I literally did the same exact thing that you did to me.slimshady247 wrote:There's a hell of a lot more to MOS than there is to IM3. I'm not sure how you can argue the opposite even from a subjective perspective.
And yes, your deliberate trolling is very clever/funny/cute.
Man of Steel (2013)
I noticed.
Yawn.
Yawn.
Who cares what anyone thinks about IM3 why does it offend you so much when someone trashes it or anything Marvel related? Your opinion is the only thing that should matter to you.RyanRises wrote:Nothing wrong with this at all.DKnight007 wrote:So glad MOS is one of those films that most fans and definitely most of the general movie going public LOVED despite the weird hypocritical non sense reviews it has received from elitist, arrogant attention whore critics. Whose credibility has been proven to be questionable when it comes to MOS compared to other comic genre films that were waaaaaaay worse than MOS but received positive reviews?
Hmmmm.......interesting.
Please elaborate.slimshady247 wrote:There's a hell of a lot more to MOS than there is to IM3.
I love how Nolan's movies start. You know shit is about to go down when his movies start.willyjoel wrote:I don't know if this is a direct influence from Nolan, but asides from the tone and the non-linear structure, did you notice how the movie was planned out? similar to Nolan's Batman films, with the WB, Legendary, DC Comics and Syncopy logos, followed straight by the movie itself, with no introduction, just straight to the meat of it, with Zimmer's score in the background, no title cards, no initial credits, nothing, ending with a scene/conversation between the film's main protagonists or allies (Batman/Gordon - Clark/Lois) with Zimmer's score building up, going to black with Zimmer's full main theme in main force and the film's title in white (off-white) capital lettering (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel) followed by individual credits for "Directed by Christopher Nolan - Directed by Zack Snyder" and the producers and main technical and artistic players, followed immediately by the cast in individual credits ending with the introduction of the most senior celebrity ("and Morgan Freeman" - "and Russell Crowe") It is really interesting. Did you guys noticed that?
Why I prefer MoS to Iron Man 3:
1. The tone is more serious.
2. The musical score is far better.
3. The action scenes are some of the best I've ever seen.
4. Overall, I'd say the ensemble cast outperforms IM3.
5. The main villain isn't a sham.
6. The film doesn't have wounded amputee war veterans who willingly sell their souls to commit terrorist attacks upon innocent people in order to get their limbs back.
Why I prefer Iron Man to MoS:
1. The second best origin story told in a comic book film.
2. The direction and editing of story progression is much better.
3. The script is better.
4. RDJ was amazing.
1. The tone is more serious.
2. The musical score is far better.
3. The action scenes are some of the best I've ever seen.
4. Overall, I'd say the ensemble cast outperforms IM3.
5. The main villain isn't a sham.
6. The film doesn't have wounded amputee war veterans who willingly sell their souls to commit terrorist attacks upon innocent people in order to get their limbs back.
Why I prefer Iron Man to MoS:
1. The second best origin story told in a comic book film.
2. The direction and editing of story progression is much better.
3. The script is better.
4. RDJ was amazing.
Doesnt RT have Superman Returns and IM2 and IM3 better films than MOS??
Sooooo....MOS is in Green Lantern territory now....according to the all mighty RT right?
Yeah, the elitist critics know everything don't they...and they are not hypocrites either? Lol
Sooooo....MOS is in Green Lantern territory now....according to the all mighty RT right?
Yeah, the elitist critics know everything don't they...and they are not hypocrites either? Lol
So glad MOS is one of those films that most fans and definitely most of the general movie going public LOVED despite the weird hypocritical non sense reviews it has received from elitist, arrogant attention whore critics. Whose credibility has been proven to be questionable when it comes to MOS compared to other comic genre films that were waaaaaaay worse than MOS but received positive reviews?
Hmmmm.......interesting.
[/quote]
Agree 1000000000%
[/quote]
Yeah, smells like an agenda to me.
MOS Cinemascore A- amongst the general movie going public.
Critics think they're OPINION is better than everyone.
Elitist arrogant douche bags.....but wait....MOS was bad because it was a bit too dark, and it didn't have enough comedy and wasn't exactly like Donners old azz dated version. Lol
What a joke.
Hmmmm.......interesting.
[/quote]Agree 1000000000%
[/quote]Yeah, smells like an agenda to me.
MOS Cinemascore A- amongst the general movie going public.
Critics think they're OPINION is better than everyone.
Elitist arrogant douche bags.....but wait....MOS was bad because it was a bit too dark, and it didn't have enough comedy and wasn't exactly like Donners old azz dated version. Lol
What a joke.
MagnarTheGreat wrote:There's lots of emotion in this film. I even got choked up a bit in more than a few places. Certain scenes connected with me in ways that I wished TDKR would have, but didn't.
On first blush viewing I give it an 8.
Agreed. MOS was an 8/10 for me. I got choked up a bit also in scenes involving the Kents mainly.
TDKR had it's moments with Alfred mainly.
To be fair. MOS is an origin story and TDKR is not.
There's a hell of a lot more of mindless destruction in MoS, I agree.slimshady247 wrote:There's a hell of a lot more to MOS than there is to IM3.
And those who say MoS has much more substance than Three should try to relearn the definition of substance. And I'm not saying the other has much either.
