My memory is a bit fuzzy on the subject,but wasn't it explained that the reason those colonies were abandoned so long ago was because they didn't have the resources to self-sustain themselves (lack of resources and food)?IronMit said:
The Big Picture: The Big Letdown
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
This is getting really old, Bob. I know you don't like the all movies, you say so in your reviews. But making video after video where you keep bashing those movies? That's just petty bitterness.
Not that you care, but I'm really starting to lose respect for you, not personally ofcourse, but as a professional reviewer. Go review some new movies instead, please.
oh and by the way:
Man of steel: Loved it!
Pacific rim: Boring trash. Talk about missed opportunities.
Avengers: Shallow, boring trash.
Dark knight: Fell asleep.
Amazing spiderman: Haven't seen it, but since you just can't stop complaining about it, i might just have to.
Not that you care, but I'm really starting to lose respect for you, not personally ofcourse, but as a professional reviewer. Go review some new movies instead, please.
oh and by the way:
Man of steel: Loved it!
Pacific rim: Boring trash. Talk about missed opportunities.
Avengers: Shallow, boring trash.
Dark knight: Fell asleep.
Amazing spiderman: Haven't seen it, but since you just can't stop complaining about it, i might just have to.
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.Zetatrain said:
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.
Movie Bob, as always saying that changing comic book films for a wider audience as a negative thing. The problem with comic books is they are too out of touch and too retarded. For comic book fans, it's okay. However, when DC seems to do things like make light of suicide at the beginning of Suicide Awareness Month, it really is a sign of just how out of touch with reality the company is. Once you start getting into the writing of the comic it's self, the more out of touch they really are. For comic book fans, the various hi-jinks comic book companies do is completely fine and the wackiness and insanity of the writing is dandy. For everyone else, it's likely just a bit too much. So for a film to have anything resembling a budget, they do have to adapt that for the wider audience. Otherwise, it just simply wouldn't get touched and would go down as a controversy vehicle.
Seriously, people have to start admitting there are core problems with comics. There are core problems with everything, just the realisation that comic books are not the exception and noticing what these problems are is important for some sense of progression. At the very least, knowing it is able to put reviews in a different light. Comic books will barely ever be true to their source material, because doing that would get at least someone fired.
Seriously, people have to start admitting there are core problems with comics. There are core problems with everything, just the realisation that comic books are not the exception and noticing what these problems are is important for some sense of progression. At the very least, knowing it is able to put reviews in a different light. Comic books will barely ever be true to their source material, because doing that would get at least someone fired.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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!"
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.Strazdas said:
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?JimB said:
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.endtherapture said:
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.
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.
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.
I know. And you should too if you had read the rest of my post. Here, let me copy paste that for you:Lilani said:
"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.Sejborg said:
You just keep reading whatever you please, don't you? Here let me help you once again. I said:Lilani 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.Sejborg said:
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.
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.