Man of Steel vs Pacific Rim

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Superman vs Tentacles was the lamest action sequence in the entire movie.

Yeah that should've been cut. However more Faora action would've been well received in its place.

I'd say Man of Steel was better despite the stupid stuff like Pa Kent's death and the forced Lois and Clark romance on top of the repetitive action. Pacific Rim was a generic blockbuster that just happened to be made with an A-list movie budget. I mean the actors were good but nobody really stood out...except Ron Perlman of course.

Same can be said about the actors and characters in Man of Steel. Even Russel Crowe didn't bring much to the table. Costner's Pa Kent was clearly a low point of the film. Unlike MoS, however, the characters in PR had character arcs and backstories that were actually likable and plausible. Only person with a plausible backstory in MoS was Zod IMO. Everybody else had about as much characterization and emotion as a plank of wood. As generic as the characters in PR were, at least they showed some emotion and were actually enjoyable to watch(and in the case of Hunham and Mako, I'll forgive their subdued performance because the characters themselves were brooding by nature)

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Superman vs Tentacles was the lamest action sequence in the entire movie.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Yeah that should've been cut.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
but nobody really stood out...except Ron Perlman of course.

I disagree. True there was less characterization in PR, but the focus of the film was it's plot, not it's characters, and the backstory they did give the characters was just perfect to drive the plot. Unlike MoS where the focus was Clark's character arc....which failed horribly. I could relate to everybody in PR. The only relatable person in MoS was the genocidal Zod. Everybody else was a bland stick.

Neither movie had enough tittyballs imo.

You got to see Kaiju boobage. Does that count?

Did for me, giggity

Originally posted by Lestov16
I disagree. True there was less characterization in PR, but the focus of the film was it's plot, not it's characters, and the backstory they did give the characters was just perfect to drive the plot

I did like the characters seemed like professionals there to put their lives on the line, which is what you'd expect. It didn't have the 'heroes journey' refusing the call/being overcome with doubt moment, and I found that lack refreshing rather than bad. Mako had the most character arc, and I liked hers.

Mindship

I think some wrestling moves could've broken up the monotony (hell, even Godzilla and Kong have done judo flips 'n' stuff).

There were at least three throws in the Hong Kong fight, and in the underwater battle there was some cool use of the swords to hook onto foes to position for an attack. They were brief moments, but it wasn't all just punching.

Honestly I could've really gone for more Crimson Typhoon fighting, it's style was pretty cool, what with the leap-flip and stuff.

Originally posted by Lestov16
It was far more successful than Superman at being exactly what it said it was, had far less noticeable flaws, and it's characters had better arcs and sub-plots.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
What was Superman pretending to be that it failed so hard at?

Pacific Rim curb stomps. Only an american would refuse to see it uhuh

The fairest answer I can give here is that Pacific Rim was more successful in what it tried to do. It was simple and straight forward, an action packed summer blockbuster, and it succeeded wonderfully with that.

MOS tried to be more than that, and while it was great in some aspects, it also failed in others. Because MOS tried to be a bigger, deeper movie, it also gave it more flaws.

Pacific Rim was simple, and quite frankly, more enjoyable. MOS was the bigger film, with lots of better moments, but also lots of failed moments.

That's the thing. Pacific Rim was flawed because we wanted more of it. Man of Steel was flawed because there was too much, and they needed to cut down.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
What was Superman pretending to be that it failed so hard at?

An entertaining character arc of Superman.

This is what Brandon Routh brought up

people complained about Superman Returns with it no having enough action, Now we get this Superman movie with lots of action and its still not good enough

but I have heard a lot about the film. It seems to me that they were given a note that more action was wanted. It tried to make up for what "Superman Returns" lacked, but at the same time what "Superman Returns" had perhaps "Man of Steel" lacked. You can't get 100% success. To reach too far toward one crowd, you miss another audience or age group. It is difficult to be a movie executive.

Still, you can keep the hopeful tone while adding in more action.

One can argue SR had a better Superman, while MoS had better villains.

MoS didn't fail because of too much action, because it had plenty of time for Superman's character development. It failed because the character arc was written horribly, especially regarding Clark's childhood and Pa "Maybe you should have let a bus full of kids die" Kent.

Seriously, that was the worst characterization of Johnathan in any medium I've ever seen. That has never been what he was and it should never have been. I was more ok with Clark killing Zod than Johnathan wanting him to hide his powers to the extent that he'd let a bus full of kids die. Clark's parents were the ones who taught him how to be a hero.

Wait wait, since when did MOS fail?

It's made $648mill WW coming close tripling it's budget despite having already made up it's marketing costs through sponsorships. And has like a 77% rating by general audiences.

If that's a failure then I guess anything short of Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man 3 is a failure for superhero movies.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

If that's a failure then I guess anything short of Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man 3 is a failure for superhero movies.