DreamcastSkies
Gold Member
I've seen enough. This movie is going to be better than Man of Steel.
I hope I like the Grant Morrison stuff because outside of Batman, I haven't liked anything else from DC so far. I'm hoping to read Hellblazer and Alan Moore Swamp Thing Run this year
I use the Marvel Unlimited App a lot and I came across lot of stuff I actually love in comparison to DC. I'm still gonna to read DC, since I'm not sure outside of Batman, I'll most likely find something I love
Is superhero a career now. I thought it was more of a lifestyle brand.
I haven't read comics in many years, but Grant Morrison's run on Doom Patrol and The Invisibles are probably my favorite work in the medium.
One of Warner Bros.' few opportunities.
If the film flops, it's time to say goodbye to the studio.
Man of steel did 670mill off a 225 mill budget. BvS did 900 million off a 250 mill budget.i think supes is on solid ground financially. I do hope this film is A good and B successful.Probably Superman as well. If this movie is bad/mediocre and does poor at the BO, then that would make three Superman films in a row that underperformed critically/commercially. I have a hard time seeing another Superman film get made for a very long time if that were to happen.
Then again we're about to get our 4th attempt at a Fantastic Four movie, so who knows.
Man of steel did 670mill off a 225 mill budget. BvS did 900 million off a 250 mill budget.i think supes is on solid ground financially. I do hope this film is A good and B successful.
"Terrible New 'Superman' Is Final Nail In Superhero Cinema's Coffin."
![]()
SUPERMAN First Review Calls DCU Reboot "Superficial And Silly" And Bemoans "Terrible," "Overstuffed" Movie
The first Superman review has been published from a major outlet, and it's overwhelmingly negative, arguing that very little works in James Gunn's first big screen addition to the new DCU. Check it out...comicbookmovie.com
We won't name and shame the critic, as the review's publication isn't their fault. However, they are well-respected and have a history of writing for publications including Variety and Esquire Magazine.
They're also no superhero hater, as this critic in question has positively reviewed the likes of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, and Thunderbolts*.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Also the man has no jaw, his head is so weirdly shaped and couldn't be more different than lex. Cutting someones hair is not enough to make them look like lex luthor.Luthor sounds weak and pathetic.
Yikes! Unfortunately that review sounds like what I've expected from the trailers. I always hope that I haven't gotten the right impression from just trailers, but more often than not the impression is accurate. Sounds like this Summer popcorn flick won't be getting my money."Terrible New 'Superman' Is Final Nail In Superhero Cinema's Coffin."
![]()
SUPERMAN First Review Calls DCU Reboot "Superficial And Silly" And Bemoans "Terrible," "Overstuffed" Movie
The first Superman review has been published from a major outlet, and it's overwhelmingly negative, arguing that very little works in James Gunn's first big screen addition to the new DCU. Check it out...comicbookmovie.com
We won't name and shame the critic, as the review's publication isn't their fault. However, they are well-respected and have a history of writing for publications including Variety and Esquire Magazine.
They're also no superhero hater, as this critic in question has positively reviewed the likes of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, and Thunderbolts*.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yikes! Unfortunately that review sounds like what I've expected from the trailers. I always hope that I haven't gotten the right impression from just trailers, but more often than not the impression is accurate. Sounds like this Summer popcorn flick won't be getting my money.
And I say that with sadness, because I used to love watching the big Summer movies like Transformers 1, Star Trek and Inception. I've been left with a void for several years now. >=(
Eh, if the reports of the 200M marketing budget are true, it needs to break a billion(or more like 1.2) to start being profitable...Man of steel did 670mill off a 225 mill budget. BvS did 900 million off a 250 mill budget.i think supes is on solid ground financially. I do hope this film is A good and B successful.
So you're not waiting for more reviews? Just one is all it takes to sway you?
What are you counting as A. a superman movie, and B. a failure? Financially MoS, BvS, and JL were all successful financially. Critically they were mixed but I enjoyed all of them, with JL being the most messy. Had the snyder-cut been the theatrical release I'm not sure audiences really wanted to go where he was headed but DAMN, I'd have liked to see it.If you fail three times in a row to make a good Superman movie, you absolutely fucking suck at your jobs. He should, theoretically, be one of the most easy superheroes to translate to the big screen and write a decent story about. So if this movie comes out and gets mixed reviews and doesn't do well at the box office, then the DCU will be over before it started. WB should just walk away at that point and focus on their other IPs.
"Terrible New 'Superman' Is Final Nail In Superhero Cinema's Coffin."
![]()
SUPERMAN First Review Calls DCU Reboot "Superficial And Silly" And Bemoans "Terrible," "Overstuffed" Movie
The first Superman review has been published from a major outlet, and it's overwhelmingly negative, arguing that very little works in James Gunn's first big screen addition to the new DCU. Check it out...comicbookmovie.com
We won't name and shame the critic, as the review's publication isn't their fault. However, they are well-respected and have a history of writing for publications including Variety and Esquire Magazine.
They're also no superhero hater, as this critic in question has positively reviewed the likes of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, and Thunderbolts*.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yes. The original review was very well-written. It brought up points I was exactly afraid would be there.So you're not waiting for more reviews? Just one is all it takes to sway you?
What are you counting as A. a superman movie, and B. a failure? Financially MoS, BvS, and JL were all successful financially. Critically they were mixed but I enjoyed all of them, with JL being the most messy. Had the snyder-cut been the theatrical release I'm not sure audiences really wanted to go where he was headed but DAMN, I'd have liked to see it.
Undiluted Snyder as writer and director is a big mixed bag, as Rebel Moon and Army of the Dead shows. Had Gunn gotten in there and injected some actual human empathy into the script I think the duo could have done some amazing things.
Infinity War and Endgame really skewed the studio perception for how audiences react to these massive mash-up films. Personally, I don't think having more than 2-3 'extra' heroes in a film helps, maybe just 1-2 at most. Especially when you gotta bend over backwards to give "respect" to these characters and you are trying to tick off the diversity checklist for the ESG rating. Movies are not like TV shows, they need a strong focus, side characters exist to service the main character, and pacing is more of an issue. So guess what, those other heroes are reduced to 2D versions that are there to be saved, establish the stakes and risks to the audience, or help the main. They don't need their own little adventures or message.
Well, then I'd argue Superman III and then IV REALLY killed the IP, SR failed to rekindle it, but MoS DEFINTELY woke folks up to a live action supes. I agree that BvS was a film we didn't really need, at least the BvS part taken as far as it was, and moving so quickly through the superman arc (never really having just a "superman saves the earth" movie between MoS and his death in BvS) robbed us of 1-3 quite nice Cavill superman films that probably would have made bank and been well remembered.Superman Returns, Man of Steel, and potentially this one. MoS and BvS made a profit, but MoS was divisive and BvS was hated. You can cite their immediate gains if you want, but long term they did serious damage to the DC brand. So yes, I do consider those films failures.
MI8 was good though, with some of the best stunt work imaginable, why not see it?Oh come on, I already skipped Mission Impossible this year. I actually wanted to see this one.
Nah, the writing doesn't withstand a lot of scrutiny and all the exposition bombs drag it down even further. Fallout was the last good MI. The stunts and the Submarine section were spectacular though.MI8 was good though, with some of the best stunt work imaginable, why not see it?
Everyone around me thought it was boring and the reviews were also rather poor.MI8 was good though, with some of the best stunt work imaginable, why not see it?
![]()
I'm starting to hate Gunn, he's turning Superman into a real clown. Dafuk is this shit? If you want to use a wide angle, you need to work your pov to accommodate it.
It's from an official TV spot (7 seconds bottom right)Eh, looks like an off angle shot of a screener rather than the movie itself having such weird fov...![]()
It's from an official TV spot (7 seconds bottom right)
And it's really weird because his foot seems to be the only thing deformed, everything else is normal
Doesn't the movie use a quite particular lense which gives off an extreme view in some scenes? I can see it also leading to distortion in the edges.Eh, looks like an off angle shot of a screener rather than the movie itself having such weird fov...![]()
![]()
I'm starting to hate Gunn, he's turning Superman into a real clown. Dafuk is this shit? If you want to use a wide angle, you need to work your pov to accommodate it.
I keep going over the footage and the foot looks normal until it touches the corner. It looks like the image was digitally stretched into that corner.Doesn't the movie use a quite particular lense which gives off an extreme view in some scenes? I can see it also leading to distortion in the edges.
Is that Frank Grillo?
I don't know what's more impressive, that Frank Grillo is SIXTY but looks that good or that Joel Kinnaman is only 45 but has been playing an old man on For All Mankind so wellYes. His character, Rick Flag Sr. (Flag Jr. was in the two Suicide Squad films) will also be in Peacemaker Season 2.
I think folks might think political talk about the legal status of a supergod might not be the type of escapist fiction they want. Personally when you start bringing in those types of issues then I start wondering about the ability to pick up a car using just the front bumper, catching women falling from the sky as if they wouldnt just shred right through your arms, the physicas of frost breath, etc. Superheroes are mostly a RIDICULOUS concept, so the more 'real world' you bring in, the more 'real world' you gotta address. Then it all falls apart and you get nonsense like "so superman CHOSE to let those kids die in the floods because he was out on a date with Lois even though he could damn well hear their cries?" which really ruins the entire experience.Put simply, Superman IS an immigrant and what's political about "basic kindness"?
Superheroes are mostly a RIDICULOUS concept, so the more 'real world' you bring in, the more 'real world' you gotta address.
Then it all falls apart and you get nonsense like "so superman CHOSE to let those kids die in the floods because he was out on a date with Lois even though he could damn well hear their cries?" which really ruins the entire experience.
I think folks might think political talk about the legal status of a supergod might not be the type of escapist fiction they want. Personally when you start bringing in those types of issues then I start wondering about the ability to pick up a car using just the front bumper, catching women falling from the sky as if they wouldnt just shred right through your arms, the physicas of frost breath, etc. Superheroes are mostly a RIDICULOUS concept, so the more 'real world' you bring in, the more 'real world' you gotta address. Then it all falls apart and you get nonsense like "so superman CHOSE to let those kids die in the floods because he was out on a date with Lois even though he could damn well hear their cries?" which really ruins the entire experience.
They have shown it, I think in Superman Returns, maybe Man of Steel, where he hangs out in low earth orbit and he can hear every radio transmission. So presumably he CAN listen in on a large percentage of calls for help.That sounds more like a personal choice for an individual viewer rather than some "rule" writers should be shackled to. And no, fantastical superhero stories have been tackling these sorts of topics since the 70's, possibly even earlier. And barely any of the readers have had an issue with it.
Like, dude, you're basically trying to argue WATCHMEN of all things doesn't work with what you're saying. Probably THE most acclaimed comic book of all time. Come on now.
![]()
If that's actually in a story, then that writer doesn't understand Superman, as Clark would absolutely leave the date to go save those kids. If it's not actually in the story, then you or whoever is just inventing random hypothetical situations about what's going on in the film, which, okay, with that odd way of viewing a film, then one could "ruin" any film ever made.