Man of Steel (2013)

[Metallo]

You might be on rob something with the three of them together to get another big payday. These movies don't NEED Mystique and really don't need magneto. They need Xavier. I think focusing on the same handful of characters over and over for 17 years has hurt this franchise.

Occasionally a new character comes in and gets some development like Nightcrawler but most of them suffer from lack of screen time at the expense of Mystique and magneto. How funny is it that Colossus got better used in a Deadpool movie than he did in any Xmen movie?

I think Fox is trying to keep up with WB/DC and Marvel studios with big epic films while not giving them the proper on screen buildup and budget. Apocalypse tried to be that and failed. DOFP pulled it off but the set up was there and it was something people were game to see. The Phoenix saga? Not so much.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 5, 2017 6:30:35 GMT -5 Metallo said:

You might be on rob something with the three of them together to get another big payday. These movies don't NEED Mystique and really don't need magneto. They need Xavier. I think focusing on the same handful of characters over and over for 17 years has hurt this franchise.

Occasionally a new character comes in and gets some development like Nightcrawler but most of them suffer from lack of screen time at the expense of Mystique and magneto. How funny is it that Colossus got better used in a Deadpool movie than he did in any Xmen movie?

I think Fox is trying to keep up with WB/DC and Marvel studios with big epic films while not giving them the proper on screen buildup and budget. Apocalypse tried to be that and failed. DOFP pulled it off but the set up was there and it was something people were game to see. The Phoenix saga? Not so much.

The problem I feel is that they're not really sure (it seems) who's the most important in the X-men series. At first, they built everything around Wolverine. They were fine killing off Cyclops (ridiculous) and tried to kill off Xavier (really???) in X3- the rumor is that was Matthew Vaughn's storyline first- which made zero sense (unless it was an actor wanting more money, but still).

Then the Singer prequels- "First Class" was great, with the building of the X-men..... but why kill off so many of the characters in DOFP that weren't Xavier/Magneto/Mystique?? They just got done selling us on great younger characters- (I guess we should be glad Beast survived). Singer says in his commentary that they could come back, but- why kill them off in the first place?

X-men: DOFP was excellent outside of that unnecessary slaughter- and sortof returned the timeline (to a degree) - or at least one of them-

And then Apocalypse seemed like it was starting to put Scott Summers and Jean Grey as the main front characters- but I'm not convinced that they're going to really do more with them character-wise if they're killing off Jean in the next one.

So.... even with Singer (who does great stuff mainly) was in charge, they're just too fast and loose on who the X-men really are, as if they're playing "game of Thrones" with the core characters.

Anyhow, trying to enjoy what's there as much as possible, but they're not making it easy.

On the flip side, Marvel tv has been setting new lows with Inhumans (AWFUL!) and Iron Fist, so no matter what, even X3 is better than those adaptations (if comparing).

[Metallo]

Sept 5, 2017 10:01:51 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Sept 5, 2017 6:30:35 GMT -5 Metallo said:

You might be on rob something with the three of them together to get another big payday. These movies don't NEED Mystique and really don't need magneto. They need Xavier. I think focusing on the same handful of characters over and over for 17 years has hurt this franchise.

Occasionally a new character comes in and gets some development like Nightcrawler but most of them suffer from lack of screen time at the expense of Mystique and magneto. How funny is it that Colossus got better used in a Deadpool movie than he did in any Xmen movie?

I think Fox is trying to keep up with WB/DC and Marvel studios with big epic films while not giving them the proper on screen buildup and budget. Apocalypse tried to be that and failed. DOFP pulled it off but the set up was there and it was something people were game to see. The Phoenix saga? Not so much.

The problem I feel is that they're not really sure (it seems) who's the most important in the X-men series. At first, they built everything around Wolverine. They were fine killing off Cyclops (ridiculous) and tried to kill off Xavier (really???) in X3- the rumor is that was Matthew Vaughn's storyline first- which made zero sense (unless it was an actor wanting more money, but still).

Then the Singer prequels- "First Class" was great, with the building of the X-men..... but why kill off so many of the characters in DOFP that weren't Xavier/Magneto/Mystique?? They just got done selling us on great younger characters- (I guess we should be glad Beast survived). Singer says in his commentary that they could come back, but- why kill them off in the first place?

X-men: DOFP was excellent outside of that unnecessary slaughter- and sortof returned the timeline (to a degree) - or at least one of them-

And then Apocalypse seemed like it was starting to put Scott Summers and Jean Grey as the main front characters- but I'm not convinced that they're going to really do more with them character-wise if they're killing off Jean in the next one.

So.... even with Singer (who does great stuff mainly) was in charge, they're just too fast and loose on who the X-men really are, as if they're playing "game of Thrones" with the core characters.

Anyhow, trying to enjoy what's there as much as possible, but they're not making it easy.

On the flip side, Marvel tv has been setting new lows with Inhumans (AWFUL!) and Iron Fist, so no matter what, even X3 is better than those adaptations (if comparing).

I've read that Inhumans isn't that great (the trailers and photos look like crap). Iron Fist was dissapointing on a lot of levels. Hard to believe they're worse than X3 as a whole which was a massive turd that was dropped on one of the most iconic X-men stories and ruined/wasted multiple characters at once.

The problems with Marvel tv fall on Perlmutter and I guess now Quesada. Joey Q has led Marvel to deliver some truly awful stories over the years. "Diversity Marvel" has been a disaster under both of them. The comics are awful, the animated shows aren't that great and the tv shows are hit and miss.

Perlmutter was the one who pushed Inhumans and it was obvious when the movie was dropped from Marvel studios schedule after they split from Marvel Entertainment and stopped answering to Perlmutter. Defenders seemed ok but while Loeb is talented he's working for guys who don't have a clue. I cheered when Avi Arad took a walk and I hope that there's a major housecleaning at the top of Marvel. Fiege is the only one of the execs who has consistently delivered.

I can believe Vaughn was one of the people behind the deaths of Xavier and Cyclops in X3. The Fox films never seem to know what to do with either one of them. Xavier is such a powerful character that he'd solve most of the problems in those movies himself. They couldn't figure a way around that so they lazily incapacitated him in Xmen 1 and 2. Cyclops was presented as a second rate character who took a backseat to Logan in all those movies. Biggest reason Storm got so much bigger a part in X3 was because Berry won the Oscar, Singer was gone, and by killing Cyke they freed up the team leadership role.

I think Singer killed the characters he did in DOFP for the same reason. They weren't characters he favored (or in the case of Emma Frost not what he would have done) and he also didn't know what to do with them. They didn't fit his story so he used them as motivation for Magneto. Same reason he killed Havok in Xmen Apocalypse. They tied up his role pretty quickly in DOFP as well.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 5, 2017 12:56:38 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Sept 5, 2017 10:01:51 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

The problem I feel is that they're not really sure (it seems) who's the most important in the X-men series. At first, they built everything around Wolverine. They were fine killing off Cyclops (ridiculous) and tried to kill off Xavier (really???) in X3- the rumor is that was Matthew Vaughn's storyline first- which made zero sense (unless it was an actor wanting more money, but still).

Then the Singer prequels- "First Class" was great, with the building of the X-men..... but why kill off so many of the characters in DOFP that weren't Xavier/Magneto/Mystique?? They just got done selling us on great younger characters- (I guess we should be glad Beast survived). Singer says in his commentary that they could come back, but- why kill them off in the first place?

X-men: DOFP was excellent outside of that unnecessary slaughter- and sortof returned the timeline (to a degree) - or at least one of them-

And then Apocalypse seemed like it was starting to put Scott Summers and Jean Grey as the main front characters- but I'm not convinced that they're going to really do more with them character-wise if they're killing off Jean in the next one.

So.... even with Singer (who does great stuff mainly) was in charge, they're just too fast and loose on who the X-men really are, as if they're playing "game of Thrones" with the core characters.

Anyhow, trying to enjoy what's there as much as possible, but they're not making it easy.

On the flip side, Marvel tv has been setting new lows with Inhumans (AWFUL!) and Iron Fist, so no matter what, even X3 is better than those adaptations (if comparing).

I've read that Inhumans isn't that great (the trailers and photos look like crap). Iron Fist was dissapointing on a lot of levels. Hard to believe they're worse than X3 as a whole which was a massive turd that was dropped on one of the most iconic X-men stories and ruined/wasted multiple characters at once.

The problems with Marvel tv fall on Perlmutter and I guess now Quesada. Joey Q has led Marvel to deliver some truly awful stories over the years. "Diversity Marvel" has been a disaster under both of them. The comics are awful, the animated shows aren't that great and the tv shows are hit and miss.

Perlmutter was the one who pushed Inhumans and it was obvious when the movie was dropped from Marvel studios schedule after they split from Marvel Entertainment and stopped answering to Perlmutter. Defenders seemed ok but while Loeb is talented he's working for guys who don't have a clue. I cheered when Avi Arad took a walk and I hope that there's a major housecleaning at the top of Marvel. Fiege is the only one of the execs who has consistently delivered.

I can believe Vaughn was one of the people behind the deaths of Xavier and Cyclops in X3. The Fox films never seem to know what to do with either one of them. Xavier is such a powerful character that he'd solve most of the problems in those movies himself. They couldn't figure a way around that so they lazily incapacitated him in Xmen 1 and 2. Cyclops was presented as a second rate character who took a backseat to Logan in all those movies. Biggest reason Storm got so much bigger a part in X3 was because Berry won the Oscar, Singer was gone, and by killing Cyke they freed up the team leadership role.

I think Singer killed the characters he did in DOFP for the same reason. They weren't characters he favored (or in the case of Emma Frost not what he would have done) and he also didn't know what to do with them. They didn't fit his story so he used them as motivation for Magneto. Same reason he killed Havok in Xmen Apocalypse. They tied up his role pretty quickly in DOFP as well.

Ratner's saving of Xavier was one of the few things I appreciated in X3. If Cyclops had survived, they could/should have shifted the series to have him as the lead if Jackman was going to leave to do solo films. They could also have 'shrunk' Xavier's power in a future X-men film by explaining some power had got lost in transferring to the other body, if Xavier having too much power was an issue.

Berry's Storm never felt quite right to me.... dropping the accent after the first movie was a bit embarrassing- as if admitting the actor just didn't have the chops to do it convincingly. (Though I did like how they had her in Apocalypse mostly).

Singer tread lightly on comic lore with the first couple of X-men, but seemed to have too much confidence in changing whatever he wanted to later on.

Some changes I was totally fine with (and even thought was better), but the wholesale killing off of some major supporting characters bugged the heck out of me- if White Witch was originally going to be Sigourney Weaver under Singer at the time (which would have rocked)..... he could have just had some of the characters missing in action to refine them the way he wanted later, rather than just saying that they all died in X:DOPF.

While I feel X-men is/was a mixed bag under Singer, the great stuff from Singer's time makes me have more hope then not- plus, I thought many other directors of superhero films have done much worse damage on other superhero properties- (Inhumans, Iron Fist as dreadful).... I just wish Sam Raimi and Donner were wanting to still stay in the superhero game somehow.

[Metallo]

Sept 10, 2017 13:20:59 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Ranter's saving of Xavier was one of the few things I appreciated in X3. If Cyclops had survived, they could/should have shifted the series to have him as the lead if Jackman was going to leave to do solo films. They could also have 'shrunk' Xavier's power in a future X-men film by explaining some power had got lost in transferring to the other body, if Xavier having too much power was an issue.

Berry's Storm never felt quite right to me.... dropping the accent after the first movie was a bit embarrassing- as if admitting the actor just didn't have the chops to do it convincingly. (Though I did like how they had her in Apocalypse mostly).

Singer tread lightly on comic lore with the first couple of X-men, but seemed to have too much confidence in changing whatever he wanted to later on.

Some changes I was totally fine with (and even thought was better), but the wholesale killing off of some major supporting characters bugged the heck out of me- if White Witch was originally going to be Sigourney Weaver under Singer at the time (which would have rocked)..... he could have just had some of the characters missing in action to refine them the way he wanted later, rather than just saying that they all died in X:DOPF.

While I feel X-men is/was a mixed bag under Singer, the great stuff from Singer's time makes me have more hope then not- plus, I thought many other directors of superhero films have done much worse damage on other superhero properties- (Inhumans, Iron Fist as dreadful).... I just wish Sam Raimi and Donner were wanting to still stay in the superhero game somehow.

Wolverine never should have been the main character. They poisoned the well by doing that because sadly the films without him or less of him didn't make as much. He comes back in a big role in DOFP and it makes more money. Dark Phoenix is going to be a big test because it's the first X-Men film with no Wolverine at all.

Even films like X-Men Apocalypse had to take Xavier out of the game to make the story work but they did it in a smart way. At the end he did step in he was just against a rare foe far more powerful than himself.

Berry never should have had the accent. She never should have been cast really. Like you said though dropping it admitted it sucked.

I didn't like how overconfident and cocky Singer became with X-M:A with Singer claiming he'd kill anyone he wanted to was bs. For one thing we knew it wasn't true but if he did it just would have messed up continuity even more. I agree with you though the shouldn't have just not commented on some characters like Emma Frost. Just say she and others scattered when Magneto was captured.

You're right Singer got the tone and feel of the X-men comics right with those first two movies. Putting it in the "real" world was the right call too so people could buy into something they weren't used to. Start small and slowly introduce the audience to the world. That's what Marvel did they just did with more flare and confidence in the source material. Of course you could say they wouldn't have been able to do that if Singer and the first X-Men hadn't set the table and primed the audience for marvel superhero movies. That first decade of films got people ready to accept and jump into the MCU.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 10, 2017 14:01:31 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Sept 10, 2017 13:20:59 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Ranter's saving of Xavier was one of the few things I appreciated in X3. If Cyclops had survived, they could/should have shifted the series to have him as the lead if Jackman was going to leave to do solo films. They could also have 'shrunk' Xavier's power in a future X-men film by explaining some power had got lost in transferring to the other body, if Xavier having too much power was an issue.

Berry's Storm never felt quite right to me.... dropping the accent after the first movie was a bit embarrassing- as if admitting the actor just didn't have the chops to do it convincingly. (Though I did like how they had her in Apocalypse mostly).

Singer tread lightly on comic lore with the first couple of X-men, but seemed to have too much confidence in changing whatever he wanted to later on.

Some changes I was totally fine with (and even thought was better), but the wholesale killing off of some major supporting characters bugged the heck out of me- if White Witch was originally going to be Sigourney Weaver under Singer at the time (which would have rocked)..... he could have just had some of the characters missing in action to refine them the way he wanted later, rather than just saying that they all died in X:DOPF.

While I feel X-men is/was a mixed bag under Singer, the great stuff from Singer's time makes me have more hope then not- plus, I thought many other directors of superhero films have done much worse damage on other superhero properties- (Inhumans, Iron Fist as dreadful).... I just wish Sam Raimi and Donner were wanting to still stay in the superhero game somehow.

Wolverine never should have been the main character. The poisoned the well by doing that because sadly the films without him or less of him didn't make as much. He comes back in a big role in DOFP and it makes more money. Dark Phoenix is going to be a big test because it's the first Xmen film with no Wolverine at all.



Even films like Apocalypse had to take Xavier out of the game to make the story work but they did it in a smart way and in th end he did step in he was just against a rare foe far more powerful than himself.

Berry never should have had the accent. She never should have been cast really. Like you said though dropping it admitted it sucked.

I didn't like how overconfident and cocky Singer became with X-M:A with Singer claiming he'd kill anyone he wanted to. It was bs. For one thing we knew it wasn't but if he did it just would have messed up continuity even more. I agree with you though the shouldn't have just not commented on some characters like Emma Frost. Just say she and others scattered when Magneto was captured.

You're right though Singer got the tone and feel of the Xmen comics right with those first two movies. Putting it in the "real" world was the right call too so people could buy into something they weren't used too. Start small and slowly introduce the audience to the world. That's what Marvel did they just did with more flare and confidence in the source material. Of course you could say they wouldn't have been able to do that if Singer and the first Xmen hadn't set the table and primed the audience for marvel superhero movies. That first decade of films got people ready to accept and jump into the MCU.

All true-
If not for Singer, a lot might not have happened with superhero films-

At the same time.... if he wasn't so overconfident, he would have tried to keep a LITTLE closer to the comics- particularly who to keep and get rid of.

With the next X-men film:
Unfortunately, I don't think the actor playing Cyclops set the world on fire like Hugh Jackman did with X-men--- and I have a feeling Fox knew it by being willing to pay $$$ to keep McAvoy/Fassbender and JLaw, to keep familiar famous faces--- but it's such a darn shame that X:Apocalypse wasn't better executed either in story and editing. I worry that they'll be just as wasted in the next film as Apocalypse.

If Joss Whedon or Michael Dougherty was scripting the next X-men, I'd have more faith. With the writer/director that's in place, I'm trying to look at the bright side, but am wary.

[Metallo]

I keep saying Singer can't quite make that leap when it comes to the fantastical in his movies when he keeps proving me right. It was a problem with his X-men films and Superman Returns. He probably got closest with DOFP and Apocalypse but even then it was kind of awkward like his heart wasn't in that kind of stuff.

Marsden couod have been a great Cyclops but the material wasn't there and they just had no interest in putting him in the forefront. Summers can be seen as a boring character but he can also be seen as a deep complex character. They didn't even try in the movies.

If I were making an Xmen movie the team would probably be Cyclops, Jean, Beast, Storm, Iceman, Colossus, Nightcrawler, and maybe Wolverine and Kitty. Team would already be established with the original team from the comics being the first incarnation. I'd have Logan as the secondary badass Fett/Snake Eyes type character. I'd probably do what Pryde of the Xmen, the Generation X pilot, and Singer himself did and have Kitty just arriving at the school as a way to explain everything.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 11, 2017 15:44:41 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I keep saying Singer can't quite make that leap when it comes to the fantastical in his movies when he keeps proving me right. It was a problem with his X-men films and Superman Returns. He probably got closest with DOFP and Apocalypse but even then it was kind of awkward like his heart wasn't in that kind of stuff.

Marsden couod have been a great Cyclops but the material wasn't there and they just had no interest in putting him in the forefront. Summers can be seen as a boring character but he can also be seen as a deep complex character. They didn't even try in the movies.

If I were making an Xmen movie the team would probably be Cyclops, Jean, Beast, Storm, Iceman, Colossus, Nightcrawler, and maybe Wolverine and Kitty. Team would already be established with the original team from the comics being the first incarnation. I'd have Logan as the secondary badass Fett/Snake Eyes type character. I'd probably do what Pryde of the Xmen, the Generation X pilot, and Singer himself did and have Kitty just arriving at the school as a way to explain everything.

With X-men: First Class and X-men: DOFP, I thought they REALLY had a great handle on the characterization of Magneto and Xavier- but then with X-men: Apocalypse, their screen time was reduced and they became cardboard cutouts for the most part. In X-men: First Class, it was Magneto's story- with X-men: DOFP, it was Xavier's --- but with Apocalypse 'being' Mystique's story- it wasn't really anyone's story- outside of the surface.

While I'm not crazy about Mystique's character- if they were committed to it, then they didn't go deep enough to have any weight. The
'world class disaster' comes off as a bit meaningless and false, because for some odd reason, none of the characters seem overly concerned about their families (even for a moment) during this time... and transforms the 'world class disaster' into another empty cgi-fest that we've seen too much in other superhero films.

If it was going to be a Magneto story, then they should have kept that as the focus if that was the case. Magneto's started off compelling, but his struggle was a bit of a joke at the end. They should have just gone for it with Quicksilver revealing himself to be Magneto's son, rather than 'saving' it for another movie.

Cyclops' connection to his brother would have been far stronger if they kept the bits that were deleted, but even then: how can he not be completely pissed at Magneto at the end of the film? Ignoring huge gaps of character bits that would logically happen made the film seem less and less credible by the end.

The current problem I feel is the filmmakers not knowing WHO is the primary focus, and sticking to it. When the X-men films worked, there was a primary focus. It could (and should) spread out to other characters, but to me, they have no idea who is really important in the films right now.

[Metallo]

Everything you said and more. The main films are just collapsing in on themselves with problems that have been there from the beginning. So many choices in the last few films just didn't ring true. That's why I really felt the Singerverse should have ended with Logan. It was a great high to go out on. This...seems like milking the cow after its way too old and sick.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 11, 2017 20:16:23 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Everything you said and more. The main films are just collapsing in on themselves with problems that have been there from the beginning. So many choices in the last few films just didn't ring true. That's why I really felt the Singerverse should have ended with Logan. It was a great high to go out on. This...seems like milking the cow after its way too old and sick.

Singer's method of 'changing things up as they go'- oftentimes has worked on the X-men series- but failed in Apocalypse imo. If he had test screenings, I wonder if he would have changed the middle and last act (which were the biggest problems in my opinion).

With Joss Whedon, while his films so far seems to have problems with feeling like tv movies at times- With his work in television on making sure his stories kept focus on his primary characters AND being an authentic comic book geek (when he named Avengers Annual #7 as the greatest comic ever made at a convention, calling out that specific issue couldn't have been a random thing of someone just giving lip service to reading comics)- I think he would have laid out a more solid game plan with specific characters. He's often said that he makes sure he knows his ending before he writes the rest of the script- so, if there were multiple films under Whedon versus Singer, I think we would have gotten films that bent a bit closer to the comics overall, and not have trashed or killed off so many great supporting characters as Singer has done in his tenure.

Anyhow, Singer's hit ratio has been 5 out of 6 for me for his comic book adaptations, so.... can't really trash him too much, to be honest. It's just a damn shame that Apocalypse turned out so disappointing, as it's going to be hard (if not impossible) to smooth out the errors in that one, going forward....

[Metallo]

It's a shame we can't get Whedon and Singer together to do something. They've both worked on dc and Marvels films at different times for different companies.

I don't think Singer has anything left to prove to anyone. He helped launch a new era of these movies where they were taken seriously by Hollywood and audiences. Apocalypse wasn't terrible just mediocre. Wish he could have gone out on a high but if he wants to move on I'm cool with that. Let some new blood in there to push these movies forward to the next era.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 19, 2017 16:56:41 GMT -5 Metallo said:

It's a shame we can't get Whedon and Singer together to do something. They've both worked on dc and Marvels films at different times for different companies.

I don't think Singer has anything left to prove to anyone. He helped launch a new era of these movies where they were taken seriously by Hollywood and audiences. Apocalypse wasn't terrible just mediocre. Wish he could have gone out on a high but if he wants to move on I'm cool with that. Let some new blood in there to push these movies forward to the next era.

True- Apocalypse wasn't out and out horrible- but the last act betrayed the whole setup of the front end of that film. (That is, with Magneto doing an unconvincing 180 turn by the end)

I don't know if Singer is 100 percent out yet...

[Metallo]

He's still with the franchise since he's working on The Gifted tv show but I think he wanted a break to do other films. Apocalypse still did good business overseas. I think the problem was the script because it was made in 2 years instead of 3.

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 20, 2017 12:58:42 GMT -5 Metallo said:

He's still with the franchise since he's working on The Gifted tv show but I think he wanted a break to do other films. Apocalypse still did good business overseas. I think the problem was the script because it was made in 2 years instead of 3.

Perhaps, but.... I think what makes me scratch my head was being walked through the routine of the Star Trek: Next Gen writing room years ago (that SEEMS to be still mostly how tv writing rooms function even now)- where a draft of a script was due in a few days before notes, after a broad outline was decided on.

If there are/have been great tv shows written on such a crazy timetable, then why do the movies really need to take that much longer? We had Ron Moore & Brannon Braga transition quickly from writing the Next Gen tv show to films- what is it that requires screenwriters to need so much more time than the television writers? There's been television that's been as good as or better than their film counterparts, so what the heck?

Anyhow.... I would have been fine waiting a year if it meant a better finished film. I'm hoping Singer comes back and if he has to leave, to leave on a stronger X-men film....

[Metallo]

Writing for television isn't the same as writing for film though. We saw that where good trek tv writers turned in duffer films scripts. Different demands. It's not just about a good story but making certain people happy. Back then tv was also seen as "lesser" or less important so there weren't as many demands. The trek movies were about giving people what they couldn't get on tv or at least that was the plan. Even though TNG was episodic and not serialized there was a certain framework or format they could use that was part of every episode

[atp]

Jun 7, 2013 14:11:56 GMT -5 Gandy said:

My friend has seen the film.

HE LOVED IT!!!

The trailers give very little away.

The film is HUGE.

Cavill's up there with Reeve. Maybe even surpassed Reeve's performance.

Shannon's Zod is terrific.

In hindsight, did Cavill really surpass Reeve? If so, why was he cancelled as Superman?

And was Shannon really terrific as Zod?

[Metallo]

I think his last line was intentionally a little tongue I cheek but even if you exclude Cavill’s later films I think Gandalf MIGHT walk those comments back a little bit now.

[atp]

Is it just me, or were we clearly misled by the trailers and hype for MoS back in 2013?

[Metallo]

Yeah. At least that first teaser did anyway. The Terrence Malick-y visuals, deeper themes, and more hopeful tone were definitely front and center in the teaser. We didn’t get so much of that in the movie. Most of the visuals turned out to be more drab and desaturated and we got Pa Kent saying maybe he should let them die.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 21, 2020 7:49:57 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Yeah. At least that first teaser did anyway. The Terrence Malick-y visuals, deeper themes, and more hopeful tone were definitely front and center in the teaser. We didn’t get so much of that in the movie. Most of the visuals turned out to be more drab and desaturated and we got Pa Kent saying maybe he should let them die.

Goyer was never right for Superman.... he said it himself years ago when promoting "Batman Begins" at a screenwriting interview.

Chris Nolan I'm not sure would have been right even if he directed the Goyer script, unless massive changes were done. The general concept of the Kents wanting their son to hide forever rather than ease into helping humanity was really off. It's sad that either Nolan didn't get it with Superman or just didn't care enough about some of the basic concepts of the Superman comics to keep Goyer and Snyder from having the adaptation fall off the rails.

[dejan]

Jan 21, 2020 3:07:01 GMT -5 atp said:

Is it just me, or were we clearly misled by the trailers and hype for MoS back in 2013?

Snyder's wife tried to cover for her husband saying that fans could not cope with the deconstruction of a hero.

Snyder is one of those directors(Abrahams and Bay are others) who had they been born 30 years earlier would never have become film directors.

These kinds of directors only succeed because a technology(CGI) has allowed them to create/generate material that they would have been incapable of doing so without said technology.

Could you imagine Snyder or Abrahams making the equivalent of a STM.
They don't  have the noose or knowhow.

It's actually interesting that both Donner and Lester had pretty diverse but expansive resume's  going into STM and SII respectfully.
But that helped with their interpretations of those movies.
They had done period dramas, social dramas, horrors , political and pop cultural commentaries ect

Snyder is just a CGI fan boy who got to make movies and music videos.

Quite frankly he should go back to doing music videos.

It's harsh but that is my opinion.

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 15, 2020 14:07:40 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 21, 2020 3:07:01 GMT -5 atp said:

Is it just me, or were we clearly misled by the trailers and hype for MoS back in 2013?

Snyder's wife tried to cover for her husband saying that fans could not cope with the deconstruction of a hero.

Snyder is one of those directors(Abrahams and Bay are others) who had they been born 30 years earlier would never have become film directors.

These kinds of directors only succeed because a technology(CGI) has allowed them to create/generate material that they would have been incapable of doing so without said technology.

Could you imagine Snyder or Abrahams making the equivalent of a STM.
They don't  have the noose or knowhow.

It's actually interesting that both Donner and Lester had pretty diverse but expansive resume's  going into STM and SII respectfully.
But that helped with their interpretations of those movies.
They had done period dramas, social dramas, horrors , political and pop cultural commentaries ect

Snyder is just a CGI fan boy who got to make movies and music videos.

Quite frankly he should go back to doing music videos.

It's harsh but that is my opinion.

Snyder got Watchmen made- and I give him credit for being a genuine fan of comics.... but his & Goyer's take on Superman was definitely not something that warmed the heart.
Even when I felt like giving some latitude, the idea of having joy over wiping out Jimmy Olsen violently was just.... wow.

At the same time- Snyder might have been fine with Batman instead. I do have to say that his Batman action sequence was fantastic in BvS and the best hand-to-hand action sequence of all the Batman films...

[Metallo]

Snyder comes off as a fan of the style of comics but not the substance. He can’t seem to see past the superficial. He made watchmen but it would have been made anyway. The people that say watchmen is unfilmable but Snyder made it don’t seem to get it. Anyone CAN make Watchmen but when Moore said it was unfilmable he meant a direct translation to screen that works the exact same way. Watchmens story was designed to be told as a comic and comics and film are very different mediums even as far as how they are consumed.

[Metallo]

Mar 15, 2020 14:07:40 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 21, 2020 3:07:01 GMT -5 atp said:

Is it just me, or were we clearly misled by the trailers and hype for MoS back in 2013?

Snyder's wife tried to cover for her husband saying that fans could not cope with the deconstruction of a hero.

Snyder is one of those directors(Abrahams and Bay are others) who had they been born 30 years earlier would never have become film directors.

These kinds of directors only succeed because a technology(CGI) has allowed them to create/generate material that they would have been incapable of doing so without said technology.

Could you imagine Snyder or Abrahams making the equivalent of a STM.
They don't  have the noose or knowhow.

It's actually interesting that both Donner and Lester had pretty diverse but expansive resume's  going into STM and SII respectfully.
But that helped with their interpretations of those movies.
They had done period dramas, social dramas, horrors , political and pop cultural commentaries ect

Snyder is just a CGI fan boy who got to make movies and music videos.

Quite frankly he should go back to doing music videos.

It's harsh but that is my opinion.

Abrams is a mimic. He has no creative inner life of his own. We’ve seen it time and again. Snyder is more concerned about visuals than story. When it comes to storytelling he’s like Stevie Wonder walking across a freeway.

Take away any guide for these guys to follow and they’re both lost.

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 18, 2020 11:09:26 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Snyder comes off as a fan of the style of comics but not the substance. He can’t seem to see past the superficial. He made watchmen but it would have been made anyway. The people that say watchmen is unfilmable but Snyder made it don’t seem to get it. Anyone CAN make Watchmen but when Moore said it was unfilmable he meant a direct translation to screen that works the exact same way. Watchmens story was designed to be told as a comic and comics and film are very different mediums even as far as how they are consumed.

Right. I think what Snyder gave that others who have tried it might not is the greenlight for the big budget- considering there's no Pepsi or Happy Meal lunches you could tie into it.

There are bits that actually are very nice in the adaptation, (the Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan bits are probably the best) but much of the rest falls flat dramatically.

Not really crazy about the Damon Lindoff semi-sequels, but it is what it is.