Man of Steel Thread

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

While I agree, and get it, I felt with MOS that the action ws too frenetic that the camera angles moved so much and so quickly it was hard to appreciate the CGI.


Also hated how the regular scenes seemed like they were shot by the same guys that filmed Blair witch project.......

Ugh, when young Clark was talking to his dad by the pickup after he saved the schoolbus full of kids, all I could think of is "Why the hell is the camera shaking so much?"

[Coach]

Saw it. Loved it.

[awildermode]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Ugh, when young Clark was talking to his dad by the pickup after he saved the schoolbus full of kids, all I could think of is "Why the hell is the camera shaking so much?"

just that scene? find me one scene, just one part of the entire film (other than the end credits) where the frame is still for a full two seconds.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Oh and one more thing: No super breath? Seriously? I know he'll probably use it next film but it would've been awesome to see him freeze Zod into an icicle.

[nickerjones]

Think about watching the Tornado scene in Moore, Oklahoma at a Theatre that is literally next door to this :



Here is the theatre



Can you say AWKWARD?!??!?!?!?!?

[Russic]

My biggest issue was with the very last scene.

Spoiler!

I like that they got the "who is Superman" question out of the way early. I thought that was ballsy and awesome. My issue is she calls him Clark throughout and there's really no secret about it at all (she does it in front of huge swaths of people). Suddenly at the end he shows up as a reporter with the same name and nobody notices except Lois? Someone I saw it with said it'd be sacrilege to not end on that, but I think you either go that direction or you change the earlier story.

Really enjoyed it otherwise.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by mac_82

They could have done some amazing never before done stuff with the fight scenes. But they were overdone, way too long, and the same thing over and over. Punch through building, repeat 10 times. End fight scene. The ending with the negative zone hole that took out all the Kryptonian's also felt pretty cheap and anti-climatic.

The camera work was problematic at times as well. Doing the running shake camera with 3D certainly doesn't add very much to the film. And they were really copying the Star Trek feel of having a wide shot, doing a quick zoom in, and then wobbling the camera a little bit. This movie really didn't need to be in 3D, and it feels like it was more of a money grab than anything. I wish Christopher Nolan took a stand on this like he did with the Batman trilogy.

you really hit the nail on the head for me. JJ Abrams is no innovator himself by any stretch, but I found the repeated handycam zooms in MoS far more distracting than any amount of lens flares. very early on it got to the point where I could predict with almost 100% accuracy when the out of focus zoom in/out thing was going to happen. and the cameraman having a seizure and/or doing backflips during the simplest dialog scenes is an even more tired technique.

I'm sure this is a sign of relative old age, but I'm getting sick of these blockbuster movies where the director blows his CG load all over the audience's face during battle sequences. the sad thing is that if you really had a bunch of super strong, fast and durable beings punching each other repeatedly for an hour, you probably won't be able to follow what's going on anyways. somehow Avengers managed to pull it off so much better...frantic but at least I could see what the hell was going on.

on the bright side, I was delighted that Kryptonian technology is primarily based on this:

[3 Justin 3]

God dammit.

Dammit dammit dammit.

Why Snyder, you asshat, do you do this to me? You basterd.

Film could have been 8-9/10 but no, you had to make every god damn scene with a f***ing shaky cam. This is has to be the worst shot movie I have ever watched in the past 20 years. Every. F***ing. Scene. Is. SHAKING.



Outside the climax (which I liked, and was basically all CGI), every scene was like that gif. How can you tell a story and get the audience attached when they can't even focus on what is happening? It isn't needed. Get a damn steady cam and/or a trolley.

It's hard to review the movie because that is such a cockup. And as much as I blame Zack Snyder for it, what the hell was Chris Nolan, WB, and everyone else thinking to just let him shoot it like this? I can film a steadier movie with my go pro on a bumpy road. It served no damn purpose.



I'm sure it looked extra bad on the big screen, hopefully the Blu-Ray release mitigates the shaking a little, but I'm honestly surprised that of all the complaints I'm seeing online, etc. and from people who liked the film, there is very little mention of the shaky cam. And yes, it is as bad as I'm making it out to be since the whole movie is shot like this.

I really really REALLY hope the sequel isn't filmed like this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[CaptainCrunch]

I just want a superman movie where he pounds Lois Lane so hard that she gets embedded in the rock surface of the planet so deep that when Superman pulls her out he's declared the king of england.

[Hessen]

Would the movie be acceptable for a 7 and 9 year old to watch> My boys have been watching the TV ads and have asked to see Superman.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by Hessen

Would the movie be acceptable for a 7 and 9 year old to watch> My boys have been watching the TV ads and have asked to see Superman.

there was a pair of 5 yr olds sitting behind me in the movie this weekend. I know they were 5 bc they argued over who was older... " I'm 5 and a quarter... well I am older because I am 5 and a half..." Nonetheless ... they seemed to really like the movie. I dont think it was especially gory but there are a fe scenes that might scare children.

[GreenLantern]

Can we finally stop associating Superman with being lame? It looks like the general public has finally caught on to what Super-fans have known for years: the man of steel is cool. And also bankable, it seems, as the hero's latest film outing broke all sorts of records in its debut weekend, scoring an unbelievable $125.1 million during it's opening weekend (including it's phenomenal late Thursday haul).

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/06/17...-june-opening/

The Wall Street Journal states that a Man of Steel sequel could hit theaters “as soon as 2014,” according to “knowledgeable people close to the studio.” Furthermore, the newspaper contends the long-developing Justice League movie could assemble “as soon as 2015,” as has been previously rumored.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.co...nding-in-2014/

[Hemi-Cuda]

I never really understood the point of the Justice League. Superman can do everything the other heroes can and a helluva lot more, and with how fast he is he can do it all much quicker. What role do the rest have other than being cheerleaders?

[GreenLantern]

One thing the JLA does is watch duty... it would be boring for Superman to sit in the watch tower all the time.. nice to have other members who can sit up there and if its a big emergency radio the big guy in.

He needs to have a life too..

[The Goon]

Originally Posted by Hessen

Would the movie be acceptable for a 7 and 9 year old to watch> My boys have been watching the TV ads and have asked to see Superman.

Did they see The Avengers? I think the level of violence is equivalent.

[GreenLantern2814]

@mac82, for what it's worth, Superman is holding his breath when he's in space; his lung capacity greatly exceeds that of humans, hence the super breath.

And I know, if there's an award for useless post of the year, I deserve a nomination at the very least.

[trackercowe]

I still think DC is making a horrible mistake by just going straight to a Justice League movie without giving proper introductions to the members other than Batman and Superman. I am sure all of us know who Wonder Woman, Flash, and Martian Manhunter are (assuming those 5 + Green Lantern will be in the movie) and what their origins are, but the general public does not. It's going to be a hard sell to use these characters properly, and sell them to moviegoers when they really have no idea who they are. Then of course Green Lantern was a total failure, so who knows how that effects things.

What they should have done is follow Marvel's lead and give most of the main characters proper introductions in their own movies, and then make a Justice League movie a couple years from now. The basic blueprint on how to do this successfully has already been done by Marvel/Disney, but it would seem DC/Warners are too stupid to realize this.

Obviously they are gunshy after Green Lantern, but the main reason for its failure was its massive budget (and not that it was a bad movie). If they had made it for about 100 million instead of 200 million it would have been a moderate success. I have no idea where they that budget went to though as the movie looked like garbage (a poor Star Wars knockoff).

What they should do is give each of Flash, Wonder Woman, and possibly even another Green Lantern their own movie and then have tie-ins with the rest of the DC universe the same as Marvel did.

Now they're going to end up putting all their eggs in one basket, and if Justice League fails their whole universe will pretty much be ruined. There will be no way for them to create more movies beyond just Batman or Superman if Justice League fails.

If they are set on bringing out Justice League that soon they should give Christian Bale and Christopher each 50 million to take part in the movie as theirs names being attached to it will bring legitimacy to the movie (just like RDJ did for Avengers). If they bring in a whole new cast, and hire a lesser known director they're doomed for failure I honestly believe.

[trackercowe]

Oh and for anyone who cares, Nolan did oppose the ending where Superman kills Zod (and breaks his golden rule).

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/17...advised-on-it/

“Killing Zod was a big thing and Chris Nolan, originally, said there’s no way you can do this,” Goyer told the magazine. “That was a change–originally Zod got sucked into the Phantom Zone along with the others and I just felt it was unsatisfying and so did Zack. We started questioning–we talked to some of the people at DC Comics and said, ‘Do you think there is ever a way that Superman would kill someone?’ And at first they said ‘No way, no way,’ and we said, ‘but what if he didn’t have a choice?’ Originally Chris didn’t even want to let us try to write it and Zack and I said, ‘We think we can figure out a way that you’ll buy it.’”

He acknowledged that it’s a shocking and possibly uncomfortable scene, but that they’ve hopefully set up the mainstream audience to question what they know about Superman.
Director Zack Snyder also explained the decision that went into killing, and how it will affect sequels to come.

“I guess for me–and in the original version of the script he just got zapped into the Phantom Zone–David and I had long talks about it and Chris and I talked long about it and it was like, ‘I really think we should kill Zod and I really think Superman should kill him,’” Snyder explained. “And the why of it was, for me, that if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It’s just in his DNA. I felt like we needed him to do something, just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet or any of the other things that you’re sort of seeing for the first time that you realize will then become his thing. I felt like, if we can find a way of making it impossible for him–like Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out–I felt like that could also make you go, ‘Okay, this is the why of him not killing ever again, right?’ He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture and he is responsible for it and he’s just like, ‘How could I kill ever again?’”

Interesting... even if I for one liked the ending (if they intend on going somewhere with it).

[Iceman57]

I haven't read any of the posts because I'm going to see the movie tomorrow but I was hoping someone who had seen them movie could help me out. Would it be too scary for my seven year old son?

Keep in mind that he has already watched and enjoyed all three Jurassic Parks, the first two Ironman's, Thor, Captain America, both Hulks and of course the Avengers. I never let him watch the Green Lantern movie, he was a little scared while watching the new Oz but finished it although never made it through any of the Pirate movies.

Really appreciate the feedback, thanks.

[trackercowe]

If he's seen Jurassic Park and the others then Man of Steel shouldn't be too scary for him at all. Nothing overly graphic I'd say, and very little blood.

Maybe your son just has incredibly good taste? Green Lantern sucks, Oz was pretty scary (scary bad), and I couldn't make it through any of the Pirates movies either. Even the first Pirates movie was pretty much a battle with insomnia; pretty innovative, but for that type of movie I felt it was way too long.

But yah I doubt he'd have much of a problem with it. It's long though at 2.5 hours, but not much longer than a few of the other movies you listed. When I went to the 10pm show last week I was next to a father and all his kids, and they loved it, so it could be the same with your son.