|
penismightier posted:Is this a thing now? Just adding weird... panels... to costumes? It's a Jim Lee thing, yeah. It's part of what makes him a bad artist.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Farbtoner posted:That happened in the original Donner movie, and I really liked it: Superman may be the most powerful being on the planet, but even he can't stop his adoptive father of keeling over from a heart attack. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Jim Lee sucked as in the 90s, but his art has improved considerably since then. He's one of DC's best artists. Besides, these lines on the costumes can easily be removed without compromising the overall design, so I suspect this will happen soon. He defines boring "superhero pose" art for me. There's nothing he's actually good at but drawing some dudes standing around modeling their costumes. Cinnamon Bastard posted:The idea that Superman, everyday, all day, is unconsciously listening to the heartbeats of his loved ones, no matter where he is, is actually pretty great. I mean, if some one had super-hearing all their life, it would be gut-instinct natural to always listen to your loved ones heartbeats, like a security blanket. The last panel is the best part, he's a dorky teenager from Kansas!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:If you can tell an interesting story about Jeff Lebowski, you can probably come up with one about Superman. Stop excusing lovely writers. Should be stickied on every page.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Whose hair catches fire because he's flying so fast... And? P-Mack posted:Dear God, I just read that wikipedia summary of Nemesis and there is nowhere near a big enough My favorite thing about Nemesis was that Millar tried to claim in interviews that it was an 100% original idea don't steal when even down to the white costume it's a straight rip of Diabolik or Fantomas. I still don't know what point he was trying to make with that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2012 04:41
|
|
that adult human beings conceived, wrote, edited, published, and bought that. Thanks for convincing me to continue not reading comics, I guess.
|
Once again, handled better in JLA Classified where Superman tells a bunch of Authority-alikes something like "Your no-nonsense solutions don't work in a world with jetpack gorillas." One and done.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:How anti-heroic were the Authority anyway, aside from their willingness to kill? They were regular superheroes in the Ellis/Millar mold where everyone's an rear end in a top hat for no real reason. It has to be noted that The Authority came out before The Ultimates changed everything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Having just rewatched Superman Returns on Christmas Day I think the single biggest problem with the film was Kate Bosworth. She was horrible as Lois, not even a single redeeming scene. Yeah, she's terribly miscast.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
raditts posted:Being in movies doesn't guarantee you're not terrible with your money, in fact the exact opposite is probably more likely. Also makes you more likely to surround yourself with people who can't or won't tell you 'no'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
I was hoping they'd go for this look for Michael Shannon:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Looks more like Lois Lane then the last tiem she was in a Superman property The hell is going on here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Awesome is my bet. That screenshot actually makes the effect look kind of cool, you have to see it in motion to appreciate how bad it looks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:I'm hoping you're joking, but just in case you aren't, A) that ain't superman, B) it looks vastly worse in motion. Yeah, I remember it looking bad but ay yi yi.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
How come Crowe and Cavill get to have fabulous hair and Shannon has to look like Corky Thatcher?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I think it looks pretty terrible, too. I don't know what's off about it, but it looks like he's halfway through some horrible CGI transition there, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd choose that as the image to release. Looks like something out of Men in Black 2.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
ARG, eh? How charmingly Noughties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
At least John Landis can now claim the worst thing he did in his life is give us Max Landis.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
The best Mark Henry is in the WWE, I think you mean John Henry Irons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Um, excuse me I believe it's Elliot S! Maggin.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Watching this movie was like watching that deleted scene that translates what the Engineer is saying to David. What a bizarre, alienating, breathtaking movie shat all over by a dopey and redundant script. I hope the sequel picks up where The Dark Knight trilogy didn't have the nuts to pursue and just go ahead and make Lex Luthor the protagonist unambiguously.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
IBentMyWookie posted:The line is crass and tone deaf. I have no issues with him destroying the no babies on board ship to save Earth. It was just a poor comeback to Zod basically begging him for mercy. If it is, indeed the entire movie is - we are pretty much just told Clark is busy saving people but that's not really worth showing. What is worth showing is Clark reveling in his power and waiting for the perfect moment to unleash his constipated teenage rage in a DBZ-cum-Dark Knightish action scenes (though, let me not down Snyder, his ability to stage and shoot action is leagues beyond whatever we've seen so far in these movies, the only thing that is as apocalyptic and exhilarating is the extended desert scene in Ang Lee's Hulk). The whole thing is about this semi-autistic boy who's just searching for a release of the monstrous power inside of him (unsurprisingly co-authored by Goyer and Nolan). Very oddly, the movie keeps insisting that saving people is this kind of sideline to strenuously repressing yourself, that Clark's horror movie outburst is the intended climax rather than any constructive or reconstructive action. Instead of motivating himself to be a force for good, the only thing he learns is to brood until triggered by some trauma (the same exact thing that happens to the tragic, misguided, tantrum-throwing Batman in the Dark Knight movies). He ends the movie brooding just as he started, just smugly this time. Like all other Snyder movies, this is not an accident, the weird, cold, Naziish Kryptonian civilization is viewed with special horror, in a lot of ways this is pretty much Prometheus 2: On Earth, right down to the Engineers sending us a flawed, weird, aloof, inhuman Christ to watch over us.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Despite your wholehearted support for wholesale genocide and the sacrifice of human welfare, you are correct about it being crass. Though effective as a goad to force Zod into a deeper self-destructive despair, it was lacking in artifice or care. Even in the social realm, Kal-El disdains prudent care or restraint, preferring instead to utilize sheer overwhelming brutality. Despite gaudily reading Plato and having Kevin Costner for a dad, we're not sure Kal has any ethics whatsoever outside of "the only way to best a bully is to out-badass him", so you get a "poo poo that didn't happen"-esque scene in which he mentally annihilates the bully for daring to pick on him. Jor-El is actually the one who does all of the negotiating and persuading, Kal has no idea how to engage Zod intellectually. LeJackal posted:This movie perfectly reflects Kal-El. He tries to build a reputation as a savior and protector, but his true goal is always violence and self-aggrandizement. The film is littered with examples where Kal-El chose the most selfish path when confronted with a decision to benefit himself or mankind. He makes no sacrifices and exhibits no heroism. He is is it for himself completely, and humanity only benefits at his convenience. Yep, it even has the same dumbly remarking meatsacks from The Dark Knight Trilogy who are meant to take it for granted that the titular hero is on the side of the angels. "The hero we deserve" and all that. An excellent scene that reflects the disturbing vapidity of Kal/Clark is that he reunites with his mother (presumably after years of not seeing her) and says "Mom, I've got some great news. I've found my real parents!" as if extolling the virtue of GEICO. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Edged Hymn posted:So is your argument seriously "Superman is a dumb jock"? Because wow. The movie portrays him as neither dumb nor a jock. However, it does portray him as ethically hollow. We take for granted that he's doing the best he can, saving people and whatnot, yet the climax is pointedly not a disruption of his Good Works. The climax of the film, where he finally releases his pent-up teenage energy from not hitting bullies, is what he's been waiting for. This is why the apocalyptic violence and the desolation of the final act is criticized - clearly he's not all that concerned with just stopping the fight. "Krypton already had its chance" is a clue, just like the exhilaration of his first flight are. Finally, he gets to show what he's capable of, and it's snapping someone's neck so hard it sounds like an atom bomb is going off. Interesting that a character who can basically do whatever he wants is portrayed in that light.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Clark wants the adoration of his lessers. He does all of these things out of self aggrandizement. He saves Lois because he knows exactly who she is after unloading her from the helicopter. The scout ship is obviously a link back to his original baby liferaft and he knows this is his chance to be revealed. He saves her because he wants to be known. Despite Pa Kent's best attempts to teach him humility, he spits back with vitriol about how they can't actually hurt him and how they are merely human and he is different. Eventually, he finds the scout ship and get confirmation of what he believes, and truly knows that he is something better, the product of a millenia-old of race of geniuses. He clearly sees himself above the humans, as a vengeful god punishing the harassment of a waitress with wildly out-of-proportion destruction. Humans have no place to judge him and he disregards all of their choices. Originally, I was going to make a joke about how saving a waitress from sexual harassment in a Northwestern US bar doesn't make you a hero, it just makes you Steven Seagal, but he was also known for wildly out of proportion responses to mild insults in his movies. Once he finds the scout ship, nearly every line out of his mouth afterward is essentially a veiled threat, even sharing a kiss with Lois he makes sure to point out that he's superior to human beings. More to this, when he saves generic bully Pete Ross, I don't even think the guy gets a single line afterward. He is appropriately awed and silenced by Clark, literally unable to speak a word against him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Now I'm wondering what ulterior motive he had for going back to see if his mother was okay. Totally calculated to make us think he cares, right? At the end of the film, they give us a cheeky little coda where he destroys a surveillance drone. "Alright!" you say. "This is a Superman I can get behind, one who opposes bombing rural weddings in Pakistan! Take that, Obama!" Two seconds later, he's revealed it's because he doesn't want the government to find the Fortress of Solitude. He may well be dismantling drones over Afghanistan because he finds it immoral but they deem it important to show us his pissy, smug attitude over the U.S. government being justifiably paranoid. He comes right out and says that their entente is based on mutual distrust, then the capper is a line about not needing a birth certificate. This is okay because Corporal Cutie thinks he's hot, after all, he's coiffed his hair like Don Draper. There's a lot going on in Man of Steel. Snak posted:Okay but 90% of portrayals of Superman are purely reactive... you can't really call that a fault with this film specifically. Yes, and many of those are bad. If all you can think to do with that character is just have him show up when a truck axle pops or a volcano erupts, that's kind of a failure of imagination.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
I think it was very canny of them to make Krypton so repulsive and alien, wondrous, sure, but you'd never want to live there or have to assimilate to a culture so obsessed with psychosexual imagery, what with being shuttled to prison in a gigantic cock, babies grown like Brussels sprouts, a machine that fucks the Earth until it gives birth to New Krypton and the ghost images of your own father emerging from a metal vagina. Kal did do us a favor by ensuring that the Earth does not become an Yves Tanguy landscape where everything is covered in graphite dust. Rather than a regal, decadent place, Krypton is Riddick-horror stuff, LV-426 or whatever that is utterly inhospitable to us humans. Credit where it's due. LeJackal posted:Very succinct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqHkyD32TeY oh yeah and: Mechafunkzilla posted: If you can tell an interesting story about Jeff Lebowski, you can probably come up with one about Superman. Stop excusing lovely writers. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
I'm getting a "Optimus Prime is a father figure" vibe from some of this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:I think people are trying to muscle in on SMG's sthick. My favorite parts of these arguments are the assumption that nobody could hold a legitimately contrary opinion about a work of fiction. It must be trolling. IBentMyWookie posted:You seem to be saying the same poo poo I am now. Which is he had loving parents and that's why he chooses good. Which is what the movie is poor in expressing as his parents don't offer much in the way of telling him to be good and help people. All they ever seem to say is "you'll change the world". So much of the reading of Superman/Clark as sinister come from exactly this, that we are told he is good because he is good ("I'm from Kansas, general!"). It's an entirely vapid sentiment, especially since much of what we learn about Clark is him reacting to threats - specifically holding back until it is time to hit a bully who can take it. "You'll change the world!" is awfully loaded for someone who is shown to be an essentially unmolded teenager with the ability to do whatever he wants with no consequences whatsoever. Or, to put it in a truncated way, the movie does a suspicious amount of telling versus showing. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
From the many, many horror touches Snyder has put on the film, I'm not convinced he just fumbled what Goyer & Co. were going for. I mean, compare it to Green Lantern, which has a mishmash tone (and an oddly similar look into my eyes as I am tragically and senselessly killed, son! scene) of gigantic heads and thin mustaches, goofy quipping hero and a suspiciously specific evil space cloud. Martin Campbell is a good director but he just tried to put down what was written on the page and it was a mess. Snyder on the other hand, amplifies everything in the script to the point where the script becomes superfluous. He was the highlight, in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Edged Hymn posted:You dumbasses it isn't about not liking the movie, it's about coming in here and trying to tell us Superman is actually some evil God-being who is playing us all because he happens to make mistakes. It's about coming in here and telling us the "I should be careful when I kiss humans" line as a bona fide threat and not as the (admittedly awkward) comic relief it was meant to be. It's almost kind of frightening how badly some of you managed to misread a summer blockbuster of all goddamn things. Explain how that's a misread? Like I understand what I am meant to take from that scene, but in order to get the joke in the first place you have to see that it's a veiled threat. The joke is that he's a guy who could crush coal into diamonds with his bare hands, that he is a god and Lois is mortal. Ha ha, very funny. This is before you even look at the scene, where he is smooching his girlfriend in a miles-wide crater in the middle of a city instead of taking care of business. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Why are you replying to me as if Superman is your dad?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Are you serious? Obviously, the very premise of a god-like being is a veiled threat. How would you feel if "some guy" had godlike powers and your only real consolation was just trusting that he was a good person? That's what I'm talking about, the characterization of Clark is "some guy". Maybe "some guy from Kansas" comforts you but I find the idea terrifying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
What if you're a kid and you know jack poo poo about Superman except for the fact that he wears his underwear outside his clothes?? If we're all familiar with the Superman mythos (which, aside from recognizing the character, is blatantly false) what is the point of remaking the origin story? Even if I accept that proposition, that the movie is preaching to the converted, is this the endgame? Superman saving people and being a paragon of virtue is a mere sideline to a much better story where he beats a guy's rear end like an alpha chimp?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Furthermore, when you put it like that - why do you want a story where the perspective is from brooding teenage-macho Superman? I can think of a couple of movies like that: Chronicle and Rob Zombie's Halloween, except it's worse now because the guy can kill you by looking at you. I find that incredibly alienating.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Edged Hymn posted:Doesn't have to be. Superman can have real pathos without the audience being forced to question his morality. I don't know what that could be, but I'm sure a writer that's passionate enough could think of something. Here's an idea: they could show us instead of telling us. That's my specific reaction to this movie. They insisted that Clark is this good person and showed him rescuing guys on an oil rig like he was cutting the ribbon at a Safeway. The film spends much more time showing us that he's simmering with rage.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Why shouldn't I? What other context is there? Assume that there's someone in the audience who doesn't sleep in Superman PJ's.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
I'm not arguing that he's Hitler, I'm specifically saying that he's a demigod portrayed as a teenage boy (which might be scarier). Starting from "well, he's good" and kind of asking me to take it on good faith that that's the case while also having people give testimonial about his Good Works (when this is a drat movie and they could prove it by showing it) comes off as sneaky and ambiguous, at its mildest. This kind of ambiguity is appropriate for Superman, true, but when they go out of their way not to show you a shaky, earnest, compassionate young man but instead a weird, brooding loner, you have to wonder what they're trying to pull. That guy might be misunderstood but good in the end, but this is fiction. Baldly stating something isn't the same as implying it, or, in other words, telling is not showing. We're not talking about Spiderman, who is just a guy who's strong and agile (and can be overwhelmed easily), or Batman, who is just unusually determined and well trained, we're talking about a guy who is essentially invincible. You don't think that morality shouldn't be glossed over there? HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Edged Hymn posted:Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I do think he's a shaky, earnest, compassionate young man. I never got the sense he was unhinged, and that we should be wary of him because of it. He just seemed like a pretty good dude who struggled to connect with people. Make no mistake, I don't think that because he's a boy who is overwhelmed by external stimuli he is automatically bad. Handled with nuance, it could have been a touching story about an outcast coming to be loved by his fellow humans. However, the movie is building to a climax about finally getting the chance to swat away bullies.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
I don't even have to look it up. When young Pete bullies him before the bus careens off the bridge, good timing, he disengages. He gets to prove himself to Pete, which is good. However, tellingly, we get no sense that they're friends afterward, just that Pete now respects Clark because he saves his life. Respects, not likes. He's a kid, what is he, the Man With No Name? He can't actually have an actual friend? When he crashes through the IHOP later and Pete sees him, it's like they've just seen each other at a gloryhole and are too embarrassed to acknowledge each other. What's up with that? When he does the Steven Seagal thing at the bar where he Turns The Other Cheek at the guy sexually harassing his friend the waitress, the destroying the truck thing doesn't need commentary. What does need commentary is why he leaves shortly after. Was he just bussing dishes because he likes it? If this is a stopover for him on his Kerouac cross-country journey, did he leave because he's afraid he's gonna hurt someone seriously if pushed? We are told of him bouncing from job to job saving lives but at the end of this long journey it seems like it's just to find the buried ship. How are we supposed to take that? Thank goodness he was there? Finally, Zod stands to his feet and lays it on the line for Clark. Purely out of spite, he wants to kill Clark and destroy Earth just for killing the last Kryptonians. Does Clark attempt to reason or offer any kind of solace? No. We don't get any kind of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of people vaporized or disgust at the carnage. Instead what we get is "Krypton had its chance." We get rage. We must've seen a different movie!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Because you don't see that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 02:21
|
|