Man of Steel (2013)

1192021222325»

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    This smacks of Plan B from DC.

    MOS has underperformed, sitting at around 650m as it stands. They needed it to work and financially and critically it has been middling to poor. There's no way it has the trajectory to bank 1bn+ next time around, unless of course you plonk your hottest property in the middle of it. This decision seems to have very little to do with creativity. I hope for their sake it works, the last thing DC need is Superman dragging Batman down with him. They have to get it right, there's no other option.

    For the record, I actually got a kick out of MOS. The finale was too much, but other than that I thought it had it's moments.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Plan B? Really? I like to think this was always the plan.

    It does say something that Fast and Furious 6 has made more money and with this being yet another film coming out in 2015, takings will be down for all in this bloodbath.
  • Posts: 6,432
    I prefer DC to Marvel. Though Marvel know exactly what they are doing now with regards to a Marvel universe, DC i am afraid at this point don't appear to have a master plan. I would be happier to see stand alone movies. Though hopefully i am wrong and Superman vs Batman will be another step in the right direction. When you look back at the earlier Marvel films the two Hulk movies for example, despite liking Ang lees film Marvel were finding there feet. Marvel have come along way since then. Green lantern was a huge miss step, being open minded and viewing Man of steel as the start of better things to come.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Plan B? Really? I like to think this was always the plan.

    It does say something that Fast and Furious 6 has made more money and with this being yet another film coming out in 2015, takings will be down for all in this bloodbath.

    If MOS had already crossed the 1bn mark and critics were fawning over it in the vein of TDK or Avengers, do you think they'd have risked dropping bats in for no.2? I just don't see it. They've given themselves a very unenviable task and imagine Marvel are secretly rubbing their hands in delight. As a DC fan I really hope they can pull it off but I'm not convinced Snyder is the right man for the caped crusader. One things for sure, it's going to be a very interesting couple of years ahead, on all cinematic fronts.

  • Posts: 12,526
    I am just really curious as to who is going to play Batman?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited July 2013 Posts: 15,135
    Watched MOS last week and thought it was very poor.

    A dull Avatar prelude that went on forever and an even duller last 40 mins of CGI tedium, an uninspiring main villain and just as uninspiring Lois, and a finale that was more like Independence Day with Metropolis suffering worse damage than Hiroshima was beyond over the top.
    To be fair Cavill did what he could with pretty poor material but to waste Russell Crowe as his old man when you could have had him hamming it up as Zod is criminal.
    There were a few nuggets of interesting ideas such as Clark learning to master his x-ray vision as a kid and the concept of how the world would react to an alien among them but overall these were lost amongst the slurry.

    Does anyone know how much input Nolan actually had as the contrast between this and Batman Begins is startling in every aspect? Was it a case of Nolan just jotting a few comments on a post it note so they could use his name on the poster?

    And where was the music? Is there a rights issue there? If you have a classic piece of John Williams music then use it FFS. By all means hold it back a la CR but if at the climax we had thought Supes was beaten only for the music to start crescendoing up and then he rises to kick ass then I probably would have forgiven a lot.
    I would say its utterly inconceivable that the new Star Wars films will come up with a new score and so it should be here.

    It seems like overall they bottled it. They thought about going for a character driven piece showing us how Clark learned how to use his powers and deal with the loneliness and responsibility of his position but didn't have the courage to see it through and decided to just throw a load of CGI at it and sadly they seem to have got away with it as its making a shitload of money vindicating the decision.

    Personally I would have had the opening as was (although would have trimmed it by a good 10 mins) with Zod cast out into space and then just had a Superman Begins story putting into place all the stuff like Lois and the Daily Planet but focussing more on Clark deciding how to use his powers. Lex Luthor would be the villain with some nefarious scheme so we could have a spectacular (but about 25 mins shorter) finale and then right at the end we would see Zod heading for earth as a prelude to MOS2.

    As it was it seemed like they tried to pack in too much and when deciding what needed cutting they opted for all the interesting stuff rather than leave a single second of CGI buildings being smashed up on the cutting room floor.

    The trailer made it look so much more. How much of the CGI Avatar opening or buildings being smashed up climax made it into the trailer? Not a lot - they made it out to be Superman Begins.

    Very disappointing.

    I took mini Benny to see it today, whilst it was not the worst movie ever, I did feel disappointed. Rather boring for the most part, with lots of mindless destruction.
    Agree very much with Wizard on this one. I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt cheated until we got home. Then it hit me, the music. The music wasn't there, and without it, it was just....what?
    Weak story, disjointed for no real reason, under developed characters, no humour whatsoever. Now I'm not saying it should be a gagfest, but with a movie of this type, usually a little humour makes its way into the film. With this, there was nothing. And the we have the over the top CGI which has to be expected, but as per usual, far too much is going on, making it difficult at times to understand what you are watching. But it was the lack of music that really did make this movie one that left me feeling let down.
    Chuck this in and the whole movie would've changed for the better.


  • edited August 2013 Posts: 135
    As per usual, I witnessed this film when it was released to general cinemas. I loved it. Zack Snyder is a master of the genre, with heightened realism and emotion. Mr. Snyder has raised the bar with his strong undercurrent of humanity. I was not disappointed.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I still have yet to see this, and likely won't until it comes out on Blu-ray. I find myself not really caring or feeling sorry for missing films in the theatre anymore, simply because I enjoy older films more and wish to explore those from the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and so on that I haven't seen yet at this moment, as well as directors I want to get more into from those various decades.

    The reason I don't really care that much for theatre viewing at this time isn't because I have lost interest in film; I will always love that. I just have gotten sick of the countless trailers for films that show too much, creators/casts that tell too much, and the overall negative impact of the internet age that makes it impossible to enjoy any shocks or twists in a film because headlines/critics or other computer users ruin the ending for you before you even get a chance to enjoy it in full.

    Part of the reason why I won't see this in theaters (and don't care anymore) is because of just that. After MoS released, titles of articles, podcasts and various other kinds of media all over the internet spoiled a humungous moment of the film, and the sad thing is that I wasn't even looking for it. I was just scrolling up and down a page, and BAM, the moment was ruined for me. Yet another reason why the internet is more of a problem than it is worth. I wish I lived in a time where you could enjoy a film, series, book or any kind of product in any medium without having it ruined for you first.
  • Saw it yesterday. It seems very derivative. Kudos for not just redoing Superman: The Movie and taking it elsewhere, but minus points for making it like Avatar, bits of Lord of the Rings, the washing on the line motif from Pearl Harbor, then Transformers where aliens bash each other about in the city and the US military are on the sidelines, all urgent but outmuscled.

    Cavill really does look like Sean Connery a few years before Dr No, and it makes you think what if a bit regarding CR, but that would be prob the same mistake made with Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, just getting an actor to channel another actor.

    Some amateurish direction too, too many WTF moments. Though in some ways made for kids, the 1978 movie did address some of the issues better I thought, like showing the capsule going thru space, taking ages to arrive on Earth, like years. In this one it felt about as far away as the Moon.

    No delicious expectation or build-up to the big reveal of Superman and his powers. Mind you, that is the problem for me; it is a coming of age movie and once that's done, where do you go? I personally never liked the Superman 2 plot with Zod, it felt quite grim, and so does this movie cos that's what they do with it for plot.

    Lordy! Crowe pops up like some boring ghost, a Noel Edmonds lookalike pontificating all over the shop, the whole thing cries out for the Carry On team to lampoon it. For all that, I did find some scenes moving in spite of myself, but they're mostly the scenes from the trailor.

    Oh and here's a thought. Reeve just owned Superman in the film and yet think about it, surely he doesn't even appear until the 40 min mark! Yet you just think he's in it all the time, cos his impact is immediate and all-pervasive.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    So, it seems like Ben Affleck is going to be Batman in the sequel?

    If this turns out to be true, I'm - to say the least - sceptical. I'm not a huge fan of Affleck, in fact I can dig some of his stuff but certainly not all. That said, with the proper directing and without the burden of having to carry the entire film, it might work out. I'm sceptical, but not necessarily against the idea.
  • Posts: 6,396
    DarthDimi wrote:
    So, it seems like Ben Affleck is going to be Batman in the sequel?

    If this turns out to be true, I'm - to say the least - sceptical. I'm not a huge fan of Affleck, in fact I can dig some of his stuff but certainly not all. That said, with the proper directing and without the burden of having to carry the entire film, it might work out. I'm sceptical, but not necessarily against the idea.

    Alas, I fear with Zack Snyder at the helm, that will not happen.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    I tend to give Snyder more credit than most people do. I love what he did with the Dawn Of The Dead remake, I am rather fond of his work on Watchmen and 300 and yes, when my testosterone levels are high enough, I can even praise him for Sucker Punch. Man Of Steel is, IMO, a very good film too. So I'm all for another Snyder superhero film but I accept that I'm one of the few who are. ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.