the level of destruction and Superman seemingly not giving a shit about the fact that he could be potentially killing thousands of people in his fight with Zod. He didn't even try to save people or move the fight away from the city. What annoys me even more is the fact that he was suddenly capable of killing because one group of people were about to get zapped by Zod, uh, what about the thousands of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire while you were levelling Metropolis? It made zero sense to me.
the level of destruction and Superman seemingly not giving a shit about the fact that he could be potentially killing thousands of people in his fight with Zod. He didn't even try to save people or move the fight away from the city. What annoys me even more is the fact that he was suddenly capable of killing because one group of people were about to get zapped by Zod, uh, what about the thousands of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire while you were levelling Metropolis? It made zero sense to me.
was fighting for his life, couldnt do anything about people in buildings etc i would imagine
new superman in a new grittier world, be abit cheesy if everyone lived, although i do take your point about moving battle away from civilians
but this is an origins story, he may learn from his first battle?
No they don't. This has an entirely different approach to the story! Flashbacks, amended origins. Does "exactly" mean a different word where you come from? They've taken quite chance amending so much of such a familiar story. Have you really seen these movies? And returns was basically a continuation of '78 so of course it was the same. Even then they presented parts of Smallville that hadn't been lifted from the other one.
Oh you mean that by telling the story in a different order is somehow not telling the same story? What you been sniffin' fool?! Regardless of how the story is told, it's the same story, albeit mashed up with Superman II in terms of having Zod included. Now don't embarrass yourself any further.
Oh you mean that by telling the story in a different order is somehow not telling the same story? What you been sniffin' fool?! Regardless of how the story is told, it's the same story, albeit mashed up with Superman II in terms of having Zod included. Now don't embarrass yourself any further.
Erm, excuse me with the name calling - "treat other users with respect", it says. I didn't call you a name or suggest you took drugs so please don't do that again.
There's far more than just 'mashing it up' and I did mention the word "amended", as the other poster to have quoted you had suggested. You asserted that it was "exactly" the same, and even emphasised it in capitals to show it was the crux of your argument. It isn't.
It isn't even a mix of Superman II, the whole Zod story has been approached differently (in TM and II) the backstory on Zod we were shown, in the theatrical cut at least, was merely his trial. Then there's the issue of his and his followers' (the make-up of whom, and indeed even the number, have changed) and subsequent escape from imprisonment.
There are many, many differences - yes, they're tweaks but in order to at least keep the core of the story consistent you can't change certain parts. But they've certainly changed what they could.
I certainly don't remember Marlon Brando on a dragon...
Erm, excuse me with the name calling - "treat other users with respect", it says. I didn't call you a name or suggest you took drugs so please don't do that again.
There's far more than just 'mashing it up' and I did mention the word "amended", as the other poster to have quoted you had suggested. You asserted that it was "exactly" the same, and even emphasised it in capitals to show it was the crux of your argument. It isn't.
It isn't even a mix of Superman II, the whole Zod story has been approached differently (in TM and II) the backstory on Zod we were shown, in the theatrical cut at least, was merely his trial. Then there's the issue of his and his followers' (the make-up of whom, and indeed even the number, have changed) and subsequent escape from imprisonment.
There are many, many differences - yes, they're tweaks but in order to at least keep the core of the story consistent you can't change certain parts. But they've certainly changed what they could.
I certainly don't remember Marlon Brando on a dragon...
The essence of the story is EXACTLY the same, hence the caps. Even Nolan has stated that it was an origins story, and by the very definition of the word 'origin' there's very little room for surprises.
Ultimately the only question that needs to be asked then is was this film either needed or necessary? No, on both counts.
It's great if you and others enjoyed it, but it doesn't develop the story or the character in any way. By branding it a reboot, WB are just jumping on the Dark Knight bandwagon, exploiting comic book fans and audiences into make them think that they're paying for something fresh and exciting. They're not.
That comment about having the exact same story as the past films is completely false, I don't know how someone who has seen them all could even think of saying it.
So here goes. Superman lands on earth. Has special powers. Can fly and stuff. Zod tracks him down. They fight a bit.
Superman wins
Now if this doesn't ring a bell with you, maybe you're getting your superhero characters mixed up?
So here goes. Superman lands on earth. Has special powers. Can fly and stuff. Zod tracks him down. They fight a bit.
Superman wins
Now if this doesn't ring a bell with you, maybe you're getting your superhero characters mixed up?
Hate to say it but I do agree. The new movie is great and it's 100x better than Superman Returns however, every time a Superman movie comes out, we have to go through the Krypton blowing up and the baby flying to Earth.
At least with the original movies with Chrostopher Reeve, we had it at the start then the other movies continued the story while he's on Earth. This constant restart is very annoying. Was a bit disappointed this time that there wasn't much relating to the original movies like Krytonite or phone boxes but instead focused on far too much blowing up of everything that Superman isn't about.
I really liked Man of Steel but it did feel like they went for action and explosions rather than a great storyline (not love related, I mean for the bad guys). Although I'm still looking forward to the next movie, fingers crossed they don't try a reboot again but instead go with a film based on him having already been on Earth for years so they can do a trilogy of movies that feel like a continuation of the film.
every time a Superman movie comes out, we have to go through the Krypton blowing up and the baby flying to Earth.
So how many times has this happened then throughout all the previous movies? Yeah it happened in Superman 2, but as S1 & S2 was originally intened to be a 2 part story it was meant to be a recap of act 1, but seeing it from a different angle (as was portrayed in the Donner Cut)
This constant restart is very annoying.
Again, how many times have we had a Superman movie restart?
Was a bit disappointed this time that there wasn't much relating to the original movies like Krytonite or phone boxes
Which is the whole point of this movie, its not meant to relate to the original movies other than character names and some of the Superman foundations which are actually taken from the comic books.
I'm thinking of getting the OST soundtrack, but I'm unsure of which version. I saw the two-disc edition on Amazon that has good reviews, but I'd like to know what folks here think. Let me know. I've downloaded An Ideal of Hope already, as I think it's the best modern superhero theme there's yet been, but I'm desperate to get the rest of it. Let me know what you lot think.
I can't be sure yet, but I think my feelings on this film are almost quasi-religious! I just love it.
I'm thinking of getting the OST soundtrack, but I'm unsure of which version. I saw the two-disc edition on Amazon that has good reviews, but I'd like to know what folks here think. Let me know. I've downloaded An Ideal of Hope already, as I think it's the best modern superhero theme there's yet been, but I'm desperate to get the rest of it. Let me know what you lot think.
I can't be sure yet, but I think my feelings on this film are almost quasi-religious! I just love it.
It's a great OST, I'm a fan of Hans Zimmer anyway so I was always going to like it, but it is a really good score (if you like this then have a look at his Inception and The Dark Knight Rises OST's, they're brilliant, especially Inception). Go for the Man of Steel deluxe edition OST, it's got a bunch of extra tracks on it.
Well I'm not a fan of CGI heavy blockbusters generally, didnt care much for last years Avengers (just too many characters to juggle) and I thought Iron Man 3 was decent as best. But.. I loved Man of Steel, the pace was breakneck a little too fast in places, but it was forgivable as it avoided just retreading the first hour of Superman 78 in copycat fashion. One of the best experiences (certainly in the superhero genre) I've had at the cinema. 9/10
Oh and I know what people mean about the morphing into Christopher Reeve's face, it was in the scene where Superman destroyed the terraformer. Maybe it was subliminal but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little cgi tweak in there to give that impression.
Well I really enjoyed this film a new, grittier Superman but I also have to agree with what some others have said. Why re-use an old villan like Zod. Couldn't the writers have come up with someone else ? It was a bit like Star Trek Into Darkness, great film but why oh why resuse an old villan, at least they had the excuse that it was in an alternate time line, the Superman writers had no such excuse.
a reboot without an origins story to kick it off would be pretty freaking dumb.
I'd point out that Casino Royale didn't really have an origins story as such. It begins with Bond achieving double "0" status. But after the first 5 mins that's dropped in favour of something more interesting...
I'd point out that Casino Royale didn't really have an origins story as such. It begins with Bond achieving double "0" status. But after the first 5 mins that's dropped in favour of something more interesting...
I'd still love to see a Bond origins story, maybe exploring his time in the SAS before being recruited by MI6. I think you could make an interesting story out of that, IMO.
I'd still love to see a Bond origins story, maybe exploring his time in the SAS before being recruited by MI6. I think you could make an interesting story out of that, IMO.
The Young Bond books, written by Charlie Higson, about James Bond's days at Eton are quite good, but they are aimed at yound adults though...
Oh and I know what people mean about the morphing into Christopher Reeve's face, it was in the scene where Superman destroyed the terraformer. Maybe it was subliminal but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little cgi tweak in there to give that impression.
As I said a few posts ago, I saw the film for the second time on Tuesday and I paid close attention to that particular scene and he definitely does NOT morph into Reeve. People are seeing what they want to see.
I saw this last night and thought it was a good film. But, there's just too much action in it. It just felt like just one long fight sequence. Gone are the days when Superman rescued the average joe in the street.
I saw this last night and thought it was a good film. But, there's just too much action in it. It just felt like just one long fight sequence. Gone are the days when Superman rescued the average joe in the street.
yeh but as soon as he became superman he was thrust into a huge fight wasnt he
now hes moved to metropolis
i am sure he will save individuals too, not sure we will see the suit and shirt stuff in this rebooted world though
Comments
was fighting for his life, couldnt do anything about people in buildings etc i would imagine
new superman in a new grittier world, be abit cheesy if everyone lived, although i do take your point about moving battle away from civilians
but this is an origins story, he may learn from his first battle?
Oh you mean that by telling the story in a different order is somehow not telling the same story? What you been sniffin' fool?! Regardless of how the story is told, it's the same story, albeit mashed up with Superman II in terms of having Zod included. Now don't embarrass yourself any further.
Erm, excuse me with the name calling - "treat other users with respect", it says. I didn't call you a name or suggest you took drugs so please don't do that again.
There's far more than just 'mashing it up' and I did mention the word "amended", as the other poster to have quoted you had suggested. You asserted that it was "exactly" the same, and even emphasised it in capitals to show it was the crux of your argument. It isn't.
It isn't even a mix of Superman II, the whole Zod story has been approached differently (in TM and II) the backstory on Zod we were shown, in the theatrical cut at least, was merely his trial. Then there's the issue of his and his followers' (the make-up of whom, and indeed even the number, have changed) and subsequent escape from imprisonment.
There are many, many differences - yes, they're tweaks but in order to at least keep the core of the story consistent you can't change certain parts. But they've certainly changed what they could.
I certainly don't remember Marlon Brando on a dragon...
The essence of the story is EXACTLY the same, hence the caps. Even Nolan has stated that it was an origins story, and by the very definition of the word 'origin' there's very little room for surprises.
Ultimately the only question that needs to be asked then is was this film either needed or necessary? No, on both counts.
It's great if you and others enjoyed it, but it doesn't develop the story or the character in any way. By branding it a reboot, WB are just jumping on the Dark Knight bandwagon, exploiting comic book fans and audiences into make them think that they're paying for something fresh and exciting. They're not.
And let's face it, Brando didn't need a dragon.
So here goes. Superman lands on earth. Has special powers. Can fly and stuff. Zod tracks him down. They fight a bit.
Now if this doesn't ring a bell with you, maybe you're getting your superhero characters mixed up?
Hate to say it but I do agree. The new movie is great and it's 100x better than Superman Returns however, every time a Superman movie comes out, we have to go through the Krypton blowing up and the baby flying to Earth.
At least with the original movies with Chrostopher Reeve, we had it at the start then the other movies continued the story while he's on Earth. This constant restart is very annoying. Was a bit disappointed this time that there wasn't much relating to the original movies like Krytonite or phone boxes but instead focused on far too much blowing up of everything that Superman isn't about.
I really liked Man of Steel but it did feel like they went for action and explosions rather than a great storyline (not love related, I mean for the bad guys). Although I'm still looking forward to the next movie, fingers crossed they don't try a reboot again but instead go with a film based on him having already been on Earth for years so they can do a trilogy of movies that feel like a continuation of the film.
Again, how many times have we had a Superman movie restart? Which is the whole point of this movie, its not meant to relate to the original movies other than character names and some of the Superman foundations which are actually taken from the comic books.
We've only seen it twice! Once in 1978 and now Man of Steel.
I can't be sure yet, but I think my feelings on this film are almost quasi-religious!
It's a great OST, I'm a fan of Hans Zimmer anyway so I was always going to like it, but it is a really good score (if you like this then have a look at his Inception and The Dark Knight Rises OST's, they're brilliant, especially Inception). Go for the Man of Steel deluxe edition OST, it's got a bunch of extra tracks on it.
This is why i hate cinemas:rolleyes:
Oh and I know what people mean about the morphing into Christopher Reeve's face, it was in the scene where Superman destroyed the terraformer. Maybe it was subliminal but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little cgi tweak in there to give that impression.
its probably down to it being recapped a few times
I'd point out that Casino Royale didn't really have an origins story as such. It begins with Bond achieving double "0" status. But after the first 5 mins that's dropped in favour of something more interesting...
I'd still love to see a Bond origins story, maybe exploring his time in the SAS before being recruited by MI6. I think you could make an interesting story out of that, IMO.
The Young Bond books, written by Charlie Higson, about James Bond's days at Eton are quite good, but they are aimed at yound adults though...
As I said a few posts ago, I saw the film for the second time on Tuesday and I paid close attention to that particular scene and he definitely does NOT morph into Reeve. People are seeing what they want to see.
Please don't let me down.
yeh but as soon as he became superman he was thrust into a huge fight wasnt he