The Big Picture: The Big Letdown

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

This was one of the first movies I ever almost walked out on... And I saw Transformers 2 and stayed through that trainwreck

It was a fun stupid action movie but in no way a Superman movie.

Oops made a mistake it's early I usually can call something a fun stupid movie... this one is just stupid.

The moral of the story is that if you're a creative sort who has been handed the reigns to a long-standing character that has seen as much endless reinterpretation and reinvention as Superman, it's probably better to strike out on your own and deliver a bold new vision then a patchwork quilt of ideas that have been plucked from the context which gave them meaning. Overall, I still liked it though. Actually it reminded me quite strongly of watching Bladerunner, so far as the movie consisted of a series of very nicely done and compelling scenes which didn't quite fit together quite so strongly as a united whole.

And is it just me or does Superman and Batman have the most schizophrenic audiences ever?

Just two people alone can watch the same movie and come away with completely different responses. With a character like Superman not only do you have that problem, but each person's own personal interpretation of the character would be a gestalt of many different versions of the same character which they've been exposed to over the years.

"The biggest most crushing disappointment of the summer 2013"

He is calling Man of Steel this? Wow. What movies has he watched this summer? How about The Hangover part 3, The Lone Ranger or After Earth?

Oh I see. "Disapointment". He had worked himself into a ridiculous frenzy of expectations. Bob, get over yourself. A critic who is getting carried away by hype is pathetic and unprofessional.

Hey guys! If you didn't already figure it out, Bob hates Man of Steel!

Movie Bob being a fanboy and saying he ALMOST NEVER gets hyped? Yeah right...
When I first saw Man of Steel I had my problems with it, but the main one was the level of destruction that went through Metropolis and how inconsequential Superman was at times. And then I got to thinking and had to ask myself "Metropolis goes through much worse every damn month when I buy the comics, I don't have a right to complain about a movie that is just as absurd as the comics", I mean no one would live in Metropolis in real life, every time something huge takes half the city or enslaves the people, or simply Brainiac takes a whole chunk of the city away, and I always "deal with it" in the comics, these dudes followed this disaster recipe in the movie and I complained, when i saw the movie a second time I had this in my mind and two other factors "Superman being a noob hero" (read that: he might be super as far as strength goes, but he's prone to mistakes nonetheless) fighting another guy who's strong as he is, AND doesn't give a shit, which means we have a battle of titans at hand. So yeah, realizing it DID have the comic book feel (a gritty version though...) made me feel more in touch with the movie. But of course Movie Bob is the guy with the job (*cough*critic*cough*) that entitles his opinion to be law (in Earth Bob).
And I really do believe Bob is exploiting his accent, he loves the whole "look he's using his Boston accent! He's mad wow!"

Strazdas:

Oskuro:
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 beside his fixation with hating same movie over and over again, hes a pretty decent movie critic?

If you somehow fail to realize our right to criticize his opinion, watch this week's Jimquisition.

I think about half of the complaints regarding Mr. Chipman's videos are pretty hypocritical. Most of them--like the quoted example here, actually--are not criticisms at all, because they don't tackle the content of his message. They only say the person complaining is tired of hearing him deliver the same message over and over again, apparently with no self-awareness of how anyone else might be getting tired of hearing the "I'm getting tired of your message" message.

JimB:

Strazdas:

Oskuro:
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 beside his fixation with hating same movie over and over again, hes a pretty decent movie critic?

If you somehow fail to realize our right to criticize his opinion, watch this week's Jimquisition.

I think about half of the complaints regarding Mr. Chipman's videos are pretty hypocritical. Most of them--like the quoted example here, actually--are not criticisms at all, because they don't tackle the content of his message. They only say the person complaining is tired of hearing him deliver the same message over and over again, apparently with no self-awareness of how anyone else might be getting tired of hearing the "I'm getting tired of your message" message.

If he is tired of hearing our response, he can fully ignore it or say something about it. Its his choice. Or he could go the way Jim went in early days of Jimquisition, listened to constructive cirticism and improved his performance. Criticism can be of delivery method as well, not only the message itself. we are nto saying that he should not express his opinion about how he dislikes MOS. we are saying that once he did that he could move on to other subjects instead of repeating it constantly. we already know his opinion - he already said it. how about moving on?

endtherapture:
It's an origin movie, Superman hasn't yet "found" himself and I'm willing to give that up in the first film to get a more interesting, character-driven sequel where Clark is finding it place in the world. It's going for a different arc.

That is no excuse. If anything, it being an origin story should make the movie all about establishing the characters, because without the characters everything else is meaningless. Sorry about the Avengers comparison again, but really it's the best example and I'm going to prove to you people don't think it's superior just because the writing is more witty. The beginning of Iron Man was spent setting up how much of an egotistical asshole Tony Stark was. The beginning of Captain America was spent setting up Roger's tendency to pick fights he could never win on principle. The beginning of Thor was spent establishing Thor's status as the son of Odin and a selfish, immature asshole.

And the rest of their films spent their time around character development. Yes, other things happened, but they made sure the events did not overpower the significant change in character. The part of Iron Man that sticks out the most in my mind is the part when Tony is in the cave, hooked up to a battery, and building the machine that would not only save his life but define his future. The part of Captain America that sticks out the most in my mind is the training scene when Rogers and the other privates are told to get the flag down from the flagpole, and Rogers shows them all up by taking the pins out of the pole and bringing it down to the ground, where he not only shows up all the muscleheads but also for one of the first times gets rewarded for his selflessness--and he himself doesn't see it as a big deal, and doesn't make a big deal of being rewarded for it. And the part of Thor that sticks in my mind the most is when Thor is destroying the Bifrost, choosing to do the right and mature thing of saving Asgard and Earth rather than trying to leave it open to serve his own selfish ends.

These stories are nothing without their characters, and so is Man of Steel. Hell, it's where they get their titles from. The first movie should prioritize character development over everything else. Regardless of how much of their budget they blow on special effects, ultimately people go to a Superman movie to see Superman. The Krypton stuff is interesting and all, but that isn't where the meat of the film should be, even in an origin story. Actually, especially in an origin story, because like I said before all of this is nothing without characters. If I don't care about Kal El, I also don't care about where he came from. If I don't see a point in Lois Lane, I'm not going to look forward to seeing her in a sequel. And that is all the fault of the writers for favoring exposition over character development, and not looking hard enough to find a way to link the two.

It's an origin story. That event OBVIOUSLY set up the fact that he's against killing in later films because it traumatised him so much. I don't get why people don't get this, it's so obvious.

You keep saying this, and it's still not making it any better. If they wanted to set it up for him to be against killing people, they should have set it up long before then. And again, his actions in the final act with the fight should have reflected this. Character development 101: Actions speak louder than words. Remember all those favorite scenes from the Marvel movies I listed earlier? All actions. I didn't like those moments because of the "snappy, upbeat" writing, I liked them because they were satisfying moments which reinforced the tones and themes set up by the rest of the film. They were moments which reflected a greater pattern of development and change.

On top of that, your excuse doesn't make sense in the context of that scene. If he wasn't against Zod before he killed him, why all the hesitation in the first place? If he wasn't against killing before that moment, why was he even considering putting that family in that much more danger in the first place? And why would the death of someone who was trying to deliberately kill others be so much more traumatizing to him than the millions of lives he ruined by staging his fist fight in New York? If there's any trauma that should have occurred from killing, it should have been from that, not from snapping Zod's neck.

War-Machine is in the first Iron Man movie right...when he doesn't really need to be? So that criticism can be leveled at Iron Man also.

No, War Machine was in the second Iron Man movie, and it was a logical development in the story since Tony went public about being Iron Man. While Iron Man was about Tony growing up as a person, Iron Man 2 was about him figuring out his role as a hero, and it was Rhodes as War Machine that helped him come to terms with the fact that he wasn't invulnerable and that he did have a responsibility to those around him. Rhodes in the War Machine suit directly aided in Tony's character development.

But please, if you want to keep throwing secondary Marvel characters at me to distract from Lois's deficiencies, continue. I'm guessing you have no rebuttal for my assessment of her role in the movie, since you opted to distract rather than to explain. My memory of the film isn't perfect (it's much harder for me to remember disembodied events than specific character moments), so it is very possible I missed something. You're the expert, if Lois is such a great character then tell me what the point of her is. What did she do in Man of Steel, that couldn't have been accomplished by anything else? And how would the film's outcome have been impacted without bringing up the Daily Planet, apart from simply not having the Daily Planet in a Superman movie?

And there's one more thing I'd like to make abundantly clear before we go any further. I'm not saying you shouldn't like the film. If you enjoyed Man of Steel, then that's perfectly fine, and I'm not trying to change that. What isn't fine here is that you have opted to say that objectively, the characters and story are great, which simply isn't true. Just because a film isn't good doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't enjoy it, but your personal tastes do not substitute objectively good storytelling.

So again, I'm not asking you to dislike Man of Steel. But what I am asking you to do here is back up your claims that the characters and storytelling are objectively "great," and I'm hoping you aren't lying to yourself as an excuse to like the film. I enjoyed Star Trek: Into Darkness, and I am perfectly aware of all its flaws. I know the character development is a retread of the previous film, I know Scotty didn't get as much screen time as he deserved, I know the story is contrived and gimmicky. But I got some pretty good visceral thrills from it, and I got enough of a kick from Benadict Cumberbatch and Zachary Quinto that I can honestly say my overall feelings are a net positive.

So you can feel free to like Man of Steel for whatever reasons you do, that isn't what I want. What I want here is for you to stop trying to argue about objective storytelling problems with your subjective feelings about the film. It will get neither of us anywhere.

Sejborg:
He is calling Man of Steel this? Wow. What movies has he watched this summer? How about The Hangover part 3, The Lone Ranger or After Earth?

Because the standards were never that high in the first place for the movie that didn't even really need a part 2, the "Johnny Depp in redface" movie, and the M. Night Shyamalan movie ;-)

Lilani:

Sejborg:
He is calling Man of Steel this? Wow. What movies has he watched this summer? How about The Hangover part 3, The Lone Ranger or After Earth?

Because the standards were never that high in the first place for the movie that didn't even really need a part 2, the "Johnny Depp in redface" movie, and the M. Night Shyamalan movie ;-)

I know. And you should too if you had read the rest of my post. Here, let me copy paste that for you:

"Oh I see. "Disapointment". He had worked himself into a ridiculous frenzy of expectations. Bob, get over yourself. A critic who is getting carried away by hype is pathetic and unprofessional."

Sejborg:
I know. And you should too if you had read the rest of my post. Here, let me copy paste that for you:

"Oh I see. "Disapointment". He had worked himself into a ridiculous frenzy of expectations. Bob, get over yourself. A critic who is getting carried away by hype is pathetic and unprofessional."

If you go to a person whose profession amounts to being a professional opinion-giver and don't expect a bit of subjectivity and humanity to slip through every now and again, then I'm afraid you're going to find yourself disappointed in the professional integrity of pretty much every critic who has ever lived.

Strazdas:

If he is tired of hearing our response, he can fully ignore it or say something about it. Its his choice. Or he could go the way Jim went in early days of Jimquisition, listened to constructive cirticism and improved his performance. Criticism can be of delivery method as well, not only the message itself. we are nto saying that he should not express his opinion about how he dislikes MOS. we are saying that once he did that he could move on to other subjects instead of repeating it constantly. we already know his opinion - he already said it. how about moving on?

That's the thing though...

You and everyone else making the kind of complaints JimB are making aren't making "criticisms" of the actual content in the video. All you're doing is going "stop talking about this subject immediately" over and over just because he's talked about it at length, what, three times (one ETTM/two Big Pictures)? And all 3 were different; ETTM gave it more or less a positive review, Man Of Tom morrow speculated sequel opportunities, and this one was a more critical re-evaluation of a movie that even in the ETTM review he was REALLY trying to convince himself he liked (because opinions ARE allowed to change, ya know).

But of course in the age of hyperbole, everyone pretends like it's been 2/3 straight months of nothing but MOS Big Picture episodes....

Stretch out that attention span a little bit and relax already. He brings up an older movie to make a point about something else sometimes, that's it. Focus on what he's saying in terms of (for a lack of a better term) the Big Picture rather than isolate and nitpick his namedropping of a movie that apparently according to Internet rules we aren't allowed to talk about more than a week after it came out.

Lilani:

Sejborg:
I know. And you should too if you had read the rest of my post. Here, let me copy paste that for you:

"Oh I see. "Disapointment". He had worked himself into a ridiculous frenzy of expectations. Bob, get over yourself. A critic who is getting carried away by hype is pathetic and unprofessional."

If you go to a person whose profession amounts to being a professional opinion-giver and don't expect a bit of subjectivity and humanity to slip through every now and again, then I'm afraid you're going to find yourself disappointed in the professional integrity of pretty much every critic who has ever lived.

You just keep reading whatever you please, don't you? Here let me help you once again. I said:

"a ridiculous frenzy of expectations" and "getting carried away by hype".

You talk about:

"a bit of subjectivity and humanity to slip through every now and again".

Can you tell the difference or are you beyond reach?

Sejborg:
You just keep reading whatever you please, don't you? Here let me help you once again. I said:

"a ridiculous frenzy of expectations" and "getting carried away by hype".

You talk about:

"a bit of subjectivity and humanity to slip through every now and again".

Can you tell the difference or are you beyond reach?

I did read what you said, and that directly lead to what I said. His having unprofessionally high expectations lead to his subjectivity getting in the way, and letting your feelings get in the way is a bit of humanity that unfortunately is a detriment in objective criticism.

Or to put it plainly: He made a mistake. One which, I might add, he wholeheartedly admits to doing in this very video.

And calm yourself. We both agree he got a little carried away with his hopefulness, the only thing we seem to disagree on is the degree to which he got carried away (I could tell he still had a lot of reservations about the movie and was constantly pleading for it to not suck), and that you seem to really want to get angry with Bob as a person over this.

Quality aside, Man of Steel is an interesting version of Superman in the same way The Dark Knight is an interesting version of Batman. Both retain the classic elements, but both also take liberties in order to mold the characters and worlds for a new audience.

Twenty years ago, Man of Steel wouldn't exist, neither would the Dark Knight. They are products of their time shaped by what has come before them. But they are not definitive, even the titles are enigmatic. In another twenty years there will be another version of Batman and Superman, what those versions turn out to be like is simply a question of who's in charge and what the state of the industry is.

Also for what it's worth I really liked Man of Steel.

I'm going to have to agree in a summer of disappointments Man of Steel stands out as the most disappointing movie. Other films had problems but Superman just seemed to have more going for it and thus a bigger fall.

It's almost as if the success of the Dark Knight films has blinded them to what makes characters great so instead of going for something different lets just make everyone like Batman. But Superman isn't Batman. Someone mentioned that Superman was just a reflection of the United States and you can't sell that kind of film outside of the US, but Superman isn't that he's the idealistic version of what we hope we could be. Perhaps the single most powerful thing in the DC universe but he always fights for what's right and saving people trumps the glory of victory.

Just seems sad that they had an army of talented people behind the film and a massive budget but the feeling is that the cartoon versions of Superman were so much better than what we got from the live action movie. In this age of body count being so important I'd rather have something like Superman from Superman vs The Elite to show kids that strength and being the good guy can be more than a pile of dead bad guys.

Not being a Superman fan to begin with, I find all I wanted out of the movie was more ways for the man of steel to hit things as if he were made of steel. I wanted to see someone punch him and near enough break their hand, and I wanted to see someone get hit with something as if it were a baseball bat. I got both accounts, and was going to hold "train engine as baseball bat" as the hallmark for quite some time, but Pacific Rim came out only a few weeks later and they used a cargo ship, which is amazingly better. I weary of Superman as some sort of mythical force of unending good, and I like the idea that he had to kill Zod--because holy shit, did it torment him. Twice in his life, when he's had the power to do otherwise, he's had to let someone die. If I were a betting man, I'd say it would be these things that act as a catalyst to his mania about saving everyone all the time. The best scenes in the movie were when Supes had a moment of fun using his powers (skewering the truck with the poles), and it reminds me that, for a character who's that strong, he sure doesn't seem to enjoy being that strong very much.

How often does he just fly up and scare the crap out of a bird, or try and beat his best time around the world? How often does he just rear back and throw something to the moon, or try and bat something out of the atmosphere? Why doesn't he just have some fun with his powers, instead of needing to be the rigid moral policeman always out to save people? Spider-man can rock the idea that Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, but I'd love to see the similarly colored Superman give a giant whoop or a fantastic yell as he freefalls towards the Earth, only to pull out of the dive at the last second. He has all this power, yet feels burdened by it.

Though, it was funny as all hell when he decided to headbutt the giant gravity laser. No fists, just a giant headbonk. Ha!

I also think in context of MoS, the destruction kinda makes sense. He's just risen to the mantle of the man, and has never fought one of his own before. When you start doing anything new, stuff gets broken and damaged first before you get a grips and master your self control, so the fight felt overwhelming and destructive for all parties.

Zod also getting to grips with adjusting to Earth's sunny climate also highlights this fact that, his power is increasing gradually before the mighty smack down. It was fun to see him during the fight, adjust to jumping then flying, and with his rage came a degree of self control and realizing 'sweet, I can do the same shit he can, round one fight.'

Speaking of 9/11 on 9/11, don't let the symbolism get to you. Its really just highlighting that we are all only as safe as our minds let us believe. Digressing a bit and remember (writing this on 9/11/13), 9/11 was the seed born of poor foreign policy and too much world policing. It needed not have happened were the U.S smarter and learned from British mistakes in empire building and how to correct them properly.

Back on things Superman, I'm looking forward to the sequel and the tale being given the kind of breathing space that Batman got from its trilogy.

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 it doesn't do a vary good job of it. It TRIES to be more thought provoking but falls flat every time. It TRIES to paint Jonathan Kent as some great wise man who understands what Clark needs and is even willing to sacrifice his life for it, but he just comes of as a suicidal idiot. It TRIES to paint Superman killing Zod as some great moment of character development but they forgot to establish WHY this Superman would have a massive problem with killing one to save many others, and they outright ignored to show him DEALING with this thing that was supposed to a huge trauma for him. A few seconds of seeing him sob in Luis' arms and then in the next scene he is fine. It also has a huge problem with tone as it keeps TALKING about how Superman is meant to be this symbol of hope that will lead humanity to greatness by example, but the tone shits all over that by having Superman brood all the fucking time. If they want to take the character in another direction then fine, but when you have a movie that SAYS it is about one things but puts something completely different on screen, you just have a bad movie. Then there are just the technical flaws like an annoying shaky-cam in scenes that absolutely doesn't need them, really clunky and awkward dialogue and characters that just act outright idiotically at times. Having characters who brood all the time or quotes famous texts doesn't make a movie deep. Unless they also back it up and make it MEAN something it just makes it pretentious.

"Avengers" on the other hand, doesn't try for anything particularly thought-provoking, but it does everything right as far as screenplay and general filmmaking does. The dialogue it fun and matches the characters perfectly, the cast has killer chemistry and every single scene whether it is action or dialogue is perfectly paced and acted. THAT is why it is a better movie overall, because it knows exactly what it wants to be and therefore it can take a simple plot and bring it to the big screen almost flawlessly. "Man of Steel" is a movie with some big ideas but no idea whatsoever about what it really wants to be, and so it falls flat in execution.

That's right Moviebob irrationally hate some more, feed me your fanboy hatred and rage. It only makes me stronger!

OT: In all seriousness maybe you should just let the movie go. It's only going to make you miserable and cause your heart rate to go up and that's bad for you.

Strazdas:
We are saying that once he [expressed his opinion], he could move on to other subjects instead of repeating it constantly. We already know his opinion: He already said it. How about moving on?

And I'm saying, why are any of the above statements somehow more applicable to Mr. Chipman than to his detractors?

Silverspetz:

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 it doesn't do a vary good job of it. It TRIES to be more thought provoking but falls flat every time. It TRIES to paint Jonathan Kent as some great wise man who understands what Clark needs and is even willing to sacrifice his life for it, but he just comes of as a suicidal idiot. It TRIES to paint Superman killing Zod as some great moment of character development but they forgot to establish WHY this Superman would have a massive problem with killing one to save many others, and they outright ignored to show him DEALING with this thing that was supposed to a huge trauma for him. A few seconds of seeing him sob in Luis' arms and then in the next scene he is fine. It also has a huge problem with tone as it keeps TALKING about how Superman is meant to be this symbol of hope that will lead humanity to greatness by example, but the tone shits all over that by having Superman brood all the fucking time. If they want to take the character in another direction then fine, but when you have a movie that SAYS it is about one things but puts something completely different on screen, you just have a bad movie. Then there are just the technical flaws like an annoying shaky-cam in scenes that absolutely doesn't need them, really clunky and awkward dialogue and characters that just act outright idiotically at times. Having characters who brood all the time or quotes famous texts doesn't make a movie deep. Unless they also back it up and make it MEAN something it just makes it pretentious.

"Avengers" on the other hand, doesn't try for anything particularly thought-provoking, but it does everything right as far as screenplay and general filmmaking does. The dialogue it fun and matches the characters perfectly, the cast has killer chemistry and every single scene whether it is action or dialogue is perfectly paced and acted. THAT is why it is a better movie overall, because it knows exactly what it wants to be and therefore it can take a simple plot and bring it to the big screen almost flawlessly. "Man of Steel" is a movie with some big ideas but no idea whatsoever about what it really wants to be, and so it falls flat in execution.

It didn't paint Jonathan Kent as a wise man, just a dad trying to do the right thing as his son.

Superman killing Zod is a great character development. He'd just killed the only other member of his race, and he killed someone. This was a gentle farm boy, I'm pretty sure if you had to kill someone you'd be pretty traumatised. I'm sure this will be character development in the next film. No one knocks TDK for Batman killing Two-Face then having no character development afterwards.

Superman was inspiring to me at least, but yeah that's just personal opinion.

Superman didn't brood at all. He's nothing like Batman in TDK trilogy who was a very broody character.

Avengers was forgettable although enjoyable. Man of Steel I loved so much that I've got it pre-ordered on DVD, but it's all opinion I guess, you prefer bubblegum fanboy crap, I prefer Man of Steel.

Too many episodes of this series do not deserve "...and that's the Big Picture" at the end. Because it isn't. This has became increasingly alike an appendix for the other show rather than an exploration of macro issues surrounding pop culture it set out to be.

Agree with most of what was said, I liked the film, didn't love it, mainly due to the fact Superman must have killed THOUSANDS by the time the end fight was done and yet it was that little family that drove him to kill Zod. I mean; WHAT?

I don't, however, agree that Star Trek 2 was a terrible movie. It had some awful pointless parts but overall it was interesting, fun and visually stunning to watch.

IronMit:

I just rewatched a few scenes from the film. Zod says his been preparing for 33 years give or take until Clark conveniently activated the distress beacon on that ship in the ice.
How old was that ship in the ice? hundred? thousands of years? it was at least hundreds .They mentioned it- can't remember exactly.

So this spacefaring species of at least hundreds of years of experience that has many off world colonies, didn't make them self sustaining? They made world engines to teraform planets to make them habitable. Because transporting food across planets is the dumbest thing you could do. They have so many world engines Zod finds one lying around. Yet everyone is dead.

This is what you call a contrivance. The needed Zod to get his hands on a 'world engine' and weapons when he escaped prison, so they made up some rubbish about off world colonies that all conveniently died out in 1-3 decades but left a working world engine. Eventhough none of that makes sense.

There are small plotholes in movies like ' why didn't a character just do this', but this one is the foundation of everything that happens in the movie.

Those colonies were terraformed, but is possible that in the long run those colonies couldn't self sustain themselves due to there being too much of a difference between characteristics of the planet's original state and the environment they tried to create.

As a result they couldn't produce enough food or resources necessary to survive and relied on Krypton for help. Krypton provides help at first hooping that the colonies will eventually sort themselves out but as time goes on Krypton's own resources become strained and they abandon the colonies.

Just because they made a planet habitable it doesn't mean that something didn't go wrong with the planet's environment as time went on. From what I understand there is a limit to how far you can change the characteristics of a planet. If I remember correctly Earth resembled Krypton more than any other planet Zod knew of and therefore had the best chance of being terraformed and being sustainable in the long run.

Now granted I will admit that if Krypton did indeed have hundreds of these colonies at one point then it is a stretch to say that out of a hundred not one of these planets was suitable enough to sustain the habitable environment created by the terraforming process. It also kinda makes them seem incredibly incompetent.

Also, did Zod know the exact location of all the colonies or did he just come across the ones in his travels by chance?

endtherapture:

Silverspetz:

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 it doesn't do a vary good job of it. It TRIES to be more thought provoking but falls flat every time. It TRIES to paint Jonathan Kent as some great wise man who understands what Clark needs and is even willing to sacrifice his life for it, but he just comes of as a suicidal idiot. It TRIES to paint Superman killing Zod as some great moment of character development but they forgot to establish WHY this Superman would have a massive problem with killing one to save many others, and they outright ignored to show him DEALING with this thing that was supposed to a huge trauma for him. A few seconds of seeing him sob in Luis' arms and then in the next scene he is fine. It also has a huge problem with tone as it keeps TALKING about how Superman is meant to be this symbol of hope that will lead humanity to greatness by example, but the tone shits all over that by having Superman brood all the fucking time. If they want to take the character in another direction then fine, but when you have a movie that SAYS it is about one things but puts something completely different on screen, you just have a bad movie. Then there are just the technical flaws like an annoying shaky-cam in scenes that absolutely doesn't need them, really clunky and awkward dialogue and characters that just act outright idiotically at times. Having characters who brood all the time or quotes famous texts doesn't make a movie deep. Unless they also back it up and make it MEAN something it just makes it pretentious.

"Avengers" on the other hand, doesn't try for anything particularly thought-provoking, but it does everything right as far as screenplay and general filmmaking does. The dialogue it fun and matches the characters perfectly, the cast has killer chemistry and every single scene whether it is action or dialogue is perfectly paced and acted. THAT is why it is a better movie overall, because it knows exactly what it wants to be and therefore it can take a simple plot and bring it to the big screen almost flawlessly. "Man of Steel" is a movie with some big ideas but no idea whatsoever about what it really wants to be, and so it falls flat in execution.

It didn't paint Jonathan Kent as a wise man, just a dad trying to do the right thing as his son.

Superman killing Zod is a great character development. He'd just killed the only other member of his race, and he killed someone. This was a gentle farm boy, I'm pretty sure if you had to kill someone you'd be pretty traumatised. I'm sure this will be character development in the next film. No one knocks TDK for Batman killing Two-Face then having no character development afterwards.

Superman was inspiring to me at least, but yeah that's just personal opinion.

Superman didn't brood at all. He's nothing like Batman in TDK trilogy who was a very broody character.

Avengers was forgettable although enjoyable. Man of Steel I loved so much that I've got it pre-ordered on DVD, but it's all opinion I guess, you prefer bubblegum fanboy crap, I prefer Man of Steel.

1)And he still went about it in a way that made him look like a suicidal idiot.

2)Those are all reasons YOU came up with. The movie did nothing to establish either of them. Yes, Zod was the last member of his race, but the movie never established that this Superman put any particular value in that, and he didn't seem very torn up about all the other Kryptonians he just got rid of either so it is not a valid reason. And yes, he was a farm-boy and killing someone is a pretty big deal, but the movie never took the time to establish that he had been raised to believe that killing someone for any reason is always wrong so making it out to be some HUGE upset of his values doesn't work as a moment of character development. Because they never took the time to establish what his values ARE.

3)Furthermore, saying that "it will be brought up in the next movie" isn't an excuse at all. A movie needs to stand on it's own and a major upset like this isn't something you can just leave for the next movie. Not only that but the movie DOESN'T set this up like it will be important in the sequel. It doesn't end with Clark being conflicted about what he did to Zod, it just shows him sobbing for a second and then he is acting just like he did in the rest of the movie. The whole thing just comes and goes with no buildup and no payoff, and thus it lacks all the weight it pretends it had.

4)And for God's sake stop using "but this movie did it" as an excuse. Lilani is right it just makes it seem like you have no argument so you try to distract everyone instead. Even if you WERE right about it (and you are not) it wouldn't be an excuse for MoS to do it when it doesn't work. And like I said, you aren't right on that point either because TDK DID take it's time to A) Establish what Bruce sees in Harvey and why it is so important to save him, and B) Show the aftereffects of failing to save him by having Bruce take on the blame for what he did in order to preserve Harvey's reputation and legacy. (Even though that was stupid since they could have just blamed it on the Joker.)

5)Good for you. Me I find it hard to be inspired by a lot of Grey and melodrama.

6)"I believed in it so much that I let my father die"
If that isn't brooding then I don't know what is.

7)What I prefer is a diverse visual aesthetic, characters that are likable, funny, multi-layered without being pretentious, well-acted and have believable character arcs, action that is fast-paced and exciting without being blurry and painful for the eyes, and a director that LOVES what he is adapting rather than ashamed of it. You prefer Man of Steel.

Let's make this clear. You can have whatever opinion you damn well want. It is perfectly fine if you like this movie, but some opinions are more grounded in fact than others. And the facts are that MoS is a VERY flawed movie from a cinematic standpoint. Not really all that bad, but flawed and nowhere near as deep as you make it out to be. If you want to like it more than The Avengers, that's perfectly OK. If you want to claim that it is an objectively better movie than The Avengers, you better start coming up with better arguments than trying to brush of MoS's faults by claiming that better movies have made the same mistakes as if that was even relevant, or using your own headcanon as if they were established parts of the movie.

Silverspetz:
snip

All I'm going to say its that it's cool when you have to extrapolate, use your head a bit, and the film doesn't spoon feed you things. I don't need to know every thought in Superman's head to know what he's feeling. I don't need to be shown everything. You obviously do so this isn't the film for you with it's non-linearity. Nothing wrong with that, but it wasn't a bad film just because it required a bit of thought and subtlety in it.

I see Avengers series as fun, brainless films you can have a laugh watching.

Hopefully DC will go for a tone similar to MoS with more gravitas and seriousness, with inspiring moments.

That's cool with me, there's room for 2 franchises.

Man of Steel isn't a bad movie as you keep saying. The score was great, the acting was great, the action was flawless, the visuals and art style was great, so tone back your fanboy rage just because it wasn't the exact adaptation of Superman you wanted.

Zetatrain:

Snip

This is mind gymnastics to justify all the randomness just so Zod would find a 'World engine' lying around.
If you have off world colonies and a device that converts planet cores in seconds then synthesising if not growing food is a peace of cake. We can do it already in the present

Whats with all the references to Superman 4 and it being a bad movie? That was one of the better ones IMHO. I'd like someone to tell me whats wrong with that movie.

Primus1985:
I'd like someone to tell me what's wrong with that movie.

The love triangle was completely baseless; the villain fought with silver, Lee press-on nails; the moral of the story is that war happens because people don't wish hard enough that it won't; Superman gains powers at a whim, such as the ability to shoot rays from his eyes that cause bricks to appear in the Great Wall of China; there's a shot-for-shot remake of the flying over Metropolis scene from the first movie; and there's a scene in which the villain flies a human woman through space to the moon, none of which adversely affects her.

EDIT: Oh, and Jon Cryer is in it.

endtherapture:

Avengers was forgettable although enjoyable. Man of Steel I loved so much that I've got it pre-ordered on DVD, but it's all opinion I guess, you prefer bubblegum fanboy crap, I prefer Man of Steel.

image

Since when is a comic book movie that's okay with being a comic book movie and having fun with it's premise "bubblegum fanboy crap"?

Seriously, any movie that isn't about a mopey depressed guy sitting around is now "bubblegum"? Does bubblegum still mean what I think it means?

endtherapture:

Silverspetz:
snip

Man of Steel isn't a bad movie as you keep saying. The score was great, the acting was great, the action was flawless, the visuals and art style was great, so tone back your fanboy rage just because it wasn't the exact adaptation of Superman you wanted.

Let's see:

1) The score was great
- That much I'll agree with, though it gets a little repetitious. Hans Zimmer rarely disappoints.

2) The acting was great.
- For severely undeveloped characters, I'd agree.

3) The action was flawless
- No. No, no, NO.
The first moments of the action were great. Then it went on and on and on. Super-powered people who punch each other without really hurting each other gets old very quickly. And the rest of the action sequences might have had more impact if we actually cared about most of the characters involved.

4) The visuals and art style was great.
- I don't dispute the visuals, though if you like your movies gray and gray this movie was a real winner. But visuals don't make up for:

A) Poor storytelling

B) A lack of emotional connection with the characters

Avengers (a movie you keep bashing) did EXACTLY what it needed to do. This movie did fine on the visceral element, but so did the Transformers movies (you know, the one where the main character is pretty much a blank slate for the movie's target demographic). MoS falters big time on the things that matter the most. It isn't deep at all - it wants you to think it is, but there's no follow-through. There's no connection. It teases you with actual dramatic meat, then gives you empty calories. It is a consummate disappointment.

So YOU can tone down your fanboy fawning because it's not the great movie you say it is.

Or we can agree to disagree.

I'm as heartbroken and disappointed as Bob with a big splash of rage. This movie just did not do right by Superman and failed to capture the essence of him completely. That ending was the closest I ever gotten to screaming at the screen. Unfortunately it's only going to get worse from here on.

The Dubya:

That's the thing though...

You and everyone else making the kind of complaints JimB are making aren't making "criticisms" of the actual content in the video. All you're doing is going "stop talking about this subject immediately" over and over just because he's talked about it at length, what, three times (one ETTM/two Big Pictures)? And all 3 were different; ETTM gave it more or less a positive review, Man Of Tom morrow speculated sequel opportunities, and this one was a more critical re-evaluation of a movie that even in the ETTM review he was REALLY trying to convince himself he liked (because opinions ARE allowed to change, ya know).

But of course in the age of hyperbole, everyone pretends like it's been 2/3 straight months of nothing but MOS Big Picture episodes....

Stretch out that attention span a little bit and relax already. He brings up an older movie to make a point about something else sometimes, that's it. Focus on what he's saying in terms of (for a lack of a better term) the Big Picture rather than isolate and nitpick his namedropping of a movie that apparently according to Internet rules we aren't allowed to talk about more than a week after it came out.

Yes, we did criticize the content - his Man of steel repeated hate, that lasted more than 3 episodes, because we do count the episodes where this wasn't the main theme but was still repeated, sort of similarly like how he pushes his book at the end of every movie. Yes, opinions can change, does not mean he must tell us every time he does that.
Yes, we criticize the subject of his videos, not the content, because we disagree with the need to have same subject in multiple videos. Like i said, it is his choice what he makes of this diasgreement, we didnt tell him were going to kill him for it or anything, merely that we did not enjoy him talking about this subject again.
Its not about attention span, its about repetition, we want to hear his though on a different matter in his videos, not the same matter multiple times, hence the comments.
a criticism of the video matter is still criticism.

Capcha: narrow-minded
What, capcha, you going to argue with me too?

JimB:

Strazdas:
We are saying that once he [expressed his opinion], he could move on to other subjects instead of repeating it constantly. We already know his opinion: He already said it. How about moving on?

And I'm saying, why are any of the above statements somehow more applicable to Mr. Chipman than to his detractors?

Becuase he is trying to make a show that he wants other people to watch and listen, wheras the commenters arent making a show that they want to be popular and others to listen to. they are only providing criticizm about the show, which is meant for Chipman and not made to attract readers. the context matters.

Opinions about the the movie over all aside, I have a gripe that I want to blare out in public. Character development in Man of Steel was bad, Lois Lane in particular. The movie tried to hype her appearance, "tried" being in quotes, but they went about this like elementary children. I be the only one here who feels this way but it felt like the movie really wanted to make it clear that Lois Lane was going be this "strong" female protagonist, so they put her in a five minute scene with some suits and made her say a naughty word. Then as soon as that scene was over she acted like a fair damsel for the rest of the goddamn movie. *sobs* All I want is some clear character arcs. *sobs*

 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