Originally posted by Zack Fair
There is one scene I could have done without, and that is the tentacle rape scene.Avengers first 40 minutes were boring. no seriously, they were boring.
I sort of agree with the people saying the movie was "too serious" but I think its an exaggeration and people being used to Marvel's style. This is not Marvel. There were some genuinely funny scenes that made people laugh although I am not sure if they were intentional or not. The one that comes to mind is the 2nd time the colonel sees Faora and he runs. People laughed out loud. We were all thinking the same thing, and then he pulls the boss move and owns Faora and co. For once I liked having just a regular soldier doing something so heroic.
People are concentrating really hard on what they didn't like and their pre-conceived notions.
The movie is not terrible by any fkn means, no matter how hard you try and nitpick it.
Feminists complain about the soldier chick saying "I just think he is kind of hot." And then they completely ignore this is the toughest Lois Lane we have ever seen...EVER. Ignoring how strong Lara's character was portrayed when Zod was threatening her son. Faora needs no explanation.
Yeah, i can see where you're coming from with the world engine battle. The scenes were definitely necessary and although i think it was well conceived it was poorly executed with the effects. Considering how well the effects were executed in the rest of the movie it did feel like some budget and time was sacrificed on the tentacle fight scene in order to better serve in more important scenes. However, i have to say the end of that scene where Supes struggles through the gravity inducing beam was aces.
You brought up another point that bothers me and that is the disappointment with the mature tone of the movie. Personally, the more mature a superhero is the better. Most superhero movies feel like either the writer or directors were forced to compromise an opportunity to further develop suspense and drama for the sake of comedy. MOH definitely had scenes where it felt like the writers and directors had ambitions to push the visceral sense of action into even more violent areas. Don't you think that made the action all the more threatening. I think a good example is the battle in smallville where Superman isn't aware or even concerned with the surrounding devestation to most of the civilians and soldiers because he was to occupied. In other hero movies and Superman movies of the past you wouldn't see the jets exploding and slamming into civilian filled buildings. At most it would be implied.
there was another scene in particular that stood out and i think helps to give a good example of what i mean. If you remember, in the Avengers, during the attack on the Helicarrior there was a scene where the Hulk attacks a jet and in the enduing attack the pilot tries to eject and the Hulk grabs him and tosses him like a ragdoll. During this scene i remember thinking how well it displayed the savages and horror of what the Hulk can be. It was ruined, however when the pilots shoot opens, Instead of leaving from this scene with a lasting image of savage beast i was left feeling that Hulk is just an unaware hero. In MOS there is a very similar scene where one of Zods soldiers attacks a fighter jet in the same fashion, tearing the pilots from their cockpits but instead of ending in safety or inferred violence, we see the pilots die in flames. To me, little scenes like this make the image of the protagonists more threatening.
‘Man of Steel’ Director & Writer on What Has to Happen in ‘Man of Steel 2′
Originally posted by xJLxKing
http://screenrant.com/superman-man-of-steel-2-story-details-villains-characters/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_67990
Its boring.
Theres no characterization.
The characters were bland.
The actors weren't that good.
The action was bad and hard to follow (lmao).
It takes no chances.
They overdo the Jesus symbolism (no, they don't).
Its just Batman Begins.
Superman causes too much collateral destruction and is a jerk.
They don't understand Superman!
They made Superman Batman and Batman Superman.
Really the worst thing about Dougs review that I just finished is that he and his brother directly go after the people who liked the movie, calling them fanboys, mocking their reasons for liking the movie and generally being huge assholes about it.
Another critic (Spoony) that I like also had this reaction, literally screaming about how much he hated the movie and dismissing people who liked it.
I'm not mad about it, just confused over the big disconnect. Of course, I do still angrily tell my screen that they're wrong when they say something dumb.
Y'know, I think it must just be that most critics are nerds that already have an image of what Superman is. And he's such an icon that they're way oversensitive. And so the get very pissed off in the 'They changed it, I hate it' way.
I'm now watching another review (Last Angry Geek) and he's moreorless just saying I don't like how they portrayed these characters. This isn't Superman, I hated it. >:C He's literally just complaining that its different. Thats fair, but when he then says 'and that means it was terrible' its eyerolling.
Jeremy Jahns is the only critic I've seen that liked the movie so far. Luckily he's the only one whose opinion I really care about.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its boring.Theres no characterization.
The characters were bland.
The actors weren't that good.
The action was bad and hard to follow (lmao).
It takes no chances.
They overdo the Jesus symbolism (no, they don't).
Its just Batman Begins.
Superman causes too much collateral destruction and is a jerk.
They don't understand Superman!
They made Superman Batman and Batman Superman.
Really the worst thing about Dougs review that I just finished is that he and his brother directly go after the people who liked the movie, calling them fanboys, mocking their reasons for liking the movie and generally being huge assholes about it.
Another critic (Spoony) that I like also had this reaction, literally screaming about how much he hated the movie and dismissing people who liked it.
I'll go through that guy's complaints, piece by piece:
Its boring.
At times, yes.
There's no characterization.
The characterization is a bit linear, yes.
The characters were bland.
Definitely bland.
The actors weren't that good.
Most were not. It was cheesy, most of the time. However, this doesn't stop me from liking the film. I love Star Wars and we all know how bad the acting was in all 6 films. As always, though, Russel Crowe delivered: he was great.
The action was bad and hard to follow.
That's stupid. However, he could be an old old old man that is a virtual invalid. How dare you judge him! (lulz)
It takes no chances.
Having an iconic American hero...nay....THE iconic American hero kill someone onscreen when his thing is NOT killing people...yeah...that guy can kindly f*** himself. At this point, it is obvious he is complaining to just complain.
They overdo the Jesus symbolism.
Not even close. The whole movie is a struggle to get Kal to pull his head out and step up. The entire ****in' film, ffs. We don't get superman, savior of the earth, until past the halfway point. Even then, he still cannot make the tough decisions (like killing them) until the very end.
It's just Batman Begins.
Great, now every origins movie, ever, is going to be called "Batman Begins." That guy is retard.
Superman causes too much collateral destruction and is a jerk.
He causes quite a bit of collateral damage, actually. But I do not remember him actually killing anyone due to that collateral damage.
They made Superman Batman and Batman Superman.
Except that Batman still doesn't kill anyone...and works from the shadows instead of out in the open. Well, in the beginning, Kal worked in the shadows. Then he went public. So, I can see this complaint about Superman being like Batman. But making anyone like Batman is not a bad thing...because Batman is awesome. By the middle of the film, we don't have a Batman-like Superman.
I thought the movie was alright. The way superman flew and the fight scenes made me think I was watching Hancock II.
I thought Russell Crowe, was excellent. However, my biggest disappointment was the lack of story and character development. The movie seemed like it had the potential to be the next great superman series but ultimately failed.
Originally posted by TheGodKilleri do not think this is the case. Not at all.
hardcore Superman fans are upset by the movie.
Everyone i know who loves and knows more about Superman man than i do, liked/loved the movie.
Hardcore fans generally seem to enjoy the movie.
Hardcore fans of the Reeve movies and people who have a narrow, uninformed view of who Superman is, are (generally) the people who hate it.