The Big Picture: The Big Letdown

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Carbo:

endtherapture:
Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

Yes, clearly that's why one of his favorite super hero movies of all time is The Dark Knight and also why he admits that if Man of Steel was actually as good as that, it wouldn't have been a problem.

People never stop projecting on Bob just because he's disappointed in certain (comic) movies do they? Lighten up - no need to trash talk his opinion just because he's reasonably arguing why Man of Steel is flawed. He's a critic and analyst, it's his job to talk about this stuff. Additional analysis and criticism on media that can't be summed up in five minutes is good.

In the words of Yahtzee: "it's worth remembering that all reviews are subjective personal opinion and if you enjoy the [media] it really shouldn't get to you. Unless there's a despicable little niggling doubt in the back of your mind that maybe you aren't having as much fun as you've convinced yourself that you're having, which doesn't go away no matter how many times you slap it down with a flannel of wet excuses like this one."

The Dark Knight is so good that it doesn't even count as a superhero movie. It could do away with the Batman characters with original, real world characters and just be a brilliant thriller instead. It's that good.

Why people get angry about Bob is that he just continually dicks on something in every single thing. It happened to Spider Man. Now it's happening to Man of Steel. Yahtzee doesn't continually compare every single thing he reviews to the current thing he dislikes. Bob does, and it comes off as petty and unprofessonal, which is why I've had to stop watching his reviews, I'm just sick of him constantly dicking on Spider Man/Man of Steel whilst constantly fellating The Avengers.

Carbo:

In the words of Yahtzee: "it's worth remembering that all reviews are subejctive personal opinion and if you enjoy the [media] it really shouldn't get to you. Unless there's a despicable little niggling doubt in the back of your mind that maybe you aren't having as much fun as you've convinced yourself that you're having, which doesn't go away no matter how many times you slap it down with a flannel of wet excuses like this one."

That's in the Top 5 of "Best Yahtzee Quotes Of All Time".

And it's totally true; we've all had that moment for some movie/game at one point or another, where we just get a bit TOO defensive and try a little bit TOO hard to dismiss what [insert critic here] said and not understand or at least recognize the faults others see in stuff we like.

It happens to some more than others...but it happens to the best of us.

I disagree.
For me Iron Man 3 was the biggest dissapointment of the summer.
I expected a fun action-flick starring Iron Man and the mandarin and got the worst Marvel-movie this side of the Hulk franchise.

I take the destrustion of Metropolis battle over the actionless Superman Return anytime! Sorry but I always feel that one of the reasons why that film suck was not having a proper battle in general. Sure Bob raise a point that it's not in Superman character but come on! Those battle scene truly did the film some justice to Superman as a whole as it was incredible to watch!
Glad to know that the film was a dissapointment mainly due to Bob high expectation over it as I still enjoyed it as a whole.

endtherapture:

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Because... its super man? I say this with a question mark because I'm no comic fanboy.

But this is superman. The premise is God in tights... not really all that thought provoking. Superman never was a gloom and doom character until the 90s, apparently. And that one seems to be almost universally panned. Wanton destruction isn't what superman is supposed to be about, I'm not even a fan and I know that. Nothing wrong with having both, but expect people like Bob to criticize it.

Avengers was more lighthearted and family friendly. It takes more talent to cast a wide net than a small one. A small one for 25-30 something misanthropes who apparently aren't happy unless cities are being leveled and tons of people are dying on or off camera.

Ishal:

endtherapture:

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Because... its super man? I say this with a question mark because I'm no comic fanboy.

But this is superman. The premise is God in tights... not really all that thought provoking. Superman never was a gloom and doom character until the 90s, apparently. And that one seems to be almost universally panned. Wanton destruction isn't what superman is supposed to be about, I'm not even a fan and I know that. Nothing wrong with having both, but expect people like Bob to criticize it.

Avengers was more lighthearted and family friendly. It takes more talent to cast a wide net than a small one. A small one for 25-30 something misanthropes who apparently aren't happy unless cities are being leveled and tons of people are dying on or off camera.

It wasn't doom and gloom. It wasn't constant wise cracking but that's because Superman isn't a character like Spiderman who is built on his humour.I don't get the criticism that Superman wasn't saving anyone, or that he did nothing to establish himself as Superman.

This movie portrayed Clarkas a nice,sincere,helpful,strong confident, young man even before he even put on the suit or learned his origins.

He helped drowning kids from a school bus, even swimming under water to bring the bully to the surface.
Was being bullied by a bunch of dudes, but held back even though he knew he could whoop their arses.
Stood up for that waitress in that diner when the dude was harassing and groping her.
Helped those guys in that oil rig fire and held off the beam and flames long enough for them to escape via helicopter.

This film surely showed Superman without his suit and it humanized him and showed you the traits of a strong confident young man who stood up for others when no one else would.

And Superman learning to fly was one of my favourite scenes in a superhero movie ever...how could you not love that?

They definitely did go overboard with the destruction in the latter half of the movie, but it was only slightly worse than The Avengers, and it wasn't really disaster porn like 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow. People are just selectively remembering bits of the film.

Baresark:

That is actually a bit of a misunderstanding of the character. He was always coupled to tradition pre-WW2 value and as an American character he had that whole truth, justice and the American way thing. But the post WW2 character, or even mid WW2 character never subscribed to America's interventionist foreign policies. He never intervened in any wars. He never chose sides in a conflict between foreign nations. That was actually the biggest criticism of the character during WW2. He never fought the Nazi's (and one of the main reasons Captain America was one of the most popular comic book characters of that era). The only thing the final scene actually did was decouple him from the Military, which was always his default position. Just as always, he is distrustful of the people in power and all for the average Joe, as any would be American was during the formative years of actual Superman character. Don't fall into the hype, there were always people who didn't like American foreign policy going back to WW1, both foreign and domestic.

It's also important to remember that while the movie was made with a world audience in mind, he was raised as your typical red blooded American boy in Kansas. What Bob wants to see is actually very much part of the character, even in modern day.

Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with this so that was an interesting read. So superman never went the way of Transformers where they were downgraded to fighting arabs in one scene. You would think sentient space robots wouldn't get into petty earth conflicts.
There's that superman vs batman comic that's being talked about a lot. Batman takes on and defeats superman because superman becomes a Patsy for the president. How does that fit into the superman's average joe mission? I'm guessing superman gets lead astray and batman knocks some sense into him?

Oskuro:

Zachary Amaranth:
the harping on the same movies over and over again is sort of making him harder and harder to watch.

Then don't.

These videos are a way for Bob to share his personal opinion, a fact he makes sure to mention often in the videos themselves.

All of you, complaining about his opinions or fixations being grating... Why are you watching his videos then?

Because a) his other videos are supposed to be about different things, but he keeps bringing up this or The Dark Knight Rises or other things only tangentially related because he personally has problems with them and, I don't know, maybe he thinks he can bring everyone around to his point of view through sheer repetition. It's one thing to use, say, The Phantom Menace as a go-to reference for a major movie that people hated because it has a horrible reputation. But Bob sees TDKR as the worst thing ever and he's... not alone in this, but the accepted view of TDKR isn't as bad as Bob treats it,

and b) it's possible to express an opinion once, get it out there, and let it stand. Repeating it over and over implies he has nothing more to say about anything. And if that really is the case (I don't believe it is) he should just end The Big Picture.

As I said last week, I hope Bob has taken this opportunity to get everything off his chest and he won't keep harping on it again later. But given his handling of The Dark Knight Rises or South Park, I'm skeptical.

IronMit:

The Dubya:
Only Zod (thanks to Michael Shannon's overacting) brought some much needed life into this film and was closet to having a definable character. I understood his motivation, I got understood goals, I even got his BACKSTORY from all that time spent on Krypton. And ya know what, he actually DID STUFF to go about achieving said goals. As far as I'm concerned, HE'S the main character of the movie and this movie was his Shakespearean tragedy...

You are right.
Zod was the closest character to behave like a human with motivations, emotions etc. How ironic. But even then he was only half way there.
Half of what he said in the movie was downgraded to contrived techno-bable and exposition. And logic was also not on his for the other half. He finds out Superman is the only person who can stop him and he insists on deploying the world engine immediately. Why not wait? 2hours..lure out superman. Kill him and then deploy the macgiffin.
He want's to convert Earth because he got a bit of a headache. Doesn't seem very warrior like. If he were to put up with it for a bit longer he could have super powers. Kryptonite doesn't seem to exist so no problem there.
Why couldn't he say 'yo superman.You know those many off world colonies we have I will just go there - 100% chance of success. Just let me suck out the codex from you'. end movie.

And that's where lack of characterization becomes a problem. Movies that try to be oh so hyper realistic and rely on emotionless Vulcan logic REALLY have to try hard to make their plot as airtight as possible to show off how "smart" their characters are, or else people start poking holes through the logic and start asking "Wait, what?" questions like you are. But if we knew more about Zod's character and what kind of a guy he was, maybe the reason why he didn't do X, Y, and Z could have made more sense.

For example, Zod is a very proud, almost TOO proud warrior dude that has a really short temper when people rub him the wrong way. So he woos Superman up to his little ship (NOT by threatening Earth outright, but by going "Hey fellow Kryptonian, we could rebuild our people and you can be home again. You can trust meeee, friend!), try to be all nice to him to get the codex he needs and whatever, but ultimately Superman rejects him (after figuring out he's gonna terraform Earth). Zod, being the proud/short tempered dude he is, takes this WAY too personal and just goes "Fuck it, unleash the machine NOW! I want Earth and that Superbitch DEAD! No one disrespects MOTHERFUCKIN ZOD, especially after I tried to be nice to his sorry ass!"

Now, from a "logic" standpoint it might not make much sense to be so hasty, but from a character standpoint it totally fits with his personality. Ya see what I mean?

Everyone has flaws and everyone has that one flaw that could tear them down. That's what makes us human and that's what makes interesting stories. And to me it seems that this movie just sucked all that humanity out of everyone just so they could "Not like be _____ or _____ or _____" like Bob said. For all the complaints about Superman being a boring, flawless character, THIS Superman was by far the most boring, flawless, characterless interpretation we've had yet.

Ironic that THIS is the one so many people are attaching to the most, it seems.

endtherapture:
Man of Steel is great.

Great characters.
Great score.
Great action.
Great visuals.
Great art style.

Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

I didn't know what to expect from the film so I went in and thought it was amazing, 3rd favourite superhero movie EVER. Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers, because when you get down to it, Man of Steel inspired me, it felt inspiring and said some really interesting and deep things about society in general.

Food for thought: Clark is reading Plato's Republic at one point in the film, this subtley links into the "failure" of Kypton as a Platonian society in the film, exemplified by Zod. Very clever stuff. But obviously no, it needed brighter colours and more comedy so it was a failure!!

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

This. I'm one of a very small number of people at my place of work who actively likes Man of Steel, even though I admit it has flaws like Johnathon Kent as an entire character (The fact that I haven't taken Bob seriously since he essentially spent his entire Amazing Spider Man review whinging about how the movie didn't follow the Ultimate Comics to the letter or his review for Star Trek Into Darkness being forgettable BS helps me get through this), and when people whine to me about how "It's too dark and serious!" I just tell them to watch fucking Avengers again (Still great, which I don't agree with the quote above mine).

endtherapture:
I also don't get the criticism that Superman wasn't saving anyone, or that he did nothing to establish himself as Superman.

This movie portrayed Clark/as a nice,sincere,helpful,strong confident, young man even before he even put on the suit or learned his origins.

He helped drowning kids from a school bus, even swimming under water to bring the bully to the surface.
Was being bullied by a bunch of dudes, but held back even though he knew he could whoop their arses.
Stood up for that waitress in that diner when the dude was harassing and groping her.
Helped those guys in that oil rig fire and held off the beam and flames long enough for them to escape via helicopter.

This film surely showed Superman without his suit and it humanized him and showed you the traits of a strong confident young man who stood up for others when no one else would.

And Superman learning to fly was one of my favourite scenes in a superhero movie ever...how could you not love that?

warning! my subjective opinion of why the parts you liked were horrible for me..just so you know where some of us are coming from;
These points were positive but they were just done in such a cliché way and were kind of broken too;

His dad kept telling him not to save anyone, but he was going to be a symbol of hope/hero. A bit Contradictory. How can you possibly teach someone to be a good person whilst simultaneously telling them to let everyone die no matter what. You can justify it and fill in the blanks yourself if you do some mind gymnastics but it's something that should be flushed out. Even smallville season one finale did a better job of handling Clarks secret and the issue's of morality and secrets; Jonathan flirts with the idea of killing the journalist to protect clarks secret, but doesn't because his a good person and to set a good example for Clark.

The waitress and the bully scene. wow so original. This ties into superman making the difficult 'kill decision' at the end of the movie. But if Clark were to actually hurt the annoying weak 'humans' at the beginning of the film that would make him a psycho evil villain nutter. We shouldn't be praising his humanity for not going on a killing spree.
Whereas in Batman begins, Bruce had initial motivations of anger and vengeance. after he 'grew' a bit, got slapped by Ms Cruise and trained with the league of shadows he was told to kill and risked his life not to go along with it.

oil rig help scene; nothing terribly wrong with it. But that's THREE convenient key disasters to show us his development and character. They re-used the same format 3 times in 30 minutes. And this method of a convenient disaster they reused is the most cliché one ever. Seriously, do disaster's follow this guy around? Spiderman is annoying when girls keep walking down the wrong alley but this was on a different level.
In other better super hero movies the disaster often has more to do with the main plot and character origins;
Green goblin attacks the shareholders of the company that had the super spiders- a bit less contrived
Tony Stark is betrayed by his business partner who he makes weapons with in the middle-east. Stark gets captured and goes back there when he makes his proper suit. No convenient disaster rubbish.

superman learning to fly was the lamest thing ever. It's like his jet pack was failing at the start or something. He should either fly immediately like in the original movies...or it should be a bit more drawn out like in spiderman. a 20 second learn to fly montage is probably the worst time they could of allotted.

Calibanbutcher:
I disagree.
For me Iron Man 3 was the biggest dissapointment of the summer.
I expected a fun action-flick starring Iron Man and the mandarin and got the worst Marvel-movie this side of the Hulk franchise.

Mind explaining your position?

Zachary Amaranth:

Spot1990:
Yes but if you don't like the guy discussing his opinions then why watch a show specifically for him to discusshis opinions. It's like going into a pizza place and then complaining about the lack of chinese food.

This is more akin to going to a pizza place and complaining that the pepperoni is stale, funky, and all over your vegetarian pizza.

Dammit, I was out-analogied. Well played sir.

This means that bob might take a second look at Elysium and its countless plot holes, unlikable characters and lack of narrative focus? Nah probably not, it has an IN YOUR FACE POLITICAL MESSA... pew pew explosions, happily ever after, the end. Because violence solves everything and a handfull of magical healing machines can help the billions suffering in an overpopulated earth.

Its a series, not a one off movie. These can be changed in the sequel where he comes to terms with his actions and will change how he deals with enemies. Thats called character development Bob, something i would think a film reviewer would know - after wasnt this the first time Supes used his powers against a villian? Granted if they dont do a change in the sequel and he carries on killing criminals without giving a crap about civilians and buildings. Then I will agree they fucked up. But even in the Raimi Spiderman, a criminal died due to Parkers anger and that made him change how he deals with enemies.

I also think the darker look can work with his super villians. Can make them more of a threat for superman to fight. Compare Jack Nicholson's Joker to Heaths Joker, who was more threatening? Granted, it doesnt need to be Batman dark, but to build tension and danger and threat, sometimes you need that. But dark for the sake of it isnt needed. I still think you can have light hearted moments with Superman, that will make him more human. Let him rescue a cat for a little girl or stop a bank raid and have him receive a thank you from the mayor.

HemalJB:

Now, I'll use the following quote, but this goes to all who are sharing this sentiment in the above comments:

Zachary Amaranth:
the harping on the same movies over and over again is sort of making him harder and harder to watch.

Then don't.

These videos are a way for Bob to share his personal opinion, a fact he makes sure to mention often in the videos themselves.

All of you, complaining about his opinions or fixations being grating... Why are you watching his videos then?

Because if he has every right to harp on his fixations over and over again then we have every right to harp on this stupid redundant complaining over and over again.

Well, that's all well and good. But could you naysayers do me a favor? Contribute to the conversation! Don't say 'lol Bob no liek Man of Steel' and walk off feeling so fucking clever. Watch the video and respond to its content. Tell us why you think Man of Steel is good or why Bob is being too hard on the film/it's makers. As it stands, the first few responses to this thread are not worth the storage space they occupy.

I really wish the Escapist clamped down on vapid posts like the one at the beginning. It's as bad as popping in to say 'First!' The contributers here deserve better.

The Gentleman:

Calibanbutcher:
I disagree.
For me Iron Man 3 was the biggest dissapointment of the summer.
I expected a fun action-flick starring Iron Man and the mandarin and got the worst Marvel-movie this side of the Hulk franchise.

Mind explaining your position?

I shall quote my favourite person ever to answer this:

Calibanbutcher:
I saw the movie two days ago, and I have to say:
Meh.
It was alright as far as I am concerned, but it didn't really impress me all that much. Robert Downey Jr. was good, Gwyneth Paltrow was alright, Guy Pearce was fun (though I liked him better in Lockout) and Ben Kingsley stole every scene he was in.
If superheroes are your thing this movie is for you.
If you just want a fun action-romp, this movie is a good choice.
If you want anything more than that, you would be better of with another movie.

Why?

Vivi22:

cynicalsaint1:
Oh good ... more of Bob whining about Man of Steel just what I was hoping for ...
No wait, the other thing ... just what I'm utterly sick of.

It's this years Amazing Spider-Man I guess.

Actually....yeah. That kind works on both parts. One on bob's disdain of it, and two on the fact that everything Bob said in this video, can be applied just as well to the Amazing Spiderman. It was a spiderman that didn't know what if wanted to be, but knew what it didn't want to be (even though it felt free to lift scenes wholesale from the last trilogy) complete with unresolved character speeches (remember how the early trailers were all sober and deep about peters parents?) and incredibly awkward dialog

I was expecting this video to be much more rambley than it turned out to be, so okay, not too much of a wasted video, though it still kind of is.

Film Crit Hulk's article on it also pointed out a couple ways Superman could've really been updated. Imagine if the macguffin wasn't there and Zod and his followers were more former criminals that were now just refugees who wanted to come to Earth. Then you'd have this whole immigration parallel (similar to the premise of District 9) where Earth would debate whether or not to accept or reject these aliens, and Superman himself would be torn between his birth heritage and the one he was raised in. Man, just makes me mourn at that never to be realized potential.

endtherapture:
Man of Steel is great.

Great characters.
Great score.
Great action.
Great visuals.
Great art style.

Bob just wants everything to be like The Avengers and all funny and upbeat and Robert Downey Jr. But we have The Avengers already...so what's wrong with Man of Steel going for a more serious tone? Nothing.

I didn't know what to expect from the film so I went in and thought it was amazing, 3rd favourite superhero movie EVER. Bob obviously wanted more one note villains, and Transformers-but-with-superheroes stuff like in The Avengers, because when you get down to it, Man of Steel inspired me, it felt inspiring and said some really interesting and deep things about society in general.

Food for thought: Clark is reading Plato's Republic at one point in the film, this subtley links into the "failure" of Kypton as a Platonian society in the film, exemplified by Zod. Very clever stuff. But obviously no, it needed brighter colours and more comedy so it was a failure!!

I just don't get how Bob can constantly fellate and praise The Avengers when that was a very shallow film. Man of Steel wasn't anything paritcularly deep, but it was more thought-provoking than The Avengers, why is that a bad thing?

Bob's point is that it LOOKS like it should be this grand story about heroes and hope, which is reinforced by the music and cinematography, but the plot itself doesn't have much of it. It's not thought provoking, it's just confusing. Jonathan Kent's scenes were touching, but can you figure out what he was trying to say? Then there was the really weird sci-fi upping of the backstory with genetic engineering and etc. that really only served to explain why both Superman and Zod end up on Earth, and why Zod would want to fight Superman.

But anyway, it's not that it's a super bad terrible movie, it's a disappointment. You said yourself it wasn't a deep movie, but it kind of sells itself as one, it kind of looks like one, and because of Nolan's involvement, people expected one but it wasn't, so people were disappointed.

Man of Steel didn't have too many action scenes. What it did have is an atrocious lack of pacing, shoving almost all of the action into the final third of the movie, while making the first two thirds mostly a melancholy slog. This is made even worse by the fact that for the most part all the action sequences are THE SAME FUCKING SCENE. Namely, Kryptonians punching each other really hard. And to be fair, the first time it happened, it was really cool. It had a weighty feel behind it and these really felt like superhuman beings. However, the movie didn't really go anywhere with it, and combined with the concentration of most of the action in the final third you basically get one really long punchfest which wears thin, all this after the first two thirds nearly put the whole theater to sleep...

Calibanbutcher:
*snip*

Understandable. I disagree with a lot of that (I set the bar at Iron Man 2 and braced for some racially uncomfortable moments that thankfully didn't come, so my expectations were quite low to begin with), but I understand your positions.

IronMit:

Baresark:

That is actually a bit of a misunderstanding of the character. He was always coupled to tradition pre-WW2 value and as an American character he had that whole truth, justice and the American way thing. But the post WW2 character, or even mid WW2 character never subscribed to America's interventionist foreign policies. He never intervened in any wars. He never chose sides in a conflict between foreign nations. That was actually the biggest criticism of the character during WW2. He never fought the Nazi's (and one of the main reasons Captain America was one of the most popular comic book characters of that era). The only thing the final scene actually did was decouple him from the Military, which was always his default position. Just as always, he is distrustful of the people in power and all for the average Joe, as any would be American was during the formative years of actual Superman character. Don't fall into the hype, there were always people who didn't like American foreign policy going back to WW1, both foreign and domestic.

It's also important to remember that while the movie was made with a world audience in mind, he was raised as your typical red blooded American boy in Kansas. What Bob wants to see is actually very much part of the character, even in modern day.

Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with this so that was an interesting read. So superman never went the way of Transformers where they were downgraded to fighting arabs in one scene. You would think sentient space robots wouldn't get into petty earth conflicts.
There's that superman vs batman comic that's being talked about a lot. Batman takes on and defeats superman because superman becomes a Patsy for the president. How does that fit into the superman's average joe mission? I'm guessing superman gets lead astray and batman knocks some sense into him?

That is actually an "Elseworld" book before they existed. Think of as a "What if..." scenario. It was never actually canon that this was the definitive future of the DC Universe. There were many books like that through the years though, such as the book title "Red Son" that is a what if story that is dependent on baby Supes ship crash landing in Russia vs in America. But in Dark Knight Returns (the book you are referencing), the people had voted that metahumans were too dangerous to go about fighting behind masks and everything. Superman, not being a government tool yet, went with the vote because that is what the people want. But he ends up being the US's secret weapon in wars and what not, and was actually responsible for disarming (literally) the Green Arrow. But that story comes from the position that Superman assumed this role of government peacekeeper. It was an interesting read and there is a two part animated movie that is a pretty darn faithful adaptation that is worth a watch. Keep in mind that Frank Millar wrote that one though, and he has an unusual hatred towards superhero books. He is the worlds most well read pessimist, so far as superheros are concerned. I don't think he would ever subscribe to the idea of Superman being a paragon of virtue, which he is for the most part.

cynicalsaint1:
Oh good ... more of Bob whining about Man of Steel just what I was hoping for ...
No wait, the other thing ... just what I'm utterly sick of.

Not watching the video that would clearly be about MoS when you hold no pretense that Bob would complain about it it (it again) was an option available to you.

Vivi22:

cynicalsaint1:
Oh good ... more of Bob whining about Man of Steel just what I was hoping for ...
No wait, the other thing ... just what I'm utterly sick of.

It's this years Amazing Spider-Man I guess.

No star trek: into the darkness is this years Amazing Spiderman
An pretty fun film that most people liked (whilst recognising it's not a great movie).
That movie bob thinks is the worst film ever made.

Also does anyone else think it's odd that moviebob AKA mister comic books
Gets it constantly wrong when reviewing comic-book moves?
I mean, Man of steel, Ironman 2 & 3, Amazing spiderman, the dark knight rises.
it goes further the closer a film gets to his specialist field the less reliable he reviews seem to be as consumer advice
Weird no?

I had to stop mid video to come and say this, and I hope Bob reads this things:

Thank you Bob for noticing the same thing that I've been thinking about since DK: Rises, Nolan a Co. actually think that this characters are inferior and lesser to them and they actually believe that what they did elevated them.

And the funny part is, when you think about it, all this wonderful ideas and tricks Hollywood "discovered" about super heroes, batman being dark and gritty, setting and presenting them in a more human way and, gasp!, single universe, multy-characters crossovers/team-ups events... sell a lot? Comic books have being doing it for the past maybe 40 years...

To be honest, I still like Nolans films, but the more thought I put into it and the more I know the source material from which batman and superman where taken from, the less I line Nolans Batman, including the Dark Knight.

Spot1990:

HemalJB:

Now, I'll use the following quote, but this goes to all who are sharing this sentiment in the above comments:

Then don't.

These videos are a way for Bob to share his personal opinion, a fact he makes sure to mention often in the videos themselves.

All of you, complaining about his opinions or fixations being grating... Why are you watching his videos then?

Because if he has every right to harp on his fixations over and over again then we have every right to harp on this stupid redundant complaining over and over again.

Yes but if you don't like the guy discussing his opinions then why watch a show specifically for him to discusshis opinions. It's like going into a pizza place and then complaining about the lack of chinese food.

And then arguing "if they have the right to not serve chinese food, I have the right to complain about them not serving chinese food." Bob is a critic. His job is to critique. And he's not limited to offering his critique once and then moving on. Opinions evolve and I'm glad he revisits. I watched this episode because I wanted to know his opinion on MoS. I didn't watch the Big Picture on Sucker Punch because his opinion on it doesn't interest me. I did not go into the Sucker Punch video and puff my chest about how Bob needs to stop defending what I felt was not a good movie.

IronMit:

The Dubya:
Only Zod (thanks to Michael Shannon's overacting) brought some much needed life into this film and was closet to having a definable character. I understood his motivation, I got understood goals, I even got his BACKSTORY from all that time spent on Krypton. And ya know what, he actually DID STUFF to go about achieving said goals. As far as I'm concerned, HE'S the main character of the movie and this movie was his Shakespearean tragedy...

You are right.
Zod was the closest character to behave like a human with motivations, emotions etc. How ironic. But even then he was only half way there.
Half of what he said in the movie was downgraded to contrived techno-bable and exposition. And logic was also not on his for the other half. He finds out Superman is the only person who can stop him and he insists on deploying the world engine immediately. Why not wait? 2hours..lure out superman. Kill him and then deploy the macgiffin.
He want's to convert Earth because he got a bit of a headache. Doesn't seem very warrior like. If he were to put up with it for a bit longer he could have super powers. Kryptonite doesn't seem to exist so no problem there.
Why couldn't he say 'yo superman.You know those many off world colonies we have I will just go there - 100% chance of success. Just let me suck out the codex from you'. end movie.

I agree as well I found Zod to be the most sympathetic character as well and that includes superman. Putting the pieces together personally I think it mostly came down to the cloning and caste system problems that was Zods downfall I think it was literally genetically bred in him to be a sword and not a pen. The end when Zod had lost his entire purpose existing and forced superman to kill it really showed how unfortunate his position as warrior caste was.

I didn't like the movie for the couple reasons. The part where his dad demands he not save him for really idiotic reasons considering Clark had already been saving people and getting away with it for quite some time. I agree with Bob most of the characters were really one dimensional a specifically unappealing boring way. The over the top violence got old as well.

I'll give the best review right here and now. After seeing it with a friend of mine(we both thought was ok) we went again with 2 other friends who asked us to go see it with them.

So were sitting there and right as the climax starts with Clark fighting the world engine the power went out due to heavy storms.

We all got refunds and when we told our friends theyd missed the big climax and when would they want to see it again they said "Naw thats ok. We don't feel like sitting through that all over again just to see the climax.".

That about sums it up. The action is cool if you can accept Superman the Dark Knight but it's a trudge to get through the film to get to the fun parts.

I agree with you, IronMit, I just want to piggyback some of my thoughts alongside yours:

IronMit:

These points were positive but they were just done in such a cliché way and were kind of broken too;

His dad kept telling him not to save anyone, but he was going to be a symbol of hope/hero. A bit Contradictory. How can you possibly teach someone to be a good person whilst simultaneously telling them to let everyone die no matter what. You can justify it and fill in the blanks yourself if you do some mind gymnastics but it's something that should be flushed out.

This movie has so many stretch marks from all the excuses people are making for the holes in logic and reason. Pa Kent was just a cowardly, paranoid nutjob the entire time he was on screen.

"Son, you need to hold off to showcase your powers (for some reason) and not use them not because they'd give you an unfair advantage against those weaker than you...but because you need to be worried about WHAT DA WORLD WOULD DO IF DEY FOUND OUT DEY WERENT ALONE OOOOO AHHH OOOO!"

"Son, you probably should have LET THOSE KIDS DROWN so I could avoid being mildly inconvienced by this one kid's mom (BTW, HE'S the only one that said anything about the school bus incident? Every kid on that bus would be blabbing that to everyone they knew!), but don't worry, ONE DAY in the vague future, you'll be the symbol of hopppppe!"

"Son, allow me to DIE IN A FREAKIN TORNADO OF ALL THINGS (Jesus Christ that was some laughably stupid shit. Complete with Henry Cavill's big ass trying to act like a teenager with his "UR NAWT MAH REAL DAD" quip, ripping off Spiderman's origin story as well as Batman's. And they expected us to take that seriously?), leaving you fatherless and your mom/my loving wife a widow just so I can teach you some nonsensical lesson that you haven't followed as a kid and won't follow as an adult. HOPPPPE!"

Fuck everything about his character in this movie. We're lucky he didn't turn into Hector Hammond based on the bullshit he was beating into his son's head.

Even worse that they never even followed up on that idea anyways. Other than Lois, who trusted Clark almost immediately, and the military, who are just unclear on what his relationship to Zod is, who else knows about Superman? What DO the common people think of him? ARE they freaking out or do they like him? I dunno, the movie never brings it up again. Like I said earlier, they kept talking the talk, but they never walked the walk.

The waitress and the bully scene. wow so original. This ties into superman making the difficult 'kill decision' at the end of the movie. But if Clark were to actually hurt the annoying weak 'humans' at the beginning of the film that would make him a psycho evil villain nutter. We shouldn't be praising his humanity for not going on a killing spree.
Whereas in Batman begins, Bruce had initial motivations of anger and vengeance. after he 'grew' a bit, got slapped by Ms Cruise and trained with the league of shadows he was told to kill and risked his life not to go along with it.

That waitress scene was unintentional foreshadowing if you really think about it...:P

The bullying scene was so gloriously cliched with him (and the redhead on the bus) throwing the generic "Hey, hey asshole! Wanna fight? Hey asshole! HEY!" quips out. And again, he doesn't hold back not because it's the right thing to not use your powers for vengeance, but because his dad is standing right there and he doesn't want to get in trouble. He even admits "I wanted to hit him so bad!" Something that he does later when he smashes the dude's car at the diner where no one can see him.

And this is the nice and sincere young man we're talking about here?!? No, he's a just some angry bitter kid walking around with a chip on his shoulder.

....which explains why so much of the Internet relates to him so much.

^_^

Instead of having Clark get picked on, have the chubby redhead kid Pete be the victim of bullying (bullies would way more likely pick on him than the clean cut/good looking/normal looking Clark). Clark comes in to break up the fight between em, the bullies go something like "Oh yeah, what are YOU gonna do about it?!", Clark considers punching their lights out but doesn't and just walks away with Pete not because Daddy's watching, but because he knows it's the right way to diffuse the situation. THAT would show that Clark, the most powerful being on Planet Earth, is only going to use his powers to defend people weaker than him, not to attack people or get revenge on people. That he's at least going to TRY to be diplomatic before throwing punches.

Establish him being a defender by nature, almost to a fault, and that ultra violence is the last resort. Him trying to save people and buildings while Zod's goons kept whopping his ass would've made those fights more suspenseful and him killing Zod would have actually meant something. I never got mad at that ending because I was too confused as to exactly what he (and conversely I) was supposed to be feeling and why he felt the need to let out a Darth Vader "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

superman learning to fly was the lamest thing ever. It's like his jet pack was failing at the start or something. He should either fly immediately like in the original movies...or it should be a bit more drawn out like in spiderman. a 20 second learn to fly montage is probably the worst time they could of allotted.

It could have been staged better, but I'll give the movie minor props for that. Very minor, but minor props nonetheless.

I was never on-board for live action versions of comic book stories or video game franchises. The animated movies are way better. The themes fit and make the stories more digestible. Like, Batman: Under The Red Hood, or Superman vs the Elite and then there is Justice League: The New Frontier to name a few. Live action Super Hero movies just look like someone in their glorified pajamas fighting someone else in their's.

Fangface74:
Did MovieBob just over analyze his over analysis?

Shhh! Don't spoil it. This is the only fun film critics have with their jobs.

Oh Bob... when are we going back to the thing you do best?, showing us zany and obscure cartoons, comic books and movies.

Your ranting is getting old. Seriously, I respect you a lot and you seem like a great guy to hang out with IRL, but when you don't like something, you DO make us know you didn't like it... and it gets old pretty fast.

endtherapture:

It wasn't doom and gloom. It wasn't constant wise cracking but that's because Superman isn't a character like Spiderman who is built on his humour.I don't get the criticism that Superman wasn't saving anyone, or that he did nothing to establish himself as Superman.

This movie portrayed Clarkas a nice,sincere,helpful,strong confident, young man even before he even put on the suit or learned his origins.

He helped drowning kids from a school bus, even swimming under water to bring the bully to the surface.
Was being bullied by a bunch of dudes, but held back even though he knew he could whoop their arses.
Stood up for that waitress in that diner when the dude was harassing and groping her.
Helped those guys in that oil rig fire and held off the beam and flames long enough for them to escape via helicopter.

This film surely showed Superman without his suit and it humanized him and showed you the traits of a strong confident young man who stood up for others when no one else would.

This.

I've never been a fan of Superman because I found it way too difficult to relate to him. I feel confident this movie will change that.

undeadsuitor:

Vivi22:

cynicalsaint1:
Oh good ... more of Bob whining about Man of Steel just what I was hoping for ...
No wait, the other thing ... just what I'm utterly sick of.

It's this years Amazing Spider-Man I guess.

Actually....yeah. That kind works on both parts. One on bob's disdain of it, and two on the fact that everything Bob said in this video, can be applied just as well to the Amazing Spiderman. It was a spiderman that didn't know what if wanted to be, but knew what it didn't want to be (even though it felt free to lift scenes wholesale from the last trilogy) complete with unresolved character speeches (remember how the early trailers were all sober and deep about peters parents?) and incredibly awkward dialog

I was actually referring to his inability to stop beating the dead horse, but then, I did like Man of Steel and Amazing Spider-Man (which he was taking more digs at as recently as a few weeks ago despite it being released more than a year ago now).

Wait bob didn't like Sucker Punch? I thought he had a whole episode defending that movie.

Disclosure: I haven't seen Man of Steel

I don't know if others found the Jesus[1] allegories in Superman Returns trite, but if Man of Steel was intended to update Superman into the contemporary era, that is a direction I would have liked to seem them take it. Mr. Chipman already discussed that the 1978 Superman (still one of my favorites) was less about Mr. Man of Steel and more about the people around him as they discover that Sups is everything that he appears to be. A return to this notion but presented with a nod to the harshness of reality, would have been just grand.

Of course there are problems.

For one, the crime is not the terrible thing it is in the comic books. Oh, real crime is even more grizzly than is portrayed by comics, or even mob stories like Goodfellas, but they don't kill as many people as say, junk food and auto accidents. The crimes that do the most damage (and kill the most innocents) are at white-collar levels or higher, where a team of brilliant, untouchable lawyers would serve better than a flying invincible guy. Of course, Supes could be useful going to the world's hot zones to quell unrest and provide relief. But as Jesus noted, too many of them and too few of him, even for Mr. Fast-As-a-Speeding-Bullet. On the other hand, this is perfect for the conflict of such a story: he cannot save everyone but he can, by doing as much as he does, provide an icon of hope for those who debate between hoarding for their own survival and helping with the common good. Most of the lives Superman saves (much like Jesus or Krishna) would be by changing minds, and inspiring people to do right for everyone, rather than just themselves.

Secondly, Man-against nature stories don't have the same draw as a good super-powered fistfight. Trying to save the world at a quotidian level just doesn't pique the same interest as a fictional disaster or an evil mastermind. This isn't unique to Superman. We have to lure people into the theaters with flashy effects and over-the-top action, and then blindside them with philosophy and introspection. More importantly, the studios are so afraid of risk right now to aim for a deeper movie over a shallow blockbuster. So MoS is really a sign of the economic times.

Thirdly, some people are a bit sensitive about their gods' thunder. Or are sensitive when something looks like someone else's god's thunder (that they're being preached at). Darth Plagus whips up a batch of vader-batter and inseminates Shmi Skywalker (which is debatably an incident of rape), and everyone groans at the implication of a divine conception. The Christian messiah narrative so dominates our culture that it's difficult to present a new version without it being hijacked by Jesus, or people thinking that it is a hijack by Jesus.

Still it would be worth it.

There is a notion that Superman died on September 11, 2001, when Americans saw in vivid detail that there really are Lex Luthors but no Supermans [2] to stop them. But that's the thing. Superman, if he existed, could still never be the ever-present guardian to protect us from all threats, foreign and domestic. Instead he would be an example we live by: If Superman lost all his powers, he'd still uphold the common good. And in the dark he would still be Superman[3]. It's just as valid to ask What Would Superman Do?, as it is WWJD?.[4] So really it doesn't matter that Superman is confined to the pages of a comic book, if we allow the spirit of what is Superman to inspire us. And that's the idea that could have emerged, I think, from a better Man of Steel.

238U

[1] More generally a redeemer of a decaying human society.
[2] Supermans: plural of the Superman character, contrast to supermen, plural of dudes with Superman-like powers, but not necessarily the character.
[3] Granted, some people disagree.
[4] Disclosure, really any figure could fit into the notion (e.g. What would Einstein do? What would Vader do?) This is a psychological technique of tapping into one's own subconscious, a segment known as the wise mind.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

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