|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 18, 2013 17:57:51 GMT -5
I actually liked MoS. But when I saw people defending it and, IMO, refusing to see other points of view... I.... I... I turned into this: youtu.be/g20_8-TPyTQ |
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Jul 18, 2013 18:45:31 GMT -5
I think the main thing people should realise is that everyone has their own opinion.
No-one thought this film was the best thing ever, yet most people kind of wanted it to be. Some people will be ok that it wasn't the best thing ever, others will act as if it was an insult to them. Those people may be annoyed when others managed to get the enjoyment from the film that they'd hoped for and failed to get and will get jealous and act out. Others will get annoyed that someone is being overly negative about something they enjoyed.
All that bugs me is when opinions are stated as facts like 'Snyder is a hack', 'the flying sucked', 'Adams isn't a babe' or 'there was too much CGI'. These are all opinons. All that you can truly say is 'I liked it' or 'I didn't'.
The film isn't objectively bad or good.
Personally, I was disappointed but was never expecting it to be that great from the get-go. I'm just happy that we might get some more for them to improve on this one.
Otherwise, it's just a film and I'll get over its flaws. We've not lost anything that we already enjoyed, we've gained something we might enjoy. The situation's still positive to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 18, 2013 19:03:36 GMT -5
Well said.
I'm thrilled if we get more classic Superman product out of this & thrilled if it means there's a chance that making other DC superhero films becomes an attractive event for WB from this....
|
|
|
|
Post by bizzaro72 on Jul 19, 2013 12:13:31 GMT -5
What's frustrating is what could have been.i mean there is some great stuff in there,for example the krypton segment,would have liked to have seen more of this.after watching this a couple more times online I love everything up to the smallville fight,pretty much from then on it becomes more of a video game with visuals so fast and over the top it just becomes a little repetitive.i blame the transformers films for this ,especially the third one as the action went on for so long without pause it becomes boring.but with these type of films making a shitload of money ,can't blame the studio for copying this trend.i mean how many more times have we got to see skyscrapers come crashing down!
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jul 19, 2013 12:15:40 GMT -5
Apparently, MoS is brilliant, and the only reason people criticise it is because they can't accept the fact that Reeve wasn't in it.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2013 12:18:04 GMT -5
Agreed, bizzaro72. MOS isn't a bad film but at best I think it's thoroughly average. Goyer and Snyder still could have have their vision realized with some minor changes to the script and more thinking on the directing to make the film much better. None of this would have cost a lot of money. There's minor stuff that easily should have been avoided of improved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 12:52:51 GMT -5
Apparently, MoS is brilliant, and the only reason people criticise it is because they can't accept the fact that Reeve wasn't in it. Not really. That's just you and select others. Plenty of people genuinely want a great Superman film and didn't feel they got it. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jul 19, 2013 13:20:08 GMT -5
Actually, nobody wanted Reeve to be in the movie.
In case you didnt know, Reeve is dead. And even if he were alive, he would be 60.
So who exactly wanted Reeve? Or is that just another of your straw men?
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 19, 2013 17:16:07 GMT -5
Yeah, last I checked, nobody was clamoring for Reeve to be in the film, although there were people rooting for Routh as I recall.
I just wanted a good, well-written action film.
We got the action, but it was fake action.
Oh, and I wanted a film, above all, true to Superman as a character, which this wasn't.
They need to stop apologizing for what Superman is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 18:36:35 GMT -5
Reeve, Williams music, Superman going after a guy in a suit, kryptonite. Some wanted the general tone and feel of it to be STM again. I'd guess thats why you thought the initial decision to abandon the Williams music and the inclusion of all the sci fi elements was 'retarded' I'd guess some in general would rather have no new Superman film, unless they did just for something to bash  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2013 18:41:18 GMT -5
Yeah, last I checked, nobody was clamoring for Reeve to be in the film, although there were people rooting for Routh as I recall. I just wanted a good, well-written action film. We got the action, but it was fake action. Oh, and I wanted a film, above all, true to Superman as a character, which this wasn't. They need to stop apologizing for what Superman is. Ditto. MOS has some strong moments but parts of it feel like its going through the motions. Just because the film plays something off as a great or quality moment doesn't mean it is. That's where MOS fails to resonate at times. It's like at times the scenes they play out as great are nothing but hollow shecks with pretty painting on the outside. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 19, 2013 18:42:17 GMT -5
Reeve, Williams music, Superman going after a guy in a suit, kryptonite. Some wanted the general tone and feel of it to be STM again. I'd guess thats why you thought the initial decision to abandon the Williams music and the inclusion of all the sci fi elements was 'retarded' I'd guess some in general would rather have no new Superman film, unless they did just for something to bash If that's what you think, then you may as well delete yourself from here because it would mean that YOU HAVENT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION to anyone but those that agree with you. Which is PRECISELY why I started pestering to get you all worked up. Glad to see I'm succeeding in getting you annoyed, my intention, but you're still not "listening" to why people didnt like it. In fact, I'll bet you that there isn't a person in here who disliked it because it "wasn't Reeve". But you're too thick skulled to pay attention. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 18:48:11 GMT -5
I was addressing ATP, Enrique. And you say that like you and plenty of others haven't gotten wound up by people who defend it and highlight the stupidity of some of the criticisms leveled at it 'Superman throws Zod through buildings and causes loads of deaths" for example I've said it time and time again. People don't like it that's fine, but there are certain criticisms that really highlight folks agendas. Again, I've said that numerous times, and if you don't understand that you're probably thick skulled and haven't been paying attention. I'd also say that if you're just posting crap to get a reaction you might want to get a grip and find something better to do with your free time |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2013 18:53:55 GMT -5
I highlight the stupidity of some of the criticisms leveled at it 'Superman throws Zod through buildings and causes loads of deaths" for example It's a pretty fair criticism since it could have been easily fixed. Superman is a protector not a destroyer but MOS did bother with showcasing that enough. Not cool enough for the target audience I guess. It's the classic case of style of substance. The end of the flick turned into action porn. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 19:20:49 GMT -5
I highlight the stupidity of some of the criticisms leveled at it 'Superman throws Zod through buildings and causes loads of deaths" for example It's a pretty fair criticism since it could have been easily fixed. Superman is a protector not a destroyer but MOS did bother with showcasing that enough. Not cool enough for the target audience I guess. It's the classic case of style of substance. The end of the flick turned into action porn. As was pointed out though, he didn't actually do that. Someone even posted the final battle scene up, it's fabricated nonsense. However he did punch Non through a skyscraper in Superman II, as well as lasering a huge concrete slab over metropolis and launching Zod into a coke sign. Thats probably about the 10th time I referenced that but it's ignored every time! People are exaggerating and im some cases making crap up to drive their points home. The film needed more of Superman saving people individually, thats true, but lets not make up stories about how he was throwing Zod through buildings and killing people in the process. |
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Jul 19, 2013 19:29:31 GMT -5
These are all still opinions. You think it was action porn, you think it wasn't true to Superman as a character. It's the 'No true Scotsman' thing. The character has had so many iterations that there is no true Superman. It's just another interpretation that you may like or not.
I had no problem with the building stuff anymore than I did in the Justice League cartoon. I thought the character was fine, morally. He's just starting out so can't be expected to be perfect yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 19:33:57 GMT -5
These are all still opinions. You think it was action porn, you think it wasn't true to Superman as a character. It's the 'No true Scotsman' thing. The character has had so many iterations that there is no true Superman. It's just another interpretation that you may like or not. I had no problem with the building stuff anymore than I did in the Justice League cartoon. I thought the character was fine, morally. He's just starting out so can't be expected to be perfect yet. Most of it is indeed opinion! But things like Superman throwing Zod through buildings and killing people is flat out false! thats the kind of thing I'll take issue with because it's been made up in an attempt to discredit the movie some more. Things like 'Superman wasn't seen saving enough people" and "Superman didn't have enough big moments in the film" are opinions but opinions I respect and agree with to an extent! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2013 19:39:11 GMT -5
These are all still opinions. You think it was action porn, you think it wasn't true to Superman as a character. It's the 'No true Scotsman' thing. The character has had so many iterations that there is no true Superman. It's just another interpretation that you may like or not. I had no problem with the building stuff anymore than I did in the Justice League cartoon. I thought the character was fine, morally. He's just starting out so can't be expected to be perfect yet. Justice League cartoon never sold itself as dropping the character into the real world and seeing what would happen. MOS didn't do much with that even though that was part of the premise. In the real world here are real consequences. If Goyer and Snyder didn't have the talent off foresight to pull that off they never should have gone there And by the way...even JLU directly addressed Supermans fears of the damage fully unleashing his powers in battle would cause. He says so himself. They didn't just totally gloss over it. Even the idea of killing an enemy because he had no choice was explored better in one hour. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2013 19:45:42 GMT -5
It's a pretty fair criticism since it could have been easily fixed. Superman is a protector not a destroyer but MOS did bother with showcasing that enough. Not cool enough for the target audience I guess. It's the classic case of style of substance. The end of the flick turned into action porn. As was pointed out though, he didn't actually do that. Someone even posted the final battle scene up, it's fabricated nonsense. However he did punch Non through a skyscraper in Superman II, as well as lasering a huge concrete slab over metropolis and launching Zod into a coke sign. Thats probably about the 10th time I referenced that but it's ignored every time! People are exaggerating and im some cases making crap up to drive their points home. The film needed more of Superman saving people individually, thats true, but lets not make up stories about how he was throwing Zod through buildings and killing people in the process. He wasn't involved in mindless destruction at the end of the film while not giving a shit? Instead he awkwardly sucked face with Lois and made a bad joke while surrounded by destruction. Pointed out by who? Some Snyderite fanboys who make excuses for every mistake in the film? Reeve's Superman punched Non through a building. And? he also had sense to protect people from the destruction their battle caused. He also had sense enough to take the fight out of the city because it was futile. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 19:56:13 GMT -5
Thats as much an excuse as anything.
here's some facts.
Superman didn't throw Zod through buildings killing people
In Superman II he punched Non through a skyscraper which you'd assume had to kill or seriously injure some people.
Snyderite fanboys were simply acknowledging a blatant lie made up in an attempt to have a go at the film. Yeah, he took the fight outside the City after he punched Non through a building, zapped a huge bit of concrete and threw Zod into the side of a building.
What Superman did after the destruction in MOS isn't what I was talking about and bringing it up is just a deflection. Also worth noting that some people are the opposite of Snyderite fanboys, they instead invent scenes where Superman killed people in an attempt to mock the film and Snyder.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2013 20:02:04 GMT -5
He also rammed Zod through shit in Smallville. Did everyone escape harm there too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 20:07:39 GMT -5
No, but then if it's not an issue in Superman II why is it an issue in MOS?
He put Faora through the side of an iHop, but he did that when he intercepted her to stop her from taking down that fighter jet. I'm just saying that people said he threw Zod through buildings killing people, and I'm saying that is a lie, simple as that.
He also flew Nam-ek into the air and punched him into that yard where the trains were. Most of this was that part was after people had fled or moved inside though.
I think if you're going to have Super powered guys fighting each other its inevitable there'll be mass destruction and people will be hurt, especially when it's Superman vs 3 others, all I'm saying is I don't understand why people are obsessed with it in MOS but don't have a problem with it in SII, much like Superman killing Zod, which is seemingly more acceptable in SII because he did it with a smile on his face!
At least you acknowledged Superman putting Non through a skyscraper though! of all the times I brought it up people usually glossed over it, for reason which I think are fairly obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 19, 2013 20:23:11 GMT -5
There you go again, Kris.
Superman punching Non through a skyscraper HAS been acknowledged. You're proving my point: you're not paying attention to other points of view.
It's already been stated: one of the reasons SII is more effective in its Times Square fight is that it *DOES* acknowledge people getting hurt. Maybe not in the exact moment, but throughout the fight, Superman is trying to fight the 3 Kryptonians while trying to put out fires and save people.
That kind of attention to what's happening around him is the kind of shit missing from MOS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 20:28:56 GMT -5
It wasn't acknowledged until about 10 minutes ago Enrique, and if it was it must have been a few small words and I missed it.
SII had a couple of guys wrestling and also contained the very thing some of you guys were complaining about in MOS. Superman causing destruction, I mention that its present in SII aswell and now it's a good thing Superman was involved in that? You're going round in circles man. Yeah MOS needed more of Superman helping people individually, I SAID THAT. But the point was about Superman causing destruction in MOS, but we keep straying off topic to other parts, and the only reason I can see for this is to simply deflect and deny the fact you might be wrong.
You don't like me backing MOS by using SII I get that, but thats tough shit. It's the easiest way to put some of this nonsense to bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 19, 2013 20:35:39 GMT -5
It ain't about Superman causing destruction!!!!
How do you fight super villains WITHOUT causing destruction?
For me, it's strictly about Superman not being concerned with his surroundings.
|
|
