Does anyone who complains about this film actually watch it?
Clark Kent at 13: I just wanted to help.
Jonathan Kent: I know you did, but we talked about this. Right? Right? We talked about this! You have...!
[calms himself]
Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.
Clark Kent at 13: Why?
Jonathan Kent: People are afraid of what they don't understand.
Which is what he did when he took the fight into outer space. Plus, let?s be honest, with how Superman fans are, they?d still ***** about this because in their eyes, Superman can do no wrong. Never mind that the fight in MoS is actually fairly typical for superheroes fighting alone, including Superman.
Those are shitty emotions for a superman movie that barfs out "the S means Hope" repeatedly over the movie.
Calling him miserable throughout the movie is yet more hyperbole. Contrary to what the Internet says, not smiling 24/7 like a clown being paid by the hour does not equal misery.
When Superman throws Zod into more buildings, he's contributing.
So why don?t other versions of Superman who do this get anywhere near this much flak? Look up ?world of cardboard? speech on YouTube just for an example. Hell, Scarlet Witch deliberately sicced the Hulk on a populated area in AoU and no one had anything to say about her joining the Avengers later.
Btw, here?s the actual fight. At no point does Superman throw Zod into any buildings. It?s actually the other way around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNU0A7yz7IM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Y0OA8GRGc
My favorite is when an oil truck gets nudged toward Supes and he just calmly flies over it to let it exlode against the building behind him. Or when he picks up that one giant Kryptonian dude and deliberately punches him into a trainyard, exploding the surrounding area (note how before that fight started he advised everyone to stay indoors). Or when he goes for Zod at his home instead of flying his mother out of there to safety and not leaving her alone with the other Kryptonians. And ofcourse, when he eye-blasts that final ship and lets it crash into numerous buildings that likely have people trapped in them due to the previous terraforming disaster.
Man of Steel was a poor Superman movie that miraculously also had an actor who should have been the greatest Superman since Reeve. Unfortunately it was largely botched.
Sure, why not. Expectations are at a record low for a Batman casting after the Snyder debacle. The vocal but tiny minority of Snyderverse fans will wail and wail (like they have been since the disaster that was MoS) But for the vast majority any new actor cast and Batman story told will be an improvement provided he doesn't walk out of the batcave and promptly soil his bat-armor. Feelings toward the franchise are such at the moment that you could tell me that Nick Frost was in talks for being the new batman and I'd say "could be worse, he was awesome in Into the Badlands, let's see what he's got" and give it a thumbs up.
Sure, why not. Expectations are at a record low for a Batman casting after the Snyder debacle. The vocal but tiny minority of Snyderverse fans will wail and wail (like they have been since the disaster that was MoS) But for the vast majority any new actor cast and Batman story told will be an improvement provided he doesn't walk out of the batcave and promptly soil his bat-armor. Feelings toward the franchise are such at the moment that you could tell me that Nick Frost was in talks for being the new batman and I'd say "could be worse, he was awesome in Into the Badlands, let's see what he's got" and give it a thumbs up.
I dunno. Why am I expected to watch a movie with a boyscout hero that's invincible and infalliable, and be expected to thank the writers for the 'privilige?'
I dunno. Why am I expected to watch a movie with a boyscout hero that's invincible and infalliable, and be expected to thank the writers for the 'privilige?'
Because he isn't infalliable - the totality of many objections to it is that he isn't infalliable.
And while he's technically invincible, the film at least does a good job of conveying that saving the Earth isn't a cakewalk, given the kryptonians' technology (or in the case of Zod, biology).
Are people who enjoy MoS incapable of even imagining tight, character driven narratives?
When you start off with the absurd claim that "Superman does not give a fuck" (let's forget the very first time we see him in the film is him saving people, among other things), you're already framing the conversation in extremes. I'm just responding to them.
I think what makes Man of Steel 'grimdark' is the fact that civilians actually died as a result of the destruction and weren't magically saved by the heroes.
I think a good part of it is actually a trick of visual design. The film is heavily desaturated, literally draining the color and vibrancy out of the movie. It's something that you don't necessarily recognize immediately, but it's a technique that's used explicitly because we don't need to recognize it to be affected by it. That said, it's easiest to recognize with an obvious contrast. Take for instance the Matrix. In every scene (up until the last one in the final movie) within the eponymous program, everything has a distinct green tint. It's sickly, it's claustrophobic, and it's representative of both the artificial nature of the Matrix's reality and the oppressive influence of the machine antagonists.
Limitless also employs a similar contrast. When the focal character is off NZT the colors are muted, but when they're on it everything brightens up, the colors become more vivid. And that's not just a visual shorthand. It affects how we figuratively view the scene.
To put it directly: Vivid colors energize and excite, desaturation drains and depresses. And let's take a look at Man of Steel for a moment.
Pictured above: On set, and in film.
Or to give a broader example, see here. There's no difference between the upper and lower footage outside of color, but the lower footage just feels so much more energetic and optimistic. Hence again my point that the choice to desaturate the film might be a major contributing factor to the perception of the film as 'grimdark'.
IF the option is only Grimdark Seriousness or Goofy Quips and Lighthearted Irreverence, I choose the former. Because I take the idea of being a Superhero seriously. The whole with Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. It mabye be Grimdark but I can stomach grimdark stupidity better then what I saw in Shazam.
I just want the first half of Superman 1978 again. I want sweeping epic Orchestral Scores. I want it to FEEL heroic. I want this again:
I just realized at least from the articles I've read he's been cast as Batman, and people just assume he's also been cast as Bruce Wayne. But what if he's been cast as Terry McGuiness in a Batman Beyond movie?
Let's not forget how people raged about Heath Ledger getting the role of Joker in The Dark Knight.
Honestly, a lot of people tend to jump the gun when it comes to assuming who'll do badly, based on the movie they're in. Not the guy's fault he starred in a terrible movie, Twilight and so on. Give him a chance and judge his performance in the movie he's going to be in.
Let's not forget how people raged about Heath Ledger getting the role of Joker in The Dark Knight.
Honestly, a lot of people tend to jump the gun when it comes to assuming who'll do badly, based on the movie they're in. Not the guy's fault he starred in a terrible movie, Twilight and so on. Give him a chance and judge his performance in the movie he's going to be in.
When Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine, lots of fans objected. Too tall and good-looking, they said. Superhero casting is rife with picks that ended up subverting everyone's expectations. I wonder how many of those detractors are now saying Wolverine can't be recast because they feel no one can fill Jackman's shoes.
I think Pattison can do fine. But like you said, it might not be entirely up to him. Even the best actors can't save a crappy script or poor direction, but I've seen some of his post-Twilight work so I know he at least has real chops. So does Affleck btw. They're kind of similar in that respect, if you ask me. Both fine actors who are best known for roles in bad movies.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
