- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,180
- Reaction score
- 44,140
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
2) An excess in the destruction of city property.
I loved it, but there's two things that came to mind.
1) Snyder likes shaky-cam too much. The first sequence with Crow and the council, only a few minutes in length, was pretty bad with the camera work. I know a basic discussion of ecological politics for a few minutes isn't the most gripping thing in the world, but that doesn't mean that the viewer needs to feel like they were kind of drunk watching it. This continued throughout the flick, and it was unnecessary. Many times I did not notice, but sometimes it was bad.
Related to this is perhaps the complaint that Snyder likes close-ups just a bit wee too much.
2) An excess in the destruction of city property.
I liked it but had some of the same gripes as everyone else. I did think the darker than usual nature for a Superman movie was ballsy and a nice touch, but it seems to me Zod and crew are more for a sequel and they did try to fit a bit too much of the Superman universe into one movie. Other than that I thought it was overall awesome, I gave it a 4/5.
I think you're right on that. I just read an article about the various arcs from the Superman past and they IMO tried to smash a whole universe of divergent writing into a singular movie. I want to give a pass for the excessive fighting because the point of the Kryptonian arc was that Superman was matched and it would take an epic battle to convey that, but I do think they took it a bit too far with Man of Steel.I think the thing was so much of it felt rushed and not well thought out.
Many of the moments with Clark as a child and young adult, struggling to deal with who he was were quite touching and well executed... I think if you'd have had a little more about that instead of 45 minutes of smashing concrete and explosions constantly that belonged more in a Transformers movie than a superman one, things might have turned out much better.
This is the end was pants pissingly funny.I've heard from various people that the story in Superman Returns was better, so I probably won't go see Man of Steel then. This Is The End however looks hilarious.
This is the end was pants pissingly funny.
I think you're right on that. I just read an article about the various arcs from the Superman past and they IMO tried to smash a whole universe of divergent writing into a singular movie. I want to give a pass for the excessive fighting because the point of the Kryptonian arc was that Superman was matched and it would take an epic battle to convey that, but I do think they took it a bit too far with Man of Steel.
I loved it, but there's two things that came to mind.
1) Snyder likes shaky-cam too much. The first sequence with Crow and the council, only a few minutes in length, was pretty bad with the camera work. I know a basic discussion of ecological politics for a few minutes isn't the most gripping thing in the world, but that doesn't mean that the viewer needs to feel like they were kind of drunk watching it. This continued throughout the flick, and it was unnecessary. Many times I did not notice, but sometimes it was bad.
Related to this is perhaps the complaint that Snyder likes close-ups just a bit wee too much.
2) An excess in the destruction of city property.
Like most Sequels or Reboots they know even if it is the worse movie ever made people will still go to watch it if it has a popular title .
I honestly think they made a mistake making Zod and crew the villians. It brought far more attention to the nature of Superman's powers than was really necessary, or even wise.
Lower gravity. a different atmosphere, and yellow sunlight lets you freakin' fly and shoot lasers out of your eyes? And all of those abilities just magically disappear the minute you start breathing your own planet's air again?
Ummm... What? View attachment 67149017
Call me a stickler for supension of disbelief, but if your premise makes that little sense, the last thing you want to do is explicitly invite the audience to analyze it deeper.
The simple fact of the matter is that no one really gives a damn how Superman's powers work at this point. It's just kind of accepted that they do. They didn't need to reinvent the wheel.
I think Brainiac would've been a smarter choice. That way they could've avoided those kinds of questions while keeping the alien invasion angle and the Kryptonian technology.
You could make the identical argument for high profile actors. Title and certain actors are a draw, nothing new there.
In any case, while Man of Steel is imperfect, I believe it was worth the time and energy to make. It has its own unique appeal, especially by virtue of the fact that it wasn't trying in the least to be the 1978 Superman (and thank God).
Yes , over paid actors who play terrible roles how could I possibly forget . It may not be the worst Superman but they could make it a lot better .
!!!Spoiler Alert!!!
But what ruined the movie for me was the ending, Superman doesn't kill and that is a huge part of the character.
Comic books typically reflect the soul of the era. The old Superman stood for a United States that had a notion of hope and the popular belief that it was inherently good, and that those ideas of what was good were not up for compromise . Those ideas are in in doubt today, so in an era that now seriously rationalizes torture, domestic espionage and a permanent state of war, we get the Superman we deserve: one who may hate it but will kill as a last resort anyway.
In short, this ain't your granddaddy's Superman.
-------------------I loved the movie....
I loved the scenes on Krypton.
I loved the flashbacks as a way to tell his childhood.
I love Amy Adams as Lois Lane.
Michael Shannon is freaking amazing as Zod.
Watching the action sequence was amazing....by far the best depiction of Superman in a fight....
Generally I get bored by long action sequences but this one had me glued.
My opinion is a great movie could have been an epic movie in this one with a few key choices. I thought they were too "busy" with the story line as I stated earlier, but overall that was a minor gripe. The biggest issue is how they up the ante for the sequel, and I'm pretty sure this was made to set up a series, what made the Kryptonians work in Superman II was the challenge to Superman, up to that point there were few that could challenge Superman at full force. Man of Steel IMO brought the Kryptonian arc out waaaaaay to fast, what's to challenge the hero next, does Lex Luthor make an appearance, do we see darker and less popular comic arcs that may not hit with casual movie watchers? Things like that bugged me about an otherwise great film.You could make the identical argument for high profile actors. Title and certain actors are a draw, nothing new there.
In any case, while Man of Steel is imperfect, I believe it was worth the time and energy to make. It has its own unique appeal, especially by virtue of the fact that it wasn't trying in the least to be the 1978 Superman (and thank God).
Nope, redhead.-------------------
And I love Amy Adams as anyone.
They better not have dyed Amy's hair black, a la the comic book Lois, though.
If they did, I swear to gawd, I'll walk out of that theater.......and I won't buy any popcorn, either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?