Man of Steel - Will you believe a man can fly again?

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Man of Steel - Will you believe a man can fly again?

«‹›3 »

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Slackerish posted:

Then he changed the loving ending, added "real world issues" to the movie, I dunno the whole thing felt like a kick in the nuts to fans of the book and for the record I am not one of those "mrehh they changed my comic books in the comic book movies!" types. It was just, in the case of Watchmen, I thought he did all the wrong things.

Even in the comic the space squid was really out there and wouldn't have made any sense in the film without the exposition they left out.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 14:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 25, 2024 18:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Dolphin posted:

Characters need flaws! Flawed characters are complex characters. Superman's main problem is that he's a walking deus ex machina

His main problem is literally the same as Spiderman's. "With great power comes great responsibility."

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 19:12

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

PrBacterio posted:

I've just watched the trailer, and I've got to say I'm kind of concerned about the dark tone they seem to be going with in this film. I had the same concerns about Superman Returns, where they turned out to be right. Honestly, Superman just isn't a character that's very suited to dark and gloomy stories. He's supposed to be about heroism and ideals and the striving for them. Also the line of Pa Kent answering his question if he should just have let some school children die where he replies with "maybe," that's just not a line Pa Kent should ever say. In summary I'm not sure if having the same people who were working on the hugely successful relaunch on the Barman movie franchise are the right people to have working on a Superman relaunch; the two franchises' themes and mood are just too diametrically opposite. Yes, for a new Superman film to be successful it needs a healthy dose of pathos, but that doesn't mean it should be all steepled in uncertainty and gloom.

The problem with Superman Returns was chaining itself to a 30 year old series of movies while not providing closure for them at all (like eg Rocky Balboa did).

# ¿ Dec 20, 2012 15:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Drifter posted:

I like to think that a man can become so crazy that mere brick walls and metal cages don't extend to your perception of existence.

The Joker and...I don't know, Calendar Man are just too crazy to be confined.

Batman should really be beating the everloving gently caress out of all the city officials/security guards for gross incompetence, because their lack of ability to meet their base job expectations is truly the worst crime of all.

Doesn't the Joker have some team of attorneys or something that consistently keep him from being executed whenever he's arrested?

# ¿ Dec 23, 2012 16:15

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

well why not posted:

The problem isn't that his powers make him unrelatable, it's his situations. This is why All Star Superman works - he's not concerned about Luthor stealing money or whatever, he's dealing with his eventual death, his girlfriend and his family. Like we all do.

It sounds like this one is dealing with adolescence, growing up, and finding your place in the world, which is also something we all deal with (just less Zod than him).

# ¿ Mar 17, 2013 03:50

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Mortanis posted:

"Exile" is a very strong theme. It just lacks the punch of "Last Son of Krypton". I admit I'd be interested in watching a take where Krypton still existed, it just doesn't have the same gravitas for me. It just misses all the right notes if Superman can just say, "No, there's a whole planet of people like me. Better, really. They're still up there. I've been emailing them and everything. Dad's coming for Christmas."

It's entirely possible there are survivors but there was also a nuclear war or something to make most of society collapse.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 18:21

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

That line about a child not being what society intended makes so much more sense with that genetic engineering reveal talk from a page or two ago, goddamn.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 04:15

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Rhyno posted:

I'm sorry I must have missed something in my 300 viewings of the trailer thus far, where is this Super-Farts thing coming from?

The bit when it interrupts Lois from saying "Superman".

# ¿ Apr 18, 2013 15:31

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Mechafunkzilla posted:

It never fails to confound and amuse me how those who call themselves the biggest fans of comic books, fantasy, and science fiction are also the least willing to suspend their disbelief.

It's basically the difference between people who want to enjoy a story set in a different world and people who want to live in a different world.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2013 21:01

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Mahoning posted:

It doesn't look like basketball texture. Basketballs have nipples (insert Batman and Robin joke here ) however, you're on the right track, it looks like the texture of a kickball

Is that the suit that's made out of little S's or am I confusing that with Star Trek?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2013 03:17

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Devour posted:

Idris Elba is black. Lex Luther is white.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2013 23:44

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

mind the walrus posted:

That's a fair idea, I just don't see what about the whole Doomed planet; desperate scientists. bit is outdated or what is gained from keeping the planet around. I mean, what, is he going to go back in a sequel and fight in the Kryptonian trenches? Wear a yellow sun suit so he has powers? What exactly is gained here?

Like I said earlier you don't need Krypton to literally blow up, it can just be scoured by a Nuclear War or something like that.

# ¿ May 3, 2013 03:59

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

mind the walrus posted:

Hrm, I apologize. There seems to be confusion going around with what exactly this proposed change means. I interpreted it as Krypton the civilization lives and in my stupidity referred to what I meant as the planet. What you say computer parts is definitely not out of the realm of possibility, although I strongly doubt that's what the spoiler meant to convey.

Well, even if the spoiler is true in the way you mean, it can still work. Like, take this complaint from the article:

quote:

By leaving Krypton intact, Superman loses the primary source of his pathos (actually, maybe the only source, as he�s generally a pretty upbeat character by his nature). Superman is an immigrant, one whose past and people are lost to him by a terrible tragedy. It�s a powerful backstory that loses much of its impact when he could theoretically go back home any time he wants to.

Superman can still be an immigrant, but in this case he can be a refugee from a people who are literally trying to murder him, a person seeking asylum on our world who wants to make up for it with good deeds. That would be culturally relevant with many of the recent immigrants to the US (eg, Bosnians, Rwandans, etc).

# ¿ May 3, 2013 04:11

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

treeboy posted:

I've lived (primarily) in upstate New York, DC, Georgia, and Austin. I've seen ad spots like that in front of trailers at theaters in all four areas, DC especially. I'm actually really surprised it's apparently so uncommon? I thought most places sold space for ads like those. I think that might be the first time I've seen the movie character actually *in* the ad (maybe Iron Man 1 or 2 as well?) usually it's just like a TV ad, but i've seen plenty of National Guard/US Army/Marines/Air Force ads in theaters.

I've never seen that and I'm in Texas, although I don't show up that early to theaters (usually the ads they play before the trailers are film/soda/phone stuff though).

# ¿ May 10, 2013 01:44

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

spikenigma posted:

See, I'll never get this reading. Superman isn't any more a god than Doomsday, Zod, Lobo, Mongul, the Hulk or anybody with massive superpowers.

Having greater powers than a group of people does not elevate one to godhood. The Federation are not suddenly gods when they encounter stone age cultures.

Thematically though he is (a) God because he's a being not from this world, who grew up around the common people, and when his powers developed he used them for the betterment of mankind. That's basically pre-crucifixion Jesus to a T.

# ¿ May 14, 2013 16:11

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

spikenigma posted:

He is not presented in any of the movies as being intrinsically 'above' anybody else. He has troubles, wants, needs and foibles

So did Jesus if you actually read the Bible.

# ¿ May 14, 2013 16:17

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

MrMo posted:

Dredd was 90 minutes and that's probably the best comic book movie of the past five years, maybe the best ever.

On the flip side, so was Green Lantern.

being under 2 hours I mean.

# ¿ May 20, 2013 17:12

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Rasczak posted:

They're not nationwide, there's hardly any on the west half of the country.

Not that it matters, that's like being the prettiest pug at a dog show.

They're owned by the same people (and have the same logo) as Carl's Jr.

# ¿ May 28, 2013 20:45

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Crackbone posted:

Not that the film looks bad but this always happens after sneak previews, even for turds.

Well, except After Earth.

# ¿ May 30, 2013 16:29

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

omg chael crash posted:

Someone with archives should pull some pre opening excitement and post opening opinions on Returns, I feel like it would be worth a laugh or two.

JCaesar posted:

Frame for frame, this is one of the most perfect movies I have ever seen. Frame. For loving. Frame.

As the lights came up, and the credits rolled, I sat in awe for two to three minutes. When I could finally speak, I turned to my friend Joe and said, "That was so great, it forgave Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace. I feel justified in looking forward to movies again."

To put it another way, a week ago, there were three movies I loved and adored beyond all others. Three movies I could take with me to the metaphorical "desert island." Three movies I could literally watch every day for the rest of my life and of which I would never tire, not even long after I had every line of dialogue memorized, long after I knew exactly what was coming next, long after I had lost the shining light of not knowing what to expect. Those movies were, in alphabetical order, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

There are now four. This is the fourth. Try to force me to choose a favorite amongst them, and I cut choo, mang.

Where to begin? This movie could not have been more perfect, again. To begin with, its "homages" to Richard Donner's 1978 classic are not just "homages." They are carefully orchestrated to prove definitively this is a sequel to the original. And brother, is it ever a sequel. No point of continuity has been forgotten. Nothing is missed. Lois Lane is a brilliant writer, but a horrible speller. (I've known people like that in real life, so I bought it.) Superman is almost all-powerful, but when dealing with daily criminals, he gets just the right amount of paternal disappointment on his face - just as Christopher Reeve did.

How many other filmmakers have made a sequel, 30 years later - hell, 20 years later? - to a classic, beloved film, and surpassed the original? Answer: None. Not Coppola, not Lucas, not anybody. Singer did it.

All of the cast who play characters established in Donner's film have clearly done their homework. I don't know how many times they watched the original film, studied it shot for shot, practiced repeating the lines in the mirror, but it worked. Hell, there were even times my breath was literally taken away by what I saw on screen. At one point, Joe whispered next to me, "Jesus, he looks like Christopher Reeve." Within two minutes, Brandon Routh grinned as Clark Kent, and I jumped and said, "Christ!"

And yet, at the same time, each cast member made the role his or her own. It should probably go without saying that the master of this is Kevin Spacey. He clearly watched Gene Hackman's performance, and he picked up on not just the grand operaticism (which any actor would have noticed), but the quiet moments. There is a moment when Parker Posey's Kitty (not the same character as Miss Tessmacher, but clearly a replacement for Luthor) asks Luthor if millions will die under his plan. Luthor lights his cigar and mutters simply, "Yeah." In that moment, it is plain to see that Spacey has in mind Hackman's glance at his watch and slow shake of the head, an answer to Valerie Perinne's line, "Lex, my mother lives in Hackensack."

These are not reworkings of the old characters. They are the same people, aged five to seven years. In fact, the only seeming "continuity error" comes when Clark Kent is shown drinking a Budweiser with Jimmy Olsen, when the 1978 Superman claimed never to drink (or rather, "I never drink when I'm flying," which presumably could happen at any time for any reason). Yet, as Clark drinks the beer, he says to Jimmy, "Things change. People change. I've changed." Even when he violates, in absolutely the most minor of ways, "continuity," Singer acknowledges and explains it, as elegantly, and simply as it has ever been explained anywhere. "People change." Hey, fair enough.

But the film is not just fan wank. It is a brilliant work of art. The best example I can give is the first sequence in which we see Superman in costume. Early in the film, Lois is covering a story. C'mon, we're not retarded, we know where this sequence is headed. Singer knows we're not retarded. He knows we know. But he's not delivering the goods just yet. He plays with us, makes us wait for it. To the extent that the film is homoerotic (it isn't, and anybody who says otherwise is reading way too much into this), the closest he comes is if you accept that the next five to ten minutes are his foreplay with the audience. And, oh, my God, he is good at foreplay. He teases us for a good ten minutes, while he sets up his story, and every single second is wonderful and perfect.

Then something goes wrong where Lois is. And then it gets worse. And then it gets worse. And then it gets worse. Until the audience is saying, "Oh, God, quit playing with me and gently caress me!"

And so the news comes out that Lois is in trouble. Jimmy turns to the TV screen and says something along the lines of, "Hey, that's too bad, huh, Mr. Kent? Mr. Kent?"

Cut to Clark Kent running down the street. We know what's going to happen. We know what has to happen. But he makes us wait just a few seconds longer, as we shout, "Do it. Do it! DO IT! Oh, God, Mr. Singer, gently caress me like an animal!" And then that shirt rips open, and oooooh, yessssss....

Cut back to Lois, where things get worse. And worse. And then here it comes, that bolt of blue in the sky. And I found myself jumping up and down in my chair and shouting, "Yeah!" Nobody told me to shush.

The following sequence is so loving perfect as to be unreal. The borrowed John Williams music. The shots of Superman being super as he lifts a large object and throws it into space. The shots of him trying to stop impending disaster in a physically plausible way. Hell, even the physics of the sequence are right. And, as an audience member, you find yourself yelling in your head, "Oh, yes, right there. RIGHT loving THERE! OH GOD, OH GOD, RIGHTFUCKINGTHEREOHGOD!"

Then it ends. And where it ends is the most perfect place on all of planet Earth for it to end. And as Superman finishes off that rescue, capturing even the most minute detail of the physics right, and landing a large object safely, you find yourself saying, "Uh... uh... oh... *sigh* yeah."

But Singer isn't done. Superman then walks up to the survivors (including Lois) and says what is, given the circumstances and the fact that this is a sequel to Superman, the single most perfect and correct line in all the Universe for him to say.

At which point, I turned to Joe and whispered, "Oh, my God, he even cuddles afterwards."

But Superman Returns is more than a collection of perfect set pieces such as this, more than a sequel to the original. Singer gets it. Like Sam Raimi did with Spider-Man, like Christopher Nolan did with Batman, like Singer himself did with the X-Men, he gets why we tell stories about Superman or, for that matter, Jesus Christ or Buddha or Mohammed or Gilgamesh. We don't tell these stories merely as entertainment. We tell them because they resonate with us. When Superman commits an essentially suicidal act to save others, he does not do so because he wants people to say, "Wow, he's a great guy." He does so because it is what we should all hope we would do under the circumstances, if only we could. He represents, not what we are, but what we should all wish to be. Singer delivers on what Donner promised in 1978. Special effects can make us pretend a man can fly. Singer says, "You will believe a man can fly."

And yet, as Singer reminds us, Superman is still more than that. He is not just our desire, he is really and truly the best instincts in our nature devoid of the worst. "Love thy neighbor more than you love thyself." "As a man, I'm flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting." "With great power comes great responsibility."

"You say the world doesn't need a savior, but every day, I hear people crying out for one."

There are those who are annoyed or left cold by the big twist in the story. Yet that big twist fits in perfectly well with the primary theme Richard Donner set up in Superman, and which, had he been allowed to film his version of Superman II, would have been driven home with a sledgehammer. It is a theme made crystal clear by Donner's and Singer's choice of casting, and by those actors who appear (in one case, briefly) in both movies. I had a theory as to how people could not get that point, and Joe had his. As the theme cannot be explained without giving away the twist, I'm spoilering it.

My own theory was, initially, that people did not get the point of Superman's relationship with his own son mirroring Jor-El's relationship with his son because they did not have as great a relationship with their father as I had with mine. To become intensely personal, my father - with all respect to my mother - is the single most important person in my life, and not a day goes by that I don't miss him, now that he is gone. Joe's theory - him being a new father - was that anyone who does not become a crying wreck (as both he and I became) as Superman speaks to his sleeping son in the final scene has never watched his own child sleep. We're both right, in our way. I had the relationship with my father. Joe did not. I have never watched my child sleep. On the other hand, I have (again, very personally), over the last two years, bonded with a little girl for whom I would gladly lay down my life. She - the seven-year-old daughter of a close friend - is not my genetic offspring, but every time I see her, every conversation I have with her, I wish nothing more than to see her grow and become a woman. My firmest hope in life is that she always carries with her some part of me, and that she always knows that, no matter how hard things get for her, I will always be there for her, even if I can't be there in person. I have said to her, time and again, "Never say you're sorry for being yourself," and it kills me that her little heart is so big that she often apologizes to people when she has no reason to. I can say no to her, but I can never refuse her when I see it is important to her for a good reason. I have given her everything I had and more. When she said to me one day, "I wish you were my father," I said, without hesitation, and realizing what a profound statement it was for bachelor, imperfect me, "I do, too." There are facts about the world that it breaks my heart to know she will someday learn. There are facts and experiences I can't wait to have her find out, and have, in fact, offered to help with: I want to take her to her first baseball game. I want to talk with her after her first kiss. I want to show her Superman and Superman Returns for the first time. I would... and I do not say this lightly... gladly lay down my life for hers, if it were necessary. I have, as Joe would say is necessary, watched her sleep, not in the creepy stalker sense, but in the sense of awe and wonder at this amazing human being I have helped - in my limited sense - shape. I think, in the end, both Joe and I are right. One or the other is necessary to appreciate this scene. That Singer delivers it so perfectly is either a testament to his relationship with his father or nothing short of a miracle.

These are the feelings Singer has called up with Superman Returns. The film is a masterpiece, a breathtaking work of genius, a miracle. It is what all movies should be, and yet what few movies can ever be, and in so being, what makes movies such as this as special and singular as they are.

Can I say 6/5? 7/5? 100/5? I would. Goddamn, it's just that good.

5.5/5.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 21:45

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Bonaventure posted:

No, "I'm better at movies than those plebs" is the most ridiculous argument ever. Suspension of disbelief is a thing in being the audience. Engagement with the narrative is a thing in being the audience. You want to live in a platonic world of ideal thematic bullshit that does not exist. The audience exists. Your utter disdain and contempt for the way that film is experienced in the real world is offensive.

Plebs are fine with suspending disbelief, it's the autistics who have issues.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2013 21:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

I said come in! posted:

Warner Brothers seems to think Superman does not have mainstream appeal. Based on interviews with Zack Snyder, and others involved in the creation of Man of Steel, one of the primary goals of the movie was to make it for a modern day audience, because that didn't exist.

He has mainstream appeal in the same way that Captain America did, ie he's a recognizable symbol that people get the general gist about but they have no idea of his actual thematic journeys.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2013 21:48

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

DFu4ever posted:

Yeah, the little Harry Potter jingle is pretty iconic at this point. I can't think of anything else in recent history that really comes close to it, though.

Lord of the Rings had a few (The Shire, the Ring theme) and Inception sort of made "Non, je ne regrette rien" recognizable but that's about it for new-ish franchises.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2013 17:20

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Wendell posted:

So then what new technological gimmick is influencing the Superman reviews?

The director's name most likely.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2013 16:37

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

4000 Dollar Suit posted:

It was pretty cool how they had Felix Gaeta from BSG, who played Emil Hamilton in Smallville, but didn't cast him playing Emil.

This is from a few pages back but I noticed during the "Lois finds Clark" montage they also had Tahmoh Penikett being interviewed. I'm also pretty sure they had the guy who played Boyd Langton from Dollhouse as the military commander (who Penikett was also in).

# ¿ Jun 16, 2013 13:15

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

awesomepanda posted:

A few of the things that made me go wtf
1. Superman basically committed genocide when he destroyed the scout ship with its hundreds of baby fetuses.

I'm going to address this specifically because based on what Zod said you could come to this conclusion. The ship was empty, the reason Zod said "if you destroy this ship, you destroy Krypton" was that that was the only genesis machine in existence, so destroying it is destroying the (old) Krypton without actually killing anyone.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2013 15:43

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

AccountSupervisor posted:

Thats not how screenwriting works, sorry. Even if it was, I could see some bitchey critics adding that to their list of "omg exposition this script is garbage"

See: "what's terraforming?"

# ¿ Jun 16, 2013 20:59

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Davros1 posted:

Why was Zod's chief scientist German?

I imagine being :godwin:

was pretty close to military perfection.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2013 22:48

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

tanglewood1420 posted:

It was poor writing. Yes you need to explain what terraforming is, but it was handled very clumsily. The scientist should have offered up the explanation of what terraforming is unprompted to the General, who should have been the one asking the questions.

And then people would've said "Well why was the scientist guy just saying stuff without anyone asking :goonsay:

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 03:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

tanglewood1420 posted:

Not really, because then it would have been better written and more integrated into the film and no-one would've picked up on it?

It's a small thing sure, but it was irritating to me and a couple of my friends who watched it too. I generally enjoyed the film, though it's definitely flawed and I have a problem with the last act, but that scene was surprisingly poorly written (as was the tornado scene) and stood out to me. I find it more forgivable if a writer/director doesn't quite nail a script structurally because writing a conceptually flawless script front to back is basically impossible, but when a big Hollywood hundred million dollar production screws up basic stuff which is Screenwriting 101 I get quite irritated!

People would have picked up on it because spergs are picking up on the scene as is. The problem is "I know what terraforming is, why is the movie explaining it to me", not the execution of the scene.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 03:36

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

WarLocke posted:

Nolan's Batman wasn't Bruce Wayne either. Bruce Wayne was the mask, the bat was the character.

Yeah, but the guy playing Batman was born as Bruce Wayne and his parents got shot outside of a movie theater. That story most people understand, not "oh well I grew up in an orphanage and then became a cop and then met a billionaire who gave me his bat suit".

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 04:06

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Thwomp posted:

A big part of Christianity is the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God and, in the Bible, God created the Earth and favored Man over all other beings by gifting him free will and other stuff. (I feel really insensitive writing that but whatever)

So to see the existence of another race of intelligent beings (let alone even more advanced beings) directly flies in the face of several tenants of Christian belief.

That doesn't follow anymore than "The Earth must be the center of the Universe because God thinks Man is the most important".

Even if that was true, historically God's chosen people have been an inferior kingdom and even a servant populace (Jews in Babylon, Hebrews in Egypt) so it makes perfect sense theologically for humans to not be inherently superior to an alien race.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 19:28

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

WampaLord posted:

You are a cool poster, but god drat if that isn't the most wrong thing I've seen in quite some time.

Have you seen the loving Special Editions?

The problem isn't "too much CGI" but "incorrect usage of CGI". There are media far superior to the Prequels (Star Wars media even! See: Clone Wars) that are entirely CGI.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 01:04

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

WampaLord posted:

Talk about splitting hairs. Do you think I hated Toy Story for too much CGI? By "too much" I meant "extraneous" or "unnecessary."

Again, that implies larger than the required amount of CGI. It's only unnecessary because of the poor execution. Plenty of CGI'd scenes (eg, Cloud City) were received with neutral or even positive praise.

Yes, having a CGI alien do a dumb dance is stupid but it would've been just as stupid or worse if a muppet or a guy in a suit had done it.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 01:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

qntm posted:

I skimmed back four pages to see if this was already covered, but didn't see anything.

This was PRISM: The Movie, right? Superman has unlimited surveillance powers, but "Just trust me, I'll always do the right thing! On my terms. And stop trying to keep tabs on me in turn. I don't like that.

"And now I'm in your workplace, looking over your shoulder."

Except the scene when he takes down a Predator drone?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 19:23

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

literallyincredible posted:

Saw it again. Really liked it the second time as well, though I'm more convinced than ever that the film could have been twenty minutes shorter and wouldn't have suffered at all for it. Like, did they really need two separate world machines on opposite sides of the world--dramatically, what did that add, apart from padding the climax even more? Did we need that long scene with perry White and Jenny or whatever her name was? Nobody gives a poo poo about Jenny. But then, I sort of feel that way with everything Nolan touches. There's a lot of great poo poo, but sometimes he could use an editor.

The entire movie is about Superman inspiring the common people to do good (as in, Jor-El literally says that to Clark in the ship). That was the point of both of those sequences.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 21:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Toady posted:

Source claims Mark Strong is wanted for Lex Luthor in Man of Steel 2.

Sinestro was the best part of Green Lantern ( or one of the best).

# ¿ Jun 23, 2013 20:10

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Kal-L posted:

I just realized that the whole final act could've been prevented if Zod decided to Terraform (Kryptonform?) Mars, instead of Earth: it's unhabited, and while it's not in the same condition as Earth, I think it would only taken slightly longer with the advanced Krypton tech at his disposal

It still probably wouldn't be in the Earth's best interest to have a belligerent empire immediately nearby.

Plus Zod still needed the Codex.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2013 23:14

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

JediTalentAgent posted:

I can't remember, but while I know Zod wasn't really the negotiating sort, did Superman actually even try to present him with a viable idea of, "You've got a spaceship, a crew, a genesis chamber, a codex, and a terraforming machine: WHY can't you find another planet and spare these people!?"

I mean, Zod's still an rear end and they could have worked out a reason why they COULDN'T (Phantom Drive is dying, no other suitable worlds, running out of time, etc.) Hell, have him even volunteer to go and help if it means saving Earth and its people.

Because he didn't have a Codex, for one.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 13:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 25, 2024 18:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Man of Steel is basically a remake of Disney's Hercules down to the protagonist seeing an animated version of his otherworldly father in a place special to his race, the evil guy doing what he does because "it's in his nature", and the triumph of the evil guy having the protagonist's father being destroyed while he uses the new seat of power to conquer the world.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 18:46

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Man of Steel - Will you believe a man can fly again?

«‹›3 »