- 15
- 24
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
Did anyone else notice the Christopher Reeve's resemblance when Superman was about to destroy the world generator? Snyder dropping subliminals???
Man of Steel (Superman Movie Thread) - June 14, 2013 - NEW Trailer pg20
- 9,141
- 1,797
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
Better to clap with.
Her shoulders look insanely broad in this photo lol
That Faora?
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,578
- 15,969
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
Story going around today is that a split scene frame shot of Christopher Reeve was inserted into the movie
A breakdown of the images says otherwise, though...
MarvelSux
formerly brucewayne
- 2,205
- 1,230
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
yall reaching...
- 9,903
- 7,091
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
why are the arm so short??Why is the Hot Toys Superman so pudgy? Joker, TDK, IronMan, etc... all look great with Hot Toys but this Superman looks like Cavill went on a buffet binge after the movie wrapped or something. I really hope this isn't the approved final product yet.
anyway, this movie was weak IMO.
- 144
- 13
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2003
Said this to my brother when we saw it at the pre-screening and I still have the same feeling seeing it for the 3rd time.
- 8,961
- 1,116
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
why are the arm so short??Why is the Hot Toys Superman so pudgy? Joker, TDK, IronMan, etc... all look great with Hot Toys but this Superman looks like Cavill went on a buffet binge after the movie wrapped or something. I really hope this isn't the approved final product yet.
anyway, this movie was weak IMO.
Imagine ceelo as superman lmao
- 73,320
- 60,154
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- 2,880
- 256
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
Interesting article from CBR. I don't really agree with it, but dude does make some valid arguments. To each his own I guess.
OPINION: THE BLEAK PROMISE OF DC'S CINEMATIC UNIVERSE
"I have one simple rule as it applies to every review of any work of art. It goes like this:
All reviews must be placed in a cultural context, or they are inherently worthless. Tell me what this album, this book, this movie, this gallery display says about us as a society. Illuminate something about myself that I don't even know yet. Tell me what makes this important. Tell me why this is art.
I'm happy to report that "Man of Steel" got many people thinking in that direction. If you use Twitter -- which some might define as a cleverly disguised movie review generation-machine -- you probably saw a kabillion 140-character reviews of the flick before you even plopped cheeks-down into an uncomfortable seat and started wrestling over the armrest with a stranger next to you. And many of these reviews -- more blurbs, correctly -- addressed the "world" that "Man of Steel" (a title, interestingly enough, absent the word "Superman") took place in. What kind of a world was it? What did it tell us about our own world, our own lives, and our own outlook?
I was intrigued enough that on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, I finally went to Yon Local Cineplex, and plopped down $9.50 to see "Man of Steel" myself. And I was struck by an inescapable notion: That the world that the Marvel Comics character films take place in is an ultimately optimistic one, and the world that the DC Comics character films take place in is ultimately bleak.
This tells us a tremendous amount about ourselves. Most importantly, it tells us that there are at least two constructions of reality from which we can choose. More absolutely, it tells us that one is right, and one is wrong.
"Man of Steel" gives us a world in which a father is willing to commit tornado-aided suicide because he fears the worst in humanity. It presents to us a world in which Superman sinks into a sea of skulls. It shows us that, driven by fear, the very essence and personification of bucolic innocence, Smallville, Kansas, can be blasted to holy hell by the U.S. Air Force.
Would you want to live in this superhero reality...?
Conversely, over on the Marvel side of the street, even in a movie that took place in the midst of the horrors of World War II -- "Captain America: The First Avenger" -- Steve Rogers can emerge into a shining and sparkling Times Square. The good guys in "The Avengers" go out for shawarma after saving the world. At the end of "Man of Steel," even after proving his mettle and making indescribable sacrifices, Superman remains an outcast, mistrusted by humanity.
Now, I've spoken to a fair amount of people who work for Marvel Comics, Marvel Studios, in Marvel's licensing department and so on. And I know this much to be true: The effort to make all the Marvel movies take place in a world that you want to be a part of is a very conscious one. They do it on purpose. I don't know if there's a similar guiding philosophy behind the DC flicks, an opposing one, or any at all. All I know is that the feeling I get between the two is 180 degrees opposed.
A friend of mine recently hit me with the notion that, if indeed DC/Warners was looking to create a more dangerous, edgy, gritty world, well, they were doing it with the notion of "that's what the kids want," that eternal grab for the coveted 18-to-34 market. I don't know if that's the thought at 4000 Warner Blvd. or not. But I do know that if this is indeed the case, the notion is incorrect.
I actually deal with 18-to-34s on a daily basis. I'm going back to college to finish an ancient degree I abandoned back in 1988, so I'm up to my armpits in 22-year-olds more often than I'd care to admit. One day, I walked into the student newspaper offices at the college I'm at, and two students called me over excitedly. They were standing in front of a computer, and that day, the new trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises" had just hit. They played it again, and looked at me. They knew I worked in the comics field, and they wanted…validation? An opinion? They just wanted to know what I thought.
...Or this reality?
"Lemme ask you this instead," I said. "Do you want to live in the Gotham City you just saw there?"
The answer came back quickly: "Oh, **** no!" they said.
"Now let me ask you this -- would you want to live in a Marvel movie universe? Say, the L.A. you see in the Iron Man flicks?"
They both agreed that yeah, that seemed like a pretty cool place. And that Gotham City was downright scary and bleak.
We don't live in a world that's perfect. Far from it, in fact. But the difference between the Marvel movie universe and the DC movie universe is the difference between optimism and pessimism. And thank God, today's 22-year-old is actually optimistic.
It's interesting that on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the same day I plopped into a movie theater seat in Van Nuys, the Supreme Court put a giant, Constitution-sized dent into the Defense of Marriage Act, validating same-sex marriages on the federal level. The issue, for whatever reasons, resonates hugely among the college-age crowd. Today's 22-year-old lives in a world where they can reasonably expect that when enough people get together and say something like, "We want gay marriage," they get gay marriage.
They have a reasonable expectation that their future is malleable, and that a large enough will of the masses stands a very good chance of affecting change. It's largely an optimistic view to expect that, and it's redoubled by the let's-call-it-a-fact that such changes are possible, or even imminent. They don't live in a 1980, Reagan-on-a-punk-rock-poster here-and-now, followed by an uncertain future. They live in a different world; one in which they expect -- and some could argue already have -- a measure of control.
Zod and Superman laid waste to DC's big screen City of Tomorrow
They live in a world that is optimistic.
Superman is supposed to be The Man of Tomorrow; Metropolis is The City of Tomorrow. Superman could, many would argue should, be the best of us. He should represent the best of all possible tomorrows. But the tomorrow represented here is false, and out of synch with what today's 22-year-old will show us is indeed better. When the most fantastic of fictions fall well short of our mundane realities, something is wrong. What's wrong is the outlook of "Man of Steel" and all the DC character movies. In the final analysis, perhaps it's best the name "Superman" is absent from the title.
This isn't a review of "Man of Steel." It is, perhaps, a cultural analysis of our view of the future, filtered through the thin lens of comic book movies. But it still can inform us about the world we live in. It can still influence the decisions we make. I, for one, will trust the 22-year-olds of today to create a future much better than the one Superman unfortunately inhabits. After all, if you're the most powerful man in a world no one wants to live in, what's so super about that?"
OPINION: THE BLEAK PROMISE OF DC'S CINEMATIC UNIVERSE
"I have one simple rule as it applies to every review of any work of art. It goes like this:
All reviews must be placed in a cultural context, or they are inherently worthless. Tell me what this album, this book, this movie, this gallery display says about us as a society. Illuminate something about myself that I don't even know yet. Tell me what makes this important. Tell me why this is art.
I'm happy to report that "Man of Steel" got many people thinking in that direction. If you use Twitter -- which some might define as a cleverly disguised movie review generation-machine -- you probably saw a kabillion 140-character reviews of the flick before you even plopped cheeks-down into an uncomfortable seat and started wrestling over the armrest with a stranger next to you. And many of these reviews -- more blurbs, correctly -- addressed the "world" that "Man of Steel" (a title, interestingly enough, absent the word "Superman") took place in. What kind of a world was it? What did it tell us about our own world, our own lives, and our own outlook?
I was intrigued enough that on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, I finally went to Yon Local Cineplex, and plopped down $9.50 to see "Man of Steel" myself. And I was struck by an inescapable notion: That the world that the Marvel Comics character films take place in is an ultimately optimistic one, and the world that the DC Comics character films take place in is ultimately bleak.
This tells us a tremendous amount about ourselves. Most importantly, it tells us that there are at least two constructions of reality from which we can choose. More absolutely, it tells us that one is right, and one is wrong.
"Man of Steel" gives us a world in which a father is willing to commit tornado-aided suicide because he fears the worst in humanity. It presents to us a world in which Superman sinks into a sea of skulls. It shows us that, driven by fear, the very essence and personification of bucolic innocence, Smallville, Kansas, can be blasted to holy hell by the U.S. Air Force.
Would you want to live in this superhero reality...?
Conversely, over on the Marvel side of the street, even in a movie that took place in the midst of the horrors of World War II -- "Captain America: The First Avenger" -- Steve Rogers can emerge into a shining and sparkling Times Square. The good guys in "The Avengers" go out for shawarma after saving the world. At the end of "Man of Steel," even after proving his mettle and making indescribable sacrifices, Superman remains an outcast, mistrusted by humanity.
Now, I've spoken to a fair amount of people who work for Marvel Comics, Marvel Studios, in Marvel's licensing department and so on. And I know this much to be true: The effort to make all the Marvel movies take place in a world that you want to be a part of is a very conscious one. They do it on purpose. I don't know if there's a similar guiding philosophy behind the DC flicks, an opposing one, or any at all. All I know is that the feeling I get between the two is 180 degrees opposed.
A friend of mine recently hit me with the notion that, if indeed DC/Warners was looking to create a more dangerous, edgy, gritty world, well, they were doing it with the notion of "that's what the kids want," that eternal grab for the coveted 18-to-34 market. I don't know if that's the thought at 4000 Warner Blvd. or not. But I do know that if this is indeed the case, the notion is incorrect.
I actually deal with 18-to-34s on a daily basis. I'm going back to college to finish an ancient degree I abandoned back in 1988, so I'm up to my armpits in 22-year-olds more often than I'd care to admit. One day, I walked into the student newspaper offices at the college I'm at, and two students called me over excitedly. They were standing in front of a computer, and that day, the new trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises" had just hit. They played it again, and looked at me. They knew I worked in the comics field, and they wanted…validation? An opinion? They just wanted to know what I thought.
...Or this reality?
"Lemme ask you this instead," I said. "Do you want to live in the Gotham City you just saw there?"
The answer came back quickly: "Oh, **** no!" they said.
"Now let me ask you this -- would you want to live in a Marvel movie universe? Say, the L.A. you see in the Iron Man flicks?"
They both agreed that yeah, that seemed like a pretty cool place. And that Gotham City was downright scary and bleak.
We don't live in a world that's perfect. Far from it, in fact. But the difference between the Marvel movie universe and the DC movie universe is the difference between optimism and pessimism. And thank God, today's 22-year-old is actually optimistic.
It's interesting that on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the same day I plopped into a movie theater seat in Van Nuys, the Supreme Court put a giant, Constitution-sized dent into the Defense of Marriage Act, validating same-sex marriages on the federal level. The issue, for whatever reasons, resonates hugely among the college-age crowd. Today's 22-year-old lives in a world where they can reasonably expect that when enough people get together and say something like, "We want gay marriage," they get gay marriage.
They have a reasonable expectation that their future is malleable, and that a large enough will of the masses stands a very good chance of affecting change. It's largely an optimistic view to expect that, and it's redoubled by the let's-call-it-a-fact that such changes are possible, or even imminent. They don't live in a 1980, Reagan-on-a-punk-rock-poster here-and-now, followed by an uncertain future. They live in a different world; one in which they expect -- and some could argue already have -- a measure of control.
Zod and Superman laid waste to DC's big screen City of Tomorrow
They live in a world that is optimistic.
Superman is supposed to be The Man of Tomorrow; Metropolis is The City of Tomorrow. Superman could, many would argue should, be the best of us. He should represent the best of all possible tomorrows. But the tomorrow represented here is false, and out of synch with what today's 22-year-old will show us is indeed better. When the most fantastic of fictions fall well short of our mundane realities, something is wrong. What's wrong is the outlook of "Man of Steel" and all the DC character movies. In the final analysis, perhaps it's best the name "Superman" is absent from the title.
This isn't a review of "Man of Steel." It is, perhaps, a cultural analysis of our view of the future, filtered through the thin lens of comic book movies. But it still can inform us about the world we live in. It can still influence the decisions we make. I, for one, will trust the 22-year-olds of today to create a future much better than the one Superman unfortunately inhabits. After all, if you're the most powerful man in a world no one wants to live in, what's so super about that?"
- 88,330
- 47,367
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
but you didnt say in before somebody said if you dont like man of steel you arent a man
we are ******g guys. quit trying to be got damn arthouse film critics on a man film
too much of this **** goes on these days. people are so anal retentive. its a summer popcorn flick. its superman!
go watch gone with the wind if you dont like it.
check your manhood at the door
go read a book
The_Isomotion31
formerly thewindscar31
- 5,295
- 824
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
Right? People expecting a life altering experience. Or a movie that "made them think".
- 10,232
- 11,853
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
I actually dislike Marvel movies a lot because of their optimistic, happy environments. To me, that type of setting takes away from the severity of what's going on. For example, Avengers had a legion of aliens destroying the city, but it didn't make me feel worried or anything at all. On top of that Loki is one of the least intimidating villains of all time.
I've always found comic book movies to be lame and extremely corny for the most part, so the serious DC movies without obnoxious RDJ type characters appeal to me a lot more
Last edited:
- 73,320
- 60,154
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
Really hard to argue with those type of criticisms because they already have a set idea in mind so they become a bit biased. I mean I understand that Superman has some mythos to uphold and follow but why can't they understand this is an origin film? That Superman can't be perfect from the get go? That Clark Kent isn't the Daily Planet Clark Kent we all know? I mean he really just started working for the DP at the ending, up until then, he really had no reason to be the Clark Kent we know.
I agree that Superman should be "the best of us" but again, this is an origin film and I can understand him not being perfect right away. He was discovering himself throughout the whole film. Even as a big Superman fanboy, I can accept that and see where they go from there.
I mean really, I don't think Batman Begins got as much crap when he let Ra's die, just because it was out of technicality? Bales scruffy voice: "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you!" It was still out of character, hell he saved Joker in TDKR, why didn't he let him fall and "not save him"? Where's the consistency? Technically Batman killed Dent too.
I agree that Superman should be "the best of us" but again, this is an origin film and I can understand him not being perfect right away. He was discovering himself throughout the whole film. Even as a big Superman fanboy, I can accept that and see where they go from there.
I mean really, I don't think Batman Begins got as much crap when he let Ra's die, just because it was out of technicality? Bales scruffy voice: "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you!" It was still out of character, hell he saved Joker in TDKR, why didn't he let him fall and "not save him"? Where's the consistency? Technically Batman killed Dent too.
- 8,291
- 7,533
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
Now I see dj Paul in the superman fit lol
- 87,758
- 50,171
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
After reading that cbr article, I hope even more now that Frank miller directs the JL movie
@ tornado-aided suicide. Such a dumb scene.
@ tornado-aided suicide. Such a dumb scene.
- 10,232
- 11,853
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
Really hard to argue with those type of criticisms because they already have a set idea in mind so they become a bit biased. I mean I understand that Superman has some mythos to uphold and follow but why can't they understand this is an origin film? That Superman can't be perfect from the get go? That Clark Kent isn't the Daily Planet Clark Kent we all know? I mean he really just started working for the DP at the ending, up until then, he really had no reason to be the Clark Kent we know.
I agree that Superman should be "the best of us" but again, this is an origin film and I can understand him not being perfect right away. He was discovering himself throughout the whole film. Even as a big Superman fanboy, I can accept that and see where they go from there.
I mean really, I don't think Batman Begins got as much crap when he let Ra's die, just because it was out of technicality? Bales scruffy voice: "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you!" It was still out of character, hell he saved Joker in TDKR, why didn't he let him fall and "not save him"? Where's the consistency? Technically Batman killed Dent too.
I actually liked that they made Superman more relatable in this movie. The way he reacts to things is the same way most of us would if we had his powers.
- 10,232
- 11,853
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
After reading that cbr article, I hope even more now that Frank miller directs the JL movie
Can't lie, that scene was horrible
- 53,190
- 20,750
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
After reading that cbr article, I hope even more now that Frank miller directs the JL movie
Yeah, no way in hell I want to die in a tornado if my son is invincible and can save me in half a second.
- 2,880
- 256
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
Totally agree with you. Honestly, after getting out of the theater I was a lil bit skeptical on their choice to make MoS a lil bit gritty. After thinking it over though, I was pretty much okay with it. Like why should Supes always be depicted as this perfect boy scout? The juxtaposition of the Superman mythos with this gritty version of Metropolis was spot on.
I do understand the author's point as well. I would assume he likes his as an escape to the everyday realities of life. Again, to each his own.
Really hard to argue with those type of criticisms because they already have a set idea in mind so they become a bit biased. I mean I understand that Superman has some mythos to uphold and follow but why can't they understand this is an origin film? That Superman can't be perfect from the get go? That Clark Kent isn't the Daily Planet Clark Kent we all know? I mean he really just started working for the DP at the ending, up until then, he really had no reason to be the Clark Kent we know.
I agree that Superman should be "the best of us" but again, this is an origin film and I can understand him not being perfect right away. He was discovering himself throughout the whole film. Even as a big Superman fanboy, I can accept that and see where they go from there.
I mean really, I don't think Batman Begins got as much crap when he let Ra's die, just because it was out of technicality? Bales scruffy voice: "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you!" It was still out of character, hell he saved Joker in TDKR, why didn't he let him fall and "not save him"? Where's the consistency? Technically Batman killed Dent too.
I don't get it as well. Some people just can't see that this Supes has nothing to do with the other versions. As is the case with every Superman interpretation there is.
- 87,758
- 50,171
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
Nah all the past Supes interpretations in movies were all in the same vein, this is the first that deviated.
- 2,880
- 256
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
I'm not specifically referring to just movies. My point was that every Superman incarnation differs pretty much from each other. For example, the Christopher Reeves' version, differs from the comic version. It varies per medium. And also not every Superman version in the comics is the same as well.
- 8,961
- 1,116
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
After reading that cbr article, I hope even more now that Frank miller directs the JL movie
Can't lie, that scene was horrible
This was straight out of a lifetime or hallmark channel movie.
- 9,141
- 1,797
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
still don't understand why people think reeve's face was in that scene, until this thread i've never heard anyone say this. always thought cavill and reeve look alike tho. like..a lot. i think that's what producers were going for.
- 2,928
- 1,311
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
How was MOS pessimistic? He saved the whole f**king planet! ...just because he wasn't cracking jokes or spouting witty one liners whilst he did it, doesn't mean it was pessimistic. The recurring theme throughout the whole of the film was hope! ...HOPE!
How did this *cough* "critic" miss that?
Another pretentious c**t!
How did this *cough* "critic" miss that?
Another pretentious c**t!
- 936
- 108
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
I think the D.C universe is more realistic, taken into the extreme (most true imo) by Watchmen.
That is how people would view "superheros/vigilantes".
That is how people would view "superheros/vigilantes".