Agreed. They say "The Man of Steel" is a dark movie, concentrating on Superman's relationship with his father(s).

Snore. Couldn't care less about that.

I started reading "Superman" comic books in the 1960's. All he did was kick butt and take names. He fought for "Truth, Justice and The American Way".

And now we have a Brit playing Superman?!? Hmmmmm, doesn't sound right to me.

A big criticism I have heard about Man of Steel is that actually there is too much action. So "talk talk talk fight talk talk talk" is not this movie at all.

sexton said:

A big criticism I have heard about Man of Steel is that actually there is too much action. So "talk talk talk fight talk talk talk" is not this movie at all.

The review I read said there was plenty of talking - the movie clocks in at something like 2 hours, 15 minutes. That reviewer said it should have been a 1-hour 45-minute long movie, because there was too much fighting.

RodeoSchro said:

Agreed. They say "The Man of Steel" is a dark movie, concentrating on Superman's relationship with his father(s).

Snore. Couldn't care less about that.

I started reading "Superman" comic books in the 1960's. All he did was kick butt and take names. He fought for "Truth, Justice and The American Way".

And now we have a Brit playing Superman?!? Hmmmmm, doesn't sound right to me.

Why not? Christian Bale is British and did an excellent job as Batman/Bruce Wayne.

By the way, how come there are so many successful British actors (mostly playing American characters) in the USA? I mean, I do respect their craft and talent but I would´ve thought that competition among actors in the USA is very fierce, so how come that so many Brits seem to somehow make it, unlike many aspiring American actors who come and go?

RodeoSchro said:

there was too much fighting.

[Edited 6/14/13 14:22pm]

sexton said:

A big criticism I have heard about Man of Steel is that actually there is too much action. So "talk talk talk fight talk talk talk" is not this movie at all.

I actually love it when there´s more talk than action if it gives the movie and its characters some depth.

I hate those popcorn , blockbuster, mainstream, mindless action movies. A good action movie needs some depth and interesting characters.

Not really a superhero movie per se, but John Rambo was a very successful yet very stupid and superficial movie, and so were the two Expendable movies. First Blood part I on the other hand was a masterpiece. I´ll never understand why Stallone deleted some of the more interesting dialogues from John Rambo....they would´ve given the movie at least a little bit of depth. The last part really sucked big time.

And...I´m one of the few people who really enjoyed Batman 3.

KoolEaze said:

sexton said:

A big criticism I have heard about Man of Steel is that actually there is too much action. So "talk talk talk fight talk talk talk" is not this movie at all.

I actually love it when there´s more talk than action if it gives the movie and its characters some depth.

I hate those popcorn , blockbuster, mainstream, mindless action movies. A good action movie needs some depth and interesting characters.

Not really a superhero movie per se, but John Rambo was a very successful yet very stupid and superficial movie, and so were the two Expendable movies. First Blood part I on the other hand was a masterpiece. I´ll never understand why Stallone deleted some of the more interesting dialogues from John Rambo....they would´ve given the movie at least a little bit of depth. The last part really sucked big time.

And...I´m one of the few people who really enjoyed Batman 3.

You don't have to convince me of the benefits of character development. Most of my favorite films are ones other people think are boring.

sexton said:

KoolEaze said:

I actually love it when there´s more talk than action if it gives the movie and its characters some depth.

I hate those popcorn , blockbuster, mainstream, mindless action movies. A good action movie needs some depth and interesting characters.

Not really a superhero movie per se, but John Rambo was a very successful yet very stupid and superficial movie, and so were the two Expendable movies. First Blood part I on the other hand was a masterpiece. I´ll never understand why Stallone deleted some of the more interesting dialogues from John Rambo....they would´ve given the movie at least a little bit of depth. The last part really sucked big time.

And...I´m one of the few people who really enjoyed Batman 3.

You don't have to convince me of the benefits of character development. Most of my favorite films are ones other people think are boring.

Oh, I know that you´re a movie buff, my comment wasn´t really directed at you, your replies above just kinda triggered my thoughts.

NDRU said:

I think the fight scenes have gotten way out of control. They're totally boring after a while

I haven't seen Man of Steel yet, but one of the crticisms that I read about it had to do with WAY TOO MANY "throwing-man-through-building" fight scenes.

It seems that this movie isn't the blockbuster they'd hoped for.

Did Christopher Reeves hex the franchise or what?

Fury said:

PurpleJedi said:

NDRU said:

I think the fight scenes have gotten way out of control. They're totally boring after a while

I haven't seen Man of Steel yet, but one of the crticisms that I read about it had to do with WAY TOO MANY "throwing-man-through-building" fight scenes.

It seems that this movie isn't the blockbuster they'd hoped for.

Did Christopher Reeves hex the franchise or what?

I can imagine!

There seems to be a superman curse, but I wouldn't say that making the best Superman movie hexes the franchise. Plus, this one looks like a remake of the first Reeves movie, so maybe that's sacrilige.

PurpleJedi said:

NDRU said:

I think the fight scenes have gotten way out of control. They're totally boring after a while

I haven't seen Man of Steel yet, but one of the crticisms that I read about it had to do with WAY TOO MANY "throwing-man-through-building" fight scenes.

It seems that this movie isn't the blockbuster they'd hoped for.

Did Christopher Reeves hex the franchise or what?

Those Christopher Reeves "Superman" movies were crap...
"Man Of Steel" isn't great either (it's a Zack Snyder movie, what do you expect? He's right down there on the list of extremely bad movie makers like Michael Bay and Uwe Boll...) but still heaps better than that Reeves garbage... Those movies were bad when I was a kid and now they're even worse... But that's what you get with Superman anyway; a boring failure of a "Superhero"...

Neversin.

KoolEaze said:

sexton said:

A big criticism I have heard about Man of Steel is that actually there is too much action. So "talk talk talk fight talk talk talk" is not this movie at all.

I actually love it when there´s more talk than action if it gives the movie and its characters some depth.

I hate those popcorn , blockbuster, mainstream, mindless action movies. A good action movie needs some depth and interesting characters.

Not really a superhero movie per se, but John Rambo was a very successful yet very stupid and superficial movie, and so were the two Expendable movies. First Blood part I on the other hand was a masterpiece. I´ll never understand why Stallone deleted some of the more interesting dialogues from John Rambo....they would´ve given the movie at least a little bit of depth. The last part really sucked big time.

And...I´m one of the few people who really enjoyed Batman 3.

"Man Of Steel" watches like those really horrible Marvel comic book movies of late (except for X-Men 2, that one was mildly good) done right... Not even Nolan corp. could save a lame character like Superman anyway...
John Rambo could have a been a pretty good movie if it wasn't treated like a SFX test run for "Expendables"... Who, seriously, older than the age of 8 buys tickets for movies like that anymore??

And "The Dark Knight Rises" was, by far, the best of the three and the other 2 were close to amazing...

Neversin.

Neversin said:

KoolEaze said:

I actually love it when there´s more talk than action if it gives the movie and its characters some depth.

I hate those popcorn , blockbuster, mainstream, mindless action movies. A good action movie needs some depth and interesting characters.

Not really a superhero movie per se, but John Rambo was a very successful yet very stupid and superficial movie, and so were the two Expendable movies. First Blood part I on the other hand was a masterpiece. I´ll never understand why Stallone deleted some of the more interesting dialogues from John Rambo....they would´ve given the movie at least a little bit of depth. The last part really sucked big time.

And...I´m one of the few people who really enjoyed Batman 3.

"Man Of Steel" watches like those really horrible Marvel comic book movies of late (except for X-Men 2, that one was mildly good) done right... Not even Nolan corp. could save a lame character like Superman anyway...
John Rambo could have a been a pretty good movie if it wasn't treated like a SFX test run for "Expendables"... Who, seriously, older than the age of 8 buys tickets for movies like that anymore??

And "The Dark Knight Rises" was, by far, the best of the three and the other 2 were close to amazing...

Neversin.

Fucking hell, I love that avatar.

why?

because Hollywood execs are finally treating the genre with respect and ambition

[Edited 6/16/13 3:23am]

cborgman said:

There's absolutely no doubt I will not be watching "Man of Steel". At least, according to this review of the film, everything I feared came true.

When you're making a movie about SUPERMAN, it has to be about SUPERMAN. It can't be about Batman in a Superman suit. Some excerpts from the review:

http://deadspin.com/its-a...-513356149

But their trying to make a tortured-superhero Batman movie out of Superman was, frankly, a lousy idea. Batman is a hero, sure, but a twisted, human one; by the end of the second film, you're legitimately wondering, in name of his personal vengeance and obsessions, whether or not Batman is doing more harm than good. That is not who Superman is. Superman is brightness, goodness, a shining example for humanity to aspire to. Superman needs to have a light touch.

There is a rather stunning lack of humor or even joy inMan of Steel, no winks at one of America's most iconic figures (a large chunk of the movie takes place in Canada), no Christopher Reeve-esque charm and bumble. Henry Cavill, who plays Superman, is certainly muscular and handsome enough for the part, but I'm not sure what the point of having someone just glower and flex. He's Superman. The point is that he doesn't need to look tough.

We need to probably finish up with that fight scene. It's impressively directed by Snyder, but, once again, completely misses the point of Superman. As the two fight, they completely level Metropolis, and rarely does Superman stop to save any of the citizens; he barely gives them a second thought, in fact. This is getting Superman completely wrong, using him as a fight avatar rather than a character; the collateral damage those two cause in the closing would be entirely unacceptable for the Superman we know and love.

We really shouldn't have been complaining so much about Superman Returns. It had a much better grasp of this character. Man of Steel is about the strongest man on earth, who can fly and shoot stuff with his eyes. But it ain't about Superman.

Fury said:

cborgman said:

oh, god, i hated it. they completely failed the phoenix story, which was one of the best to come out of the x-men comics. it was better than the wolverine solo movie though. that's something, i guess.

The Phoenix saga ran from issues 101-137-- there was no way they could get that right. But then again, wolverine is a foot taller in the movies

it's not that i expected it to stick close to the comic version and keep all the details, so much as i expected it to be interesting. the way they did it in the movie it seemed like an afterthought. like they set it up in X2, then didnt actually want to do the phoenix story, and just shoehorned a really bad and small version of it into the other plot.

Well, I don't really know what to make of this! I can tell you that Joel Osteen didn't have any "Superman/God" references in his sermon yesterday, LOL:

cborgman said:

Fury said:

cborgman said: The Phoenix saga ran from issues 101-137-- there was no way they could get that right. But then again, wolverine is a foot taller in the movies

it's not that i expected it to stick close to the comic version and keep all the details, so much as i expected it to be interesting. the way they did it in the movie it seemed like an afterthought. like they set it up in X2, then didnt actually want to do the phoenix story, and just shoehorned a really bad and small version of it into the other plot.

and it just happened to be the most successful entry out of all the x-movies. new class tried to be like x1 and x2 and fell flat.

Fury said:

cborgman said:

it's not that i expected it to stick close to the comic version and keep all the details, so much as i expected it to be interesting. the way they did it in the movie it seemed like an afterthought. like they set it up in X2, then didnt actually want to do the phoenix story, and just shoehorned a really bad and small version of it into the other plot.

and it just happened to be the most successful entry out of all the x-movies. new class tried to be like x1 and x2 and fell flat.

well... sort of.

x-men cost 75 million, made 157 million in the US. imdb user rating: 7.4

x-men 2 cost 110, made almost 215. imdb: 7.5

x-men 3 cost 210, made 234. imdb: 6.8

wolverine cost 150, made almost 180, imdb: 6.7

first class cost 160, made 146. imdb: 7.8

while last stand made the most, it only made a little above its rather extreme budget at the box office, and it only rates slightly higher than the crapfest that was wolverine.

x-men 1 and 2 more or less made double what they put in. x-men 3 made rather meager returns on the investment. in terms of profit, it only ranks above first class.

in terms of profit: x-men 1 or 2 were the most successful.

first class holds the best rating, despite the lowest profit.

none of this is adjusted for inflation, though.

.

[Edited 6/17/13 9:12am]

RodeoSchro said:

Well, I don't really know what to make of this! I can tell you that Joel Osteen didn't have any "Superman/God" references in his sermon yesterday, LOL:

Marketers for the newest Hollywood Superman movie, 'Man of Steel,' are heavily targeting Christians by offering church leaders free screenings of the film as well as sermon notes emphasizing its religious themes.

The notes, titled 'Jesus: The Original Superhero,' run nine pages long and suggest that pastors show the 'Man of Steel' trailer during their Sunday morning sermon, CNN reported Friday.

'How might the story of Superman awaken our passion for the greatest hero who ever lived and died and rose again?' the sermon notes ask.

'Man of Steel' opened in theaters on Friday and brought in a massive $125.1 million over the weekend, breaking the record for the biggest June opening weekend ever.

The marketing angle for the movie, in which Clark Kent is interchangeable with Jesus Christ, clearly wasn't an afterthought. Christian themes are overtly weaved into the imagery, dialogue and storyline of the film.

Superman is sent to Earth from the planet Kryptonite by his parents, who predict 'he'll be a god' to the earthlings.

He is then raised by surrogate parents and at age 33, he must sacrifice himself to save the human race. Jesus Christ was 33 when he was crucified.

In one scene from the movie, Clark Kent seeks advice from a priest and in the background, there is a large painting of Jesus, providing viewers a side-by-side comparison of them.

In another scene, Superman jumps from villian General Zod's ship and hovers in the sky with his arms out-stretched like the crucifix.

'What Jesus and Superman both give us, through their "hero" actions but also their "human" actions – is hope,' the movie marketers' sermon notes read.

Superman-As-Christ has been a running theme since Superman: The Movie ("which is why I sent them you . . . my only son"). Man of Steel ups the ante, with the revelation that Kal is the only natural-born Kryptonian in all of existence and carries an entire planet inside of him.

Zod as Satan, the fallen angel who rebels for love and glory and seeks to build a new paradise in his image.

Clark's existence being a complete mystery after his "Joseph." Jonathan Kent, passes.

Zod tempting Clark in a cornfield = The temptation in the desert.

Clark's own people giving him up to his enemies.

(SPOILER) Kal's descent into the World Machine = Christ's descent into Hell.

Joseph Campbell would have a field day with this.

But I'm not surprised by any studio courting evangelicals. Mel Gibson will never have to work again because he did the same thing with one movie.

As an avid reader of "Superman" comics during the 1960's - 70's (all DC comics, actually), and a collector of Superman comics from the 30's - 60's, I cannot remember ANY Christ/Superman comparisons. The only reference that comes to mind is once, I think in the '60's, Superman saved a little boy (who apparently was messy) and as he was flying away, he told the boy, "Cleanliness next to Godliness!"

Now, there have been 35+ years of Superman comics and stories that I've not read (from about 1975 on), and they could have taken Superman in a completely new direction or directions.

But the Superman I remember - the original Superman - was not ever compared to Christ. Nor was he moody. Nor did he ever let people get crushed by buildings while fighting a bad guy.

He was cool. He smiled. He was, in all aspects, a SUPER man.

RodeoSchro said:

As an avid reader of "Superman" comics during the 1960's - 70's (all DC comics, actually), and a collector of Superman comics from the 30's - 60's, I cannot remember ANY Christ/Superman comparisons. The only reference that comes to mind is once, I think in the '60's, Superman saved a little boy (who apparently was messy) and as he was flying away, he told the boy, "Cleanliness next to Godliness!"

Now, there have been 35+ years of Superman comics and stories that I've not read (from about 1975 on), and they could have taken Superman in a completely new direction or directions.

But the Superman I remember - the original Superman - was not ever compared to Christ. Nor was he moody. Nor did he ever let people get crushed by buildings while fighting a bad guy.

He was cool. He smiled. He was, in all aspects, a SUPER man.

But in terms of the FILMS . . . it started with the 1978 film. It continued in Superman Returns and now with Man of Steel. Some of the storylines have taken on a messianic angle that as you say wasn't implied or intended in the comics.

namepeace said:

RodeoSchro said:

As an avid reader of "Superman" comics during the 1960's - 70's (all DC comics, actually), and a collector of Superman comics from the 30's - 60's, I cannot remember ANY Christ/Superman comparisons. The only reference that comes to mind is once, I think in the '60's, Superman saved a little boy (who apparently was messy) and as he was flying away, he told the boy, "Cleanliness next to Godliness!"

Now, there have been 35+ years of Superman comics and stories that I've not read (from about 1975 on), and they could have taken Superman in a completely new direction or directions.

But the Superman I remember - the original Superman - was not ever compared to Christ. Nor was he moody. Nor did he ever let people get crushed by buildings while fighting a bad guy.

He was cool. He smiled. He was, in all aspects, a SUPER man.

But in terms of the FILMS . . . it started with the 1978 film. It continued in Superman Returns and now with Man of Steel. Some of the storylines have taken on a messianic angle that as you say wasn't implied or intended in the comics.

Nah, Reeve did four Superman films (although no one liked IV). So the cool Superman character was already cast, developed and established.

I haven't seen "Superman Returns" but haven't heard anything good about it.

Anyway, I haven't read any Superman comics in around 35 years, so like I said - Superman may be completely different than he was the first 40 years of his existence. But that is the Superman I like, and I'm not going to be interested in a dark, brooding, non-cool Superman.

So I'm passing on this movie.

RodeoSchro said:

namepeace said:

But in terms of the FILMS . . . it started with the 1978 film. It continued in Superman Returns and now with Man of Steel. Some of the storylines have taken on a messianic angle that as you say wasn't implied or intended in the comics.

Nah, Reeve did four Superman films (although no one liked IV). So the cool Superman character was already cast, developed and established.

I haven't seen "Superman Returns" but haven't heard anything good about it.

Anyway, I haven't read any Superman comics in around 35 years, so like I said - Superman may be completely different than he was the first 40 years of his existence. But that is the Superman I like, and I'm not going to be interested in a dark, brooding, non-cool Superman.

So I'm passing on this movie.

Actually . . . yeah. Watch the Jor-El sequence at the end of the first act of Superman: The Movie. He basically sends Kal El to guide humans and change the world, and explains that he chose earth for humans and, "their capacity for good," urges him to "live as one of them," and says . . . "that is why I sent you. My only son." Sound familiar? That goes beyond the comic narratives, but that's to be expected when Mario Puzo is your writer.

That theme disappeared from II, III and IV, but in THAT canon, the origin story was messianic in nature. And that theme will likely fade from the new franchise now that this franchise's origin story is cemented.

And even in the comics, Superman dies to save humanity, only to be resurrected, though that storyline came well after you stopped reading.

[Edited 6/18/13 13:06pm]

[Edited 6/18/13 13:07pm]

This is a tidbit disturbing.