be for Whedon to just ramp things up while keeping it in perspective with everything thats already come before.

Whedon mentioned going smaller in an interview. http://screenrant.com/avengers-2-story-joss-whedon-kofi-158346/

I personally think that's the best option for both MOS2 and the Avengers sequel.

 

[Sharkboy]

To me, the action in Avengers works because people are "sold" on the characters. It's good to see them fighting alongside each other. But Avengers, IMHO, nailed the comic style. MOS looks to be holding back on it for the subtle, dramatic parts and embracing it for the grand and epic parts, which is how I think things should be

Do you think (and this is an honest question, not just me being snarky) that people would have loved Avengers as much if it was a stand alone film? If there were no IM 1 and 2, no Thor or CapAm solo films before it? Because in my opinion the film would still be pretty good without them (which is why it gets my respect) but i'm sure more people would realise how hollow the film ultimately is without them. I always found Avengers to be the culminative final act to each of the previously mentioned films.

Which is why it's interesting to see if MOS can still manage to be as climatic and exciting as Avengers without having to sacrifice it's depth and character work, because Avengers can afford to do it...MOS can't.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Well, the other films were designed with TA in mind. As far as a climax goes, I don't think you need to worry for MOS.

 

[Ramirez16]

Do you think (and this is an honest question, not just me being snarky) that people would have loved Avengers as much if it was a stand alone film? If there were no IM 1 and 2, no Thor or CapAm solo films before it? Because in my opinion the film would still be pretty good without them (which is why it gets my respect) but i'm sure more people would realise how hollow the film ultimately is without them. I always found Avengers to be the culminative final act to each of the previously mentioned films.

I would have still loved the film, but team up of the characters was the event of the whole thing.

 

[Man_of_Tomorrow]

Yeah, I feel sorry for the poor guy

I know, I dont hold him blameless in what SR ended up as, but you have to imagine he's already down with what's happened and happening, no need for comments like that in reviews.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I know, I dont hold him blameless in what SR ended up as, but you have to imagine he's already down with what's happened and happening, no need for comments like that in reviews.

Honestly, I always thought Routh did a solid job. It was Singer trying to recreate the old Supes films (which honestly, I was never a huge fan of to begin with) and the writing that held the film down. Routh did good with what he had.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ SR would have weighed down pretty much any actor.
Routh isn't the reason the script had him shout "I'm still Superman!" while not putting up a fight. Nor is he the reason that Superman stalked LL.
He just lacked charisma, but I feel like it's because he probably felt burdened because of the inevitable comparisons to Reeve. I think his Clark had a nice sense of sensitivity and introspectiveness, but his Supes was lacking, and a lot of that was due to the writing.

 

[moviefan!]

Embargo broken?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ It's not a review if there aren't any details

 

[Ms. Marvel]

^ SR would have weighed down pretty much any actor.
Routh isn't the reason the script had him shout "I'm still Superman!" while not putting up a fight. Nor is he the reason that Superman stalked LL.
He just lacked charisma, but I feel like it's because he probably felt burdened because of the inevitable comparisons to Reeve. I think his Clark had a nice sense of sensitivity and introspectiveness, but his Supes was lacking, and a lot of that was due to the writing.

He had to mimic Chris' performance because it was a sequel.... so it's kind of easy to make a comparison.
With Henry, it's a reboot and he can make it his own.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Do you think (and this is an honest question, not just me being snarky) that people would have loved Avengers as much if it was a stand alone film? If there were no IM 1 and 2, no Thor or CapAm solo films before it? Because in my opinion the film would still be pretty good without them (which is why it gets my respect) but i'm sure more people would realise how hollow the film ultimately is without them. I always found Avengers to be the culminative final act to each of the previously mentioned films.

Which is why it's interesting to see if MOS can still manage to be as climatic and exciting as Avengers without having to sacrifice it's depth and character work, because Avengers can afford to do it...MOS can't.

I think people would still have loved Avengers, especially since there were still a good number of people who saw that film without seeing the previous ones.

TA and TDK for me represent the pinnacles of Comic Book films, but on the opposite ends of the spectrum. TDK was the example of the very dark, gritty, intensely story and character driven comic done to near perfection. TA was the peak of fun, escapist, old fashioned comic book action. I've never really understood why so many people kept trying to compare the two, because they're completely different.

I've used this comparison before, because I think it's apt; comparing TDK and The Avengers would be like comparing Saving Private Ryan and Raiders of the Lost Arc. Yes, they're both set in the 40's, they both take place during WWII, and they both feature Nazi's, yet they're completely different. TA was the ROTLA of comic films, while TDK was the SPR.

TMOS looks interesting because it seems to be straddling the line a bit, and doing a tiny bit of both, which I think could be very interesting, and it has me very excited for the film.

 

[The Sage]

I can't see it this way for a few reasons. For one, I don't see why films within the genre can't be presented in their own ways. Secondly, I think that this whole 'dark, gritty, and grounded' tone is becoming a fad, and in some cases, filmmakers sacrifice a great deal of content for said tone, Dredd being a noteworthy recent example. They got the characterization right, the tone, mood, and violence was on the money, but outside of that...the plot, acting, and writing overall were lukewarm at best. That's not what I want from films in any genre.

The problem is, audiences are giving this practice a free pass, and your last sentence proves as much IMO. There's nothing believable or realistic about the world MoS, TDK, Dredd, or any of these recent 'grounded & gritty' movies present. An overly serious tone, filled with angst and pathos /= realism, but more and more people continue to assert that this is so. Personally, I refuse to put so much stock into the mood of a film; it has quickly become what I'd consider cinematic snake oil.

Lastly, I find the notion that comic book films should forsake the style of their source material to be disturbing. This is akin to my overall issue that people are paying too much attention to the tone of films these days as opposed to the content. If the content and substance that makes up a film is good, then I think tone should be considered a secondary characteristic.

Honestly, I think "gritty and grounded in realism", at least with MOS, is just the modern day verisimilitude approach that Richard Donner and his crew took with STM in '78. It's the same approach - makes what's fantastical seem plausible and feel real. It's just nowadays there's no camp and the tone is more serious. As you said, it's not real. It may seem real, and some situations may be handled in a more realistic way, but it's not real anyway.

Spot on man. Why would anyone want superhero films to have the same or even similar tones anyway? An Avengers movie with the tone of say tdkr would've been laughable.

Its great that marvel and DC are doing their own things with their own tones.

And please let's not repeat the foolishness of last year. If you feel the need to bring up the Avengers when youre discussing MoS, you're doing it wrong. This film deserves to be judged and discussed on its own merits.

Agreed. I love the different tones that both comic book franchises are taking with their material. It emphasizes to me how vast and how much variety exists in the source material.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Is that Devin Faraci a Marvel fanboy, or just a bit of a jackass? Isn't he the same guy that got the snot beat out of him by an amateur film maker that he trashed?

He absolutely hated TASM before even seeing it.

 

[BestGirl]

As much as I loved Avengers and some of the other Marvel movies, I've always found the world they exist in to be a little too comic booky for my taste. Everything's feels a bit too jokey and artificial, and you never get the sense that there's a real world happening outside of what those characters are doing.

What Man of Steel seems to be doing I like MUCH more-- setting a fantastic character in a believable, realistic world that you can actually imagine yourself being a part of.

I am in complete agreement with this post. I've always thought The Avengers was just okay for the reason you gave. I hope I'm more impressed with MOS. Even if it disappoints me because the director's cut is short on characterization the director's cut ought to make up for it.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Honestly, I think "gritty and grounded in realism", at least with MOS, is just the modern day verisimilitude approach that Richard Donner and his crew took with STM in '78. It's the same approach - makes what's fantastical seem plausible and feel real. It's just nowadays there's no camp and the tone is more serious. As you said, it's not real. It may seem real, and some situations may be handled in a more realistic way, but it's not real anyway.



Agreed. I love the different tones that both comic book franchises are taking with their material. It emphasizes to me how vast and how much variety exists in the source material.

Yeah, can you imagine RD under better producers?

But yes, S:TM has a realistic feeling Smallville, a somewhat plausible Metropolis, and a bunch of neat real-world locations. Superman:TM is also fairly serious, when compared to a show like Batman, for example.

 

[fake]

Only tangentially related to MoS, but does anyone have any idea what is up with the WWZ RT score??

It shows that the score is 80%, but there are around 4 different reviews which have scores of C+ which are classified as "Fresh". If C+ is a fresh, then no movie should ever be rotten.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Only tangentially related to MoS, but does anyone have any idea what is up with the WWZ RT score??

It shows that the score is 80%, but there are around 4 different reviews which have scores of C+ which are classified as "Fresh". If C+ is a fresh, then no movie should ever be rotten.

I mean, the way grades function today in schools, any C grade is passing...so it would make sense that a C grade would be fresh. Not sure why that's confusing

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Anything above a D should be fresh, IMHO.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Anything above a D should be fresh, IMHO.

Yeah, I mean, anything above a D is considered a passing grade in school. So it would stand to reason that a C is fresh.

Heck, a C rating would be considered 70% of the film is good. If they didn't consider films with a C rating fresh, very few films would ever get fresh.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Yep, there are a lot of movies that fit THIS trope :/