• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CBM: Invincible season 2 returns March 14; X-Men '97 premieres March 20

Marquee Moon said:
which movies were better that summer?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, I thought Super 8, Bridesmaids, XMen First Class, and Deathly Hallows part 2 were all much better. I thought Rise of the planet really came off the rails and became dumb in the 2nd half.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
WakeFanatic said:
Yeah, this is t Superman helping the old lady across the street or saving Johnny Boy from falling into Niagra Falls. This is graphic novel Superman, which critics can't seem to grasp. For Christ sakes one review I read criticized the movie because Cavill didn't smile as Superman like Reeve did. I'm really glad they didn't use the Williams score. Yes, it is iconic, but they have to move on and create something new, and Zimmer, from what I've listened to, has created a fantastic score.
Click to expand...

It amazes me how many people are stuck on a 34 year old movie that aged poorly based on an outdated version of the character. Singer tried to make a pseudo sequel to it and it sucked.

This review is an example of the idiocy. How can professional reviewers rail against updating a character? Going into a new movie, an origin story, worried about "changes" seems strange to me.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/06/man-of-steel-movie-review/

-----
It’s really hard to make a good Superman movie. The bar is high, and well-established: Richard Donner’s 1979 Superman the Movie and its 1981 follow-up have, thus far, proven timelessly definitive in a way no other Superman film has been able to touch.

But the biggest problem with tackling such an iconic character–especially when he’s been around for almost a century in countless iterations–is that you will never ever be able to capture everything that makes him resonate with your audience, because my definitive Superman is not necessarily your definitive Superman. Still, there are consistent threads that have defined the character throughout that time, things Superman represents in the larger superhero landscape that matter.

And the overwhelming impression I get from Man of Steel, the latest cinematic reboot of Superman’s origin story that opens in theaters tomorrow, is that someone, somewhere along the line, thought that the core concept of Superman needed to be souped up: made edgier, darker, grittier, more violent, more explosive. Every change in Man of Steel serves that end rather than the story, or even a plausible reboot of the character and continuity.

I’m not saying that superheroes—however iconic—are inviolate, or that it’s never worth shaking up an established character’s defining traits, but when you’re rebooting a character as thoroughly embedded in cultural myth and collective consciousness as Superman, the ends have to justify the means.

That’s the question Man of Steel demands: What do its changes to the character of Superman give us that was missing before? What value does this add?
 
It's just a little odd that folks are convinced the character is updated based solely on trailers.
 
PhDeac said:
It amazes me how many people are stuck on a 34 year old movie that aged poorly based on an outdated version of the character. Singer tried to make a pseudo sequel to it and it sucked.

This review is an example of the idiocy. How can professional reviewers rail against updating a character? Going into a new movie, an origin story, worried about "changes" seems strange to me.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/06/man-of-steel-movie-review/

-----
It’s really hard to make a good Superman movie. The bar is high, and well-established: Richard Donner’s 1979 Superman the Movie and its 1981 follow-up have, thus far, proven timelessly definitive in a way no other Superman film has been able to touch.

But the biggest problem with tackling such an iconic character–especially when he’s been around for almost a century in countless iterations–is that you will never ever be able to capture everything that makes him resonate with your audience, because my definitive Superman is not necessarily your definitive Superman. Still, there are consistent threads that have defined the character throughout that time, things Superman represents in the larger superhero landscape that matter.

And the overwhelming impression I get from Man of Steel, the latest cinematic reboot of Superman’s origin story that opens in theaters tomorrow, is that someone, somewhere along the line, thought that the core concept of Superman needed to be souped up: made edgier, darker, grittier, more violent, more explosive. Every change in Man of Steel serves that end rather than the story, or even a plausible reboot of the character and continuity.

I’m not saying that superheroes—however iconic—are inviolate, or that it’s never worth shaking up an established character’s defining traits, but when you’re rebooting a character as thoroughly embedded in cultural myth and collective consciousness as Superman, the ends have to justify the means.

That’s the question Man of Steel demands: What do its changes to the character of Superman give us that was missing before? What value does this add?
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what's wrongheaded about that POV.
 
For one thing, there is 34 more years of source material to work from than in 1979.

Freak07, the reviews make it clear this is an update from 1979.
 
WakeFanatic said:
Yeah, this is t Superman helping the old lady across the street or saving Johnny Boy from falling into Niagra Falls. This is graphic novel Superman, which critics can't seem to grasp.
Click to expand...
I think this is mostly correct based on a lot of the reviews I've read. They want more Superman saving kittens from trees and helping beautiful women change their flat tires on the side of the road. All while displaying a perfectly-whitened smile and saying "Have a nice day!" before flying into the clouds.
 
I really didn't hate Superman Returns all that much - I thought Spacey was a solid LL, but overall it was just a little too emo with the whole father/son crap.

That said, I'm convinced this one will be a vast improvement.
 
Superman sucks in general. If the critics don't like the new movie that much because it's not like the old Superman, that says more about the critic, IMO.
 
PhDeac said:
For one thing, there is 34 more years of source material to work from than in 1979.

Freak07, the reviews make it clear this is an update from 1979.
Click to expand...

I'm still planning to see it, and I'm not saying it's bad. However, Batman Begins did exactly what you are expecting from MOS, and it finished with 85% on RT. MOS is at 60% and falling. Maybe the critics are idiots, but the hype this thread was slinging based on the trailers was a little silly. I think tempering expectations is probably in order. Could it be the best Superman movie of all time, sure. Doesn't mean it will be a gamechanger film. It's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that all the best cards are on the table from the trailers. I tend to worry when movies cross promote like crazy with places like Burger King. MOS isn't quite on Green Lantern's level with that, but the studio is certainly putting a lot into marketing.
 
Needless to say but Batman and Superman are different characters with different expectations. Nobody expected bat nips in 2005.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
MOS is at 60% and falling.
Click to expand...
xf3esoG.gif
 
I'll give it a shot, but the biggest issue with Superman, in my opinion, is that he's just boring. I am not fan of any iteration of Superman, but I'll still give it a chance. I only really like Superman 2 of the Reeve movies and that's just because of General Zod, so at least this one has that. We'll see I guess.
 
Usually the fanboys complain about a movie not being true to canon or the character and people who don't follow the character like it. This is reversed.
 
For those that are into the thrill of waiting through credits to see if there's a post-credit scene for MoS

There isn't
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top