• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Official "Man Of Steel" Thread

Started by Ditch Fahrenheit,

962 posts in this topic

ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
I think people or older fans are use to the fact that superman somehow doesn't allow any villain to destroy anything. That's like not possible in the real world lol. I mean if he fought doomsday lets say... Half the country would be wiped out. That's just reality. In the Golden age superman was is overtly ridiculously powerful that he just stops time and other things. That to me is almost beyond science fiction and superman then seems like a God? I like the new superman better. Classic will always be classic.

Superman did what Batman should have done to Joker a long time ago.

2c

 

I would expect Batman to do that when pushed, not Superman. Superman has a strong moral center, given by his earth parents. It is the relationship between having powers that make him a god on our planet versus having the strong influence of a proper upbringing that makes him interesting to the normal person. I guess Man of Steel is the Superman for the current day; those who play video games, and kill hundreds of bad guys by the second using 5 - 10 different guns. Nameless faceless villains who wear bandanas and masks.

You can put me in the "I agree with Waid" camp.

Wow Man of Steel was so much more then "kill hundreds of bad guys by the second using 5 - 10 different guns. Nameless faceless villains who wear bandanas and masks."

Just wow!

 

I did not hate the movie, and give it a 6 out of 10 for what it is.

My point is that the film felt like I was watching someone else playing a video game. Visually amazing with some great action and fight scenes and an ending that has no business being in a Superman film. We can just say we disagree and leave it at that.

Sounds good to me, but I hope we can at least agree that it was a win in that it made Superman relevant again.

Think about when was the last time Superman was more popular then the Walking Dead?

There have been more threads about Man of Steel recently then the Walking Dead.

That to me is a win.

An example is anybody talking about Tarzan or Buck Rogers?

No, and that`s were Superman was headed popularity wise.

People might not like Man of Steel,but they should respect the importance of the Man of Steel putting Superman back into the public`s eye again.

take care mate. I am headed out to eat for awhile.

All is good! (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ditch Fahrenheit

Ditch Fahrenheit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Interesting stats:

 

Man Of Steel' Is Going To Have One Of The Biggest Box-Office Weekends Of The Year

 

According to a Fandango survey of 1,000 people who purchased tickets to see the film, the following factors are playing a role in people's decision to see "Man of Steel":

 

* 88% are fans of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” franchise

 

* 81% are looking forward to seeing a darker interpretation of Superman

 

* 61% plan to see it on the big screen more than once, indicating heavy repeat viewing in weeks to come.

 

The most impressive stat is that a lot of people may want to see this movie more than once — something that was common with Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boba

Boba

Posted
Posted
About the excessive carnage issue, what would you have Superman do, fly around at super-speed and rescue every person in the buildings being destroyed? I mean seriously, like in war, in a monumental battle like the one portrayed (for the fate of the entire planet) there would be casualties. Everyone complained that Superman was too squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes type superhero. So here you go, reality, as things might be if such a battle were undertaken for the very existence of humanity. So what's the problem?

Flash could do it. :taptaptap:

 

True that :flamed:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeliBebek

DeliBebek

Posted
Posted

From watching "Man of Steel" just a few weeks after "Star Trek Into Darkness" I observe that the big name directors today are entertainers more than storytellers. That seems to be why there is wall-to-wall action and an overall quick tempo created by the editing and the "camera movements" even in the CGI parts. Maybe it says something about the expected attention span of the viewership that we have movies that are filled with pointless zooms, pans and quick cuts. We have to be visually stimulated because we may not be listening to the dialogue or paying attention to the story in the first place.

 

I enjoyed "Man of Steel" It was entertaining, but it lacked the sense of wonder that the ultimate superhero should bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeliBebek

DeliBebek

Posted
Posted
About the excessive carnage issue, what would you have Superman do, fly around at super-speed and rescue every person in the buildings being destroyed? I mean seriously, like in war, in a monumental battle like the one portrayed (for the fate of the entire planet) there would be casualties. Everyone complained that Superman was too squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes type superhero. So here you go, reality, as things might be if such a battle were undertaken for the very existence of humanity. So what's the problem?

Flash could do it. :taptaptap:

 

True that :flamed:

What bothered me more than that was that there didn't seem to be an aftermath to all that destruction. How many years would it take to recover from something like that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wall-Crawler

Wall-Crawler

Posted
Posted
About the excessive carnage issue, what would you have Superman do, fly around at super-speed and rescue every person in the buildings being destroyed? I mean seriously, like in war, in a monumental battle like the one portrayed (for the fate of the entire planet) there would be casualties. Everyone complained that Superman was too squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes type superhero. So here you go, reality, as things might be if such a battle were undertaken for the very existence of humanity. So what's the problem?

Flash could do it. :taptaptap:

 

True that :flamed:

What bothered me more than that was that there didn't seem to be an aftermath to all that destruction. How many years would it take to recover from something like that?

 

I give you the first DISNEY/MARVEL STUDIOS AND DC/WARNER BROTHERS cross-over movie...

 

138693.jpg.9b8b7ce490ccce2548103140b6124b18.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sl4ppy

sl4ppy

Posted
Posted
I think when you're dealing with a movie that involves a guy flying around in a cape, that you can suspend disbelief a tad regarding the city clean up.

 

Not that much suspension...Metropolis was missing in the end of that movie. It was a crater. If that's how Supes 'saves people' they should say "noooooo thanks!".

 

 

The sequels are all going to have the Star Trek problem. He can't save the entire planet EVERY time; that's boring. And stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing