TMOS Set & Official Photo Thread - Discussion Welcome - - Part 11

[747]

Serious and grounded does not equal gritty and dark. People on other places seems to think that sometimes and it irks me.

 

[BH/HHH]

Serious and grounded does not equal gritty and dark. People on other places seems to think that sometimes and it irks me.

Great post

I think people thinking that us why Goyer brought it up in his recent interviews. Only problem is we're the only people who really see those.

 

[Rust]

Serious and grounded does not equal gritty and dark. People on other places seems to think that sometimes and it irks me.

Can not be said enough. Apparently.

 

[titansupes]

^ Yep.

 

[Mad Love]

They always seem to comment that it's not as dark as people expect, and that it's not Batman. They said it was naturalistic or humanistic.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I hate that a lot of fanboys want every comicbook movie to have TDK's tone so I'm sensitive to that complaint but strictly going by the trailers I don't see how anybody could believe that this movie looks 100% like a Nolan film.

It...doesn't. Nolan's Batman films have very basic camerawork. Not even close to the lyrical, dreamlike aesthetic Snyder has employed. It looks like a Terrence Malick film than any Nolan film, perhaps save isolated moments in inception, which derived some of its visual strategy from Malick too. But certainly not his Batman films, that much is sure.

 

[747]

Yeah, cinematography wise, MOS seems to look nothing like TDKT.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm glad you guys are seeing reality and not fanboy biases. I see a somewhat bright sci fi fantasy aesthetic and that is not TDK's assthetic.

 

[dark_b]

compared to other comicbook movies its the closest to Nolan's look. i think this is what everyone means. its a fair complaint .

i hope it will not have a shaky cam look during dialoge( it has )

 

[Ramsay Snow]

It looks so different fron Molan films to me. More bright and vibrant and complex. So cool. From the limited footage I've seen so far.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It really isn't a fair complaint because a lot of directors have simlar styles. Paul Greengrass does the shaky camera grounded thing and so does Terrence Malick, although his stuff is more dreamy. Of course there is Nolan in there, nobody is denying that but this does not look like a Nolan directed film judging by the previews.

Now maybe the previews are lying, lord knows Disney made Oz look like it was directed by Joe Nobody in it's trailer but when I saw it I saw a Sam Raimi directed film, but if they are lying if anything I think they are hiding ZS influence.

 

[dark_b]

i would spit Paul Greengrass in the face. what he did during dialoge shots was a illegal . he should got 10 years of prison.

 

[Sawyer]

i would spit Paul Greengrass in the face. what he did during dialoge shots was a illegal . he should got 10 years of prison.

Oh good lord...

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not as annoyed with Greengrass as others are. He goes overboard but he is a good director.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

When it comes to mastery of the handheld cam, Katheryn Bigelow is the one to go for. She knows when to shake it or not to.

 

[dark_b]

Oh good lord...

the lord was not on my side when i was watching important dialoge scenes in the Bourne movie and it looked like the camera guy was jumping up and down. and its not realistic because noone moves like this when they talk.

 

[regwec]

Greengrass patented something obvious and unexceptional. He isn't a great director, but he is certainly a lucky one.

 

[Grime Kid]

I think this is the largest so far (Though it is still a magazine version)

Spoiler

 

[Ramsay Snow]

the lord was not on my side when i was watching important dialoge scenes in the Bourne movie and it looked like the camera guy was jumping up and down. and its not realistic because noone moves like this when they talk.

Well, in my experience, i think if you need to quickly answer the call of nature and then they talk, they would be all over the place running up and down whilst talking as they hold it in.

 

[fred_trekker]

Because it is far bigger and complicated. Look at it, Zod's armor is ridiculous. Look at it. We have already seen a shot of him in the armor, and it is cgi. The shot of him and Superman clashing in the first trailer is him in his armor.

There could be another suit, but right now it isn't looking likely.

I still believe that the mo-cap suit we saw with the hat and stick on the top represent something bigger than the suit we are seeing. If it were just the armor, why a cap and stick? His head would be uncovered if all they were doing was adding the armor. No, I stick to a bigger warsuit.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I still believe that the mo-cap suit we saw with the hat and stick on the top represent something bigger than the suit we are seeing. If it were just the armor, why a cap and stick? His head would be uncovered if all they were doing was adding the armor. No, I stick to a bigger warsuit.

Maybe he is flying. Also, why doesn't he have the stick in other shots in the same scenes?

 

[BH/HHH]

Is anyone able to get a screen grab of that last shot if Zod we see from the Man of Steel You Are Not Alone TV spot please?

 

[fred_trekker]

Well, there's the fact that Shannon and Snyder have both stated that Zod's metal suit is CGI.

Here is something that may bear out my theory that Zod wears a Kryptonian Battle Suit at some point. Note the one toy in the lower right side of the picture. Although it says "robot" it could be a suit. I still think the cap on Shannon's mo-cap suit means something more than armor. That's all I'm saying.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You do realize his armor is a Kryptonian battle suit right? Faora and Jor-El also have them and they are clearly different from the casual or formal wear.

Also, how many of those other toys do you expect to see in the film?

 

[regwec]

I look forward to the scene where Superman wields a mighty bright red battle axe.