DreamcastSkies
Gold Member
I've seen enough. This movie is going to be better than Man of Steel.
Superman - new trailer
- Thread starter SJRB
- Start date
ClanOfNone
Member
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.
Hawking Radiation
Wants to watch an Event Horizon porno
Fair point
.I was using "career" loosely. Just meant he's still early in his journey as a hero, so a few emotional stumbles are expected.
Doom85
Member
I've not read Invisibles yet. But Morrison's Doom Patrol is incredible.
Morrison's All Star Superman is my second favorite DC comic of all time, after DC: New Frontier.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
One of Warner Bros.' few opportunities.
If the film flops, it's time to say goodbye to the studio.
If the film flops, it's time to say goodbye to the studio.
Madflavor
Member
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.
Madflavor
Member
I'm not feeling optimistic about it being good.
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
"Terrible New 'Superman' Is Final Nail In Superhero Cinema's Coffin."
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*.
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...
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*.
SJRB
Gold Member
"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...
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.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
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...
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*.
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. >=(
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
So you're not waiting for more reviews? Just one is all it takes to sway you?
Ulysses 31
Member
Seeing Supes beat up and losing his cool several times didn't really entice me to see it in theatres. 
I can see the dog(Gunn's pet insert) get annoying real quick too.
I can see the dog(Gunn's pet insert) get annoying real quick too.
Last edited:
Ulysses 31
Member
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...
Last edited:
Madflavor
Member
John Campea mentioned most people who he talked to liked it, but one person hated it, calling it "Sloppy, Messy, and Convoluted." Then World of Reel recently mentioned the people he talked to about press screenings were all over the place in terms of reactions. Then you've got Daily Beast's early review.
Just looking at the trailers, you can easily tell. It's a very stuffed and busy looking film. This in my opinion is absolutely a canary in a coal mine situation. Warner Bros and DC have not earned my confidence and benefit of the doubt, especially these past 10 years. I think the DC and Superman curse will continue, and they'll have no one but themselves to blame.
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.
Last edited:
I don't know if this will be any good or not, personally any interest I might have had was killed stone dead as soon as the cast list was revealed. I cannot imagine any genre story which needs that many characters, particularly so many superheroes when the film is supposed to be about Superman. I don't know where this train of thought has emerged from that cramming as many characters into your film as possible is a good idea - I'd guess it's people misunderstanding what made the first round of MCU/Avengers films work - but there are very few examples where it has turned out to be correct.
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.
thefool
Member
"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...
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*.
I mean, this is a James Gunn movie, it's the least surprising thing if this ain't that good. On the other hand, "reviewers" not liking movies is not fundamentally bad, they lack judgement.
Last edited:
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
Yes. The original review was very well-written. It brought up points I was exactly afraid would be there.
Madflavor
Member
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.
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.
Women DROOL over Cavill. How the studio missed that THAT GUY in THAT ROLE was catnip to women is a mystery. They could have done the most hard core action superman films with barely a hint of any Lois Lane romance and that "most wanted" female demo would have shown up in droves so long as Cavill lost his shirt 2-3 times a film, cuddled with a kitten at least once, and threw a few smoldering glances at the camera.
Good thing they didn't, I suppose, otherwise I'd have a few more kids no doubt
KyoZz
Tag, you're it.
In other news, James Gunn created Spotify playlists for each major character in the film:
Spotify link:
I think it's pretty cool. JG has good taste in music, so I'm definitely going to listen to that as there's a chance I'll find some gems.
And there's a little message from James Gunn at the beginning of each playlist to describe them
Very cool.
Spotify link:
I think it's pretty cool. JG has good taste in music, so I'm definitely going to listen to that as there's a chance I'll find some gems.
And there's a little message from James Gunn at the beginning of each playlist to describe them
Very cool.
Last edited:
MI8 was good though, with some of the best stunt work imaginable, why not see it?
Sardaukarama
Member
IMAX booked , Im ready to be slathered in Corenswet and Hoult
Ulysses 31
Member
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.
Last edited:
Spyxos
Member
Everyone around me thought it was boring and the reviews were also rather poor.
Ulysses 31
Member
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.
Eh, looks like an off angle shot of a screener rather than the movie itself having such weird fov...
KyoZz
Tag, you're 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...
And it's really weird because his foot seems to be the only thing deformed, everything else is normal
Last edited:
Ulysses 31
Member
SJRB
Gold Member
Last edited:
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
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...
Power Pro
Member
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.
Jinzo Prime
Member
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.
My guess is that the image has been poorly altered from a different aspect ratio, or something was edited out of the image.
Doom85
Member
Yes. His character, Rick Flag Sr. (Flag Jr. was in the two Suicide Squad films) will also be in Peacemaker Season 2.
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 well
SJRB
Gold Member
DC watching the guy they handed the keys to to kingdom to make a seemingly endless series of terrible marketing decisions.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Put simply, Superman IS an immigrant and what's political about "basic kindness"?
Last edited:
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.
Doom85
Member
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.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
But that's always been his story... The ultimate immigrant. If people are THIS triggered over him being CALLED an immigrant...
StreetsofBeige
Member
Weird feet pics above. Guys got bigger feet than Shaq.
Maybe CGI crew touches up a lot of scenes and they went ape shit on his foot and didnt bother fixing it thinking nobody would notice.
Maybe CGI crew touches up a lot of scenes and they went ape shit on his foot and didnt bother fixing it thinking nobody would notice.
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.
Watchmen was a specific story that went waaaaay adult with the superhero concept. It's on the level of Wild Cards with a much deeper thought about what these powers might actually mean for humanity. DC and Marvel rarely broach those things in the mainline comics at a serious level, particularly in film.