|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 1, 2012 16:36:00 GMT -5
A giant chunk of the movie (like STM) was the love story. If Bosworth didn't work, then the rest of the movie couldn't work (I was fine with her, except for a couple of line readings that made me groan).
The movie I think could have used a cliffhanger ending after he flies off. I was fine as it was, but lacking a superhero battle, it could have used more juice somewhere.
I always thought it odd that they waited until the end rather putting it up front. WB's decision or Singer's? Who knows?
Would love to know what numbers WB will require as success, given that SR ended up being deemed a disappointment..... It'll be hilarious to me if MOS ends up being exactly the same numbers but is called a 'success'.
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Jan 1, 2012 17:28:22 GMT -5
And surely the marketing campaign and strategy had better be hugely improved with MAN OF STEEL (starting with a teaser before DKR this Summer) as SR never felt like a major player in 2006, when compared with Pirates or X-Men 3.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 1, 2012 18:10:02 GMT -5
Hard to say which is my fave between SIII and SR
SR has a love of the material which carries it a long way
SIII has a few genuine awesome moments
Give me Pryor over Bosworth anyday.
At least SIII is original.
Dunno, difficult to choose.
SR is more than the love story. Its a pity they rehashed lex's land scheme putting the character back 30 years instead of moving forward. Infact all of SR feels like it didn't want to move forward
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Jan 1, 2012 18:20:28 GMT -5
Give me Pryor over Bosworth anyday.  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 1, 2012 19:43:30 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 1, 2012 20:01:44 GMT -5
And anything less than $1 billion worldwide will be a disappointment in my view. That would be cool but I just can't see that happening. It would have to be amazing and have amount of buzz behind it. And surely the marketing campaign and strategy had better be hugely improved with MAN OF STEEL (starting with a teaser before DKR this Summer) as SR never felt like a major player in 2006, when compared with Pirates or X-Men 3. WB fouled it up big time with Green Lantern (which also should have learned from SR but didn't). A few pretty posters but some shitty trailers and tv spots didn't help at all. I'm sure it'll emphasize the action more than anything which is probably their best bet with Snyder at the helm. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 2, 2012 1:08:12 GMT -5
I agree that SR is more than just the love story- but it's certainly at the center of it. While I thought that aspect of the movie worked tremendously, I'm not a big defender of the land scheme by Luthor at all, and I've also said that it was a missed opportunity to re-invent/improve upon Luthor.
SR I thought moved the character development light years ahead by having the kid (moreso than the DC comics where they had them marry) be a factor into the Superman universe- but the villain part of the story - and his motivation - did feel frozen in time.
*sigh*
Still--- what worked, I thought worked fantastic. What didn't, was a little dull. (But then again, I had the same comments for STM)
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Jan 2, 2012 1:27:20 GMT -5
the whole "return" aspect of the film was laughable
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 2, 2012 12:40:30 GMT -5
Really? Well... I thought it was a really creative way to keep the Donner elements from the 70's and by having the character be gone for a number of significant years in the world's history- that it tackled the idea of him being a character who was 'out of touch' with the world in more ways than one (I thought it was a much better way to handle the concept, than how Stracinski handled it in the comics with his 'Grounded' series- which was daring, but a bit of a creative flop imo).
Again, taking the path of trying to restore/keep the Donner elements and move it forward at the same time is a heckuva lot trickier than a reboot. Kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' I suppose in using/not using Donner's take on it.
It'll be interesting to see how everything hangs together in MOS- but I have an odd feeling that what'll be different this time around is that- unlike past times, WB will care less about what the response at Comicon is, in making any judgements one way or the other, given how fickle they were (before the movie came out- so that's not a factor) in treating Singer over his appearances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2012 13:00:44 GMT -5
The return of Superman angle was incredibly underdeveloped. The whole thing with Lois writing "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman" and winning an award for it implied that there was a significant portion of the world that felt the same way- why would she win an award for an editorial piece if it doesn't connect with the current zeitgeist? Yet Superman shows up at the stadium, everyone cheers, and business goes on as usual. The way it plays out in the film, Lois comes across as a crank who wrote an article because she was bitter over her personal relationship with him. Great journalism! Everyone else was totally cool with the situation, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 2, 2012 13:12:12 GMT -5
I have a friend who agreed with what you said, and felt the story should have developed differently from his return.... so, I do get that the 'return' part was more about the personal consequences, not the global consequences of his being gone and returning and that it could seem a big disappointment storywise in not heading in that direction.
Personally, I thought that the writers handled it perfectly (at least that aspect of the script).... that, if the world's savior disappears for years, and the world is disappointed/doesn't know if he's dead/whatever--- that an angry 'we can stand on our own' article by Lois would seem like a rallying cry for the world that had no savior anymore to pull itself up by its bootstraps.
As far as the world re-welcoming him as if nothing happened after years of not being around--- I could see that, too. The public is incredibly fickle. One day, one politician may be heart of all evil, then five years later, he may not be considered all that bad.
I liked that angle of guilt that Superman may have had for putting his personal needs first (seeing if there were any other survivors from Krypton) over the world's dependence on him. (But this was also done in STM and SII with him being a flawed savior)..... and getting cheers from the crowd that were just glad that he was back and not melting people with his eyes.
The public is/was glad to get someone around as a free savior that didn't cost them anything- so, I thought it plausible that they applaud his return- he never promised he'd stick around forever.....but Lois took it personally, and I thought it fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2012 13:47:11 GMT -5
Without any real consequences, that speculation falls flat. Was there a crisis he could have ended? People he could have saved? We never found out. As far as we know, the world went on just fine without Superman around- except for one reporter getting bent out of shape over it. Anything beyond that is purely speculation, because the movie gives you nothing to go on.
It's not like Singer doesn't know how to take public opinion and incorporate it into a story. The first two X-Men movies did a great job of showing how people felt about mutants, and making it an important part of the plot. Superman Returns, not so much. The public reaction to Superman is an afterthought by comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 2, 2012 15:35:10 GMT -5
Those definitely are fair criticisms. You're right, the public opinion isn't that big a part of the story except in terms of how Superman puts himself through a guilt trip on that maybe the world (and Lois) doesn't need him anymore.
For my part, though, I saw the first act of Superman returning back from being gone/ uncertain if the world wants him back/ coming back and finding that the world still applaudes him- even as they can go on without him- as mainly setting up that Supes doesn't take the world's acceptance of him for granted- that he had to re-earn the world's acceptance, in a sense.
Past that.... (and, as mentioned, a good friend totally disagrees with me on this) I wasn't so much interested in the angle of Superman and his relationship with the public & the world - past what Superman thought about himself for leaving the world to pursue his own need to see if Krypton had survivors.
To me, the act of leaving to go to Krypton's remains was always understandable. He was always (presumably) going to return back soon as he found out. It wasn't on the same scale as Superman giving up his powers for Lois in SII, to me, (and there wasn't a supervillain attack) so I didn't think the crime warranted that much interest to me on how the public reacted to him leaving the world.
It's true that the story could have been more tailored for that situation...but... I'm glad that they moved on from that after the first act....(*Although I would have preferred that Luthor's plot to the crystals ended up summoning Brainiac to Earth and have the Brainiac/Luthor combo be the last battle with Supes instead of just having Supes fight land masses )
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Jan 2, 2012 17:28:11 GMT -5
The main thing was, Lex's Kryptonian continent never felt like enough of a threat to the people of the world, let alone Metropolis, as we never saw the fear from the viewpoint of ordinary Metropolis citizens - we had a few minor rescues and mini explosions, but this Krypton thing should have erupted like some massive volcano and sent a huge tidal wave towards Metropolis and across the Atlantic and then Superman really would have had something major to deal with (and it would have given audiences a breathtaking super feat to watch).
The concept was good but basically should have been expanded into a much bigger worldwide threat and not so quickly solved and discarded by Superman, which then almost kills him, but for what ? (as we and the people were never that astonished, scared or mesmerised to begin with).
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 2, 2012 20:28:48 GMT -5
Great point. I think it also just wasn't visually as interesting as it could have/should have been. Having giant crystals crash up through Metropolis' streets might have felt more threatening than shards of glass falling (a realistic but not necessarily visually dynamic threat) or manhole covers being blown.
The money and the technology was there to do something on a bigger scale, but actionwise I've always said that SR skewed a bit too traditionally for a lot of action bits, when it should have dazzled and thought outside of the box. Characterwise, I thought it fantastic.....actionwise.....not so much.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 2, 2012 20:38:27 GMT -5
Sorely lacking any feel good feeling. I never smiled with the character. We could at least have had a kick ass ending/final act. The character didn't deserve to look at the camera at the end (I felt the same in Superman III)
My goodness, is still 18 sodding months to the next one??
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 3, 2012 0:02:25 GMT -5
It's a somber film- like the Dark Knight. (But both of which I loved) I have this feeling that under Snyder/Nolan, MOS isn't going to be a 'feel good' movie either, though. The tone I imagine you're hoping for, I'm not sure is going to be there, either.... I could be wrong, but- are you under the impression that Snyder's going to make a 'feel good' Superman film with MOS?  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 3, 2012 0:11:14 GMT -5
MOS is probably going to have way more action to satisfy the people that want it but the film itself is looking like a dark serious affair. Supermans suit, the Kryptonians...the little we've seen is all looking more gritty than what we've seen from the typical bright cheery bold and spashy optimism of the usual Superman story.
Snyder seems to be going for a harder edged film. The costumes look more like something from Tim Burtons production. Woulda been right at home in his Superman Lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 3, 2012 0:32:53 GMT -5
Funny you should mention Burton. To me, (based on what I've seen so far by Snyder), Snyder seems like a director you'd get if you spliced Burton and Michael Bay's dna together....
Snyder easily has the visual style of a Burton, but his films seem to have the brains and heartlessness of a Michael Bay film.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 3, 2012 12:23:09 GMT -5
I think he has made smarter films than Bay or at least is capable of it but much like Bay he relies on his same overused stylized bullshit over and over. Sure every director has a style but he's used his gimmicks as a crutch. Thats what happened with Sucker Punch. And people didn't give a damn. It wasn't enough. Robert Rodriquez does plenty of stylized stuff but a lot of it at least looks different from the others. He did The comic book come to life with Sin City but he didn't jump all over himself to repeat it.
If Snyder was still the same guy that made Dawn of the Dead (his best movie) I'd have a better opinion on him. What happened to that guy? The guy before he started relying on the same style (over and over) over substance?
If he's going to make MOS a stylized movie it would nice if he at least came up with something fresh. Hopefully he does.
A shame Brad Bird didn't get the MOS gig. between Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and M:I 4 his Superman film could have been amazing. We know he can deliver heart AND spectacle. heck with the Incredibles he made a better Fantastic Four film than the ACTUAL Fantastic Four film.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 3, 2012 12:42:54 GMT -5
That's true.... I should give Snyder for creating a Watchmen movie - period- that LOOKS like the Watchmen- even if much of the core of the story got mishandled in a giant way.
I'd be totally fine with Snyder as a cinematographer--- every shot is beautiful in Watchmen and 300..... but he should NOT be in charge of story or actors of any movie imo.
Though- to be fair, I have not seen his "Day of the Dead". I hear it's much better than everything past that film....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 3, 2012 13:14:37 GMT -5
Dawn of The Dead...and its a lot better than the awful Day of The Dead remake. Dawns the film where he probably got the deepest performances out of his actors. They were normal modern day people dropped into an insane situation. But its more of an action film than the original, which made you think more. The rest of Snyders characters in his other films come from worlds that are much more fantasy.
As far as depth and intelligence I'd put Watchmen above damn near anything Bay has done...certainly the mindless Transformers films. Watchmen is good but flawed. But I think he had a harder job there in terms of intelligence and drama than he'll have with MOS.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 3, 2012 17:11:55 GMT -5
I agree that there are good sections to Watchmen--- but it kills me that the script strayed from the book just enough to kill the smarts from it.
"The Rock" and "300" (Except for "Dead" which I haven't seen) seem to be, imo, the best of both directors. The worst being "Sucker Punch" and "Pearl Harbor". (Though, ironically, I thought "Pearl" had an incredible trailer). The rest kind of falls in between.....
Here's hoping "MOS" ends up surprising us all (in a good way)....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 3, 2012 17:24:16 GMT -5
Michael Bay should shove a squib up his dick and set it off for making Pearl Harbor.
I'd say his best is probably The Rock. Its before he went full Bay with Armageddon.
Watchmen breaks down at times. I remember people didn't know WHAT to make of the sex scene in the theater. And some of the musical choices ranged from cliche to terrible.
Like I've said in the past though the ending is my big gripe. Didn't care that he changed it but his new ending showed a serious lack of understanding.
And Ozy was awful. Most uninteresting character in the entire movie. Worst casting in the movie. Found myself losing interest whenever he was on the screen. The character is pretty stiff anyway but that wasn't the problem. Dan/Nite Owl's pretty dull too but I thought Patrick Wilson was great. Thats how he's supposed to be .
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 4, 2012 7:02:32 GMT -5
Fuck, if that's true I'm going out my way never to see another one of his films ever again.
|
|
