Man of Steel (There Be Spoilers)

[houtex]

Oh, now that I can explain.

Iron Man is fun.  It doesn't take itself terribly seriously.  They *know* it's a comic book, and just go with it.

Whereas this Superman and Nolanverse Batman wants to go with the nitty gritty "No, really, this could be real and such."

Which is nifty to watch once in a theatre, but not twice.  Excepting The Dark Knight, and THAT, friends, was due to Heath Ledger being completely, utterly awesome beyond words with his Joker, not Christian Bale and his Batman, nor Two Face.  Nope.  All about the Joker.

Ditto with Iron Man, you just.. can't help it, you WANT to see RDJ be all bad ass and overly cocky.  He IS Iron Man.  Born for that part.  And he is goood at it.

/Hell, I wanna go see IM3 tomorrow now. :)
//Just watched Avengers again a couple of nights ago on Netflix... no reason.  It showed up and I said... "IMMA WATCH IT AGAIN!!" *click*

[Golden Girl]

Oh, now that I can explain.

Iron Man is fun.  It doesn't take itself terribly seriously.  They *know* it's a comic book, and just go with it.

Whereas this Superman and Nolanverse Batman wants to go with the nitty gritty "No, really, this could be real and such."

And I wouldn't be totally surprised if this un-Superman Superman movie was the result of WB using the flawless logic of "Nolan's Batman trilogy was very successful, Superman Returns and Green Lantern weren't  very successful = DC characters only work with the Nolanverse treatment".

Also, it's not just Iron Man that doesn't take itself too seriously and knows that it's a comic book - the entire Marvel movie universe pretty much sticks to that line, include their recent take on the same aliens-attack-large-American-city storyline.
And, unlike Man of Steel, it didn't feel the need to film almost everything in a cold, washed-out, faintly blue-gray lifeless palette to try and be deep, artistic and profound, almost as if it was trying to distance itself from the bright, vibrant and dynamic source material.

[Tenzhi]

Of course, even the awesomeness of RDJ can't make me want to see Iron Man 2 again.

And I, too, almost watched Avengers again when it popped up on Netflix.  But then I started watching Fringe instead.

[Rust]

Which is nifty to watch once in a theatre, but not twice.  Excepting The Dark Knight, and THAT, friends, was due to Heath Ledger being completely, utterly awesome beyond words with his Joker, not Christian Bale and his Batman, nor Two Face.  Nope.  All about the Joker.

I'd disagree there. I got the biggest "kick" out of watching Harvey's fall from grace. Joker was the side show - the admittedly fun side show, but still a side show.

Also, The Dark Knight functions as a good movie on its own merits without any attachment to the Batman franchise. Replace Bruce/Batman with a FBI Agent and the Joker with any mayhem causing Hollywood Terrorist and you've still got the exact same movie. It's a good Drama.


The problem with the Nolan Batfilms is they are (ironically) the byproduct of another age. Batman Begins came out in 2005. Iron Man came out in 2008, when the neo-Super Hero Film revolution began. The Nolanverse is still operating on the same principles that created X-Men and the Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy. And Warner Bros has been very slow to grasp how much Marvel Studios has changed the nature of the medium.

WB and DC seem intent on pushing away the bright, primary colors and tropes of comic books. Disney and Marvel are actively embracing them.

Of course, even the awesomeness of RDJ can't make me want to see Iron Man 2 again.

I put Iron Man 2 in the same category I put The Dark Knight Rises - Unnecessary Sequels are completely Unnecessary.

[Tenzhi]

I'd disagree there. I got the biggest "kick" out of watching Harvey's fall from grace. Joker was the side show - the admittedly fun side show, but still a side show.

They kinda crammed Harvey's fall in.  It felt rushed to me, and was ultimately overshadowed by the Joker.  And as much as I enjoyed Heath Ledger's performance (enough to forgive the aesthetic they went with for the character, which I still dislike on its own), I think the movie would've been better served had the Joker been treated as a 'side show'.

Also, The Dark Knight functions as a good movie on its own merits without any attachment to the Batman franchise. Replace Bruce/Batman with a FBI Agent and the Joker with any mayhem causing Hollywood Terrorist and you've still got the exact same movie. It's a good Drama.

And now you have me drawing comparisons in my head between The Dark Knight and, of all things, Speed.  Thanks for that.  ;P

[FatherXmas]

And now you have me drawing comparisons in my head between The Dark Knight and, of all things, Speed.  Thanks for that.  ;P

https://images.weserv.nl/?url=replygif.net%2Fi%2F537.gif

Whoa.

[houtex]

And I wouldn't be totally surprised if this un-Superman Superman movie was the result of WB using the flawless logic of "Nolan's Batman trilogy was very successful, Superman Returns and Green Lantern weren't  very successful = DC characters only work with the Nolanverse treatment".

Also, it's not just Iron Man that doesn't take itself too seriously and knows that it's a comic book - the entire Marvel movie universe pretty much sticks to that line, include their recent take on the same aliens-attack-large-American-city storyline.
And, unlike Man of Steel, it didn't feel the need to film almost everything in a cold, washed-out, faintly blue-gray lifeless palette to try and be deep, artistic and profound, almost as if it was trying to distance itself from the bright, vibrant and dynamic source material.

Oh, goodness yes.  Reminds me of Star Trek:Generations, where they apparently had to cut the lights off to save money or something.  SO badly lit. 

And don't forget the grainy film look.  I mean, really.  Digital this, digital that... and you grain up the footage?

Perhaps it was the theatre I went to... no, wait, the other stuff before the movie was crystal clear, so... nope, they did it on purpose. Grr.

/Maybe I need my eyes checked...?

[Rust]

And now you have me drawing comparisons in my head between The Dark Knight and, of all things, Speed.  Thanks for that.  ;P

...

It fits.

It really, really fits.

[Electric-Knight]

I think I'll only offer this one thing to this thread...

When referring to these DC films... it should be "realistic"... not realistic.
Excessive air quotes and eye-rolling is acceptable.

[Blue Pulsar]

I've seen the movie four times. I wasn't a huge fan of Lois and how she knew Superman's identity before he was Superman, before he worked at the planet, and heck, before she even knew him. And the suit could have incorporated the red in the waste area, but I did like how the suit kinda had it's own origin. That it was actually the same suit his father wore, minus the armor, and plus the color.

I have to say, at first, Shannon's portrayal of Zod was a bit strange to me, but by the end of the first viewing, I liked it. Clark's/Kal's dads were both amazing. As FatherX said, the origin works. And it works well.

I can see Luthor being in the next film, but because he has such a rich history (as is seen in Smallville), I don't know if it should be as the antagonist. I think their best bet would be to introduce him as a friendly guy, but by the end of the film, he begins to Supes as a threat. Of course, that is if this is going to be a trilogy. If they keep their plans of doing just two films, then Justice League, then Luthor should definitely be the next bad guy.

After that, I think the coolest thing they could do would be to have the JLA movie have Doomsday. That would be sweet.

[Magus Prime]

I'd like to see Manchester Black and the only person who could ever play him in my mind would be Christopher Eccleston.  Trying to figure out who would make a great Lex.  I'm thinking Patrick Wilson, who, funny enough, is married to the woman who played Mercedes in Count of Monte Cristo, mother to Henry Cavill's character  ;D.  Luthor's tricky.  He's gotta be clever and deranged like Hannibal Lecter, brilliant on the order of Tony Stark, with all the business acumen of Gordon Gekko.  A close second would be Rufus Sewell.

[Rust]

I want to see Luthor be an adversary, but not necessarily a villain. Namely akin to how he was in Superman: The Animated Series. He was directly responsible for many threats to both Metropolis and Superman, but he never got his hands dirty and ensured nothing could stick to him.

Plus, given the property damage seen in Man of Steel, Luthor's rhetoric about Superman being a threat to public safety has some weight behind it.

[Taceus Jiwede]

The difference between the batman movies and the superman movie.  Is that I am not having a metaphor for the social contract being shoved down my throat for 2 hours.  Too bad Thomas Hobbes wasn't around for the new Batman movies, he would of loved them.

[Magus Prime]

Speaking of metaphors, why must everyone draw comparisons and similarities between Superman and Jesus whenever a new movie comes out?  I mean I get why.  They're messianic saviors with great powers who embody all the good traits of humanity yadda yadda.  Yeah, it's obvious someone's gonna go there.  But do you have to?  I mean, come on.  Why can't I watch a Superman movie and it just be a Superman movie?  And it's not enough that we would have made the connection naturally but both Bryan Singer and Zack Snyder laid it on a little thick with their imagery in their films.  I'm not particularly religious but don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the types who gets up in arms when it somehow winds up making its way onto my plate.  I just think that discussion's been done to death and that while it's natural to make the connection between two such iconic figures, at the end of the day, Superman was created as a mythos all its own and not to be propped up against a biblical backdrop.

[houtex]

Because all the stories have been told, it's just a matter of rehashing them.  Superman as Savior still sells.  Pretty much all there is to it.

There's nothing stopping you from watching a Superman movie (which this isn't) and taking it as a Superman movie alone (again, isn't.)  Heck, the whole Superman as Jesus never entered my mind... I was just watching it and enjoyed it.  Also I understood it wasn't Superman, but Kal-El, which helped.  I *wanted* new eyes on it.  I like he's not, specifically, Superman, and wasn't shown as such.

/Yes, I'm gonna drive that Kal-El point home.  It's important to note, and yet, y'all keep calling it a Superman movie (which it never was.)

[Tenzhi]

/Yes, I'm gonna drive that Kal-El point home.  It's important to note, and yet, y'all keep calling it a Superman movie (which it never was.)

They should change the title to Last Son of Krypton if they want it to be a Kal-El movie.  Superman is the Man of Steel.  Or the Man of Tomorrow (wonder if that will be the name of the sequel, if there is one).

[Golden Girl]

the sequel, if there is one.

I'm pretty sure that they'll have already green lit one - just like all studios sign up the casts of blockbusters for 3 movies before the first one's even been made.
Plus, WB have a track record of this - they green lit the pre-production of "Batman Triumphant" because they were so impressed with what they saw during the making of "Batman and Robin", and also green lit a sequel to "Superman Returns" before shooting on it was even completed.

[Magus Prime]

It's beyond the green light stage.  It's pretty much a forgone conclusion given that the movie earned passed the half a billion mark and it can be considered the first stepping stone towards a JL movie. 

BTW, did anyone else think Henry Cavill did a pretty decent job?  A lot of the reviews I've read have stated he's just eye candy and that he was wooden as a tree trunk but I think he made for a great portrayal as a mid-western American, one that was brought up with respect and humility, especially since he was raised abroad.  If I didn't already know he was from the U.K. I would have been properly fooled.  And this carried over when he put on the costume.  As ostentatious as it was, you can tell he didn't suffer from hubris and that Clark was still a small town man about to reveal his existence to the world.

This is one thing Christopher Reeve wasn't able to convey.  Even when I was little it didn't ring true to me that Superman wouldn't be shy to use his x-ray vision to tell Lois what color her underwear was.  Make no mistake, this Superman was flirty, intrepid, and smooth, which for me, does not a big blue boy scout make.

[Golden Girl]

It's beyond the green light stage.  It's pretty much a forgone conclusion given that the movie earned passed the half a billion mark and it can be considered the first stepping stone towards a JL movie.

Which shows how poorly thought out their long term vision is - if they even have one. This scowling, humorless wannabe "profound" art style won't work for the JLA - they'll need to change it if they want to get anywhere near the Avengers.

Make no mistake, this Superman was flirty, intrepid, and smooth, which for me, does not a big blue boy scout make.

That's what a lot of the complaints are about :P

[Todogut]

... it didn't ring true to me that Superman wouldn't be shy to use his x-ray vision to tell Lois what color her underwear was.

Yeah, back then, that was an example of how the filmmakers tried to update Superman to be more contemporary for the movie-going audience of the day. They made Lois "edgier", too. In the same scene, when Superman says he's here to "fight for truth, justice, and the American way", she sasses, "You're gonna end up fighting every elected official in this country!" I read an interview with Julius Schwartz, long-time editor with National Periodical Publications, in which he stated he hated that "Superman II" showed Superman and Lois in bed... he argued, they had already flown together in "Superman: The Movie", and that's how superheroes did it.

What was touted as risque in 1978 now seems tame, particularly to the audience that embraced "Man of Steel". As for me, I won't pay to see a sequel. Sitting through MoS was enough to know, I will not like it.