Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 18:16:18 GMT -5
Well?
What do you say?
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 25, 2013 19:07:43 GMT -5
Ok, I'm going to try NOT to break any balls. However, if someone tries any smartass shit, fuck you, I'm opening the floodgates.
::sigh::
Ok.
My big beef with BOTH movies is that I don't think either film understands Superman very well. SR had a slight advantage in this regard since it was a kind of sequel to Reeve's films, so it kind of took on the goodwill from the Donnerverse, but STILL. It fell short because they tried to make Superman more relatable by making him more angsty. This is one of the weaker aspects of SR, so I'm surprised that the reboot made him similarly angsty. Superman isn't angsty; I think this approach is like building on mud because it's not true to Superman in general (not just the Reeve version).
So when it comes to the approach to the Superman character. I think they're both way off.
Initially, I liked MOS better. I thought it took a step in the right direction with the action scenes, a movie featuring Superman should have cool action scenes showing off his powers, something SR didn't have a lot of.
At the same time, SR tried to have more depth of feeling and I thought that it was stronger than MOS in that regard, but with little action *AND* 4 or 5 scenes of Superman getting his ass kicked and no supervillains, it totally dropped the ball with the action. Having said that, I did like having Superman have a kid because I thought it was ballsy as heck. That was a twist that I didn't see coming and it was different.
They kinda cancel each other out:
SR: More character driven, cool mid-movie twist, no supervillain, little action. Superman gets beat up too much.
MOS: Better villains, weak character development, better action scenes, but not particularly well executed. Not true to Superman's character.
I didn't mind taking some liberties with Superman's story, i.e. Jor El getting killed. But I didn't like the way Superman killing Zod was handled. Again, it's not Superman killing Zod that was a problem, it was the WAY IT WAS HANDLED that I didn't like.
Finally, little things about MOS really pissed me off like Superman stealing clothes and being cavalier with government equipment and people's lives. That's just not Superman. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they want to make him cooler, but those little things aren't Superman. They remind me of what Kevin said years ago when we were discussing having different actors, like Denzel, play Superman. Kevin said, and I paraphrase: "Denzel is a good actor, yeah, but so is Al Pacino. How about an Al Pacino Superman?" The point is the same: Yeah, Superman could've been Asian, Black, Hispanic, but he isn't. He's Anglo. That's just the way it is. I consider his personality JUST AS IMPORTANT as his appearance. Because if he steals, is inconsiderate towards lives, and doesn't stop to help, he's just not Superman.
Today's filmmakers need to embrace Superman as he's always been because those things are what makes him Superman. It's just not his race, but his attitude that's just as sacred. After all, it's his values that make him Superman.
Conclusion: I still need to see MOS properly a second time. SR got weaker with repeat viewings, but I also thought it captured the "feel" of Superman SLIGHTLY better but that could also be because of Williams music and the Donneresque feel of certain segments, which is superficial in some ways. I like that MOS had a fresh start, but I do think it copies previous sci-fi films a little too much, i.e. Geonosis, Avatar's dragonflies, and the Matrix slugs ALL took me right out of the movie.
SR is like Never Say Never Again, but MOS is like DAD.
I give the edge to SR because it has the spirit of Superman a little more than MOS.
|
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Nov 25, 2013 19:41:39 GMT -5
Man Of Steel is my favourite out of the two. SR had some nice moments like the plane rescue and the music but everything else about it was a bit off. It seemed like the Donner film but it was really a film maquerading as a Donner film with little original ideas in there.
MOS is more exciting, has a much better cast (Superman especially), better villains and action. Superman even has a red cape. The burgundy one in SR always pissed me off.
Neither film is close enough to the Reeve portrayal, which is my favourite, but I prefer MOS because it is its own thing and doesn't try to just use people's memories to add some sympathetic value.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 25, 2013 20:36:34 GMT -5
For me, it's definitely Superman Returns. (Big suprise considering how most all my posts are pro-SR)  In an ideal world, you could have had Singer's Superman Returns continue on AND Man of Steel come out to make all sides happy.... but, would never have happened. With Superman Returns- I have to say, that even though I go in with some anticipation depending on the writer and directors- I've been disappointed enough with directors I thought could never fail, and pleasantly suprised at times by directors who make a great film--- so, yes, I had fears and hopes with Singer and Snyder's names going in--- but I didn't give Singer a 'pass' right off the bat, just because of his name. I went into Superman Returns with worries up until the first scene with Clark and Martha talking about how long he had been gone- and the emotion that came from it, told me it was going to be a solid drama that had me engaged. To see one great director respected and reinterpreted by another great director was unbelievable joy for me. There are things that were a little irritating/questionable (weak action, real estate Lex, fuzzy continuity with the other films)- but how often is it that an A-list director is willing to follow and respect what another director does? (In a way, this was sort of a dream fulfillment of how a good director could have finished off Donner's SII- without the slapstick and crazy powers) I've said it before- and will say it again- changing everything and starting again from scratch seems so much easier than actually attempting what Singer did--- keeping the old stuff as canon, and moving forward. I don't know if I would have wanted Singer to do a reboot rather than SR- as SR really offered an interesting (and, as mentioned, extremely ballsy) aspect that never had been added before: a superhero in a father role in a live action movie. Still- MOS has things to enjoy in it. It's something different, it has some interesting ideas thrown in, I just wish the writing/directing had been more refined, even if it broke some rules (for me) on what I feel the character should be, to be called Superman. Anyhow- at this point- I'm just focusing on the good things that came out of having Singer leave Superman: #1: Singer producing X-men: First Class (which was awesome) #2: At least we got SR (Even though it resulted in Ratner's X3, but o well) #3: Singer directing X-men: Days of Future Past #4: Arguably (though it seems more rather than less likely) we FINALLY got to see the 'lost' Donner footage in the RDC--- primarily because Singer wanted Jor-el to be in SR So, in some ways, everyone got SOMETHING out of SR and MOS happening, eh? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 25, 2013 22:18:09 GMT -5
They are both flawed. But...SR. Seems like they were at least respectful to the material and were at least trying to not only tell a different core story but tell it well. Like Enrique said the kid stuff was a ballsier risk. They just went in the wrong direction on some stuff. A lot of MOSs ground had been covered before and while there were surface changes the basics of it just seemed lazy like a rehash. The fixes would have been easier and they still didn't try hard enough. They just missed the mark more on Superman's character. He was too disconnected and not concerned enough about what was going on around him and even after he had time to think he still didn't seem to care. Like Enrique said that's just not Superman. Even SR got stuff like that more right
...and...while a lot of people said Routh was stiff and bland..Cavill was worse. I found it harder to root for him and Routh seemed to be more likable in the role even if Cavill was the more experienced actor. Like JMS said you have to care about the characters for the stuff going on to resonate. Enrique pretty much nailed it with his post. I'll also add...if SR is Star Trek The motion picture then MOS is Star Trek Into Darkness.
STM worked and was different because it fought the extreme cynicism of its era and embraced optimism and and inspirational spirit. It stood out among the pack. SR and MOS needed more of that to stand out among the pack they were in.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 25, 2013 22:46:55 GMT -5
Man, for all the epic arguments we've had over the years, Metallo and I are just simply on the same page on this issue.
It's all about the character.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 25, 2013 23:03:57 GMT -5
Yup. If the character doesn't work and you don't care about him the film doesn't work. Donner understood that. He also understood what made Christopher Reeve special. He had the depth of compassion and character to make you empathize with Superman and believe in him even though the character isn't that complex. It's not always about complexity all the time it's about quality. I think SR AND MOS overthought the formula.
SR copied the structure of STM and tried to recreate some key moments to cash in on nostalgia but MOS copied the basic storyline of STM but just jumbled it up. But neither one embraced the character or took the risks or pushed the boundaries the way STM did. Those are the comic book movies that really work. That's why Marvels raking up cash right now post Iron Man and Avengers. Those movies respected and understood the characters but offered something new too. Any changes made sense and worked within the films to make them appealing to film audiences.
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Nov 25, 2013 23:57:49 GMT -5
Superman Returns for me
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 26, 2013 0:12:21 GMT -5
That actually feels just about right...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 1:47:37 GMT -5
MOS, and it's not even close. SR is a poorly acted, poorly written, and frankly dull attempt at resurrecting the tone and feel of films out nearly 30 years prior to it.
I doubt that I'll ever be able to watch it again from start to finish.
MOS was ballsy, far more entertaining with a vastly superior cast. It might have changed the mythology slightly and altered the perception of the character, but for me that was needed and I'd rather have that than someone doing a Chris Reeve impersonation whilst trying to recreate the glory of the old films.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Nov 26, 2013 6:31:34 GMT -5
I an detecting several Routh Only People here.
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Nov 26, 2013 6:50:26 GMT -5
For me it's MOS...
I loved SR when it came out (I think mainly as it just provided something new to watch in the Superman world).
Brandon Routh was great I think (with the little he was given), and I would have loved to see a sequel.
But SR is too dark, too dull, and gets worse and worse with each viewing.
I have seen MOS five times and, above all, it has been entertaining every time!
Cavill's presence and physique make up for some poor line readings, but he really does come across as Superman.
Amy Adams is great, as is Shannon and Crowe, and Costner is perhaps the best thing in MOS, grounding it and giving it a little more heart.
Let's not forget Diane Lane too, who is great in everything. So the cast here completely outshines SR.
Yes, the last 45 minutes of MOS take it down to Transformers level, but ignoring that, MOS is a brilliant film.
And if you don't ignore the last 45 mins, then overall, MOS makes for great entertainment, action and fun.
I respect what SR did, but enjoy little of it.
I like the opening scenes, plane rescue and flying with Lois scene and the twist of Superman having a son.
After that, I lose interest as the film doesn't seem to build to any climax and sort of puffs out at the end.
Though MOS has its flaws, I can overlook all of them for the pure entertainment value that the film provides.
MOS is a great beginning (as Batman Begins was). Let's just hope that MOS 2 finds some way of creating the Superman equivalent of The Dark Knight in terms of story and entertainment. They should be very different films and MOS 2 should in no way try to revert back to the style of the Nolan Batflicks, but move forward and improve upon what was set up in MOS, and really make Superman shine in the sequel, and give him back that super, wholesome, boyscout character that we all know he should be. I don't even care how that's set up or the type of action they create. Most important is to highlight the truth, justice and American way character that Superman stands for, and in a way, by having Batman in the sequel, should help to emphasise Superman's character (as a contrast to the tough, hard-edged, ruthless, revenge-filled character of Batman).
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 26, 2013 9:59:15 GMT -5
Yeah.
SR borderline sucks. What slightly saves it for me are the Superman moments that get the character right.
MOS has a better cast, and ideas, but it doesn't execute them as forcefully or convincingly as it should.
Is there a Superman moment that resonates with hope in MOS?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 26, 2013 11:53:30 GMT -5
No great Superman moments in MOS just huge action sequences that feel flat because there was no genuine feeling. Flick was too concerned with being all serious and actiony. For all MOSs talk about hope it seemed to be more interested in talking about it than showing it whereas SR showed it a couple of times. Batman Begins was so much better and such a stronger launching point while being far more original. No rehashed villains for one thing. Ras offered fresh storytelling possibilities.
Zods plan in MOS doesn't make much sense since they could terra form any planet and even then they'd be giving up what makes them nearly GODS on earth. What military man would give up an advantage like that to protect and spread Kryptons legacy? They can make a new Krypton without giving up there powers. Zod wanted a better Krypton for the strongest anyway. By any means necessary. He could still do that on an unchanged earth without giving up the MEANS to do it. Terraforming worked in the Transformers stories because the earths environment made no difference to the Decepticons and they were used to an inorganic world. Zods whole plan is dodgy and really starts to fall apart if you think about it at all. Turning earth into a new Krypton? Congratulations, Snyder: all you did was rip off the scheme from Superman Returns (with some transformers thrown in) only made it more stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 27, 2013 5:50:04 GMT -5
MOS, and it's not even close. SR is a poorly acted, poorly written, and frankly dull attempt at resurrecting the tone and feel of films out nearly 30 years prior to it. I doubt that I'll ever be able to watch it again from start to finish. MOS was ballsy, far more entertaining with a vastly superior cast. It might have changed the mythology slightly and altered the perception of the character, but for me that was needed and I'd rather have that than someone doing a Chris Reeve impersonation whilst trying to recreate the glory of the old films. Just curious because you don't explain it: what was ballsy about MOS? That he killed the bad guy? |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Nov 27, 2013 8:43:01 GMT -5
MoS was infinitely more ballsy than SR. It did not place it safe at all. SR was a giant blowjob to STM, preaching to the converted as it were.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 27, 2013 9:31:28 GMT -5
Not that ballsy to just rehash Superman 1 and 2 with a Batman Begins paintjob. There were changes but killing Zod was the only really ballsy thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 10:03:03 GMT -5
MoS was infinitely more ballsy than SR. It did not place it safe at all. SR was a giant blowjob to STM, preaching to the converted as it were. Definitely more ballsy no matter how anyone tries to dress it up. Changed the mythology around a bit, changed aspects of the character himself, even things like dropping the trunks were quite bold. Given the previous 5 motion pictures (the only superman motion pictures) were all essentially the same Superman that was quite ballsy. I'm sure they knew there'd be a lot of nerd rage with a lot of the stuff, but I'm glad to be away from the donnerverse and trying to recreate the magic of the first film. |
|
|
|
Post by tomahawk on Nov 27, 2013 10:04:08 GMT -5
People may not have liked it, but it was fn ballsy to make Lois an unmarried mum to a son who didn't know that his father was the most famous superhero of them all who took off for five years without knowing he had a son.
It was fn ballsy to make a Superman movie that put the character into a situation of not having a chance to be with the one woman that has been the expected outcome throughout most of the character's history, whilst still giving him a son to that woman.
Whilst the execution of the story surrounding these moves may well be questioned the fact is they were ballsy moves.
Of course the ballsy was a Ballsup and we ended up with MOS, which is cool I guess.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 27, 2013 11:04:10 GMT -5
MoS was infinitely more ballsy than SR. It did not place it safe at all. SR was a giant blowjob to STM, preaching to the converted as it were. Definitely more ballsy no matter how anyone tries to dress it up. Changed the mythology around a bit, changed aspects of the character himself, even things like dropping the trunks were quite bold. Given the previous 5 motion pictures (the only superman motion pictures) were all essentially the same Superman that was quite ballsy. I'm sure they knew there'd be a lot of nerd rage with a lot of the stuff, but I'm glad to be away from the donnerverse and trying to recreate the magic of the first film. It's far easier to go the dark and realistic route in this day in age. That's the trend. Would have been ballsier to try to make some of the classic elements work in a modern way because it's harder to do. Doesn't take much balls to rip off Avatar, Matrix, and Transformers. If anything that made it a safer bet with the younger generation and the target demographic WB wants. Snyder did what a bunch of other movies did. Yeah that takes real balls. I don't mind modernization but what Snyder did was lazy and easy not ballsy. Ballsy for the superman fanboys maybe but that's like a small percentage of people. Not much of a risk. He just gave everyone else stuff they were already familiar with. |
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Nov 27, 2013 11:08:45 GMT -5
This poll is looking interesting.
Man of Steel is definitely more ballsy than Superman Returns. If one can't see that, then there's a strong, biased opinion behind it. The movie completely started from scratch by introducing new ideas that were totally foreign to casual movie goers and their perception of Superman. The movie had a brand new costumes, action sequences of incredible scope, character motivations that were unexpected and not explored before ie killing Zod, a black Perry White and a female intern who may or may not be Jimmy Olsen.
All of the controversies behind Man of Steel is because it was ballsy. Now whether they were right choices is a matter of opinion. But to say it wasn't ballsy with the exception of killing Zod is an oversight.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 27, 2013 11:36:42 GMT -5
Or maybe it was ballsy to some who liked it because gasp they liked it
Either way it's an opinion. Now you're doing what you accuse me of by speaking in absolutes. If someone disagrees they're biased or wrong? Wow.
How is it "ballsy" to shamelessly and uncreativley copy popular stuff again? In this day in age people are USED to seeing far more radical changes in reboots. Is not a new concept anymore. We've got a black Moneypenny and a kid Q. Bond was bucking tradition ages ago. It's not the first time Superman's done it either. Making secondary characters black? Big whoop. Make Superman black. That'd take real balls but it's obvious why they didn't do that (and I'm glad they didn't).
SOME of the controversy was because of changes. SOME of it was because some folks just thought it was a plain bad film. Lots of people thought it was poorly made. It's the same thing with Superman Returns. And even with all MOS's advantages it still saw a steep drop it's second weekend and grosses softer than what WB expected.
What Marvel Studios did five or six years ago took real balls. When they started on that road they didn't have the money of resources of a massive multimedia empire behind them. AND they did it after a HULK movie that bit the dust harder than SR and a bunch of B list Marvel heroes most people knew nothing about.
|
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Nov 27, 2013 11:48:37 GMT -5
You love to resort to that "because people liked it, it's this and that." It's all very boring already. Just deal with it. You're not spitting facts. All of our points of views are theoretical by using empirical evidence as our sources. Man of Steel didn't break new ground in filmmaking...yes, you're certainly right there, but it did go a new direction from previous Superman outings. Why is that difficult for you to comprehend that? Batman Begins didn't even break new ground in filmmaking either, but it did for the character. That whole idea of a superhero thrown in the real world has been done before. (X-Men, Superman, etc.) I say Man of Steel took chances, for better or for worse. Whether you have reasons why my opinion is invalid is kinda irrelevant. Oh and Moneypenny and baby Q was not done ages ago. Just last year. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 27, 2013 12:08:00 GMT -5
You love to resort to that "because people liked it, it's this and that." It's all very boring already. Just deal with it. You're not spitting facts. All of our points of views are theoretical by using empirical evidence as our sources. Man of Steel didn't break new ground in filmmaking...yes, you're certainly right there, but it did go a new direction from previous Superman outings. Why is that difficult for you to comprehend that? Batman Begins didn't even break new ground in filmmaking either, but it did for the character. That whole idea of a superhero thrown in the real world has been done before. (X-Men, Superman, etc.) I say Man of Steel took chances, for better or for worse. Whether you have reasons why my opinion is invalid is kinda irrelevant. Oh and Moneypenny and baby Q was not done ages ago. Just last year. I never said anyone was biased for thinking it wasn't ballsy so I think I've dealt with it alt better than you have. I said BOND was bucking tradition ages ago not JUST Skyfall. A black Felix and a woman M were just done last year? News to me. And there's plenty more from Bond and others. OHMSS was another one. It took balls for the stuff Star Trek did in the 60s. I guess Hollywoods idea balls have shrank in the last 40 years The diagnosis? Cinematic testicular atrophy? Plenty of other Superman adaptations have gone in bold new directions. STM did it. Lois & Clark did it. Smallville did it. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Not a new thing. When they did it there was no clear guide of success to rip off ideas from. when STM did it the filmmakers were far more original in HOW they did it. It didn't seem to be as blatant a rehash of the sci fi hits of its day. Donner was smart enough to make those old ideas his own just like Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster did at the beginning when they created Superman. Most of what Superman is is nothing new. Some Flash Gordon, Doc Savage, John Carter, Moses, Jesus, Sampson, etc. etc. Those guys took those ideas and made them their own to give us something familiar yet fresh and new. That's the difference between a true visionary and someone like Zack Snyder. LOTS of Superman productions took chances in front of and behind the camera. To act as if MOS took more is ignoring Superman's history. It took just as many chances as past incarnations have it just didn't execute those ideas as well. MOS did the origin AGAIN? Yeah we haven't see to THAT before. VERY ballsy. Lol. Even SR tried a different story nobody had ever really done between him leaving and the kid and the broken relationship with Lois. It sure wasn't the origin again which at this point is a blueprint any trained monkey could follow and add changes to. A cinematic comic book universe? That IS something that's never really been tried on the big screen. A few bits here and there but not like what Marvel did. To even attempt a character like Captain America for the international film market in this day? That takes balls. That's where the real ballsy shit is going on. Guardians of the galaxy is a massive risk creatively and financially that MOS isn't even close to. Nobody's tried a comic book film like it before. And people respond with "well gosh we had a black Perry White?" I got used to that possibility after seeing black Harvey Dent a black Kingpin a black Alicia Masters a black Hemdail a black Nick Fury etc YEARS before MOS came out. heck I think by this point no one was surprised and something like that certainly isn't controversial anymore. A black Perry would have been a BALLSY thing in 1963. |
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Nov 27, 2013 12:50:42 GMT -5
Jesus God Almighty....
You do realize I said Man of Steel is more ballsy than Superman Returns, right? Like going through the history of comics, films, and televisions with their racial and gender progression is highly unnecessary. You're just focusing on the last thing I said, which was said more in jest than anything else. As if I didn't know what was happening in the 40s to the 70s. As if I didn't know that Superman the Movie broke new ground when it came out or anything else. I know this, dude.
But when compared to Superman Returns, Man of Steel is a breath of fresh air. For me and some others. Not for you, though. We get that. No need to break it down why I'm wrong to you. It's incredibly fucking obnoxious, man. Beyond belief.
|
|
