2000 AD Online Forum

First Look At Henry Cavill As Superman!

(http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/53624.jpg)

That emblem is way too big for his chest  ;)

Looks good to me!

His helmet's a bit bi.....nah.

The Blue isn't Blue enough and the Red isn't Red enough on his COSTUME.






V

Don't give a fuck about Superman but seriously...dicks on d'web are complaining about his hair, the length of the sleeves and that the suit has texture/detail. For-fuck's-sake.


Here's a quote:

QuoteThe suit does not look real, for one it's far too shiny, WTF??!!...I'm still waiting for a decent Superman it would seem...

Oh Do anyone like anything?? It looks good as Superman!

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/04/article-0-0D4BFC2E00000578-569_634x613.jpg)

That cape is a trip hazard, its ginormous  :o

The bodysuit reminds me a bit of Thor, with the texture but I can't tell with this shot.

Quote from: Dunk! on 04 August, 2011, 03:08:52 PM
His helmet's a bit bi.....nah.

Beat me too it, darn you.

But when it's lit properly...

I like how they've flared his hair out a bit. But since The Invincibles got all over the dangers of the cape, you can't help but think the thing's more of a hinderence to a man/humanoid alien who can already fly.

EDIT: Hurray! modify's back on. :)

The suit looks like its made of bubble wrap.

His costume looks like a hybrid of the Spidey costume with all the texture in it? Whats the effect for?, . . . I don't recall Curt Swans Supes or any other artist of that classic period including that effect. Saying that I haven't read any of the modern Superman strips. The muted colour is like a badly colour corrected comic page. He looks the part, but I'd have liked Nick Cage as the Man Of Steel instead.

.....Oh! and his kiss curls not big enough!

Quote from: Buddy on 05 August, 2011, 01:33:00 PM
The suit looks like its made of bubble wrap.

Starting positive I see.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 05 August, 2011, 04:04:30 PM

Quote from: Buddy on 05 August, 2011, 01:33:00 PM
The suit looks like its made of bubble wrap.

Starting positive I see.

Hey... I love bubble wrap... I could pop those suckers all day!

Perv.

Quote from: dracula1 on 05 August, 2011, 02:47:00 PM
His costume looks like a hybrid of the Spidey costume with all the texture in it? Whats the effect for?, . . . I don't recall Curt Swans Supes or any other artist of that classic period including that effect. Saying that I haven't read any of the modern Superman strips. The muted colour is like a badly colour corrected comic page. He looks the part, but I'd have liked Nick Cage as the Man Of Steel instead.

I reckon the extra texturing is probably down to the HD market - more resolution = more need for details (in some directors minds at least!)
The reason this hasnt happened before (apart from in the bloated turd that was Superman Returns) may be because there just hasnt been that need before. Just speculating there, i guess.

As for the casting, i'm 100% behind Henry Cavill. He certainly looks the part, and has the acting chops for the role (IMO anyway), and i'm also pretty pleased with Zack Snyder being the director.
Love him or hate him, at least we can be assured that he won't deliver the snooze-fest that Singer did!

Snyder's snooze-fests are of a different nature.

Can't really argue with that!  :)
But in his (kind of) defence, if you make sure to turn your brain off and have a doob/pint before viewing, he always keeps that eye-candy flowing. Not a brilliant film-maker, but (if your in the right frame of mind) certainly an engaging one*.

Which is all i want from a Superman movie, really.





*That said, i still think 300 is shit.

My brain naturally turns off when watchin' his stuff. I would like a Supes movie that at least carries a story for 2 hours, something that Singer/Snyder have trouble doing. That's the least any film-maker spending that amount of money owes the audience. Other than that why spend 2 hours watchin' a film when they could just run a 15 minute FX/action reel and be done with it and cheaper too.

Not really buyin' the HD argument for more detail on primary props/costumes, these types of props are generally made to a higher standard anyway and are normally revealed as such when seen in-the-flesh, so to speak. If it were a true reason, would it not mean 'real-life ordinary clothes' would need more detail too?

I know that set details need to be better to approximate reality with the intro of HD but that's because certain sets lack the 'authenticity' to begin with, especially in telly soaps.

Not sayin' that things won't go hyper-real/detailed in future as image quality goes beyond the range of what we're used to. The new RED EPIC camera has a dynamic range of light contrast that the human eye can't register with 'normal' everyday seeing.

For you moaners, here good Empire Feature about changes of Superman's costumes!

http://www.empireonline.com/features/the-many-looks-of-superman (http://www.empireonline.com/features/the-many-looks-of-superman)

I more-or-less agree about Snyder. He's a style-over-content director, for sure, but... i like that!
Spent about 20 minutes trying to come up with a better explanation than that, but failed  :-\

Do wish he'd forego the slo-motion once in a while tho...

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 05 August, 2011, 10:36:24 PM

Not really buyin' the HD argument for more detail on primary props/costumes, these types of props are generally made to a higher standard anyway and are normally revealed as such when seen in-the-flesh, so to speak. If it were a true reason, would it not mean 'real-life ordinary clothes' would need more detail too?

I know that set details need to be better to approximate reality with the intro of HD but that's because certain sets lack the 'authenticity' to begin with, especially in telly soaps.

Not sayin' that things won't go hyper-real/detailed in future as image quality goes beyond the range of what we're used to. The new RED EPIC camera has a dynamic range of light contrast that the human eye can't register with 'normal' everyday seeing.

I guess you're right about the costume, maybe its more about making the costume seem 'special'* when compared to normal fabrics, or something? Whatever the reason, i like it  :)

Must admit to being absolutely ignorant to the types of camera in use these days, but i've heard one or two nice things about the REDs. Don't suppose you know of any films released using these yet, do you?
If they look as nice as the Imax scenes on the BluRay of Dark Knight, then i'm sold!


*(No, not that kind of 'special'!)

Quote from: Woolly on 06 August, 2011, 12:04:06 AMMust admit to being absolutely ignorant to the types of camera in use these days, but i've heard one or two nice things about the REDs. Don't suppose you know of any films released using these yet, do you?

Tons of films/tv shows have been shot with REDs by now - Dredd was shot on RED ONE and PHANTOM. Still waiting for RED to run a DREDD shot on RED promo...

The Hobbit and Spider-Man are the first to be shot on RED EPIC and will probably far exceed the visual detail/range of Nolan's IMAX scenes.


Here's their line-resolution chart which is only one aspect of the peformance of their cameras.


(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/04/redchart.png)

Shooting District 9 on a RED ONE:


(http://camerarentalz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/district-9-shot-on-red.jpg)


(http://camerarentalz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/district-9-red.jpg)


(http://camerarentalz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/district-9-red-camera.jpg)

Ah, cheers for that.

The line-res chart makes for interesting stuff...

Supes is wearing chainmail? I suppose he is the man of steel. :o  too early to tell I suppose but like any film if the script is good...

Quote from: Woolly on 05 August, 2011, 10:13:25 PM

I reckon the extra texturing is probably down to the HD market - more resolution = more need for details (in some directors minds at least!)

I think you could be right there.. it's similar to why Rami's Spider-Man had raised webbing on his suit... more detail and gives more for the eye to catch in different lighting etc....

I'm not sold on this Superman yet (is Lindsay Lohan still in it??), and the suit looks a bit odd with all the rubbery bumps on it... He must sweat like a pig in heat wearing it!

Like the big retro looking 'S' on the chest though.

Can't wait to see this Superman doing things in slow motion, then speed up, then slow motion again.

Quote from: Buddy on 06 August, 2011, 01:16:31 PM

Quote from: Woolly on 05 August, 2011, 10:13:25 PM

I reckon the extra texturing is probably down to the HD market - more resolution = more need for details (in some directors minds at least!)

I think you could be right there.. it's similar to why Rami's Spider-Man had raised webbing on his suit... more detail and gives more for the eye to catch in different lighting etc....

Though HD wasn't available when the first Spidey was released...the resolution still doesn't matter enough yet as no films are shot/projected more than the detail resolution of 'film'. The reason for the detail is simply to render a more complex-realistic feel when adapting a simplistic, flat primary-colour comic design to a deeper-detailed visual setting with real people. It's a trend that started with the Burton Batman films, that's what people have gotten used to now and the new one looks a lot better than this throwback:

(http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/brandon-routh-superman.jpg)

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 August, 2011, 01:27:04 PM

Quote from: Buddy on 06 August, 2011, 01:16:31 PM

Quote from: Woolly on 05 August, 2011, 10:13:25 PM

I reckon the extra texturing is probably down to the HD market - more resolution = more need for details (in some directors minds at least!)

I think you could be right there.. it's similar to why Rami's Spider-Man had raised webbing on his suit... more detail and gives more for the eye to catch in different lighting etc....

Though HD wasn't available when the first Spidey was released.

HD's been around from 2000(ish) and in development before that.... but anyways.. the textured look of the costume in Spider-Man was to take advantage of the increased image quality.

Quote from: Buddy on 06 August, 2011, 02:32:03 PMHD's been around from 2000(ish) and in development before that.... but anyways.. the textured look of the costume in Spider-Man was to take advantage of the increased image quality.

The Spider-Man design had nothing to do with increased image quality but the industrial ability to create such a multi-layered screen-printed costume which could refract/reflect light had become possible.

10 years ago HD was around but not widely 'commercially' available or used at all industry-wise in the West and certainly mainstream cinema which was always behind in infrastructure of such developments didn't have HD in mind at the time, everthing cinema-wise and even sit-coms in the US, were still shot on 35mm. The lighting wasn't that much different from any film in the previous 15 years or longer and 35mm celluloid's resolution and ability to capture dynamic-light-range still exceeded HD capabilities 10 years ago. The resolution of 35mm film was more or less the same since film was invented. So effectively if they could have made the same print-screened Spider-Man costume in the 80's or even the 70's, it wouldn't appear anymore or less detailed. The colour grade might be different but the detail would remain.

HD's been around since the 70's when Coppola was messin' around with NHK in Japan, where it became available in the late 80's -about 1125 lines of res. It's only in recent years that HD is better at capturing detail/light than film with 5000 lines and more.

Raimi expands on the reasons for the design by Jim Acheson:

Quote"We were very fortunate to get Jim to do the costume design," says Raimi. "I did not want to reinvent the Spider-Man costume, but rather to translate it—to bring the Spider-Man that kids and adults know—to the big screen. It was an incredible challenge on many levels, and Jim came up with a lot of great technologies, such as silk screening the musculature on the exterior of the costume to give Spider-Man the ability to move the way he had to, like a dancer in the skies, but also to give him an incredibly toned look without bulking him up with a muscle suit, which you might see on other superheroes."

"It was a real challenge to create the Spider-Man costume, to make it look alive and beautiful on film," says producer Laura Ziskin. "James Acheson is amazing, and he did an incredible job. There's a lot going on with that design and the way it catches the light in daylight or nighttime... it's very effective."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xe_dC3CJnw&feature=player_embedded


The same can be said of the the new Supes costume, you could shoot it on 35/70mm film and it would still look amazingly detailed on a cinema screen. Maybe with the newly released 5000 line RED EPIC it might perceptibly be more but above 2000 lines it can be hard for the human eye to see detail differences.

I would say the texture is entirely to do with him not looking like he's wearing a leotard.

Quote from: Adrian Bamforth on 06 August, 2011, 03:25:45 PM
I would say the texture is entirely to do with him not looking like he's wearing a leotard.

agreed..comes down to design choice.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 06 August, 2011, 02:59:11 PM

Quote from: Buddy on 06 August, 2011, 02:32:03 PMHD's been around from 2000(ish) and in development before that.... but anyways.. the textured look of the costume in Spider-Man was to take advantage of the increased image quality.

The Spider-Man design had nothing to do with increased image quality but the industrial ability to create such a multi-layered screen-printed costume which could refract/reflect light had become possible.

10 years ago HD was around but not widely 'commercially' available or used at all industry-wise in the West and certainly mainstream cinema which was always behind in infrastructure of such developments didn't have HD in mind at the time, everthing cinema-wise and even sit-coms in the US, were still shot on 35mm. The lighting wasn't that much different from any film in the previous 15 years or longer and 35mm celluloid's resolution and ability to capture dynamic-light-range still exceeded HD capabilities 10 years ago. The resolution of 35mm film was more or less the same since film was invented. So effectively if they could have made the same print-screened Spider-Man costume in the 80's or even the 70's, it wouldn't appear anymore or less detailed. The colour grade might be different but the detail would remain.

HD's been around since the 70's when Coppola was messin' around with NHK in Japan, where it became available in the late 80's -about 1125 lines of res. It's only in recent years that HD is better at capturing detail/light than film with 5000 lines and more.

That too.

Oh my....

(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6958/superman1m.jpg)

(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3211/386028411.jpg)

(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7987/cavill1.jpg)

(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5895/supermanhenrycavillsetp.jpg)

Is this some sort of Kryptonian spacesuit? It needs to be, there's no way Ma Kent could have made this...

His red underpants must be in the wash. He should have just turned them inside out like I do.

I do like the suit  -considering the alien nature of it- but he seems to have a cock-button to inflate his pants-tent. Glad they ditched the red undies.

I think it looks okay. After waiting for Superman Returns for a couple of years & then to get a re-hash of Superman I I felt cheated.

A new story would have been great, but we know already that the bad guys from Superman II turn up at some point ...

hopefully a new story ... after that I don't overly care about the finer details, cape, pants etc  :-\

By the looks of that image with the vault door, I'm hoping for some bits of the film at least to be a bit retro-ey, like with big, boxy, fleischer cartoon style robots, although I doubt we'll get it because the wider audience will think it looks crap probably.

Quote

Another duffer by the looks of this, especially if zod turns up. DC
has so many great villians it could use instead.

Russell Crowe as Superman's father.


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/04/article-2045201-0E381B5F00000578-5_468x805.jpg)

WTF?! ... Bring back Brando!

Quote from: dracula1 on 05 October, 2011, 01:12:56 PM
WTF?! ... Bring back Brando!

I've got something to tell you... you better sit down.

Love Superman's heavy metal wristbands.  I hope he has a big battleaxe in this, and rides some sort of flying space rhino, too, and has fistfights on volcanos.  His hair's too short, though.  And he needs more studs and leather on that costume.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 05 October, 2011, 03:17:53 PM

Quote from: dracula1 on 05 October, 2011, 01:12:56 PM
WTF?! ... Bring back Brando!

I've got something to tell you... you better sit down.

He's not ... d ... dead is he? :o

Well even in a dodgey blond wig he looked better than  Crowe.

I'm afraid so...

A new banner of logo...

(http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/n/new-banner-for-man-of-steel-99519-470-75.jpg)

Someone needs to tell the designers on this film to stop over designing everything.

Quote from: JamesC on 30 March, 2012, 12:39:47 PM
Someone needs to tell the designers on this film to stop over designing everything.

Indeed less is more

A big dollup of photoshopery with a sepia filter doesn't make this a good design.  I remember fondly the colourful days of Christopher Reeves as Superman.  ::)

New poster!

(http://i.imgur.com/yQj4V.jpg)

It's the Wicker-SuperMan.

Digging the Spiderman print on the costume.

I'm guessing they are trying to make it look like armour to match the Man of Steel bit of the title. Perhaps someone has missed the point somewhere along the creative journey?

Larry Fishburne is Perry White in this movie.

HOW DARE THEY DO THIS HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF THEY MADE BLACK PANTHER WHITE etc etc.

Quote from: JamesC on 30 March, 2012, 12:39:47 PM
Someone needs to tell the designers on this film to stop over designing everything.

And then they can tell everyone else working on a modern superhero film.

Hopefully it will work better on film, but it does look a bit like his nan has knitted an unwanted Christmas present for him there...

Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 15 July, 2012, 06:31:12 PM
Larry Fishburne is Perry White in this movie.

Great Caesar's ghost!

Quote from: Goaty on 15 July, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
New poster!

(http://i.imgur.com/yQj4V.jpg)

If you stare at the most lit-up part of the S, is there an optical illusion that makes it look like the ddarkness is spreading?  Or am I having some sort of flashback?

It's still crap though!   :lol:

Apparently the trailer is gonna be before the new Batman film so I'll get to see it in the cinema Friday (tickets already booked). Can't wait

So, the first teaser for this is out. Thoughts anyone? Doesn't really show much....but then that's the idea, I suppose. :D

http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2012/07/21/first-man-of-steel-teaser-trailer-officially-released (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2012/07/21/first-man-of-steel-teaser-trailer-officially-released)

All the Man Of Steel trailers I link to cause my browser to play up. Plug-in difficulties apparently. Strangely other videos work just fine.

Here YouTube version (which work on many mobiles!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKWJZsjm5U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKWJZsjm5U)

I like that! So he get his powers later...?

And I like that ending, make it realistic (with air breaks) same as Nolan's Batman!

Realism is very important in Superman.

I personally love how Supes is a fisherman now, as it could open the door to having Lori Lemaris as a love interest.  I also like how the teaser poster is him brooding in a wooly jumper, because I always thought it was a bit unrealistic in the old canon that his mum would make him a costume that was skintight and had pants on the outside, I think someone's mum would more likely make a costume that had a sensible jumper and she'd knit it for him in her living room rather than make it out of kevlar in her laboratory in the barn.
And then she'd give it to him and he'd have to wear it but he'd huff about it.  That's pretty much how I see that poster's backstory playing out, and I approve.

someone post this leaked trailer at Comic Con, looks good if you can see what going on...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok7YDU8yQ-s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok7YDU8yQ-s)

Quote from: Professah Byah on 21 July, 2012, 09:18:54 PM
Realism is very important in Superman.

I always thought it was a bit unrealistic in the old canon that his mum would make him a costume that was skintight and had pants on the outside, I think someone's mum would more likely make a costume that had a sensible jumper and she'd knit it for him in her living room rather than make it out of kevlar in her laboratory in the barn.

And then she'd give it to him and he'd have to wear it but he'd huff about it.  That's pretty much how I see that poster's backstory playing out, and I approve.

If Martha Kent was anything like my Mum, she would have bought Clark's outfit from the market. All his pals would have ripped the pish out of him, because their costumes cost more and had better logos.

Why does anyone like superman?

Out of my dislike for all superheroes I find Superman the most interesting!

Due to his upbringing by his all round American, adopted parents his mind must be in constant turmoil. There he is, the ultimate HERO on the planet, with the power to do nigh on everything. He could sort out the troubles of the world by just 'telling' the UN and the leaders of the world to stop bickering and sort the planet out. Yet he sits back and lets billions across the globe suffer due to the inaction of a few powerful parties.

That's obviously a bit black and white but it all comes down to that in the end!

DC shouldve killed superman off properly when they had the chance. He's disliked by nearly everyone except weirdo middle-aged men who make up his core readership (like one particularly scary high-profile dr who fan/ record producer), the comics are 99% absolute shit, he has no relevance to the modern age and as cf points out, if you look at him logically, as a character he's an utter turd.

If he'd died twenty or so years ago in the comics, would the comics industry be any poorer?

SBT

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 22 July, 2012, 03:37:17 PMDue to his upbringing by his all round American, adopted parents his mind must be in constant turmoil. There he is, the ultimate HERO on the planet, with the power to do nigh on everything. He could sort out the troubles of the world by just 'telling' the UN and the leaders of the world to stop bickering and sort the planet out. Yet he sits back and lets billions across the globe suffer due to the inaction of a few powerful parties.

I think is a fundamental misreading of Superman as a concept: if he forces the world to be better, then he becomes a tyrant.  One of the biggest untold stories of Superman is why anyone living in a world where he exists isn't utterly fucking terrified of him.

Superman works in many ways and each are as valid a reading of the character and premise as the last: he's the classic American immigrant story/he's an anti-fascist poster boy/he's a power fantasy for the oppressed/he's a couple of Jewish kids' "fuck you" to the idea of the Aryan ubermensch/he's a pure ID superhero just like Axe Cop limited only by the imaginations of his writers and editors - but as SBT points out, paradoxically with all these many means of interpreting Superman, I would say - as a Superman fan - that his actual books are complete and unmitigated shit.  All Star Superman was pretty much the only thing worth reading since Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow (which was printed in 1986), with only a couple of high points through the years that were more aberrations than anything else (a Swamp Thing team up, some JLA issues, Mark Millar's Superman Adventures).
The Superman situation is basically the exact opposite of Spider-Man: Spidey is a glorified bully, a self-centered social-climbing user who takes without ever giving back, and yet his books - of late, especially - are great reads despite their horrible status/status quo-obsessed central character.  Peter Parker as a scumbag paparazzo?  Genius!  Compare that to Grant Morrison's efforts in Action Comics reinventing Clark Kent as a social crusader for a news website which just had me going "oh fuck off."

Basically, Superman is great as a concept.  In practice not so much.

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 22 July, 2012, 03:37:17 PM
Out of my dislike for all superheroes I find Superman the most interesting!

Due to his upbringing by his all round American, adopted parents his mind must be in constant turmoil. There he is, the ultimate HERO on the planet, with the power to do nigh on everything. He could sort out the troubles of the world by just 'telling' the UN and the leaders of the world to stop bickering and sort the planet out. Yet he sits back and lets billions across the globe suffer due to the inaction of a few powerful parties.

That's obviously a bit black and white but it all comes down to that in the end!

Alan Moore did it in Marvelman. I have no impulse to read any Superman comics, ever.

I've barely read any Superman - Red Son and when he crosses over into any Batman I've read.

I have a fondness for the first 2 films, and the Superman elements of the Iron Giant will make me well up without fail.

Seems like it's more the idea of Superman is more interesting than a lot of the actual strips.

Never read any Marvel/Miracleman but I'd like to.

Frank Millers take on Supes was very interesting in TDKR.

Quote from: dracula1 on 22 July, 2012, 07:21:15 PM
Frank Millers take on Supes was very interesting in TDKR.

Miller's Earth-bound God approach sounds a lot like (what I've heard) Moore's Marvelman did. The introduction of the character as a literal force of nature, manifesting only as a tornado or an earthquake- something ineffable for which there's no direct evidence and to which witnesses are afraid to put a name- is something mythic and fascinating that I'm not aware of any other writer even trying to follow up.

The oft-made Christ comparisons seem a useful way of portraying the duality of such a character; like Jesus, Kal-el is essentially an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient consciousness manifesting itself on the physical plane to experience itself subjectively. The sentimental ties to his adoptive human parents (and the sexual imperative embodied by Lois) are really all that's holding Supes back from behaving in exactly the detached, rational and utterly terrifying fashion CF and Pro Byah describe above.

The tension between acting in a way which our reason and experience demonstrate makes sense, and obeying what our biological urges and psychological weaknesses compel us to do, should make for storytelling gold and reader identification. As it is, the only issue of an actual Superman comic I own is one from the Eighties, where Lex Luthor builds a super-computer to work out Superman's secret identity. It's not really very good.

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 22 July, 2012, 04:00:27 PM
... weirdo middle-aged men who make up his core readership ...

Are you talking about Superman or 200AD? ;)

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 22 July, 2012, 04:00:27 PM
...he has no relevance to the modern age...

This is one of the core problems with 99% of Superman comics for me. He's never really been all that relevant. What sensible things does an insanely strong alien who can fly, shoot lazers from his eyes, freeze shit with his breath and is only vunerable in the presence of an extremely rare green glowy rock, have to say about any era or the frailty of the human condition? I think Superman works when its more outlandish. The sci-fi  elements of Superman have been largely ignored recently.

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 22 July, 2012, 04:00:27 PM
If he'd died twenty or so years ago in the comics, would the comics industry be any poorer?

Probably not, Joe Siegel and his family probably would have received the same amount of money from DC in either case. I have a theory that Superman is the one that installed the revolving door in the comicsverse afterlife while he was dead.

Pops, in all seriousness, no one 'involved' in 2000AD fandom- sc*t* *e*t*l included- is as frightening as the dc comics/ dr who fan i have in mind.

SBT

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 22 July, 2012, 08:42:28 PM
Pops, in all seriousness, no one 'involved' in 2000AD fandom- sc*t* *e*t*l included- is as frightening as the dc comics/ dr who fan i have in mind.SBT

I'll ask, then. Which Record Producer/nerd do you mean, SBT?

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 22 July, 2012, 06:29:32 PMAlan Moore did it in Marvelman. I have no impulse to read any Superman comics, ever.

Moore also did it again in Supreme, but rather than create a story that was a reaction to Superman - as Marvelman is - Supreme is Superman facing down his detractors who demand he be some boring gritty antihero or deeply complex mental case, taking a Silver Age superhero and putting him in the modern world (well, in 1996).  Naturally, a godlike being living among us who battles ultra-dimensional imps, supervillains who can travel via television programmes and sentient galaxies is kind of a big deal and Moore concentrates on that as being ninteresting in and of itself.  Suprise suprise, it works just fine.

If you want to see why most Superman stories don't work, check out Marvel's The Sentry.
Spinning out of a miniseries that is only good so long as Flex Mentallo is never reprinted (whoopsy daisy), Sentry was so poorly-written, his writers so lacking in ideas what to do with him as a character or even as a plot element, that eventually they just tried to paint him as a commentary on why Superman couldn't work in the context of the Marvel universe.  It's a car wreck of a character.

Millers idea of Supes as a government agent was an interesting twist on the whole formulaic Superman concept.

Quote from: dracula1 on 22 July, 2012, 09:39:14 PM
Millers idea of Supes as a government agent was an interesting twist on the whole formulaic Superman concept.

Aye, but he's the embodiment of US foreign policy and America's ability to project its power oveseas, sinking battleships and doing what Kennedy couldn't do (in 'Corto Maltese'/Cuba) to Soviet missiles that threatened the US mainland.

Bruce Wayne and Oliver Queen are used as cyphers to represent the right and left wing (respectively) strains of American political dissidence that threaten the domestic political status quo. Mrs Kent's little boy being unleashed on US soil is a foreshadowing of the way the CIA expanded their brief to cover domestic 'threats' following the collapse of the USSR and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in response to the 9/11 attacks.

Quote from: Professah Byah on 22 July, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Moore also did it again in Supreme, but rather than create a story that was a reaction to Superman - as Marvelman is - Supreme is Superman facing down his detractors who demand he be some boring gritty antihero or deeply complex mental case, taking a Silver Age superhero and putting him in the modern world (well, in 1996).  Naturally, a godlike being living among us who battles ultra-dimensional imps, supervillains who can travel via television programmes and sentient galaxies is kind of a big deal and Moore concentrates on that as being ninteresting in and of itself.  Suprise suprise, it works just fine.

Moore has sucessfully exploited both ends of the superhero spectrum from the nietzschean to the fabulously absurd and was never bound by the need to represent the conservative pedestrianism of Truth, Justice and the American Way. Superman has rarely risen above being the boring propaganda character which Miller satirised in TDKReturns and Moore gave heart to in For the Man Who has Everything. The Snyder/Nolan reboot - literally represented as a fish out of water story judging by the trailer - ain't much more interesting than Singer's super-stalker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YDO8HR_2Xg

Beautifully summarized bikini kill, thanks.  This is making me want to go back and re-read it :-)

I like the trailer, I am looking forward to it!

Well my favourite comic version of Superman is; Red Son.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Supermanredson.jpg)

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 22 July, 2012, 10:14:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YDO8HR_2Xg

Fuckin-A!

He can halt the death plunge of a de Havilland bomber, but he struggles to breach the door to the cockpit?

I like Superman, I admit he's had some really naff strips... but hasn't every hero? People forget he's also had some brilliant brilliant runs as well.

Anyone else who read Luthor?

I'm not the biggest fan of Superman, but Luthor is a fantastic book. Both S-man and Baldy comes off as perfect players in a lot of those things that makes USA. The ending is a pure thrill.


And about the movie. The trailer is beatiful. I love what they seem to be doing with Superman. Heartbreaking and existensial stuff mixed with awesome scenes (love the end scene where he flies!)

Bikini Kill: i wont mention this possibly litigious person's name, but im sure you know who i mean. My point was merely that, while all fandoms have their massive nutbags, 2000AD (and uk comics in general) has, in my experience, some of the least offensive. Not to take away the impact and huge wankiness of ***jo, and i understand people's anger at him- but really, hang about in dr who fandom or trek fandom, or gary numan fandom for a bit to put him in the wider context.

Back to superman, for some reason i think he works better on tv and film than on the page... which sounds like bollocks even to me, after all the strip must be doing something right to have lasted 212 years, or however long it is. Maybe the idea is SO visual that it takes a moving image to really do it justice; comics tending to be hyper-real anyway. Whatever, i'd rather watch george reeves, chris reeve or dean cain than read any of the comic stories.

SBT

I thought that the beginning of the trailer was a Guinness advert!

Ahh there was two different versions of Superman: Man Of Steel with two different voice/overs.

with Russell Crowe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zld8i2mRxb0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zld8i2mRxb0)

with Kevin Costner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpvOT6HJCmg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpvOT6HJCmg)

I'm very happy about Cavill's casting and I like the suit - I've never been a fan of the underpants on the outside of the costumes lol - but like someone said...I hope it isnt like certain superhero films where there's a quick jump to where the protagonist has miraculously learned to sew and design like Alexander McQueen and come up with a durable lasting superhero costume over night lol

which leads me on to the second thing - since crowe is wearing a costume with an S on it as well, I'm guessing Cavill's suit is made on Krypton....but I always thought the S icon was something Kent adopted for himself? as Superman?

Quote from: judgeblake on 26 July, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
I hope it isnt like certain superhero films where there's a quick jump to where the protagonist has miraculously learned to sew and design like Alexander McQueen and come up with a durable lasting superhero costume over night lol

He's an alien from another planet with superpowers and you worry about his seamstress skills ?

His mum made the costume.  I imagine it's a Kansas thing to make body casts of your children so you can dress them in rubber, but then that's the whimsy of the American heartland for you.

"Dear mother, I am well, thank you for the wetsuit you have made for me for when I am fishing and that here on the boat where I work for some reason now.  If I ever fight crime for Big Macs and Jesus I will also then wear it proudly, like my favorite superhero Kick Ass.  I will also wear a big red cape like Dracula, and that way no matter how lame I become I will still be fucking awesome."

Quote from: Professah Byah on 27 July, 2012, 04:24:41 PM
His mum made the costume.  I imagine it's a Kansas thing to make body casts of your children so you can dress them in rubber, but then that's the whimsy of the American heartland for you.

She originally made the costume out of the blankets that were in the rocket he travelled to Earth in. Maybe they're rubber sheets in this version. Would make sense. It's a long journey from Krypton.

Quote from: judgeblake on 26 July, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
I'm very happy about Cavill's casting and I like the suit - I've never been a fan of the underpants on the outside of the costumes lol - but like someone said...I hope it isnt like certain superhero films where there's a quick jump to where the protagonist has miraculously learned to sew and design like Alexander McQueen and come up with a durable lasting superhero costume over night lol

which leads me on to the second thing - since crowe is wearing a costume with an S on it as well, I'm guessing Cavill's suit is made on Krypton....but I always thought the S icon was something Kent adopted for himself? as Superman?

Whenever I've seen them the chest insignia are just the sigil of their family. And that's the one for Jor-El's.

As for the costume, I guess they could go with something that makes itself, the crystal builds the fortress of solitude so it's not a massive leap to presume it could knock up a onesie without Ma Kent having to get the singer out.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, gets me more excited about a superhero film than the first trailer focusing on a "He worked as a fisherman!" back-story.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 27 July, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, gets me more excited about a superhero film than the first trailer focusing on a "He worked as a fisherman!" back-story.

They're pushing the Jesus thing aren't they.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 27 July, 2012, 08:08:49 PM

Quote from: Charlie boy on 27 July, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, gets me more excited about a superhero film than the first trailer focusing on a "He worked as a fisherman!" back-story.

They're pushing the Jesus thing aren't they.

Yeah - made that observation too!

No doubt he'll be the doubting messiah for a while. Paul Verhoeven should've rebooted this.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 27 July, 2012, 08:08:49 PM

Quote from: Charlie boy on 27 July, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, gets me more excited about a superhero film than the first trailer focusing on a "He worked as a fisherman!" back-story.

They're pushing the Jesus thing aren't they.

lol...well I didnt get the jesus thing haha but it makes complete sense with superman being the jesus archetype - with the fisherman trailer thing - I thought maybe they were trying to show that they had bought something remotely new to the superman story.

I can smell a stinker coming of this one a year before its release. Surely it can't be as crap as Sucker punch!  :-X

Quote from: judgeblake on 27 July, 2012, 08:34:26 PM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 27 July, 2012, 08:08:49 PM

Quote from: Charlie boy on 27 July, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, gets me more excited about a superhero film than the first trailer focusing on a "He worked as a fisherman!" back-story.

They're pushing the Jesus thing aren't they.

lol...well I didnt get the jesus thing haha but it makes complete sense with superman being the jesus archetype - with the fisherman trailer thing - I thought maybe they were trying to show that they had bought something remotely new to the superman story.

really? The Jesus thing is pretty in your face! From Superman the movie: "You will travel far, my little Kal-El. But we will never leave you... even in the face of our death. The richness of our lives shall be yours. All that I have, all that I've learned, everything I feel... all this, and more, I... I bequeath you, my son. You will carry me inside you, all the days of your life. You will make my strength your own, and see my life through your eyes, as your life will be seen through mine. The son becomes the father, and the father the son. This is all I... all I can send you, Kal-El."

yeah I agreed that superman fitted the archetype of jesus

Surely the story of jesus is just another ancient fable of a 'superman' (read: people with superpowers), like any number of others- including many much older- that's just been taken a leeeetle too seriously? 

For a more obvious example of ancient myth directly influencing the creation of a popular modern superhero, the blonde beardie in the avengers springs to mind.

SBT

Judging by the music at the start of that trailer I thought that fishing boat was heading off to rescue Frodo and Sam...

I can see what they were going for there, something like the brilliant Star Trek teaser where you're watching a kid in a classic car being chased by a retro android cop to the tune of Sabotage and then suddenly WTF! ... it's CAPTAIN KIRK!  However, that trailer was exciting in and of itself.  This has a washing line and a vague feeling of being a modern-dress passion play.

Wow. My ability to deconstruct a text was surely lacking when I was a kid. I remember reading THIS

(http://www.tonystrading.co.uk/pix/annuals/1980s/1980/superman80.jpg)

on Christmas Day and at no point did I think: "Whoa, what is this crap? This guy has all these powers and he doesn't make hisself king of the world? So what if the art's pretty nifty and there's this cool-as-fuck villain called Solomon Grundy."

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 28 July, 2012, 11:00:56 AM
Surely the story of jesus is just another ancient fable of a 'superman' (read: people with superpowers), like any number of others- including many much older- that's just been taken a leeeetle too seriously?

Siegel and Shuster were Jewish. How likely is it a Christ metaphor would've figured in their thinking? Did it even exist in the comics before the Donner film?

Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 28 July, 2012, 12:07:11 PMSiegel and Shuster were Jewish. How likely is it a Christ metaphor would've figured in their thinking? Did it even exist in the comics before the Donner film?

There are whole books on this subject, and even wonderful fictionalised versions like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.  The point generally being, who is more likely to be interested in a Messiah than two Jewish boys in the 1930s?

Quote from: TordelBack on 28 July, 2012, 12:23:49 PM
There are whole books on this subject, and even wonderful fictionalised versions like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.  The point generally being, who is more likely to be interested in a Messiah than two Jewish boys in the 1930s?

But how interested would those two Jewish boys be in the Christian Messiah? I am intrigued, though. What's the gist?

It's been said a big reason for actually placing the S on his chest is Siegel and Shuster wanted you to see him and automatically think of them (both names beginning with an S, after all) so maybe it's so big in this screen adaptation because somebody is finally trying to make up for the way the two were treated.
Judgeblake- don't worry, Snyder is bound to bring something in that has never been used in the Superman films before. I'm guessing it'll be saturated colour and numberous slow motion shots to a bit*hin' electric guitar soundtrack...

Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 28 July, 2012, 01:01:57 PM
But how interested would those two Jewish boys be in the Christian Messiah? I am intrigued, though. What's the gist?

They're still waiting for him to arrive.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 28 July, 2012, 01:56:30 PM
so maybe it's so big in this screen adaptation because somebody is finally trying to make up for the way the two were treated.

I can think of better ways to do that.

Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 28 July, 2012, 01:01:57 PM

Quote from: TordelBack on 28 July, 2012, 12:23:49 PM
There are whole books on this subject, and even wonderful fictionalised versions like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.  The point generally being, who is more likely to be interested in a Messiah than two Jewish boys in the 1930s?

But how interested would those two Jewish boys be in the Christian Messiah? I am intrigued, though. What's the gist?

I don't think the equally jewish Stan Lee worshipped Odin, but that didn't stop him appropriating the tropes of Norse mythology for his own ends. Siegel & Shuster would probably have viewed the New Testament narratives as just another source of iconography, in the same dispassionate way they viewed the Nietzschean idea of The Superman, when they were cheerfully assembling their character from other peoples' ideas.

Quote from: bikini kill on 28 July, 2012, 04:31:24 PM
I don't think the equally jewish Stan Lee worshipped Odin, but that didn't stop him appropriating the tropes of Norse mythology for his own ends.

Not really the same thing, though, is it? How many Jews in the Twentieth Century were being persecuted as Odinson Killers? A baby boy set adrift and later adopted by another race sounds more like an allusion to Moses than the Jesus allegory it seems to have become. Which in itself, I s'pose, is kinda analogous to how Judaism has been usurped by Christianity.

Ah. Then again, it might just be the use of the word 'metaphor' that bothers me.

I can't remember the finer points of the Moses tale down to how long ago it was told to me at school but I'm pretty sure it was Moses who led his people across the desert. I know Superman has been described as 'the wandering Jew' before for how he was forced to travel to find a place for home and people he could see as 'his' people. Both Moses and Jesus were to encourage the best of people and lead by example. I think the biggest Jesus reference in recent Superman history tho is in Superman Returns. Not only does he go for a Christ-like pose when he goes above the clouds to get power from the sun but he then practically dies saving the day but is up and about again some days later.
Focusing more on this rebooted franchise again tho- I'd much rather Bryan Singer had been given another chance. I'm not saying he would have to make a sequel to Superman Returns (which I actually really enjoy but a lot of people disliked it)- he could have been given the shot to start it again, which I had originally hoped he was going to do when he was last given the job of directing a Superman film.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 29 July, 2012, 12:33:30 PM
I'd much rather Bryan Singer had been given another chance.

Just like Jesus, you're a sucker for punishment.

Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 29 July, 2012, 11:22:08 AM

Quote from: bikini kill on 28 July, 2012, 04:31:24 PM
I don't think the equally jewish Stan Lee worshipped Odin, but that didn't stop him appropriating the tropes of Norse mythology for his own ends.

Not really the same thing, though, is it? How many Jews in the Twentieth Century were being persecuted as Odinson Killers? A baby boy set adrift and later adopted by another race sounds more like an allusion to Moses than the Jesus allegory it seems to have become. Which in itself, I s'pose, is kinda analogous to how Judaism has been usurped by Christianity.

Ah. Then again, it might just be the use of the word 'metaphor' that bothers me.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Siegel and Shuster set about deliberately creating anything as specific as an allegory. As you mention, Moses and Kal-el share similar infancies, but their stories diverge radically thereafter. S & S plundered parts of everything from immigrant narratives, to Nietzsche, to Doc Savage, to Roosevelt to create something that has the same universal appeal as most myths. I'm sure Indian readers see obvious parallels with the story of Vishnu, but it doesn't mean that was a deliberate act on the part of the authors.

The work of Roland Barthes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author) and the school of reader reception theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_theory) seem to have obvious relevance here. Metaphors are in the eye of the beholder.

it's all semantics and archetypes - I wonder if the book I've ordered off amazon entitled Hero with a Thousand Faces will touch on this actually.

But I see Kal-El as amalgamated archetype of Moses and Jesus (themselves being archetypes of past gods such as Midras, Vulcan, Egyptian gods etc) Kal El is cast into the reeds of earth, afterwhich he becomes the jesus/messiah archetype seemingly coming short only at being able to heal lol then he becomes the nietzchean superman I guess with less of the aryan overtones :P 

Quote from: bikini kill on 29 July, 2012, 04:27:41 PM
S & S plundered parts of everything from immigrant narratives, to Nietzsche, to Doc Savage, to Roosevelt to create something that has the same universal appeal as most myths. I'm sure Indian readers see obvious parallels with the story of Vishnu, but it doesn't mean that was a deliberate act on the part of the authors.

It's Supes' blank slate universality that renders him completely boring for me - he's like a useful idiot. Moore seemed to be the only writer who knew what to do with him and his House of Steel idea in the Twilight proposal was at least pushing the potential of the Super aspect to the character.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 29 July, 2012, 05:01:53 PM

Quote from: bikini kill on 29 July, 2012, 04:27:41 PM
S & S plundered parts of everything from immigrant narratives, to Nietzsche, to Doc Savage, to Roosevelt to create something that has the same universal appeal as most myths. I'm sure Indian readers see obvious parallels with the story of Vishnu, but it doesn't mean that was a deliberate act on the part of the authors.

It's Supes' blank slate universality that renders him completely boring for me - he's like a useful idiot. Moore seemed to be the only writer who knew what to do with him and his House of Steel idea in the Twilight proposal was at least pushing the potential of the Super aspect to the character.

same here.

what has always bored me, from a kid onwards, about superman - was that he was an alien superbeing pretending to be human because he didnt really know better. I could never reconcile the human and vulnerable world of other superheroes with human dynamics and politics with Superman a reigning pseudo-god whom villains never stood a chance with lol unless they used a stick of kryptonite as a suppository on him - thats why I guess I've only ever liked superman when there was that whole Death of Superman arc with many different varied varied of supermen emerging, and doomsday was a great villain - just pure, bred, evil.

I never got into the movies either really. The only things that have stayed with me are; when superman turned back time, superman fighting clark kent, general zod and co, marlon brando, and kevin spacey from the more recent film.

I never cared for Supes when I was a kid for all the reasons cited above, but Moore and Morrison showed you could tell some great involving stories with him, albeit all ones where his vulnerabilty was upped. 

I also rather enjoyed the recentish New Krypton story, which gave him a planetful of superpowered Kryptonian peers right next door, and in doing so showed what actually made him special.

Quote from: TordelBack on 29 July, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I never cared for Supes when I was a kid for all the reasons cited above, but Moore and Morrison showed you could tell some great involving stories with him, albeit all ones where his vulnerabilty was upped. I also rather enjoyed the recentish New Krypton story, which gave him a planetful of superpowered Kryptonian peers right next door, and in doing so showed what actually made him special.

I think Donner and Puzo's conception of the character's origins was so mythic (the first half hour of it and Lois's death, anyway) that it's fixed the character in amber in the public consciousness, which is death to any kind of on-going narrative.

I'm reading Storyteller (after recommendations on this forum), wherein Alan Moore rather grandly proclaims that the two issues of Superman he wrote in 1986 represented "the last real Superman story". I don't know enough about the character to know whether that's true, but in terms of public perception and interest in the character it doesn't seem wide of the mark.

Moore emphasises that the silver age Superman comics he enjoyed as a boy were an embarrassment of fantastically odd concepts, imagination and ideas- not death fake-outs or soapy melodrama, where readers know everything will always end up the same as it's always been.

For the Man who has Eveything is still the best Superman story for me. Similar idea of Supes as the ordinary man was in Superman II.

Quote from: bikini kill on 29 July, 2012, 09:50:04 PM
I'm reading Storyteller (after recommendations on this forum), wherein Alan Moore rather grandly proclaims that the two issues of Superman he wrote in 1986 represented "the last real Superman story".

This is of course strictly correct.  What followed ...Man of Tomorrow was the first of many new 'rebooted' Supermen with their own origins and histories, severed from the bizarre, tangled thread that runs through from Action Comics No. 1 and thus effectively different people.  The 'real' (-cough-) Superman really did [spoiler]outlive Luthor and Brainiac, retire and raise a superpowered kid with Lois[/spoiler] - in short, thst guy's story actually had an ending, and one that was very sweet. 

However, like Joe, I'd have to go for ...Man Who Has Everything as my favourite.  That really is something.

I see Man of Tomorrow in much the same way I see The Dark Knight Returns, they are real endings to those characters.

Quote from: TordelBack on 29 July, 2012, 10:22:48 PM

Quote from: bikini kill on 29 July, 2012, 09:50:04 PM
I'm reading Storyteller (after recommendations on this forum), wherein Alan Moore rather grandly proclaims that the two issues of Superman he wrote in 1986 represented "the last real Superman story".

This is of course strictly correct.

Actually, no.  Infinite Crisis had that version of Superman come back out of Crisis limbo to be clubbed to death by modern storytelling and I cannot emphasise enough here that I AM NOT MAKING THAT UP.  Golden Age Superman is beaten to death by a character who has since come to be the DCUs anthropomorphic personification of the internet, but is far more likely the personification of current DC editorial seeing as the character's whole deal is "I didn't like that story that happened thirty years ago and I will thus wipe it from continuity and do not have any plans beyond that."

Does anyone know how they will tackle the whole glasses thing -
as far as secret identities go, and disguises, the slight change of hairstyle and donning of spectacles is a pretty poor one lol the joke being, you can clearly tell Clark Kent is Superman, so why can't the in-movie characters!!!

At least the movie Green Lantern had the good sense to confront this as Ryan Reynolds glides down to his love-interests' balcony in Green Lantern regalia and mask, only for her to figure out pretty much straight away that it was Hal Jordan lol I think he even says 'how did you know it was me? You cant even see my cheekbones!' or something.

Quote from: Professah Byah on 30 July, 2012, 12:13:54 AMActually, no.  Infinite Crisis had that version of Superman come back out of Crisis limbo to be clubbed to death by modern storytelling and I cannot emphasise enough here that I AM NOT MAKING THAT UP.

I...

Quote from: judgeblake on 30 July, 2012, 12:20:51 AM
Does anyone know how they will tackle the whole glasses thing -
as far as secret identities go, and disguises, the slight change of hairstyle and donning of spectacles is a pretty poor one lol the joke being, you can clearly tell Clark Kent is Superman, so why can't the in-movie characters!!!

Because no-one actually knows Superman has a secret identity - he's Superman.  He doesn't even even wear a mask.

Quote from: Professah Byah on 30 July, 2012, 12:40:39 AM

Quote from: judgeblake on 30 July, 2012, 12:20:51 AM
Does anyone know how they will tackle the whole glasses thing -
as far as secret identities go, and disguises, the slight change of hairstyle and donning of spectacles is a pretty poor one lol the joke being, you can clearly tell Clark Kent is Superman, so why can't the in-movie characters!!!

Because no-one actually knows Superman has a secret identity - he's Superman.  He doesn't even even wear a mask.

yeah but, look...if I was a citizen of Metropolis and I saw Clark Kent on the street - I'd either say 'holy shit that's superman' or I'd say 'holy shit he looks a hell of a lot like superman! maybe its him incognito trying to avoid paparazzi?'

Anyone who read Brian Azzarello's Luthor?

If this one looks as good as it does, then Luthor could be a very fine concept for a follow up. I really love what it does to both Superman and Luthor as characters.

Luthor actually being close to having a point bringing superman down, and superman being portrayed as a dangerous alien.

Quote from: judgeblake on 30 July, 2012, 12:53:11 AMyeah but, look...if I was a citizen of Metropolis and I saw Clark Kent on the street - I'd either say 'holy shit that's superman' or I'd say 'holy shit he looks a hell of a lot like superman!

I think there are several more implausible aspects to Superman to deal with before we get to the 'weak disguise' element.

And on that note, has anyone noticed that over in Action Comics he's moved on to a new secret identity with no glasses, just some mussed-up hair?

Quote from: judgeblake on 30 July, 2012, 12:53:11 AM

Quote from: Professah Byah on 30 July, 2012, 12:40:39 AM
Because no-one actually knows Superman has a secret identity - he's Superman.  He doesn't even even wear a mask.

yeah but, look...if I was a citizen of Metropolis and I saw Clark Kent on the street - I'd either say 'holy shit that's superman' or I'd say 'holy shit he looks a hell of a lot like superman! maybe its him incognito trying to avoid paparazzi?'

Assuming you didn't recognize him as Clark Kent (in which case you'd be saying "Ooh! Look! It's Clark Kent, the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and journalist!"), I suspect you'd then go "Nah" but it's something you'll bring up every-bloody-time your pub talk mentions the Steeled Fella no matter how incidentally. It usually gets a laugh, especially when one of your chums then chimes in with how they have a similar theory about Charlize Theron and Ashley Judd. The seven-year age difference, of course, is but one aspect of her disguise.

In the Real World, however, it's an in-universe convention that's simply accepted (and, on occasion, explained away). The same way we accept how ridiculous (and ignore how stupid) unauthorized use leads to an exploding Lawgiver.

If we're talking about the merits of superman, I would advise you to go and read Superman: Last Son (Geoff Johns, Richard Donner, Adam and Andy Kubert) and Superman: Braniac (Geoff Johns, Gary Frank). I think these are some really good examples of good Superman reads of late, that aren't what people will usually tell you to read like All-Star, which is of course, still brilliant. I've also been liking the New 52 Action comics.
I've been trying to read a lot more Supes recently.

*Edit* Plus they're planning on doing an animated adaptation of Braniac

Oh God, no.  The Johns Superman is derivative wank that strip-mines the cartoon shows and other writers' work with nary a care for the morality of doing so, or more importantly without a distinctive voice or personality to characterise the end product as definitively Johns' own.  It's creative asset-stripping and little else - competently done, certainly, and compared to the drivel around it that's certainly enough for some readers to declare it the best Superman in years, but this is not actually saying very much.

Check out Mark Millar's Superman Adventures if you want more old-school Supes stuff.  Even people who hate Mark Millar admit it's pretty great.
Not all of it is in print anymore, but the point where the Byrne/Jurgens/Ordway/Simonson material overlaps in the early 1990s is rich with ideas and the post-Crisis Krypton (the version that Byrne came up with in the 1980s before it got shitconned every six months post-millenium) is really mined for storytelling possibilities, while the Zero Hour tie-in where Supes teams up with the three different Batmen (including gun-toting Golden Age Batman and Dark Knight Returns Batman before the latter was done to death) was daft fun.  The mix of art styles is a little jarring, but the run is overall eventful and enjoyable old-school superhero adventures of the sort before they became willfully self-aware, while being just recent enough after the Crisis On Infinite Earths reboot to not yet be tortuously convoluted.  Man Of Steel is a good place to start, and there was a series of volumes collecting the highlights of the era under the Man Of Steel banner if you can track them down, though if you can't, individual chunks of storyline like Krimson Kryptonite and Eradication are still available.

I dunno, I liked them, but I do love Gary Franks art, and Braniac, and the idea of Richard Donner writing superman! Oh and as you said Man of Steel is another good one, I can re-read that first mini-series over and over! A bit off topic but did any one ever read John Byrnes attempt at doing a similar thing with Spider-man?
Anyway, I've heard world of Krypton is good as a tie-in to the Byrne man of steel, haven't read it yet, but I'm sure I'll like it, it's got Mike Mignola artwork!

A lot of the best Krypton stuff was incidental and came over the course of the run in small glimpses here and there before the largely terrible (but - bafflingly - critically beloved) mini-reboot of the Superman line under Jeph Loeb and Joe Kelly, and had Krypton as a fascistic dystopia ala THX 1138.  It was an actual honest-to-god sci-fi story all its own and was genuinely interesting and eventually quite complex to the point they decided to reboot it all rather than accept that Krypton was not really anything to do with Superman beyond being that place he came from and never went back to because it was exploded in space.
Instead we got a Silver Age-style rebooted Krypton because that's the kind of thing Grant Morrison was making popular at the time, but the writers didn't really know what to do with this conceit once they'd actually put it on the page and it was quickly retconned, though they were never quite clear on how it was retconned, they were just adamant that the Silver Age stuff they'd written months earlier didn't happen - except when they referred to it - and that it had been replaced with something else.  Then that got retconned, too, and then there was another retcon, then that Kandor stuff retconned things again.  There was also a Silver Age Zod in there somewhere, only they didn't retcon him as much as they created another completely unrelated character called Zod and just stopped mentioning the older version they'd created four months earlier.

Fair enough for liking the Johns stuff, but I remain highly dubious about Donner's involvement in writing the comics in any capacity, especially given the heavy similarity between plot elements there and then-recent plot elements from DC/WB cartoon adaptations of the material (the Kandor stuff being a direct lift from the Legion Of Super-Heroes cartoon show) - an area long-mined by Geoff Johns, coincidentally, who ended up finishing up the run's stories for Donner.  Small world.

Is the Loeb stuff you're talking about Superman For Tomorrow?

Wait that was Jim Lee as well.

That was Brian Azzarello's dreadful For Tomorrow.  If dozens of pages of Superman talking aimless masturbatory bollocks to a priest are what you want from a Superman comic, then you're in luck - the rest of us not so much.

Quite sincerely, I don't see the point of Superman. Out of all the heroes, in all tales, I think he is just misconceived and I am genuinely stumped at how he endures. I think it might down to his American wholesomeness.

From a writing and story point of view, I don't see how there are that many tales to tell about him. He is immortal, impervious to harm and almost god-like in his superpowers. So, to tell a tale, you either create even more superer villains (which is hard to do, given the bar you are trying to reach), or you falsely weaken the character (give him super amnesia or inter-dimensional clones of himself to fight or... krypton), or you focus on his struggle to fit in.

But the struggle to belong, while resonating with audiences, isn't - I think - enough to carry a superhero comic strip. Angst can and does sell, but it isn't the main selling point for hero comics. I would stress that the personal struggle and alienation is plenty artistic and good enough, great enough, to build characters and books around - but that if you were doing that then you wouldn't want to load your lead character with a whole load of superpowers that just get in the way.

So, am I missing something? Or am I right in saying that every Superman - villain battle can be reduced to Superman kicking the shit out of someone who is, like it or lump it (nuclear armour or not), simply weaker than Supes?

If the story is by a terrible writer, then yes.

If Superman being immortal is a problem, what about non-superhero stories narrated in the past tense by the hero?  Surely their narrating those stories negates the possibility of their dying at any point, sapping any sense of drama from their being in danger and thus making them just as - if not more - immortal than Superman?

By the sound of it, Clark Kent's refreshingly well-adjusted. That's assuming DC hasn't reverted back to that dreary stranger-in-a-strange-land bollocks.

Quote from: The Enigmatic Dr X on 01 September, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
Quite sincerely, I don't see the point of Superman. Out of all the heroes, in all tales, I think he is just misconceived and I am genuinely stumped at how he endures. I think it might down to his American wholesomeness.

From a writing and story point of view, I don't see how there are that many tales to tell about him. He is immortal, impervious to harm and almost god-like in his superpowers. So, to tell a tale, you either create even more superer villains (which is hard to do, given the bar you are trying to reach), or you falsely weaken the character (give him super amnesia or inter-dimensional clones of himself to fight or... krypton), or you focus on his struggle to fit in.

But the struggle to belong, while resonating with audiences, isn't - I think - enough to carry a superhero comic strip. Angst can and does sell, but it isn't the main selling point for hero comics. I would stress that the personal struggle and alienation is plenty artistic and good enough, great enough, to build characters and books around - but that if you were doing that then you wouldn't want to load your lead character with a whole load of superpowers that just get in the way.

So, am I missing something? Or am I right in saying that every Superman - villain battle can be reduced to Superman kicking the shit out of someone who is, like it or lump it (nuclear armour or not), simply weaker than Supes?

Quotethink he is just misconceived and I am genuinely stumped at how he endures. I think it might down to his American wholesomeness.

Has he not endured simply due to the fact that he is or was America's posterboy like Captain America was for Marvel?

The american superpower ready to take on any threat to the world very much the way america is seen in the world?

He is an immigrant that made america his home and has thrived yeah he has god like powers that have helped BUT isn't taht the immigrant dream? to live in the land of the free,home of the brave? protected from the world and it's villians?

QuoteQuite sincerely, I don't see the point of Superman. Out of all the heroes, in all tales, I think he is just misconceived and I am genuinely stumped at how he endures. I think it might down to his American wholesomeness.

I dunno... I can see where you're coming from, but I for one would live a crack at writing him. I think there are loads of interesting stories to be told.

A cynical man would point out that there's been 70+ years of stories featuring the character with very little covering of the same ground even when there were four books a month, assorted specials, and roughly three guest-appearances in other books each month for at least the last thirty years, five films, two movie serials, five cartoon shows (off the top of my head), radio serials, various tv shows including FUCKING SMALLVILLE...

There are stories to be told about Superman, is what I am saying, and people have found ways to tell them without the character getting in the way, and as seen above, even the writer of Turning Tiger - available now from Amazon for the reasonable price of £5.39p (incl p&p) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turning-Tiger-Special-Edition-Moore/dp/1926914872 - reckons he'd like a go (and with the state of DC's writer turnaround these days, all he has to do is hang about the office for a week or two), so writers are still coming up with angles, still coming up with stories...  there's more stories to be told than "will character X die?"
(http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/superman-dick-comic-13.jpg)

I like you. When I'm ruler, you'll get to live.

Michael Shannon as General Zod

(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1686/zodu.jpg)

There's some piss-poor Photoshoppery going on in that image.

Cheers!

Jim

I laughed my balls off for a full minute at that pic.

"He's supposed to be a Evil Superman, so give him a black Superman costume like that Venom guy, only with a backwards "s" only make the backwards "s" EVEN BLACKER than black."

That is so fucking ridiculous and unoriginal I genuinely think it is impossible to criticise it.  Snyder has literally become so shit the needle on the shitometer has swung all the way around through "shit" into "awesome".

Handy how Kryptonian letters look just like their equivalent phonemes in the latin alphabet.  That is a very poo costume, not helped by the fact that Michael Shannon looks confusingly like George Reeves.

He doesn't have a goatee. How are you supposed to know he's evil if he doesn't have a goatee?

Ha ha - gotta love the big Z!
He should have had an O on his belly button and a D shaped cod piece.

You have given that design too much thought.  You're fired.

Quote from: TordelBack on 07 November, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
Handy how Kryptonian letters look just like their equivalent phonemes in the latin alphabet.

But that's how science works.
On Krypton.



Probably.

Quote from: Professah Byah on 07 November, 2012, 03:32:06 PM
"He's supposed to be a Evil Superman, so give him a black Superman costume like that Venom guy, only with a backwards "s" only make the backwards "s" EVEN BLACKER than black."

That is so fucking ridiculous and unoriginal I genuinely think it is impossible to criticise it.  Snyder has literally become so shit the needle on the shitometer has swung all the way around through "shit" into "awesome".

It's not an official image, though it does have precedent:

(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/5/53500/1120044-zod.jpg)


The lettering never makes sense.

If they're seriously taking any kind of cue from DC comics of the last five years, this Superman reboot is in deeper shit than previously thought.

Quote from: Goaty on 07 November, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
Michael Shannon as General Zod

(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1686/zodu.jpg)

That outfit's too much like Bizarro's.

Doesn't look anywhere near as evil as Christopher Reeve does in the Superman 3 bar scene (guy broke the mirror with peanuts). One of the greatest scenes in the history of film. Ever.

Come on people! I'm I the only one who thinks this is a fake!
Evidence for the defence:
(http://thebestcelebritybodies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/henry-cavill-superman1.png)

It's obviously a poorly photoshopped version of this.

Zod's outfit would be nothing like that. There is nothing garish about that image.




V

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 08 November, 2012, 08:59:39 PM
It's obviously a poorly photoshopped version of this.

It looks like a photoshop to me too. Searching on google I came across a Christopher Nolan fan forum which is tracking the movie. They had some shots of Michael Shannon but none clearily in his uniform- one seems to show him in a motion capture suit too.

The first one has him wearing what kind of looks like a costume, but he's wrapped up in an overcoat.

(http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/michael_shannon_as_general_zod_man_of_steel_set_toronto_december_9_2011_4-450x679.jpg)

Another from behind
(http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mos-michael-shannon2.jpg)

Mocap
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tX0s8HbRYQs/0.jpg)

My guess is that image is probably someone's interpretation of what the final suit will look like, based on what seems to be that black get up that Shannon has on the set.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 08 November, 2012, 08:59:39 PM
Come on people! I'm I the only one who thinks this is a fake!
Evidence for the defence:
(http://thebestcelebritybodies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/henry-cavill-superman1.png)

It's obviously a poorly photoshopped version of this.

Agreed, but the question remains: what's ^^^this^^^ one a poorly photoshopped version of?

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 08 November, 2012, 08:59:39 PM
Come on people! I'm I the only one who thinks this is a fake!

I think Jim all ready called it. The person who created it said as much last year:


Quick Shannon as Zod manip, now that we have some idea what his suit looks like.


http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=351555&page=22

Surely there was a better choice for villain than Zod. There is oly one live action Zod as far as I see it.
Why not Bizzaro or Braniac? Or even Darkseid?

or Jimmy Olsen?

I think Bizzaro is more sequel material, they'd have to introduce/establish Superman in the opening movie before bringing him in. Brainiac could work pretty easily if they brought in the angle of him being responsible for Krypton's end but I'm guessing he'd be more likely to get a post-credit intro at the end of the first to have you excited for the second. Darkseid again would be sequel material due to his whole mythology. Zod's relatively easy to introduce and is an interesting choice because the first film is looking to be Kryptonian vs Kryptonian to give it something of a doppleganger feel; the Kryptonian of peace, justice and inspiring us vs the Kryptonian of war who I'm guessing will want to be dictator.

"introduce/establish him in the first movie"? I think if you ask my CAT to tell you the story of superman and how he got here, she could. Is there a more familiar character in the whole of fiction, besides jesus? I think this one will bomb as badly as the last three superman films did- largely because superman is boring, no one's interested in superman and everyone knows his story anyway. And his costume looks ridiculous and borderline obscene, and not in a good way.

SBT

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 08 November, 2012, 11:41:25 PM
"introduce/establish him in the first movie"? I think if you ask my CAT to tell you the story of superman and how he got here, she could. Is there a more familiar character in the whole of fiction, besides jesus?

Yes, Hollywood has this bizarre, out-there method when it comes to films- particularly those based on popular comic books- were the first part introduces the character, their motives, powers etc. It doesn't particularly matter how popular the origins of said character(s) are, the first movie always tends to cover this. While I agree with you that this franchise most probably will be very poor indeed, it would manage to be worse if it just started with "Here's Superman. You know the rest..."

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 08 November, 2012, 11:41:25 PMI think this one will bomb as badly as the last three superman films did- largely because superman is boring, no one's interested in superman and everyone knows his story anyway. And his costume looks ridiculous and borderline obscene, and not in a good way.

SBT

This....

I actually watched the last one which was in 07 I believe and truth be told I couldn't find anything wrong with the film, superman just isn't interesting.

Incidentally, with all the previous talk of writing for superman, does anyone think it's too late for a Judge Dredd crossover?

Quote from: Cursed Earth Dweller on 09 November, 2012, 06:17:00 PM
Incidentally, with all the previous talk of writing for superman, does anyone think it's too late for a Judge Dredd crossover?

Wouldn't want to see one anyway. The only media Superman material I am interested in are the first two movies and the DCAU which I grew up with as a child and is infiitely superior to it's comic book counterpart.
Dredd has a handfull of good crossovers with Batman, one is sheer gold, i'd rather IDW/ Rebelion give us our Mars Attack's vs. Judge Dredd comic. That cover has made that truely something to wish for.

Quote from: TordelBack on 10 November, 2012, 03:50:58 PM

Quote from: sauchie on 09 November, 2012, 11:00:54 PMHe had his answer all ready to go, so obviously the properties of Kryptonian spunk and the RPM of Kal-el's arse have fascinated generations of males.

Indeed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel,_Woman_of_Kleenex
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel,_Woman_of_Kleenex)

Quote from: sauchie on 09 November, 2012, 11:00:54 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that the destruction of Krypton was the result of a circle jerk by Jor-el and the ruling council?

Your father would be ashamed of your lack of logical analysis on this point.

Cheers, Tordelback; that Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex essay (http://www.pwhitrow.com/blog/entries/2009/07/07/man-of-steel-woman-of-kleenex/) is a hoot:

"One sperm arrives before the others. It penetrates the egg, forms a lump on it's surface, the cell wall now thickens to prevent other sperm from entering. Within the now-fertilized egg, changes take place ... and ten million kryptonian sperm arrive slightly late. Were they human sperm, they would be out of luck. But these tiny blind things are more powerful than a locomotive.


Presently these sperm will have found their way to the open air. Tens of millions of sperm swarm in the air over Metropolis. These sperm are virtually indestructible. They cannot be affected by heat, cold, vacuum, toxins, or anything short of green kryptonite. There they are, minuscule but dangerous; for each has supernormal powers. Metropolis is shaken by tiny sonic booms. Some of the sperm will crack lightspeed. The Metropolis night comes alive with a network of narrow, eerie blue lines of Cherenkov radiation. And women whom Superman has never met find themselves in a delicate condition.


How close is close enough? A few centimeters? Are sperm attracted by chemical cues? It seems likely. Metropolis had a population of millions; and kryptonian sperm could travel a long and crooked path, billions of miles, before it gives up and dies. Several thousand blessed events seem not unlikely. (*If the pubescent Superboy plays with himself, we have the same problem over Smallville.*) Several thousand lawsuits would follow. Not that Superman can't afford to pay. There's a trick where you squeeze a lump of coal into its allotropic diamond form..."


Do you remember the episode of The Filth where the black jizm is flying around California? I knew that was too good an idea and too fantastic an image for no-one to have come up with it before.

I wonder what the cuffs are made from?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/60557_495253320515283_338917006_n.jpg)

Judge Burdis's boxers after graveyard shift?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481826_433408103380932_1145990676_n.jpg)

God, this is looking worse and worse.  >:(

I'm guessing somebody will eventually try and tell us the suit looks the way it does because they wanted it to look like it was made from a material not made on Earth. I'm serious- I'll bet that is the excuse they will hand out.

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 08 November, 2012, 11:02:09 PM
Surely there was a better choice for villain than Zod. There is oly one live action Zod as far as I see it.
Why not Bizzaro or Braniac? Or even Darkseid?

Darkseid is apparently the villain in JLA if this hasn't been mentioned elsewhere on the forum. If they do manage to get a JLA film out for 2015 (Man of Steel apparently ends with a link to it), does anybody else think it will be really desperate and rushed?

That costume is awful.

The costume does look silly but they might not bother giving a reason as to where he gets it from. They certainly didn't in the Raimi spider-Man film. One minute he's wearing the crap costume he uses for wrestling, the next it's the new fangled one.

I did not say "silly", I said awful.

It looks no worse nor sillier than either Routh's or Reeve's becaped body-socks.

I'm just looking forward to seeing some super action all through the film!

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 07 December, 2012, 06:45:38 PM
I'm just looking forward to seeing some super action all through the film!

Super-Ditto

Everything about Superman on film is either silly or awful; the bits which aren't awful are the silliest, and the bits that aren't silly are mostly awful. Any Superman film which tries not to be silly will probably be awful.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 07 December, 2012, 06:28:05 PM


It looks no worse nor sillier than either Routh's or Reeve's becaped body-socks.

I disagree - those were a design already ingrained in popular culture and justified because everybody knew what Superman was "supposed" to look like from movie serials, cartoons, comics, lunchboxes and tv shows.  By contrast the new costume makes big visual changes and flaunts them, and thus doesn't have the same defence.  I mean, seriously: "no outside underpants, THAT WOULD BE SILLY, give him space bracelets instead, and have his costume be knitted from plastic wool.  Oh, and make it darker, too, because when you think Superman, you should be thinking of a dark avenger of the night.""

Quote from: sauchie on 07 December, 2012, 07:08:33 PM
Everything about Superman on film is either silly or awful; the bits which aren't awful are the silliest, and the bits that aren't silly are mostly awful. Any Superman film which tries not to be silly will probably be awful.

This logic. I'm all over it.

Now that is the trailer!

Man Of Steel - Trailer 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4)

Pretty intriguing.  Seems like there's an awful lot in there for one movie, but that may be a good thing.  Whether the 'finding your place' theme is a result of the trailer edit, or the core of the film, remains to be seen, but I do like it.

That's not bad looking at all...

Not a fan of Supes, but that looked awesome. Goosebump worthy stuff. Colour me intrigued.

It's got the faint whiff of an extended aftershave ad, but I'll give it a chance.

I wonder if Nolan will convince Snyder to take it easy on the slow-motion shots accompanied by loud electric guitar soundtrack he enjoys so much tho.

Looks like it could be good. Needs some John Williams though.

I have little interest but the casting is fantastic and at least it looks like it has a story this time, even if Kent is still shoe-gazing.


Good to see ZOD wearing standard issue Justice Dept. neck-protection.

(http://i.imgur.com/paatK.jpg)



JUDGE ZOD, hmm...

I have an on again off again relationship with Superman. Looks like it will be on again. For a while anyhow.

Well that looked ok to me. He's a good looking boy.

Looks to be plenty of Superman: Earth One in that trailer.  Also a hefty dose of early Smallville plotlines - even more so if the kid who sees Clark save everyone is Lex Luthor - and that New Krypton storyline from Lois and Clark.

I miss the original Superman

Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 12 December, 2012, 02:22:33 PM
I miss the original Superman

See another reason why I'm not looking forward to this is how they look to be pushing the big "he's torn between two worlds and he's all moody!" on us. Is this part of the big plan for JLA- Superman and Batman being the big misery arses as Ryan Reynolds offers comic relief by pretending he's Jason Lee? Two things Superman wise have had me interested in the character these last decades; Mark Millar's Red Son and Grant Morrison's wonderful All Star Superman. They should have brought the charm of the character in All Star to this movie, instead they look to be following the trend of the dark and angst-ridden superhero.

Beware of Geeks bearing opinions. :lol:

The bloke who designed the suit for this film has used the "I wanted it to look alien-like" excuse in an interview already.

The real Man of Steel (and Rogaine):

(http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8073/cageassupes.jpg)

Are they real or photoshop at work? I've only ever seen pictures of The Cage wearing what must be a cheap suit knocked-up for a screen test or something. Where did you find this gold?!

Now that's Superman.  I would have loved to have seen Burton's take on him.  The only thing with Cage in the role is the shit hair would ruin the whole look.

Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 07 November, 2012, 04:45:17 PM
Zod doesn't have a goatee. How are you supposed to know he's evil if he doesn't have a goatee?

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 11 December, 2012, 07:14:43 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/paatK.jpg)

...And suddenly all is right with the world.

I didn't know Jimmy Carr was playing Superman?

(http://www.empireonline.com/images/cover/large/79.jpg)





V

First TV spot;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bMPlzxQMWb4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bMPlzxQMWb4)

Looking good but no real new footage revealed yet.

Saw the trailer on an IMAX 3D screen yesterday and it looked, and sounded, unbelievably good.

But Superman Returns hurt my feelings so I'm trying not to get too excited.

i too would love to have 'my' superman back - the current new 52 hasbro-armour version is a travesty

(http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/Man-of-Steel-EW-1.jpg)
(http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/Man-of-Steel-EW-4.jpg)
(http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/Man-of-Steel-EW-6.jpg)
(http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/Man-of-Steel-EW-2-Zod.jpg)

I see the designers on the film have confused "busy" with "good".

That Superman outfit is so over-designed that it's just distracting!

Both of those armours are so unbelievably generic - either one could be a set photo from Dr Who.

They should have got the designers from Thor - the did a great job on those Asgardian costumes.

Bored.

I don't think much of the armours. Or why Superman appears to have a belt buckle but no belt.

I actually quite like the Superman costume, but that Zod looks horrible! Let's hope that's not his outfit for the whole film!

I watched that driving programme with Henry Cavill in it the other day and he came across as a decent bloke. Nothing to do with Superman I know!

Saying that all I was doing was watching his face and imagining Superman doing the driving, very weird!

Here's a link to a bit of the programme DRIVEN TO EXTREMES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv_dZS4Ralw) He does have a look of Christopher Reeve about him!

SUPERMAN trailer 3 (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=T6DJcgm3wNY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DT6DJcgm3wNY%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata_player)

I must say this is taking me back to the feelings I had in '78. Me and my brother queued up outside the ABC in Hartlepool and watched school mates coming out from the previous showing with pure enjoyment on their faces and trying to tell you how amazing it was, as we began the torturous shuffle towards buying our tickets.

Sitting there in the dark for a couple of hours with not a care in the world as we were transported to comic utopia, as for the first time ever (for me) a Superhero was truly brought to life on the big screen. We truly believed that a man could fly!

I am going to see this at the pictures, with the hope of those simpler times, when you could be transported to a land of make believe. I just hope this doesn't let me down and from the trailer it all looks good!

That's looks awesome!

frakin arsom, at last a Superman movie where he's Super and fights other super people not some boring hunk of land like Returns was (looked beautiful but boy was that one a snooze fest).  This has gone from an interested in watching to a must see from that preview.
Now to watch with sound when i get home from work.

CU Radbacker

Wow.

That gave me goosebumps. Looks awesome!

For a brief second there in the trailer, i swear Cavill looked like Michael Fassbender, albeit with darker hair!

I never thought I'd say this but that does look very good.

I have one question though. How is he going to shave off that Superbeard?

Quote from: JohnMcF on 17 April, 2013, 10:21:59 AM
I have one question though. How is he going to shave off that Superbeard?

Pretty sure one of the comics had him using a mirror to reflect his heat vision onto his face...

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: JohnMcF on 17 April, 2013, 10:21:59 AM
I have one question though. How is he going to shave off that Superbeard?

Hancock did with his nails on the film Hancock.

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3492/shavinghc3.jpg)

Cheers

Jim

Yeah, heat vision. I'm sure I've seen Dean Cain (Lois & Clark) and Tom Welling (Smallville) do the same.

Quote from: Tiplodocus on 17 April, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
Yeah, heat vision. I'm sure I've seen Dean Cain (Lois & Clark) and Tom Welling (Smallville) do the same.

Could they grow beards?

His mastery of the ricochet technique must rival Dredd's or he'd never be able to keep that 'short back and sides' haircut! 

Someone did gif of it;

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/094380c6c315854cada0624eca17ed54/tumblr_mlejge7IsP1qa14h8o1_500.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/a69dd80d1d87a24eb52664505f39852d/tumblr_mlejge7IsP1qa14h8o2_250.gif)(http://24.media.tumblr.com/47f41c082b1ada210ec5bc89b6ceef22/tumblr_mlejge7IsP1qa14h8o3_250.gif)

I'm just glad they're doing an origin story.  A lot of people won't know Superman's origin, or who he is.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 17 April, 2013, 04:11:51 PM
I'm just glad they're doing an origin story.  A lot of people won't know Superman's origin, or who he is.

:lol:

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 17 April, 2013, 04:53:14 PM

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 17 April, 2013, 04:11:51 PM
I'm just glad they're doing an origin story.  A lot of people won't know Superman's origin, or who he is.

:lol:

^
This.

Looks astounding to me.

As for another origin story. Yet another of example of comic fans never being happy. Complaints when the last one was a continuation of the Reeve movies, complaints because this one is not.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 17 April, 2013, 07:13:28 PM
Complaints when the last one was a continuation of the Reeve movies,

Don't recall that being a major problem - I think there were more complaints that it was shit.

Yes.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 17 April, 2013, 07:13:28 PMAs for another origin story. Yet another of example of comic fans never being happy. Complaints when the last one was a continuation of the Reeve movies, complaints because this one is not.

That was flippancy on my part.  I can only speak personally and not for comics fans as a collective, but of the many problems I had with Superman Returns, none of them had anything to do with it being a sequel to the Reeves films - quite the opposite, as being so allowed them to use the John Williams theme, and to not bother with another superfluous origin for arguably the most well-known superhero in the world.
MOS' problems - and this is obviously speculative as we've only the trailers to go on - will more than likely stem from the fact that there is nothing in that trailer that is actually original, although it has nice music, and the CGI from Skyline and the end of Avengers looks nice alongside all those shots of Iron Man flying really fast.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 17 April, 2013, 08:00:27 PM
MOS' problems - and this is obviously speculative as we've only the trailers to go on - will more than likely stem from the fact that Zac Snyder directed it.

FTFY.

Cheers!

Jim

Hopefully the main character doesn't spend the third-act trying to turn off the ubiquitous alien-blue-beam at the centre of the city. We haven't seen that before.


(http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-16-at-11.43.53-PM.png)

And;

It's not an S, on my planet it means Hope.

Isn't your planet Earth?

Quote from: Goaty on 17 April, 2013, 08:31:44 PM

And;

It's not an S, on my planet it means Hope.

That's just what his dad told him. It's actually the Kryptonian equivalent of a Chinese symbol tattoo and means 'Chicken Chow Mein'!

I caught that weird little General Zod broadcast last night...

Quote from: Mardroid on 17 April, 2013, 09:08:06 PM
I caught that weird little General Zod broadcast last night...

Yep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QkfmqsDTgY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QkfmqsDTgY)

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 17 April, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
Isn't your planet Earth?

Superman's a fifth columnist. How do you think Zod found us?

I was gonna see this anyway but the new trailer is definitely an improvement on the emo stuff.

Quote from: willthemightyW on 11 April, 2013, 04:40:05 PM
I actually quite like the Superman costume, but that Zod looks horrible! Let's hope that's not his outfit for the whole film!

Yeah, hopefully. They all appear to wear Supermanesque costumes on Krypton.

Do we know if that's Ursa on the left?

Quote from: Stan on 18 April, 2013, 01:58:58 AM
Do we know if that's Ursa on the left?

It's Faora.

(http://i.imgur.com/CVj5e6j.jpg)

see now this may be the origin story again but it really looks like there doing something diferent this time, it looks like they've gone for Krypton as a bunch of super comunists (i guess this is why the writers reference RedSon) which seems a different take, and looks like a good 20 minutes or so may be spent on Krypton charting its culture and bit of history so all up I'm not overly fused at another origin story as long as there's plenty of super punching involved.  Of course i may be wrong and this could be another borefest like Returns as I am getting all this info off a 3 minute preview i've watched about 50 times now.

CU radbacker

Wasn't Zod essentially space Hitler at one point? I actually wonder if the yanks can tell the difference between communism and fascism.

DC started distancing Superman from his somewhat socialist appearance only a few issues into his history. This origin film will probably be him seeing how great the American way is and how it is the only way in time for the end; the US general/President whoever who doesn't like Superman early on in the film will no doubt give him a wink or a thumbs-up at the end and Superman will salute, letting everybody know he will always be there to defend America's interests. Being a Snyder film, he'll then fly up in slow motion to a screeching electric guitar soundtrack.
Roll credits.

I'm looking forward to the part where Superman punches a guy really hard, it's slowed down for the wind up, sped up for the delivery and then slowed down again for the follow through. Classic Snyder.

Quote from: El Pops on 18 April, 2013, 02:07:38 PM
I'm looking forward to the part where Superman punches a guy really hard, it's slowed down for the wind up, sped up for the delivery and then slowed down again for the follow through. Classic Snyder.

I hope there are loads of explosions in the background as that happens*, because that would be amazing.

*and it will

So long as they recreate the "I AM A MAN" 'punch, scene from Superman at World End complete with disembowled cyborg then the film can have my money.

Sweet - I'll not have to go see this now, as everyone here seems to know exactly what will happen, all I need to do is read the posts!

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 April, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Sweet - I'll not have to go see this now, as everyone here seems to know exactly what will happen, all I need to do is read the posts!

Psst! It's some guy saved some world and some girl from some evil guy! Now you got the plot!

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 April, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Sweet - I'll not have to go see this now, as everyone here seems to know exactly what will happen

I wonder will you still be playing the magnanimous speculation card when they officially announce the Justin Timberlake remake of Big Trouble In Little China.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 April, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Sweet - I'll not have to go see this now, as everyone here seems to know exactly what will happen, all I need to do is read the posts!

That's the beauty of the internet!

Heh

(http://i.imgur.com/nTMz4Ag.jpg)

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 18 April, 2013, 05:56:46 PM

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 18 April, 2013, 02:52:18 PM
Sweet - I'll not have to go see this now, as everyone here seems to know exactly what will happen

I wonder will you still be playing the magnanimous speculation card when they officially announce the Justin Timberlake remake of Big Trouble In Little China.

<shrug> I'll just not watch it.

Rob Schneider is in it, too.  He plays an Asian.

I liked that. There was definitely some awe in there.

New cover for Empire mag this Thursday featured Zod;

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIc5sTTCAAE4UGL.jpg:large)

I'm really struggling to generate any excitement in this.   :|

I suspect the story and the action will probably be pretty good but the design work is dull, dull , dull.

I honestly think it would be better if he were wearing wrestling boots, a leotard and had a big Z on his chest!

It looks like a bad passport picture has been photoshopped onto the body of a generic computer game character.

A very unheroic pose for a front cover, lacks any sense of drama. It looks like Zod is taking a dump in his Exo Skeleton suit.

Quote from: dracula1 on 23 April, 2013, 06:28:54 PM
A very unheroic pose for a front cover, lacks any sense of drama.

Good, Zod isn't a hero.

WATCH THIS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlOF03DUoWc&feature=player_embedded)

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 22 May, 2013, 08:41:49 AM
WATCH THIS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlOF03DUoWc&feature=player_embedded)

Bloody hell! Looks really awesome!

Love that Kryptonian attack the F22!

That shit looks awesome!

Oh, I  get it! They're all wearing armour and shit 'coz, like, Supe's is the Man of STEEL, right?

Why's Lois ginger?

I do not want to get excited about this movie, but those last couple of trailers have really got me stoked.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 22 May, 2013, 09:38:20 AM
I do not want to get excited about this movie, but those last couple of trailers have really got me stoked.

I'm increasingly convinced that Zac Snyder's directorial abilities begin and end at making pop videos. As such, it's hardly suprising that two-and-a-half-minutes worth of awesome-looking stuff can be extracted and edited together from a two hour (?) movie.

I'm going to need to read some pretty effusive reviews and hear some excellent word of mouth before I give Snyder another two hours of my life.

Cheers

Jim

But Superman is surely worth two hours?  After all, he stands for Truth, Justice and a load of other stuff.

I'm really looking forward to this movie, especially since I heard Chris Nolan had been involved with writing the story.  I recall he said something about tackling it from the view of 'how would the world react to superman?' and trying to base it in reality - something he did very well with the dark knight films. 

That new trailer looks great, with all the effects which they are bound to include in this movie because basically the guy can do anything - the bit that really looks promising though is the scene where he is cuffed with armed guards.  I really want to know what is going on there.  I think with the right story, this could be the superman movie many of us have waited a long time for. 

 :o :o
I'm really not a DC man but by god I like the look of this, finally something decent for Superman to fight I got sick of him just cutting chunks out of the Earth and throwing them into space.  Cant wait for this one either, I think i'm going to go to the cinema more this year than any other since I was a teen the 90's who'd watch anything.

CU Radbacker

Ach, I dunno.  I preferred the earlier, slower trailers - this one is all a bit dark and jumpy for my tastes, things that suggest this is going to be another of Snyder's familiar bids for the Nobel Prize in Soulless Point-Missing. 

I hope they draw upon that last version of the origin story*, the one where no-one trusts Superman because they don't know what he is, and he ends up picking off members of the SWAT team chasing him through the sewers one by one from the shadows, that was totally badass and really made Superman seem more realistic and down to earth.  I hope he gets to use a gun in the film, or at least wear armor like Iron Man does.


*  Sorry, that wasn't the last version of the Superman origin, that was just the one that came out three years ago.  The last version of the Superman origin came out about 18 months ago with the Nu52 reboot, but I suppose they could use both origins for inspiration, and maybe also the origin that came out five years ago, and the one that came out a couple of years before that, or maybe they could use the origin from the old movie serials, or the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2005 or Legion of Super Heroes cartoon shows, or from the 1950s tv show, 1960s tv specials, Superboy, or Lois and Clark, or even the Chris Reeve films.
The main thing is that I hope they do Superman's origin in this.

I'm also glad to finally see the origins of Superman. It's been a mystery for so long now.  ::)

Yeah, a mere 35 years after the last film that dealt with the origins of the character they're churning out yet another one...

How many time's can Kal's parents get shot in the same back ally? You'd think they had learnt there lesson by now.

What films that got Kevin Costner and Russel Crowe as your fathers??

Superman has two dads in this?  That's a brave addition to the mythos - I thought they were doing well with just a female Jimmy Olsen and gay Perry White.

The sardonometer just blew it's tube on this page alone.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 22 May, 2013, 05:16:08 PM
Yeah, a mere 35 years after the last film that dealt with the origins of the character they're churning out yet another one...

I don't know why you're being sarcastic, Rich, I'm completely serious.  Modern audiences will be lost trying to figure out who this Superdan character is if they don't do an origin for him.

Latest TV spot and it shows a lot more action and some flying stuff!

Super/hetro/gay/caucasian/coloured (of all shades)/man/woman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=frFH-3532jo)

TV spot #8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZP5EN9Semc)

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 27 May, 2013, 05:26:38 AM
Super/hetro/gay/caucasian/coloured (of all shades)/man/woman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=frFH-3532jo)

You've had 'em all, ay John?

How does he shave? from Gillette.

http://www.youtube.com/gillette?x=us-en_manofsteel

I'm still very wary about Man of Steel - remember that Zach Snyder makes incredible trailers, and for the most part very flawed actual films.

How does he shave?

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/2500401-supermanshaving_zps34e1ee79.jpg)

Quote from: Recrewt on 29 May, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
How does he shave?

It's like déjà vu (http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,33967.msg756840.html#msg756840) all over again... :-)

Cheers

Jim

I knew I had seen that somewhere recently - turns out it was only 4 pages away.

Was over a month ago though - what a slow thread!  ;)

Man of Steel: Publicity Special (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cXr_WuA7iNg)

Do not watch these 13 minutes if you want everything kept a surprise for the Big screen!

Why, is it 13 minutes of people going "I know it looks nice, but it's ultimately soul-less and boring"?

I never heard that being said from any of the people in that special.

New trailer up and this is the best yet phone brand exclusive! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwYatpwrs8s)

Wow!

Had to stop halfway through that Nokia trailer.

Looked amazing but seemed to be all brand new best bits thrown at the viewer.

Taking Friday off to see this hopefully.

I'll probably get around to seeing this, I may even be pleasantly surprised cos I'm prepared for it to be pretty bad indeed. I think I'm also one of the few people here who isn't disappointed by the fact they're doing an origins story for the first part in what is going to no doubt be a new Superman franchise (my reasoning- 1. It's the opening to a new Superman franchise. It's not only an introduction of sorts to the character and his reasoning/outlook here but also for the world he's in and the people in it. Look at all the mindsets etc Superman alone has had over the decades in different eras of print. 2. They look to be padding out the whole childhood discovery element in the trailer, where he turns to Johnathan all teary eyed and asks "Can't we just pretend I'm still your son?" and Johnathan has to turn to him and say "You are my son." The last cinematic origin showed baby Clark lifting a tractor and then being sad that he can't play football as a teen and that was basically it). What I don't like the look of really is the actual 'invasion/attack' plot. Oh, and I'm ready for a long time being set on Krypton, just shots panning over this huge CGI landscape, to a Russel Crowe voice over so they get their moneys worth out of him. Then the eventual increase of Superman doing heroic things in super slow motion to things exploding in the background.

While I'm not over-keen on films redoing what has been done before, (unless it was particularly bad and I rather like the first two Superman films, although they're a little cheesy in places), if you're going to redo stuff, this looks like the way to do it.

It looks very good and I'm certainly up for seeing it. I'd be happy with more stuff in the Krypton segment of the film as well (in comparison with the first film I mean).

I think they'll have made a mistake if they don't use whatever goes down on Krypton to have Brainiac playing a part in it all so they can have him ready for the inevitable sequel. The Superman films you mention do have their very cheesy moments indeed but were almost unbelievably cheesier going by many sources. I think with Man of Steel they look to be saying "We've used what Richard Donner wanted to do as inspiration here but made it all 21st century and modern for you!" to the older viewers.

I don't know about "made it 21st century", as the extended Krypton sequences smack of the Dini/Timm cartoon show (which was made in the 20th century), which had that pilot episode that didn't feature Superman at all and was set entirely on Krypton in its final days as Clark's biological dad tried to convince everyone the end was coming but was scuppered by Brainiac's behind-the-scenes shenanigans.  The plot looks to be a mish-mash of that, the utterly terrible Superman: Earth One, and those flying fights from the last Matrix film.
The Dini/Timm cartoon was pretty good, though, and acknowledged that Superman's mum and dad only contribute to the mythos up until they put him in the rocket - and who doesn't like the Matrix 3 fights?  They were the only good bits in the film.

Oh sorry pal I didn't really explain myself as fully as I should have. By 'making it all 21st century and modern' I meant a few other things, one being the standard info studios can make a big deal of for the year's big release (e.g. 'Remember those special effects from last year we made a big deal of? Well this film has the new version of those we've spent a lot of money developing so last year's big release now looks pretty terrible!') as well as 2 other things I'm suspecting will get screen-time in Man of Steel- 1 being plenty of suggestions of a troubled US (and therefore troubled world) with mentions of terrorism/ failed policies at home and abroad and then number 2 being mentions of how 'Superman' or whatever is "trending" in a number of scenes. I even suspect a lot of the new 52's whole out of the y-front costumes which is shown here could be something of a "Remember when you were little and you liked comics but you outgrew them? Look at the heroes now- even we admit those old y-front costumes were silly now! Come back and join us, we're all grown up here; the heroes don't look like they did back when your grandad was buying the titles!"
On Matrix 3- it's the huge computer baby face scene that owns the show and you know it!

Well, it appears to be getting glowing reviews (although one supposedly says it is Snyder's best since 300, a film I myself only find enjoyable because it is that silly) and Warner Bros have given its sequel the green light already. I text my friend who works in a cinema asking when I'll be able to get free tickets to this and apparently even cinema staff aren't allowed free tickets for themselves- let alone friends- until two weeks after the release (nowhere near as long a wait as Sony demanded with Skyfall...), so I guess I'll see it in a fortnight or so.
As for the sequel- I think DC/Warner should lay the groundwork with new franchises and their sequels to prepare the big JLA film they so want instead of rushing it to compete with Marvel, who went slow and steady for Avengers.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 11 June, 2013, 10:43:14 AM
although one supposedly says it is Snyder's best since 300

More fun than the last time you were punched in the groin!

Cheers

Jim

I thought he did a decent job with Watchmen.

Quote from: Recrewt on 11 June, 2013, 01:25:07 PM
I thought he did a decent job with Watchmen.

In the sense of being dazzlingly faithful visually, but showing no sign of having understood a single character, theme, or subtext, yes.

Cheers

Jim

I hear there's a perfunctory cross-over with Nolanverse Batman. Apparently [spoiler]we see a satellite with a Wayne Enterprises logo on it.[/spoiler] More of an easter egg than a cross-over really.

Quote from: El Pops on 11 June, 2013, 01:43:09 PM
I hear there's a perfunctory cross-over with Nolanverse Batman. Apparently [spoiler]we see a satellite with a Wayne Enterprises logo on it.[/spoiler] More of an easter egg than a cross-over really.

I read a while back there is supposedly seven references in total to Wayne Enterprises (and maybe even Batman) in all. I bumped into a friend recently who told me a Batman film is being planned to fit in with the Man of Steel universe to help move JLA along and Michael Fassbender is looking likely for the role, but I haven't bothered searching for this myself. To be honest, I forgot all about it until now!

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 11 June, 2013, 01:28:22 PM
In the sense of being dazzlingly faithful visually, but showing no sign of having understood a single character, theme, or subtext, yes.

Cheers

Jim

I'm surprised to hear you say that given the widespread praise the movie received for being authentic to its source.  I would have liked to see the comic book ending but other than that, I think it covered the main characters and themes well.

Quote from: Recrewt on 11 June, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
I'm surprised to hear you say that given the widespread praise the movie received for being authentic to its source.

Dan and Laurie are the heart of Watchmen, which is a cold book to start with. The moment Snyder turns the alley fight into a bloodbath, he turns them into killers, which is a catastrophic mis-reading of the book. Or, y'know, he just doesn't care about the characters and likes turning the violence up to 11. (Rorschach drowns the Big Figure in a toilet — how does it make sense that there's blood coming out from under the stall door? Except that violence is, y'know, cool and stuff.)

I pretty much hated it, and didn't think it was faithful to the source material in any way that mattered. OTOH, I loved Dredd and I know there are people who feel the same way about that as I feel about Watchmen, so I suppose it depends what you take away from the source material.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Recrewt on 11 June, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
I'm surprised to hear you say that given the widespread praise the movie received for being authentic to its source.

It's not surprising at all and its reviews are fairly divisive on how 'faithful' it truly is to the comic rather than it just looking like the comic. The best thing in it is Rorshach but Snyder's superficial authenticity is rendered as the visual equivalent of an abridged audiobook. Watchmen was transposed from one medium into another rather than adapted. That, to me, is being unfaithful to the source.

I didn't mind the Watchmen movie, but anyone with a genuine love of the source material would have honoured Moore's intention not to adapt a movie from it.

I agree that Snyder failed to live up to the source material with Watchman. I've only watched it the once in the cinema and can't be arsed to sit through it again.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 11 June, 2013, 02:14:30 PM
Dan and Laurie are the heart of Watchmen, which is a cold book to start with. The moment Snyder turns the alley fight into a bloodbath, he turns them into killers, which is a catastrophic mis-reading of the book. Or, y'know, he just doesn't care about the characters and likes turning the violence up to 11. (Rorschach drowns the Big Figure in a toilet — how does it make sense that there's blood coming out from under the stall door? Except that violence is, y'know, cool and stuff.)

I know that lots has been said of the increasing violence in the film compared to the comic but I actually thought this added to the characters - batman seems to kick ass all day without any real affect on his foes - how likely is that?  In this film we get to see a more bloody version of the street fighting these characters sometimes have to use.  This helps the viewer question what measures are deemed suitable and ties in with the whole 'freelance vigilantes being banned' and 'who watches the watchmen' theme.  Saying that, I still got Laurie's and Dan's tenderness and underlying will to do good. 

I did wonder about the toilet blood scene myself first time I saw that though!  Perhaps he had a cut on his face - you know how those can bleed?  ;)

Another thing with Watchmen is that it was a standard post-millennial superhero movie with body armor, gym-toned bodies, superhuman fighting abilities and murderous protagonists which not only misses the point of the text, it means the film is not a reaction to but an extension of the expected superhero movie tropes and thus no more ambitious than Superhero Movie was.  In the film's defence, though, at least in adapting the original book it avoids being the work of greedy scabs like Before Watchmen was.  Snyder will thus always have the perfectly legitimate defence that he liked the book and wanted to film it as best he could.

I liked the opening credits sequence.  May as well throw that out there.  And that they used a decent Smashing Pumpkins song (yes, there is such a thing) in the teaser promos, even if they did snaffle it from the Batman and Robin soundtrack.

QuoteDan and Laurie are the heart of Watchmen, which is a cold book to start with. The moment Snyder turns the alley fight into a bloodbath, he turns them into killers, which is a catastrophic mis-reading of the book. Or, y'know, he just doesn't care about the characters and likes turning the violence up to 11. (Rorschach drowns the Big Figure in a toilet — how does it make sense that there's blood coming out from under the stall door? Except that violence is, y'know, cool and stuff.)

Cannot agree more - see also the bit with the intestines hanging off the chandelier which almost ruins the otherwise perfect Dr Manhattan origin (well, perfect except for Dr Manhattan's bodybuilder physique!). And I know it makes me sound like an unbearable judgemental snob, but when a fan of the graphic novel claims that the film is great and the changes don't bother them, I always think to myself that they probably didn't really get the book either, and appreciate it only on a superficial level.

I still appreciate the Watchmen movie on a purely visual level and for sequences like the credits and the aforementioned Dr Manhattan bit, but it misses the point in a major, major way.

The comparison to Dredd is an interesting one - though not quite fair as Dredd has had so many different interpretations and is more tonally flexible to start with- from Heavy Metal Dredd to the Day the Law Died to America (and has always been outlandishly violent if not always particularly gory) while Watchmen not so much.

QuoteIn this film we get to see a more bloody version of the street fighting these characters sometimes have to use.  This helps the viewer question what measures are deemed suitable and ties in with the whole 'freelance vigilantes being banned' and 'who watches the watchmen' theme.

Well, a)The violence in the film isn't at all realistic and very stylised - it's very much leering and 'woahhh violence is cool!' as Jim says - which doen't back up your point and b) most of the the combat in the comic is very much rendered in the aesthetic of Silver Age comic books - and is one of the reasons Watchmen would never have really worked on-screen.

The ramped-up violence leads to some stupid plot holes as well.

In the GN's opening scenes, the Comedian is a broken man. Weeping and getting drunk in front of the TV, [spoiler]Ozymandias[/spoiler] turns up, knocks him around a bit - to which the Comedian hardly even puts up a defence - and then sends him sailing out of a plate glass window.

In the film the Comedian is watching TV, smoking a cigar and cackling merrily - EVEN THOUGH we find out later in the film that, as in the GN, he is supposed to be a broken man at this point. [spoiler]Ozymandias[/spoiler] turns up, and the two get down some proper high-end fisticuffs. Rather than submitting meekly to his inevitable and half-expected fate, the Comedian gives as good as he gets. [spoiler]Ozymandias[/spoiler], rather than slapping him around a little, decides he'll be better off punching him through several consecutive apartment walls before finally throwing him out of the window - presumably because Snyder thought the original fight was not 'cool' enough as was. This makes the cops who then turn up at the scene look monumentally stupid, as they talk about a potential burglary gone wrong and wonder who the culprit might be. Well, given that the mysterious assailant punched the Comedian through several thick brick walls with a single punch, do you not think it might have been a superhuman, hmm? And given that there aren't many of those about I'd say the list of suspects is pretty small, too. But everyone convieniently ignores this because the plot requires that Comedian's death be a mystery.

That's the first scene after the opening credits, and Snyder's already shot himself in the foot.

I agree with everything Joe, Jim, Radiator, Jimbo and the Bear say above.  Every single word.  Watchmen is the uncanny valley of comics adaptations - it looks almost perfect, but it's dead inside and it shows it in every inflection.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but find it hard to disagree.

QuoteIn the GN's opening scenes, the Comedian is a broken man. Weeping and getting drunk in front of the TV, [spoiler]Ozymandias[/spoiler] turns up, knocks him around a bit - to which the Comedian hardly even puts up a defence - and then sends him sailing out of a plate glass window.

In the film the Comedian is watching TV, smoking a cigar and cackling merrily - EVEN THOUGH we find out later in the film that, as in the GN, he is supposed to be a broken man at this point. [spoiler]Ozymandias[/spoiler] turns up, and the two get down some proper high-end fisticuffs. Rather than submitting meekly to his inevitable and half-expected fate, the Comedian gives as good as he gets.

Absolutely - I remember being really bothered by that in the cinema. The other fundamental flaw with the movie is that they made all the human 'costumed avengers' into superhumans, who can punch through walls, somersault through the air in slo-mo etc etc. Totally robs all the intrigue of the comic - and dismantles the gulf between them and the truly superhuman Dr Manhattan. This is not nit-picking - it drastically changes the tone and scope of the narrative. Part of the point of the book was that the characters were supposed to look a bit goofy and silly! There's also an annoying bit where when the assassin tries to cap Ozymandias and a nameless exec gets shot right between the eyes and his glasses split in two in slow motion as the bullet shatters them because violence is cool and stuff. Totally distracting and stupid.

The comic can occasionally be a little overly po-faced and portentous, but in the context of the film, with it's juvenile Mortal Kombat/music video aesthetic, these problems are magnified by 1000%.

I'm going to see this Friday, first showing and only doing the 2D version. I wonder if any strange things will happen in the pictures ::)

I loved The Watcmen GN and the film too. It visually captured the essence of Moore and Gibbons book in a unique cinematic way. There wasn't enough hours in the film to capture the nature of all the wonderful characters though.

I believe Synder will do a great visual job on Man of Steel (as Travis did with Dredd), it's up to Goyer and Nolan to guide the film into achieving it's best with plot and characterisation.

I thought Rosarch in the canteen was a fantastic scene in the film. The rest, not so much.

70% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/reviews/#type=top_critics); 50% from top critics.

My favourite line from one of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews is definitely
"it slips into a final 45 minutes of explosions and fights during which reason starts to vanish and the science gets muddy."

Quote from: radiator on 11 June, 2013, 03:58:40 PM
I know it makes me sound like an unbearable judgemental snob, but when a fan of the graphic novel claims that the film is great and the changes don't bother them, I always think to myself that they probably didn't really get the book either, and appreciate it only on a superficial level.

I have no love for the movie -- even Rorschach still seems off to me -- but I much preferred the screen denouement: the perceived threat is more substantive, one with added relatability in-universe in that there's a significant likelihood [spoiler]Doctor Manhattan will return at some point[/spoiler].

For me, the big Watchmen movie mistake was probably the prison having Rorschach's costume there. Sure, it saved time because he didn't have to go home for his spare outfit, but his not going back home for his outfit meant we didn't get the scene were he pulls up his landlady for what she has said on the news- only to see her kids at her side so he quickly turns and leaves.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 12 June, 2013, 09:59:20 AM... but his not going back home for his outfit meant we didn't get the scene were he pulls up his landlady for what she has said on the news- only to see her kids at her side so he quickly turns and leaves.

That would have been too much heart, and not enough bullet time.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 12 June, 2013, 09:59:20 AM
For me, the big Watchmen movie mistake was...

For me it was Rorschach's death scene. Tears streaming down his face, ripping off his mask (why?), screaming, 'Do it!!!! Do it!!!' If I remember rightly all the characters were stood around watching sympathetically, like the denoument of the old He-Man cartoons where the cast assembled at the end to discuss that week's events before Orco did something clumsy and/or hilarious.

Much prefered how he went in the GN - quiet, resigned, knowing the Doc's about to blast him but turning his back anyway and getting on the skidoo. Best of all, none of the other characters even know he's died, rendering it almost unbearably tragic.

Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 12 June, 2013, 12:52:26 PM
Much prefered how he went in the GN - quiet, resigned, knowing the Doc's about to blast him but turning his back anyway and getting on the skidoo.

I don't think you're remembering it quite right. (http://goodcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/rorschach-death.jpg)

(That's a massive spoiler if you haven't read the book, BTW.)

Cheers

Jim

Clearly not! I've only read it the once, mind, and that was a good few years ago.

Without being rude to anyone, some of the posts have made me think similar.

I respect if people do not like this movie, but in response to some of the latest posts:

There have been some comments re the intestine scene with Dr Manhatten, but I don't think that is a massive diversion from the comic:

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/125_zps8151d73f.jpg)

And I am also surprised that people though his physique was drastically different from the comic, he always seemed to be in pretty good shape to me:

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/124_zps0d4e0b79.jpg)

I also thought the scene with Ozmandias and the assassin was still in line with the comic:

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/123_zps50bc1d52.jpg)

And this one even surprised me when I was looking for some pictures, the much criticised toilet scene:

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/122_zps82217f25.jpg)

There's some good evidence. As mentioned a great movie and attempt at capturing the genius of Moore's book.

Do you know there is new superman film out this Friday?

Quote from: Recrewt on 12 June, 2013, 01:20:09 PM
And this one even surprised me when I was looking for some pictures, the much criticised toilet scene:

There's no suggestion in the comic that that's blood — it's only red because the entire scene is coloured that way because of the emergency lighting and fires in the prison. Rorschach and Nite Owl's dialogue makes it very clear that Rorschach has stuffed Big Figure in the toilet. In the film, the liquid is unquestionably blood.

Cheers

Jim

I spent a few minutes looking at that and I couldn't really decide either way - I can see that it could just be water and the red in it reflects off the wall and such but at the same time I couldn't say for certain there was no blood in it. 

The surprising part for me was because I forgot this whole scene was even in the comic!

I think the main point being made is that while all those scenes and images are fairly faithfully reproduced visually, the manner in which they are handled in the film is worlds apart - the Big Figure toilet scene being a case in point.  in the book, the masked heroes (with the exception of Jon and Adrian) are just faintly ridiculous people who can handle themselves in a fight, in the film they are all Neo on a homicidal rampage.   As Jim mentioned earlier, you just have to contrast the alley fight with the one in the book: two cold superhuman killers having a workout, versus two out-of-practice people getting hot and sweaty seeing off some punks, the narrative point of which is not that they are frackin' kewl pwners, but rather to highlight a shared physical experience that foreshadows the odd nature of their sexual relationship.

I admit to having enjoyed looking at the Watchmen movie (seeing Archie in action, the opening montage, Malin Ackerman, all great), I just didn't enjoy watching it.

Quote from: TordelBack on 12 June, 2013, 01:39:53 PM
the manner in which they are handled in the film is worlds apart - the Big Figure toilet scene being a case in point.

Also worth observing what immediately precedes Big Figure's death in the film and book. In the book, Rorschach forces Big Figure to have one of his henchmen cut the other's throat. Pretty horrible, but not horrible enough for Snyder — oh, no! In the film, we get to see a guy have both his arms cut off with a power saw, which is waaay cooler.*

Cheers

Jim

*Sarcasm.

I am starting to feel guilty about derailing this thread so I don't think I will say much more about Watchmen.

I personally thought the alley fight in the comic was not too different from the movie, they seem to be able to handle themselves in both:

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/127_zpsd47cf830.jpg)(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/126_zpsb9f30961.jpg)

Some of this is down to the individuals reaction and I can see how people think the movies glamourised the violence more.  For me though, it came across as brutal and cruel, like it does in the comic.

With reference to the prison scene with the guys throat cut - that always seemed a strange thing to do in the comic as he did not need to do it - the guy was not in the way, they could have cut the door without killing him (or they could have tried cutting the door and even if that did result in killing him, then no loss).  The movie version for me plays a bit better - the guy is clearly in the way so they remove his arms. 

QuoteThere have been some comments re the intestine scene with Dr Manhatten, but I don't think that is a massive diversion from the comic:

*takes deep breath*

Well, it was different in the sense that we saw loads of intestines hanging off a chandelier - a needless, gratuitous, distracting exaggeration of gore and violence which is not in the comic. It's emblematic of the film which always goes out of it's way to do so.

QuoteAnd I am also surprised that people though his physique was drastically different from the comic, he always seemed to be in pretty good shape to me:

I always got a Leonardo Da Vinci illustration vibe from Manhattan in the comics - he is well built - like a perfect specimen of man. In the film he looks like a roided-up bodybuilder. There's a difference.

QuoteI also thought the scene with Ozmandias and the assassin was still in line with the comic:

Yes it is - that isn't what I was arguing - my problem with it was the 'awesomeification' of it, with Matrix-lite slow motion bullets breaking someone's glasses in half. Needless, gratuitous, stupid. In the book the assassination is brutal, unshowy and sudden, like you know, real violence often is.

QuoteAnd this one even surprised me when I was looking for some pictures, the much criticised toilet scene:

That is water. In the film it is blood. Again - needlessly ramping up the violence to appeal to the stunted adolescents audience, while making what is on paper a quite bleak and unflinching story into an exploitative, nasty one that wallows in and glorifies violence.

Sorry mate, but these subtleties and distinctions are clearly lost on you.

QuoteI personally thought the alley fight in the comic was not too different from the movie, they seem to be able to handle themselves in both:

Oh FFS, in the comic THEY DON'T KILL ANYONE, STAB ANYONE OR BREAK ANYONE'S NECK! That dramatically changes the entire tone of the scene, and essentially breaks the characters of Dan and Laurie from a narrative point of view.

Quote from: radiator on 12 June, 2013, 02:06:02 PM
That is water. In the film it is blood. Again - needlessly ramping up the violence to appeal to the stunted adolescents audience, while making what is on paper a quite bleak and unflinching story into an exploitative, nasty one that wallows in and glorifies violence. Sorry mate, but these subtleties and distinctions are clearly lost on you.

You mean there's no good reason to believe it's anything other than water. If you don't think that subtle distinction is important, maybe you can understand why the subtleties and distinctions you mentioned just don't seem as important to Recrewt as they are to us. That means the film works best for an audience which is different to that which enjoyed the book. SOAP summed it up best when he described it as a story transposed from one medium to another, rather than adapted - that means it's every bit as faithful as Recrewt insists, but it also means that (as with Sin City and 300) I'll never feel the need to watch the film again in my life.

Quote from: radiator on 12 June, 2013, 02:06:02 PM
I always got a Leonardo Da Vinci illustration vibe from Manhattan in the comics - he is well built - like a perfect specimen of man. In the film he looks like a roided-up bodybuilder. There's a difference.

Sorry mate, but these subtleties and distinctions are clearly lost on you.

I think you're right, I cannot see any difference:

(http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w653/Recrewt/ff_watchman2_f_zps1309f01c.jpg)

Quote from: Goaty on 12 June, 2013, 01:27:50 PM
Do you know there is new superman film out this Friday?

Two new top critic reviews out today (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/reviews/?type=top_critics) but the trend on that aggregate score is only going one way. 97% of the audience (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/) still say they want to see it though, so I wouldn't worry about anyone losing money.

Quote from: Henry Kissinger on 12 June, 2013, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Goaty on 12 June, 2013, 01:27:50 PM
Do you know there is new superman film out this Friday?

Two new top critic reviews out today (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/reviews/?type=top_critics) but the trend on that aggregate score is only going one way. 97% of the audience (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/) still say they want to see it though, so I wouldn't worry about anyone losing money.

I'm not a big Superman fan and I don't like the Reeve movies - sorry! and I want to see this thing. I think it'll do ok!

Quote from: sheldipez on 12 June, 2013, 03:53:41 PM
I'm not a big Superman fan and I don't like the Reeve movies - sorry! and I want to see this thing. I think it'll do ok!

Oh, aye - It'll be an absolute monster. You've hit the nail on the head; it's the kind of film folk with no real interest in seeing it will still go and see. Fair play to them.

Well it's going to have to do colossal business to make a profit on the rumoured $225m budget and the same again on advertising!

Quote from: radiator on 12 June, 2013, 06:07:00 PM
Well it's going to have to do colossal business to make a profit on the rumoured $225m budget and the same again on advertising!

Online booking sites (http://variety.com/2013/film/news/man-of-steel-early-tracking-suggests-100-million-splash-1200493634/) say the film's got more pre-bookings than the 1.2 billion dollar smash Iron Man 3 had, it's set box office records (http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-beginning-worldwide-release-record-opening-day-in-the-philippines/) in the one territory it's opened in, and the sequel's already been given the green light (http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/man-of-steel-already-getting-sequel-heres-what-we-know-738792.html). Still down to 59% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/#contentReviews) today, 50% from Top Critics. The industry survey of audiences mentioned in one of the articles above proports to shed some light on why 97% of the audience still want to see it (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/#audience_reviews):

"88% are fans of Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" franchise;

83% said the supporting cast of award-winning and nominated stars increased their interest in seeing the movie;

81% claimed the darker interpretation of Superman made them more interested in buying a ticket;

75% cannot wait to see Michael Shannon's performance as the villain General Zod;

72% are fans of director Zack Snyder's previous films ("300," "Watchmen");

69% want to see "Man of Steel" because the lead is played by Henry Cavill and not by an established box office superstar"

Finally a superhero film that does the job for me. None of that namby pamby jokey bollocks, this is played for real and we don't have an hour of origins. So all you lot worrying about it being an origins film can forget about that! Those bits are cleverly played out, when on screen!

There are some tiny easter eggs for you that show Lex and Bruce Wayne are on the scene, so keep 'em peeled.

Overall we get to see what people (aliens) can do with amazing powers and how [spoiler]a city is destroyed properly on screen. Very 911, when the shit hits the fan[/spoiler]

There are some extremely powerful scenes throughout the film and one actually brought a tear to my eye! I wonder if anyone else felt the emotion in the scene [spoiler]where Jonathan Kent dies[/spoiler], or am I just getting soft in my old age :'(

If I had to describe the film in one word it would be 'Heartbreaking'

One final thing, I'm sure I saw Superman's face turn into Christopher Reeve's near the end, as he was about to launch into flight. Can someone else confirm that I'm not going :crazy:

Good, if John likes it, so I must watch it! Thanks for spoiler as I hadn't looks at it!

Sadly there no subtitle version this weekend, so next week!

Must add that Carolyn thought it was a tad too loud :lol:

Saw it. Thought it was meh. Full review forthcoming.

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 14 June, 2013, 03:55:28 PM
this is played for real

You've been wearing that uniform too long.

Don't know if I can summon the energy to go see this. I seem to be getting ever more jaded with big blockbuster films - The Hobbit, Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man Three and Star Trek: ID all underwhelmed to varying degrees.

Are blockbusters getting dumber or am I just becoming more discerning?

Quote from: radiator on 14 June, 2013, 08:31:13 PM
Are blockbusters getting dumber or am I just becoming more discerning?

Not exactly dumber but they're getting more convoluted, plot driven and referential at the expense of decent story and characters.

That's why Dredd great ;)

Quote from: Goaty on 14 June, 2013, 08:55:53 PM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 June, 2013, 08:41:39 PM
(films are) getting more convoluted, plot driven and referential at the expense of decent story and characters.

That's why Dredd great ;)

He sets 'em up, you knock 'em down. 57% critics, 82% audience (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/) on RT.

Zac Snyder waffles aimlessly here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r5jt/episodes/player), but the information that he's an adoptive father himself is news to me (3m 15s) - and there's an interesting analysis of Hans Zimmer's score too (7m 23s). Has the whole Islamic immigration metaphor been discussed before (he rejects his parents' guidance and mid-West values, grows a beard, tries to learn more about his original culture, and gets mixed up with militaristic zealots)?

Well. I felt it had many things going for it, but very few payed off.
[spoiler]Lets start off with Clark himself, despite a rather uncenventional narrative backstory of jumbled and out of sync flash backs (Snyder, your a blockbuster director not Jan fooking Svankmajor) he has very little going for him, instead he's the canvase for which Superman is painted over the course of the film as he discovers who he really is. Pity that he has to act like a jeryk and trash people's trucks just because they are dicks. A true idol, i'm sure. Superman himself just kind of smiles, claims to have all the answers while really they are just guesstimations, they prove fruitful, snog's Lane and kill's Zod begrudgingly even though he has no reason to spare him. Added to that Superman commits mass genocide by blowing up the codex with all the children inside and orders citizens to hide in there homes on a street where he proceads to blow the shit out of two red shirts (come to that in a bit). Presumably all these people where killed. our hero ladies and gentlemen. Cavill is very, very bland. Has a constant smug look on his face. The "OH! I'm tortured but deep!" face. Nargh!

Now Zod and the others...well, Shannon pull's off an entertaining performence as the general. But it's more unintentionaly hilarious than epic or menacing. He has a constant derp face and is always on the brink of pouting. Now this is no jab at Shannon, he does the best he can with what he has. Which isn't much. But he just come's off as such a none threat as he's constantly being pulled away by his lockies while some other goons (including a hot chick) take on Sup's. Rinse and repeat several time's, adding more and more pressure on our hero blah blah blah.

The rest of the cast where no bland I can barely remember a thing about them. Not even the lovely Amy Adams as Lois Lane. How do you make a combination like that bland!?

The effects varied, while generaly the city skape's where nice, the close up's of the Krypton wild life was awful. Added to the the constantly present ball devices where clearly designed for 3D only anf are really painfull to look at in 2D. Just a sea of ugly mosing mass of shiney marbles. The landscape shot's of Alaska and 'insert name of US desert here' was also very nice and...baron. Snyder can at least do wide shot's well.

The plot has convolutions a plenty but I want to here what everyone else thought before I voice my own opinions as counter arguments. Suffice to say though, this was a rare instance where I didn't feel bad for leaving the cinema to go to the toilet several time's. Never felt like I missed anything.

Also, penis prison modules? Tha fook?[/spoiler]

So yeah, didn't like it.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 June, 2013, 08:41:39 PM
Not exactly dumber but they're getting more convoluted, plot driven and referential at the expense of decent story and characters.

I agree: Plot has become king... which doesn't sound like a bad thing, but for me Christopher Nolan's films feel more like 3 hour montages, each scene there to inch the story onward rather than letting us relax and get to know the characters.

Quote from: sauchie on 14 June, 2013, 09:17:51 PM
He sets 'em up, you knock 'em down. 57% critics, 82% audience (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/) on RT.

Seems the Yank critics get/like DREDD (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dredd/) a lot more than they get/like home-grown Snyderman.

Sadly critics don't get sequels made and from the early public response, Man of Steel is raking the money in and fan reactions have been positive.

Well, with the money it has already made, it looks like DC will soon be knocking out film after film if claims that Man of Steel would decide the likelihood of DC universe movie franchises coming thick and fast were true (to be fair though, I think they could have said almost anybody was to write/produce/direct Man of Steel and it would still prove to be the big success). I will get around to seeing MOS eventually and a part of me is looking forward to the inevitable rumours and claims that will soon be appearing everywhere on who will be playing the lead in the next DC film.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 15 June, 2013, 10:47:07 AM
(to be fair though, I think they could have said almost anybody was to write/produce/direct Man of Steel and it would still prove to be the big success).

Just like Superman Returns.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 June, 2013, 08:41:39 PM

Quote from: radiator on 14 June, 2013, 08:31:13 PM
Are blockbusters getting dumber or am I just becoming more discerning?

Not exactly dumber but they're getting more convoluted, plot driven and referential at the expense of decent story and characters.

Well that sums it up exactly. A lot of big franchise films these days tend to feel to me like join-the-dots exercises. My minimum requirement for these type of films is a fun, entertaining story with memorable characters and a simple, satisfying narrative arc. Even this seems to be beyond most modern blockbusters with their hugely over-complicated, plothole-ridden, episodic and unevenly paced narratives.

Is it weird that I find myself nostalgic for the simpler, dumb summertime thrills of films like Independence Day, Men in Black, Point Break and The Rock?

A lot of people these days seem to champion the latter Fast and the Furious films in this respect, but I just can't bring myself to go there.

Found myself at a loose end tonight with a few hours to kill so gave in to the hype and went to see it. Regret not opting for Behind the Candleabra instead!

Not that it was terrible - I quite enjoyed the first hour or so and there's some genuinely nice touches throughout - but after that first hour... man. So, so over the top, and every bit as rushed, muddled and convoluted as the films I was griping about earlier.

Characterisation is desperately weak - this is a film where characters say things like "I am a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" out loud. They really lean on the fact that everyone knows these characters already - someone unfamiliar with them would be hard-pressed to describe their personalities or motivations at all based on this film alone. So many redundant bit part characters that really should have been combined together or cut entirely.

The cgi effects get numbing really quickly. So... Many... Explosions. It's really quite exhausting and outright boring by the end. There just isn't a sense of scale or tangibility to them - its all just excessive digital noise. I've never watched a Transformers movie, but based on what everyone says about them this must be what they're like. Also: really dodgy rubber-man 'digital doubles' in the fight scenes. Thought we'd moved on from that?

This may not be fair as I only really know Superman from the Donner movies - but is it just me or was Superman not really all that Super? He wasn't really given any opportunity to be charming or particularly heroic, or really ingratiate himself with humanity - it's all just one thing happening after another and lacks context. The film seems a bit embarrassed to even call him 'Superman'.

Less would have been a lot more.

Quote from: radiator on 16 June, 2013, 12:37:21 AM

Quote from: radiator on 12 June, 2013, 06:07:00 PM

Quote from: sauchie on 12 June, 2013, 05:06:32 PM

Quote from: radiator on 14 June, 2013, 08:31:13 PM
Don't know if I can summon the energy to go see this. I seem to be getting ever more jaded with big blockbuster films. Are blockbusters getting dumber or am I just becoming more discerning?

It'll be an absolute monster. It's the kind of film folk with no real interest in seeing it will still go and see. Fair play to them.

Well it's going to have to do colossal business to make a profit on the rumoured $225m budget and the same again on advertising!

Found myself at a loose end tonight with a few hours to kill so gave in to the hype and went to see it. Regret not opting for Behind the Candelabra instead!

See what I mean?

Just booked a couple of tickets for me and a mate at Imax in Waterloo. Dear me is that place expensive... I could pay under half the price at my local! (To be fair Bromley Cinema isn't in the same league...)

Saw it today and definitely enjoyed it with some of the same reservations as others...however i am with John...sure there was a bit near the end where I could see Christopher Reeve in Henrys face.....subtle and very cool.... :D

Just rolled in from watching it and I'm firmly in agreement with CF.... I absolutely LOVED this until buildings began to get smashed up. And more buildings. And more buildings. All the themes and at times, quite subtle ideas that had been set up (very well, imho) until that point suddenly became forgotten in favour of big explosion and constant superpowered scrapping and macguffins.

That said, I really enjoyed it - certainly a great Superman film, and no Mr Burdis, you're not alone - I definatley saw Christopher Reeve's face in the light at the end!

Oh, yeah - was the fact that he was 33 years old a reference to Jesus?

What's below is (I believe) a massive spoiler. If you have any intention of seeing this movie, you should probably not unhide the rest of this post.

[spoiler]So... I haven't seen this movie, and now I'm certain that I'm not going to. Superman kills Zod? People are OK with that, are they? I don't see how you can put this down as being acceptable in context, or it's 'updating' or 're-imagining' or a necessary change when making the transition to film. To me, that means the movie has a character who looks a lot like Superman, but who isn't Superman.

(Yes, yes, 'Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow'... hardly the same thing, is it? Moore wrote that knowing that it would be the final story of the 'Silver Age' Superman and had the luxury of telling a story that ended that incarnation of Superman.)

To me, that's a deal-breaker. That's discarding something absolutely, intrinsically fundamental to the character. It's akin to Batman confronting the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight (movie), pulling out a .45 and shooting him in the face.

Snyder, Nolan, whoever, has made a conscious decision to establish this franchise as being about a Superman who kills. Fuck that.
[/spoiler]

like you Jim I haven't seen it yet but IIRC [spoiler]its been a while since I've seen it but Superman kills Zod in the original Superman 2 as well, and after he's de-powered him so he's effectively murdering a human and from what I've read he's apparently quite cut up at having to kill Zod in this one (though no mention that he sheds a tear about the tens of thousands of humans that surely get killed with all the city wide destruction at the end), I'm also willing to give these deaths the benefit of the doubt as this is essentially Superman Begins and maybe by movie 2 he's got his whole no killing and not let any one die thing happening as he's wracked with guilt (not to mention hassled by the world governments)[/spoiler] though I may be wrong as it hasn't opened in Oz yet so only going off a few spoilery review's I've read.

Cu Radbacker

Was going to post exactly the same thing.

Well no one seemed to mind or even notice when [spoiler]Batman killed two people in cold blood[/spoiler] at the end of The Dark Knight Rises!

As I say, I've only read a handful of them, but didn't Superman [spoiler]kill General Zod - or some other Kryptonians in the original comics? Certainly in one comic I read a long time ago (Superman Vs Aliens IIRC), he is haunted by guilt over having to kill - there was a flashback of him opening some kind of box...?![/spoiler]

[spoiler]You could all be right (although I believe Superman II has a deleted scene where Zod is led away in chains) but I certainly associate the character with being ultimately reluctant to take lives, and what I've read about the scene in this movie smacks of contrivance to make Superman into a killer. Snyder has given at least one interview in which he is keen to stress that 'his' Superman isn't a "boy scout".

If they're setting out their stall for a franchise here, the baseline level they've established seems unappealing to me.

I'm not going to bang on about it — I'm not going to see the movie so it would be idiotic of me to argue detail with people who have, I just thought that this might be a bigger deal than it seems to be from the reactions I've read.
[/spoiler]

As far as memory serves....and I'm getting on a bit now,  so this may not be 100% accurate...but....
Didn't Superman take the Aliens to a deserted World at the end of Superman v Aliens so he didn't have to kill them....and thus 'break' his moral code ??

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 17 June, 2013, 08:21:12 AM
[spoiler]To me, that's a deal-breaker. That's discarding something absolutely, intrinsically fundamental to the character. [/spoiler]

I'm more upset Supes doesn't throw a big cellophane S (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS9GJNETHsw).

I think you will find thats the least disapointing thing about it Jim. The more I think about it the more it falls apart.

Saw it on Saturday night with the missus.
I pretty much agree word for word with Radiator's critique a few posts back.

My one-line review: A competent visual feast, but utterly soulless.

Quote from: Link Prime on 17 June, 2013, 02:28:27 PM
My one-line review: A competent visual feast, but utterly soulless.

My favourite review from the internet so far: "44 beautifully-constructed trailers strung together in the world's most expensive promo reel."

Cheers!

Jim

Saw this Saturday. This is a pretty decent action film but it didn't live up to Superman. I feel that Cavill's Clark is missing much of the charm of Reeve's Clark so it was missing some much needed heart.

My wife was depressed coming out of the film. She said it was about twenty minutes too long and the [spoiler]needless fight and death of Zod at the end [/spoiler]really ruined it for her.

About the only truly moving moment in the film was [spoiler]the death of Jonathan Kent[/spoiler].

Caught this at the weekend - very enjoyable.

The film is not without some flaws but I thought it was good and certainly better than the last superman movie.  Some of the effects fell a bit flat but then others were fantastic and fortunately it did not often fall into the 'transformers trap' where the viewer is unable to keep up with the action.  Also, there was a bit too much 'shaky cam' but that's modern movies for you.

I thought Russell Crowe was especially good - was hoping for more from Kevin Costner though.  Someone also pointed out [spoiler]the age on Jonathan Kent's grave - 46? Hard life in Kansas eh?[/spoiler]

So generally pretty happy, went with the missus and as usual after a movie I asked her what she thought:

So, what did you think?
Hmmmm, what was the last film we came to the cinema to see?
Errr Star Trek Into Darkness.
Yeah, Superman was OK but I preferred Star Trek!

I see what she means, but I still liked Man of Steel.  Looking forward to future sequels and how this ties into the JLA movie.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 17 June, 2013, 02:38:02 PM
"44 beautifully-constructed trailers strung together in the world's most expensive promo reel."

Sounds like Peter Greenaway was a big influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falls). I hope to be be proved wrong but Watchmen was unfortunately the most expensive fan-film ever made.

There's actually a really nice scene at the end of the movie where [spoiler]Clark Kent is 'introduced' to Lois Lane in the offices of the Daily Planet. They exchange a knowing smile and Lois says "Welcome to the 'Planet".[/spoiler] That for me was the best bit in the film - a sweet and clever bit of dialogue - and the film could have done with ten times more of that sort of thing, and ten times less explosions and people throwing each other through buildings.

Quote from: radiator on 17 June, 2013, 02:47:20 PM
the film could have done with ten times more of that sort of thing, and ten times less explosions and people throwing each other through buildings.

Something that occurred to me throughout the latter half of the film; with all the furore about [spoiler]Superman killing Zod[/spoiler], I don't think anyone's mentioned the hundreds if not thousands of civilian lives Supes was indirectly involved in taking by throwing Kryptonians through random skyscrapers etc.

Quote from: Radbacker on 17 June, 2013, 11:12:10 AM
its been a while since I've seen it but Superman kills Zod in the original Superman 2

Zod's fate in Superman 2 is more Schrödinger's Cat  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0) than Butch and Sundance.

Quote from: Link Prime on 17 June, 2013, 04:27:29 PM
I don't think anyone's mentioned the hundreds if not thousands of civilian lives Supes was indirectly involved in taking by throwing Kryptonians through random skyscrapers etc.

I was thinking exactly the same thing, but I'm sure if you asked they would say the buildings had been evacuated by then.

Also I thought it strange that so many people running from a falling building had never seen Prometheus.

Why Man of Steel was bad. (http://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/44529/man-of-steel-is-shocking-disrespectful-and-lazy/)

Did anyone one else find the score completely forgettable?

I certain didn't compare to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjIlBoGrVJM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjIlBoGrVJM)

QuoteDid anyone one else find the score completely forgettable?

Yep, it was weak. Not hummable at all. Even The Avengers managed a more memorable theme!

This is what I was talking about earlier - [spoiler]Superman killing Zod with kryptonite in the comics. So why are people getting their knickers in a twist that he does it in the movie?[/spoiler]

(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100823044324/marvel_dc/images/7/71/Superman_kills_01.jpg)

Quote from: radiator on 17 June, 2013, 07:44:25 PM

QuoteDid anyone one else find the score completely forgettable?

Yep, it was weak. Not hummable at all. Even The Avengers managed a more memorable theme!

I'm of the opinion that not all soundtracks need to be melodic or catchy to be considered great. Certainly there has been a move in recent years towards texture and vertical sound rather than horizontal composition that had been a previous development in avant-classical (Edgard Varese) and pop (Brian Eno). It doesn't make them less impressive but it does have a modified function as a more integrative/supportive part of the whole audio/visual structure while not seeking to stand out over the drama proclaiming listen to this!

It has been a definite progression from the particularly hyper-melodic orchestral stuff in the first half of the 20th Century that can sound rather prosaic and intrusive today. It's also, of course, a matter of taste.


Neil Brand explores this on BBC radio's Film Programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02qp1s2)

Quote from: radiator on 17 June, 2013, 07:44:25 PMThis is what I was talking about earlier - [spoiler]Superman killing Zod with kryptonite in the comics. So why are people getting their knickers in a twist that he does it in the movie?[/spoiler]

In the comics it was unambiguously presented as something terrible for the character to do, no matter the provocation - rather than the movie's moment of ultimate triumph.  Even on a meta level in the comics it was presented as such a betrayal of what Superman stands for it was utilised as the big shock game-changer on the fiftieth anniversary of the character in the fiftieth issue of the relaunched (post-Crisis) Superman title.  There were aftereffects felt in the book for years, most notably the Exile story where Superman decided to leave Earth forever rather than risk ever taking a life again, even accidentally - but more importantly than that, it presented the decision to do so on Superman's part as cold-blooded and deliberate: Zod and his allies were helpless and in Superman's custody, but he decided to kill them anyway, and none of this namby-pamby "heat of the moment WAR IS HELL" nonsense the movie trots out, the comics dealt with the action head-on and made no excuses.
Basically, in the comics it was kind of a big deal.

The film, by contrast, spends half an hour doing Metropolis 911 (right down to recreating shots from news footage at the time) and then Superman comes in and kills Space Bin Laden because he did Metropolis 911 so he deserves it.  Even away from the debate about Superman, that's pretty cowardly film-making.

I expect him to tackle Syria in the sequel or some analogue 'rogue state'.

Zack Snyder has already confirmed that the sequel will see the character acting internationally.  I expect Quarac (or whatever the comics' straw man analogue for the entire Middle East was called) will feature.

Super-UN-man.

Superman reacts to Hans Zimmer's MAN OF STEEL score:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18u6gZhBis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18u6gZhBis)

I thought it was OK. Visually impressive, but the screenplay still felt too much like one of the 'Dark Knight' films.

Did anyone notice that the editing to the 'devistated' New York was inconsistant as fuck? Some scene's show it as unharmed, other's it's like post DoC MC1. Da fook?

Oh, and how many people did Superman kill in this film? Best hero on earth everyone.

Just back from it..

People of Metropolis.. Everything is bon!

It was a pretty awesome movie, though the action scenes between the kryptonians seemed almost like a cross between Michael Bay's transformers and an episode of Dragonball Z.. I found it a bit hard to keep tabs on what exaxtly was happening. It was sort of turned up to 11 all the time, which'll ultimately ended up boring me towards the end. There's only so many buildings a guy can be hurled through without any physical consequences and still make it interesting.

Meh.. Was alright overall.. My girlfriend and I had a lovely moment when we both said "no capes!"

For my money the action scenes in The Avengers were so, so much better than those in MoS. The Avengers was massive in scale, but knew when to stop, when to have a bit of humour, when to slow things down, and there was a far better sense of geography and scale. The overt cgi-ness was also somehow less obnoxious too.

Quote from: optimusjamie on 17 June, 2013, 10:31:39 PM
I thought it was OK. Visually impressive, but the screenplay still felt too much like one of the 'Dark Knight' films.

Chris Nolan and David S Goyer were involved with writing both so I was expecting this.  Also, I guess it makes sense to have them similar as it reinforces that they are both in the same DC universe. 

Does make me wonder how they will be pitching the forthcoming JLA movie - I enjoyed the Avengers movie because it was such fun, don't think the JLA movie will be as good if they make it so sombre.

Quote from: Recrewt on 18 June, 2013, 12:28:55 PM
Chris Nolan and David S Goyer were involved with writing both so I was expecting this.  Also, I guess it makes sense to have them similar as it reinforces that they are both in the same DC universe. 

Except Nolan & Co. says they're not:


"The 'Dark Knight' films do not exist in the same universe. Zack [Snyder] has gone on record. The fact that we have Wayne Industries on the satellite, Bruce Wayne exists in this universe. Lex Luthor exists in this universe. Other metahumans do exist in this universe, so the hope is, depending on how the film does, that we'll be able to roll into some other films." (http://www.blastr.com/2013-6-11/goyer-confirms-man-steel-universe-will-feature-new-batman)

QuoteExcept Nolan & Co. says they're not:

I think they don't... unless DC/Warners decides at a later date they do.

Quote from: radiator on 18 June, 2013, 12:54:47 PM

QuoteExcept Nolan & Co. says they're not:

I think they don't... unless DC/Warners decides at a later date they do.

They'd be tying themselves in knots trying to make a story that's ended, inclusive. There's no value in that unless Christian Bale did a Lazarus. It'll be easier just to reboot through the Superman sequels; it also means they can re-boot Two-Face and the Joker without the baggage of being dead in the fictional and real worlds.

haven't seen this film yet but you lot are really putting me off. Sounds a bit crap!

Quote from: JamesC on 18 June, 2013, 01:22:08 PM
Sounds a bit crap!

Regrettably, It is.

Quote from: Link Prime on 18 June, 2013, 01:24:03 PM

Quote from: JamesC on 18 June, 2013, 01:22:08 PM
Sounds a bit crap!

Regrettably, It is.

Oh well.

One day somebody will make the Captain Marvel / Shazam movie I've always wanted to see.

And then they'll make the sequel with the whole Marvel family!

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2013, 12:59:32 PM

Quote from: radiator on 18 June, 2013, 12:54:47 PM

QuoteExcept Nolan & Co. says they're not:

I think they don't... unless DC/Warners decides at a later date they do.

They'd be tying themselves in knots trying to make a story that's ended, inclusive. There's no value in that unless Christian Bale did a Lazarus. It'll be easier just to reboot through the Superman sequels; it also means they can re-boot Two-Face and the Joker without the baggage of being dead in the fictional and real worlds.

They wrote themselves in a corner with the last Batman film so no-one is really expecting to see Christian Bale in the JLA movie.  But that's not too big an issue - they managed to work around this with the Hulk in the Avengers movie and I don't see why they can't do the same with Batman, especially as he could spend most of his time masked (ignoring the recent New 52 league where he struggles to keep it on!). 

I would have thought Mr Cavill would be appearing in it though and so far it seems the Superman movies are pitched with the same tone as the Dark Knight's have been.   

Depends on what you want from it - it seems to be going down very well with the fanboy audience. If you didn't like the Nolan Batman films forget about it.

Haha - copying what's been done in the Avengers movie?  I think Warner Bros have too much creative integrity and dignity to make a grab for sloppy-seconds cash, Joe!

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2013, 12:59:32 PM

Quote from: radiator on 18 June, 2013, 12:54:47 PM

QuoteExcept Nolan & Co. says they're not:

I think they don't... unless DC/Warners decides at a later date they do.

They'd be tying themselves in knots trying to make a story that's ended, inclusive. There's no value in that unless Christian Bale did a Lazarus. It'll be easier just to reboot through the Superman sequels; it also means they can re-boot Two-Face and the Joker without the baggage of being dead in the fictional and real worlds.

I think you might be giving a bit too much credit, there.  The Nolan bat-flicks made billions, while any new version of the character would end up being some kind of a gamble even if the creative pedigree was top-notch - it might seem like a bad idea to us as consumers and fans, but for producers Nolan Batman and Snyder Superman together in the same film has got to seem like no-brainer maths.  Even if it was utterly terrible it would make a fuckton of cash, and I think we can agree that they wouldn't care if it was terrible as long as it made a fuckton of cash, nor would they care very much if it contradicted anything about what went before if neck-crackin' Supes is any indicator.  I suspect for a few years money will be thrown at the relevant parties to see if they'll go for it, but if we do get a clean break it will only be because all other options have been exhausted.

My personal hope is that with Superman now being the grim and gritty character, we see a relaunched Batman in the style of the Brave and the Bold, a colourful, camp and fun adventurer followed around by a guy with bongo drums as a contrast to the neck-snapping invincible demigod from space that answers to no man or Earthly law who for some reason is not completely terrifying.

QuoteI think you might be giving a bit too much credit, there.  The Nolan bat-flicks made billions, while any new version of the character would end up being some kind of a gamble even if the creative pedigree was top-notch - it might seem like a bad idea to us as consumers and fans, but for producers Nolan Batman and Snyder Superman together in the same film has got to seem like no-brainer maths.  Even if it was utterly terrible it would make a fuckton of cash, and I think we can agree that they wouldn't care if it was terrible as long as it made a fuckton of cash, nor would they care very much if it contradicted anything about what went before if neck-crackin' Supes is any indicator.  I suspect for a few years money will be thrown at the relevant parties to see if they'll go for it, but if we do get a clean break it will only be because all other options have been exhausted.

That was the point I was making. It makes no sense to do a Watchmen prequel, but they did one because money.

Quote from: Recrewt on 18 June, 2013, 01:33:36 PM


They wrote themselves in a corner with the last Batman film so no-one is really expecting to see Christian Bale in the JLA movie.  But that's not too big an issue - they managed to work around this with the Hulk in the Avengers movie and I don't see why they can't do the same with Batman, especially as he could spend most of his time masked (ignoring the recent New 52 league where he struggles to keep it on!

But they don't need to and they'd be further creating problems and limiting themselves by trying to. Millions still paid to see Spider-Man even though it's a straight reboot so there's no worry with people giving money for old-rope. Much in line with the multiple character reboots that occur in comics every few years; geeks still buy 'em.

Quote from: Recrewt on 18 June, 2013, 01:33:36 PM
I would have thought Mr Cavill would be appearing in it though and so far it seems the Superman movies are pitched with the same tone as the Dark Knight's have been.

I suspect a lot of that has to do with differentiating the tone from Marvel films, and it's the same writer.

Quote from: radiator on 18 June, 2013, 01:46:07 PM
That was the point I was making. It makes no sense to do a Watchmen prequel, but they did one because money.

I don't think Before Watchmen made much money for DC.

I bet it did!

There were tons of unsold copies every time I went into Forbidden Planet - and I don't mean they had the odd issues, I mean there was at least 7 or 8 copies of every issue of every series DC put out.

Probably made money for the scabs who worked on it, though.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 18 June, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
Haha - copying what's been done in the Avengers movie?  I think Warner Bros have too much creative integrity and dignity to make a grab for sloppy-seconds cash, Joe!

I think you might be giving a bit too much credit, there.  The Nolan bat-flicks made billions, while any new version of the character would end up being some kind of a gamble even if the creative pedigree was top-notch - it might seem like a bad idea to us as consumers and fans, but for producers Nolan Batman and Snyder Superman together in the same film has got to seem like no-brainer maths.

I don't feel they need to think that hard about it or bribe so hard either. Another rebooted Batman film will make money, regardless. I'm sure there's enough bravado and 'creative' hubris now at Warners after Superman's windfall to do what they want without the need for them to shell out large amounts of leverage and buy-out money to Bale or Nolan. They got Cavill; they can now get a younger, more pliable and cheaper Batman. That part of the Marvel Method they will be adopting.

Quote from: JamesC on 18 June, 2013, 02:00:36 PM
I bet it did!

With the huge sales drop-off; DC are set to cancel it.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 18 June, 2013, 02:14:28 PM

Quote from: JamesC on 18 June, 2013, 02:00:36 PM
I bet it did!

With the huge sales drop-off; DC are set to cancel it.

It finished a few months ago BTW.
I may have been the only person on Earth to buy them all.  :'(

Quote from: Link Prime on 18 June, 2013, 02:28:32 PM
It finished a few months ago BTW.
I may have been the only person on Earth to buy them all.  :'(

And no Epilogue ever arrived. That's fan-service.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 18 June, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
Haha - copying what's been done in the Avengers movie?  I think Warner Bros have too much creative integrity and dignity to make a grab for sloppy-seconds cash, Joe!

I think Warners would put Daffy Duck in the JLA movie if they thought it would increase profits by a dime, but I may be listening to Alan Moore too much.

SPOILER ALERT if you go in here:

[spoiler]http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/17/man-of-steel-christopher-nolan-opposed-the-ending-dc-comics-advised-on-it/[/spoiler]

Interesting and as I suspected: Snyder doesn't really understand, or worse - isn't interested in understanding, what makes these characters work.

Quote from: Link Prime on 18 June, 2013, 02:28:32 PM
It finished a few months ago BTW.

The end, Link Prime? Nothing ends.

Quote from: blackmocco on 18 June, 2013, 03:32:08 PMInteresting and as I suspected: Snyder doesn't really understand, or worse - isn't interested in understanding, what makes these characters work.

My favorite bit was:

Quote"And the why of it was, for me, that if it's truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained."

I don't even...
He is seriously saying that it needs to be explained why someone would think taking a life is wrong.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 18 June, 2013, 04:18:05 PM
He is seriously saying that it needs to be explained why someone would think taking a life is wrong.

Pretty much confirms my opinion that the man's a fucking idiot. He should run a major comic publishing company — he's wasted in Hollywood.

Cheers

Jim

On Nolan and Snyder:

QuoteThe godfather of gritty, realistic superhero films was apparently not willing to go quite as far with perceived changes to Superman's character as was the Watchmen director.

Oh fuck me.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 18 June, 2013, 04:18:05 PM

My favorite bit was:

Quote"And the why of it was, for me, that if it's truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained."

I don't even...
He is seriously saying that it needs to be explained why someone would think taking a life is wrong.

Unexplained?! The man's a prize eejit.

Clark was raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent. Good, God fearing, middle American people. You think they didn't take Clark to church (which is odd for a character created by a couple of Jewish teens when you think about it).

RedLetterMedia: MAN OF STEEL (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-man-of-steel/)

It was a bit of a mess really.
There were some incredible scenes in it. Some brilliant action that had some real weight to the blows, and some very good casting.
Soundtrack was brilliant.
And the [spoiler]final scene[/spoiler] was, as Radiator says, pitch perfect with some cracking dialogue.

But...
The level of destruction was just idiotic. Sections of Metropolis reduced, literally, [spoiler]to powder and ash[/spoiler]? How many [spoiler]skyscrapers fell over[/spoiler]? 
This was (IMO) one of the times they got the character wrong - Superman would have flown away and taken the fight out of the city so as not to endanger any innocent members of the public.
But the most egregious scene is, as mentioned above, [spoiler]Killing Zod[/spoiler].
Just... no. [spoiler]This is the opposite of what Kal-el is all about. He's about control, mercy, compassion. He's about being able to kill with impunity but not doing it because not killing is the right thing to do.
I thought the scene - oh and the Superman/Zod fight was not required at all - was exciting as I was trying to figure out how Superman was going to stop Zod... then he just killed him... Just no.[/spoiler]

And please, 9/11, yeah we get it, it was a Bad Thing... but maybe slightly less heavy on the metaphors, please?

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 20 June, 2013, 06:44:10 PM



RedLetterMedia: MAN OF STEEL (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-man-of-steel/)

Those are excellent reviews..

QuoteSome brilliant action that had some real weight to the blows

Really? I may be forgetting - as there's so damn many of them and they all start to blur into one - but most of the fight scenes seemed very cgi-heavy, videogamey and weightless to me.

I think because it's turned up to 11 the entire film, you lose that aspect of being able to relate to what you're seeing on screen. The original film built things up slowly, first showing you Supes as a young child lifting a car, then showing him running alongside the train. We can buy into these things because we know how heavy a car is, we know how fast a train is. It grounds things so that we're not initally asked to suspend disbelief too far, and we're then able to go with the film later on when we see the full extent of his powers - and even then it doesn't go too over the top - we're always given a civilian perspective.

When you just cut straight to someone doing crazy shit like [spoiler]holding up a cgi oil rig or covered in cgi flames[/spoiler]... not so much. It all just kind of washes over you. There's no context or contrast. It all ties into the main flaw of the movie in my opinion - it just doesn't work as a film unless the audience have already seen a Superman film, which lends it an unsatisfying feel as a whole and is poor filmmaking as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: radiator on 21 June, 2013, 11:52:11 AM

QuoteSome brilliant action that had some real weight to the blows

It grounds things so that we're not initally asked to suspend disbelief too far, and we're then able to go with the film later on when we see the full extent of his powers - and even then it doesn't go too over the top - we're always given a civilian perspective.

Apart from when he flies around the Earth backwards and rewinds time!

All of the Reeve era Superman films have some really ridiculous, over the top and ludicrous moments and on top of that the powers are really poorly defined.

Rewinding time? Splitting into two versions of yourself? Erasing Lois Lane's memory (which is a bit ethically dubious to say the least)?

The thing is, these films get away with it because the human relationships are so well portrayed and they are undeniably charming.

Their portrayal of black characters leaves something to be desired though!

Yeah, was going to say about the rewinding time thing. Tbh I only really like the first hour or so of the first Donner movie, much like MoS, it goes a bit funky after that but for very different reasons.

It also helps that the original films have a far lighter tone, they have a very mythical, timeless quality to them and aren't really striving for realism. The makers of this new one were always on a hiding to nothing trying to make Superman gritty and even slightly realistic.

QuoteThe thing is, these films get away with it because the human relationships are so well portrayed and they are undeniably charming.

Very true. It's very sad that so many people dismiss things like poorly-defined characters and gaping narrative and logical problems as 'minor problems' with modern films. "Yeah, the script was bad, but it was still a great movie!" etc etc. All the effects wizardry in the world can only ever add a bit of spectacle to a great story as far I'm concerned - they are not the main attraction! It speaks to the quality of a film like Jurassic Park - ostensibly a movie about dinosaurs and special effects - that most people could still name all the characters and identify them solely by their costumes 20 years later. Now that's what I call a blockbuster!

For me the most telling thing about MoS is that I have no intentions of seeing it again in the cinema or purchasing it on blu-ray (at least not until it hits the bargain bins). It really doesn't warrant multiple viewings. Unlike Dredd.

QuoteReally? I may be forgetting - as there's so damn many of them and they all start to blur into one - but most of the fight scenes seemed very cgi-heavy, videogamey and weightless to me.

Nah - well, not to me anyway! I thought the[spoiler] Smallville[/spoiler] fight in particular was great.
But they did go on a bit, that's for sure...

One thought that occurred to me after the film was that not once that I could remember did Superman try to mitigate the sheer level of destruction by either stopping its effects further, i.e. super cool breath to douse fire or holding back a falling building piece, or try to lead Zod & co. away from more populated areas.

Rumble is Smallville, sure. Brawl through Metropolis, great, no prob. This is very unSuperman like behaviour.

Quote from: JamesC on 21 June, 2013, 12:03:36 PM

Quote from: radiator on 21 June, 2013, 11:52:11 AM

QuoteSome brilliant action that had some real weight to the blows

It grounds things so that we're not initally asked to suspend disbelief too far, and we're then able to go with the film later on when we see the full extent of his powers - and even then it doesn't go too over the top - we're always given a civilian perspective.

Apart from when he flies around the Earth backwards and rewinds time!

All of the Reeve era Superman films have some really ridiculous, over the top and ludicrous moments and on top of that the powers are really poorly defined.

HaHa! Yeah, didn't they do something similar in one of the old Star Trek movies - I thought this was now accepted as scientific fact!  ;)

I enjoyed the old Superman movies but they were not without their own faults. 

I thought Man Of Steel's biggest genuine problem was that Superman wasn't in it much, and when he was he was either ineffective or a wimp always getting swatted aside by other characters so they could do something visually impressive - like in the Smallville fight where he kept disappearing into piles of rubble so evil characters could blow stuff up onscreen for a minute or two until Superman jumps back in to throw yet another ineffective punch before disappearing under a thrown train or something.  At one point a character even gives him a lecture about evolution while she's waiting for him to do something.

And was it ever explained how or why he was at that dig site just as they discovered the spaceship, or was that just coincidence?

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 21 June, 2013, 03:38:16 PM
And was it ever explained how or why he was at that dig site just as they discovered the spaceship, or was that just coincidence?

it was kinda inferred when he was working at that bar and the two generals were talking about it so i imagine clark heard and when he left the bar and impaled that guy's lorry he then went to see what was going on in the snowy land of wherever they were.

but he must have got employed as a stage hand pretty quickly probably a day before lois arrived and he then handled their luggage and went off to the ship that night.

the end.

Superman's battle with Zod cost $2 trillion, killed 129,000 people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/21/supermans-battle-with-zod-cost-2-trillion-killed-129000-people/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein)

Still ticking this film over in my head. I honestly think it might be the worst Superhero movie since Catwoman.

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 21 June, 2013, 08:25:46 PM
Still ticking this film over in my head. I honestly think it might be the worst Superhero movie since Catwoman.

... Really?

I've seen it twice now, really enjoyed it, probably more so the second time.

I just can't get over how un-superman it is. I really wanted this to be the movie that got me truely into the character, but I just found him so unlikable and so unheroic. Like when a mashed a truck with some of it's cargo, just because the driver was a douche. And as i've previously said, he is TERRIBLE at saving live's. There also seemed to be little attempt to reduce his power, he always appeared when Lois/ Army fodder where in danger, always at the last second. Contrivance after contrivance. I just can't enjoy it.

Just saw it and.... well... it makes Superman III and IV look good. Fuck, it even makes Superman Returns look good. That was one of the most joyless films I've ever seen. It made Dredd 3D look fun and compassionate

saw it yesterday and it was ... okay. I thought the casting was good, but the fight scenes were all a bit samey - people getting smashed into trucks and buildings, getting up and then getting smashed into another truck or building.

[spoiler]Killing Zod didn't bother me too much as by that time he had adapted to be as powerful as Supes and it was all he could do to save the family - and it's not as though he was casual about it with the howl of anguish. I was rather shocked that the the massive collateral damage as entire buildings were toppled was glossed over though.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]It's pedantic to pick plot holes in a film about a man who's invulnerable because he soaks up the rays of a young sun or is unrecognisable in glasses, but one or two did jump out. The solution, IIRC was to collide two 'phantom drives' which would cause a singularity - "you mean a black hole? asks the general. Erm - wouldn't that be worse than what Zod's planning? Luckily it was one of those harmless black holes. Also, isn't it amazing in these films how during globe-spanning fights, they always land within a few feet of the supporting characters?[/spoiler]

Desopite it's faults, it was still leagues ahead of the dullfest that was Superman returns.

[spoiler]I can't help but recall a Justice League cartoon from a few years back, where the Justice League from another reality turn up; they're called The Justice Lords and they run the world with an iron fist (as Batman says- you have to enforce the small laws to make the big ones truly count) because in this reality, Superman killed a villain and soon realised on doing so he's capable of that and so much more, so he's lobotomizing villains with his heat ray vision and his team mates are following his cold logic because that's the thing with Superman- the heroes all follow him and his example in one way or another.[/spoiler]
I'm guessing some people at DC/Warners missed this episode.

QuoteIt's pedantic to pick plot holes in a film about a man who's invulnerable because he soaks up the rays of a young sun or is unrecognisable in glasses

No it isn't. I hate that argument.

That's like saying you shouldn't pick holes in any sci fi or fantasy because they feature things that don't or couldn't exist in the real world. An acquaintance of mine said Prometheus didn't need to make sense because it had spaceships and aliens in it. There will always be an element of suspending your disbelief with genre stuff - indeed with any work of fiction - but that doesn't mean the writers get a free pass on writing something that makes narrative sense and works on an internal logic. Most films have plotholes, but usually it's incredibly minor things you can overlook for the sake of a good story, but I get irritated by films where it becomes distracting.

I love picking apart and discussing films and rewatching them, and imo the sign of a good script is when a film gets better when you think it over and digest it and prod it for weaknesses, not immediately fall apart in the cold light of day.

Out of curiosity, am I the only one here who the [spoiler]whole Kryptonian career-assigned-incubator-babies concept was totally new to?[/spoiler] Is that 'Nu52' or just something that had somehow escaped me until now?

Quote from: Charlie boy on 22 June, 2013, 06:03:28 PM
Out of curiosity, am I the only one here who the [spoiler]whole Kryptonian career-assigned-incubator-babies concept was totally new to?[/spoiler] Is that 'Nu52' or just something that had somehow escaped me until now?

I *think* that comes from an earlier reboot. Was it post 'Death of...'?

I have absolutely no idea where it's from! If they hadn't done the whole reboot here and had just brought that in, I would have spent the entire film sitting there scared for not understanding what on earth was going on and wishing my mum was beside me because of it.

Just seen it.
Thought it was boring. There wasn't an original scene in the whole film. By the end I honestly couldn't care less about Superman's actions as I'd already decided that this wasn't really a Superman film at all.
And the way they made Lois Lane totally forgettable was just criminal.

They massively overcomplicated the whole Krypton plot to the point where it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There were just so many logical inconsistencies and poorly defined/explained things that you just had to go along with. I could sort of see what they were trying to do with Zod, but if you ask me all the motivation you need for that character is that he wants to come to Earth to a)take his revenge on the son of the guy who got him sent to prison and b)live like a God and rule over humanity.

Speaking of Zod, I was amazed that they didn't do the whole "Kneel!" thing. They didn't even hint at it. An admirable moment of restraint in a film otherwise sorely lacking it.

QuoteSpeaking of Zod, I was amazed that they didn't do the whole "Kneel!" thing. They didn't even hint at it. An admirable moment of restraint in a film otherwise sorely lacking it.

Yeah, I was very glad of that! Stamp was just so... Terry Stamp in the role that I feared them trying to 'borrow' anything from his performance.

It's nice to have little nods for the fans, but certain films - like the recent Star Trek one - go way overboard with it, so that it becomes really off-putting.

Quote from: radiator on 22 June, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
It's nice to have little nods for the fans, but certain films - like the recent Star Trek one - go way overboard with it, so that it becomes really off-putting.

There were some really nice fan service moments in Man of Steel -[spoiler] Lexcorp, Wayne Industries, Sullivan Motors[/spoiler]....

Mentioning Trek reminds me - the crowd at our local theater was in stitches when [spoiler]Superman broke Zod's neck and then screamed[/spoiler], as some card decided to shout "KHAAAAN!"  They were also in stitches when Zod and crew were stuffed into dildo-shaped rockets, and when Superman floated out into space like Jesus.

I think they didn't do the "kneel" thing because it was already overdone in Smallville - and I mean seriously overdone, it was said by no less than three different actors in various paraphrased ways, and all this was before the actual character of General Zod even turned up on the show.  Of course, this theory of mine kind of depends on Snyder knowing when something has been run into the fucking ground, so it kind of falls apart at that point.

Snyder's whole [spoiler]"Well why shouldn't/can't Superman kill?!"[/spoiler] only shows he has no interest in the material at all and all he wants to do is loads of fights (preferably in slow motion) and explosions. Man of Steel looks to be following in the footsteps of Dark Knight Rises, with critics saying they think it's great but plenty more people struggling to have a good thing to say about it.
I hope he does direct the sequel, and I hope the initial excitement of NEW SUPERMAN MOVIE! is worn clean out after this opening movie and so it completely flops like nothing has ever done before it.

I think he does have a lot of interest in the material, but it's possible that - as with Watchmen - he misunderstood it a bit.

Agree about Dark Knight Rises. I watched it again recently and it really isn't a patch on the previous two Batfilms, in fact it suffers from a lot of the same problems MoS does in terms of sloppy storytelling. Still shocked at how many rave reviews it got. I sometimes think even trusted critics get as caught up in the hype as much as the rest of us.

Quote from: radiator on 22 June, 2013, 11:53:18 PM
...it's possible that - as with Watchmen - he misunderstood it a bit.

'Cos Superman is really complicated.

It could, one supposes, be a brilliantly subversive commentary on the changed nature of 'truth, justice and the American way', reflecting the US's abandonment of even an aspiration to moral authority as it openly embraces assassination, torture, indefinite detention, spying on its entire population (what else is superhearing and x-ray vision for anyway?) etc., all in the name of defending against the alien.  Where the will of the people leads, so follows Superman. 

More likely he just thought it'd be kewl.

The goodie has to kill the baddie, TB.

Disclaimer: I have around zero affection for either the character of Superman or the old films and I only watched this because the train into town was late so I missed the start of the film I wanted to see.

I thought it was alright. Probably one of Snyder's best. Which is, of course, the dictionary definition of damning with faint praise. It's too long, too loud and too disjointed with the mixture of flashback and modern adventure scenes making it impossible to tell how much time has elapsed. I assume it's supposed to be weeks or months but feels like a long weekend.

The big, earthbound Kryptonian fights look awful and it's nothing to do with the collateral damage everyone's whining about. While clearly expensive to make, the way bodies flop and bounce like rubber dolls with no sense of weight whenever they're punched or thrown around kind of ruins the effect for me. They've been trying to get this super-powered kinetic punching effect right for years now but it still looks as ropey as it did in Blade or whatever. Time to give up, I think.

The biggest problem I had with the film (and I don't know how this reflects the comics) was Old Pa Kent being such an abject, snivelling wanker. Maybe I'm overworking the X-Men superpowers = difference metaphor but it basically seemed to be saying you should deny your own sexuality and pretend to be normal even if you have to let people die when you could save them. EH?! How, exactly, does this marry up with being a symbol of hope? Utter prick.

I thought it was pretty decent entertainment, speaking as someone who as no interest in Superman comics and has in fact never read one. The sheer amount of destruction Superman was causing though did seem a touch of out character compared to other Superman movies, though. Not all of these buildings he wrecked can have been completely empty now, can then?

I got the impression as I was watching that we were supposed to believe that all the building were empty, but its a stretch.

Just seems a bit off that Superman solves all of his problems with brute force and aggression.

Quote from: radiator on 22 June, 2013, 09:18:13 PM
Speaking of Zod, I was amazed that they didn't do the whole "Kneel!" thing. They didn't even hint at it. An admirable moment of restraint in a film otherwise sorely lacking it.

I genuinely thought that the lingering image of Superman kneeling before Zods still warm corpse was a nod to that line.

And I genuinely thought that a lot of the fights were just [spoiler]pale imitations of Peter Griffin vs the giant chicken[/spoiler]

Quote from: Charlie boy on 23 June, 2013, 01:30:48 PM
And I genuinely thought that a lot of the fights were just [spoiler]pale imitations of Peter Griffin vs the giant chicken[/spoiler]

If only they were half as entertaining...

A savage analysis from Andrew Wheeler at Comics Alliance: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/06/21/man-of-steel-moral-superman-review-zack-snyder-david-goyer/

I'm really not looking forward to seeing this again; I should really stop doing the whole "OK, if you can't see it with us on such a date because of such and such- don't worry about it cos I'll go see it with you at a later date..." thing and just organize cinema trips better. I will make a point of keeping my eyes open towards the end though for the whole Christopher Reeve face thing that has been mentioned here. I may have missed that first time because, nearing the end, I realised a few times my eyes had wandered from the screen and had instead focused on the reassuring green glow of the EXIT sign.

Quote from: TordelBack on 23 June, 2013, 01:34:06 PM
A savage analysis from Andrew Wheeler at Comics Alliance: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/06/21/man-of-steel-moral-superman-review-zack-snyder-david-goyer/

A very accurate piece of writing.

Quote from: The Cosh on 23 June, 2013, 11:56:53 AM
Disclaimer: I have around zero affection for either the character of Superman or the old films and I only watched this because the train into town was late so I missed the start of the film I wanted to see.

I thought it was alright. Probably one of Snyder's best. Which is, of course, the dictionary definition of damning with faint praise. It's too long, too loud and too disjointed with the mixture of flashback and modern adventure scenes making it impossible to tell how much time has elapsed. I assume it's supposed to be weeks or months but feels like a long weekend.

The big, earthbound Kryptonian fights look awful and it's nothing to do with the collateral damage everyone's whining about. While clearly expensive to make, the way bodies flop and bounce like rubber dolls with no sense of weight whenever they're punched or thrown around kind of ruins the effect for me. They've been trying to get this super-powered kinetic punching effect right for years now but it still looks as ropey as it did in Blade or whatever. Time to give up, I think.

The biggest problem I had with the film (and I don't know how this reflects the comics) was Old Pa Kent being such an abject, snivelling wanker. Maybe I'm overworking the X-Men superpowers = difference metaphor but it basically seemed to be saying you should deny your own sexuality and pretend to be normal even if you have to let people die when you could save them. EH?! How, exactly, does this marry up with being a symbol of hope? Utter prick.

^ This.

The Avengers managed to get across the Hulk's strength and general scariness with far less screen time.
When the Hulk runs through an entire floor of an office block it has more physicality than anything in Man of Steel.

Good money wasted on seeing this :-( I left the theatre wanting to watch my Reeves Superman box set again :-)

Quote from: dracula1 on 23 June, 2013, 05:44:46 PM
Good money wasted on seeing this :-( I left the theatre wanting to watch my Reeves Superman box set again :-)

Sounds like a rebound. Glass half full and all.

Is this a nail in the coffin for DC in the film stakes against Marvels mighty movie machine?

Quote from: dracula1 on 23 June, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
Is this a nail in the coffin for DC in the film stakes against Marvels mighty movie machine?

I doubt it.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm

There truely is no justice in this world.

I'm looking forward to the sequels already :D

I'm sure the death of Zod will weigh heavily on Kal's mind and that may be the lynchpin for the next story but you never know! So long as we don't get wisecracks as untold destruction is rained down, then I will be happy.

I must add that the product placement of a certain camera make was probably the most blanant that I have ever seen ::)

Quote from: dracula1 on 23 June, 2013, 07:12:38 PM
Is this a nail in the coffin for DC in the film stakes against Marvels mighty movie machine?

What tickles me is how Marvel can be seen as shouting over to their rivals: You're still trying to get your house in order for a JLA movie whereas our movie universe has got so big that we're about to introduce an intergalactic raccoon few people have even heard about!

I've seen quite a few opposing opinions 'bout MOS. The comics shop owner loved it, other people i know hated it, more people on another forums bash it or love it... MOS have the public divided... if I can go, i'll see it this Tuesday, and opine for myself. I won't wait for this movie to be on Blu-ray or whatever, blind-buy it, and then... not liking it.

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 23 June, 2013, 07:50:25 PM
I must add that the product placement of a certain camera make was probably the most blanant that I have ever seen ::)

And Nokia. And Sears. And many more... Was Bond film levels of obnoxious.

I heard the film made a huge chunk of its budget back from product placement and tie ins alone.

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 23 June, 2013, 07:50:25 PM
I must add that the product placement of a certain camera make was probably the most blanant that I have ever seen ::)

Nah.  That would be Nokia paying the makers of Star Trek to put their logo all over the future.

Quote from: Basilisk on 23 June, 2013, 09:14:10 PM
I've seen quite a few opposing opinions 'bout MOS. The comics shop owner loved it, other people i know hated it, more people on another forums bash it or love it... MOS have the public divided... if I can go, i'll see it this Tuesday, and opine for myself. I won't wait for this movie to be on Blu-ray or whatever, blind-buy it, and then... not liking it.

If you can, see it as an Orange Wednesday viewing and go 50/50 on the ticket with whoever you go with. You mightn't feel as robbed if you follow this advice.

Here we have the "spectator's day"... precisely in the cinema i have very near of my house, the Warner movies are out of an offer they do: first pass, from Mon-Fry, non-hollyday: X euros. Normal days: quite expensive. It's strange, 'cause the other day i went to the cinema to see the progs, and from the 9 movies they put on it, three were out: MOS, Great Gatsby and Hangover III. All Warner. :o

But i think i saw some "small letters" on the advertisement, and i think they're not too more expensive that the ones in the X offer, perhaps a few pennys more. If it's so, i'll see it on Tuesday. Or not, if it's too expensive. I allways have money dilemmas when i'm not shure if i'm gonna enjoy the movie. I don't want to expererience again the "Kill Bill vol.1 Syndrome". I went totally blind-ticket, and i hated the movie. :-\

The most entertaining review of this flick I've read so far comes from our very own Professor Bear (http://takecomfortinsilence.blogspot.ie/2013/06/god-help-me-i-think-you-people-are.html).  Arsom stuff.

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 23 June, 2013, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 23 June, 2013, 07:50:25 PM
I must add that the product placement of a certain camera make was probably the most blanant that I have ever seen ::)

Nah.  That would be Nokia paying the makers of Star Trek to put their logo all over the future.

There's optimism.

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 June, 2013, 11:31:49 PM
The most entertaining review of this flick I've read so far comes from our very own Professor Bear (http://takecomfortinsilence.blogspot.ie/2013/06/god-help-me-i-think-you-people-are.html).  Arsom stuff.

I'll fall-in with that, a super-apt review. The sheer amount of references/shout-outs/rip-offs concerning things comicy, filmish and pop-cultural must've been Snyder's interpretation of 'dramatic irony' in the same way Sucker Punch was a sophisticated critique of the male gaze, and there's more god out of the machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina) literally and figuratively than you can shake a Kryptonian USB-KEY (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/man-of-steel-movie3/121211-trailer17.jpg) at. Mad.

Droll movie lacking any soul and totally detached in every way from its source material. Whereas our wonderful Dredd movie was the complete opposite (and struggling to even get a look in at a sequel) :-(

I liked it. Perhaps not quite as much as I like Ironman 3, the previous film I saw, but I thought it was pretty good... perhaps they could have spent a tiny bit more time actually with Clark/Superman, and a little less on the (protracted) action sequences... but that would be the only real criticism I'd make.

I'd like to see another film come out of this incarnation, this was a 'set-up' movie and I'd like to see this world's version of the more familiar Superman and Clark Kent scenes.

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 June, 2013, 11:31:49 PM
The most entertaining review of this flick I've read so far comes from our very own Professor Bear (http://takecomfortinsilence.blogspot.ie/2013/06/god-help-me-i-think-you-people-are.html).  Arsom stuff.

This review was the best thing I've read on the internet in yonks. Well done Prof. B.

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 June, 2013, 11:31:49 PM
The most entertaining review of this flick I've read so far comes from our very own Professor Bear (http://takecomfortinsilence.blogspot.ie/2013/06/god-help-me-i-think-you-people-are.html).  Arsom stuff.

The Prof is a genius. I read this twice, as i was laughing so hard I was afraid I'd missed whole sentences during my fits!

Thank you for the kind words, gents.  It has been pointed out to me that Jesus wasn't a fisherman as I claim in the review, but I blame Snyder for this gaffe - he couldn't get Superman right, and he couldn't get Jesus right, either.

Ah, but suspiciously close to this:

And Jesus was a sailor
when he walked upon the water
and he spent a long time watching
from his lonely wooden tower
and when he knew for certain
only drowning men could see him
he said all men will be sailors then
until the sea shall free them
but he himself was broken
long before the sky would open
forsaken, almost human
he sank beneath your wisdom like a stone

I'd like to think Snyder knows his Leonard Cohen, but even if he did he'd probably only use the bits about getting head and boffing nuns.

(This post reproduces distinctive elements which are trademarks of R. Godpleton PLC (2012) under the terms of fair use for satirical purposes).

It was a good review but I think Superman's journey to the crashed ship was to do with him overhearing the soldiers in the bar.

Having said that I didn't really understand the crashed ship thing. [spoiler]They just happened to find it down the road from where Clark was staying after it had been in the ice for 10 thousand years? And why was his dad's hologram programmed into it?[/spoiler]

QuoteHaving said that I didn't really understand the crashed ship thing. [spoiler]They just happened to find it down the road from where Clark was staying after it had been in the ice for 10 thousand years? And why was his dad's hologram programmed into it?
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]It appeared after he put the Kryptonian dongle that was in his craft into the ship. [/spoiler]

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 25 June, 2013, 05:52:51 PM
Thank you for the kind words, gents.  It has been pointed out to me that Jesus wasn't a fisherman as I claim in the review, but I blame Snyder for this gaffe - he couldn't get Superman right, and he couldn't get Jesus right, either.

As they say in wrestling, Matthew 4:19 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/4-19.htm). The feeding of the 5000, hanging around with sailors, and the early Christian movement's adoption of that piscine symbol folk still stick on the back of their cars mean JC is always going to be associated with fish. He figured himself as a shepherd more than a fisherman, but I suppose there would be less dramatic potential in giving Clark a flock of Scottish blackface to tend - and more opportunity for unintentionally hilarious Brokeback comparisons.

That would have suited Bryan Singer's version, though.

Quote from: sauchie on 25 June, 2013, 06:37:45 PM
As they say in wrestling, Matthew 4:19 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/4-19.htm).

"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will send you out to fish for people."

Christ! That's even worse than the "My Father's house has many rooms" fiasco.

Jesus (and the Bible) is a written blockbuster from another age, with loads of contradictions ::)

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 25 June, 2013, 06:35:10 PM

QuoteHaving said that I didn't really understand the crashed ship thing. [spoiler]They just happened to find it down the road from where Clark was staying after it had been in the ice for 10 thousand years? And why was his dad's hologram programmed into it?
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]It appeared after he put the Kryptonian dongle that was in his craft into the ship. [/spoiler]

Oh yeah, that's right!

Quote from: Professor James T Bear on 25 June, 2013, 05:52:51 PM
Thank you for the kind words, gents.  It has been pointed out to me that Jesus wasn't a fisherman as I claim in the review, but I blame Snyder for this gaffe - he couldn't get Superman right, and he couldn't get Jesus right, either.

Jesus was many things, many of which I don't believe he actualy was.

That sentence still make's alot more sense than Man of Steel.

The Jaysus thing is cosmic fluff. Ultimately all modern Superhero films boil down to whomever has the greater ability to turn on/off big machines*.



*Distinguishing features:

blue/green rays that shoot up into the sky

clean energy machines/unstable bombs

portals

gas/mutagen disseminators

I expect Doctor Strange will have his own variation of the science-magic portal machine that must be shut.

I saw this film today and I liked it a lot.

As for certain questionable scenes: (Don't highlight if you haven't seen the film. BIG SPOILERS.)


1. [spoiler]Fighting superpowered enemies in an area full of people.[/spoiler]
2. [spoiler]Killing Zod[/spoiler]

My explanation for both of these supposed 'out of character' moments would be: [spoiler]'They were the lesser of two evils'[/spoiler] (please forgive the cliché) and 'context is everything'.


To go into more explanation.

1.  [spoiler]Sure, Superman could have flown away attempting to lead the others to somewhere less populated. And the great big space ship would have continued pummelling Metropolis and the Earth to oblivion. And the kryptonians could have stayed and massacred the population. Okay, the latter isn't certain and I think Superman should have made more effort, if only to suggest they take the fight elsewhere, but most of what I saw seemed to be very much in the heat of the situation. And much of the building bashing (on Supers part, bearing in mind Zod's guys wouldn't care less) was a matter of momentum. People may have died, but a whole lot more would have died otherwise. Not that it makes it right.

As others have said, I like to think much of the population had moved on at that point one way or the other. Land flattening space ships will do that.

I agree Superman should have made more effort in that regard though. But I didn't see it as the massive issue others here seem to considering the more realistic take of this film.[/spoiler]


2. [spoiler]He had Zod in a neck hold while Zod was blasting great big laser beams out of his eyes endangering humans, one being Clarke's good friend Lois (not that she should get possible dispensation, but the emotional attachment wouldn't help Zod's case). Yeah, I guess he could have attempted to knock Zod out by smacking his head on the ground, but bearing in mind that head had already ploughed a field and several buildings, I'm not sure that would work. It seems it takes a direct hit from a missile to knock these guys unconscious.

I suppose Supers could have let go with one hand and put his hand over Zod's eyes risking a good singeing (which, to be fair, wouldn't harm him badly) but then that risks compromising his hold on a super powerful entity who could whiz away and turn the humans to pulp in a few second flat.

So Superman weighed the odds and snapped Zod's neck. If he had done it coldly I wouldn't have bought it but it hurt him deeply to do it. Great acting. He certainly killed Zod with more emotion than Christopher Reeve's* version in Superman 2, ol' Mr. Crushy hand. (Not that I particularly blame him. It was an exciting air punching moment.) Okay technically, I think Zod squawked in pain then fell down a chasm (if I remember correctly, it's been a while.) , but Superman didn't even attempt to help him, did he? (Again, not that I blame him.)

It wasn't an ideal solution, and I wish he'd found another way too. But then again so did he.[/spoiler]


I did have a minor issues with the plot though.   [spoiler]I thought the 'phantom bomb' resolution didn't make a whole lot of sense. (Two colliding 'space folding' drives cause a black hole to suck them into the phantom zone? How does that work? I mean, I understand the concept behind the drives folding space and even drilling a hold to another dimension, but the collision thing having that specific effect seems a bit too convenient.)

Thinking about it further, I guess the fact Lois used the Kryptonian USB key means Jor-El's program could have affected the energy signature creating the desired effect, rather than just an ordinary explosion or a blackhole somewhere else (although again I don't think just colliding would do that) but a bit more explanation would have been nice.

Oh, and wouldn't a black hole have sucked everthing else in as well? Hey ho.

I think they should have stuck with the concept of Lois not knowing Clark and Superman were the same person too. I understand why they didn't do it (it's kinda silly since she spends a lot of time close to both that she doesn't recognise him) but it's an integral part of the mythology for me.

*Not meaning to knock Christopher Reeve's Superman. He was the chap I grew up with and I think he will forever be my Superman. And that second film has a particular place in my heart, possibly my favourite of the lot. Boy did it have contradictions and plot holes though. More so than this film.  If you've forgotten, maybe ol' Supers snogged your socks off too.[/spoiler]

To round off, I thought it a rather good film.
So there. ;)

I actually searched out the finale of Superman II on YouTube, not having seen it in many years and since it seems to be so oft-cited in MoS discussions.

Here's the thing: "Superman and Lois kill three people and then have a laugh about it" (as one of the comments on the YouTube clip I watched puts it) is a perfectly valid reading of the scene now, particularly if you have your Snydervision goggles on.

However, on seeing it I was able to clearly recall how I felt watching that movie in the cinema when I was eleven, and it never occurred to me for a second that Superman killed the Kryptonians. I didn't know what did happen to them when they disappeared into that mist -- frozen, entombed, imprisoned in the basement of the Fortress of Solitude, something obviously incapacitating which neutralised them as a threat but never, ever that they were killed.

I'd never read a Superman comic at that point (it was 2000AD or Battle for me) but even I understood that that was simply something Superman wouldn't do. The excision of the 'Zod being led away in chains' scene suggests (notwithstanding the producers' need to jettison a certain amount Donner footage) that the film's makers also felt that this was something that didn't need spelling out.

I'm as cynical as the next man and I like my comics violent and subversive but, even so, I think I prefer this Superman [spoiler]to a guy who has to break someone's neck in order for the understand his aversion to killing.[/spoiler]

Cheers

Jim

The fact that it was a Superman movie means I am willing to cut it a lot of slack. But not enough to forgive it for making him do that thing.

Two of the other big problems with it can be nicely summed up in two scenes.

The Phantom Zone sequence shows how the design is all over the place. There isn't a single clean line in the whole movie. Every thing is overdesigned and overexaggerated to the point that it loses the point. Compare to the simplicity of the square pane of glass in Superman II. Simple and freaky in ways that giant sexual organs in space will never be.

And the bit with the drone at the end (or actually with the logging truck). Would Supes ever act like that? Only in a movie where everything MUST explode. Why not have Superman just bring the drone to the General fully intact and then pluck out the camera or memory?

And actually, since when did the military become the eyes through which the audience follow Superman.

Quote from: Tiplodocus on 01 July, 2013, 08:43:34 PM

. There isn't a single clean line in the whole movie. Every thing is overdesigned and overexaggerated to the point that it loses the point. Compare to the simplicity of the square pane of glass in Superman II. Simple and freaky in ways that giant sexual organs in space will never be.

Agreed. One reason might be that both Zbrush and Mudbox, the base tech for high def SFX modeling,  give that detailed bungey biological look to everything by default. Both packages are increasingly used for concept work. It's a classic example of tech leading design, not the other way round.

Quote from: Tiplodocus on 01 July, 2013, 08:43:34 PM
The Phantom Zone... the simplicity of the square pane of glass in Superman II. Simple and freaky

A little embarrassing to admit but I spent much of my youth trying to become an accomplished musician. The dream was to be in a band and release an album with a cover very much copying how Zod and co. look when you see them vowing revenge from the phantom zone...
Actually, come to think of it- that would still be a cracking cover and I have no reason to be embarrassed.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 01 July, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
A little embarrassing to admit but I spent much of my youth trying to become an accomplished musician. The dream was to be in a band and release an album with a cover very much copying how Zod and co. look when you see them vowing revenge from the phantom zone...
Actually, come to think of it- that would still be a cracking cover and I have no reason to be embarrassed.

(http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/phantom_zone.jpg)
(http://s19.postimg.org/ndhwb56zn/Queen_II_Front.jpg)

Yeah. Now you mention it I remember thinking a) that's just a pane of glass and b) that is really frikkin spooky. When they escaped it was genuinely frightening.

There wasn't a single bit of MOS that thrilled or moved or simply entertained as much as II did. Or Superman Returns, for that matter (though that film had plot problems).

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 01 July, 2013, 09:25:49 PM

Quote from: Charlie boy on 01 July, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
A little embarrassing to admit but I spent much of my youth trying to become an accomplished musician. The dream was to be in a band and release an album with a cover very much copying how Zod and co. look when you see them vowing revenge from the phantom zone...
Actually, come to think of it- that would still be a cracking cover and I have no reason to be embarrassed.

(http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/phantom_zone.jpg)
(http://s19.postimg.org/ndhwb56zn/Queen_II_Front.jpg)

Close but not quite right (yes, I really did put that much thought into it)! I'm sure there's a shot were they've got their hands pressed against it like they're trying to push their way out and that was exactly what I wanted. On writing that last sentence though, a part of me is sure I may have seen it before on a cover at some point but I can't remember when or where.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 01 July, 2013, 09:38:32 PM
I'm sure there's a shot were they've got their hands pressed against it like they're trying to push their way out and that was exactly what I wanted.

(http://www.ashleymaile.com/blog/uploaded_images/phantom.jpg)

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 01 July, 2013, 09:40:52 PM
(http://www.ashleymaile.com/blog/uploaded_images/phantom.jpg)

Instagram owes Richard Donner a fortune.

It's like The Phantom Zone equivalent of a student's passport booth photo, isn't it.  You can almost hear Terence Stamp thinking "What the feck did I leave India for?!??"

Not only could that still be a great cover, I've suddenly remembered more from my early teens.
We can be a punk band we said. That way it won't matter that we can't play.
I'm also confused that "owling" has been popular online and so has "boarding" and other things but never "phantom-zoning"

And Finally... When An Official Superman Statue Has Him Standing On Skulls (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/07/01/and-finally-when-an-official-superman-statue-has-him-standing-on-skulls/)

(http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DC-Man-of-steel-statue-variant.jpg)

:o

In fairness that is only the SDCC exclusive, and that is [spoiler]kind of a scene in the movie[/spoiler] one that I actually really liked, one of the few times they showed he really did care about humans, even if he didn't fully trust them.

See, that scene in the movie could equally be read as him begging Zod not to kill him by drowning him in skulls.  I never at any point got that he had any reason to care about humans, his only character arc was that across the film he came to realise that once he stopped hiding and pretending he was one of us, he discovered humans couldn't actually do much to him.

It was the laziest scene in the film. Zod decides to have a dream-chat in the back-yard and exposit his plan so the Man of Steel can know what he's doing.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 02 July, 2013, 06:12:23 PM

It was the laziest scene in the film. Zod decides to have a dream-chat in the back-yard and exposit his plan so the Man of Steel can know what he's doing.

Shhhhh. Don't post this sort of thing too loudly. Next thing you know Snyder will be directing James Bond.

well that was a fun Sci-Fi super hero movie, I quite liked all the early Krypton scenes and Crow was in fine form as Space Maximus.  Zod was an interesting character, I think the idea (yes I think this movie had some idea's) behind the whole bred to your profession was a nice angle and an interesting take on Krypton mythology.  The fights were only just comprehensible and that f*&ken shaky cam in every scene was just a tad too much and what happened to Snyders speed up slow down action style I don't think it happened once?

I think I can sorta see where they could go with a Justice League movie but it'd be quite different to established comics, the sheer amount of destruction caused by this super being would surely put willies' up the governments of the world knowing he's still hanging around, maybe they could gather specific enhanced individuals from around the world to deal with him only for a bigger threat to turn up and them all teaming up to fight it? 

CU Radbacker

Went to see it today with a friend who couldn't make it with the rest of us 1st time around. So my second viewing... Seemed a lot longer. I think every scene seemed a lot longer with sitting there knowing he had to do such and such before the scene (and film in general) finally finished. Noticed more this time around how they have him stop the school bus from sinking and he saves the oil rig workers and then has to get moving again but the second he gets his suit and so can stick around, he seems to not give a shit about anybody. Seriously, all he does once he dons the cape is fight a lot and cause massive explosions without a thought of anybody nearby. Yes, he stops the [spoiler]is it "Earth Engine" or "Machine"? Again, I stopped paying attention during the film[/spoiler] but his fights in Kansas and then Metropolis? Even before the fight in Smallville starts he tells people to wait indoors before the fight starts. Then we have nothing but buildings being blown up. I think with DC here trying to do a film 'bigger than Marvel's' was an attempt to have one person's asking "Hang on, how many people have died in this scene alone?" being answered by two people saying "Who cares- this fight is so cool!"
In short- got an apology off my mate when the end credits started rolling. Said friend wasn't expecting it to be "that" bad.

Saw it yesterday and quite enjoyed it.
Liked Kevin Costner as Clarks Dad and especially during the hurricane scene.
My only real complaint as with the Avengers is the level of destruction.
Whilst it might 'look' good its just too much and the number if dead would have been huge.
Metropolis may have taken superman to their hearts for saving Earth I think I'd be pissed off for his part in the death toll.

Sorry if this has been posted earlier and it slipped me by, but here's Mark Waid vs Man of Steel
http://www.comicvine.com/man-of-steel/4025-1375/forums/renowned-superman-writer-mark-waid-on-man-of-steel-1469038/
I'd warn of spoilers but I guess you've all seen it and if you haven't, it's because you're not particularly interested in the Goyer/ Snyder-ised Superman and you won't care about what's given away here.

Quote from: Charlie boy on 05 July, 2013, 09:25:05 PM
Sorry if this has been posted earlier and it slipped me by, but here's Mark Waid vs Man of Steel
http://www.comicvine.com/man-of-steel/4025-1375/forums/renowned-superman-writer-mark-waid-on-man-of-steel-1469038/
I'd warn of spoilers but I guess you've all seen it and if you haven't, it's because you're not particularly interested in the Goyer/ Snyder-ised Superman and you won't care about what's given away here.

best review of the film I've seen so far, and from a man who knows what he;s talking about.

I just been see Man of Steel... and I likes it! Thinking that Russell Crowe are the best thing about it!

Quote
http://www.comicvine.com/man-of-steel/4025-1375/forums/renowned-superman-writer-mark-waid-on-man-of-steel-1469038/

Pretty much sums up how I felt about the movie but just more eloquently than I could have put it.

Nice one Mr. Waid, tell it like it is. As he suggested you could call the sequel Ultra Man and base the new adventures on something else (no one would notice as it was heavily detached from the source material).