- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The OFFICIAL Man of Steel Discussion and ***SPOILERS*** Thread
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:17 pm to BigAppleTiger
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:17 pm to BigAppleTiger
quote:
despite some very small inconsistencies. Get a grip dude.
I'll just leave this here and be done.
Lois Lane who may have never been in a fight, did more damage to the Krypton bad guys than Superman.
Stupid
0
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:35 pm to Warfarer
quote:
quote:The ease of snapping Zods neck, vs the fight with the girl and the big guy was a stalemate until she was hit by a manmade weapon Like has been stated, they are on equal ground when fighting each other. Superman and Zod can punch through a wall so Superman/Zod strength > building/wall construction.
In that case wouldn't their punches actually hurt each other. The way it was portrayed it was like they could have pounded on each other forever and neither would really be hurt. If their punches are that powerful and on equal footing they theoretically should be able to break each others bones during a punch. Heck if one punched the other one in the jaw it should be possible to break the jaw of the other one. Could also be possible for one to break their hand hitting the other one. Could there be bruising?
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:39 pm to tigersaint26
quote:
Shouldn't everyone know the real identity of Superman now anyway?
I mean Zod and his crew went to Smallville, went to Superman's mom's house, then Superman shows up. Military shows up, big battle, Smallville turned into Destructionville.
Biggest plot hole in the movie, IMO
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:48 pm to tigersaint26
quote:
The way it was portrayed it was like they could have pounded on each other forever and neither would really be hurt.
Exhibit A
quote:
If their punches are that powerful and on equal footing they theoretically should be able to break each others bones during a punch.
Correct
quote:
Heck if one punched the other one in the jaw it should be possible to break the jaw of the other one.
Correct
quote:
Could also be possible for one to break their hand hitting the other one.
Correct
quote:
Could there be bruising?
Seems so.
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:50 pm to TigerWerm
quote:
Biggest plot hole in the movie, IMO
I agree. If you guys want to nitpick something, this is the big one. More people than Lois know that Clark is Superman. The military should already know, and if they don't, it shouldn't be a very long investigation.
Posted on 6/22/13 at 1:56 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
6 DC Character Easter Eggs in MoS
I know there are some super DC fanboys out there, but I would love to know how many people caught even 3 of those on their first watch. Cyborg is a stretch even though there is a connection, Ferris is there in plain sight at the end but still not an easy connection while the Booster Comic is just way out there and the supergirl is out there without the prequel comic. I kept reading people connecting Supergirl to the movie and the ship but had no idea how, is the prequel comic the only way to make the connection?
Posted on 6/22/13 at 2:03 pm to Warfarer
Well thats why theyre easter eggs
I think everyone caught the Lex Luthor one, and a lot on here saw the satellite. I think the Cyborh connection makes a lot of since because i think theyre going to want a black superhero
The Supergirl thing is an explanation of the empty pod shown on the genesis ship. Which means something to everyone not named Durantula
I think everyone caught the Lex Luthor one, and a lot on here saw the satellite. I think the Cyborh connection makes a lot of since because i think theyre going to want a black superhero
The Supergirl thing is an explanation of the empty pod shown on the genesis ship. Which means something to everyone not named Durantula
Posted on 6/22/13 at 2:37 pm to Warfarer
I would still bang old Ma Kent. 
BTW, the news girl who was trapped was a horrible actress.
BTW, the news girl who was trapped was a horrible actress.This post was edited on 6/22/13 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 6/22/13 at 5:36 pm to JabarkusRussell
2nd viewing this afternoon. Brought son (his 2nd as well) and my 10 y/o daughter (her first time). She absolutely loved it. Said she'd watch it again right then and there.
It is a damned good movie.
It is a damned good movie.
Posted on 6/23/13 at 10:52 am to udtiger
I'm way late to the party
I saw it Friday and I thought it was awesome
I literally don't know how the frick the critics didn't like this
I saw it Friday and I thought it was awesome
I literally don't know how the frick the critics didn't like this
Posted on 6/27/13 at 8:44 pm to Pilot Tiger
Well, here goes nothing. Finally got time to see it, and just got back from it. I'm a huge Superman fan, so here are my thoughts:
This may be the single most frustrating film I've ever seen. I don't mean bad or the film makes me angry, it's just frustrating how they completely blew their loads on this film. That action sequence in the end had no business being in the first chapter of a trilogy, but I'll get to that in my rant later.
First off the casting. Harry Cavill is a great Superman, and finally they've given me the Superman I've been waiting for. Not a blind boy scout but someone with inner conflict on his place in a world of glass, but then the character shits the bed in the worst way possible at the very end, but more on that later.
Michael Shannon is great as Zod and well cast, but he won't come close to eclipsing Terrence Stamp's performance, and even decades from now, that will still be the Zod performance everyone thinks of.
And yet again, they fricked up Lois Lane's casting. I like Amy Adams and I think she's a fine actress, but she is by no means the spunky and bitchy Lois Lane. I mean it's not Kate Bosworth bad or anywhere close to that, but if you were to replace this woman with another name, I couldn't tell she was based on Lois aside from her being a reporter. It makes it all the more perplexing that they passed up Olivia Wilde for it, someone who would have been perfect for the job. Hopefully when they do it again next decade they finally get it right by casting Jennifer Lawrence to the role.
Now, to the movie, the action is spectacular. Finally they got the action in a Superman movie right and don't simply make it about Superman lifting heavy shite. I expect nothing less from Zack Snyder, who if nothing else, can do magic in a fight scene.
But really the film gloriously goes over-the-top in a way they should not have. I know that people have been bitching for decades that Superman has fought Lex Luthor too much and needed a physical equal on screen with him. So they go with Zod (someone we've already had in two films), who should not have been the villain of this film. I don't see why they didn't go with Brainiac, since they could have opened up Brainiac destroying Krypton and just had him use cloned Kryptonians in his arsenal.
Using Zod would in all logic make people loathe Superman in the aftermath. Sure he saved the world, but if he never came to their world in the first place, Zod wouldn't have come, killed millions of people (I don't see how at least a 1/3 of Metropolis wouldn't have been killed), and caused trillions in damage. Seriously, it would be like the president fixing a mistake he made, but at the expense of trillions and millions of lives (not to mention likely almost total economic collapse). Plus Superman was incredibly, incredibly stupid to face off with Zod in Metropolis. All he had to do was fly out into the ocean or the countryside, and Zod probably would have followed him. Instead they keep on going at it at the expense of 150,000 more lives, and Superman snaps his neck to save a mere 4 people.
And yeah, I've got a big fricking problem with Superman snapping Zod's fricking neck.. That is just so out of character, I just had to do a double take. Yes Superman has killed his villains before, but does anyone remember what happens when he does that? It typically goes into a time line of Superman taking over the world. It's basically never the typical canon version of Superman. I guess those 4 people meant more to Superman than the tens of thousands that died in their battle where Superman and Zod are basically just fricking around.
If you're going to do something like this, this is best left for the second and third films in the trilogy, not the first. They should have not gone all out on this film and saved that good stuff for the sequel. Really, they should have gone with Luthor and Metallo. Low enough stakes where Metropolis may be in danger, and he and Metallo get in a big fight, but no where near that damaging as the Kryptonians did. Second one is where you destroy Metropolis and have the people turn against Superman. Am I really supposed to believe that all these people are suddenly cool with Superman when his own people invade their planet almost solely because he is there? At least Luthor in the sequel will have alot of completely justifiable reasons in every sense of the word to hate Superman for the sequels, and I'll probably be rooting for him.
So to summarize it, I liked and hated this movie all at the same time. Got alot right and alot wrong.
*.5/****
This may be the single most frustrating film I've ever seen. I don't mean bad or the film makes me angry, it's just frustrating how they completely blew their loads on this film. That action sequence in the end had no business being in the first chapter of a trilogy, but I'll get to that in my rant later.
First off the casting. Harry Cavill is a great Superman, and finally they've given me the Superman I've been waiting for. Not a blind boy scout but someone with inner conflict on his place in a world of glass, but then the character shits the bed in the worst way possible at the very end, but more on that later.
Michael Shannon is great as Zod and well cast, but he won't come close to eclipsing Terrence Stamp's performance, and even decades from now, that will still be the Zod performance everyone thinks of.
And yet again, they fricked up Lois Lane's casting. I like Amy Adams and I think she's a fine actress, but she is by no means the spunky and bitchy Lois Lane. I mean it's not Kate Bosworth bad or anywhere close to that, but if you were to replace this woman with another name, I couldn't tell she was based on Lois aside from her being a reporter. It makes it all the more perplexing that they passed up Olivia Wilde for it, someone who would have been perfect for the job. Hopefully when they do it again next decade they finally get it right by casting Jennifer Lawrence to the role.
Now, to the movie, the action is spectacular. Finally they got the action in a Superman movie right and don't simply make it about Superman lifting heavy shite. I expect nothing less from Zack Snyder, who if nothing else, can do magic in a fight scene.
But really the film gloriously goes over-the-top in a way they should not have. I know that people have been bitching for decades that Superman has fought Lex Luthor too much and needed a physical equal on screen with him. So they go with Zod (someone we've already had in two films), who should not have been the villain of this film. I don't see why they didn't go with Brainiac, since they could have opened up Brainiac destroying Krypton and just had him use cloned Kryptonians in his arsenal.
Using Zod would in all logic make people loathe Superman in the aftermath. Sure he saved the world, but if he never came to their world in the first place, Zod wouldn't have come, killed millions of people (I don't see how at least a 1/3 of Metropolis wouldn't have been killed), and caused trillions in damage. Seriously, it would be like the president fixing a mistake he made, but at the expense of trillions and millions of lives (not to mention likely almost total economic collapse). Plus Superman was incredibly, incredibly stupid to face off with Zod in Metropolis. All he had to do was fly out into the ocean or the countryside, and Zod probably would have followed him. Instead they keep on going at it at the expense of 150,000 more lives, and Superman snaps his neck to save a mere 4 people.
And yeah, I've got a big fricking problem with Superman snapping Zod's fricking neck.. That is just so out of character, I just had to do a double take. Yes Superman has killed his villains before, but does anyone remember what happens when he does that? It typically goes into a time line of Superman taking over the world. It's basically never the typical canon version of Superman. I guess those 4 people meant more to Superman than the tens of thousands that died in their battle where Superman and Zod are basically just fricking around.
If you're going to do something like this, this is best left for the second and third films in the trilogy, not the first. They should have not gone all out on this film and saved that good stuff for the sequel. Really, they should have gone with Luthor and Metallo. Low enough stakes where Metropolis may be in danger, and he and Metallo get in a big fight, but no where near that damaging as the Kryptonians did. Second one is where you destroy Metropolis and have the people turn against Superman. Am I really supposed to believe that all these people are suddenly cool with Superman when his own people invade their planet almost solely because he is there? At least Luthor in the sequel will have alot of completely justifiable reasons in every sense of the word to hate Superman for the sequels, and I'll probably be rooting for him.
So to summarize it, I liked and hated this movie all at the same time. Got alot right and alot wrong.
*.5/****
This post was edited on 6/27/13 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 6/27/13 at 9:11 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
And yeah, I've got a big fricking problem with Superman snapping Zod's fricking neck.. That is just so out of character, I just had to do a double take. Yes Superman has killed his villains before, but does anyone remember what happens when he does that? It typically goes into a time line of Superman taking over the world. It's basically never the typical canon version of Superman.
And these scenes are so true to the character:
LINK
LINK
Posted on 6/27/13 at 9:12 pm to RollTide1987
Spare me the Donner series arguments, because I don't like those really either. They didn't get Superman completely right either.
This post was edited on 6/27/13 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 6/27/13 at 9:16 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Spare me the Donner series arguments, because I don't like those really either.
I'm just saying...it's happened before in film. What works in the comics doesn't necessarily translate to film all too well.
Posted on 6/27/13 at 9:49 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I'm just saying...it's happened before in film. What works in the comics doesn't necessarily translate to film all too well.
Well, it didn't work here. It's really as if a 13 year old directed and wrote this film. It's just really as if Snyder said "I'm going to destroy as many buildings as fricking possible and not worry about the ramifications of all the off screen people." It should bring up disturbing ramifications that I think the movie is completely blowing past by making it seem like most people think of Superman as a hero.
The only person's life that Superman saves really in this film are people in a school bus, people on an oil rig, Lois Lane, and 4 nameless people. Superman on the other hand pretty directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this if they didn't downplay the tragedy of it in the end, but it just seems as if in the end, everything is hunky dorey and that Superman saved the day... but he didn't. He ruined the day and almost led to the destruction of Earth and all mankind. This had no business being the first film in a trilogy, and that ending was just... Jesus.
It's going down another star thinking about it more.
This post was edited on 6/27/13 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 6/27/13 at 10:07 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Superman on the other hand pretty directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this if they didn't downplay the tragedy of it in the end, but it just seems as if in the end, everything is hunky dorey and that Superman saved the day... but he didn't. He ruined the day and almost led to the destruction of Earth and all mankind. This had no business being the first film in a trilogy, and that ending was just... Jesus.
100,000 people vs. 7 billion people.
You choose.
Posted on 6/27/13 at 10:21 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
100,000 people vs. 7 billion people.
You choose.
They wouldn't have been in trouble if Superman wasn't there in the first place (and certainly more than 100,000 were killed). My problem is it just says that Superman is heroic... but he really wasn't. He just kicks the shite out of people and saves like 1 in 10,000 people.
Seriously, if an illegal refugee came our country and then half of New York is destroyed because of his presence, would you call that dude a hero even if he managed to personally stopped an attack that was already well in progress? Probably not. You'd probably blame him for it.
This is why Brainiac should have instead been the villain. He doesn't possess the problem Zod does in very directly making Superman responsible for his presence. Brainiac can simply have Earth on his countdown list and coincidentally runs into Superman. Superman then saves Earth from the same fate that Krypton had due to Brainiac. Why not have Jor-El send his kid to Earth because he knows when Brainiac will strike Earth and knowing that with time he can save Earth with the information Jor-El has given him? It works then, but with Zod, I don't see why Earth in general wouldn't demand his death after MoS.
This post was edited on 6/27/13 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 6/27/13 at 10:27 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
The only person's life that Superman saves really in this film are people in a school bus, people on an oil rig, Lois Lane, and 4 nameless people. Superman on the other hand pretty directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
First off...we're arguing about a movie based a comic book where an alien comes to Earth and has superpowers. Just needed to get that out there... Not bashing it, just still stunned that this movie has garnered so much interest.
I see that point. But since he had no choice in landing on Earth (That was all on Maximus) I can't blame him for Zod's arrival. Regardless of how he did it, does he not get credit for saving the entire planet from being terraformed by Zod & Co? Keep in mind, in this incarnation Clark has been Superman all of a handful of days before Zod waltzes in and starts wrecking shite. He's never once thrown a punch in his life. He's new to this, and was "fighting" both the Kryptonians and the US Military for much of the movie. The Superman we saw in this movie reminded me a lot of the Spider-Man we saw in the new movie before he worked out all the kinks and put on the official suit. The guy with the ski mask running from thugs and being not quite good enough yet. He was learning. He did the best he could...which turned out to be enough to save the world. I'm assuming that we see a more mature, and set Superman for MoSII.
Now...if you want to be mad at Goyer and Snyder for putting Supes into a no win situation right out of the gate, then have at it. I kind of dig that they did that, despite the obscene collateral damage. The mileage of others clearly varies. I think it sets up some great potential stories...namely Lex stepping up as an adversary essentially taking the side of humanity who would be better off without this dick breaking whole cities.
Posted on 6/27/13 at 10:45 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I see that point. But since he had no choice in landing on Earth (That was all on Maximus) I can't blame him for Zod's arrival. Regardless of how he did it, does he not get credit for saving the entire planet from being terraformed by Zod & Co? Keep in mind, in this incarnation Clark has been Superman all of a handful of days before Zod waltzes in and starts wrecking shite. He's never once thrown a punch in his life. He's new to this, and was "fighting" both the Kryptonians and the US Military for much of the movie. The Superman we saw in this movie reminded me a lot of the Spider-Man we saw in the new movie before he worked out all the kinks and put on the official suit. The guy with the ski mask running from thugs and being not quite good enough yet. He was learning. He did the best he could...which turned out to be enough to save the world. I'm assuming that we see a more mature, and set Superman for MoSII.
Then you give him a different villain. Don't give him Zod. Zod (while I don't think he should have been in the reboot series at all) is a villain that is present almost solely due to Superman himself. With Spider-Man and Batman, the Green Goblin and Ra's al Ghul were going to brutally attack their cities regardless of Spider-Man's or Batman's pressence. Give him a villain that is either less destructive (like the Green Goblin) or one that Superman isn't directly or indirectly responsible for (like Ra's al Ghul).
You get into a villain that is a result of the hero's presence in the second film of the trilogy. The Joker is the perfect example. Batman didn't really have a part of the Joker's creation, but Batman's presence allowed the Joker to thrive, and the city quickly turns against Batman. It should have been the exact same way with Superman and Zod. I don't see how anyone could look at Superman as a real hero after this.
quote:
Now...if you want to be mad at Goyer and Snyder for putting Supes into a no win situation right out of the gate, then have at it. I kind of dig that they did that, despite the obscene collateral damage. The mileage of others clearly varies. I think it sets up some great potential stories...namely Lex stepping up as an adversary essentially taking the side of humanity who would be better off without this dick breaking whole cities.
Yeah, that's a big reason I'm pissed about it. This film should not have been this right out of the gate. I think they got way too attached to the fanboys reactions of no more Luthor, lifting heavy shite, and have non-stop action. Well, the movie completely suffers from it.
Instead they should have worked their way up to something like this. I mean, they've already destroyed Metropolis and had a threat that almost destroyed the world. How are they going to top that? The first film should have been pleasant really. Just had Superman saving some nice people from hazards in life, stopping some racketeering rings, and then facing off with a lesser villain like Metallo or Parasite. Someone who isn't going to be a worldwide threat and just a threat to Metropolis.
The second is when Superman's equal comes into play and fricks his world up. I'd recommend a super being from Earth who starts WWIII in order to destroy Superman's legacy. In the end half the world is fricked and Superman's legacy is destroyed and taking a significant portion of the blame for escalating a world crisis with his mere presence.
The third should be his redemption. Give him either Brainiac or Darkseid, someone who is coming to destroy/take over the planet regardless, and then Superman proves his worth and everyone is grateful for his presence. This just seems like a common sense plan for a trilogy, but they completely blew it on this one film.
This post was edited on 6/27/13 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 6/27/13 at 10:54 pm to OMLandshark
Thanks for the review. I enjoyed it. I disagree with some of it.
Unknownknight was right when he said that technically, you would love it and hate it at the same time.
Honestly Man of Steel is a movie that's simply a step in the right direction and sets a precedent for what kind of movies we should expect from DC Comics. It's not perfect but I think it provided DC a formula for what to do with their franchises and what to do for the sequel and then Justice League.
He's going to come very close to Christopher Reeve but he's going to give a fresh take for a new generation and modern times.
I just wish we could somehow switch his Zod from donner's universe to Man of Steel. He would be incredible.
Eh, she wasn't very good but she did not ruin the movie at all. I don't think we're going to see a Lois Lane that Erica Durance gave us ever again. Her portrayal was one of a kind.
I also hated how Supes and Lois made out in the middle of a ruined city with death and destruction. That was so Bly cliche and campy. DC better not pull that shite again.
I'm just happy they gave us that. It set the tone for what we should expect in the sequel and and beyond.
I do wish that Supes would've made an attempt to move the battle somewhere else. It would've added something that would be so typical of Supes. Oh well.
I don't mind Supes killing Zod at all. I think this made it pretty clear that they're taking Superman in a different direction and and I welcome the attempt on a new take and point of view on Superman.
I think DC was going for the shock value here to set up a loyal base and solidify it for future movies. And I think it's working.
Appreciate your review. Fair points all around.
BTW, I sent you an email with relevant info.
Unknownknight was right when he said that technically, you would love it and hate it at the same time.
Honestly Man of Steel is a movie that's simply a step in the right direction and sets a precedent for what kind of movies we should expect from DC Comics. It's not perfect but I think it provided DC a formula for what to do with their franchises and what to do for the sequel and then Justice League.
quote:
First off the casting. Harry Cavill is a great Superman, and finally they've given me the Superman I've been waiting for. Not a blind boy scout but someone with inner conflict on his place in a world of glass, but then the character shits the bed in the worst way possible at the very end, but more on that later.
He's going to come very close to Christopher Reeve but he's going to give a fresh take for a new generation and modern times.
quote:
Michael Shannon is great as Zod and well cast, but he won't come close to eclipsing Terrence Stamp's performance, and even decades from now, that will still be the Zod performance everyone thinks of.
I just wish we could somehow switch his Zod from donner's universe to Man of Steel. He would be incredible.
quote:
And yet again, they fricked up Lois Lane's casting. I like Amy Adams and I think she's a fine actress, but she is by no means the spunky and bitchy Lois Lane. I mean it's not Kate Bosworth bad or anywhere close to that, but if you were to replace this woman with another name, I couldn't tell she was based on Lois aside from her being a reporter. It makes it all the more perplexing that they passed up Olivia Wilde for it, someone who would have been perfect for the job. Hopefully when they do it again next decade they finally get it right by casting Jennifer Lawrence to the role.
Eh, she wasn't very good but she did not ruin the movie at all. I don't think we're going to see a Lois Lane that Erica Durance gave us ever again. Her portrayal was one of a kind.
I also hated how Supes and Lois made out in the middle of a ruined city with death and destruction. That was so Bly cliche and campy. DC better not pull that shite again.
quote:
Now, to the movie, the action is spectacular. Finally they got the action in a Superman movie right and don't simply make it about Superman lifting heavy shite. I expect nothing less from Zack Snyder, who if nothing else, can do magic in a fight scene.
But really the film gloriously goes over-the-top in a way they should not have. I know that people have been bitching for decades that Superman has fought Lex Luthor too much and needed a physical equal on screen with him. So they go with Zod (someone we've already had in two films), who should not have been the villain of this film. I don't see why they didn't go with Brainiac, since they could have opened up Brainiac destroying Krypton and just had him use cloned Kryptonians in his arsenal.
Using Zod would in all logic make people loathe Superman in the aftermath. Sure he saved the world, but if he never came to their world in the first place, Zod wouldn't have come, killed millions of people (I don't see how at least a 1/3 of Metropolis wouldn't have been killed), and caused trillions in damage. Seriously, it would be like the president fixing a mistake he made, but at the expense of trillions and millions of lives (not to mention likely almost total economic collapse). Plus Superman was incredibly, incredibly stupid to face off with Zod in Metropolis. All he had to do was fly out into the ocean or the countryside, and Zod probably would have followed him. Instead they keep on going at it at the expense of 150,000 more lives, and Superman snaps his neck to save a mere 4 people.
I'm just happy they gave us that. It set the tone for what we should expect in the sequel and and beyond.
I do wish that Supes would've made an attempt to move the battle somewhere else. It would've added something that would be so typical of Supes. Oh well.
quote:
And yeah, I've got a big fricking problem with Superman snapping Zod's fricking neck.. That is just so out of character, I just had to do a double take. Yes Superman has killed his villains before, but does anyone remember what happens when he does that? It typically goes into a time line of Superman taking over the world. It's basically never the typical canon version of Superman. I guess those 4 people meant more to Superman than the tens of thousands that died in their battle where Superman and Zod are basically just fricking around.
I don't mind Supes killing Zod at all. I think this made it pretty clear that they're taking Superman in a different direction and and I welcome the attempt on a new take and point of view on Superman.
quote:
If you're going to do something like this, this is best left for the second and third films in the trilogy, not the first. They should have not gone all out on this film and saved that good stuff for the sequel. Really, they should have gone with Luthor and Metallo. Low enough stakes where Metropolis may be in danger, and he and Metallo get in a big fight, but no where near that damaging as the Kryptonians did. Second one is where you destroy Metropolis and have the people turn against Superman. Am I really supposed to believe that all these people are suddenly cool with Superman when his own people invade their planet almost solely because he is there? At least Luthor in the sequel will have alot of completely justifiable reasons in every sense of the word to hate Superman for the sequels, and I'll probably be rooting for him.
I think DC was going for the shock value here to set up a loyal base and solidify it for future movies. And I think it's working.
Appreciate your review. Fair points all around.
BTW, I sent you an email with relevant info.
Page 23 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News