Man of Steel (Superman Movie Thread) - June 14, 2013 - NEW Trailer pg20

[|A-Man|]

I'm not specifically referring to just movies. My point was that every Superman incarnation differs pretty much from each other. For example, the Christopher Reeves' version, differs from the comic version. It varies per medium. And also not every Superman version in the comics is the same as well.

The movies are based on the comics except for things they just make up for the movie, doesn't completely make it a different version though. Comics wise, a 70+ year old characters will tend to get different in his main title. Of course alt universe versions will be different not to an insane degree keeping in mind the premise and concept the writer has in mind.

To me there aren't a WHOLE lot of incarnations to begin with. There's alt universes versions and then there's deliberate different versions. So there's silver age Superman that is the same character wise with more powers, golden age Superman that reflected that time but still similar character (and also suffered from some/weird writing), then there's a Superboy Prime, and Red Son Superman.

I think the D.C universe is more realistic, taken into the extreme (most true imo) by Watchmen.

That is how people would view "superheros/vigilantes". 

Watchmen doesn't exist in the main DC universe. None of the other DC superheroes exist in Watchmen.

It'd be more apt to say Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbon's world they created in Watchmen is more realistic (when "taken in to the extreme").

Given how DC came together by buying other publisher's rights and creating a shared universe the intent of being realistic just wasn't there. Add on to the heroes that stuck and became popular it's even farther from that.

The regular old DC universe to me never struck me as realistic or more realistic than Marvel. I can understand you saying that's your opinion but the main point I usually see made about Marvel's rise to prominence is how Lee, Ditko, and Kirby created a more grounded fictional universe by championing flawed characters instead of paramounts and ideal icons.

 

[solidus snake]

Yep, thanks for the correction.

That more "grounded" theme in Marvel's universe doesn't do it for me (just seems... off.)

Once you read Watchmen, you never look at a comic the same. An amazing piece of work.

 

[solidus snake]

BTW, whats your view on

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

Veidt's plan?  Did you agree with it? What's your feelings towards Adrian in general?

Thanks in advance.

 

[donmega]

The movies are based on the comics except for things they just make up for the movie, doesn't completely make it a different version though. Comics wise, a 70+ year old characters will tend to get different in his main title. Of course alt universe versions will be different not to an insane degree keeping in mind the premise and concept the writer has in mind.

To me there aren't a WHOLE lot of incarnations to begin with. There's alt universes versions and then there's deliberate different versions. So there's silver age Superman that is the same character wise with more powers, golden age Superman that reflected that time but still similar character (and also suffered from some/weird writing), then there's a Superboy Prime, and Red Son SupermanWatchmen doesn't exist in the main DC universe. None of the other DC superheroes exist in Watchmen.

It'd be more apt to say Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbon's world they created in Watchmen is more realistic (when "taken in to the extreme").

Given how DC came together by buying other publisher's rights and creating a shared universe the intent of being realistic just wasn't there. Add on to the heroes that stuck and became popular it's even farther from that.

The regular old DC universe to me never struck me as realistic or more realistic than Marvel. I can understand you saying that's your opinion but the main point I usually see made about Marvel's rise to prominence is how Lee, Ditko, and Kirby created a more grounded fictional universe by championing flawed characters instead of paramounts and ideal icons.

Well,, they are still "versions". IMO whether they exist in the main universe or not. Any Superman within the Multiverse is still a version of Superman. Just like every other writer that has written for Superman has a totally different version of what the original creators (Siegel and Shuster) wanted Superman to be.

I do agree on your point regarding Marvel initially being the ones that delved into being more "reality/gritty", with DC following suit with GL/GA and TDKR/Watchmen.

 

[x Buddha Bless x]

The movies are based on the comics except for things they just make up for the movie, doesn't completely make it a different version though. Comics wise, a 70+ year old characters will tend to get different in his main title. Of course alt universe versions will be different not to an insane degree keeping in mind the premise and concept the writer has in mind.

To me there aren't a WHOLE lot of incarnations to begin with. There's alt universes versions and then there's deliberate different versions. So there's silver age Superman that is the same character wise with more powers, golden age Superman that reflected that time but still similar character (and also suffered from some/weird writing), then there's a Superboy Prime, and Red Son SupermanWatchmen doesn't exist in the main DC universe. None of the other DC superheroes exist in Watchmen.

It'd be more apt to say Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbon's world they created in Watchmen is more realistic (when "taken in to the extreme").

Given how DC came together by buying other publisher's rights and creating a shared universe the intent of being realistic just wasn't there. Add on to the heroes that stuck and became popular it's even farther from that.

The regular old DC universe to me never struck me as realistic or more realistic than Marvel. I can understand you saying that's your opinion but the main point I usually see made about Marvel's rise to prominence is how Lee, Ditko, and Kirby created a more grounded fictional universe by championing flawed characters instead of paramounts and ideal icons.

Well,, they are still "versions". IMO whether they exist in the main universe or not. Any Superman within the Multiverse is still a version of Superman. Just like every other writer that has written for Superman has a totally different version of what the original creators (Siegel and Shuster) wanted Superman to be.

I do agree on your point regarding Marvel initially being the ones that delved into being more "reality/gritty", with DC following suit with GL/GA and TDKR/Watchmen.

That's not true though. I mean that's why editors exist. Writers in this medium are most likely inspired by previous writers when they get the job to write an iconic superhero. They'll have ideas for new challenges and new directions but if what's laid out about the core of the character isn't in the end the same as it's always been it's usually not approved to be made in to print.

I will say it's different looking at this a certain way since DC does tend to reboot their entire line allowing for slightly different versions of characters.

 

[donmega]

That's not true though. I mean that's why editors exist. Writers in this medium are most likely inspired by previous writers when they get the job to write an iconic superhero. They'll have ideas for new challenges and new directions but if what's laid out about the core of the character isn't in the end the same as it's always been it's usually not approved to be made in to print.

I will say it's different looking at this a certain way since DC does tend to reboot their entire line allowing for slightly different versions of characters.

Just stated how I saw it fam. You're point was valid too though.

 

[rfx45]

Brand New MAN OF STEEL Easter Egg Spotted

The logo for WGBS News has been spotted. WGBS News is the primary news outlet of the Galaxy Communications conglomerate which is owned by Morgan Edge, who is known for his connections to the villain Darkseid and ownership of The Globe newspaper. Check it out in the image below.

 

[rell826]

I'm sorry but this was terrible. If it weren't for the action it would have been unwatchable. As much credit as you Nolan fanboys love to give him he has to fall on the sword for this disaster helmed by Snyder. Amy Adams was miscast as Lane, the character was a joke itself, the lack of focus the film had. Where do I begin?

 

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

I'm sorry but this was terrible. If it weren't for the action it would have been unwatchable. As much credit as you Nolan fanboys love to give him he has to fall on the sword for this disaster helmed by Snyder. Amy Adams was miscast as Lane, the character was a joke itself, the lack of focus the film had. Where do I begin?

PREACH!!!

 

[rell826]

Zack Snyder's last three films have been duds with Man of Steel being the latest. The frenetic pacing, lack of focus and hard on for CGI made this movie hard to enjoy. That's just typical Snyder for those who aren't familiar with his work. Associating with Nolan meant that this film would be darker, but I didn't think it would be as dark as it was at times. Jonathan Kent did a terrible job at raising Clark. Him suggesting that Clark let those kids die on the bus goes against everything he was taught across other renditions (Superman: TAS, Smallville, the earlier movies). Its why he landed in Kansas; to become as human as possible. Amy Adams' age really showed at times. You could tell that she was at least a decade older than Cavill. Lane overstepped her boundaries and was more scientist/pseudo hero than reporter. The scene with her following Kal into the ship was a ******g joke. People are going to hate Cavill the way they did Routh and as some have defended Routh being a part of a bad script, the same is the same with Cavill. The generation gap was apparent as my mother who loved the first two movies hated it. She said it felt cold, Superman didn't feel human or like the good guy he has been known to become. My thoughts are all over the place at the moment, but I'll focus later. I didn't mind the film's length, but with all of the flaws the movie had, it became a chore to watch. I wouldn't watch this voluntarily again. Don't get me started on Jenny Olsen.
 

 

[girlslovewaffles]

Zack Snyder's last three films have been duds with Man of Steel being the latest. The frenetic pacing, lack of focus and hard on for CGI made this movie hard to enjoy. That's just typical Snyder for those who aren't familiar with his work. Associating with Nolan meant that this film would be darker, but I didn't think it would be as dark as it was at times. Jonathan Kent did a terrible job at raising Clark. Him suggesting that Clark let those kids die on the bus goes against everything he was taught across other renditions (Superman: TAS, Smallville, the earlier movies). Its why he landed in Kansas; to become as human as possible. Amy Adams' age really showed at times. You could tell that she was at least a decade older than Cavill. Lane overstepped her boundaries and was more scientist/pseudo hero than reporter. The scene with her following Kal into the ship was a ******g joke. People are going to hate Cavill the way they did Routh and as some have defended Routh being a part of a bad script, the same is the same with Cavill. The generation gap was apparent as my mother who loved the first two movies hated it. She said it felt cold, Superman didn't feel human or like the good guy he has been known to become. My thoughts are all over the place at the moment, but I'll focus later. I didn't mind the film's length, but with all of the flaws the movie had, it became a chore to watch. I wouldn't watch this voluntarily again. Don't get me started on Jenny Olsen.

 

Two words.

Origin. Movie.

Just think about who you are right now. Were you born like this? Or did it take some time for your personality and habits to develop into what they are?

Jesus people. Perspective.

 

[rell826]

Two words.

Origin. Movie.

Just think about who you are right now. Were you born like this? Or did it take some time for your personality and habits to develop into what they are?

Jesus people. Perspective.

You guys are too defensive. Origin film or not, it wasn't good. Accept it for what it is. Batman Begins was an origin film as well and we saw how much Bruce developed as a character by trilogy's end.

Also on the miscasting of Amy Adams, she will be in her mid to late 40s should she be in the second and third film.

 

[firepower]

You guys are too defensive. Origin film or not, it wasn't good. Accept it for what it is.

One word,

subjective.

 

[blakep267]

Two words.


Origin. Movie.


Just think about who you are right now. Were you born like this? Or did it take some time for your personality and habits to develop into what they are?


Jesus people. Perspective.

You guys are too defensive. Origin film or not, it wasn't good. Accept it for what it is. Batman Begins was an origin film as well and we saw how much Bruce developed as a character by trilogy's end.

Also on the miscasting of Amy Adams, she will be in her mid to late 40s should she be in the second and third film.

this is true. 2.5 hours is plenty enough time to have a character arc where the hero becomes who we recognize. In MoS, while he wears the S, he's not really superman yet when the film ends. I blame that on the screenwriter.

 

[rell826]

One word,

subjective.

Says the guy with the Superman avatar. Being anti-MOS in this thread won't be easy.

2.5 hours is plenty enough time to have a character arc where the hero becomes who we recognize.

 

[rfx45]

Being anti-MOS in this thread won't be easy.

Have you not read the thread?




I get what you are saying but this is a bad example:

Batman Begins was an origin film as well and we saw how much Bruce developed as a character by trilogy's end.

You can only say this once we see a Superman trilogy.

 

[rell826]

I actually don't feel like going through most of this thread. Besides a couple of pages before my initial replies, I'm not digging.

Yes, my feelings are subjective, but when people already have their inherent biases towards the character and the film, its like fighting an uphill battle.

 

[firepower]

Says the guy with the Superman avatar. Being anti-MOS in this thread won't be easy.

Lol, of course you're entitled to your own opinion bro, but how are you gonna compare the level of character development in one film to that of another with three?

If this version of Superman does indeed get to three movies, then I'm pretty sure we'll see as much development of his character as we did with Batman.

 

[rook]

I gotta agree with Rell. This movie just didn't deliver imo.

I don't like how it skipped major parts in Clark Kents life. One seen he's a baby, next scene he's on a sailor boat. The frantic pace was :x

Cavill is a perfect superman though. Amy Adams was a dud. I just didn't get that Lois lane vibe at all. Plus Every time I see her I think of Pam from The Office.

Idk I'll have to watch it again but for a superman movie, my god this was a Zzzzzz feast for the most part. Not ONE seen exlcuding the first time Superman went soaring through the air, was I mind = blown.

Still have high hopes for the sequel as I agree, this was the Origin version and I wasn't a fan of the Orgin movie in Dark Knight like many people were but I grew to love the 2nd and 3rd.

 

[rfx45]

I don't really think it is bias, some just enjoyed the film. I mean there is a reason is it 59% on RT (people are split on the film) but got a CinemaScore of A- (so the general public still liked it for the most part).

In this thread, I think every article on the moviews flaws have been posted, from Superman killing to the lack of Reeves' Kent, from Adams being old to Supermans collateral damage to Metropolis, etc... So that was just to say that hating on this film in thread is pretty much the norm.

There have been discussions of practically all of it but again, people have been split on this film. Some say it is too slow and they got bored, while others are saying it is too fast paced and wish they slowed down a bit. Others felt the action was exhausting while others feel it is just right and it is what is needed for a Superman film. I could go on.

So it's all good, post your opinion and as long as you actually saw the film (yeah some already hated it w/o seeing it) and have a good reason to not liking it, then it is no problem at all. Just don't be surprised if there are some rebuttals, this is NT afterall.

 

[rell826]

I don't really think it is bias, some just enjoyed the film. I mean there is a reason is it 59% on RT (people are split on the film) but got a CinemaScore of A- (so the general public still liked it for the most part).

In this thread, I think every article on the moviews flaws have been posted, from Superman killing to the lack of Reeves' Kent, from Adams being old to Supermans collateral damage to Metropolis, etc... So that was just to say that hating on this film in thread is pretty much the norm.

There have been discussions of practically all of it but again, people have been split on this film. Some say it is too slow and they got bored, while others are saying it is too fast paced and wish they slowed down a bit. Others felt the action was exhausting while others feel it is just right and it is what is needed for a Superman film. I could go on.

So it's all good, post your opinion and as long as you actually saw the film (yeah some already hated it w/o seeing it) and have a good reason to not liking it, then it is no problem at all. Just don't be surprised if there are some rebuttals, this is NT afterall.

Fair.

Regarding the Jenny Olsen character, was there ever a statement as to why they made the gender swap? Jimmy is important in that he is Superman's friend. He looks up to both Clark the reporter and the hero Superman. He fills a role for him and gives him something to aspire to. You don't get that dynamic with Jimmy being a woman. It comes off as a crush and I don't want a love triangle. This is a bigger switch than Perry White being a black man because race doesn't have an effect on how the character is projected and written. Just make a new character entirely.

 

[firepower]

She isn't Jenny Olsen though, her last name is Jurwich and she's Perry's assistant, not a photographer...

Truth is we don't know what role if any she will play in future films or what her relationship to Clark will be like.

 

[rell826]

Well the fan backlash was strong enough for them to change her last name because it was Olsen:

On another subject, Faora was badass. She put in more work than Zod.

 

[donmega]

Never even noticed that. Thought all along she was Olsen. I really do need to see this again.

 

[stuntman mike]

i thought it was a great movie. not as good as dark knight and dark knight rises, but much better than most of the marvel movies.