Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 22:54:45 GMT -5
Actually, the most ballsy Superman live action had to be the xxx parody. Doesn't mean it was any good, though.  SPIT TAKE.  CAM just won the Interwebs. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Nov 28, 2013 1:30:24 GMT -5
Happy Thanksgiving! Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Nov 28, 2013 5:50:28 GMT -5
One of these days 'tallo is just going to let things pass that's a bit optimistic Somebody has to be an optimist. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 28, 2013 8:07:18 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. Interesting. I disagree with it though. When I saw MOS, I saw an amalgam of images and ideas we've already seem before. Dude, when Zod and his crew were on Krypton on that transport, I swear, I thought, "that looks EXACTLY like Geonosis." The changes I saw in Superman himself weren't ballsy but the opposite; I saw compromising the character out of fear of rejection of his former ideals, not a fearless attempt to do something new. But again, I need to properly see MOS a second time. |
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Nov 28, 2013 10:39:08 GMT -5
I personally don't find Krypton to look like Geonosis. Geonosis looks pretty barren compared to Krypton. The thing with concept art these days is that everyone's vision for the future and other worlds are exposed all the time on the internet. When I saw Krypton for the first time, I thought just that. The difference between the concept art, Geonosis and Krypton is that I felt Krypton was living and breathing. There was history behind the structures and the design behind everything. That's the first time I've personally experienced that in a Superman movie. Now...I'm not saying that's ballsy, so please, don't construe my view. But I will say it's unique, though.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 28, 2013 10:53:57 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. Interesting. I disagree with it though. When I saw MOS, I saw an amalgam of images and ideas we've already seem before. Dude, when Zod and his crew were on Krypton on that transport, I swear, I thought, "that looks EXACTLY like Geonosis." The changes I saw in Superman himself weren't ballsy but the opposite; I saw compromising the character out of fear of rejection of his former ideals, not a fearless attempt to do something new. But again, I need to properly see MOS a second time. You're right. You're not the only person to notice. Seen The honest trailer? I kept wondering when the Kryptonians became Necromongers. They dumbed superman down to a action character to appeal to teenage boys looking for something "badass" and no more. They were trying to go for something LESS risky. Now Captain America was a ballsy character to try in this day in age because they didn't sell him out at all because of corporate marketing or trying to capture a demo. He's not emo but instead the same idealist he's always been. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2013 12:30:20 GMT -5
I personally don't find Krypton to look like Geonosis. Geonosis looks pretty barren compared to Krypton. The thing with concept art these days is that everyone's vision for the future and other worlds are exposed all the time on the internet. When I saw Krypton for the first time, I thought just that. The difference between the concept art, Geonosis and Krypton is that I felt Krypton was living and breathing. There was history behind the structures and the design behind everything. That's the first time I've personally experienced that in a Superman movie. Now...I'm not saying that's ballsy, so please, don't construe my view. But I will say it's unique, though. True true. Reminds me of a video I watched recently where a guy talks about almost all music essentially being a 'remix' due to everyone having influences they draw from, even if subconsciously. If you want to look hard enough you can see where people have drawn their inspiration for most things. Anyway with regards to what's ballsy and what's not, most of this stuff had never been brought into a Superman film before so that alone makes it more gutsy than SR. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Nov 28, 2013 13:26:54 GMT -5
Are MoS critics seriously saying that its disappointing that it was influenced by other films
Jesus. SR was 90% piss poor rehash of STM!
At least Superman stopped the bad guy in MoS.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Nov 28, 2013 14:45:09 GMT -5
Somebody has to be an optimist. We could write our congressman. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 28, 2013 15:39:14 GMT -5
But cam, at least some can comprehend each others opinions and not condescendingly try to seek out how wrong you are for having a particular point of view. Right? Please tell me I'm not the only one that notices that. You love Superman Returns, but I never tried to prove that you wrong for appreciating certain aspects of it even though I ppersoally didn't care for it. I've personally been treated pretty well in this forum- but I do feel sad when friends on this forum (on both sides of the movies) have discussions on the movies cross over into getting so passionate that sooner or later things get heated off-topic and then get a bit personal and unpleasant..... and far from the original topic to begin with. Back in the pre-internet days, I used to love reading movie reviews from the movie critics, but it was in one or two categories: Category 1: I love/hate this/that movie, and this is why you should agree with me, or I will make you feel bad for disagreeing with me. Category 2: This is what the movie has in it, this is what I think it tried to do, and this is why I think this/that wasn't successful- but, these are my thoughts- won't make you feel bad or inferior if you don't agree. It's been fun for me reading the stuff that keeps it in a tone that makes everyone feel ok enough sharing, and walking away knowing that the debate was in a way that provoked thought, and treated one another respectfully. When it hasn't been that way- well..... there's no jumping in without upsetting one side or the other--- (which is why I try to avoid any verbal chairs thrown from one side of the room or the other) so, I just hope things calm down on their own- because it seems like there's enough conflict in real life, with jobs, family, and health- that I just go the old-fashioned route (hopefully)- and just have a fun debate over bits of Superman and movie trivia, because to me, in the scheme of things, it feels like that's what the place is supposed to be about. Harmless fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 28, 2013 16:16:36 GMT -5
The changes I saw in Superman himself weren't ballsy but the opposite; I saw compromising the character out of fear of rejection of his former ideals, not a fearless attempt to do something new. I think it's actually a third possibility: I think- yes, it is a rejection of how Superman was shaped in the Silver Age- but if one listened to Goyer's interview years ago (damn, I wish I knew the link) with Michael DeLuca for Batman Begins when he talka about his writing process and how he felt he didn't know how to write Superman (his words) because he was about hope..... I don't think it was about necessarily rejecting the Silver Age version out of fear that it couldn't be identified with to young audiences now--- but that it's more about how only Goyer himself could make sense out of the character. Goyer's material has always been extremely dark- and so has Snyder's. His passion was to make a Watchmen movie, (though the execution I leave aside), not a Superman movie. I think he only became passionate if he felt he could embrace Goyer's reconception of the material as well. In fact- I don't think either film necessarily was a quick cash grab: Looking at SR: Reason I don't think it was a lazy/easy rehash of Donner- Singer, by contrast, was in a position where he was extremely successful, but was passionate about making a sequel to Donner's Superman movies. I don't believe there's enough evidence to suggest that he was in a position to NEED to connect to the old movies. He WANTED to, and given his directing skill and position in Hollywood- it made it even more fascinating for me. I don't think WB execs were thrilled to hear that Singer was planning to embrace the past, in pitching SR- Most reboots seem to be happier embracing and selling something as completely different, aside from keeping the title, for some odd reason.... so there had to be joy in the WB room when talking about changing it up. On the other hand- it's easy to quickly label the reboot as cashing in, too- but I don't think that's necessarily it, now- I do think that Goyer got excited about the movie only after he was able to 'figure out' Superman only after he changed it in his way in his own head. Goyer is also extremely successful, with DaVinci's Demons, and his own projects- he wasn't desperate for a hit- he could pick and choose,from what I could tell. But- in looking at how he ran "Blade-the tv series" (where he was the showrunner), tone and character-wise, the MOS Superman isn't all that different internally from Blade or his other heroes. Goyer's Superman is about survival first, Jonathan Kent and humanity second--- and grows to be self-sacrificing with the Kryptonian cyber-octopus thing. The Silver Age/Donner version was about humanity above himself, first- early on. They both (If I'm reading Goyer's interviews correctly) arrive at sortof the same place later on- but it is a significant difference regardless. Ironically- a parallel would be Burton's Batman being invented by Joker, versus Goyer's Batman being invented (as in the comics) by a somewhat random criminal. In that case, Goyer's version was much more faithful to the Silver Age comics.... but, I digress. Anyhow- I think that, while arguments are going back and forth over Superman's character and origin changing because of corporate decisions or a stroke of genius..... I think it's neither, and actually more modest. I think it's really just how it worked out in Goyer's head, based on how he has to figure out all his other characters- which, for most part, don't really have a lot of life joy in them- nor really trust all that much. Donner's Superman loved his foster parents so much, that (the way I saw it) - he wanted to be like Pa Kent and rise above the pettiness of people right off the bat for a higher purpose. Goyer's Superman loved his foster parents but was fine shouting that he wasn't his real father when things got heated- and didn't want to be a farmer like Pa Kent, but grew to maturity when his father got killed because of believing he was there for a higher purpose. I get it's different. I accept it's different. But, it's another reason (to me) why Donner/Silver Age version has a charm to me that the other superheroes (except Captain America, who may be his equal in character) don't have. He had the perfect parents to aspire to, and the conflict there was just normal human morality, that I found more relatable personally. Anyhow. Yet another long winded CAM post.... And- echoing Kev's Happy Thanksgiving to all!  |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Tripper on Nov 28, 2013 16:32:19 GMT -5
I think they were both missed opportunities. Neither has done Superman right although I do like Routh more than Cavill. I wish Superman Returns had started fresh and didn't use the Reeve films for inspiration.
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Nov 28, 2013 17:28:23 GMT -5
this thread was a good read i liked the part when old mate metallo when into meltdown haha
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Nov 28, 2013 17:39:31 GMT -5
I wish Superman Returns had started fresh and didn't use the Reeve films for inspiration. I agree. I honestly doubt Routh would have been cast if he didn't look like Reeve's little brother though Its quite bizarre to attempt to do a follow up to a film 26 years later. SR should have had its own trilogy/arc. Instead its an unwanted bastard offspring that knocks on your door decades later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2013 17:55:42 GMT -5
I wish Superman Returns had started fresh and didn't use the Reeve films for inspiration. I agree. I honestly doubt Routh would have been cast if he didn't look like Reeve's little brother though Its quite bizarre to attempt to do a follow up to a film 26 years later. SR should have had its own trilogy/arc. Instead its an unwanted bastard offspring that knocks on your door decades later.God help any potential love child that tracks you down hoping for some special bond Russ It's weird, tying it to films from the 70's. They had old fashioned wardrobe in the film, but then cell phones too, it was all really fucked up. I don't think Routh was all that bad tbh, but I'd take Cavill every day of the week, even screen presence alone ensures that. Bosworth was the real thorn in my balls, just awful in every way. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 28, 2013 18:23:23 GMT -5
Honestly, I think both films sucked.
To say I prefer one over the other is a matter of minor degree. Like which cigarette brand is better for you. Ultimately, either is bad. Same here.
Both had a lousy Superman, both had lousy Lois Lanes, irrelevant Perry Whites, boring climaxes and relied heavily on past films in un creative ways.
This thread reminds me of our old school SIII vs SIV threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 28, 2013 22:11:14 GMT -5
For me too actually, I love SIII.
I actually enjoy it more than SIV, SR, or MOS.
But it's still a flawed film.
Still, talk about original. Hey! Does that qualify it as ballsy? That's the new word around here, isn't it?
SR had a kid, that was ballsy! But MOS had Matrix slugs and Avatar dragonflies, that was ballsy! But SR focused on the romance, that was ballsy! But MOS had an ultra serious Superman that disregarded human lives! That was ballsy!
SR was a bad idea done well; MOS was a good idea done badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomahawk on Nov 28, 2013 23:29:53 GMT -5
I think Superman having a kid is really the only thing that has ever come from the balls of Superman in cinema. So if we want to get technical.....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 29, 2013 12:14:30 GMT -5
Are MoS critics seriously saying that its disappointing that it was influenced by other films Jesus. SR was 90% piss poor rehash of STM! At least Superman stopped the bad guy in MoS. He stopped a good chunk of Smallville and metropolis's population too. MOS whole story is taken from STM and SII. Just with a new coat of paint. Would most people even KNOW who Zod was if if wasn't for SII? Yet we get the same kind of relationship driving both origins. There was plenty of Kryptonian villains to use if they had to lazily go that way. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 29, 2013 12:21:16 GMT -5
I agree. I honestly doubt Routh would have been cast if he didn't look like Reeve's little brother though Its quite bizarre to attempt to do a follow up to a film 26 years later. SR should have had its own trilogy/arc. Instead its an unwanted bastard offspring that knocks on your door decades later.God help any potential love child that tracks you down hoping for some special bond Russ It's weird, tying it to films from the 70's. They had old fashioned wardrobe in the film, but then cell phones too, it was all really fucked up. I don't think Routh was all that bad tbh, but I'd take Cavill every day of the week, even screen presence alone ensures that. Bosworth was the real thorn in my balls, just awful in every way. It's on a sliding time scale at best if it is the same universe. Like the first 20 bond films. It's an alternate reality because despite the similarities there are noticeable differences even compared to the first film. Changes in continuity. SR Is more like Star Trek 09 on that stylistically there are similarities And even historical similarities but it's an alternate reality. Bosworth was terribly miscast though. Adams was a better fit but even she was miscast. They gave her Lois more to do but forgot to give her a personality. Whereas Bosworth was simply wrong and couldn't pull off what they did give her. You look at Margot Kidder or Dana Delany or even Teri Hatcher and it's plain to see they were much better choices. They had more of the proper personality. Kidder in particular can easily pull off Lois's ballsy speak her mind attitude because that's how she really is. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 29, 2013 12:28:22 GMT -5
I think they were both missed opportunities. Neither has done Superman right although I do like Routh more than Cavill. I wish Superman Returns had started fresh and didn't use the Reeve films for inspiration. Ditto. Routh was bland at times but they remembered to give him more moral responsibility. By the end of MOS they just totally dropped it. Then out of nowhere picked it up. Then dropped it again. Superman's concern for the welfare of others is an absolute must and SR was more consistent. And even if Routh was the weaker actor he seems like a more personable guy. He seems like he'd be a nice person to meet and that comes through. SR should have done more of a Casino Royale. Kept some of the iconic film elements and been inspired by the old series but told a story that was more it's own original continuity. It's not s true sequel to STM and II but it's not a total reboot either. It's somewhere in the middle. That's why I'd compare it to something. Like Never Say Never Again or Star Trek 09. |
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Nov 29, 2013 12:32:20 GMT -5
Watched both of these in the past week.
I vote MOS.
That is all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 16:39:55 GMT -5
It would be very interesting to watch them both back to back.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Nov 30, 2013 18:10:12 GMT -5
RetyShort answere:
Man of steel.
But I appreciate superman returns and adore brandon routh.
Both did things for me I always wanted, but man of steel did more of what I wanted.
In my mind's eye fantays grand master plan there's still a superman movie out there yet to be made, but man of steel is closer than returns.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Dec 1, 2013 15:33:24 GMT -5
It would be very interesting to watch them both back to back. I'm going to. Been meaning to give MOS another shot, something tells me it's better than I remember. |
|
