Eric Boellner
Well-known member
Good point. This has to play, not only to kids, but to ESL audiences as well. I really didn't even have a problem with the dialogue, though. It wasn't anything special, but it wasn't bad.
-EMB
Man of Steel
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
Good point. This has to play, not only to kids, but to ESL audiences as well. I really didn't even have a problem with the dialogue, though. It wasn't anything special, but it wasn't bad.
-EMB
That would have made so much more sense.
capitalP
Veteran
I was waiting to see this for 2 years and I must say it was a bit a letdown for me. It wasn't bad, matter fact the first half of the movie I thought was great, the buildup and set up was real nice. It's when Zod and his henchmen came along I thought the story really slowed down. But it wasn't that bad, the thing that bothered me the most is the fact that the action and fight sequences really had no major suspense, with all the punches and stuff thrown no one really got hurt badly. And I know he is supposed to be superman but the guy didn't have one scratch on him, if anyone could scratch him a little bit I thought maybe Zod might be able to, so that is the part I think that bugged me the most is the fight sequences.
Another thing, I know Zack Snyder said in an interview they started this story from scratch and not taking anything from any of the previous movies but what about the comic book, the original source? I don't know, I wasn't expecting this to be as great as the first superman but I thought maybe it would be close to it.
The best part of the movie I thought was that chick, Zod's girl and the flash back sequences. And not trying to compare this with the other superhero movies recently but I think a major thing that was missing is the humor. I might of liked this a little bit more if there was more humor, it took itself too serious.
Another thing, I know Zack Snyder said in an interview they started this story from scratch and not taking anything from any of the previous movies but what about the comic book, the original source? I don't know, I wasn't expecting this to be as great as the first superman but I thought maybe it would be close to it.
The best part of the movie I thought was that chick, Zod's girl and the flash back sequences. And not trying to compare this with the other superhero movies recently but I think a major thing that was missing is the humor. I might of liked this a little bit more if there was more humor, it took itself too serious.
Last edited:
refocusedmedia
Veteran
A letdown for me as well, echoing many of the other complaints already listed.
Strong and engaging first half followed by a run-of-the-mill, explosion-filled ending that was so boring I almost nodded off. I love big action as much as anyone, but the destruction of both Smallville and Metropolis was laughable in it's complete disregard for human life or property. Not to say that Zod and his army would care about such things, but apparently neither did Superman. Oh, he saved a Army dude falling out of a helicopter, and Lois of course, but that was about all the sense he seemed to have for whatever was happening outside of his personal battles. I mean, he spent a large chunk of the movie talking about wanting to help people... and then Zod shows up and he barely gives them a second thought. He must stop Zod at all costs, apparently. And what of the astronomical resources that will now be required to cleanup and restore Metropolis? No matter... he's got to start his new job at the Daily Planet. I hope his first assignment is covering how the city is going to pay for all of it. Not to mention Smallville, which certainly doesn't have the infrastructure or resources to bounce back from such devastating destruction. I'm guessing the sequel will show Superman's incredible battles with FEMA, city code officials, and insurance loopholes.
And I agree with people saying Zod was miscast (or poorly directed, at least). Michael Shannon is an incredible actor, but it felt like he was reading off cue cards the whole time. His "over-the-top" moments never felt "crazy" or whatever... they felt like an actor trying to portray someone going crazy. It just never felt like an authentic character. Ironically enough though, he seemed to be the only acting miscue as everyone else was pretty great.
I also agree that the suit came out too early. I would've happily paid for a ticket to see 2 hours of Clark's first 32 years being told in the same style as they were in the first 45 minutes. Then have the suit appear in the last 30 minutes or so as he embraces it and what it represents in order to defeat Zod. Combine the Smallville and Metropolis action set pieces into one big showdown. Now the audience is more invested emotionally, and the results would've been more compelling.
All that said, I did enjoy it. The moments of greatness were truly great, and overshadowed the negatives in the long run. The soundtrack was phenomenal. I have been listening to it on Spotify all week, and it has not lost a moment of it's awesomeness yet. The cinematography was outstanding. You guys complaining about the "shaky cam" are ridiculous. It was handheld, sure, but "as bad as Cloverfield"? You guys need to get your eyes checked. :tongue: It wasn't even all that shaky, just very obviously handheld. If you're one of those who has an adverse and involuntary physical reaction to such camera work (e.g., you get motion sickness, etc)... that sucks for you, but that's no fault of the filmmakers if they don't cater to such a minority. The CGI was some of the best I've seen, too. And at the end of the day, while flawed, its still the best Superman put on screen, imo.
Strong and engaging first half followed by a run-of-the-mill, explosion-filled ending that was so boring I almost nodded off. I love big action as much as anyone, but the destruction of both Smallville and Metropolis was laughable in it's complete disregard for human life or property. Not to say that Zod and his army would care about such things, but apparently neither did Superman. Oh, he saved a Army dude falling out of a helicopter, and Lois of course, but that was about all the sense he seemed to have for whatever was happening outside of his personal battles. I mean, he spent a large chunk of the movie talking about wanting to help people... and then Zod shows up and he barely gives them a second thought. He must stop Zod at all costs, apparently. And what of the astronomical resources that will now be required to cleanup and restore Metropolis? No matter... he's got to start his new job at the Daily Planet. I hope his first assignment is covering how the city is going to pay for all of it. Not to mention Smallville, which certainly doesn't have the infrastructure or resources to bounce back from such devastating destruction. I'm guessing the sequel will show Superman's incredible battles with FEMA, city code officials, and insurance loopholes.
And I agree with people saying Zod was miscast (or poorly directed, at least). Michael Shannon is an incredible actor, but it felt like he was reading off cue cards the whole time. His "over-the-top" moments never felt "crazy" or whatever... they felt like an actor trying to portray someone going crazy. It just never felt like an authentic character. Ironically enough though, he seemed to be the only acting miscue as everyone else was pretty great.
I also agree that the suit came out too early. I would've happily paid for a ticket to see 2 hours of Clark's first 32 years being told in the same style as they were in the first 45 minutes. Then have the suit appear in the last 30 minutes or so as he embraces it and what it represents in order to defeat Zod. Combine the Smallville and Metropolis action set pieces into one big showdown. Now the audience is more invested emotionally, and the results would've been more compelling.
All that said, I did enjoy it. The moments of greatness were truly great, and overshadowed the negatives in the long run. The soundtrack was phenomenal. I have been listening to it on Spotify all week, and it has not lost a moment of it's awesomeness yet. The cinematography was outstanding. You guys complaining about the "shaky cam" are ridiculous. It was handheld, sure, but "as bad as Cloverfield"? You guys need to get your eyes checked. :tongue: It wasn't even all that shaky, just very obviously handheld. If you're one of those who has an adverse and involuntary physical reaction to such camera work (e.g., you get motion sickness, etc)... that sucks for you, but that's no fault of the filmmakers if they don't cater to such a minority. The CGI was some of the best I've seen, too. And at the end of the day, while flawed, its still the best Superman put on screen, imo.
Batutta
Major Contributor
You kids today! How about we let movies be movies and video games be video games. No need to mix the two.
- Old Man Batutta
1. It's strange that you have complaints in your opinion but consider others thoughts "ridiculous". Strange indeed.
2. My eyes are perfectly fine, I don't get motion sickness, and handheld is my preferred shooting style.
3. Weighed against both Battle LA, Cloverfield, and the opening of Hunger Games, I'd say a lot of this is rather poor handheld work. Not all of it, but a good bit. Especially where any cross covered dialogue was concerned. Like I said, it's not Pfister. Now, you're free to disagree with that, and that's all well and good, but calling people ridiculous because you disagree is... ridiculous.
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Haha, I guess my good-natured ribbing didn't come across so well. Should've used more emoticons.
There wasn't much shakycam in the movie to begin with, so complaining about it being excessive is indeed a bit ridiculous, don't you think? As I'm sure you're well aware, handheld =/= shakycam. As a fellow handheld enthusiast, I'm curious why you seemed to dislike the work in MoS so much? Amir Mokri might not be Pfister, but he's a great DoP in his own right.
Well, I wouldn't say being a great DP means you're a great camera operator. Those two are not interchangeable. Not sure if Mr. Mokri was the camera operator as well, I do know that Pfister operates his own rig.
Also, I never said shakycam, I said handheld I believe. Or, if I did say shakycam anywhere in my posts then it was a mistake. I'm saying that I personally felt the handheld was too distracting, especially when it came to dialogue. It seems that they often turned to the use of longer focal lengths to do cross coverage, OTS etc. and it was just very rough, in my opinion.
It will likely play fine on a smaller screen, and it also probably plays fine for plenty of people. For me, it wasn't handled well, and it was often distracting.
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
I'll admit to being distracted by the handheld a fair amount. The camera work was spot on during the action scenes, and during the flashbacks, but during a lot of the rest of the film, the subject of the shot was always swinging in and out of the frame.
-EMB
-EMB
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Yeah, the handheld was excessive at times. I took notice of it at least during the first half of the film. Lois Lane was sort of silly. Amy Adams can't quite pull off a Joan Allen yet, try as they did at the start. I loved the scene on the ship in orbit where Lois escapes in the damaged pod and Jor-EL is talking to Superman and telling him how he can save her. He can save all of them.
Fun film - my thoughts mirror many others. Great first half, the second half felt more formulaic. Great effects. Henry Cavill is a great Superman.
Fun film - my thoughts mirror many others. Great first half, the second half felt more formulaic. Great effects. Henry Cavill is a great Superman.
I agree with much of what has been said. Cavill IS (now) Superman. The last fight scene in Metropolis was too much. Handheld was excessive.
1. Where was the President, NSA, CIA, etc? The government representation felt small.
2. Why was it so dower? I could have used a little more optimism or levity.
3. The Jesus comparisons were a little ham fisted.
Finally, Ryan, you leave Amy Adams alone :laugh:
1. Where was the President, NSA, CIA, etc? The government representation felt small.
2. Why was it so dower? I could have used a little more optimism or levity.
3. The Jesus comparisons were a little ham fisted.
Finally, Ryan, you leave Amy Adams alone :laugh:
Last edited:
Superman kills in the comic books, definitely should not come as a surprise that he kills Zod. Maybe it's the way that he does it that gets everyone, because it's definitely "hands on".
Sorry but maybe I missed it, but where in the DC canon proper is it that Superman kills a villian?
Sorry but maybe I missed it, but where in the DC canon proper is it that Superman kills a villian?
I'm fairly sure Superman killed Doomsday. PRETTY sure, but hey I could be wrong.
Edit: Sorry, I actually didn't realize Doomsday wasn't DC Canon. Not a Superfan or anything like that, but I remember my brother (who was a pretty big comic geek) showing me that comic.
Last edited:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sMuSABG_GMqTGP0nA&sig2=DGpXlC0lZxZmfUJv9nCpMQ
He has killed once in the main universe.
Hectorxd
Well-known member
I liked it for the most part. It had some stuff that I didn't like about it here and there. The shaky handheld was very distracting during the first part. I don't remember it being as bad during the middle and end. It was almost as if the camera operator was pointing at one person and jumped in the air and swung the camera around to point at someone else. Or like they were handing off the camera in the middle of the scene. I like handheld but this was just too experimental for me.
I have never followed the story of superman so I didn't realize he was a no kill hero. Once Lois Lane was on the ship and started blowing people away it just set it up that these aliens were a nuisance and had to be dealt with. During the whole fight it seemed as if he were trying to pummel zod to the point of killing him so when he finally did it I wasn't surprised. I did however think it was lame the way he did it. After smashing this guy through buildings over and over and punching his face through the air, it seemed odd that a little twist of the neck would end his life. Seemed very fragile to me, although I bet Steven Seagal gave that moment a standing ovation.
Other minor stuff I didn't like was the reality of Lois climbing a frozen cliff in the middle of the night just to see what someone was doing. I felt Colonel hardy was overused. He was in every military scene doing everything. I am not sure if it was explained but I don't remember Zod explaining why he wanted Lois Lane to come on his space ship. After the whole fight scene I expected everyone to turn on superman. Yeah he saved the day but he wouldn't have had to if he weren't there in the first place. When Zod takes off his helmet and he is having trouble adapting why did superman give him tips on how to focus on one thing to block everything else out? Is he just so helpful to everyone that he couldn't help himself?
I really liked the back story stuff leading up to the end. At one point it felt like the movie was coming to an end and than it went on for another hour or so.
I have never followed the story of superman so I didn't realize he was a no kill hero. Once Lois Lane was on the ship and started blowing people away it just set it up that these aliens were a nuisance and had to be dealt with. During the whole fight it seemed as if he were trying to pummel zod to the point of killing him so when he finally did it I wasn't surprised. I did however think it was lame the way he did it. After smashing this guy through buildings over and over and punching his face through the air, it seemed odd that a little twist of the neck would end his life. Seemed very fragile to me, although I bet Steven Seagal gave that moment a standing ovation.
Other minor stuff I didn't like was the reality of Lois climbing a frozen cliff in the middle of the night just to see what someone was doing. I felt Colonel hardy was overused. He was in every military scene doing everything. I am not sure if it was explained but I don't remember Zod explaining why he wanted Lois Lane to come on his space ship. After the whole fight scene I expected everyone to turn on superman. Yeah he saved the day but he wouldn't have had to if he weren't there in the first place. When Zod takes off his helmet and he is having trouble adapting why did superman give him tips on how to focus on one thing to block everything else out? Is he just so helpful to everyone that he couldn't help himself?
I really liked the back story stuff leading up to the end. At one point it felt like the movie was coming to an end and than it went on for another hour or so.
Allan Black
Veteran
Yep, reminds the world of 9/11. Amy Adams has a comic nose, Bette Davis eyes and hands like Freddie Krueger. Cavill looked Super, both were competent,
but Kevin Costner wasn't 'farmer' enough.
The airforce was way to slow to wake up, lost about 3billion in hardware, took it right back to the comic strip days.
Hard to keep a time frame on it, along with his new dimpled suit, the Daily Planet should be on line by now. Russell Crowe has come a long way
since he played a v/o in our studios, had to get that in.
Some great lines 'Cal meet Al' etc .. but the ending vfx Superman/Zod fights went on too long, obviously made for 3D, in 2D it lost our interest.
Cheers.
Last edited:
tmnt
King of Australia
I spent the whole movie in awe of Michael Shannon as Zod. He was amazing and I couldn't wait to imbd that dude.
The movie was a bit long for me but thought it was pretty solid save some things that just didn't work for me (like the Lois/Sups relationship and some moments that didn't quiet make sense).
3.5/5
Last edited:
True story -- on the set of Under the Dome over the summer, a couple of the ADs and I started getting into a debate as to whether Superman would kill. Their view: no. My view? It's Batman who has the absolute rule against killing; Superman kills if necessary. Anyway, this went on for a while, and by the time lunch rolled around, the whole set was pretty much involved. It was funny how it spread to everyone.
I hadn't even seen it then. Now that I have -- oh, HELL yeah, Superman would have killed Zod in that situation, no question.
Everything I thought would bug me about the movie did NOT -- the costume didn't; the re-arrangement of the mythos didn't; the Krypton sequence being pretty close to a copy of that in Donner's opus didn't. Struck me as being a teensy bit too long and indulgent in that Nolan way, but not really all that bad.
I didn't think I was going to buy Cavill in the role, but he owned it. Overall, I was quite pleased with the effort.
I hadn't even seen it then. Now that I have -- oh, HELL yeah, Superman would have killed Zod in that situation, no question.
Everything I thought would bug me about the movie did NOT -- the costume didn't; the re-arrangement of the mythos didn't; the Krypton sequence being pretty close to a copy of that in Donner's opus didn't. Struck me as being a teensy bit too long and indulgent in that Nolan way, but not really all that bad.
I didn't think I was going to buy Cavill in the role, but he owned it. Overall, I was quite pleased with the effort.
So, I watched this again today. I don't see the action sequences as being influenced by video games so much as they're pretty much literal translations of how those sequences are depicted in the comics.