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:
The Big Picture: The Big Letdown
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
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
I still have to disagree, in a way.MovieBob said:
I'm not disappointed by this movie, because I don't view it as done badly. I view it as incomplete. And I think that's by design.
Most Superman movies, or superhero movies for that matter, try to get the origin story done in the first movie. The second movie then "challenges everything we know" about that hero, and the third movie is some big showdown that firmly establishes our hero's supremacy after his "greatest challenge ever." (And then the greedy fourth movie does something stupid and ridiculous)
In this case, though, I think the folks behind this movie recognize that Superman large is origin story. After he's established, everything is either just "being Superman," or it's outlandish attempts to provide believable threats to the guy who has all the superpowers. So, with that in mind, I think they're eschewing the traditional trilogy structure.
I think what we're getting is a three-part origin story. It's not super interesting to watch Superman spend two movies just... being Superman. Being super strong and super noble and super kind and super "good." He's boring at that point. Yet all the Superman material seems to rush to that point -- "Yeah, yeah, Krypton, farm, Metropolis, SUPERMAN!!!"
We're being given a longer, more detailed view of how Superman became those things. In this first movie, we're seeing the first few parts of Joseph Campbell's monomyth, the Departure: the call and the refusal, as Clark wrestles with hiding his powers and avoiding the world... while secretly saving it here and there.
And then we see the "supernatural aid" step, when he begins to dig up information about his past. This leads to the "crossing the first threshold" phase, when he reveals himself and steps up to fight Zod... but then we find ourselves in the "belly of the whale" phase -- something occurs that is going to set Clark (now Superman) up for his metamorphosis. He kills Zod.
Superman doesn't kill. Not the Superman we know now. It's just a thing he doesn't do, because... reasons. Well, now we're seeing deeper into that. He doesn't kill, because he did once, and it happened to be one of the last surviving members of his entire species, and it's a burden he carries with them.
Superman is, at least in large part, a set of principles with a set of powers. Usually, the powers get all the focus and the principles are just assumed. Now we're getting to see him earn those principles, and the conviction that would make them truly super principles.
And that's all. That's where we're left at the end of this movie -- Superman is ready for the next phase, but not entering it yet. He isn't entirely Superman yet, as his origin story is not yet complete. This isn't like the Dark Knight Trilogy -- the rise and fall of a hero. This is just an extended rise. Give it time.
I definitely agree with Bob, while their were "elements" and "parts" of this movie I really enjoyed they were all the superficial "this looks cool" stuff and almost nothing regarding story, characters, plot, dialogue, whatever was done in anyway that was competent. This wasn't a SuperMan movie, it was gloomy angry man fights other gloomy angry man the movie. It's DragonballZ without the heart, PowerRangers without the camp. A big cgi and special effects budget doesn't make up for complete failure in all other departments. The bayformer movies demonstrate this better than any other modern big budget movie series and I'd easily throw man o stupid in to their category as well. A film based on material it doesn't understand at all with a cynical awful opinion of its various elements and not caring at all for what made it good.
I usually agree with Bob. However, not this time. I no longer care for its surely by now written in stone that impossible princess fanboys will never be pleased, so next time DC just don't bother doing any movies. Like a film one minute, dislike it the next because it misses your high expectations up on your Superman cloud. You know what, most of the people who watched MoS, didn't give two f**ks about comic book bs minutiae, they just wanted to be entertained and that's what many got.
Don't know about others but I enjoyed MoS. It filled the summer nicely for me alongside Pacific Rim. The DBZ style fights were cool and great referencing, since DBZ is nothing but a japanese retelling of Superman/Journey to the East tale anyway. Why do people find it so hard to just kick back and enjoy a film, than questioning and nitpicking? Its all this same bs fanboy nitpicking that's also winding up the Ben Affleck/Batman stuff. Kinda sick of it all.
Sometimes, fans of anything can whine and moan too much. Get the crows out to pick at the carcass, that we all built up and fattened up in MoS before the kill. If that's the case, then we never deserved MoS being made at all. You want it your way, then go shoot and make your own Superman films.
Perhaps its also a case of DC comic fans abuse with stories, over many years that got some so bitter, that anything different than their Superman ideal feels like nothing they can adjust to.
Don't know about others but I enjoyed MoS. It filled the summer nicely for me alongside Pacific Rim. The DBZ style fights were cool and great referencing, since DBZ is nothing but a japanese retelling of Superman/Journey to the East tale anyway. Why do people find it so hard to just kick back and enjoy a film, than questioning and nitpicking? Its all this same bs fanboy nitpicking that's also winding up the Ben Affleck/Batman stuff. Kinda sick of it all.
Sometimes, fans of anything can whine and moan too much. Get the crows out to pick at the carcass, that we all built up and fattened up in MoS before the kill. If that's the case, then we never deserved MoS being made at all. You want it your way, then go shoot and make your own Superman films.
Perhaps its also a case of DC comic fans abuse with stories, over many years that got some so bitter, that anything different than their Superman ideal feels like nothing they can adjust to.
Because maybe you want to expose yourself to some opinions that differ from your own, to see where other people are coming from. Even though somebody like Bob may be totally wrong about the recent Star Trek movies (Bob is totally wrong about the recent Star Trek movies) it's still interesting to find our why they're wrong. Also, wouldn't going into a pizza eatery and then complaining about the lack of chinese food be more akin to watching an opinion filled video such as this and then complaining that Bob didn't spend enough time talking about the supercontinents? I know when I go into a video about why a particular film is lacking (also wahjjabramsisruiningeverythingwah) I'm gong to be sorely disappointed if I don't get the potted history of Earths continental drift.Spot1990 said:
I liked the film, I know it has some problems, but it was an origin film and I have found most of them have trouble finding their feet. In the next film, if they have him learn from his mistakes in the first, then you could have a really good sequel.
Him killing Zod seemed like something painful to him, the battle was long and hard against a foe who was trained to be a fighter as well. I get the impression he felt it was either kill him or he'd lose due to exhaustion, that family would die and then he probably would have too.
Decent episode, but I will admit I was kind of hoping for a new topic this week. You've talked about this flick enough I think. If you dedicate another episode or article about it, you'll officially be beating a dead horse methinks.
Batman and Superman movies live and die not on Batman or Superman, but on their villains. And Zod was absolutely fantastic in Man of Steel. If Superman wasn't quite what you wanted - who cares? In these films, it's the bad guy.
This is in complete contrast to, say, the Iron Man movies, where the main character is interesting and the only villain worth mentioning was a red herring.
This is in complete contrast to, say, the Iron Man movies, where the main character is interesting and the only villain worth mentioning was a red herring.