SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I feel like if you liked TDKR, you'll like MoS. For me it has the same kind of problems, only magnified. Hollow, telegraphed character motivations being the main connective tissue.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man of Steel |OT| It's about action.
- Thread starter MisterHero
- Start date
The visuals and music make Watchmen for me. It's just a cool audiovisual experience. The story and the characters are just okay, Dr. Manhattan excepted.
Regarding MoS, I'm not sure I understand the point of hiring Snyder and then neuter his style completely. The movie has some great looking sequences, but it's kinda weird he shot this handheld. Superman is a character that probably could've used the larger than life visuals of Watchmen.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I agree. I think Man of Steel is the second best Superman movie, and I think it's also the second best Zack Snyder film. Dawn of the Dead is still his best film.
He's only as good as his script, and he has yet to get a great one.
Man of Steel is "Zack Snyder's Superman Begins" - similar templates, similar tones. Similar script problems (written by most of the same creative team). The volume is turned up (because Snyder, and because Superman) and it's about as fluid as a rockslide.
brandonh83
Banned
Yeah I can see that. I may give it another shot one day.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I can't decide if MOS or TDKR hurts more. Both have some nice points to them, but both also hurt a lot when I think about them. TDKR hurts more recently after rewatching Batman Begins and Dark Knight, because the set up in TDK is shit on within the first fifteen minutes of TDKR.
Rings true for me.
TDKR is infinitely more disappointing because its coming off the heels of TDK. Snyderman has a chance of improvement with a sequel. Batnolan is done.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I also liked both Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel. I don't think Dark Knight Rises is a bad movie. It's overlong, and muddled. It's also the first of the three Nolan Batman movies to rely heavily on "Fuck it, he's Batman, that's why" as a plot explanation. You'd think it would have happened more often, considering the character.
Dark Knight Rises is the least of the three Nolan Batmans. But it's not a BAD movie. It's just disappointing.
Here's a comparison: Dark Knight Rises is disappointing the way Godfather III is disappointing. Godfather III is an overlong, silly, but ultimately pretty good gangster flick. It's biggest problem (besides the Sofia Coppola casting hurrr) is that it's filled with characters named "Corleone" and it's called "The Godfather Part III"
Dark Knight Rises is the least of the three Nolan Batmans. But it's not a BAD movie. It's just disappointing.
Here's a comparison: Dark Knight Rises is disappointing the way Godfather III is disappointing. Godfather III is an overlong, silly, but ultimately pretty good gangster flick. It's biggest problem (besides the Sofia Coppola casting hurrr) is that it's filled with characters named "Corleone" and it's called "The Godfather Part III"
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I can agree with this, though I would have also got a jab at Andy Garcia in there.
TDKR is a mediocre film that's only super offensive because of what precedes it.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I will agree that Snyder has the chance for improvements with the MOS sequel. Especially if they take the criticisms to heart and try and please both camps.
But TDKR was a huge stumble after the terrific TDK. It felt like Nolan and Co. were too stuck on "everything must tie together and be epic" than making a great stand alone movie like the first two were. The pressure of closing out a trilogy they never planned as a trilogy got to them.
TheKaeptain
Banned
That's pretty much Clark. He's like so normal he is boring. He drinks beer and watches college basketball when he isn't saving the world.
Probably more the pressure of making a trilogy without the intended character. IIRC, Nolan admitted to wanting to use Ledger again.
Not at all. I'm not gonna elaborate, cause it's already been said above. Just needed to make this known.
MoS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tdkr
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
We're gonna disagree this time, my friend.
I dislike both, but at this point in time I would rate TDKR above MoS, even if I'm more disappointed by it.
But again, I don't care for either of them.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Snyder has balls, but no heart. And it's true that his films are usually only as good as the script. With a killer script, he could make a killer movie.
After watching the best MOS trailer, I feel like we got a much different movie than what was advertized here. There should've been a bigger emphasis on Clark's internal struggle to be accepted into mankind.
That's the movie I really wanted to see and what I got hyped about. I can only (falsely) hope that MOS will have a greater focus on the characters that inhabit this world.
That's the movie I really wanted to see and what I got hyped about. I can only (falsely) hope that MOS will have a greater focus on the characters that inhabit this world.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Naw. There's more heart to Thomas Wayne, Alfred, Bruce, Gordon and even Ras in BB than anybody in MoS - Costner included.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Agreed. There was more heart and emotion in Thomas's death scene in BB than anything in MOS.
"Don't be afraid, Bruce."
That's not the Nolan of today
Just to clear it up I agree that BB is better than MoS...by a wide margin.
Jables Swan
Member
It is. Very relaxing right now.
ThreeSixty
December 16, 2009. 4:00 AM. THE LIGHT FIELD is the force. The mind. That guides. Controls.
So what's the GAF consensus on Man of Steel? A hundred and fifty pages are a lot to read. I saw the film on my birthday and thought it was the best Superman film I had ever seen and destroyed Superman Returns (which I was deeply disappointed by). I loved the serious and ambient tone and the fact it was a true origin story that went all the way back to Krypton. Some of those action scenes (particularly in the opening scenes and third act) were just stunning to watch on the big screen too. Did you guys like it?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
It was better than Fantastic Four, but worse than Daredevil.
Evenly split I would say
though there are a few who would insist that returns is better lol. Who knows, I've never even met a real live person who actually will admit to liking returns so it could be some elaborate prank.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I feel like Watchmen kind of made MoS suffer under Snyder's hand. Especially when it came to Clark turning into Superman. Because the dude had already nailed the scene of a character turning into a god before. And that's what Clark becoming Superman/learning to fly for the first time should have meant. The moment his feet leave the ground and he begins to ascend ought to be moment the leaves the human race behind.
And believe me, after Watchmen I imagined Superman's transformation scored to Phillip Glass many, many times.
And believe me, after Watchmen I imagined Superman's transformation scored to Phillip Glass many, many times.
My mom likes Returns lololol. I'm sure women would prefer the more romantic nature of that movie over MoS's.
lol what. The whole point of Superman is that he does not leave his humanity behind.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
You're misinterpreting me. I mean that becomes the point where he can't be a part of the human race as he once was. He still has all his morals etc, but it's at that moment when he can no longer pretend to be just another guy. It's when he comes unto the mantle of being Superman and all the responsibility that comes with it. Where he accepts his position outside of the hive, if you will. And tries to look at the race he once belonged to objectively.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
For the first half of MoS, he's trying to hide his secrets/fit in, still wanting to just be Pa Kent's son. It's when he dons the suit that he accepts that he can't do that anymore.
Here is a little experiment: Just immagine the movie didn't have the awesome fight scenes in it.
What's left? Nothing!
It's so mediocre, emotionless and forgettable with just very boring acting.
Only the long and great action scenes elavate it to a meager 2,5 out of 5 Stars (I think) AT BEST.
What's left? Nothing!
It's so mediocre, emotionless and forgettable with just very boring acting.
Only the long and great action scenes elavate it to a meager 2,5 out of 5 Stars (I think) AT BEST.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Korey scale or don't bother, pls.
Agree, but it is not that bad either. Certainly enough heart for me and didn`t have issues with it. This is still big budget blockbuster movie and not oscar bait. MOS, even with all the mess it is, has more heart than anything of all these other superhero movies of late.
Nappuccino
Member
So . . . 7?
I don't think the lack of heart is the problem. The movie tried really hard to get heart across. The problem is that Zack apparently has no idea how to get an audience to care about his characters beyond telegraphing to the audience that we're supposed to care about his characters.
And sometimes not even that.
mapachealocado
Member
Huh, I really liked Man of Steel. I understand some posts I read about him not caring about the destruction of Metropolis but I think it's because of the narrative style.
It's not that he doesn't care... it's that freaking Zod wants to change the planet. Surely that's more important. What would be the point of having scenes showing Superman saving kittens from trees and getting people to safety? We've seen that before. He cares but there're more important things for the audience to see. I didn't even feel that there were a lot of action scenes... It's an action hero movie. It's Superman. They're expected.
There's also this feeling of the movie being rushed, again, because of the narrative. I say it's fine. We don't need to see 4 scenes of him being moved from a bunker and arriving at the desert.
This movie wasn't supposed to be a remake of the previous movies. This is another take on the character and people need to understand that. I feel like people expect remakes or even a Smallville/Lois & Clark kind of Superman.
Origin stories are always hard because they need to establish a lot of stuff. I think they did a good job with Man of Steel. They showed what's important. They gave Clark Kent a bit more of personality (clichéd and shallow as it may be) and Lois Lane is a baddas, as she should be.
It's not that he doesn't care... it's that freaking Zod wants to change the planet. Surely that's more important. What would be the point of having scenes showing Superman saving kittens from trees and getting people to safety? We've seen that before. He cares but there're more important things for the audience to see. I didn't even feel that there were a lot of action scenes... It's an action hero movie. It's Superman. They're expected.
There's also this feeling of the movie being rushed, again, because of the narrative. I say it's fine. We don't need to see 4 scenes of him being moved from a bunker and arriving at the desert.
This movie wasn't supposed to be a remake of the previous movies. This is another take on the character and people need to understand that. I feel like people expect remakes or even a Smallville/Lois & Clark kind of Superman.
Origin stories are always hard because they need to establish a lot of stuff. I think they did a good job with Man of Steel. They showed what's important. They gave Clark Kent a bit more of personality (clichéd and shallow as it may be) and Lois Lane is a baddas, as she should be.
okay...?
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I agree, that's what I was expecting and why I was so excited for MoS. I have no idea why he thought the "Michael Bay" style of directing was more appropriate.
Watchmen is my favorite comic book movie. If you do re-watch it make sure you watch the directors cut. Not the ultimate edition, directors cut. It improves on the theatrical version a great deal.
I tried to watch Watchmen the other night and I kind of hate it. I can't stand the characters and the movie plays like an expensive music video.
Re: Man of Steel aesthetic ... after reading Goyer's script Snyder decided he wanted to shoot the movie in a "verite" style. I agree that his visual approach in Watchmen would have been more appropriate.
Re: Man of Steel aesthetic ... after reading Goyer's script Snyder decided he wanted to shoot the movie in a "verite" style. I agree that his visual approach in Watchmen would have been more appropriate.
Underwhelmed, bordering on dislike. Hated most of the art direction, script and pacing were way off. Acting was all over the place, Zod miscast, Lois miscast, Cavil was good, but he had so much more to give. Honestly, Thor is a better written, acted and made movie. Snyder didn't really get in the way of this movie, but maybe he should have since Watchmen and Sucker Punch have way more style than MoS.
