The Big Picture: The Big Letdown
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.HemalJB said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.endtherapture said:
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...
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.Calibanbutcher said:
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.IronMit said:
No star trek: into the darkness is this years Amazing SpidermanVivi22 said:
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.
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.
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.Spot1990 said:
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.
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.
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.
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).undeadsuitor said:
Disclosure: I haven't seen Man of Steel
I don't know if others found the Jesus[footnote]More generally a redeemer of a decaying human society.[/footnote] 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 [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305]. 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 [footnote]Supermans: plural of the Superman character, contrast to supermen, plural of dudes with Superman-like powers, but not necessarily the character.[/footnote] 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 disagree [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYouAreInTheDark].[/footnote]. It's just as valid to ask What Would Superman Do?, as it is WWJD?.[footnote]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.[/footnote] 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
I don't know if others found the Jesus[footnote]More generally a redeemer of a decaying human society.[/footnote] 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 [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305]. 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 [footnote]Supermans: plural of the Superman character, contrast to supermen, plural of dudes with Superman-like powers, but not necessarily the character.[/footnote] 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 disagree [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYouAreInTheDark].[/footnote]. It's just as valid to ask What Would Superman Do?, as it is WWJD?.[footnote]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.[/footnote] 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