I feel like POTC4 was lacking something, though.
-
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
I feel like POTC4 was lacking something, though.
Joel Was Right
Member
Goofy Clark is Best Clark
Anton Sugar
Member
so someone on reddit did an extensive DC Universe movie cast and it's pretty damn good
http://imgur.com/a/5BNsS
although it's basically the internet's dream list
but I really want alan tudyk as booster gold now
http://imgur.com/a/5BNsS
although it's basically the internet's dream list
but I really want alan tudyk as booster gold now
Someone explain to me why does The Flash wear that outfit
Down to earth, humble and unsure.
Dude found out he could fly and still slowboated like a vagabond back home to visit his mom when there wasn't a crisis.
Whenever something important happened he visited his mom to tell her about it.
Since grade school he was unsure of himself since his senses were being assaulted with things other people couldn't understand.
He spent his young adult years traveling the world trying to find himself.
Even after he got the answers he wanted new challenges presented themselves making him uncomfortable with how to deal with the threats so he turned to God and man to help him.
Supes "grew up in Kansas". What more credentials do you need?
Nappuccino
Member
Before or after the incident.
MisterHero
Super Member
I'm almost certain Snyder tried to recreate a famous photo.http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel...tm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_70136
Look! Up on the screen! Its a bird, its a plane, its hey, is that Christopher Reeve in Man of Steel?
Nobody from the Man of Steel creative team is saying anything yet, but alert viewers have pointed out that for a few fleeting frames, it looks like the face of current Superman Henry Cavill morphs into Reeves. Its extremely subtle, and quick enough to be inconclusive, but its also easy to see something there.
Of course, as Uproxx points out, Cavill and Reeve were both cast as Superman partly because they looked the part, so even though they dont look exactly alike, neither are they totally dissimilar. It could just be a freaky optical illusion.
On the other hand, Man of Steel director Zack Snyder is a meticulous visual stylist, and theres certainly no shortage of CGI in the movie, which owes a heavy narrative debt to the first couple of Superman films Reeve worked on in the 70s; it seems like it would have been a relatively simple and sweet thing to do this as a tribute to the actor, who passed away in 2004 after suffering paralysis following a horse-riding accident in 1995.
Tip of the hat or trick of the eye? Were still not sure. But either way, it serves as a reminder that for a lot of people, Reeve will always be the definitive cinematic Man of Steel.
Holy shit.
and they were going to put a Reeve cameo in another scene (Clark Kent + bicycle) but it got cut
Jables Swan
Member
Not sure if serious.
D.Lo
Member
So he pretty much always did exactly what the last person he spoke to told him to do, with the one exception of the army guys.
turbosnail
Banned
Henry Cavill is a great super man. I HATE that they are going for the Daily Globe or whatever route with clark. it is way too unbelievable
Joel Was Right
Member
Yes, because we can't have that in a movie about an alien humanoid that has godlike powers and wears a skin tight suit with a cape. We need to stick to realism! I mean, come on lets get real here
You didn't catch the name of the Daily Planet? The last line of the film even hinges on it.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Because it's awesome.
Matrix
LeBron loves his girlfriend. There is no other woman in the world hed rather have. The problem is, Dwyanes not a woman.
Lets see...
We have people who call Lois... Louis.
We have people who still call Christopher Reeve... Reeves.
We now have the Daily Globe... instead of Planet.
Good times lol
We have people who call Lois... Louis.
We have people who still call Christopher Reeve... Reeves.
We now have the Daily Globe... instead of Planet.
Good times lol
D.Lo
Member
Of course someone with a Karl-El avatar would say that...
Dude, this is a SupperMan thread, ok?
Some of those choices are great, but I personally think that Idris Elba would make a badass Aquaman.
turbosnail
Banned
They spent two hours trying to convince us that superman was human. And it tried to convey a more realistic superman. Yet the most famous alien on the planet can pull off not being recognized with only glasses on. If only he grew a beard on command and started cutting down some trees.
Matrix
LeBron loves his girlfriend. There is no other woman in the world hed rather have. The problem is, Dwyanes not a woman.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
How many people actually SAW Superman being Superman? And how many of those people will recognize him as a reporter at the Daily Planet?
Especially when it appears that some people at the Planet not only know his secret but feel fine with keeping it for him.
So long as Clark isn't giving interviews or stopping for photo ops as he does his superfeats (or maybe going so far as to prevent people from taking his picture) then he can be Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter a lot more comfortably.
No one. He didn't help a soul out of the rubble of Metropolis.
Jack Scofield
Member
This argument is stupid and will always remain stupid. I roll my eyes whenever someone tries using it.
There are plenty of reasons people wouldn't connect the dots between Clark Kent and Superman, particularly in MoS.
Check out Superman: Secret Origin, Birthright, or even the last season of Smallville. The psychology of it all can be summed up in that people don't believe something amazing could be right in front of them, that we're "too busy to look up in the sky." In MoS the question isn't even begged until
, and it looks like he'll have at least one major player helping him with keeping a low profile. Most people wouldn't even think Superman was "normal," and that he'd always be Supermaning around the globe.
Check out Superman: Secret Origin, Birthright, or even the last season of Smallville. The psychology of it all can be summed up in that people don't believe something amazing could be right in front of them, that we're "too busy to look up in the sky." In MoS the question isn't even begged until
the last scene
I think they'll probably roll with Perry and (clearly) Lois knowing his identity, providing a base of operations if you will. I mean, Perry got a pretty good look I think.
Also, in my second viewing earlier today the movie got applause at the end, even a few weeks after it's release.
Also, in my second viewing earlier today the movie got applause at the end, even a few weeks after it's release.
Neil Patrick Harris as The Flash or bust.
but otherwise, there are some really nice choices in there, if a bit on-the-nose
This was explained in quite a tricky way during the movie. And it's one of the reasons why I think the script is one of the most clever things I've seen in recent history when it comes to Hollywood blockbusters, which are basically "movies" in name only.
When Lois gets to the Arctic she faces, literally, Clark for three times. She doesn't once acknowledge him and she's all "grab my luggage, bitch!" to him. She doesn't even look him in the eye, because he is a nobody. The reason why Clark's father pushes him so much for hiding his alien nature is because he knows how much pride factors into tolerance: I'm cool with you as long as you are not better than me, or if you don't make feel so average with your differences. So Clark learns to blend in the crowd and the only times when he can't restrain himself is when he needs to save people.
The fact that he appeals to the marine general "to be friends" while at the same time chooses to also keep his identity as a human, is because by the end of the movie he is conflicted about his...vocation.
Other sneaky tidbits:
- the priest he sees in the church is one of the bullies who beat him when he was younger. Almost all people I've talked to didn't connect the dots: no hint is given aside the back to back proximity of the sequence with the bullies and the sequence in the church.
- the 33 years old info coupled with his resurrection. When Superman looks up into the terraforming machine's ray it's not because he's concentrating his powers, but because he fears to die. At that point in the movie he knows kryptonians can challenge his powers, hurt him, and possibly kill him. He doesn't know what kryptonian technology can do to him. So he charges the terraforming machine in a leap of faith, dies, then resurrects with the power of the sun. They made the very smart decision of not making this event explicit: if they had some sort of explanation done by the doctor, they would have spoiled the magic of that sequence. They would have also occurred into full blown blasphemy.
This is going to make a lot of sense if they will re-enact the Death of Superman saga and will have to explain, this time literally and "scientifically", his resurrection.
All this! plus the fact that they didn't use neither kryptonite or Luthor and, last but not the least, the fact that they were able to give Superman a genesis worth of Spiderman and Batman. They turned a situational character like Pa' Kent into a full blown narrative fulcrum: he gives Clark an identity (shows him the pod) and a purpose (to hide his nature so that he will be able to live his life the way he wants). This is also the mindfuck that gets incepted (LOL) in Clark's head: on one side a father tells him to inspire people and lead people, on another side a father tells him to leave his life in peace because revealing himself to humans will put him in a place where he won't have a choice anymore but to rescue them, all the time.
This why the frustration for his father's death and for Zod's death is shown in similar ways and with similar emotions from Superman perspective: he abides his father will and his father dies, he abides Jor's will and Zod (his last tie to Krypton) dies.
Whether this conflict is going to be perpetuated or solved in the next movies, it's still undeniably there in this one, so telling me that Superman Returns is by any way or means superior to a script which presents a character as flat as Superman in such a majestic, conflicted, and relatable way is a shameful disgrace that I won't stand by and let occur:
I CAN SAVE YOU. I CAN SAVE ALL OF YOU.
Cue the orchestra.
When Lois gets to the Arctic she faces, literally, Clark for three times. She doesn't once acknowledge him and she's all "grab my luggage, bitch!" to him. She doesn't even look him in the eye, because he is a nobody. The reason why Clark's father pushes him so much for hiding his alien nature is because he knows how much pride factors into tolerance: I'm cool with you as long as you are not better than me, or if you don't make feel so average with your differences. So Clark learns to blend in the crowd and the only times when he can't restrain himself is when he needs to save people.
The fact that he appeals to the marine general "to be friends" while at the same time chooses to also keep his identity as a human, is because by the end of the movie he is conflicted about his...vocation.
Other sneaky tidbits:
- the priest he sees in the church is one of the bullies who beat him when he was younger. Almost all people I've talked to didn't connect the dots: no hint is given aside the back to back proximity of the sequence with the bullies and the sequence in the church.
- the 33 years old info coupled with his resurrection. When Superman looks up into the terraforming machine's ray it's not because he's concentrating his powers, but because he fears to die. At that point in the movie he knows kryptonians can challenge his powers, hurt him, and possibly kill him. He doesn't know what kryptonian technology can do to him. So he charges the terraforming machine in a leap of faith, dies, then resurrects with the power of the sun. They made the very smart decision of not making this event explicit: if they had some sort of explanation done by the doctor, they would have spoiled the magic of that sequence. They would have also occurred into full blown blasphemy.
This is going to make a lot of sense if they will re-enact the Death of Superman saga and will have to explain, this time literally and "scientifically", his resurrection.
All this! plus the fact that they didn't use neither kryptonite or Luthor and, last but not the least, the fact that they were able to give Superman a genesis worth of Spiderman and Batman. They turned a situational character like Pa' Kent into a full blown narrative fulcrum: he gives Clark an identity (shows him the pod) and a purpose (to hide his nature so that he will be able to live his life the way he wants). This is also the mindfuck that gets incepted (LOL) in Clark's head: on one side a father tells him to inspire people and lead people, on another side a father tells him to leave his life in peace because revealing himself to humans will put him in a place where he won't have a choice anymore but to rescue them, all the time.
This why the frustration for his father's death and for Zod's death is shown in similar ways and with similar emotions from Superman perspective: he abides his father will and his father dies, he abides Jor's will and Zod (his last tie to Krypton) dies.
Whether this conflict is going to be perpetuated or solved in the next movies, it's still undeniably there in this one, so telling me that Superman Returns is by any way or means superior to a script which presents a character as flat as Superman in such a majestic, conflicted, and relatable way is a shameful disgrace that I won't stand by and let occur:
I CAN SAVE YOU. I CAN SAVE ALL OF YOU.
Cue the orchestra.
Joel Was Right
Member
This reminds me of that blog explaining what the film Prometheus was actually about.
http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html
I finished reading it with the thought "this is the greatest movie of all time" before I remembered what the film, in contrast, was actually like. Man of Steel was a fantastic idea on paper, certainly something light years ahead of the scope of Returns. I think it becomes subjective in the second half but the first showcased arguably the best origin film.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Excellent post.
Never knew the priest was one of the bullies.
While you have a valid point regarding Clark being a nobody when he's handling luggage, the fact remains that there was no 'Superman' at that point, so there was no one to compare him to. Realistically speaking, if Clark's picture exists on any government database, his identity would be revealed to the military in all but half a second. Face match/recognition software is fairly common. Having said that, I don't think anyone in the Daily Planet would suspect him. It would just be too out-there of a thing to think about a work colleague.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
See, this is all fantastic and would make a very good story for the film, except for the fact that the movie itself fails to delivery any of these points effectively. Yeah, there are quite a few points in that spoiler text that I never noticed nor picked up on during the film, and neither did my gf who I just read that too. She loved all of that explanation too, but her first reaction to it was "now why didn't the movie have any of that in it?".
And this is what disappointed me about MoS, it just failed to connect, it failed to get it's story across effectively. Your post is awesome Tsulumo, but it also showcases the film's failure spectacularly, sadly enough.
PowderedToast
Junior Member
amen
questionmark
Member
Saw it the other day and I was pleased. Thoroughly enjoyable movie. It would have benefited from a longer running time though. Felt a little rushed in places. My biggest gripe aside from that was the Worldmaker machine fight/scene. First of all, I loved the fighting scenes with the Kryptonians, so I was bummed when we didn't get to see more of that. Instead, what we got was some dumb fucking shit, that looks it spawned from the imagination of a 12 year old child. That scene really stood out to me in a negative way.
Rockman.EXE
Banned
Just watched this, the action scenes were amazing.
Nolan could learn a thing or two about action from this movie.
Smallville. Faora and Non. The. Best.
See, this is all fantastic and would make a very good story for the film, except for the fact that the movie itself fails to delivery any of these points effectively. Yeah, there are quite a few points in that spoiler text that I never noticed nor picked up on during the film, and neither did my gf who I just read that too. She loved all of that explanation too, but her first reaction to it was "now why didn't the movie have any of that in it?".
And this is what disappointed me about MoS, it just failed to connect, it failed to get it's story across effectively. Your post is awesome Tsulumo, but it also showcases the film's failure spectacularly, sadly enough.
This opinion doesn't resonate with me. I enjoyed MoS on the first go through and on my second watching I enjoyed it even more because of the things I missed earlier like Clark being the guy at the helicopter.
MoS correctly delivered most of the things it needed to do in a subtle manner. The movies has certain failures in portraying its ideas because it is completely missing scenes. But there is a big difference between missing context and not seeing it the first time.
Now I'm going to have to watch this movie a 3rd time since that post about who the priest was is mind blowing.
I need to watch it again. I missed the very beginning so maybe my point is moot.
Having said that, I'm such a hard guy to please. I wish they had explained that Kryptonians can naturally gain energy from stars. The red sun of krypton, being bloated, doesn't give as much energy as a new young star does, but it still does. Kryptonians are still super powered compared to us, but nothing like what Superman is. This way, its not like they're going from mere human-like to gods in minutes and its more believable when they land on earth and don't take much time to perfect their new, enhanced abilities.
I also wish they would describe how the individual feels "connected" with the star when its light strikes them, like its lending some of its power directly to the person...and they aren't magically feeding off of mere photons.
Is that dumb?
Having said that, I'm such a hard guy to please. I wish they had explained that Kryptonians can naturally gain energy from stars. The red sun of krypton, being bloated, doesn't give as much energy as a new young star does, but it still does. Kryptonians are still super powered compared to us, but nothing like what Superman is. This way, its not like they're going from mere human-like to gods in minutes and its more believable when they land on earth and don't take much time to perfect their new, enhanced abilities.
I also wish they would describe how the individual feels "connected" with the star when its light strikes them, like its lending some of its power directly to the person...and they aren't magically feeding off of mere photons.
Is that dumb?
DerZuhälter
Member
But aren't these points exactly what people hated? I certainly did. I hate the heavyhanded religious undertones. I hate how Pa Kent and Jor-El are basically depicted.
Him being 33 just like Jesus, him droping out of Zod's ship with the same Jesus imagery Returns was slammed for, the side-by-side shot of Jesus and Clark's face in the church... him even getting into a church, asking Jonathan if "God made him this way", Mrs. Ross who's "son was in the bus!" talking about divine intervention and Faora dropping a remark of being evolutionary superior due to having no morals, Snyder tipping his hat to creationists?. I hated all this stuff and cringed seeing it.
Thanks for now revealing the theme of ressurrection to me. I hate that too!
Regarding Jonathan and Jor-El I really think your explanation is quite on point, yet missing several crucial points whic really mar their characters.
Rejecting the classic characteristics of Jonathan being the source of Superman's moral and ethical code, and Jor-El being the source of his powers (the original movies had Kal train several years in the fortress of solitude) bears some problems going on.
While you are right that Jonathan is the movies representation of xenophobia and Jor-El the leading power in Clark embracing his powers, the central theme of choice is also attached to them.
Jor-El is attached to the theme of choice through the failures of Krypton and the lack there of, which ultimately lead to it's demise. Kal as freely born child and seed of hope defied these conventions. Free birth and the choice to be whatever he wanted to be.
"What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society has intend for him. What if a child aspired to something greater?"
Jor-El standing for a choiceless society means of course the freedom of choice had to be represented in one way or another for human society. And the choice couldn't have been worse.
Jonathan Kent is turned into a morally ambigious person who instead of forming Clark morally, let's Clark choose what he wants to do, while at the same time being the representation of earth's xenophobia. These two idea clash with eachother and leave behind a quite inexplicable character. Character saying stuff like this:
- "No matter what kind of man you'll become Clark, good or bad, you'll change the world."
- "What should I have done... let them all die?" "Maybe"
- " you will have to make a choice, a choice if whether you will stand proud infront of the human race or not.
- "I wanted to hit that kid" "I know you did, part me of me even wanted you to, but then what?"
Yet at the same time saying:
"You have to keep that side of you a secret!"
So what now? Choice or no choice?
With the introduction of Jor-El, Kal-El gets put onto the path of the hero. The guiding light for earth, a symbol of hope. "You can save all of them", telling his son, the embodiement of choice Krypton didn't have, lastly what to do with his life and stripping him of any choice.
Not to mention: Why did Jor-El instill the codex, which is the epitome of everything that was wrong with Krypton in it's complete counterpart? Poetry? It's sorta rhymes? Or just to shit on Zod and make sure, that Krypton dies?
Hologram Jor-El remembering his own death not even mentions the fact that Kal could resurrect his own species while talking to him in the genesis chamber.... ah yeah right, wouldn't make any sense since he is telling him that this is everything that was wrong with Krypton society.
And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In the end Kal shits on Krypton just as much as his father did, screaming "Krypton had it's chance" and eye-lasering the fuck out of the genesis-chamber holding scout ship Zod was commanding, thus commiting genocide to his people... that's why the final neck snapping scene loses a lot of punch.
"The haunting scream is so powerful, because he is alone now... the last of his people and it is his first kill" Bullshit, he killed his people before that, he had already made his choice at this point. Considering the family he tried to save from Zods laser isn't showed, I really think they might have died in a first cut, that probably was rejected by the studios because they are not visible at all after Kal kills Zod. Anyway back to the main point:
This leaves us basically for all future movies with a Jonathan Kent, being the inspiration for the secret identity Clark Kent and Superman being morally ambigious, thus neck snapping at the end. I didn't like that at all, and I guess there are similar sentiments here. What it gives us is a certain unpredictability though or a moral conflict that might be picked up at a later stage in Clark's character development. He will need it.
Thanks for now revealing the theme of ressurrection to me. I hate that too!
Regarding Jonathan and Jor-El I really think your explanation is quite on point, yet missing several crucial points whic really mar their characters.
Rejecting the classic characteristics of Jonathan being the source of Superman's moral and ethical code, and Jor-El being the source of his powers (the original movies had Kal train several years in the fortress of solitude) bears some problems going on.
While you are right that Jonathan is the movies representation of xenophobia and Jor-El the leading power in Clark embracing his powers, the central theme of choice is also attached to them.
Jor-El is attached to the theme of choice through the failures of Krypton and the lack there of, which ultimately lead to it's demise. Kal as freely born child and seed of hope defied these conventions. Free birth and the choice to be whatever he wanted to be.
"What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society has intend for him. What if a child aspired to something greater?"
Jor-El standing for a choiceless society means of course the freedom of choice had to be represented in one way or another for human society. And the choice couldn't have been worse.
Jonathan Kent is turned into a morally ambigious person who instead of forming Clark morally, let's Clark choose what he wants to do, while at the same time being the representation of earth's xenophobia. These two idea clash with eachother and leave behind a quite inexplicable character. Character saying stuff like this:
- "No matter what kind of man you'll become Clark, good or bad, you'll change the world."
- "What should I have done... let them all die?" "Maybe"
- " you will have to make a choice, a choice if whether you will stand proud infront of the human race or not.
- "I wanted to hit that kid" "I know you did, part me of me even wanted you to, but then what?"
Yet at the same time saying:
"You have to keep that side of you a secret!"
So what now? Choice or no choice?
With the introduction of Jor-El, Kal-El gets put onto the path of the hero. The guiding light for earth, a symbol of hope. "You can save all of them", telling his son, the embodiement of choice Krypton didn't have, lastly what to do with his life and stripping him of any choice.
Not to mention: Why did Jor-El instill the codex, which is the epitome of everything that was wrong with Krypton in it's complete counterpart? Poetry? It's sorta rhymes? Or just to shit on Zod and make sure, that Krypton dies?
Hologram Jor-El remembering his own death not even mentions the fact that Kal could resurrect his own species while talking to him in the genesis chamber.... ah yeah right, wouldn't make any sense since he is telling him that this is everything that was wrong with Krypton society.
And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In the end Kal shits on Krypton just as much as his father did, screaming "Krypton had it's chance" and eye-lasering the fuck out of the genesis-chamber holding scout ship Zod was commanding, thus commiting genocide to his people... that's why the final neck snapping scene loses a lot of punch.
"The haunting scream is so powerful, because he is alone now... the last of his people and it is his first kill" Bullshit, he killed his people before that, he had already made his choice at this point. Considering the family he tried to save from Zods laser isn't showed, I really think they might have died in a first cut, that probably was rejected by the studios because they are not visible at all after Kal kills Zod. Anyway back to the main point:
This leaves us basically for all future movies with a Jonathan Kent, being the inspiration for the secret identity Clark Kent and Superman being morally ambigious, thus neck snapping at the end. I didn't like that at all, and I guess there are similar sentiments here. What it gives us is a certain unpredictability though or a moral conflict that might be picked up at a later stage in Clark's character development. He will need it.
Awesome. I must also admit that Cavill looks a lot like Welling in some of the "farmboy" shots, especially when smiling.
Kind of. Not every little detail needs a rational explanation.
No but sunlight isn't the only difference between Earth and Krypton in this movie. The immediate difference would be much lower gravity, and then there's the atmosphere thing which pretty much was Kryptonite. The atmosphere is one of those bits that didn't jive the first time I saw it but made sense on reflection. Instead of irradiated chunks of the planet it's something toxic that Kryptonians build a tolerance to, even though it weakens them.
Zod's the only one who takes all of these things in by the end. Faora and the CG guy pretty much rely on their natural toughness, lower gravity and body armor in their fight.
http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel...tm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_70136
Look! Up on the screen! It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s…hey, is that Christopher Reeve in ‘Man of Steel’?
Nobody from the ‘Man of Steel‘ creative team is saying anything yet, but alert viewers have pointed out that for a few fleeting frames, it looks like the face of current Superman Henry Cavill morphs into Reeve’s. It’s extremely subtle, and quick enough to be inconclusive, but it’s also easy to see…something there.
Of course, as Uproxx points out, Cavill and Reeve were both cast as Superman partly because they looked the part, so even though they don’t look exactly alike, neither are they totally dissimilar. It could just be a freaky optical illusion.
On the other hand, ‘Man of Steel’ director Zack Snyder is a meticulous visual stylist, and there’s certainly no shortage of CGI in the movie, which owes a heavy narrative debt to the first couple of ‘Superman’ films Reeve worked on in the ’70s; it seems like it would have been a relatively simple — and sweet — thing to do this as a tribute to the actor, who passed away in 2004 after suffering paralysis following a horse-riding accident in 1995.
Tip of the hat or trick of the eye? We’re still not sure. But either way, it serves as a reminder that for a lot of people, Reeve will always be the definitive cinematic Man of Steel.
Holy shit.
I cannot believe people didn't see this when they were first watching the film.
I noticed it straight away, and couldn't stop talking about it on the way home.
Honestly, this film has just so much going for it. There are shots lifted straight out of Birthright and All-Star for example. Its a well shot, well directed, film that achieves what a Superman film is supposed to achieve right now.
The writing could have been better. But everything in this film screams that they needed to do what they did so they could have a great story for a sequel. It just feels as though most criticism of this film is completely myopic.
D.Lo
Member
All that 'hidden messages in the script' stuff screams of Nolan to me, in a negative way. He stuffs his own movies with faux-intellectualism and cheap symbolism. He has gotten more ambitious as his career progresses, and he went right off the deep end and up his own ass after Dark Knight.
The Inception and TDKR scripts completely lost out out on any chance of genuine emotional resonance for any characters because he was too busy rushing through plot points and putting the characters in situations/places/poses that had 'symbolic' meaning that there was no time for motivations or logic.
The police are now the underground movement! Bane represents control presenting itself as an illusion of choice! Bruce is emotionally AND physically 'broken'! And almost infinite other pieces of nonsense that made the script a garbled mess.
So Nolan uses characters as devices for others to explain the plot to them, because he has no time to build characters who have clear motivations. That's why Lois was everywhere in MOS, he needed someone to justify explaining the plot to. And that's why the 'love' story lacked any resonance, because the movie in no way justified why either of them cared about the other at all on a personal level.
Martha/Clark was the closest thing to a real character relationship moment because she got to demonstrate her love for Clark by standing up to Kryptonian gods to help him. And that's why Clark's response to her being hurt is BY FAR the most 'earned' emotional moment of the film. Second was Jonathan when he died, for a similar reason, he was demonstrating that he cared about Clark. We didn't get told it like we do everything else, we got to see actions and motivations.
The Inception and TDKR scripts completely lost out out on any chance of genuine emotional resonance for any characters because he was too busy rushing through plot points and putting the characters in situations/places/poses that had 'symbolic' meaning that there was no time for motivations or logic.
The police are now the underground movement! Bane represents control presenting itself as an illusion of choice! Bruce is emotionally AND physically 'broken'! And almost infinite other pieces of nonsense that made the script a garbled mess.
So Nolan uses characters as devices for others to explain the plot to them, because he has no time to build characters who have clear motivations. That's why Lois was everywhere in MOS, he needed someone to justify explaining the plot to. And that's why the 'love' story lacked any resonance, because the movie in no way justified why either of them cared about the other at all on a personal level.
Martha/Clark was the closest thing to a real character relationship moment because she got to demonstrate her love for Clark by standing up to Kryptonian gods to help him. And that's why Clark's response to her being hurt is BY FAR the most 'earned' emotional moment of the film. Second was Jonathan when he died, for a similar reason, he was demonstrating that he cared about Clark. We didn't get told it like we do everything else, we got to see actions and motivations.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
His best movie as an editor is his first one, Talk Radio. It's all downhill fromt there.
Messypandas
Member
But has he ever seen a chevy with the butterfly doors?
Anton Sugar
Member
Uuuuh, criticizing a movie for being thin on character (and having a generally mediocre script) isn't myopic, it's realistic. I agree, they set everything up for a terrific sequel, but I didn't spend money to watch a prologue; I wanted a great movie.
Liquidsnake
Banned
I thought the same in the movie theater.