Say wut? So, doing something different and actually interesting suddenly makes Superman not Superman? Yeah, sorry, this is not Donner territory here, jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus. No need to debate if this will result in such idiotic comments.......
Man of Steel (2013)
You're fun.Jax_Teller wrote:Say wut? So, doing something different and actually interesting suddenly makes Superman not Superman? Yeah, sorry, this is not Donner territory here, jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus. No need to debate if this will result in such idiotic comments.......
Different is good, absolute disconnection is bad. Batman Begins is phenomenal, because it's so different than what we've seen before, yet stays loyal to the core of the character. Man of Steel doesn't do that. His relationship with Lois has no momentum, his voyage to becoming a hero is ridiculously fast-paced, and it differs from the comics as much as it can without becoming something else completely, just for the sake of being "different and actually interesting". FOS is a space ship which he stumbles upon, his condition depends on the atmosphere more than the sun, Lois finds out everything before Clark even joins Daily Planet, not to mention the ending. It's a fun movie, but not a Superman in sight.
Also, please don't act like a child and give some credibility and reason to your words.
Posts: 2048
Joined:
April 2012
Both Foster and Paul will be in their mid 30's by the time shooting starts on a sequel. I was also thinkng older for Lex, but the idea of a younger version, someone on the verge of mega-success who feels stymied by Superman's emergence, kind of intrigues me.
Posts: 88
Joined:
December 2011
Ok, I'm getting tired of people saying he puts on the suit too quickly. We first see him in the suit But even if it took longer I think people would still complain about it.
I've noticed that when people criticize art, they'll often cite technical or other "objective" reasons. But what I've realized is that liking or loving art doesn't have anything to do with technical reasons or so-called objectivity. It all comes down to how it makes you feel. We don't need an objective reason to like something. Or else we're talking about a process, not art. TDK is technically better than TDKR, but the emotional payoff was bigger with TDKR. I enjoyed ST:ID because it was entertaining, not because of the luminosity of the lens flares. We can still enjoy the original Superman movie despite it being technically shit by today's standards. As with this movie, I enjoyed it very much. I didn't spend the whole time thinking about how I would have made it differently. All I know is that the movie, and especially the ending, made me smile.
8.5/10
I've noticed that when people criticize art, they'll often cite technical or other "objective" reasons. But what I've realized is that liking or loving art doesn't have anything to do with technical reasons or so-called objectivity. It all comes down to how it makes you feel. We don't need an objective reason to like something. Or else we're talking about a process, not art. TDK is technically better than TDKR, but the emotional payoff was bigger with TDKR. I enjoyed ST:ID because it was entertaining, not because of the luminosity of the lens flares. We can still enjoy the original Superman movie despite it being technically shit by today's standards. As with this movie, I enjoyed it very much. I didn't spend the whole time thinking about how I would have made it differently. All I know is that the movie, and especially the ending, made me smile.
8.5/10
Shut up.Jax_Teller wrote:Calling this a bad movie? Wow, just, how? In what universe? Damn, really confusing, I'm convinced it's a totally misunderstood movie, but yeah, wouldnt be fun if everyone agreed.
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
Yeah, don't worry mate, he does that...shadoW wrote:You're fun.Jax_Teller wrote:Say wut? So, doing something different and actually interesting suddenly makes Superman not Superman? Yeah, sorry, this is not Donner territory here, jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus. No need to debate if this will result in such idiotic comments.......
Different is good, absolute disconnection is bad. Batman Begins is phenomenal, because it's so different than what we've seen before, yet stays loyal to the core of the character. Man of Steel doesn't do that. His relationship with Lois has no momentum, his voyage to becoming a hero is ridiculously fast-paced, and it differs from the comics as much as it can without becoming something else completely, just for the sake of being "different and actually interesting". FOS is a space ship which he stumbles upon, his condition depends on the atmosphere more than the sun, Lois finds out everything before Clark even joins Daily Planet, not to mention the ending. It's a fun movie, but not a Superman in sight.
Also, please don't act like a child and give some credibility and reason to your words.
Perfect choice as far as I'm concerned.Addicted2Movies wrote:I've put forth my choice:
Corey Stoll from House of Cards would make a great Lex Luthor.
People need to stop using 'Batman Begins' in the same sentence they use 'Man of Steel'. Nolan's Batman Begins is almost close to, almost, and ambitiously made that it reminds us of Scott's Blade Runner.
I only care about the fact that it's the first movie in a franchise about a DC superhero, really don't care how it's made, who made it, etc. It's considered a milestone, so it's perfectly fine to use it in comparison with MoS.Rohan wrote:People need to stop using 'Batman Begins' in the same sentence they use 'Man of Steel'. Nolan's Batman Begins is almost close to, almost, and ambitiously made that it reminds us of Scott's Blade Runner.
Ooooooh Jude Law as Lex. That'd be great.
