|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 30, 2013 15:44:04 GMT -5
'
I have a mixed reaction to Del Toro...
Disliked his choices for Blade II-
But-
Really have enjoyed his heckboy movies.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 30, 2013 21:07:45 GMT -5
Hey look who wrote Blade II. just sayin. I go back and forth on which Blade film I like better. The heckboy films are richer experiences though.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 30, 2013 22:07:02 GMT -5
I didn't mind the story as much as the choices to speed up the kung fu action and the extra gore and casting....
Funny thing is, Blade #1 feels a lot like MOS.... not very many characters in it that come across as sympathetic and not much heart to that movie, but as a low budget horror=action film,
I set the bar so low on expectations, I liked it much more than I thought I would.
Blade 3 on the other hand..... well..... Goyer definitely shows his limitations. Just awful.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Jul 1, 2013 19:20:22 GMT -5
Say what you will about Otis being camp or not, but after a while, the term got co-opted by comic book geeks for whatever little thing they found silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 1, 2013 21:16:38 GMT -5
Wouldn't bother wasting my time kev ::cough:: |
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Sept 3, 2013 13:43:35 GMT -5
Just wanted to say great topic of discussion, Jor. I've got nothing to add at the moment but I think there've been some good points brought up by everyone here and this is a question that will continue to be relevant until there's a Superman movie that comes along that without a doubt surpasses STM.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 3, 2013 14:23:32 GMT -5
Say what you will about Otis being camp or not, but after a while, the term got co-opted by comic book geeks for whatever little thing they found silly. Exactly. Some guy online actually called The Crow campy because of Michael Wincotts Top Dollar. Really? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 4, 2013 13:09:03 GMT -5
This thought came to mind while browsing the threads:
At the time Smallville was in the middle of its run, my day job was teaching high schoolers.... one of them was a GIANT Smallville fan. Apparently Smallville was his introduction into Superman, not the Reeve movies- which (although available on dvd/streaming)- wasn't what he was introduced to, first. The changes made in the tv show from the comics never phased him, because the comics wasn't what he fell for in the first place.
Similarly- If there are kids out there who experienced MOS first--- they may or may not be inclined to check out SR, or Smallivlle, nor the Reeve films, Lois and Clark, and the older Reeve b&w show. (Scarily enough, they may scratch their heads if you ask them who Christopher Reeve was!)
For those who experienced Superman the Movie first---- it can be a struggle NOT to compare STM/MOS.
On the other hand--- I experienced Batman 89 first--- and yeah, there was a comparison- but Batman Begins won out easily.
To me, I liked a lot of things in MOS- but I really feel the theatrical takes a number of great choices- but it botches a number of others--- not because it didn't follow STM, but because they were badly handled even if there were no STM.
STM also makes a few bad choices- but going by the ratio of good/bad, I really do think that on its own merits, STM achieves far more of what it set out to do than the MOS theatrical--- even Goyer himself felt that MOS achieved 70 percent of what he was intending.
In any case--- for old guys who saw STM first, it's hard not to compare- but I do think it's totally possible to judge it on its own merits.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Sept 4, 2013 13:20:33 GMT -5
For the first half of MOS, I was spellbound.
I didn't think of STM.
Something happened in that second half that lost me.
I *know* perfectly well that I can acknowledge a great Superman movie when I see one. |
Just as I can acknowledge Daniel Craig's greatness as Bond (Sean Connery has been my favorite Bond AND actor since I was 11-13) and CR's greatness in Bond lore, I know I can acknowledge the same for Superman.
The problem is: nobody has come close to making a great Superman film. Superman Returns was too character driven, not enough action and it bored people. MOS had too much action, not enough characterization, and it bored some people too. Shit, I was falling asleep during the big fight. I wasn't invested emotionally.
I was invested during the Death Star run, I was invested in Superman II's fight, I was invested when Marty was racing against the clock tower, I was invested when Daniel did his crane kick, I was invested when the X-Men were trying to defeat Stryker, I was invested when Iron Man came back from Afghanistan, I was invested when the Avengers fought Loki, I was invested when Spiderman got on top of the subway and tried to rescue New Yorkers, and I was invested when Superman rescued the school bus on the Golden Gate Bridge in STM.
This time? I wasn't invested. It was pure eye candy. It's a piece of hard candy on an empty stomach. You're still hungry after it.
I don't have ANY hope of the sequel being any better. The only thing that gives me hope is that I will enjoy a good performance from Cranston as Luthor (if he is, in fact, casted), and seeing if Affleck can surprise people. But I'm only looking forward to the performances. I think the movie itself will be more of the same.
The same detached feeling I got watching Sucker Punch is the same detached feeling I had watching MOS.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Sept 4, 2013 13:33:11 GMT -5
This time? I wasn't invested. It was pure eye candy. It's a piece of hard candy on an empty stomach. You're still hungry after it. The same detached feeling I got watching Sucker Punch is the same detached feeling I had watching MOS. BINGO. I mean, for those who were invested and loved it, that's perfectly ok, but what you said here rings true for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 13:58:39 GMT -5
I think the character is going to be captive of Reeve for another few decades. Personally, I've seen the damn movies so many times that I'm burned out. I watched them earilier this year, having not seen them since the Blu-ray box came out a few years ago. No desire to see them again for another few years. More interested in seeing something new.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Sept 4, 2013 14:11:35 GMT -5
Well, d'oh, we've been watching them for 30-35 years now. Of course, we'd like new Superman adventures. Now...can anyone MAKE a good one?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 4, 2013 14:18:51 GMT -5
Who's Reee?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 18:42:41 GMT -5
Who's Reee? Some fucker who was Reeve's stand in on set during reshoots on S4. Tore his scrotum after getting it caught in a flying harness. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 5, 2013 0:15:52 GMT -5
I think to younger people the Reeve comparison is a non issue. Just to the public as a whole. But it's not just Reeve its the broad idea of who Superman is that's been in the public consciousness for 75 years. But if a great Superman film was made I think it could rise above any comparisons. Comparisons will always be there but great film will stand strong on its own regardless. Look at Casino Royale.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 5, 2013 0:46:35 GMT -5
Generally speaking, I agree this is true. But- again, I think it's a degree of age and what one enjoys/expects out of a film. I showed the original (ANH) Star Wars to mid-graders this summer, who had never seen it- as a model of a 'perfect' film- but they thought it was ok, but were bored in many parts and thought it too slow. When they're older- maybe they'll appreciate it.... or maybe not. Just too hard to figure out why some folks like/dislike (or prefer) different films.  |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Sept 5, 2013 1:55:12 GMT -5
In 35 years time will people think of MoS as the definitive Superman?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 5, 2013 6:38:54 GMT -5
I guess it depends on who you ask as to what is the definitive one. If religions can take on wildly different interpretations.... why wouldn't movies? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 14:02:59 GMT -5
In 35 years time will people think of MoS as the definitive Superman? No way. Superman will see two more reboots between now and 2048. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 5, 2013 14:36:30 GMT -5
Who's Reee? Some fucker who was Reeve's stand in on set during reshoots on S4. Tore his scrotum after getting it caught in a flying harness.  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 5, 2013 15:20:35 GMT -5
For the first half of MOS, I was spellbound. I didn't think of STM. Something happened in that second half that lost me. I *know* perfectly well that I can acknowledge a great Superman movie when I see one. | Just as I can acknowledge Daniel Craig's greatness as Bond (Sean Connery has been my favorite Bond AND actor since I was 11-13) and CR's greatness in Bond lore, I know I can acknowledge the same for Superman. The problem is: nobody has come close to making a great Superman film. Superman Returns was too character driven, not enough action and it bored people. MOS had too much action, not enough characterization, and it bored some people too. Shit, I was falling asleep during the big fight. I wasn't invested emotionally. I was invested during the Death Star run, I was invested in Superman II's fight, I was invested when Marty was racing against the clock tower, I was invested when Daniel did his crane kick, I was invested when the X-Men were trying to defeat Stryker, I was invested when Iron Man came back from Afghanistan, I was invested when the Avengers fought Loki, I was invested when Spiderman got on top of the subway and tried to rescue New Yorkers, and I was invested when Superman rescued the school bus on the Golden Gate Bridge in STM. This time? I wasn't invested. It was pure eye candy. It's a piece of hard candy on an empty stomach. You're still hungry after it. I don't have ANY hope of the sequel being any better. The only thing that gives me hope is that I will enjoy a good performance from Cranston as Luthor (if he is, in fact, casted), and seeing if Affleck can surprise people. But I'm only looking forward to the performances. I think the movie itself will be more of the same. The same detached feeling I got watching Sucker Punch is the same detached feeling I had watching MOS. What Enrique said. I kept checking my watch during the final battle between Superman and Zod. All this huge scale action was going on and I didn't care. Even the smallest stuff can be engaging if you care about what's going on. |
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Sept 7, 2013 17:58:47 GMT -5
Skyfall has got to be the best example of an old character in a franchise that in its 50th anniversary was able to break through to audiences young and old around the world, not only becoming the most successful Bond film of all time but in surpassing $1 billion worldwide, it became one of the most successful films ever made.
That is surely thanks in major part to a great director, Sam Mendes, who kept it all together.
I don't even consider it the best Bond film of all and probably prefer Casino Royale over it (as well as countless other old Bonds), but the way they tapped into the market is surely the best example of how to keep an old franchise going, retain old fans and find new fans.
Batman did this. Spider-Man has done this partially.
HOW CAN SUPERMAN SURVIVE?
Maybe hire Sam Mendes during the 2020's for the next Superman reboot!
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Sept 8, 2013 4:00:20 GMT -5
Agreed Theo. The Bonds always market the new films via nostalgia. They even drag out poor old Roger Moore for interviews and what-not. Yet the films do not resemble the old school ones in any way possible (except the score; even the gun barrel hasn't been properly used in yonks) - yet they always generate loads of cash.
I wonder what those who are unfamiliar with STM thought of Superman Returns, ie if they thought it stood on his own feet independently.
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Sept 8, 2013 5:09:30 GMT -5
Few "normal" people even remember that there was a Superman Returns in 2006.
And many many people I have spoken to did not even bother seeing Man of Steel this summer.
It just didn't interest them. That's disappointing but that is the reality.
So, how to tap into a wider market where a Superman movie can attract 10 year olds, 20 year olds, 30 year olds, 40 year olds and more?! Is that even possible like Skyfall has?
Perhaps only if a Superman movie is so well made and so impressive and so exciting and entertaining and gets such great reviews, that word of mouth persuades non Superman fans to want to see it.
A very tall order and I don't think that by adding Batman into the mix that it will generate that much more interest.
Yes, slightly more box office but it won't really convert non believers and bring out the big audiences like Skyfall did or Avengers did.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Sept 8, 2013 5:50:48 GMT -5
I heard that Batman fans are worried that Cavill's Superman is too dark to be in a Batman film.
|
|
