I saw " Man Of Steel " at a midnight show last night/this ayem .

  Briefly , I have sort of a liking for super-hero stuff that follows a litle bit more a " real ' science fiction approach - While , admittedly , basically still sticking to the structure of fights and conflict in the story .

  MOS rather fulfilled that .

  It explored how the Superman concept might've been set up , the whole Krypotn thing , and how it might work out down on Earth , pretty well .

  Well , i thought so .

Views: 3228

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Figserello said:

Whatever else you might say about Man of Steel, it is, like Zero-Dark Thirty, "On Message".

 

It would seem that when we really want to change, we look to the finest heroes our culture throws up and try to emulate them, even when they are more idealistic than practical.  When we aren't ready to face up to where we are at, then we adjust the heroes to be more like us, and find consolation in that...

Cogent analysis, Figs.

Detective 445 said:


I've always felt that the Christopher Nolan hyper-realism approach is the best way to tackle superheroes. It dispenses with the camp and goofiness that I despise in superhero celluloid going back to the old Batman tv show of the 60s. For me, the key to success in the genre is achieving some level of believability. Otherwise my eyes just gloss over and I lose interest.

I can buy into the criticism that the fun is missing but I think fun is a little over rated when seeking to create something that resonates. What I think Snyder does with this movie is create something that is at times thrilling and intense rather than fun. And I think I prefer it that way with superhero movies. >

In a veritable sea of negative criticism, this is the best defense of the movie I have read.

doc photo said:

I thought this was the best big screen version thus far.

I didn't particularly care for the movie myself (I still think it could be fun as well as "on message"), but I do agree it's the best big screen version of Superman we've seen so far.

To me, Cavill’s performance has a little more subtlety and nuance.

Eh, I would say our mileage varies on that. I didn't see a wide range of emotions, I mostly saw a guy befuddled, angry or coping.

My version of straight-laced is a guy who always does what his father(s) tells him to do, and that pretty much happened: fear Earthlings, who will hunt you down; don't save my life even though you easily could because of those scary Earthlings; put on this suit; fight these guys. He didn't seem to make many choices, except early on to hide who he was and save those he could save right in front of him without giving away too much.

Then he was outed and challenged and again was forced into doing what he did, smashing everything in his path as he did. When he did make a choice--on killing Zod--it was the easy one.

Allowing himself to be arrested and going through all that was an interesting scene, but there needed to be more of that rather than the long, drawn-out fight scenes that had him simply reacting to events caused by others. He never created a strategy for fighting, even though he knew that removing their masks was the key; he just hammered away.

I don't think fighting Kryptonians with skyscrapers really showed him to be less powerful than usual. In fact, it showed that, as usual, it takes an almost unimaginable, other-worldly force to even slow him down. The oil rig showed him straining, but he was young and could have just been off balance. They did start him off jumping, but showed he just had to get used to it to fly, and that seemed to be the case with his other powers, too.

I really liked the visual reinvention of Krypton.

Whereas I thought it was derivative of the Donner Krypton, a dystopian, emotionless world I'd seen way too often since John Byrne revamped it. Granted, that's not the Krypton I grew up with, but I don't think it's necessary to have sun emblems and headbands. Yet all the others seem very similar--and seem to be places Kal-El should thank his lucky stars to be rid of. The gigantic dragon as transportation seem really out of place among the space ships--especially with no one else having one.

My Superman(men) is the Silver Age comic book version and the George Reeves TV version and I liked Man of Steel.

I don't think that's an aberration, it's just not that frequent from what I've seen. Needless to say, I have a lot of friends who liked the SA/Reeves/Reeve versions, and most of them didn't care for the way he was interpreted here. But to each his own.

If nothing else, I have to admit that my concept of Superman involves the Superman-Clark-Lois triangle. That's a classic part on which most of the dynamics are built, and what really made Superman unique and popular, IMO. Needless to say, once Clark reveals his ID and marries Lois, my interest in the characters is diminished greatly.

This version never had that dynamic at all. But, if people think that Lois and Clark are just co-workers and someday Superman might very well marry Wonder Woman, I can see that losing that may seem more believable than working next to him without knowing. 

>>Unlike Superman Returns, the current film manages to produce a modern vision of the character while still preserving his basic integrity.

I agree that the notion of restarting Superman in SR but retaining the background from Superman I and II struck me as bizarre. And then to take it that step further and introduce a love-child that he abandoned (along with all of Earth) for five years? Eww. In that regard, I probably liked MOS better than SR--which rewrote Superman I the way MOS rewrote Superman II.

I will be interested to see the *next* MOS movie, as it seems to set him up with the traditional straight-laced job and dynamic, albeit one in which Lois (but only Lois) knows his secret. Superman is best when he's interacting with his supporting cast, and we didn't get much of that in the first one. I didn't know until after it was over that that was Jenny Olsen!

-- MSA



Mr. Silver Age said:

Eh, I would say our mileage varies on that. I didn't see a wide range of emotions, I mostly saw a guy befuddled, angry or coping.

 


I actually kind of agree with you here. I guess maybe I just relate to befuddled, angry or coping. It's probably how I would feel in his place.


doc photo said:

I beg to disagree MSA. My Superman(men) is the Silver Age comic book version and the George Reeves TV version and I liked Man of Steel. In fact I thought this was the best big screen version thus far. Before seeing the movie I read two excellent articles on the film that both stated essentially the same thing - with all the interpretations of the character over his 75 year history don't go into this expecting your version of Superman. Unlike Superman Returns, the current film manages to produce a modern vision of the character while still preserving his basic integrity. Most important to me, Man of Steel told a good story with likeable actors while keeping true to the core concept.

I was with you up until you said this movie "preserved" Superman's "basic integrity." From where I sit, it violated it in a most foul manner.



Jeff of Earth-J said:


In a veritable sea of negative criticism, this is the best defense of the movie I have read.

 

 

Thanks Jeff. I thought I might be on a little bit of an island, so I appreciate your comment.

Mr. Silver Age said:


...but retaining the background from Superman I and II struck me as bizarre. 

I have a theory about that. Everybody likes Superman: The Movie and Superman II (everybody except me, it often seems, but that’s another story). Superman’s origin story is endlessly repeated, in comic books even more so than in movies, but I, for one, would be happy if all concerned would just accept it as read and move on from there. I suspect Bryan Singer felt much the same way, that he wanted to dispense with the origin and get on with telling his own Superman story, and simply declared: “For origin story, see Richard Donner’s version.”

Personally, I don’t differentiate between I /II and III/IV, but Superman Returns doesn’t really fit with Superman: The Movie, anyway (which only bolsters my opinion, AFAIAC).



Jeff of Earth-J said:

Everybody likes Superman: The Movie and Superman II (everybody except me, it often seems, but that’s another story). Superman’s origin story is endlessly repeated, in comic books even more so than in movies, but I, for one, would be happy if all concerned would just accept it as read and move on from there. I suspect Bryan Singer felt much the same way, that he wanted to dispense with the origin and get on with telling his own Superman story, and simply declared: “For origin story, see Richard Donner’s version.”

 

I'm with you on Superman I and II. I'm not sure of your reasons but for me, those movies have too much of a pulp romance element to them rather than the epic heroic journey I would like to see in a superhero film. Not that I have any problem with romance per se, I just don't think it belongs in this genre. Real emotions and relationships, yes. Schlocky romance, no.

However, with Singer, I think his mistake was that he didn't do his own version but instead tried to do a rewrite of Superman I. He just dispensed with the origin story so he could focus more on the romance and add a slight Allie McBeal-ish twist to it.

I'm with you on the origin story as well. Although I think we will continue to see them constantly revamped because the studios want to make sure that they are constantly bringing in new audience members at the ground floor so they don't get confused and lose interest.

I'm sure that's why they do it, but I'm not convinced it's necessary.

Were audiences "confused" by the Max Fleisher cartoons? The Filmation cartoons?

(Nice you have you back, BTW!)

I don't like Superman II, either.



PowerBook Pete, the Mad Mod said:

I don't like Superman II, either.

I think if you took the best parts out of Superman I and II, you could have one really good movie. Lose all of the Marlon Brando parts and the losing his superpowers by having sex. 35 years later and I still don't understand how he got his powers back.

Of the ones I've seen, I think Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Clark Kent/Superman is the definitive one. Even knowing, I could believe that they were two different individuals.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Groups

Latest Activity

Richard Willis replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
40 minutes ago
ClarkKent_DC posted discussions
4 hours ago
Dave Palmer replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"A character whose whole schtick was fortune telling"
4 hours ago
The Baron replied to ClarkKent_DC's discussion Meeting the Dora Milaje
"Wow, that's great!"
5 hours ago
The Baron liked ClarkKent_DC's discussion Meeting the Dora Milaje
5 hours ago
The Baron replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Dark Shadows
"Re-watching Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959).  I always forget that the…"
7 hours ago
Richard Willis replied to Wandering Sensei: Moderator Man's discussion What Comic Books Have You Read Today?
"Captain Comics said: Especially boxing! Apparently boxing was a big deal in the early 1940s. In…"
7 hours ago
Richard Willis replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Sandman (TV)
"I didn't time them, but I only felt one was shorter than the others."
7 hours ago
Captain Comics replied to Captain Comics's discussion 'Batgirl' dead on HBO
"So the more I read about the new CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, the more it seems he wants -- as…"
7 hours ago
Glenn Hakanson liked Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Sandman (TV)
8 hours ago
Glenn Hakanson liked Richard Willis's video
8 hours ago
Glenn Hakanson liked Captain Comics's video
8 hours ago

© 2022   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service