dc20willsave Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 In as spoiler free as possible to say it, I heavily enjoyed the film. Not only did I enjoy it but I thought it was a very well done film at that. The acting was fucking terrific. No matter what problem you had with the movie, you cannot say that Amy Adams wasn't great as Lois Lane. Hell, I'm just going to say it, I think she was probably the single best person to play Lois Lane ever. Lois Lane is probably my favorite supporting character in Superhero comics. They did her justice. Diane Lane was a great Martha Kent for that matter. She was smart in what she did, she was supporting enough yet still felt like her own person. Russel Crowe was a good Jor-El, believable when he needed to be but I think it was a good choice for them to shift at least some of the scientific know-how onto Ayelet Zurer as Lara. It's easy to forget that Lara is a character or even remotely matters to the Superman mythos. I cared about Lara. She was a loving mother and a smart person. I believe in the character. Kevin Costner was okay as Jonathon. He made sense as a character but there were times that I just couldn't seem to notice that the character was contributing anything to Clark's development. Henry Cavil was a good choice for Clark. He was charming and every bit of the man that Superman should be. I'm glad they went with the post-Crisis interpretation of the character. He needed to be human fr the story to work and to set it apart from the God of the Reeve films. I like that the Kent's were just as important to his development as Jor-El is. So yeah, I think it's worth seeing. It kept my attention for two hours. I rooted for everything to turn out in the end. It could have used a bit more humor but that's not totally necessary. In the end, I just need to be able to believe that a man can fly, that he can inspire hope in the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Not to burst your bubble Will, but I watched Superman I & II today and Margot Kidder is still the best Lois Lane in my book. And I'm a big fan of Amy Adams in general. Those old films just allowed so much more room for chemistry between the lead characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Margot Kidder was my Lois, and quite frankly, I think she's crap. Phyllis Coates was a terrific Lois. Seriously. And Man of Steel has officially made a metric fuckton of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Also, according to the WSJ, WB wants to have a sequel in theaters by NEXT GODDAMN YEAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashfan1 Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 That's too soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Well, if they're finally making money off a Superman release and if they're gonna start building towards a JL film, yeah, I can see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I understand, but rushing another $200M movie for release in the next 12-18 months is going to be a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 The execs don't give a shit, if they're getting a movie besides TDK that gives them income, they're gonna ride that pony for all it's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Execs don't give a shit about whether a movie is any good or not if it makes money, but a terrible Man of Steel 2 will kill JLA in its tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 o_o ... It... could work. Certainly if they adjust the tone and focus of the story somewhat (e.g., now we can have a proper Superman story instead of the origin leading up to one), they can avoid fatigue with the audience. But... they're taking an awful risk, unless they're basically going to do the Harry Potter model. Actually, wait a second, Diane Nelson is the one running DC Entertainment, and she also was in charge of the fast-tracking of the Harry Potters. This is starting to make sense... A crazy/stupid kind of sense. Let's pray to Hologram Jor-El it works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Yes, but the vast majority of hte Harry Potter source material was already there for them when they wrote the films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Help us Hologram Jor-El; you're our only hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 And the majority of the Harry Potters are mediocre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightAngle04 Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Warner is already in development on a sequel to "Man of Steel" and is expected to fast track that for release as soon as 2014, said knowledgeable people close to the studio. I'm quite skeptical about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Fast tracked movies always work out awesomely. Kind of a no-win situation they've become hell bent on. Movie does badly? Let's wait a bit and waste money again down the line. Movie does well? Let's waste money as quickly as humanly possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I would imagine that they had the script ready and the actors signed and ready to go so that when it's a hit they can just roll right into the sequel. The alternative is too horrible to think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Or the alternative is just what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 For the movie part of a comics division that desperately needs a hit besides Nolan Bats and is floundering pretty badly? Yeah, they're gonna throw everything they've got at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 "It's more than just a franchise for us, it really opens up the door to do combinations of the DC Comics characters," said Dan Fellman, Warner's president of domestic distribution. "We can build them up like Marvel did and benefit from the history of DC." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323836504578549641408007794.html Why did they wait so long to follow Marvel's gameplan? Was Nolan's Batman holding them back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjoyadet Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I realize I may be all alone but I wanted to say this is the first time the Christian iconography didn't offend me. It always frustrated me in the 1978 movie when Marlon Brando retold John 3:16 with himself as God and Kal-El as Jesus. It got me even more frustrated when they did it again in 2006 except this time it applies to irresponsible daddy Snooperman. I can understand that they were trying to get their "not a mary sue" merit badge, but I feel that mixing the two is like mixing two bright paints and coming with a dull color. I did not take the church sequence as definitive proof that Clark is a Christian. I interpreted it as Clark going there because that is where his ma went when times were hard for her, so he hoped he would find answers there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I finally managed to see it last night, in a tiny 100 seater cinema with four other people there. It was a big, dumb, loud, action-filled, generic superhero movie, a lot like Avengers. That just happened to have someone calling themselves Superman. It was NOT a Superman movie. Enjoyable but forgettable. Now, when are Pacific Rim and Machete Kills out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 What is the criteria for a Superman movie in your mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I'd say Man of Steel is almost the opposite to Avengers in that it's a mythology-driven highly serious film. Kenny drew my attention to what Mark Waid wrote and it's almost entirely how I felt as well. http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted June 18, 2013 Report Share Posted June 18, 2013 I have no problem with the whole collateral damage bit since at no point in his fight with Zod do I feel Superman has any control of the situation. And as I previously mentioned I had no issue with Zod's final fate since what Superman did to him in Superman 2 was way worse and I have never heard a peep about it out of the people bitching and moaning now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.