Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 16, 2018 21:47:55 GMT -5
The color is still dialed down though and shouldn’t the whole scene be warmer and more colorful not just him? You said that before the world of human beings was cold but here he’s finding out it’s not all like that yet everything still looks pretty bland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 21:49:15 GMT -5
The color is still dialed down though and shouldn’t the whole scene be warmer and more colorful not just him? You said that before the world of human beings was cold but here he’s finding out it’s not all like that yet everything still looks pretty bland. Maybe? I don't think I stated it was colorful, though I like the use of color and shadow in the films. Like I'm not saying it's a Wizard of Oz moment, this is still Snyder's Superman world. It's not the happiest of places. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 16, 2018 21:57:25 GMT -5
The color is still dialed down though and shouldn’t the whole scene be warmer and more colorful not just him? You said that before the world of human beings was cold but here he’s finding out it’s not all like that yet everything still looks pretty bland. Maybe? I don't think I stated it was colorful, though I like the use of color and shadow in the films. Like I'm not saying it's a Wizard of Oz moment, this is still Snyder's Superman world. It's not the happiest of places. But it doesn’t look much if at all different from previous scenes. You said the interrogation scene was to show how bad the human world is yet the ending, color wise, doesn’t really look much different from some scenes earlier in the film. The colors tended to get cooler when it was literally cold or dark or something sad happened which didn’t show much subtlety or creative thinking to me. Just a cheap way to show the emotion instead of getting it the old fashioned way. But then again this is the guy who literally put Christ behind Clark.  Look at that artistic genius and use of symbolism on display. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 22:06:08 GMT -5
Well, he is in a church. There's a Jesus any which way you can swing a cat. I'm agnostic on a good day and atheist on a bad one, but there's something kind of humbling about seeing an alien go into man's temple to seek guidance. Kal El's very existence should disrupt man's conception of the divine, but he's a boy from Kansas and church is where you go for guidance.
I'm not here to convince you to like the use of color or anything, but I don't consider the use of it as random. Snyder has a lot of enthusiasm in his work and it shows on screen.
Honestly I wish Snyder worked with Superman Returns material, because the script in Man of Steel is weak as all heck and if the only enjoyment you get out of film is the spoken word, well, there's not much to love in Man of Steel.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 16, 2018 22:57:32 GMT -5
Well, he is in a church. There's a Jesus any which way you can swing a cat. I'm agnostic on a good day and atheist on a bad one, but there's something kind of humbling about seeing an alien go into man's temple to seek guidance. Kal El's very existence should disrupt man's conception of the divine, but he's a boy from Kansas and church is where you go for guidance. I'm not here to convince you to like the use of color or anything, but I don't consider the use of it as random. Snyder has a lot of enthusiasm in his work and it shows on screen. Honestly I wish Snyder worked with Superman Returns material, because the script in Man of Steel is weak as all heck and if the only enjoyment you get out of film is the spoken word, well, there's not much to love in Man of Steel. I get that he’s in a church but it’s pretty lazy to construct it in that way. It is fiction so it could be presented any way they want. Superman just happens to be sitting in front of a window with Jesus’s image? Lame. It’s the “look kids he’s space Jesus” moment. Donner and Singer both had their Christ imagery too but they didn’t beat people over the head with it nearly as much as Snyder who comes off thinking the audience has to be spoon fed these deep connections. That’s why his movies aren’t as smart and philosophical as he thinks they are. I never said his use of color was random I said it was lazy and uninspired and inconsistent. I even said myself he uses color to show mood but it’s not very consistent or creative. Plenty of directors use color for certain cues but it’s a lot more thought out than that. You say he’s an alien but he’s been raised as a human with a midwestern upbringing. Yet Snyder wanted to have it both ways when it suits him. If he was truly new to this earth it might be more interesting and humbling but he’s not. That’s Snyder’s whole problem. Lack of consistency. He starts ideas but then doesn’t follow through because he gets distracted. That’s the sign of a poor storyteller visual or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 17, 2018 19:15:28 GMT -5
Well, he is in a church. There's a Jesus any which way you can swing a cat. I'm agnostic on a good day and atheist on a bad one, but there's something kind of humbling about seeing an alien go into man's temple to seek guidance. Kal El's very existence should disrupt man's conception of the divine, but he's a boy from Kansas and church is where you go for guidance. I'm not here to convince you to like the use of color or anything, but I don't consider the use of it as random. Snyder has a lot of enthusiasm in his work and it shows on screen. Honestly I wish Snyder worked with Superman Returns material, because the script in Man of Steel is weak as all heck and if the only enjoyment you get out of film is the spoken word, well, there's not much to love in Man of Steel. I get that he’s in a church but it’s pretty lazy to construct it in that way. It is fiction so it could be presented any way they want. Superman just happens to be sitting in front of a window with Jesus’s image? Lame. It’s the “look kids he’s space Jesus” moment. Donner and Singer both had their Christ imagery too but they didn’t beat people over the head with it nearly as much as Snyder who comes off thinking the audience has to be spoon fed these deep connections. That’s why his movies aren’t as smart and philosophical as he thinks they are. I never said his use of color was random I said it was lazy and uninspired and inconsistent. I even said myself he uses color to show mood but it’s not very consistent or creative. Plenty of directors use color for certain cues but it’s a lot more thought out than that. You say he’s an alien but he’s been raised as a human with a midwestern upbringing. Yet Snyder wanted to have it both ways when it suits him. If he was truly new to this earth it might be more interesting and humbling but he’s not. That’s Snyder’s whole problem. Lack of consistency. He starts ideas but then doesn’t follow through because he gets distracted. That’s the sign of a poor storyteller visual or otherwise. I didn't mind if they had Clark be a specific religion, but my problem with it is that the execution is so half-hearted in it, if they were going in that direction. In constructing Clark's character, it feels all over the map imo in how they did it. While I understand the need to be concise for telling the backstory, it also should have helped you feel like you 'got' the character. Donner's version of Clark's backstory easily could have been longer in STM (and I gather from the photo montages shot on CapedWonder it originally was longer)- but I feel like you got enough of what he cared about at the core. In many ways, Margot Kidder's Lois Lane did help define Superman's character in STM, I think... as does McClure's Jimmy Olsen and Perry White. The upside down version of the ensemble in Snyder's version may not have been necessarily the worst, but imo it made the 'family unit' that's generally at the core of Superman stories very cold and sterile in MOS. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 17, 2018 19:58:12 GMT -5
His religion was never an issue for me. It made sense. But like you said that element (and everything else) could have been handled better. Snyder went for the low hanging fruit. Have some faith in the audience.
The Lois and Clark relashionship in these films has been handled like garbage. I loved that she knew his secret early on in MOS but beyond that it just doesn’t work. I know I don’t by it. Then at the end they have the most awkward kiss just because it’s a Hollywood formula that they HAVE to.
STM was brilliant in not letting them kiss. They almost do but it doesn’t happen. That left them something for the sequel and allowed them to take the relashionship to the next level in the sequel. By BVS they’re living together but we never see that romance develop naturally. Goyer sucks at writing those kinds of relashionships because the Bruce Wayne/Rachel Dawes romance didn’t work either. Kidder said it best: they had a great actress in Amy Adams and didn’t give her a anything good to do (besides fall off sh!t and somehow defy the effects of a black hole).
As for Perry and Jimmy...yeah they did have a great camaraderie in the Reeve films even if their parts weren’t big. Jimmy felt like Clark and Superman’s pal. Even ignoring the crap use of Olsen in BvS I doubt many people have a sh!t about Jenny Jurwitch. Steve Lombard didn’t come back and it didn’t really make a difference. Fishburne is a great actor but anyone could have played his part. He wasn’t given anything to contribute that was very memorable. The Daily Planet in the new movies was an afterthought. I’m not sure we even got any establishing shots of it much less any memorable moments there.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 18, 2018 19:03:21 GMT -5
His religion was never an issue for me. It made sense. But like you said that element (and everything else) could have been handled better. Snyder went for the low hanging fruit. Have some faith in the audience. The Lois and Clark relashionship in these films has been handled like garbage. I loved that she knew his secret early on in MOS but beyond that it just doesn’t work. I know I don’t by it. Then at the end they have the most awkward kiss just because it’s a Hollywood formula that they HAVE to. STM was brilliant in not letting them kiss. They almost do but it doesn’t happen. That left them something for the sequel and allowed them to take the relashionship to the next level in the sequel. By BVS they’re living together but we never see that romance develop naturally. Goyer sucks at writing those kinds of relashionships because the Bruce Wayne/Rachel Dawes romance didn’t work either. Kidder said it best: they had a great actress in Amy Adams and didn’t give her a anything good to do (besides fall off sh!t and somehow defy the effects of a black hole). As for Perry and Jimmy...yeah they did have a great camaraderie in the Reeve films even if their parts weren’t big. Jimmy felt like Clark and Superman’s pal. Even ignoring the crap use of Olsen in BvS I doubt many people have a sh!t about Jenny Jurwitch. Steve Lombard didn’t come back and it didn’t really make a difference. Fishburne is a great actor but anyone could have played his part. He wasn’t given anything to contribute that was very memorable. The Daily Planet in the new movies was an afterthought. I’m not sure we even got any establishing shots of it much less any memorable moments there. I was fine if Clark actually believed in a higher power- but the degree to which he depends on it does define who he is. It's like that shot of Angelina Jolie in Lara Croft 2 where she's meditating for a few seconds at a temple- it's like a tease for deeper character development, but doesn't really go anywhere with it. If done well, one line that's consistent can suggest a lot. The relationship between Lois and Clark under Donner was an interesting approach. Clark wasn't exactly 3- dimensional but a bit of comic relief. The triangle between Lois/Clark and Supes was charming and energetic in STM. In Lester's edit of SII, that triangle wasn't quite as charming--- Lois just was written as more whiny and unlikeable. If there had been another Superman film under Donner with S3/so on, I do wonder where they could have/should have progressed. In some ways, the relationship was kind of played out in STM/SII..... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 18, 2018 22:27:32 GMT -5
To me the problem with the religious elements in MOS was how sloppily the allusion was handled. The only way it could have been worse is if they’d had text at the bottom of the screen. I think Clark is even 33 in the movie. Can’t get much more on the nose than that. Other films and tv shows have handled it much better. Superman has always been a Christ figure or a Moses figure, some kind of modern messiah. That’s not the issue.
If your gonna comment on it be creative. I bet most people didn’t think about the story of Christ’s resurrection in Robocop. As obvious as it got was him on the water at the end. Lots of movies do it but do it so much better. John Conner was another savior figure but Cameron was confident enough to let the audience figure it out.
As for Lois and Clark I always thought Lois saw Clark in the Reeve films as a sort of kid brother type that she cared about but could never see as a romantic interest. She wasn’t mean or insulting to him the way some versions of Lois have been. I did like that Lana Lang did think of Clark as someone she could see herself with but wasn’t really into Superman beyond appreciating him as a hero. It was a great flip that showed another side of Clark because he wasn’t used to that. Reeve’s reaction when she tells Clark he’s the best was great.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 19, 2018 1:41:28 GMT -5
To me the problem with the religious elements in MOS was how sloppily the allusion was handled. The only way it could have been worse is if they’d had text at the bottom of the screen. I think Clark is even 33 in the movie. Can’t get much more on the nose than that. Other films and tv shows have handled it much better. Superman has always been a Christ figure or a Moses figure, some kind of modern messiah. That’s not the issue. If your gonna comment on it be creative. I bet most people didn’t think about the story of Christ’s resurrection in Robocop. As obvious as it got was him on the water at the end. Lots of movies do it but do it so much better. John Conner was another savior figure but Cameron was confident enough to let the audience figure it out. As for Lois and Clark I always thought Lois saw Clark in the Reeve films as a sort of kid brother type that she cared about but could never see as a romantic interest. She wasn’t mean or insulting to him the way some versions of Lois have been. I did like that Lana Lang did think of Clark as someone she could see herself with but wasn’t really into Superman beyond appreciating him as a hero. It was a great flip that showed another side of Clark because he wasn’t used to that. Reeve’s reaction when she tells Clark he’s the best was great. I should have added in my post that I do agree on how sloppy the religious aspect was handled in MOS. If it's suggested (as STM/SII did)- that's fine. If- as MOS seemed- literally Clark had a religious faith, and he goes to the pastor for help, then that religion (or pastor) is another key character in his development. Fine- but DO something with making that so. Similar to the inclusion of Pete Ross- It had a scene there that hinted he was part of Clark's past and development- then they didn't do anything with it past the one or two scenes. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2018 9:09:46 GMT -5
To me those characters seemed like nothing more than Easter eggs when they could have been used a bit better. We don’t even see Pete again after MOS. Even STM got more out of Lana to help develop Clark Kent. Reminds me of how much they got out of Spider-Man in civil war compared to the small extended cameos in the dceu. They used their time wisely. MOS feels like screenwriting stereotypes 101 right down to the “you killed my father prepare to die” and then the way they tried to mirror it in MOS....Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 19, 2018 9:44:48 GMT -5
To me those characters seemed like nothing more than Easter eggs when they could have been used a bit better. We don’t even see Pete again after MOS. Even STM got more out of Lana to help develop Clark Kent. Reminds me of how much they got out of Spider-Man in civil war compared to the small extended cameos in the dceu. They used their time wisely. MOS feels like screenwriting stereotypes 101 right down to the “you killed my father prepare to die” and then the way they tried to mirror it in MOS....Lol. Right- On the flip side, I do have to say that there ARE bits throughout MOS that did feel 'fresh' and could have really worked overall. I think I've said that a proper fan edit might have saved the film (to a degree) and fixed some performances.... but now and then when I think of how brilliant TDK was- I do wonder if the combo of the Nolan brothers working with Goyer might have made an amazing Superman film- but then again- TDKR was anything but brilliant and had all three working together, too, so I dunno... In any case, a sad situation with Supes in cinema. What to do next WB? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 19, 2018 11:02:15 GMT -5
The Nolan’s elevated Goyers material. No doubt about that. We’ve seen too much sh!t from him on his own. Snyder was the wrong guy either way though. But the big problem is Dark Knight was a blessing and a curse. It was a cinematic high point for DC but they’ve been chasing it ever since trying to duplicate it and reskin all their movies in dark knights image after its success and green lanterns failure. Let the character and material dictate the tone and direction of the film.
I think with TDKR they were all mostly tapped out creatively. Someone online made a great point. Directors like
that spend years thinking how they’d do a first movie. The sequel is them doing what they couldn’t do on the first one for whatever reason. By the third film they’ve said what they had to say and have a few months or couple years to come up with something new when they’d had their entire lives to think about what they’d do with the first.
Look at Xmen. Same problem as Nolan. He made three good or great xmen films. He was tapped out by Apocalypse. Same with Raimi on the Spider-Man movies. His passion was in the first two because he got out to get most of his ideas he’d probably been thinking about as a kid. Army of Darkness was an exception because evil dead 2 mostly rehashed the first film with a higher budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 20, 2018 9:48:33 GMT -5
The Nolan’s elevated Goyers material. No doubt about that. We’ve seen too much sh!t from him on his own. Snyder was the wrong guy either way though. But the big problem is Dark Knight was a blessing and a curse. It was a cinematic high point for DC but they’ve been chasing it ever since trying to duplicate it and reskin all their movies in dark knights image after its success and green lanterns failure. Let the character and material dictate the tone and direction of the film. I think with TDKR they were all mostly tapped out creatively. Someone online made a great point. Directors like that spend years thinking how they’d do a first movie. The sequel is them doing what they couldn’t do on the first one for whatever reason. By the third film they’ve said what they had to say and have a few months or couple years to come up with something new when they’d had their entire lives to think about what they’d do with the first. Look at Xmen. Same problem as Nolan. He made three good or great xmen films. He was tapped out by Apocalypse. Same with Raimi on the Spider-Man movies. His passion was in the first two because he got out to get most of his ideas he’d probably been thinking about as a kid. Army of Darkness was an exception because evil dead 2 mostly rehashed the first film with a higher budget. All possible- but I wonder if there's also more to the story (or slightly more) in those cases... Nolan I think rushed TDKR too fast into production, plus forcing in a character he wasn't crazy about in the first place (Catwoman) rarely comes up with good results. Singer perhaps should have been given another year to prep for Apocalypse, maybe he SHOULD have had previews to test what was missing and have enough time for proper rewrites/reshoots. Previous X-men films always had Wolverine at the center of it (outside of the X-men prequels) for focus- and when Xavier/Magneto were the focus, they trounced on false notes with their arcs by oversimplifying their characters. (i.e. Magneto loses a family, but gets over it by the end, Magneto is part of mass murder, but Xavier easily forgives him and makes a joke at the end with his buddy- bleah!). Raimi's Spiderman 3 had the similar problem of not enough time as it had a locked in theatre release date, a forced character on him (Venom), and an actress who had to leave early because of unexpected pregnancy. According to people who come to comic cons who worked on Spiderman 4 with Raimi, apparently Raimi really did want to make a great Spiderman 4 to make up for Spiderman 3- but Avatar's success made Sony want it in 3d, but there wasn't going to be enough lead time to do a conversion properly (according to the fx guy who talked about this at a local con). |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 20, 2018 15:17:30 GMT -5
There was more time between Nolan and Raimis second and third films than there was between their first and second films. If they’d had a gap of a year or two the argument of the rush being a major factor would hold more weight. Sure that’s part of it but I think they were just tapped out, using material they didn’t really like, and outside forces affecting the films. Spider-Man 2 came out just two years later and dark knight three years later and both are arguably the best of their respective trilogies.
WB wanted Nolan to replicate what he did with Dark Knight and that was near impossible. Sony wanted the same with Spider-Man 3 replicating the success of 2 and with Venom. That’s why we got the airplane sequence in TDKR and the musical dance sequence in Spidey 3. Each director was playing a game of one-upmanship... with themselves. Added requirements like that are more understandable to me.
Now with DOFP you can make the argument more strongly because Singers films usually didn’t have more time between them and the more time he had the better they got. But Singer also has the problem of one-upmanship on his back. That’s why he tried to outdo the Quicksilver sequence in DOFP with a bigger one in Apocalypse. I think it worked but his focus should have been on other things.
TDKR is like Star Trek Into Darkness. They both had four years to get made. That’s enough time to develop the sequels. The issue is Nolan and JJ Abrams didn’t use their time wisely and their attention was somewhere else. Can’t really blame the studio for that. The way they manage their time and how much attention they give other projects is on them. Nolan had another film, The Prestige, between BB and TDK just like he had Inception between TDK and TDKR but Inception was a much bigger more ambitious movie than The Prestige. That ate up a lot of his attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 18:40:43 GMT -5
Similar to the inclusion of Pete Ross- It had a scene there that hinted he was part of Clark's past and development- then they didn't do anything with it past the one or two scenes. Pete Ross was there to show that you shouldn't give up on people, even his bully could become his friend as well as keep his deepest secret. Also to show what life is like in a small town - if you never leave your town, the best you can hope for is to become a supervisor at an IHOP. It felt a little too real. We don’t even see Pete again after MOS. Pete was at Clark's funeral.  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 20, 2018 19:25:39 GMT -5
Pete Ross was there to show that you shouldn't give up on people, even his bully could become his friend as well as keep his deepest secret. Also to show what life is like in a small town - if you never leave your town, the best you can hope for is to become a supervisor at an IHOP. It felt a little too real. So you’re saying Pete was a glorified plot device/character builder for Clark (lousy job done there btw) and not a character. Exactly my problem. You can do everything you just said and still put some effort into developing him more. It was another Goyer fanboism of thinking the reference was enough. That character could have been anyone on top of all the other problems. You could also say Pete represents Clark’s fear of not breaking out of his sheck but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t handled like crap. Intent doesn’t equal good execution. That sums up MOS. Him not leaving his town and being an ihop manager has nothing to do with his lack of character development. Lana Lang didn’t leave Smallville until the end of Superman 3 but up until that point she was still a better more rounded out character than Pete Ross in MOS. By making us care more about Pete or knowing anything about the guy who was Clark’s best friend growing up it would have helped humanize Clark. Hey you’re right! The fact that I forgot shows how much he sucked and how flawed that scene was. Clark’s bast friend in town but that’s all he gets? Flash Thompson wasn't even Peters friend but even he showed up at Harry’s funeral on Spider-Man 3. Some put in effort there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 19:30:40 GMT -5
Pete Ross was there to show that you shouldn't give up on people, even his bully could become his friend as well as keep his deepest secret. Also to show what life is like in a small town - if you never leave your town, the best you can hope for is to become a supervisor at an IHOP. It felt a little too real. So you’re saying Pete was a glorified plot device/character builder for Clark (lousy job done there btw) and not a character. Exactly my problem. You can do everything you just said and still put some effort into developing him more. It was another Goyer fanboism of thinking the reference was enough. That character could have been anyone on top of all the other problems. Him not leaving his town and being an ihop manager has nothing to do with his lack of character development. Lana Lang didn’t leave Smallville until the end of Superman 3 but up until that point she was still a better more rounded out character than Pete Ross in MOS. Hey you’re right! The fact that I forgot shows how much he sucked and how flawed that scene was. Clark’s bast friend in town but that’s all he gets? Flash Thompson wasn’t even Peters friend but even he showed up at Harry’s funeral on Spider-Man 3. Some put in there. Lana Lang in STM just asked Clark if he wanted to get some records, and Brad was there to be a bully. I mean, yeah, it's not deep. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 19:35:14 GMT -5
Lana didn't even attend Clark's father's burial  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 20, 2018 19:36:34 GMT -5
Lana Lang in STM just asked Clark if he wanted to get some records, and Brad was there to be a bully. I mean, yeah, it's not deep. Wrong. Actually she said they were going over to another girls house to PLAY some records and asked him if he wanted to come along. I said she didn’t leave until the end of Superman 3. I never mentioned Lana’s role on Superman 1. She was still better used than Pete because we got a clearer understanding of how she felt about him and we definitely got a clearer understanding of how he felt about her. It played into the whole idea of him being angry that he had to hide who he was and Donner handled that far better in a far shorter amount of time. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 20, 2018 19:38:43 GMT -5
Lana didn't even attend Clark's father's burial How do you know she wasnt there and then left? How do you know she wasn’t at the funeral and just didn’t stay for the burial? You don’t. Once again I said Lana in 3 not in 1. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 19:40:41 GMT -5
Maybe MOS 2 would have had Lois go to Bermuda, and Clark returning to Smallvile to rekindle his love for Pete. You don't know that either.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 20, 2018 19:41:43 GMT -5
Maybe MOS 2 would have had Lois go to Bermuda, and Clark rekindling his love for Pete. You don't know that either. I know because MOS 2 doesn’t exist. It got scrapped for BvS because MOS didn’t do well enough. Clark was too busy being mad at Batman with a clench toothed sh!tface expression. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2018 19:43:44 GMT -5
Maybe MOS 2 would have had Lois go to Bermuda, and Clark rekindling his love for Pete. You don't know that either. I know because MOS 2 doesn’t exist. It got scrapped for BvS because it didn’t do well enough. Sad. I really wanted to see Pete grow as a character. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 20, 2018 19:45:36 GMT -5
I know because MOS 2 doesn’t exist. It got scrapped for BvS because it didn’t do well enough. Sad. I really wanted to see Pete grow as a character. You’d be waiting a long time with Zack Snyder. He might have grown into a roided up ginger haired cgi monster maybe. |
|
