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
Yeah, that’s fine, but personally I couldn’t care less about comic books and like many people am not going to read them. Sorry, but that’s how I approached this film. I need context and I found it hard to understand chunks of this (rather good) film.
I know I sound like a stickler but I need context in something I’m watching. If not I don’t care.
I didn’t say you need read comics to understand. The Justice characters for example are actually the first time I’ve ever seen them in any medium and I felt I got to know them just enough in the context of the story. I guess a better comparison is the original STAR WARS where you get the opening crawl catching you up on events that just happened and get thrown into the middle of the story where you learn things as it goes.
To me it made me feel like I lived in that world. Like the experience of encountering Superman for the first time in your day to day life.
Fair. Maybe it’s just me man, but I felt a bit too thrown into the whole story. I feel I needed a bit more context about Luthor’s antagonism with Superman (not just a ham fisted speech at the end) or who these random people were helping him. Just felt a bit off to me… I don’t know.
I’m glad most people seemed to like it. Honestly. But no, it wasn’t my cup of tea. Something about the film felt off in my opinion.
I don't think the problem some people have is being dropped "in media res", but that Gunn just didn't do it very effectively.
Not that i hate it, it’s just that Zack's vision has already done enough to the characters' image.
For example, there’s that infamous scene where Clark asks Pa Kent “what was I supposed to do, let [a bus full of school children] die?” and Pa’s reply is “maybe” he delivers with uncertainty. If I were attached to the film, I would have strongly suggested that Pa Kent say “I don’t know” to emphasize the fact he doesn’t have the answers, because saying “maybe” makes it sounds like letting school children is a viable option. If they had Pa say “I’m not sure”, that would have made a world of difference and there wouldn’t be so much griping by fans over how Pa was portrayed.
But that’s just ONE example.
I think Snyder feels more at home with something like WATCHMEN, which deconstructs the superhero genre. That’s not the kind of mindset that works with SUPERMAN, in fact that’s why WATCHMEN was originally composed of new characters in the first place because the DC heroes wouldn’t have worked under that conceit.
I'm in your camp @007HallY people I have chatted with say, please no origin story. I agree, I don't need to see Superman fly to earth and all that. But I do need a better understanding of where things are and who is who. Yes we have seen some of these characters before, but this is all new.
I found the humour problematic in a few scenes, we had some real tender, dramatic moments and gag! It got to be repetitive and took away from my emotional tie to the movie. This somewhat surprised me as GOG Volume 3 hit in the feels with the Rocket backstory. Gunn can do emotional scenes, but for whatever reason it seemed whenever we got close to that it was time for a joke.
I really wanted to like this movie, I was excited to see it, I left the theatre saying "meh". I should have left the theatre fist pumping excited for the next adventure. I didn't have that feeling at all.
I like that they didn't do the origin again but I think they should have shown Superman stopping the attack as the opening and then actually shown the reprisal attack that turns people against him. Was weird that arguably the most important events of the movie happen off screen.
That was exactly my reaction too. I didn’t mind the humour but there were a couple of moments where I got that sense.
It’s such a shame. They did such a great job advertising and marketing this film. The cast are genuinely very good. As I said there’s a particular story choice I loved. But I found the expirience of watching it so average, and the disappointment coming out a bit deflating.
Yes, there’s this sense we’re just kind of plonked into the middle of the story. Very little build up. Man Of Steel had a similar issue, but at the very least that film took the effort to establish its main character (it didn’t do it very well mind, and the non linear format means certain story beats feel out of place in regards to Superman, but it’s there).
It’s a tricky film to get invested in, or at least I thought it was. There is a compelling film in there but something’s not quite right (I think your solution about changing the first act in that way is a good one).
Seeing the first fight before Superman’s defeat might have felt repetitive because even in the rematch Superman gets pummeled again anyway. I thought the opening text establishing things in a way that was concise and ending it with “3 minutes ago, Superman lost his first battle” and then seeing him slam into the ice made for a compelling opening hook for the movie. We’re being introduced to a DC world that not only already has a history with Superman but even centuries of super powered beings having existed.
You could even say there’s a meta aspect to the opening of the movie. The DC brand has been beaten near to death over a series of bad movies and flops, and it needs serious healing. What comes to the rescue? A super pup. Not only here to help Superman but even revitalize the brand itself.
Bringing in Krypto would NOT have been a choice I would have ever considered for rebooting the brand. I’m glad Gunn ultimately did.
I like the opening image of Superman crashing onto the ice, but I think we really needed more build up to give Luthor’s plan and that fight weight. For me just being put into the middle of the story in that way felt disengaging and a bit strange.
For what it’s worth I think all these things are common criticisms of the film. The reviews are generally positive, and I’m sure the majority will have fun with it. But I’ve noticed a few saying it feels a bit uneven in these ways. I can definitely understand that, and I think that’s the reputation the film will have to deal with - a decent blockbuster with an uneven narrative. It’s not the great Superman film I was expecting but I’m glad it delivered for many. Im sure a sequel will improve on these things.
Yes it got a reaction but at what cost? Is the movie about laughs or about a story? Luke throwing the light sabre away in TLJ got laughs too, still question that story choice. The Justice gang fighting that alien got laughs but then it becomes a distraction and we lose the moment between Lois and Superman.
Text can only do so much. It sets us up in the timeline but it doesn't tell us about the characters and their motivations. At the end of the movie I felt I knew more about what makes Lex tick then any other character, doesn't that seem off?
As my son and I left the theatre he said to me "Something was missing in that movie. I can't put my finger on it." I agreed with him. He's 14. I am not sure what was missing for me. Character development? Too many gags when there was emotion or drama to be had? Still haven't uncovered what was missing. Jeremy Jahns says it better than I could.
#Super****
Nothing, because I still got what worked between Superman and Lex with him showing his disappointment over giving into his bad predilections when he could have used his resources for good. That scene between Lois and Clark still works because it’s able to do a lot in such a short time with not just character but also world building. We get Green Lantern bonking an inter dimensional imp with a giant green bat, but we also get Clark telling Lois “he’s not a very good dog, but he’s out there alone and scared just like I’ve been and he needs help”. Laughs do not negate the dramatic elements. Gunn has always been able to walk that fine line a lot better than many other filmmakers that tend to hurt their films with misplaced humor. But it sounds like the movie didn’t work for you, and that’s too bad. Thankfully it seems to be playing well for most others.
I didn’t find it distracting, I thought it made for a nice visual juxtaposition, with Superman contemplating his place in the world.
Good video about it
In spite of that, I was still happy to get a proper Lex Luthor, especially after the questionable creative choices Snyder made with Eisenberg’s Lex.
I was never against Eisenberg's Lex Luthor. At least he wasn't the great abomination or insult some people made him out to be. The character actually had some comic book precedents, for starters. That doesn't mean we have to like him, but at least there was some legitimacy to this iteration.
Also, Snyder/DC/WB wanted to do something new, which wasn't an illogical choice given how much criticism Superman Returns had had to take in for supposedly playing the nostalgia card too much. Another bald Luthor with his mind on real estate was out of the question, hence this young, neurotic, yuppie-type with the long hair who,
Evidently, Eisenberg and Hoult play the part in a completely different way,
The performance is well done by Nicholas but the script did him no favours in terms of showing his brilliance on screen.
I think you’re underestimating how his vindictiveness clouds his genius potential. Superman even says that with his intellect he could actually help the world, but he’s too consumed by envy, and Lex is so deluded he thinks his character flaws is actually his feature. He’s such a petty bitch on the inside that he actually locks up ex-girlfriends in dimensional prisons. This isn’t the kind of guy that would just kill Superman and get it over with, he wants to lord over him, taunt him, brag about brains over brawn. He goes so far down that rabbit hole that when Metropolis is on the verge of total destruction even his employees thinks he’s gone too far. The one guy tells him it’s time to close the gap but then Luthor says “no, they CHOSE him”.
My issue with Eisenberg really came down to execution. I don’t know whose idea it was to make his Lex so twitchy and manic, but it’s too bad because I actually think Eisenberg had potential. When he was cast, I was thinking they would just go with the Mark Zuckerberg route, which he played very well in THE SOCIAL NETWORK that I could see him do that kind of variation for Lex, only more villainous of course. It also didn’t help that both cuts of the film didn’t do a good job of conveying his motives. For example, there’s a line that explained Lex believed having made Doomsday he would have control over the beast. That’s not in the final version, so I sat in the theater wondering why he’d even bother making such a monster. It’s that kind of inexplicable cut that’s on par with cutting the explanation of the bomb being lined with lead so Superman had no chance of seeing it coming in congress