Escape to the Movies: Kick Ass 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

brazuca:
Cracked.com wrote an article about why superman does not work in the modern world. You MovieBob should read it (AngryJoe too). Basically the only way superman can survive and not become some anachronic character is to change. Times changes as people do. So does the conception of what a hero should behave. Also the movie was not that bad.

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics? Superman has survived for 75 years fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Concepts of heroes may change, but heroes themselves don't need to.

Like James Bond said in Skyfall: "Sometimes the old ways work best."

Mikeyfell:
I doubt saying "Motherfucker" 3 times over the course of a video qualifies for an age gate.
(I mean this is the same website that has Zero Punctuation and Jimquisition every week...)

Well, I'm glad to see that Kick Ass 2 is not shit. I would have gone to see it anyway, but at least now I'll feel better about it.

This isn't the first time they've done this. There was that one month back in 2009 where The Escapist decided the whole site was to be rated E for Everyone, and as such, they were cracking down on the no-no words on the forums, and bleeping them out on everyone's videos. Everyone except Yahtzee, of course.

You can see now, how well that worked.

maxben:
Just because you love a genre doesn`t mean you can`t love the slap in the face deconstruction of said genre.

There is a difference between deconstruction and simply showing active contempt for your audience.

One requires thought.

Plus, I want to put out there that Cabin in the Woods was produced by Joss Whedon,

Don't care.

the antithesis:

maxben:
Just because you love a genre doesn`t mean you can`t love the slap in the face deconstruction of said genre.

There is a difference between deconstruction and simply showing active contempt for your audience.

One requires thought.

Plus, I want to put out there that Cabin in the Woods was produced by Joss Whedon,

Don't care.

Hey, that's not fair. I didn't say "it was produced by Joss Whedon and therefore its awesome and deserves praise" (which would be stupid and deserve such a flippant reply), I put up an actual argument regarding Whedon's history and past success with such deconstruction. Even if you didn't like the movie, I refuse to accept the idea that Whedon didn't put thought into what he was doing.

It takes thought to criticize the horror genre for its tropes (which it fully deserves), while still making it scary. The humour of the people in the control room also reminded me a lot of the kinds of realizations/feelings of the operators in Cube Zero, the complete helplessness within the bigger system, which just added to the tension for me.

Soviet Heavy:

brazuca:
Cracked.com wrote an article about why superman does not work in the modern world. You MovieBob should read it (AngryJoe too). Basically the only way superman can survive and not become some anachronic character is to change. Times changes as people do. So does the conception of what a hero should behave. Also the movie was not that bad.

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics? Superman has survived for 75 years fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Concepts of heroes may change, but heroes themselves don't need to.

Like James Bond said in Skyfall: "Sometimes the old ways work best."

Hahahahaha! Read the article. Also Batman changed a lot. He was cartoony, then he got even more cartoony. He was then influenced by Punisher and 1980's dark and grity and became dark and grity. Batman stories also got more about fighting "sociopaths" and less about "crime". Not to mention the meme: cause I'm Batman. With that anything that is implausible and right down ridiculous became a thing that the B man can pull off.

Also that is the reason supes in the new 52 needed to change. There are some articles in cracked.com (man I love this site too much) about comics and the anachronistic views and "supes" were there two times at least. Just think about how much much America has changed in the last 75 years.

James Bond was never much of a character to begin with. He is about power fantasy. A chauvinistic, narcisistic, male power fantasy. What is not wrong. He is harmless.

Some reading material: http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-its-so-hard-to-make-superman-interesting/ http://www.cracked.com/article_20069_5-classic-superman-comics-that-prove-he-used-to-be-dick.html http://www.cracked.com/article_19731_the-7-biggest-dick-moves-in-history-superheroes.html

Soviet Heavy:

brazuca:
Cracked.com wrote an article about why superman does not work in the modern world. You MovieBob should read it (AngryJoe too). Basically the only way superman can survive and not become some anachronic character is to change. Times changes as people do. So does the conception of what a hero should behave. Also the movie was not that bad.

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics? Superman has survived for 75 years fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Concepts of heroes may change, but heroes themselves don't need to.

Like James Bond said in Skyfall: "Sometimes the old ways work best."

Times might change but it seems like there ideals that don't change. Is it no longer an ideal to be able to feed everyone since people in the past tried to make sure no one went hungry? Is peace no longer an ideal because someone in the past said there is a better way than war? Is every human on the planet treated with the same dignity to the point where there is no longer a need to struggle for rights?

Just because times change I don't think it's a good excuse to say well Superman can no longer be the embodiment of the very best of human nature. He can't be the hero who sticks up what's right all of the time. Superman can no longer be the person we wished we were not just for his power but for being a beacon of what would good be like if we had almost unlimited power for doing good and helping others.

So I looked up the woman who plays Mother Russia and wow, I<3 muscle women.

That said I didn't see the first movie but it looks like a cool series to get into. I never even recognized Jim Carrey, he looks and sounds different than I remember.

maxben:
It takes thought to criticize the horror genre for its tropes (which it fully deserves), while still making it scary.

Different stokes, I suppose, but I wasn't scared by Cabin in the Woods, nor did I find it at all funny. I was mostly bored, because what it was doing was fairly obvious, which made it ultimately insulting. I found its critique of horror conventions to be like criticizing water for being wet and never really going past that level of cleverness. The overall experience, I thought, might have worked on the Twilight Zone when they'd have two half hour stories in an episode because neither story was strong enough to last the full hour. So it was a half hour of material stretched over two hours. When I wasn't bored, I was just angry at the idea that someone thought this would be entertaining. I mostly stayed for the entire thing so I wouldn't have to deal with twerps on the internet telling me that it got better later. So I can say with the authority of actual experience that, no, it didn't get better later. It's a hollow victory, actually. I should have walked out when the impulse struck me. I've never done that at the theater. Doing so would be more damning. May have to do that next time, if there ever is one.

The part that bothers me about all this is how people like yourself defend this tripe. It has me questioning if I'm just being overly sensitive or if the tastes of the next generation is becoming more obvious and masochistic. Because everything Cabin in the Woods says about the slasher genre was old hat back in the 80's when these movies were still being made. So it's the most obvious and lazy deconstruction of the genre. I could have stomached it if it went anywhere with it, but it didn't. And when it wasn't obvious, it was insulting. So I'm wondering if this means the next generation likes being insulted in this manner or if that's even a fair way to describe it. I don't understand it, which is why it baffles me.

The weird thing about all of this is I wouldn't describe myself as a horror fan in the first place. I really couldn't watch horror movies when I was younger because I would get nightmares. Fuck, Gremlins gave me nightmares. It was only after I got older that I got into them at all and even then, I didn't watch that many of them. So I'm not an Eli Roth-esque gore hound at all. I prefer my horror movies to be intelligently made and they are few and far between. This may be why movies like Cabin in the Woods piss me off since all it really has to say is that horror movies aren't very intelligently made. Yeah, tell me something I don't know, movie.

Good review. Of course, it isn't as much fun as the original because it isn't an original. But, so much is done right that it was a total blast. See this.

Safaia:
The theater I'm going to see this at today is listed as Kick A 2 because the dude who owns the theater chain is a mormon and there is total separation between church and state in Utah.

...... a Theater isn't a government institution.... In fact it's a private business, so I would hopefully assume the owner has the right to censor out the title.

Now, if the movie itself is censored, there will be hell to pay!

OT, glad Kick-Ass 2 is allright, finally got around to watching the first one a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty good.

Might have to catch this one in the theaters.... you know, in a few months once everyone has spoiled it on the internet, because the theater here gets movies really late.

Because "LOL, Rural 'Merica"

I know a lot of critics hate this and I can see why, this really went for the lowest common denominator more than the last film. That said, I liked it a lot, I got what I wanted and I thought all the new characters were interesting. I thought The Motherfucker was a superb villain with just the right mix of menace, pathetic and humor that he never fell into the trap of being just one of those. He was always scary, always worthless and always funny. Like I said, the way they handle hitgirl's clash with the teen jerks was just about as low as a lowest common denominator can get, but I think the movie had its heart in the right place. Captain Stars and Stripes I thought was super great, I liked almost everything about him and just wish he could have had a couple more scenes before the "Shit is going down" scene happened.

I can't say if it was better or worse than the original, though consensus is leaning towards the first being better. I learned about the rape and child massacre scene after and I think their changes were not only warranted, but actually really funny. Like I said, it had the perfect mix of humor and patheticness (failed rape) with a side of menace (and then he has her get the crap beaten out of her).

Retrograde:

Toilet:
Dave to old to be in high school is really going to bug me unless I can come up with a decent excuse for it, I wish it wasn't mentioned.

Seconded. It's like when someone points out...

Once heard.

That movie had so many plotholes I can't imagine the writers weren't aware of it, but it aimed to entertain and that it did.

spoonybard.hahs:

Retrograde:
Oh hey look, another person on the internet taking a pop at Man of Steel for no good reason. That's what you became for a moment then Bob. Not a respected member of a field, another person on the internet.

Also, you've sold me on the DVD release of this. Thought it looked good, glad it is.

Hmmm... I would think that Man of Steel being an unadulterated piece of crap was a good enough reason to take pop shots at it. I know it certainly ranks high up on my, "Ways How to NOT Make a Film," list. But you're probably right. It's not the movie. It's us.

Firstly, I don't think unadulterated means what you think it means.

Even if by some long shot you are some critic or movie industry insider to the point where your little list matters even slightly(which I strongly doubt given that you don't know what you're talking about), this show is about Kick Ass 2 and Bobs thoughts therein, and slagging off a completely unrelated movie that's arguably in a completely different genre isn't exactly the move of someone who may or may not wish to be taken seriously at their profession.

It's the move of some random on the internet.

I loved the first move but this one wasn't nearly as good. It was watchable, I don't regret spending money, but it just wasn't nearly the "experience" of the first one.

First the fights are all generic shaky-cam and there was none of the visceral bullet-time of the first one.

The "teenage girl" part was also really unnecessary, it could have easily been replaced by a captioned stills "meanwhile mindy mcready is having trouble adjusting to life as a normal teenager" (mindy kicking a cheerleader, mindy using ninja moves to steal test answers, mindy remotely detonating the toilet just as a girl who made fun of her sits down, etc). And her going all gooshy over the boy band video was just totally out of character.

I'm not sure where it could have gone but the whole super team thing was just boring. I don't see how Kick-Ass could be enthusiastic at being with those wannabe's after he was part of the real thing in the last movie.

Ser Jorhan Mormont did a great job as the prison boss guy and I was really hoping he would show up as the "real" villain but alas that wasn't the direction they were going.

The last fight was particularly anti-climactic. Super Heros don't walk through the front door! They crash through windows, rappel from the ceiling, surprise people from air ducts and crawlspaces.

I was interested in seeing it.... until Jim decided to open his mouth about gun violence and gun control. I have no interest in lining the pockets of a man who would willingly star in a movie like this and then decide to suck up to the "guns are evil" crowd. If he really felt that way why is he not donating the money he made from this movie that glorifies violence and guns to some of the anti-gun entities that he's trying to play up to now?

Soviet Heavy:
If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics?

You should really have a closer look at Batman's back catalogue before going on and making further statements that some might consider ill-informed and just plain ignorant. The simple fact is that since the character was first published way back in 1939 Batman has been consistently reinterpreted and re-envisioned by subsequent generations of both comic book authors and fans alike. Even when the character has left the comic book page and crossed mediums into movies, television and other media the portrayals of the character has seen considerable variation in execution.

You really could not have picked a worst possible example than Batman.

Paradoxrifts:

Soviet Heavy:
If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics?

You should really have a closer look at Batman's back catalogue before going on and making further statements that some might consider ill-informed and just plain ignorant. The simple fact is that since the character was first published way back in 1939 Batman has been consistently reinterpreted and re-envisioned by subsequent generations of both comic book authors and fans alike. Even when the character has left the comic book page and crossed mediums into movies, television and other media the portrayals of the character has seen considerable variation in execution.

You really could not have picked a worst possible example than Batman.

What I mean is that, while the interpretations of the character may change, he is still fundamentally the same person: a masked vigilante who fights crime to avenge the death of his parents. That is who Batman is, regardless of what costume or personality you give him. That is the core of his character. The same goes for Superman, and his no-kill policy.

Killing a person because of an alleged no-win scenario goes completely against one of the fundamental traits of the character.

I really didn't like the first Kick Ass movie so I'll skip on commenting on this movie. I'm not even going to comment on the first one either for this reason. However I will comment on the fact that I'm tired of the condescending attitude that Bob "MovieBob" Chipman has. Every time a sequel comes out he says something like. " You didn't like the original: Well why not!? " I'll tell you why not because not everyone shares the same opinions / tastes. I'll give you an example of what I mean Bob. I'm color blind so I tend to like video games , moves , and art that use form as a format of self-expression rather then color. Movies like Clerks , The Book Of Eli , and last but not least Zombie Land. Bob you tend to openly debase these types of movies for the art style. Fine I can except that however it becomes insulting when you say " You didn't like the original: Well why not!? ". This shows a lack of respect for your audience if you want to keep an audience you will stop this.

image

Sejborg:

JimB:
snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him.

Isn't that admitting my point, though? Aren't you just saying, "Sure, he doesn't act like Superman, but it's okay because it's an origin story?"

Sejborg:
He saves all the kids in the bus as a kid. He saves all the people at the oil platform. Not just two people.

I did forget them. Fair enough.

SpaceGhost:

Carpenter:

SpaceGhost:

This. Bob should totally have, like, done a video review for the movie...and maybe even another video to argue/explain his opinion!

And if he didn't want to be just another person on the internet, he should have posted these videos on a major popular culture website!

Shame on you, Bob!

p.s. And get a nickname, Bob! Don't you understand branding???

So having your opinion stated over and over again on a "popular culture website" makes you something other than just another guy on the internet?

That must be why you post here.

Point. Missed.

Estimate: Country Mile

Also Identified: Straw Man, Ad Hominem

I think you missed the point, not me.

On that note, you don't know what a "straw man" is and that was hardly an "ad hominem attack" but it's cute that you people are this predictable now.

"I disagree"
"Straw man! Ad Hominem! Words! Objection!"

Soviet Heavy:

Paradoxrifts:

Soviet Heavy:
If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics?

You should really have a closer look at Batman's back catalogue before going on and making further statements that some might consider ill-informed and just plain ignorant. The simple fact is that since the character was first published way back in 1939 Batman has been consistently reinterpreted and re-envisioned by subsequent generations of both comic book authors and fans alike. Even when the character has left the comic book page and crossed mediums into movies, television and other media the portrayals of the character has seen considerable variation in execution.

You really could not have picked a worst possible example than Batman.

What I mean is that, while the interpretations of the character may change, he is still fundamentally the same person: a masked vigilante who fights crime to avenge the death of his parents. That is who Batman is, regardless of what costume or personality you give him. That is the core of his character. The same goes for Superman, and his no-kill policy.

Killing a person because of an alleged no-win scenario goes completely against one of the fundamental traits of the character.

Except both superman and batman have killed.

It wasn't presented as a "no win scenario" in the movie. Zod was a crazy alien trying to kill lots of people, he killed him. Yes it's a little different from your favorite idea of superman but this version was never established as having a "no killing rule" let alone a rule against killing super powerful aliens.

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining. Most of the people complaining about changes in the character have clearly never even read the comics.

Carpenter:

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining. Most of the people complaining about changes in the character have clearly never even read the comics.

So I'm just complaining because other people are online? And not because I see Superman killing as being intrinsically wrong to his entire being? The movie can try to justify him killing by never establishing the policy in their take on the character, but to me, that just makes him *not* superman. He's a guy wearing a similar costume and has the same name, but he isn't the superman that the public knows.

Carpenter:
People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining.

I am complaining for two reasons. The second is that Man of Steel is not a Superman movie, but is a movie made by people who are embarrassed of Superman, for people who dislike Superman. This movie, therefore, is not for me, and I think the advertisement should have been more honest about that so I wouldn't feel tricked at having given them my money to see the movie.

The first is the movie fucking lied to me. It lied in every word.* I've already gone off about the worst of it in this thread, but let's talk about killing Zod. Jor-El's ghost's hologram makes such a big fucking deal about how Kal-El can save everyone, but what about Zod? He didn't save Zod. He didn't even try. When Zod was on his eyes and clearly trying to commit suicide by cop, Superman didn't even make an effort to connect with the man, to reach past his pain and save him. He just yelled, "Don't do it!" and then snapped Zod's neck when Zod refused to submit to Kal-El's ultimatum. Kal-El didn't save Zod, apparently couldn't save Zod, and I believe wouldn't save Zod; but the movie told me right to my face that Kal-El could save everyone. The movie apparently thinks I am too stupid to notice it lied to me, and I resent that insult as much as I resent the dishonesty itself.

*that hoary cripple, with malicious eye

Soviet Heavy:

brazuca:
Cracked.com wrote an article about why superman does not work in the modern world. You MovieBob should read it (AngryJoe too). Basically the only way superman can survive and not become some anachronic character is to change. Times changes as people do. So does the conception of what a hero should behave. Also the movie was not that bad.

If that's the case, then why hasn't Batman changed dramatically in the whole time he has been in comics? Superman has survived for 75 years fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Concepts of heroes may change, but heroes themselves don't need to.

Like James Bond said in Skyfall: "Sometimes the old ways work best."

Did you ever watch the Adam West Batman or see the episode where batman and robin team up with Scooby Doo? You can even watch the Linkara episode where he talks about an old Batman comic (It involved a alien plant that radiates heat that can melt safes). Yeah Batman has changed a lot in tone over the years, me and a friend still to this day laugh at the idea that "Batbaby" was a comic. And I remember reading the first batman comic (Thanks Comixology :D) and he threw a guy in vat of acid (Then he became Two-Face...never mind that reference), and his response was pretty much "He was a criminal he deserved it."

JimB:

Sejborg:

JimB:
snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him.

Isn't that admitting my point, though? Aren't you just saying, "Sure, he doesn't act like Superman, but it's okay because it's an origin story?"

It's different. He isn't the symbol you and I are used to view him as in comic books and the like - yet. But he is getting there. He is in hiding and all that jazz. Man of Steel is his journey to become the savior. It is character progression, where It seems to me that you want him to be the symbol from the start. A constant if you will.

Is that the same thing as saying he isn't acting as Superman? I don't think so, because we constantly see him doing the good deeds through out the movie. He is his destiny. It is like saying you wasn't acting as your self at the age of 4. But at the age of 4 you obviously was your self, and acted as you would at the age of 4.

Sejborg:
He isn't the symbol you and I are used to view him as in comic books and the like - yet.

Right. He might act like Superman later, but he isn't doing it now.

Sejborg:
It seems to me that you want him to be the symbol from the start. A constant, if you will.

Not necessarily...but I'd have complained a lot less if he at least acted like Superman by the end of the movie.

Sejborg:
We constantly see him doing the good deeds through out the movie.

We also see him inflict a minimum of fifty thousand dollars of property damage as punishment for getting a beer dumped on him; a beer he could have prevented being dumped on him without super powers ever coming into it, too. We also see him let his father die in a tornado, the force of which will tear him into ribbons too small to collect and bury, but never mind.

Sejborg:
It is like saying you weren't acting as yourself at the age of four.

Except in this movie Kal-El is thirty-four. If he hasn't learned to be a good man after three and a half decades, he never will.

rembrandtqeinstein:

First the fights are all generic shaky-cam and there was none of the visceral bullet-time of the first one.

I wouldn't say none, just none of them that didn't involve Hit Girl.

The "teenage girl" part was also really unnecessary,

I liked it. The first Kick Ass was about an awkward teenage dude who wanted the girl, wanted to be a badass and wanted to do something amazing, ie he was the audience stand in. Adding a touch of Mean Girls to the sequel and focusing on the female character and what it's like to be a teenage girl is nice to have in a comic book movie. I'm not saying it pulled it off flawlessly but at least it tried which is more than most movies are doing. Plus Mindy intere#acting with them was funny in a fish out of water kind of way.

And her going all gooshy over the boy band video was just totally out of character.

Not really, she didn't have much of a character outside of Hit Girl, badass extraordinaire. Her "going all gooshy" is kinda like seeing the Mindy we would've gotten had she had a normal life. We were seeing Mindy, not Hit Girl.

I'm not sure where it could have gone but the whole super team thing was just boring. I don't see how Kick-Ass could be enthusiastic at being with those wannabe's after he was part of the real thing in the last movie.

Feeling like he was with people who understood him. The entire point of him becoming Kick Ass again was that he felt he had no connection to anyone. It wasn't much but they were people who thought like he did.

The last fight was particularly anti-climactic. Super Heros don't walk through the front door! They crash through windows, rappel from the ceiling, surprise people from air ducts and crawlspaces.

I don't think Kick Ass was made for you. That is what super heroes would do in the comics. In the comics superheroes also aren't middle-aged suburban ladies with bricks in their purses and office workers with baseball bats wrapped in tin foil.

JimB:

Carpenter:
People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining.

I am complaining for two reasons. The second is that Man of Steel is not a Superman movie, but is a movie made by people who are embarrassed of Superman, for people who dislike Superman. This movie, therefore, is not for me, and I think the advertisement should have been more honest about that so I wouldn't feel tricked at having given them my money to see the movie.

The first is the movie fucking lied to me. It lied in every word.* I've already gone off about the worst of it in this thread, but let's talk about killing Zod. Jor-El's ghost's hologram makes such a big fucking deal about how Kal-El can save everyone, but what about Zod? He didn't save Zod. He didn't even try. When Zod was on his eyes and clearly trying to commit suicide by cop, Superman didn't even make an effort to connect with the man, to reach past his pain and save him. He just yelled, "Don't do it!" and then snapped Zod's neck when Zod refused to submit to Kal-El's ultimatum. Kal-El didn't save Zod, apparently couldn't save Zod, and I believe wouldn't save Zod; but the movie told me right to my face that Kal-El could save everyone. The movie apparently thinks I am too stupid to notice it lied to me, and I resent that insult as much as I resent the dishonesty itself.

*that hoary cripple, with malicious eye

So the movie with superman as the main character is not a superman movie? Fantastic argument, well spoken, I am left speechless by it. That is absolutely a real flaw in the movie, there was no scenes with superman in the entire movie.

So you believe the people that made the movie were embarrassed by superman? What on earth gave you that idea? Oh right, they made a few changes and that means they hate your favorite superhero. Boohoo, they didn't make it all the same.

Yeah you know what I go to the movies for? To see things that I have already seen. Makes perfect sense.

Kid the movie never lied to you, even if what you described is how it happened, that's only a character lying to you.

On that note, he never lied. At no point is it ever presented that he couldn't have saved zod. The "no win scenario" crap was presented by people that watched the movie, not the movie itself.

The movie never presented a no kill rule, it's just something superman was not yet pushed to do. He didn't kill zod because he was going to kill a few people, he killed zod because he was still willing to kill "his humans" after all of that. He killed zod because he was pissed at zod, because he threatened his mother, destroyed his home, and destroyed much of the city.

You can argue that "real" superman would never kill but there is no "real" superman because he's a fictional character. The superman in the comics has killed several times in countless versions of the character.

Not every superhero movie needs to be some kiddie love fest about how killing is always bad. It felt out of place in batman and I'm glad it was ditched for man of steel.

Personally I liked the movie and you haven't really presented any real reason for all the hate. If you don't like the movie, fine, but stop trying to destroy it like us enjoying the movie is somehow wrong. Bob has gone out of his way to direct people who might enjoy the movie away from it. Even with Transformers he says "if you think you might like it, go see it" but with man of steel it's apparently so bad that it's not even worth that much.

I mean your first argument is that the makers were embarrassed by superman. That's demonstrably false considering zack snyder has promoted man of steel and is already promoting his batman superman movie.

Soviet Heavy:

Carpenter:

People are just complaining because some other people online are complaining. Most of the people complaining about changes in the character have clearly never even read the comics.

So I'm just complaining because other people are online? And not because I see Superman killing as being intrinsically wrong to his entire being? The movie can try to justify him killing by never establishing the policy in their take on the character, but to me, that just makes him *not* superman. He's a guy wearing a similar costume and has the same name, but he isn't the superman that the public knows.

Superman killing is intrinsically wrong with his entire being?

Good god, don't read the comics then, you will be so pissed.

Hey guess what, they made some changes. Yeah you know what I want to see at the movies? The exact same thing I read in a comic, how fun.

Carpenter:
So the movie with Superman as the main character is not a Superman movie?

Since the movie never once calls him Superman, and the only person to try to do so is a soldier mumbling the word around an apology before getting cut off, yeah, I do not feel bad about saying Superman is not a significant factor in the movie.

Carpenter:
Fantastic argument, well spoken, I am left speechless by it. That is absolutely a real flaw in the movie, there were no scenes with Superman in the entire movie.

Your sarcasm is useless, as is your strawman. I invite you to keep both of them to yourself.

Carpenter:
So you believe the people that made the movie were embarrassed by Superman?

Yes. That is exactly what I said. I am not in the habit of saying things I don't mean.

Carpenter:
What on Earth gave you that idea? Oh right, they made a few changes and that means they hate your favorite superhero.

Please point out where I said or even implied Superman is my favorite superhero. Go ahead, find my words where I said that. I'll...well, I was about to say "I'll wait for you," but I won't do that because I didn't say it and you won't find it. You are making stuff up because you want to call me a baby, and you need to invent this narrative in order to do so.

In any event, I have already explained in great detail in this thread alone what gave me that idea. If you are actually interested in understanding my position, it won't be hard to find. If you're not, then please quit bothering me.

Carpenter:
Yeah, you know what I go to the movies for? To see things that I have already seen. Makes perfect sense.

I do not care what you have gone to the movies for, nor am I impressed by your blatant misrepresentation of my position.

Carpenter:
Kid, the movie never lied to you. Even if what you described is how it happened, that's only a character lying to you.

Two things, Carpenter.

First, that is exactly how it happened. That you have to phrase it as an uncertainty makes me question whether you've even seen the movie, and if you haven't, then why on Earth are you defending it with so much hostility?

Second, the character is part of the movie. His lines were written by the writers, directed by the director, and read by the actor. The grips held the mic, the crew lit the scene, the blah blah blah. All of those people participated in telling me that Kal-El could save everyone, and then thousands of people died in Metropolis before Kal-El killed Zod. Almost everyone whose name is in the credits played a part in it. The movie lied to me.

Carpenter:
At no point is it ever presented that he couldn't have saved Zod.

Your argument is that Kal-El could have saved Zod, but chose not to, so the movie didn't lie? Sorry, that crap won't flush. If he didn't save everyone, then he couldn't save everyone. I don't care how things might have turned out if they'd been different, because they aren't different and they turned out the way they did. He had a chance to save everyone and he failed. He therefore could not save everyone.

Carpenter:
He didn't kill Zod because he was going to kill a few people; he killed Zod because he was still willing to kill "his humans" after all of that. He killed Zod because he was pissed at Zod, because he threatened his mother, destroyed his home, and destroyed much of the city.

He killed Zod because he couldn't be bothered to save Zod, despite the movie banging on and on about how he's Space Jesus.

Carpenter:
If you don't like the movie, fine, but stop trying to destroy it like us enjoying the movie is somehow wrong.

Carpenter, please understand this: I am physically incapable of caring less what you think about this movie. Not if you took a power drill to my frontal lobe could your opinion matter less to me, so I don't care if you disagree with me any more than I care if you agree with me. I am explaining my position: mine, and only mine. That I think the movie is bad, that I think the movie lies, that I think the movie was not made for me, speaks only about my opinion of the movie, not yours. If you do like the movie, then for Christ's sake be secure enough in your own position to read some criticism of it without acting like I'm on some crusade to have it stricken from the history books.

Carpenter:
I mean your first argument is that the makers were embarrassed by Superman. That's demonstrably false considering Zack Snyder has promoted Man of Steel.

Yes. Man of Steel. Not Superman.

JimB:

Carpenter:
I mean your first argument is that the makers were embarrassed by Superman. That's demonstrably false considering Zack Snyder has promoted Man of Steel.

Yes. Man of Steel. Not Superman.

Calling the film out for being called man of steel is like calling The Dark Knight out for being called The Dark Knight, and not "Batman".

endtherapture:
Calling the film out for being called Man of Steel is like calling the Dark Knight out for being called the Dark Knight, and not "Batman."

It would be more like doing that if, in the Dark Knight, the movie went out of its way to avoid calling Batman Batman and only did name him once while the character who did sounded ashamed for doing it.

JimB:

endtherapture:
Calling the film out for being called Man of Steel is like calling the Dark Knight out for being called the Dark Knight, and not "Batman."

It would be more like doing that if, in the Dark Knight, the movie went out of its way to avoid calling Batman Batman and only did name him once while the character who did sounded ashamed for doing it.

They did call him Superman and it was an origin story, I expect that he will be called Superman a lot more in Man of Steel 2.

How is everyone going to know to call him "Superman" when he's literally only been known for about 8 hours?

endtherapture:
How is everyone going to know to call him "Superman" when he's literally only been known for about eight hours?

The same way they know to call the other guy "Batman," except Superman had much more of a lead-in since he spent fifteen-some years as a superpowered Bigfoot, helping people and vanishing.

My biggest criticism of the movie is that when Hit Girl tried to speak Russian, she only mumbled something illegible. Everything else was good. :)

I don't even mind Russians being portrayed as bad guys (girls) when they are this awesome.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here