|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 21, 2012 16:30:47 GMT -5
That we're both right. I agree.  |
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Oct 22, 2012 19:04:38 GMT -5
Getting back on track somewhat, a random observation:
While some still love the Reeve costume above all else--at its best, it was on-par with his best renditions in the comics at the time. Right? It was a pretty faithful adaptation of what was being drawn in 1978.
With Man of Steel, however, I think a majority would agree that the costume is BETTER than what is currently in the comics. I love that.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Oct 22, 2012 19:08:26 GMT -5
I agree. It really is so much better than the New 52 redesign.
In fact, for the most part, it's a good way of getting around the "no trunks" issue. I'm really, really looking forward to seeing more of this costume, and how those "wristbands" and the piping on the rest of the costume look when it's lit properly and in motion. If what I think is correct, it won't look like "too much blue," which was my initial problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 21:58:48 GMT -5
I certainly don't want to see the same fucking thing we've seen countless times before. I want to see something new. I WANT to see change.
If I wanted to see the exact same shit we saw in STM and SII, I'll watch STM and SII, thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 22:30:07 GMT -5
My gut feeling is we're getting a new take on Superman as a cinematic property for the first time in more than 30 years. And that leaves me excited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 22:54:05 GMT -5
Stop. You're making sense. You're supposed to say, "But the suit! And the music! Where are the crystals?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Oct 22, 2012 23:09:09 GMT -5
"The music! Which we haven't heard yet, but won't be as good as the music we already know! If it ain't broke don't fix it!"
"And the actor, who must of us have never even bothered to watch act in ANYTHING yet, but who can't possibly be as good as Christopher Reeve! If it ain't broke don't...oh...fuck."
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 23, 2012 0:49:24 GMT -5
Are you trying to stir things up because we have a difference of opinion?
What the heck?
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Oct 23, 2012 1:25:44 GMT -5
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the "change for the sake of change/ain't broke don't fix it" argument is, by far, the most hollow, insular, fanboy-esque argument anyone can use. ALL change to creative properties is gonna be "change for the sake of change" to somebody.
And I'm certainly not singling you out, CAM. It's the whole damn internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Oct 23, 2012 1:27:35 GMT -5
All that being said, I'm really surprised by the overwhelmingly positive response in this poll. What the heck happened? A year ago this would have looked very different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 11:39:15 GMT -5
Because we have seen nothing to make us think otherwise, really.
Our biggest fear was Snyder. From all we've seen, he doesn't seem to be the Snyder we know behind the scenes here.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Oct 23, 2012 12:18:15 GMT -5
All that being said, I'm really surprised by the overwhelmingly positive response in this poll. I know. It feels like 1999 all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Oct 23, 2012 16:57:36 GMT -5
From now on, I'll say, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" if it's preferred to "change for change sake" When Man of Steel comes out in 2013, it will be thirty five years since STM premiered in 1978. When STM came out in 1978, it was twenty six years since George Reeves' Adventures of Superman premiered in 1952. We are about 10 years past due for an updating. Sounds broken to me. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 23, 2012 20:02:12 GMT -5
Superman movies have struggled virtually since SII and it's a miracle SII turned as good as it did.
Margot Kidder's interview in the boxset really resonated with me when she said compared the Superman series to "Humpty Dumpty".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 21:19:39 GMT -5
It basically comes down to this:
If you're pissed off this movie isn't Superman Returns Part II, you hate Man of Steel already. Nothing is going to change that.
Except for...y'know...maybe...actually SEEING the movie....
Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 24, 2012 17:44:25 GMT -5
Gotcha. Fair enough. Thanks, Val.
I could see that being the case for many, but I have to say, honestly, that's not my case for complaining about changes. (Or if it was, it's not been that way for awhile...)
Prior to Superman the Movie, things have been changed CONSTANTLY (and even after) from comics to screen (big or small), and usually changes that didn't seem to have any real improvement as far as I can/could tell.
After seeing STM- where Donner didn't HAVE to have Lana be a redhead, or have Lois HAVE to be a brunette, or Jimmy with a bowtie, those were extra-special touches of trying to be visually faithful to the comic, (LOVED the 'Smallville Cemetary' sign that got put in, that didn't even need to be there, years before the tv show) that it added extra charm to this old fanboy who had to grudgingly accept SO many changes that it was a norm rather than an exception when seeing an adaptation.
Everyone of course has their line of what they would really want/need to have stay the same in an adaptation (not necessarily talking comics, either) of something that they love before it starts to feel like a big loss. I get it; it's like recreating a memory in a big budget format, with details left in and out. Some things were more precious to a person, others not (i.e.: I was ok but not crazy about the muddy pallette for the costume in SR, but automatically unthrilled about trunkless design for MOS--- though I know there are folks who have the exact reverse opinion that I do, and that's fine; I'll always love what Singer did for the Xmen movies, but I doubt I'll ever fall in love with the black leather costumes).
In any case, I hope I love enough of the movie that the changes don't bother me (or its so good I don't even notice). Even with all the changes, I feel I can be open enough to it to enjoy it, but I'm just disappointed that it's not going to be a picture-perfect tribute to the specific era of Superman comics I grew up with (same with the Spiderman Raimi movies vs. the new one).
Can't help but make me feel like my preferences are dated, but, maybe it's like your first car versus a newer model one that you know is better, you might love it, but somewhere in your heart, it won't be the same kind of affection for it.
It could be equal (I hope so!) but it definitely takes an openness to enjoy it as it's own thing. Sooner or later, I'd be suprised if anyone who was in the position of hating MOS just because it wasn't SR 2 wouldn't be curious about it enough to see it EVENTUALLY and give it a chance...
Unless, of course, it's horrible.... but it's hard to see Snyder disappointing in creating great eye candy for this (at least I hope not!) or at least having one interesting sequence (heck, even the horrible Sucker Punch had a cool fight scene in the directors cut worth viewing).
Also.... didn't Iron Man 3 just come out with a trailer and if so, maybe we ARE due to a new trailer if they're coming out at about the same time, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 4:17:00 GMT -5
Stop. You're making sense. You're supposed to say, "But the suit! And the music! Where are the crystals?" You know, I appreciate the aesthetic the production designer was going for with the crystals, but really, who the fuck wants to live in a place like that? I mean, when Kal has to take a super shit, is his shitter made from crystal too? How does that work? It'd be more fucked up than the three shecks! Maybe behind the Fortress lies a little outhouse, a little outhouse for him to take a super shit, and it's made of fucking crystal! And let's say it retains the slanted columns, so it looks like a little teepee. A crystal teepee so Kal can peepee and take a shit. How hysterical would that be? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 9:43:08 GMT -5
Dahahahahahaha!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 12:33:02 GMT -5
Stop. You're making sense. You're supposed to say, "But the suit! And the music! Where are the crystals?" You know, I appreciate the aesthetic the production designer was going for with the crystals, but really, who the fuck wants to live in a place like that? I mean, when Kal has to take a super shit, is his shitter made from crystal too? How does that work? It'd be more fucked up than the three shecks! Maybe behind the Fortress lies a little outhouse, a little outhouse for him to take a super shit, and it's made of fucking crystal! And let's say it retains the slanted columns, so it looks like a little teepee. A crystal teepee so Kal can peepee and take a shit. How hysterical would that be? well, when he loses his powers in SII, I can only assume he tore his ass to shreds when he was wiping it with a crystal |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 26, 2012 2:01:42 GMT -5
I don't think Donner's Kryptonians need to go to the toilet... after all, there's no FOOD on Donner's Krypton! (Unless the crystals are edible?)  |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Oct 26, 2012 3:30:10 GMT -5
I don't think Donner's Kryptonians need to go to the toilet... after all, there's no FOOD on Donner's Krypton! (Unless the crystals are edible?) they are edible. they inherit the traits of the vitamins and minerals around them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2012 5:42:34 GMT -5
Chewing on an edible crystal sounds like a good way to lose a crown.
So, when Kryptonians take a shit, do the turds have little crystal nuggets in 'em, like we have little nuggets of corn in ours?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Edit to add: can Kal really control all of his bodily functions? I mean, we've all had explosive diarrhea at some point. Food poisoning, probably. And like any of us can really control the sphincter muscles at that point, right? So, what if explosive diarrhea is a condition of Kryptonite exposure, and Kal like takes out a family of polar bears while trying to fly at the speed of sound to make it to his super-reinforced crystal shitter?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 26, 2012 10:30:38 GMT -5
I have to admit, when I first read the thread title: 'what's your gut feeling?', I had no idea it was going to be so literal (or explicit) about sphincters and nuggets....  |
|
botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Oct 26, 2012 18:32:50 GMT -5
Gotcha. Fair enough. Thanks, Val. Unless, of course, it's horrible.... There is no way this film is horrible IMO. From the trailer and the Comic Con footage this film has the feel of something very special..  |
|
Rod
New Member
Believe it or not
Posts: 498
|
Post by Rod on Oct 26, 2012 22:22:44 GMT -5
;D
lets talk about kal El's ass feeling..
i dont know. in the movie superman says he eats...when he is hungry.
so...
|
|
