|
Jimbot posted:It's not really redefining the character since that's how the character has been portrayed in a lot of the comics over the past couple decades. It's just trying to have a bit more weight than Marvel films, which are all in good fun but are just shallow blockbusters that don't really stick with people. Man of Steel is far from perfect but I appreciated what it did more than what Marvel does with its films.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
I think Man of Steel sucked for having lovely morals unless the comics ARE telling us that Kent's earth father hates people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Tae posted:I think Man of Steel sucked for having lovely morals unless the comics ARE telling us that Kent's earth father hates people. Pretty much this. Lots of stuff to hate on about this movie but honestly it all boils down to this. The actual review was pretty awesome. I love it whenever reviewers try to do that two viewpoints deal, like Paw's last video, it's always more interesting when the review have a back and forth point-counterpoint discussion rather than a straight on run down of a single person's opinion, it opens things up a bit so it doesn't come across as too "unbending statement" if that makes any sense. That and the jokes were actually funny. Every time Batman showed up I either giggled or laughed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Personally, (This is more of a problem with comic book characters in general) it's also that I am sick of characters being taken in a "Gritter" direction just to shake up a character even when it doesn't really fit. I honestly would not mind another There, that's better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:Pretty much this. Lots of stuff to hate on about this movie but honestly it all boils down to this. I thought it was a pretty cool review too, though a lot of Joe's points outside of his reason for liking the Zod neck-snap scene seemed to boil down to: "Your argument is invalid because Superman is AWESOME!  " Which I am actually willing to forgive, just because Joe is such an unapologetic Superman fanboy and he was reflexive enough to acknowledge the actual flaws with the film. The goat scream joke cracked me up. I'd be interested to see who's idea that one was, though I suspect it was actually Doug given how much he loves to insult himself on camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
Tarquinn posted:I honestly would not mind another Tim Burton Batman. N-no...  Please...  Stop...!  YOU DON'T WANT THAT. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Hey now, Frankenweenie was actually surprisingly good and a massive step up from that other dreck. Dude can still direct well, he just has a very specific comfort zone that's at odds with most of the movies he ends up making.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
Tae posted:I think Man of Steel sucked for having lovely morals unless the comics ARE telling us that Kent's earth father hates people. I though Pa Kent was actually the most realistic Pa Kent so far. He's still instilling Clark with all them Truth, Justice, and the American Way values, but he's not quite sure what the right path is. Above everything else he doesn't want his son to be hurt, and he thinks that coming public with the powers will hurt Clark, if not physically then emotionally as he's treated as the world's other. It's too bad they couldn't either find a better way to kill him, or let him live. Rapture by tornado was just too hokey with too many other ways to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Burton really needs someone to just reign him in more than anything. His style isn't inherently bad, it's just when he splashes it over loving everything in a desperate attempt to recapture the magic he had in the 90's. If he had someone to tell him to loving knock it off I bet we wouldn't have gotten Dark Shadows, and hell as previously said, Frankenweenie isn't THAT bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Burton really needs someone to just reign him in more than anything. His style isn't inherently bad, it's just when he splashes it over loving everything in a desperate attempt to recapture the magic he had in the 90's. If he had someone to tell him to loving knock it off I bet we wouldn't have gotten Dark Shadows, and hell as previously said, Frankenweenie isn't THAT bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So he has George Lucas Syndrome? Pretty much. Just compare his Batman movies: Batman: tightly scriptured, well-paced with a darker Batmsn who still feels like the comic book character Batman Returns: incredibly self-indulgent, erratically paced and Batman is a murdering psychopath Button was given carte blanche on the second movie and it shows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Didn't Batman kill a couple people in the first film? As I recall he was actually pretty lax on the no kill rule until Dark Knight, hell in Batman Begins he let's Ra's die .
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Didn't Batman kill a couple people in the first film? As I recall he was actually pretty lax on the no kill rule until Dark Knight, hell in Batman Begins he let's Ra's die . I don't readily recall if he killed anybody in the first film, aside from the Joker (which could be called indirect or accidental), but his anti-gun rule went way out of the window. Batman Returns, on the other hand... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXo3JRDQdws Ghostpilot fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Mokinokaro posted:Pretty much. Just compare his Batman movies: Yes and that's why Batman Returns is unambiguously the best Batman movie. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Although in fairness we should probably call it Michael Cimino Syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I though Pa Kent was actually the most realistic Pa Kent so far. He's still instilling Clark with all them Truth, Justice, and the American Way values, but he's not quite sure what the right path is. Above everything else he doesn't want his son to be hurt, and he thinks that coming public with the powers will hurt Clark, if not physically then emotionally as he's treated as the world's other. It's too bad they couldn't either find a better way to kill him, or let him live. Rapture by tornado was just too hokey with too many other ways to go. Seriously I loved Man of Steel's Pa Kent. The tornado rapture was retarded but as a character he was the best representation of how a good man would react to a son that's a literal alien with god like powers. He taught him to be a good person, but he also taught him that the world was kinda a lovely place and we love to hurt and isolate the 'other' as much as possible, and it doesn't get much more 'other' than Clark. I mean, if we wanna go a bit off the deeper end, considering he's an elderly rural Kansas farmer the dude would realistically remember a time when having the wrong skin color got dudes strung up, I'd think him being a bit reluctant for his son to show off his alien powers would fit that. Ghostpilot posted:I don't readily recall if he killed anybody in the first film, aside from the Joker (which could be called indirect or accidental), but his anti-gun rule went way out of the window. Yea it was Returns where he went murder happy. In the first one he basically accidentally kills the Joker, or at worst he pulls a proto-Bale "I won't kill you but I don't have to rescue you" move. It was rough but that was kinda the point, it showed that Batman had been pushed to about his limit and while he wasn't going to just blast Joker in the face to end it, he didn't really have any problem with the dude accidentally dying or feel any obligation to prevent it. In Return, well yea, he just kinda smirks and blows dudes up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
What if all that violence in Man of Steel was intentional? If you've seen Folding Idea's video on Man of Steel The People vs Clark Kent, he makes the point (albeit smugly) that the ultra-violence in the second half is representative of the US' actions abroad. I'm one to believe that theory because of who wrote the film: David S. Goyer. If you look at his other films, you can see he inserts a deeper political theme in his works. Like how The Dark Knight was a extended metaphor about The War on Terror, or how Rises was also a metaphor on class warfare taking clear inspiration from the French Revolution. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this film, but it's my opinion because it casts a dark reflection of us. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope but instead he's an effigy of wanton and caress destruction. Just like how our military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed the nations and left hundreds dead, Metropolis is destroyed by Superamn; leaving who knows how many innocent bystanders dead in the collateral damage. By the end, everyone has forgotten and moved on from the catastrophe as if nothing happened like how the American public has done so with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by putting the national shame and embarrassment out of sight and out of mind. Granted, a more capable director would've done a better job of conveying the message, but I believe that Goyer's intent was to make an anti-Superman film: a film that would portray Superman like America as a superpower who's more a destroyer than a savior. If it was anyone else but Goyer, I'd call it a bad film but because of his involvement, I'm more inclined to call Man of Steel a deeply subversive film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
I'm also expecting that damage to have repercussions in the next movie. It might even be the setup for Batman vs. Superman. (if the sequel was just Superman, I would've counted on it contributing to Lex Luther's rise to power.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Mokinokaro posted:I'm also expecting that damage to have repercussions in the next movie. It might even be the setup for Batman vs. Superman. With the LexCorp name dropping that occurs in man of Steel, it might be possible that we will see both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
I probably should've put this in my original post, but I wanna clarify that I think David S. Goyer was the wrong person to write the film. It's very clear that what Warner Bros. and DC is trying to do is reverse-engineer The Dark Knight formula onto Superman, which is why Man of Steel was so dark. Zack Snyder was the right director for this film; it just needed a different script. Of course, something tells me that all this is a roundabout way to turn Superman into an antagonist for the upcoming Superman vs. Batman film because how dare Superman be the heroic one between the two. I think Snyder was lying through his teeth: the next film is going to be based on The Dark Knight Returns so of course Superman has to be the bad guy.
Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Mokinokaro posted:I'm also expecting that damage to have repercussions in the next movie. It might even be the setup for Batman vs. Superman. Given what happened, all the contingency plans of the various government, villain, and hero organizations for Superman make a lot more sense. It makes Lex Luthor far more reasonable from the start and provides a reason for Batman to mistrust Superman beyond Batman being a paranoid prick. It also gives Superman room to grow as he can be calmer and more averse to punching the everloving poo poo out of stuff. We've seen what a Kryptonian can do so we don't have to find big objects for him to lift while we also don't want him to fully let loose because we don't want to see the city leveled again. Plus it ties into Pa Kent's fears and reservations about Clark using his powers, because there will be people who hate him for who he is now. Of course it's also possible that they drop all the balls and turn in some silly poo poo for the next movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Given what happened, all the contingency plans of the various government, villain, and hero organizations for Superman make a lot more sense. It makes Lex Luthor far more reasonable from the start and provides a reason for Batman to mistrust Superman beyond Batman being a paranoid prick. It also gives Superman room to grow as he can be calmer and more averse to punching the everloving poo poo out of stuff. We've seen what a Kryptonian can do so we don't have to find big objects for him to lift while we also don't want him to fully let loose because we don't want to see the city leveled again. Plus it ties into Pa Kent's fears and reservations about Clark using his powers, because there will be people who hate him for who he is now. It's going to be two hours of Supes and Batman punching black Xenomorph-knock offs on Planet Red-filtered Mojave Desert and you know it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
That's enough superheros for one day, goons. Todd has a new OHW! http://blip.tv/todds-pop-song-reviews/one-hit-wonderland-you-light-up-my-life-by-debby-boone-6696623
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Violet_Sky posted:That's enough superheros for one day, goons. But Debbie Boone was in Swamp Thing the series. You'll have to do better than that to stop superhero chat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Take the superhero chat to Batman's Shameful Secret, if you please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Lupa and Phelous review a movie called The Time Machine (I Found at a Yardsale [sic]). It's only part one of a longer review, but it encouraged me to watch the whole movie with some friends tonight. It's one part Birdemic, one part After Last Season, one part The Incredible Bulk, a dash of Valor's Kids and a helping of Star Wars. And it's all hilarious. Anyway, the review is great (and features lots of cameos), and the movie is terrible in its greatness. Watch both! My favorite part of the review: the beautiful reference to Soap at the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:What if all that violence in Man of Steel was intentional? If you've seen Folding Idea's video on Man of Steel The People vs Clark Kent, he makes the point (albeit smugly) that the ultra-violence in the second half is representative of the US' actions abroad. I'm one to believe that theory because of who wrote the film: David S. Goyer. If you look at his other films, you can see he inserts a deeper political theme in his works. Like how The Dark Knight was a extended metaphor about The War on Terror, or how Rises was also a metaphor on class warfare taking clear inspiration from the French Revolution. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this film, but it's my opinion because it casts a dark reflection of us. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope but instead he's an effigy of wanton and caress destruction. Just like how our military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed the nations and left hundreds dead, Metropolis is destroyed by Superamn; leaving who knows how many innocent bystanders dead in the collateral damage. By the end, everyone has forgotten and moved on from the catastrophe as if nothing happened like how the American public has done so with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by putting the national shame and embarrassment out of sight and out of mind. Granted, a more capable director would've done a better job of conveying the message, but I believe that Goyer's intent was to make an anti-Superman film: a film that would portray Superman like America as a superpower who's more a destroyer than a savior. If it was anyone else but Goyer, I'd call it a bad film but because of his involvement, I'm more inclined to call Man of Steel a deeply subversive film. If Goyer wanted to make a movie that was commentary on a war mongering America and the War On Terror and all that, why on earth did he think Superman was the ideal medium in which to do that? Superman, more often than not, has been shown as a beacon for humanity. Sometimes the American ideal, sometimes a more broad human ideal. But either way, fairly consistent in his morals, wanting to help everyone, viewing every person big and small as important (which really is driven home by sporting this attitude whilst being a god)....just straight up being a good person even as some hated and feared him. Look at comics that take him out of his usual element. The Dark Knight Returns had a Superman that had lost sight of his ideals and was a rather dickish bully. Batman sacrificing himself for the sake of what's right and being the beacon for humanity and sticking together that Superman used to be woke him up to what he had become (of course ignoring DKR2 where Miller pisses all over that ending). Superman Red Son had him raised in freaking Soviet Russia, and friends with Stalin. In the eyes of the free world, he was the bad guy. But still the character was pure, wanted to save everyone, genuinely tried to do good for the world at large, and ultimately did the right thing when he finally woke up to how Communism clashed with the kind of person he was trying to be. What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way? had Superman's very ideals questioned when a group of young heroes uses violence and murder to stop the bad guys and the people see it as more effective than Superman's methods. Only when he shows the world how terrifying this is by acting that way himself do people realize that terrible violence and aggression is not the way to make the world a better place (if anything, THIS story serves as better commentary on a violent America) Goyer wrote a Superman who was cynical, brooding, and didn't give a real drat about all the death and destruction around him. Even a young and lost Superman wouldn't have reamed that man's truck through a pole, no matter how much of an rear end in a top hat he was. Real Superman would have done all he could to get Zod and his forces away from populated areas to fight them. Hell, the only way they challenged the concept of the character in a way that made sense was forcing Superman to kill someone (even if the execution with that dumb family was really stupid), but even THAT was ruined by having him just fine in the next scene. In Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, Superman is put in a situation where it was either kill someone or watch the planet be destroyed. Doing so hurt him so much, he straight up retired from being Superman. A similar situation presented itself in Kingdom Come, to the same end of Superman quitting rather than live in a world where murder was an acceptable means to an end. And in Man of Steel, after one anguished scream, it's just brushed off. There's plenty of ways to look at Superman differently, to challenge the character and what he's about, as several comics I referenced did just that. This movie, that was not the way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
cubs2084 posted:There's plenty of ways to look at Superman differently, to challenge the character and what he's about, as several comics I referenced did just that. This movie, that was not the way to do it. The impression I get is that MoS was a calculated effort to emulate the formula of the Batman trilogy; if it was about exploring different dimensions of the character then it was coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:What if all that violence in Man of Steel was intentional? If you've seen Folding Idea's video on Man of Steel The People vs Clark Kent, he makes the point (albeit smugly) that the ultra-violence in the second half is representative of the US' actions abroad. I'm one to believe that theory because of who wrote the film: David S. Goyer. If you look at his other films, you can see he inserts a deeper political theme in his works. Like how The Dark Knight was a extended metaphor about The War on Terror, or how Rises was also a metaphor on class warfare taking clear inspiration from the French Revolution. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this film, but it's my opinion because it casts a dark reflection of us. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope but instead he's an effigy of wanton and caress destruction. Just like how our military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed the nations and left hundreds dead, Metropolis is destroyed by Superamn; leaving who knows how many innocent bystanders dead in the collateral damage. By the end, everyone has forgotten and moved on from the catastrophe as if nothing happened like how the American public has done so with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by putting the national shame and embarrassment out of sight and out of mind. Granted, a more capable director would've done a better job of conveying the message, but I believe that Goyer's intent was to make an anti-Superman film: a film that would portray Superman like America as a superpower who's more a destroyer than a savior. If it was anyone else but Goyer, I'd call it a bad film but because of his involvement, I'm more inclined to call Man of Steel a deeply subversive film. Unfortunately I can't watch that video at the moment but I'm very surprised by this interpretation. My (admittedly surface) reading of the Batman trilogy was that the films are anything but subversive. The Dark Knight Rises seemed to be quasi-facist at times. Are there any other reviewers/articles that discuss the trilogy in that light? I'll be watching Folding Idea's video once I get home but I'm interested to see if there's anything more on the subject. OrangeKing posted:Lupa and Phelous review a movie called The Time Machine (I Found at a Yardsale [sic]). It's only part one of a longer review, but it encouraged me to watch the whole movie with some friends tonight. It's one part Birdemic, one part After Last Season, one part The Incredible Bulk, a dash of Valor's Kids and a helping of Star Wars. And it's all hilarious. I just looked this up on IMDB and half the cast list is just 'woman in forest'. This sounds promising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
cubs2084 posted:Goyer wrote a Superman who was cynical, brooding, and didn't give a real drat about all the death and destruction around him. I'd disagree with this. This Superman is brooding in that he's trying to Caine walk his way to what he should do. However I wouldn't say he's cynical at all. Throughout the film he rebelled against Johnathan Kent's directive to lay low and not use his powers, but Kent's death made him uncertain of what the right thing to do was. He didn't feel he could come out in the open with his abilities because his dad died keeping the secret. It was only when papa El showed up and gave him a way out of his dilemma that he decided he could come out, using his Kryptonian heritage as a way to differentiate between Jonathan Kent's son and his abilities. Then he turned himself over to the government after Zod showed up and followed that up by giving talking Zod down a try. After which he partnered up with the military without reservation to hit the terraforming device. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the death and destruction, I think. I can see how people take it as a cavalier god with no care for the mortals. I saw it as Superman making rookie mistakes and failing to think things through as much as he should. After he hears Zod threatening his mom, he lets his anger get the better of him and tackles Zod into town. He then tries to mitigate his mistake by telling people to get to safety. At which point he's jumped by two Kryptonians. The final Zod fight is actually rather short, with Zod being the one to instigate destruction on intact buildings. He's a guy raised on a farm who never got in a fight vs a military squad born and bred to fight. He has to learn strategy and tactics beyond hit thing hard or pick up heavy thing. It was Superman learning the ropes, learning that his power is so vast that he's got to keep a tight rein on it. Still, in the final fight he's against a lunatic who just promised to kill all humans and has the super powers to do it. He should have done a better mitigation job, but it's not fully his fault that he fought Zod right then and there instead of luring him to Antarctica.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
cubs2084 posted:If Goyer wanted to make a movie that was commentary on a war mongering America and the War On Terror and all that, why on earth did he think Superman was the ideal medium in which to do that? .  EDIT: I'm done. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
It's an all-goon episode of Cheapskate Live this week, as Obscurus Lupa joins me to watch an infomercial for the Ninja Kitchen System. http://blip.tv/cheapskate/ninja-kitchen-6698067 This was a lot of fun to record. I think Lupa and I figured out how to play off of each other well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Thanks for having me on; it was fun.  Hope your Thanksgiving is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Because Superman is a symbol of America. Right down to his red and blue costume and his motto, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". Joel Shuster and Jerry Siegel created Superman as an American messiah: a being sent from another world who lands in the middle of Kansas and becomes a savior to mankind. He's quintessentially American so it makes sense to use him as a medium for commentary on American military adventurism. Heck, Grant Morrison had Supes reject his citizienship in Action Comics #900 and that was a clear political statement on American Exceptionalism. That's my reading into the film It can't be denied he's an American creation made in an American mold. He's the quintessential ideal American. He represents all that is good and pure and hopeful. He's the one who wrecks up African warlord armies, and would just as well smack up the US military if they engaged in an unjust invasion (of course ignoring the 40's when he was frequently used in propaganda beating up racist Japanese caricatures and Nazis, because the 40's were a *weird* time for American media). He's the call for peace above violence, the one with the power to destroy but whom would rather not. Just like America *should* be, but isn't always. If you're going to make Superman represent America, he needs to maintain America at its ideal. When you turn him into something else, use him to represent an America that is not the ideal, it just doesn't work. But as you say, agree to disagree. I'm a big fan of taking Superman out of his element, so long as he remains Superman and what that means at the core. I didn't feel the person we saw in Man of Steel is what he was all about. You saw different. As Doug said in his video, both our views are valid because that's how we see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Brad doing his annual Thanksgiving Riff http://thecinemasnob.com/2013/11/27/snob-riffs-a-day-of-thanksgiving.aspx
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
New Best of the Worst, this time focusing on sequels to bad movies they've covered in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Rich Evans' reaction to "Hotdog Cop was mostly going out with British Doctor. And they seemed to be having a WONDERFUL time!" was loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
So... what WAS Hot Dog Cop doing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Doctor Reynolds posted:So... what WAS Hot Dog Cop doing? Having a wonderful time on dates with British Doctor, rigging up an insane hot dog heating system by plugging forks into the wires of a lamp, and apparently getting shot dead. Seriously though, now I will always find dialogue lacking when at least one participant isn't doing some insane Macgyver poo poo for no real reason while talking. Well played, The Exterminator. Well played. Gyges fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Brad Jones is starting up a new showquote:Brad Jones @thecinemasnob 3m This should be fun 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:48
|
|
