It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Well I never really had a big interest in superman. Any bit of Superman I got was either Cameos in Batman cartoons. And I really wasn't into superhero/comic book movies until I saw the first Captain America movie with my dad. CA the first avengers and The Avengers. My late father is the reason I got into those movies. We saw Man of Steel together and we were both disappointed by it. He thought it was ripping off the Avengers and I thought the movie as a whole was just bad. From plot convinces to the disaster movie porn climax and really bad editing. Too much style over substance. I then recently saw the 1978 superman film on TV and was instantly swept in. It was a far superior movie. Whatever emotions MOS tried to evoke were null. I felt all kinds of emotions watching Superman the movie. I was really saddened by Pa Kent's death in SM78 as It was very similar to my own father's passing. I get what Snyder was trying to do, but in my opinion he failed and took it far to seriously. You can't make Superman dark, gritty and realistic. He's a character of fantasy, light, hope and goodwill.
The first two Chris Reeve Superman films (and with Superman II, I mean both versions, the Lester and Donner cuts) are the best Superman live-action films you'll ever see. The best Superman animated film is Last Son of Krypton, the first three episode of the 90s Superman: The Animated Series.
Not to mention Christopher Nolan, Joss Whedon, and Stan "The Man" Lee have all praised Donner's Superman as a milestone in the comic book/film field.
*Gritty, self concious (they wouldn't even call him Superman!) reboot? Check.
*Really washed out, grey cinematography that makes the film look ugly? Check.
*A bland, forgettable score? Check.
*A miserable, charismaless main character? Check.
*A shitload of CGI? Definetely check. This was even worse than Transformers when it comes to CGI. There was no real stunts. I know you need CGI for a film like this (people can't fly after all) but some of it just seemed like it really wasn't needed, there was too much).
Couldn't agree more.
Donner rules! :-bd
Well said. It's practically a monument to everything Hollywood is getting wrong with modern-day blockbusters.
I don't understand why every CBM that isn't produced by Marvel has to be so serious and gritty that they're devoid of any sense of fun. To me the Indiana Jones trilogy found the perfect tone for a popcorn flick/blockbuster. There's a sense of danger and edge to them but at the same time they're not afraid to have a sense of humor and be fun.
The only thing I'd change is that logo on the chest
You'd probably be paying a personal visit to Arkham Asylum if you did. Even with how super heroes are becoming mainstream, people would still call you crazy.
Exactly. Completely agree with the Indiana Jones trilogy but I'd say the fourth film got the balance right as well. I know a lot of people hate Crystal Skull but I enjoyed it and one of the reasons I enjoyed it was because it was a fun, escapist adventure (although it still had a sense of danger and a heart), which made a nice change from the usual grey, miserable blockbusters.
That costume is pretty cool!
I'm actually a defender of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull aswell (despite Shia LeBeouf trying his hardest to ruin the movie). But nothing Spielberg and Co did in 2008 was going to eclipse the original Indiana Jones trilogy in my mind. In alot of ways those 3 films along with Jaws were the start of my love of movies. They were some of the first films I ever saw and they're all very close to my heart. I guess I can't say I'm totally unbiased when comparing the Indy trilogy to modern day blockbusters but I'll take them over the likes of Man of Steel or Transformers any day. Every film in the Indy Trilogy has it's share of violent, serious, and emotional moments but never in the course of any entry does a film try to be anything other than a fun popcorn movie. There's something very unpretentious about them and unlike films like The Dark Knight, Man of Steel, or The Dark Knight Rises they all wear their heart on their sleeve.
Quantum Of Solace, by comparison, made about a hundred million less and its imdb score is as of right now 6.7. Yet that didn't stop people from flocking in to see SF and lift it to its record breaking position in no time.
Sometimes a minor detail decides whether a film will bring home gold, or only lead. Which money making celeb did they cast? Which other films are playing at the time of release? How clever have the promotional campaigns, leading up to the film, been?
I really think any project with Batman AND Supes will sell, at the very least when they do it the first time (live action of course). Curiosity, being a fan of one or the other or possibly but not necessarily both, having had a good time watching MOS, ... all of these can lure one in.
I'm a Supes fan. Read a number of comics, watched all the films including the Mole Men one, watched the old animated shorts. I simply adore Donner's first film. But, I also appreciate what they did with MOS. People who went in expecting another Superman: The Movie in 2013 are pretty naive. Of course they were going to go a different route. With Superman Returns, people complained that Supes had been pussyfied. With MOS, I hear people complain it's too violent a film! Make up your minds, folks. Some say they shouldn't have dropped the Williams themes, others complained that Ottman leached too hard on Williams' music. Some people complain MOS had too many fights and goes too big for its third act... Look, we're talking about the man of steel, not the man of straw.
My hypothesis is that many complainers come from a simple disliking of Zack Snyder. But IMO, Snyder is a comic book fan who understands comics. I consider his Watchmen pretty impressive considering that film is a different medium than comic books and yet he managed to make the one look fairly similar to the other. He also turned in a pretty faithful adaptation of 300 and his Dawn Of The Dead remake is one scary and thrilling ride down the horror rollercoaster. So what is the problem with this man? Does it really narrow down to Suckerpunch? Please let's allow the good man his own 1941. I think he has balls for taking on a big project like Superman. And IMO, I emphasise - only IMO, I think he kick-started things rather well.
This is not your daddy's Superman. But then daddy's Superman went down under with Superman Returns, a film that tried to go back to Donner's first but was spat on by critics. So no wonder WB decided to go 180 on Superman.
Oh, one more bit of news: this next film will have nothing to do with Nolan's Batman universe either, so we might as well get used to the idea right now. That brilliant series is over. TDKR put a full stop to it. Rather than see them try to mimic it, and fail, I prefer them to go 180 on Batman too. Maybe this new series will be aimed more towards people a lot younger than we are, who won't bother with Superman's legacy when MOS 2 comes out. Maybe this is not our playground anymore and we should just go with the flow or sit this one out. That's how it happens in the comics too. You can curse the new 52 all you want and hide behind the original Bob Kane Batman comics, but they're here now and they seem to be selling rather well. Nobody tells you that you must like them, but at least it would be ridiculous to bring up the argument that it's different and thus bad. The comic book medium is a very versatile one and by expansion, so is the superhero movie medium. It doesn't follow the established patterns of film series anymore; it's become its own thing. So there is room for a Superman/Batman world with a different style than the one we're used to. But that's the nature of the beast. Maybe in two or three films after this one, we get yet another DC micro-universe with yet another type of Bats or Supes. They're like clay; you can give them a different shape every time.
The reason I didn't like MOS was because I didn't think it was a very good film.
I agree but I think The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises were very good too. Really well made, brilliantly acted movies with fantastic stories, amazing cinematography, brilliant stuntwork and two of the best villains I've ever seen in anything. They were films that took themselves very seriously but I think they had a right to because unlike Man Of Steel, they were actually as deep as they thought they were. I think that's one of the few cases where the whole gritty reboot idea has actually worked.
If you see any of the older ones, I would be curious to hear what you think. @Murdock hated MOS, too. But he loved STM.
My Superman ranking:
1 MOS
2 Superman III
3 STM
4 SR
5 Superman II
6 Superman IV
MOS is another Generic "Gritty Reboot." To ride of Nolan's coattails. If given to someone like Joss Whedon. Then it probably would have been the best Superman film since the original.
Tomorrow, we get to see it in full.
http://i.imgur.com/I1Izlwl.gif
http://i.imgur.com/d1yXaSG.jpg
Ain't gonna happen, @forgotmyusername. ;-)
well this should quiet most rational people this film will be awesome