The Big Picture: The Big Letdown

[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.

 

[IronMit]

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?

 

[Dunesen]

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.

 

[Gone Rampant]

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).

 

[IronMit]

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.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

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?

 

[Taronus]

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.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

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.

 

[Mahoshonen]

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

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.

 

[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:

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?

Spoiler: Spoilerific spoiling spoilers

Spoiler: seriously, this is going to spoil some of Iron Man 3's story, so turn back now if you intend to go see it any time soon

Ok, let's start:
First of: The "big shocking twisty twist of twisting proportions that will get people mad": As far as I can tell, Bob was referring to the Mandarin not being the one in charge but a mere puppet strung up by the "real mastermind".
SO basically the very same twist "The Dark Knight Rises" did. Only this time you see it coming from a mile away.
Heck, from ten miles away, blaring obnoxious music to announce it's arrival.

Was it shocking?

I saw this coming from a mile away, so it wasn't a shocking twist. Imho the last Batman executed the very same twist much better.

Was I OUTRAGED?

Nope. It seemed pretty clear that the Mandarin was not supposed to be the main antagonist, so there was no outrage.

Was I dissapointed?

A little. I know very little about comic books, but I know that the "real" mandarin uses magic, and to me "magic" would have been a much nicer addition to the movie than "sciencey-stuff so soft you can spread it on a croissant"-explanation we get for how and why stuff happens.

Second:
The action sequences: I really didn't like most of the action sequences. It seemed to me that they tried very hard to do some Avengers-style action sequence, but as far as I am concerned, they failed. Sure, there were lots of explosions and lots of stuff going on on the screen, but ultimately none of it was even close to being exciting or suspenseful.
As far as I am concerned, the best word to describe most of the final action sequence would be "bland".
And I was always acutely aware that most everything shown on screen was CGI.
I also disliked how they ended the main villain, having mutant-Pepper save Tony Stark from mutant-Guy-Pearce was not something I wanted in my IRON MAN movie.
If I had wanted to watch two lava-mutants duke it out, I would have gone seek a movie called "ULTIMATE-EXTREME-lava-mutant-cage-match-XX-2000".
But I didn't. I wanted to watch an Iron Man movie, and I fully expected to get to see Iron Man kick some serious ass and spout cool one-liners whilst doing so.
What did I get?
Iron Man getting dominated time and time again, having his suit destroyed like it ain't no thing and him running away.

And in the end, Mutant-Pepper has to save the day, killing the bad guy with an explosion.

Right after Iron Man blew the guy up, which miraculously failed to kill him.

That was not a satisfactory way to kill the guy.

Iron Man's last one liner? "I got nothing".
Now that's just adding insult to injury.


Third:
Ending Iron Man's story:
Wasn't it established in the first movie that they couldn't operate on Tony Starks heart because he wouldn't survive the procedure or something along those lines?
Well this movie said FUCK YOU to that and had him undergo surgery to apparently remove all the shrapnel etc.
Makes you wonder why he didn't just do that right the fuck after getting back to America.
Hell, if that was possible, why wasn't he all like:
"It's good to be back in the good ol' US of A. Now, someone get me a burger. And then I am gonna have me some real american open-fucking-heart surgery." in the first movie?
Did he just forget about his chest full of metal shards?
Was he too busy boning supermodels to schedule an appointment?
Was the night-light built in his damn chest just too convenient?

Fourth:
The "Iron Man-Prototype-suit failing" bit got old way too fast. As in:
It felt old the first time they used it and from then on out it continued to get worse and worse.

Fifth: The villain sucked. His motivation sucked and his plan sucked. However, Guy Pearce made such a great job potraying the guy that I still found him very enjoyable.

 

[Gatx]

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.

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.

 

[Jandau]

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...

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

*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.

 

[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.

 

[tdylan]

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.

 

[gjkbgt]

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?

 

[caballitomalo]

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.