If you have nothing to express but apathy and disgust, why bother typing it all out? It doesn't serve the discussion.
So, about those Man of Steel reviews...
If you have nothing to express but apathy and disgust, why bother typing it all out? It doesn't serve the discussion.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Because I would like to see an actually GOOD superman movie. Is that so much to ask? Closest they ever managed was the second one.
That isn't apathy. Apathy would be "who cares?". I care. I want to know why, with so much money and talent available, the result was something that poor.
That isn't apathy. Apathy would be "who cares?". I care. I want to know why, with so much money and talent available, the result was something that poor.
Scrivener of Doom
Adventurer
Hey, she expressed her opinion and the basis for it. That's well within the rules of the forum.
Based on your previous posts, I could have told you you would not like it.
Technically, yes, she did. But not in a way that gives me the faintest sense that she deserves a thoughtful, genuine response.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I kind of think it is. As some posted a while back, Superman is a nice pop culture icon and a symbol, but very difficult to dramatize as a character. His shtick is that he's invincible and always does the right thing. That means that substantial contrivances and naked plot devices are required to challenge him at all, and his reactions to those challenges tend not to be very interesting.
And times have changed. People look more closely at plot holes than they did decades ago. And the silliness of the Clark Kent alter ego, the costume, and the cartoon science (yeah, oxygen totally gives you super powers) and cartoon morality (watching people die to keep a secret that isn't secret anyway) just don't play any more.
It's simply much harder to do Superman as a movie than Batman (and even Batman they fouled up the third time around). I found Man of Steel mildly entertaining and visually interesting at times, but lacking in drama. "Nice spectacle with nonsensical story and no emotional resonance" seems to be Zack Snyder's ceiling; it's unfortunate that he keeps getting all this money to make movies when there are truly great storytellers just waiting for a chance. But regardless of who makes it I have a hard time even imagining what a truly good Superman movie would be.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Bruce Timm and his team did an excellent job of making Superman a workable and interesting character in the animated series. For 3 years. Plus 4 years of Justice League and JLU. It can be done. Granted, most of those stories are shorter, simpler, and obviously targeted towards children, but it can be done.
Batman has had such mixed results over the years as far as movies... Tim Burton's first outing was the only one I'd consider to be "Good", followed by an OK, A campy retro, an awful, and then the recent Nolan flubs.
I thought the IDEA of the government not trusting superman and trying to either control or eliminate him as just another threat was interesting. The execution of that idea was utterly lame, and stretched suspension of disbelief past the breaking point--far more than the idea that a pair of glasses and a different hair comb can totally conceal a secret identity.
In spite of the names involved, the trailers actually looked like it might be a good movie--enough to convince me to give it a try. I guess that is a triumph of marketing and editing, and perhaps the highest accomplishment of the movie.
Batman has had such mixed results over the years as far as movies... Tim Burton's first outing was the only one I'd consider to be "Good", followed by an OK, A campy retro, an awful, and then the recent Nolan flubs.
I thought the IDEA of the government not trusting superman and trying to either control or eliminate him as just another threat was interesting. The execution of that idea was utterly lame, and stretched suspension of disbelief past the breaking point--far more than the idea that a pair of glasses and a different hair comb can totally conceal a secret identity.
In spite of the names involved, the trailers actually looked like it might be a good movie--enough to convince me to give it a try. I guess that is a triumph of marketing and editing, and perhaps the highest accomplishment of the movie.
I'm not a huge fan of Zack Snyder the person, myself, he seems fairly douchey, but if you remove your opinion of the man and just look at the movie, it might change.
Or it might not -- /shrug -- superficial critique that's heavy on the negative is very boring to read.
Or it might not -- /shrug -- superficial critique that's heavy on the negative is very boring to read.
Last edited:
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Sorry if I am boring you.
Would love to post something enthusiastic. Show me something worthy, and I will.
Don't know the person, only his work, so my opinion of the movie is entirely separate from opinion of the person.
How much depth would you like? How specific do you want me to be? Only saw the movie once, and have no intention of seeing it again, so quoting line by line would be a problem, as would posting spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet by might want to.
I will give it one thing: unlike Superman Returns, it was not boring.
Would love to post something enthusiastic. Show me something worthy, and I will.
Don't know the person, only his work, so my opinion of the movie is entirely separate from opinion of the person.
How much depth would you like? How specific do you want me to be? Only saw the movie once, and have no intention of seeing it again, so quoting line by line would be a problem, as would posting spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet by might want to.
I will give it one thing: unlike Superman Returns, it was not boring.
Last edited:
sabrinathecat
Explorer
As another counter to Man of Steel, I offer the Direct to DVD release: Superman Unbound. Here is a story of a classic Superman, established in his world, along with SuperGirl (also established), performing Iconic feats in new and interesting ways. Yes, it was based on a graphic novel called "Braniac", but the characters were true to themselves, interesting, and performed within a realistic world (well, as realistic as super-powered alien beings). The characters had arcs and development, and felt like actual people.
In short, Unbound (aside from the silly title) was what a Superman movie should be, and everything that MoS failed to do. In point of fact, it was better than both of the previous Superman DtDVD releases, and the Batman/Superman/Justice League movies.
Superman Unbound: The REAL superman movie for 2013.
(Oh, there is a scene with eyeballs being ripped out of sockets, people and aliens being killed (with blood leaking from wounds), and Lois gives a very unladylike (and very common) hand-gesture to Braniac. Decide if you and your kids can handle that for yourselves.)
In short, Unbound (aside from the silly title) was what a Superman movie should be, and everything that MoS failed to do. In point of fact, it was better than both of the previous Superman DtDVD releases, and the Batman/Superman/Justice League movies.
Superman Unbound: The REAL superman movie for 2013.
(Oh, there is a scene with eyeballs being ripped out of sockets, people and aliens being killed (with blood leaking from wounds), and Lois gives a very unladylike (and very common) hand-gesture to Braniac. Decide if you and your kids can handle that for yourselves.)
