TMOS Reviews Thread - Non Spoiler Review and Discussion

[JOE]

What happened to the Fonz guy? Was it confirmed he was just trolling around the boards?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

From the Blu-Ray forum- Let me just say it was awesome and will be hard to top for future superhero movies. The score was terrific, pacing was great and Kevin Costner needs to be in more movies. Shannon was real good as Zod. Didn't really like Adams as Lois and she just felt wasted in this movie. Loved the little easter eggs in this also. The final battle between Zod and Clark was very epic and emotional. Best film of the year by far IMO. 5/5!!!!

Why did he spoiler tag that? So many people forget what a spoiler is.

 

[Stoic]

Did the creators of Superman based their character on the Christian Mythology? Or, is this a revisionist history?

I know George Lucas did admit to it on Star Wars, though... but never heard the original authors of superman say any such thing...

BTW: If Superman is indeed representative of Jesus, then when Zod punches him on the left face, he'll go like 'oh, please do my right as well'... also, he'll just die, and not fight back... and then maybe miraculously comes back alive...

Shuster and Siegel were Jewish. They actually set up Superman as an amalgam of different pulp and literary heroes from the day ie. Doc Savage, John Carter, etc. The Christian angle came later. If anything he was more akin to Moses than Christ. However, the interweaving of the mythos actually plays well with all different relgions and ideologies. Superman is simply adaptable to your worldview whether that be Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so on. This adaptability and relatability has helped the character sustain his position as an American icon.

Edit: Corrected Savage's name.

 

[BatBruce]

Superman is pretty much Jesus if Jesus were a superhero. It's only fitting that the creators pay homage.

Not quite, at least as far as his creators were concerned. Superman (origin and all) was almost entirely modeled after Moses. His story is largely from the old testament (Moses), not the new testament (Jesus). Over time, other adaptations have made associations between Superman and Jesus, which is quite easy and often done with any messianic character. But as far as basis, Superman was always supposed to be more of an old testament-inspired character.

 

[JOE]

He obviously didn't want us to know that Shannon was real good as Zod!... Can't believe he spoiled that for everyone... I'm not even going to watch the movie anymore.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Or that there would be a battle

 

[JOE]

^ Or that there would be a battle

USE SPOILER TAGS! C'MON MAN!

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

A critical chat about MOS:
Sideswipe2674: With a actor like Henry Cavill, being Clark Kent…
Sideswipe2674: …you’re a big handsome guy, and some characters that interact with Clark are lost on his size and charm. It didn’t feel realistic.
Sideswipe2674: He definitely felt out of place as Clark Kent, but he’s not the Clark Kent that we grew up knowing.
Sideswipe2674: He’s much more natural as Superman in this film.
EZP88: hahaha
Sideswipe2674: As slow as the story was, it made up for it with the action in the middle and end.
Sideswipe2674: The story lags in between, so I felt like pacing was off.
EZP88: So, you got a little bored after the first action scene?
Sideswipe2674: Yeah.
EZP88: How would you rank it with the rest of the blockbusters so far?
Sideswipe2674: I’d rank it, Star Trek, Iron Man 3 then Superman.
EZP88: Really?
Sideswipe2674: Iron Man 3 has comedy, charm and personality.
EZP88: I thought Iron Man 3 was far behind Star Trek.
Sideswipe2674: Superman feels more serious.
EZP88: I think I liked Fast and Furious 6 more than Iron Man 3.
Sideswipe2674: Star Trek is way beyond all of them.
Sideswipe2674: MOS feels like a movie with potential, and that’s the problem…
Sideswipe2674: …its still just a movie with potential.

 

[JOE]

A critical chat about MOS:
Sideswipe2674: With a actor like Henry Cavill, being Clark Kent…
Sideswipe2674: …you’re a big handsome guy, and some characters that interact with Clark are lost on his size and charm. It didn’t feel realistic.
Sideswipe2674: He definitely felt out of place as Clark Kent, but he’s not the Clark Kent that we grew up knowing.
Sideswipe2674: He’s much more natural as Superman in this film.
EZP88: hahaha
Sideswipe2674: As slow as the story was, it made up for it with the action in the middle and end.
Sideswipe2674: The story lags in between, so I felt like pacing was off.
EZP88: So, you got a little bored after the first action scene?
Sideswipe2674: Yeah.
EZP88: How would you rank it with the rest of the blockbusters so far?
Sideswipe2674: I’d rank it, Star Trek, Iron Man 3 then Superman.
EZP88: Really?
Sideswipe2674: Iron Man 3 has comedy, charm and personality.
EZP88: I thought Iron Man 3 was far behind Star Trek.
Sideswipe2674: Superman feels more serious.
EZP88: I think I liked Fast and Furious 6 more than Iron Man 3.
Sideswipe2674: Star Trek is way beyond all of them.
Sideswipe2674: MOS feels like a movie with potential, and that’s the problem…
Sideswipe2674: …its still just a movie with potential.

Can we please bring this to the BO forum so we can get rid of all the 1B WW predictions please?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ But the dude who is chatting probably wants superhero movies that are more "bright" and less "weighty." But he could be right :/

 

[robot]

What's with all the "it's not TDK.. it's not like TDK.." comments?

LOL, thanks for calling this out... Personally, though I liked TDK, it's not that GREAT, IMO... it's just 'ok, it's good, period'.. not like you have to compare everything to it... I liked a lot of other movies way better than TDK...

If Superman is nothing like TDK, I'll be a happy camper... !!!

The script is so action packed and fast paced that the relationship between Lois and Clark gets very little attention. Lois is reduced to a damsel in distress for most of the movie.

I already called this out... I have watched all of Goyer/Jack Snyder films.. neither one of them knows anything about writing a good 'love story'... so, yeah, it was always going to be just action packed (snyder), and re-imagining of an old character (snyder)...

For me, that's fine.. I have no problem with a movie that's just pure fun and action... but in terms of box office, it'll never reach Titanic/Avatar status without a compelling love story at the center of it... Love is universal and appeals to all quadrant... Maybe they can treat the next 'trilogy' if they do that, with a huge 'love story' angle, and battles all around that.. it'll beat out Avatar... but bring in a script writer other than Goyer.. keep snyder as the directory.. he'll bring any script to live...

It's rarely ever either/or - there are subgenres to consider.

Hard sci-fi is concerned with plausibility and rational explanations; soft sci-fi is not. I'd qualify Superman as the latter.

And if you really want to get technical, Star Wars is a space opera.

HAHA.. exactly right.. that's why i have problems with people classifying all CMB movies as 'sci fi'.. i don't mind them saying it's slightly sci-fi.. to clasify it sci-fi outright is disrespectful to all the countless authors (who spent so much time actually understanding real science), and all the sci-fi fans out there..

Superman is more fantasy, action adventure, and maybe if you want, with goyer's interpretation, say, have a bit of sci-fi added to it...

And yes, Star Wars is just that, a Space Opera...

The Doctor in Doctor Who is a fashionable God like being who can regenerate. Could that happen in real life?

"Any technology sufficiently more advanced to ours will appear to be magical" Arthur C. Clarke.

So, yes, if you say he's a god-like (emphasis, god-like not GOD as defined by any of our religions) figure that can re-generate, then definitely sci-fi..... even in our own planet, there are countless lifeforms, that can re-generate... in fact, all our cells re-generate.. we can 'potentially' be immortals.. that's all plausible.. in fact, very possible..

Back to the Future explained squat and it has time-travel. All they did was pointed at the Flux capacitor and bingo, explained!

Back the the Future is classified mainly as 'action adventure/comedy and sci-fi'... so, yes, a bit of sci-fi, but by no means a pure sci-fi... the concept of time travel is real and plausible, in fact, not only plausible, but you can already travel into the future by moving fast...

The explanation is 'bogus' of course of how they travel back in time... and that's why it's more 'action adventure and comedy' than 'sci-fi'...

And it does explore the questions of what happens if 'you can indeed travel thru time'... and that's pure sci-fi...

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Can we please bring this to the BO forum so we can get rid of all the 1B WW predictions please?

I really hope I don't end up liking IM3 more than MOS.

 

[Transcended]

Shuster and Siegel were Jewish. They actually set up Superman as an amalgam of different pulp and literary heroes from the day ie. Doc Samson, John Carter, etc. The Christian angle came later. If anything he was more akin to Moses than Christ. However, the interweaving of the mythos actually plays well with all different relgions and ideologies. Superman is simply adaptable to your worldview whether that be Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so on. This adaptability and relatability has helped the character sustain his position as an American icon.

Exactly.

Authorial intent doesn't really matter all that much (literary criticism 101! ) - especially with a character that's now been around for 75 years in various incarnations. The way the character is structured and designed in a narrative sense naturally lends itself to religious allegory of all kinds. If you want to see it there, it's there. If you don't, you can just choose to take Supes at face value.

Personally, I enjoy all the subtext that comes with Superman. It's part of what makes him such a rich and interesting character to discuss.

 

[Amelia Pond]

From the Blu-Ray forum- Let me just say it was awesome and will be hard to top for future superhero movies. The score was terrific, pacing was great and Kevin Costner needs to be in more movies. Shannon was real good as Zod. Didn't really like Adams as Lois and she just felt wasted in this movie. Loved the little easter eggs in this also. The final battle between Zod and Clark was very epic and emotional. Best film of the year by far IMO. 5/5!!!!

This isn't addressed to you TheFlamingCoco, since you're just sharing another's review, but as a general question I'm still baffled about the reactions to Adams' Lois. I'm a huge Lois Lane fan who understands she's a supporting character who would thus be unlikely to be a co-lead or have a massive role in the movie. So even I'm going into the movie not expecting her to equal Superman or Zod in terms of screen time and involvement regardless of how iconic the character is and how talented/acclaimed an actress Amy Adams is. However, based on what I've seen or read about Lois in the movie, I find it difficult to imagine she feels that underused or wasted.

Maybe someone who's seen the film can clarify what Lois' role is and how it comes across on screen, but it seems to me she is in the middle of the action, in lots of locations, and even gets to participate in the victory/climax of the movie. This is my recollection of what Lois does:

Spoiler

• Arrives in the arctic and unknowingly comes into contact with Clark who takes her bags.
• Asks several people about Clark using photographs.
• Finds and explores the Fortress of Solitude (really an old Kryptonian scout ship) and meets Clark face to face for the first time.
• Visits Smallville where she talks to Pete Ross at IHOP and Martha Kent (we see her greet Martha, but not the conversation).
• At some point Lois is at a bar and one where she's running with her hair down. She is also shown at a gas station in Smallville, according to behind the scenes pics. This may be before she talks to Pete.
• Goes to Jonathan Kent's grave where she and Clark have a meaningful discussion about who he is and why he's hiding.
• Returns to Metropolis and Daily Planet office where she tries to backtrack on her story with Perry.
• At some point Lois is said to have pressured the military via the court system for access to Superman. Superman himself prefers to speak with her.
• Lois "interrogates" Superman under military observation.
• Lois stands with Superman in front of the military; they hold hands.
• Superman and Lois are on Zod's ship. She helps Superman get out of there with help from Jor-El.
• Superman gets her out of the pod and they land in a cornfield.
• *At some point Lois has another conversation with Perry and we see her staring out of the window as Zod's ship arrives in Metropolis.
• Lois reunites with the military (Colonel Hardy and Dr. Hamilton) and they collaborate on a plan to deal with Zod's ship and the Kryptonians. She flies in an army plane with Hardy, is shown clinging to an aircraft with Faora on it, helps to get rid of the ship, and Superman rescues her as she falls from its destruction.
• Superman and Lois kiss.
• Clark arrives at the Daily Planet in his glasses disguise where Lois greets him.

Given all of that, how can she come across as wasted? Is there something people expect from Lois that they aren't getting? Lois is very important to me, and I feel I have realistic expectations about her role, but I'd love some insight into how she's used and comes across in this movie so I can be better prepared to watch it. I don't want to be too disappointed.

 

[Skrilla31]

Not quite, at least as far as his creators were concerned. Superman (origin and all) was almost entirely modeled after Moses. His story is largely from the old testament (Moses), not the new testament (Jesus). Over time, other adaptations have made associations between Superman and Jesus, which is quite easy and often done with any messianic character. But as far as basis, Superman was always supposed to be more of an old testament-inspired character.

Well since we're on the topic, I believe the new testament was nothing more than a retelling of the old testament anyway. The ideas are all the same. Jesus's story isn't that much different from Moses's. The where and whens are different but the who and the why's are the same. Both were "sent" by God to free his people of suffering and to lead the way onto the promised land/paradise/heaven.

He was probably inspired by both. Doesn't Kal-el in hebrew translate into "voice of God"? In that case, you could see the Moses inspiration. But Superman shares more characteristics with Jesus. Inspires, leads by example, puts morality above all, etc.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Dude, Amelia, you might want to spoiler tag that stuff

 

[Energybender]

/QUOTE]


You might want to move all of that to the spoiler thread. Or spoiler tag it.

 

[G.Godfrey]

Can we please bring this to the BO forum so we can get rid of all the 1B WW predictions please?

Let's wait until the 10th before making rash judgments. After all, for every critic that will think IM3 is better, there is one that will think the opposite http://www.criticschoice.com/members/esymkus/

 

[robot]

Shuster and Siegel were Jewish. They actually set up Superman as an amalgam of different pulp and literary heroes from the day ie. Doc Samson, John Carter, etc. The Christian angle came later. If anything he was more akin to Moses than Christ. However, the interweaving of the mythos actually plays well with all different relgions and ideologies. Superman is simply adaptable to your worldview whether that be Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so on. This adaptability and relatability has helped the character sustain his position as an American icon.

Ah, thanks for the history lesson.. good to know.. I like the idea of a Superman that is universal.. not just American... I totally hate the American propaganda that American stands of Freedom, Justice and all that, like others don't...

 

[Amelia Pond]

^ Dude, Amelia, you might want to spoiler tag that stuff

Dude, you might not want to call me dude. And, yes, I've already tagged it appropriately. Why anyone would quote it to tell me to put in spoilers as someone just did is beyond me (ETA: Thanks for editing your post Energybender).

 

[jacobed]

One guys opinion means it won't make a billion? Why because he liked Im 3 more? Without Avengers Im would be sitting 800 million right now

 

[Notrip]

Iron man 3 was garbage imho. so most would take that as OMG, man of steel is gonna suck.
IM3 2/4
STID 3/4
Basically my opinion on those movies. This is the fist I have heard about the story lagging and being slow, Every, and I mean Every reaction or small critique so far I have seen talk about the story being rushed at times. That is interesting, you mean everyone has their own opinion? hmm. A couple of hypesters have seen the movie and Loved it and they ranked their CBM's very similar to how mine were.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

For people who don't want ANY risk of spoilers, but want to have an idea of the quality of MOS, there's always THIS thread.

 

[JOE]

I really hope I don't end up liking IM3 more than MOS.

IM3 wasn't great by any means, but it wasn't the worst CBM of the 3. Mostly because IM2 was terrible... Regardless, it can still be said it's not the worst of the trilogy hahah.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

This isn't addressed to you TheFlamingCoco, since you're just sharing another's review, but as a general question.

Why are we posting this in here? A breakdown of some of the chronology of the movie is a spoiler!