If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
It made a half billion dollars. It was a hugely budgeted, heavily marketed movie that was meant to appeal to the mass audience and opened pretty large. Again, Monsters U and WWZ earned more money by themselves than the entire top 10 during Batman Begins' second weekend and the entire top 10 during Iron Man's second week. Is "What Happens in Vegas" stiff competition for a super hero movie? was the very very mixed Speed Racer stiff competition? How about some movie called Rebound (which opened during Batman Begin's second week)? No?
Fast 6, Iron Man 3, and Star Trek, This Is The End were also still in the top 10 during Man of Steel's first three weeks. So yes, I would call that stiff competition.
And, of course, it didn't help that people didn't seem enthusiastic about recommending MofS, or seeing it a second time, as per some of the reporting on its big second week drop. But I think we've already talked about that. Experts projecting numbers thought MoS would maintain better than it did, and that WWZ would not do as well as it ended up doing. If you want to say that was all predestined, and the reception/word of mouth about MoS had nothing to do with it, then okay. But I disagree.
I acknowledge that competition is getting fiercer, but also if you made a Superman movie with a more enthusiastic audience and critical response, then it would make more money.
WB seems to agree- for the next one, instead of just making it look more like Batman, and say it is from the producer of Batman (as they did with MoS) they are going to actually add Batman.
And I'm sure that will pay off, financially. And maybe creatively, we'll see. I know I will be there to find out.
I don't think it was predestined, just using that as an example of the overall higher level of competition targeting the same audience.
If World War Z is considered stiff competition for a Superman movie... then maybe they need to start making better Superman movies (or, at least, marketing them better?). Wasn't WWZ the one that some were predicting would be a disaster before it opened and succeeded?
Yes, but zombies are big right now. Its riding (to some extent) on the coattails of the Walking Dead.
M
Sure, but not nearly as big as superheroes at the movies. If we are talking coattails, then doesn't MoS have things like Avengers and the Nolan trilogy to ride?
I would disagree. There may be more big budget super hero movies than zombie movies right now, but there have been plenty of zombie movies in general over the past several years. Plus the tv show, and comics, and novels. And the World War Z novel was a big seller so you have that build in audience for that particular movie as well.
Why isn't someone making a zombie super hero movie? That might even beat out The Avengers in ticket sales.
Saw it. Enjoyed it. Wasn't wholly annoyed by the Christ imagery.
The character deviations all seem to be routed in the teaching of this Pa Kent and while not true to classic Superman/Pa, are probably quite apt for the period. This Kal is 33 placing the story starting in 1980. That's a pretty cynical time for a mid-America farmer (note Martha working for Sears (brand placement and subversive commentary? instead of having a family business
Michael Shannon is no Terrance Stamp.
Huge amount of destruction. I interpreted that less as a deviation from Superman and more a far more extreme Zod. Kal was not given the choice of battlefields
Given the scenario, killing Zod was the only choice. As I recall Byrne explored this same concept. The suicide by cop comment above was quite apt
Huge amount of destruction. I interpreted that less as a deviation from Superman and more a far more extreme Zod. Kal was not given the choice of battlefields
lol Cuz Supe can't always control where he gets his ass kicked. :D
Huge amount of destruction. I interpreted that less as a deviation from Superman and more a far more extreme Zod. Kal was not given the choice of battlefields
lol Cuz Supe can't always control where he gets his ass kicked. :D
Normally when you're fighting someone who is far more skilled then you, you're spending more time trying to keep from getting your ass handed to you. Watching Kent's fighting style, you can tell he's never been in one until the invasion.
Huge amount of destruction. I interpreted that less as a deviation from Superman and more a far more extreme Zod. Kal was not given the choice of battlefields
lol Cuz Supe can't always control where he gets his ass kicked. :D
Multiple, equally powered opponents with a advanced weapon systems and the planetary engine - it pretty well put him on the reactive side.
Given one or two opponents, I could see him being able to negate the Engine early and then establish the battlefield, but the way they were able to scatter really defined things.
Huge amount of destruction. I interpreted that less as a deviation from Superman and more a far more extreme Zod. Kal was not given the choice of battlefields
lol Cuz Supe can't always control where he gets his ass kicked. :D
Normally when you're fighting someone who is far more skilled then you, you're spending more time trying to keep from getting your ass handed to you. Watching Kent's fighting style, you can tell he's never been in one until the invasion.
M
i'm not disputing that. I absolutely agree. (I didn't intended my original post to be scarcastic) Supes was trying to not get his ass handed to him. Removing the fight to a more remote location might have been part of the plan but the plan has a way of changing when somebody is trying to punch your head off your shoulders.
I just saw this movie today and thought it was good. The first half of the movie, especially, was very well done. The second half featured one fight sequence after another, until I was ready to say "enough already." The sfx were good but jeez, was constant punching the only thing they could think of? But the good parts outweighed the bad.
I'm still blown out at the hate and continuing vitriol this movie is causing. I've never seen a movie cause so much damage to peoples lives.
For my part, I am a HARDCORE, HARDCORE, HARDCORE Superman fan. I wouldn't be posting on this forum, listening to podcasts, wanting to write comics, working at Midtown Comics, reading 100 comics a month, done my own podcast, or be the person I am right now, without Superman.
When I was a kid, my parents left me home with my grandparents or alone. I didn't have the greatest family life, but on Saturdays every two or three months, WPIX would put on Superman marathons, and George Reeves' Superman was syndicated on WWOR. So these guys in the red and blue tights informed me on how I should behave and what I should be like.
I could care less how they changed the Mandarin, I could care less about how different the Marvel movies are compared to the source material, these guys are malleable.
Superman? He is the golden standard. He is my golden standard.
Do I hate the movie? No, but did it let me down? YES. And the fact that I've gotten into arguments with people at work and they don't get why I'm upset, kinda bugs me.
I can be rational about every other superhero, Superman is my guy. And Henry Cavill's Superman, as conceived by Zack Snyder and David Goyer, is what the REST OF THE WORLD sees him as. Not the comic version, maybe 10% of the movie going public reads a comic, less even. That's what bugs me... this is what people think Superman is.
I can't stand that.
You misunderstood the movie. He is NOT Superman until very end of the movie, if at all. The movie is about clark becoming superman.
I had no problem with the destruction. You fight a war where the enemy is, not where you want it to be. Just rewatched Avengers. Way more destruction. Same point. They fought where the enemy was.
I had no problem with the destruction. You fight a war where the enemy is, not where you want it to be. Just rewatched Avengers. Way more destruction. Same point. They fought where the enemy was.
There's way less damage in Avengers. In MoS, there's building collapsing all over. There's a massive crater in the city from the Kryptonians' attempts to terraform Earth.
The excessive destruction at the end really took me out of the story. If BvS:DoJ is more action/destruction like the last 1/3 of MoS (instead of story driven like the first 2/3), the anchors of the DCCU is going to be bad.
I had no problem with the destruction. You fight a war where the enemy is, not where you want it to be. Just rewatched Avengers. Way more destruction. Same point. They fought where the enemy was.
There's way less damage in Avengers. In MoS, there's building collapsing all over. There's a massive crater in the city from the Kryptonians' attempts to terraform Earth.
The excessive destruction at the end really took me out of the story. If BvS:DoJ is more action/destruction like the last 1/3 of MoS (instead of story driven like the first 2/3), the anchors of the DCCU is going to be bad.
M
Admittedly, we are arguing about fake destruction with no way to assess the actual damage, but it seemed to me, Superman destruction was greater to individual buildings, but far less widespread, whereas Avengers had no buildings falling down, but seemed to have significant damage to a major portion of the city, so there would be the same net damage.
For me, the problem was how long it went on at the end. At some point, it was just not interesting. From the BvS info I have seen, this may end up being DC playing (overplaying?) the long game. There is no reason for BvS, unless people are extremely upset with Superman. He "saves the world," so the only way you get anything other than a grateful population is if, they feel he has MASSIVELY gone overboard in how he saved them.
I had no problem with the destruction. You fight a war where the enemy is, not where you want it to be. Just rewatched Avengers. Way more destruction. Same point. They fought where the enemy was.
There's way less damage in Avengers. In MoS, there's building collapsing all over. There's a massive crater in the city from the Kryptonians' attempts to terraform Earth.
The excessive destruction at the end really took me out of the story. If BvS:DoJ is more action/destruction like the last 1/3 of MoS (instead of story driven like the first 2/3), the anchors of the DCCU is going to be bad.
M
Admittedly, we are arguing about fake destruction with no way to assess the actual damage, but it seemed to me, Superman destruction was greater to individual buildings, but far less widespread, whereas Avengers had no buildings falling down, but seemed to have significant damage to a major portion of the city, so there would be the same net damage.
For me, the problem was how long it went on at the end. At some point, it was just not interesting. From the BvS info I have seen, this may end up being DC playing (overplaying?) the long game. There is no reason for BvS, unless people are extremely upset with Superman. He "saves the world," so the only way you get anything other than a grateful population is if, they feel he has MASSIVELY gone overboard in how he saved them.
I can see the purpose of BvS:DoJ. I don't believe the majority of the world would just accept him like in the '78 movie. I've read "To Serve Man" & "Invincible." I certainly wouldn't just accept Kent as a hero.
Plus, there are scenes depicting a memorial from the battle. I have to deduce there were casualties. Perhaps without Kent, the Kryptonians wouldn't have been drawn to Earth. It's not a stretch to place some blame & distrust on "Superman".
The thread will just be used as part of the nefarious plot in the Darkity-Dark Knight/Super Duper Man of Steel: Dawnest of the Dawn of Justice Spoiler thread 5 months from now anyway.
The thread will just be used as part of the nefarious plot in the Darkity-Dark Knight/Super Duper Man of Steel: Dawnest of the Dawn of Justice Spoiler thread 5 months from now anyway.
@zikaatlaw - To explain/clarify for a moment the resistance or jokes you are seeing--
I actually think it can be great when an old discussion gets bumped up and continued, as it can be great to have new people in the conversation, and I'm sure many making jokes about it would actually agree.
The jokes about this one in particular is that this one became a little infamous for going on and on (and I was as guilty of doing that as anyone, if it is even something to feel guilty about!), as it's a movie that could be polarizing with fans.
So if there is some grumbling about seeing it going again, I wanted you to know what the background on that was, so you didn't think it was anything to do with you.
Also, to rejoin the discussion substance again for a moment on the points you made, regarding this--
I had no problem with the destruction. You fight a war where the enemy is, not where you want it to be. Just rewatched Avengers. Way more destruction. Same point. They fought where the enemy was.
There's way less damage in Avengers. In MoS, there's building collapsing all over. There's a massive crater in the city from the Kryptonians' attempts to terraform Earth.
The excessive destruction at the end really took me out of the story. If BvS:DoJ is more action/destruction like the last 1/3 of MoS (instead of story driven like the first 2/3), the anchors of the DCCU is going to be bad.
M
Admittedly, we are arguing about fake destruction with no way to assess the actual damage, but it seemed to me, Superman destruction was greater to individual buildings, but far less widespread, whereas Avengers had no buildings falling down, but seemed to have significant damage to a major portion of the city, so there would be the same net damage.
For me, the problem was how long it went on at the end. At some point, it was just not interesting. From the BvS info I have seen, this may end up being DC playing (overplaying?) the long game. There is no reason for BvS, unless people are extremely upset with Superman. He "saves the world," so the only way you get anything other than a grateful population is if, they feel he has MASSIVELY gone overboard in how he saved them.
I agree as it is all pretend destruction, and both MoS and Avengers had a large scale of destruction, it can be hard to quantify and compare. And it really comes down to how you feel when you watch each one.
For me, though, the destruction in Avengers felt more contained. Not that there wasn't a lot of it, there was. But as someone that lives in New York City, I found their geography was pretty buttoned-up and specific, I thought, and put the fight all around the Grand Central/ Midtown East area. (And, sure, I think a lot of the actual shooting was down in Cleveland-for-New York. But the shots where they were trying to establish where in the city they were, they kept showing me things that I recognized as being in that area around Grand Central.
Of course, Metropolis being a fictional city with (I think) a partly or mostly computer-generated skyline. And being shot in a city I am less familiar in, it may be that was part of why the destruction felt bigger to me. (That and, at least in my memory of it, there was no shot in Avengers that looked quite as 'this city is WRECKED!' as that shot of Superman and Lois coming together to kiss in what looked like the end of the world.)
It's funny, though-- for all the care I thought Whedon and his people took in Avengers to make it seem like the fight was contained in a certain part of the city, and that the whole city wasn't destroyed, I thought the Daredevil show on Netflix totally contradicted that by the way they talked about the "Battle of New York". If I remember right, there was even some line about opportunities to rebuild in Hell's Kitchen after the Battle. And that neighborhood is miles west of of where the movie showed the battle taking place.
Wow. I wonder how Mr. Mackie really feels. I'll say this. There are moments in Man of Steel that I really like but I don't think I could watch it on a constant loop.
I'm watching Superman ('78) on blu-ray for the first time. It's also the first time I've watched the movie since Superman Returns was released on home media.
I have to say, the talk that Jonathan gives Clark right before his heart attack...really not that far off from the one in Man of Steel.
And how did they get away with a nude kid in the movie?!
I'm watching Superman ('78) on blu-ray for the first time. It's also the first time I've watched the movie since Superman Returns was released on home media.
I have to say, the talk that Jonathan gives Clark right before his heart attack...really not that far off from the one in Man of Steel.
And how did they get away with a nude kid in the movie?!
And the nude kid is in the fucking movie trailer! What the hell was happening in 1978?!
Comments
Why isn't someone making a zombie super hero movie? That might even beat out The Avengers in ticket sales.
The character deviations all seem to be routed in the teaching of this Pa Kent and while not true to classic Superman/Pa, are probably quite apt for the period. This Kal is 33 placing the story starting in 1980. That's a pretty cynical time for a mid-America farmer (note Martha working for Sears (brand placement and subversive commentary? instead of having a family business
Michael Shannon is no Terrance Stamp.
Huge amount of destruction. I interpreted that less as a deviation from Superman and more a far more extreme Zod. Kal was not given the choice of battlefields
Given the scenario, killing Zod was the only choice. As I recall Byrne explored this same concept. The suicide by cop comment above was quite apt
M
Given one or two opponents, I could see him being able to negate the Engine early and then establish the battlefield, but the way they were able to scatter really defined things.
Christ-like indeed. :|
:D (poke poke)
The excessive destruction at the end really took me out of the story. If BvS:DoJ is more action/destruction like the last 1/3 of MoS (instead of story driven like the first 2/3), the anchors of the DCCU is going to be bad.
M
For me, the problem was how long it went on at the end. At some point, it was just not interesting. From the BvS info I have seen, this may end up being DC playing (overplaying?) the long game. There is no reason for BvS, unless people are extremely upset with Superman. He "saves the world," so the only way you get anything other than a grateful population is if, they feel he has MASSIVELY gone overboard in how he saved them.
Plus, there are scenes depicting a memorial from the battle. I have to deduce there were casualties. Perhaps without Kent, the Kryptonians wouldn't have been drawn to Earth. It's not a stretch to place some blame & distrust on "Superman".
M
M
I actually think it can be great when an old discussion gets bumped up and continued, as it can be great to have new people in the conversation, and I'm sure many making jokes about it would actually agree.
The jokes about this one in particular is that this one became a little infamous for going on and on (and I was as guilty of doing that as anyone, if it is even something to feel guilty about!), as it's a movie that could be polarizing with fans.
So if there is some grumbling about seeing it going again, I wanted you to know what the background on that was, so you didn't think it was anything to do with you.
Also, to rejoin the discussion substance again for a moment on the points you made, regarding this-- I agree as it is all pretend destruction, and both MoS and Avengers had a large scale of destruction, it can be hard to quantify and compare. And it really comes down to how you feel when you watch each one.
For me, though, the destruction in Avengers felt more contained. Not that there wasn't a lot of it, there was. But as someone that lives in New York City, I found their geography was pretty buttoned-up and specific, I thought, and put the fight all around the Grand Central/ Midtown East area. (And, sure, I think a lot of the actual shooting was down in Cleveland-for-New York. But the shots where they were trying to establish where in the city they were, they kept showing me things that I recognized as being in that area around Grand Central.
Of course, Metropolis being a fictional city with (I think) a partly or mostly computer-generated skyline. And being shot in a city I am less familiar in, it may be that was part of why the destruction felt bigger to me. (That and, at least in my memory of it, there was no shot in Avengers that looked quite as 'this city is WRECKED!' as that shot of Superman and Lois coming together to kiss in what looked like the end of the world.)
It's funny, though-- for all the care I thought Whedon and his people took in Avengers to make it seem like the fight was contained in a certain part of the city, and that the whole city wasn't destroyed, I thought the Daredevil show on Netflix totally contradicted that by the way they talked about the "Battle of New York". If I remember right, there was even some line about opportunities to rebuild in Hell's Kitchen after the Battle. And that neighborhood is miles west of of where the movie showed the battle taking place.
https://games.yahoo.com/news/captain-america-star-anthony-mackie-150002609.html
M
I have to say, the talk that Jonathan gives Clark right before his heart attack...really not that far off from the one in Man of Steel.
And how did they get away with a nude kid in the movie?!
Warden: "this country is safe again, Superman. Thanks to you."
Superman: "no sir. Don't thank me, warden. We're all part of the same team."
Is probably one of my favorite cbm line of dialogue.