The Eisenberg casting reminds me of John Shea's casting in Lois & Clark. He was reluctant to do the head shave. I'm curious if this 'new' Lex will be bald or not. Gene Hackman wasn't & that raise a stink eye!
I don't think the bald head is important. Especially for a young Luthor. I mean, the various explanations over the years of how Superman is responsible for his baldness are fun and playful Silver(?)-Agery, but would probably be a hokey detail in a movie. And I think Eisenberg's boyish curly hair- maybe something that underscores the fact that his Lex is likely in charge of a lot of people much older than him, or squaring off against lots of generals that look at him like he's their daughter's boyfriend- actually is more interesting than him looking like a guy with a shaved head.
I don't think the bald head is important. Especially for a young Luthor. I mean, the various explanations over the years of how Superman is responsible for his baldness are fun and playful Silver(?)-Agery, but would probably be a hokey detail in a movie. And I think Eisenberg's boyish curly hair- maybe something that underscores the fact that his Lex is likely in charge of a lot of people much older than him, or squaring off against lots of generals that look at him like he's their daughter's boyfriend- actually is more interesting than him looking like a guy with a shaved head.
I agree, the baldness is not needed at all. Let him destroy all of his hair in the movie doing something dangerous at the end.
I don't think the bald head is important. Especially for a young Luthor. I mean, the various explanations over the years of how Superman is responsible for his baldness are fun and playful Silver(?)-Agery, but would probably be a hokey detail in a movie. And I think Eisenberg's boyish curly hair- maybe something that underscores the fact that his Lex is likely in charge of a lot of people much older than him, or squaring off against lots of generals that look at him like he's their daughter's boyfriend- actually is more interesting than him looking like a guy with a shaved head.
I agree, the baldness is not needed at all. Let him destroy all of his hair in the movie doing something dangerous at the end.
Much like Kent's "appearance" being first seen at the end of Man of Steel, I expect the same for Lex's hairline.
I don't think the bald head is important. Especially for a young Luthor. I mean, the various explanations over the years of how Superman is responsible for his baldness are fun and playful Silver(?)-Agery, but would probably be a hokey detail in a movie. And I think Eisenberg's boyish curly hair- maybe something that underscores the fact that his Lex is likely in charge of a lot of people much older than him, or squaring off against lots of generals that look at him like he's their daughter's boyfriend- actually is more interesting than him looking like a guy with a shaved head.
I agree, the baldness is not needed at all. Let him destroy all of his hair in the movie doing something dangerous at the end.
I actually disagree. Luthor's baldness is like his brand. Anyone who knows the Superman legend remembers him as the bald mad scientist. It's also his own badge of his personal flaws. "Hey! That's the mad scientist who fights Superman, who's super-brilliant but can't figure out how to synthesize Rogaine!"
I don't think the bald head is important. Especially for a young Luthor. I mean, the various explanations over the years of how Superman is responsible for his baldness are fun and playful Silver(?)-Agery, but would probably be a hokey detail in a movie. And I think Eisenberg's boyish curly hair- maybe something that underscores the fact that his Lex is likely in charge of a lot of people much older than him, or squaring off against lots of generals that look at him like he's their daughter's boyfriend- actually is more interesting than him looking like a guy with a shaved head.
I agree, the baldness is not needed at all. Let him destroy all of his hair in the movie doing something dangerous at the end.
I actually disagree. Luthor's baldness is like his brand. Anyone who knows the Superman legend remembers him as the bald mad scientist. It's also his own badge of his personal flaws. "Hey! That's the mad scientist who fights Superman, who's super-brilliant but can't figure out how to synthesize Rogaine!"
I agree that it is part of his "brand" but I don't think we have to see it right away. We've seen many (at least several) incarnations of Lex in TV and movies and comics where he had hair. (Superman 1, 2, 4, Lois and Clark the New Adventures of Superman, and different times throughout the comics).
Some people, like myself, feel that the main problem with Man Of Steel, and any further DC properties, is Zac Snyder himself. Whether the issue was pace, consistency, or the development of characters, Man of Steel is the poster boy for wasted opportunity in a major franchise.
I know people here will disagree with me, and that's expected, but looking at Snyder's "report card" of sorts from RottenTomatos you see Sucker Punch got a 23% rating, Watchmen got 60%, 300 got a 64%, Legend of the Guardians got a 50%, and Man of Steel received a 55% rating. Mostly all "rotten", and I can't really disagree. And this is who DC is banking the future of their movie universe on?
Even with the addition of Wonder Woman and Batman to be played by Ben Affleck, an Oscar winning producer and screenwriter, coming onboard, unless they get rid of Snyder, the failure of the DC universe to really be embraced by movie-goers could be indicative of how horribly managed DC Comics has been for a while. I don't have high hopes for this.
Some people, like myself, feel that the main problem with Man Of Steel, and any further DC properties, is Zac Snyder himself. Whether the issue was pace, consistency, or the development of characters, Man of Steel is the poster boy for wasted opportunity in a major franchise.
I know people here will disagree with me, and that's expected, but looking at Snyder's "report card" of sorts from RottenTomatos you see Sucker Punch got a 23% rating, Watchmen got 60%, 300 got a 64%, Legend of the Guardians got a 50%, and Man of Steel received a 55% rating. Mostly all "rotten", and I can't really disagree. And this is who DC is banking the future of their movie universe on?
Even with the addition of Wonder Woman and Batman to be played by Ben Affleck, an Oscar winning producer and screenwriter, coming onboard, unless they get rid of Snyder, the failure of the DC universe to really be embraced by movie-goers could be indicative of how horribly managed DC Comics has been for a while. I don't have high hopes for this.
"...failure of the DC universe to really be embraced by movie-goers..."
Shouldn't that really be '...comic book reading movie-goers...'? I know several people, including my wife, who aren't reading comics, but l enjoyed some of the movies on your list. One of my wife's favorite movies is Watchmen. She's never read the comics & probably only read about 2 dozen comics in the 8 years we've been together.
I actually think non-comic book reading movie-goers aren't shackled to the source material for Watchmen & Superman.
Shouldn't that really be '...comic book reading movie-goers...'? I know several people, including my wife, who aren't reading comics, but l enjoyed some of the movies on your list. One of my wife's favorite movies is Watchmen. She's never read the comics & probably only read about 2 dozen comics in the 8 years we've been together.
I actually think non-comic book reading movie-goers aren't shackled to the source material for Watchmen & Superman.
I'm a "comic book reading movie-goer" but I would say I am far from "shackled to the source material". I don't even read Superman. Haven't read an issue since Byrne's reboot. Read most of The Watchmen, but didn't love it and wasn't troubled by Snyder's version. I thoroughly enjoyed 300, the movie, but I never read the book. I never even saw Sucker Punch or Guardians. I still think Snyder's best film (that I've seen so far) is Dawn of the Dead followed by 300.
Furthermore, which of the movie critics that gave Zac's movies a rotten rating were "comic book movie-goers" do you suppose? The link I provided was an aggregation site of 100's of reviews ranging from Variety to blog sites. Were all of those critics shackled by the source material when they poorly reviewed Man of Steel (55%)? I'd say that's a stretch.
And the anecdotal evidence that your wife demonstrates is likely the exception rather than the rule although it was Zac Snyder's second highest rated film so far, so 60% of the critics liked it and your wife is most likely one that fell into that 60% column. A fairly wide margin of viewers and critics agree with her I suppose. Still, 60% isn't anything to trumpet which is why I'm surprised DC is banking on him.
You know what - never mind. If you're going to use Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer and you're going to ignore the audience rating or what those %s really mean, I can't be bothered.
I'll have to reread through the thread, butto save time; what were your issues with Man of Steel?
I added the possible qualifier because most people I know who really enjoyed Man of Steel didn't even know it was not in the same voice of the source material. I'm not a Superman fan, so I haven't actually read a lot of the source material, BUT I can recognize Man of Steel's Kent is different from it.
A lot of the criticisms I've read on this very forum involved the movie not being the same character as the source material. I'm not saying every comic book fan shackles him/herself to the source material. When I see the criticism involved complain it isn't "my Superman I want to read" I have to look at some type of binding.
I recall Ebert disliking Superman Returns noting it to be a less powerful version from the prior movies. I don't know of Ebert to have been a comic book reader, but he noted it. So, not every negative review has to come from a comic book reader.
I didn't use the universal identifiers like "always" "everytime" or "never". I know there are exceptions here. My zero interest in Sucker Punch has nothing to do with being a comic book reader.
I DO think there's an inherit disliking of Snyder's movies regardless of the content. I have never been a Tyler Perry fan & don't see the merits of his directed movies. It's completely subjective, I will admit it.
Man of Steel didn't do The Dark Knight or Avengers numbers, but still did well in the theatres & on home release. So I wouldn't completely say it wasn't embraced. Catwoman with Halle Berry wasn't embraced by movie-goers.
You were making a connection between the movie & how DC Comics is 'horribly managed.' I just wanted to add that I don't think there is a connection. Doesn't DC have a separate staff that deals with the entertainment from its comics staff? It could be you made a connection because you liked neither the current state of the comics or Man of Steel. I don't see one directly effecting the other.
You know what - never mind. If you're going to use Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer and you're going to ignore the audience rating or what those %s really mean, I can't be bothered.
Rotten Tomatoes. Yikes.
For clarity, I'm gonna include a picture of what the RT ratings are and try to provide some further details about what the scores mean. Matt Atchity, who runs the site and I believe started it, is a frequent guest on a show I listen to and talks about the ratings a lot.
I ranted and raved about the RT score on my little blog months ago.
Ok. So we can see the 55% critics score. That's what most people talk about of course. But then look at what the average rating is, 6.2. What does that mean? The percentage is a way for the site to calculate the number of "positive" reviews vs "negative" reviews. So if a movie has a 99% critics score, that does not mean that its a perfect movie and it doesn't mean that every critic is saying its an A+. It means that the vast majority of the reviews are "positive". MOS was reviewed by 283 "critics". 157 of them gave it positive reviews, the other 126 gave it "negative" reviews, thats how they get the 55% number. So not every critic is saying "this is a terrible movie" or "this is a55% movie". The site just figures out what is a positive or negative review and assigns the percentage that way. The average rating is a little more telling if you want to dig deeper into what it means. This means its a divided movie and Matt even talked about this. There are a lot of people giving it negative reviews, but the people that liked it, really liked it, which is why it was able to have a relatively high average.
Fast and the Furios 6 has a critics score of 69%, demonstrably higher than MOS. But, its average rating is the same, 6.2. So I higher percentage of reviewers had positive things to say about it, but it could be possible that people giving positive reviews of MOS were actually saying more positive things. It should be also noted that some movies get reviewed much more. MOS has 100 more reviews than Fast 6.
So, I'm not saying the Critics percentage is meaningless, but its not something you can automatically point to and say "see, this movie sucks." So what about the audience score? Well, you can see for MOS it's 76%. RT says this means 76% of the audience rated it 3.5 stars or higher (our of 5). The average audience rating is 3.9 and you can see my 4 star review in the picture too. Maybe some aren't as conservative with their reviews as I am, but to me, 4 is HIGH. Even 3.5 is pretty high.
So what we have, to me, with MOS is a movie that divided critics but that the audience (a self selecting audience) liked and the critics that liked it, really liked it. If you look at Zac Snyders other movies, I think its almost inarguable that there are critics who just don't like him. Not that there is a conspiracy because I don't think critics get together behind closed doors and talk, but I do think some have decided they don't like him.
Watching Smallville season 3/episode 14: "Obsession." Clark is caught in bed with Alicia Baker (the hot Sarah Carter) by his father. After she teleported away, Pa lectured Clark about revealing his powers & inquired how many of them she knew about.
Kind of reminds me of a certain scene in a movie. Though I cannot recall the bugaboo made about the Smallville episode!
Watching Smallville season 3/episode 14: "Obsession." Clark is caught in bed with Alicia Baker (the hot Sarah Carter) by his father. After she teleported away, Pa lectured Clark about revealing his powers & inquired how many of them she knew about.
Kind of reminds me of a certain scene in a movie. Though I cannot recall the bugaboo made about the Smallville episode!
M
Probably because it's not the same situation. The Smallville incident had Pa Kent worried that Clark's secret would be revealed, whereas the MOS incident had Pa telling Clark that he shouldn't be helping people when they were in danger.
Watching Smallville season 3/episode 14: "Obsession." Clark is caught in bed with Alicia Baker (the hot Sarah Carter) by his father. After she teleported away, Pa lectured Clark about revealing his powers & inquired how many of them she knew about.
Kind of reminds me of a certain scene in a movie. Though I cannot recall the bugaboo made about the Smallville episode!
M
Probably because it's not the same situation. The Smallville incident had Pa Kent worried that Clark's secret would be revealed, whereas the MOS incident had Pa telling Clark that he shouldn't be helping people when they were in danger.
I heard him talk about keeping his abilities a secret, not about helping people. There's no indication he shouldn't have helped people...just that he should keep it a secret.
Dont know if i ever saw that episode. But I'm sure the whole thing was handled far better on smallville. Pa's thoughts concerns and motives were probably obvious, unlike in MoS where we seem to have to infer a lot. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't exist. The scene (along with many others) was poorly handled all around and did a disservice to the character of Pa Kent.
My 14 year old daughter has decided that she's interested in superhero movies, thanks in large part to Arrow. Watched Iron Man 1 & 2 with her, watching 2, I couldn't help wondering where the indignation was for the carnage that had to have ensued with the running gun battle at Stark Expo (to say nothing if the rampant epidemic of glass shard induced blindness among the LA glitterati). Between War Machine and the drones there was a HUGE amount of ordinance being expended toward a civilian population.
My 14 year old daughter has decided that she's interested in superhero movies, thanks in large part to Arrow. Watched Iron Man 1 & 2 with her, watching 2, I couldn't help wondering where the indignation was for the carnage that had to have ensued with the running gun battle at Stark Expo (to say nothing if the rampant epidemic of glass shard induced blindness among the LA glitterati). Between War Machine and the drones there was a HUGE amount of ordinance being expended toward a civilian population.
Clearly the MCU goes as far as to adapted the run-of-the-mill Joe Blows of the Marvel universe too. The public is always relatively non-plussed as long as a city doesn't completely blow up.
My 14 year old daughter has decided that she's interested in superhero movies, thanks in large part to Arrow. Watched Iron Man 1 & 2 with her, watching 2, I couldn't help wondering where the indignation was for the carnage that had to have ensued with the running gun battle at Stark Expo (to say nothing if the rampant epidemic of glass shard induced blindness among the LA glitterati). Between War Machine and the drones there was a HUGE amount of ordinance being expended toward a civilian population.
I think there is a difference in scale between an expo sort of out and away from the city being attacked, and a huge chunk of the city leveled. That may have affected the difference in reaction.
Also, once the drones attack at the expo, don't Stark and Rhodey draw them into a big, empty arboretum to have the fight?
I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but I don't see many civilians or falling skyscrapers in this clip:
My 14 year old daughter has decided that she's interested in superhero movies, thanks in large part to Arrow. Watched Iron Man 1 & 2 with her, watching 2, I couldn't help wondering where the indignation was for the carnage that had to have ensued with the running gun battle at Stark Expo (to say nothing if the rampant epidemic of glass shard induced blindness among the LA glitterati). Between War Machine and the drones there was a HUGE amount of ordinance being expended toward a civilian population.
I think there is a difference in scale between an expo sort of out and away from the city being attacked, and a huge chunk of the city leveled. That may have affected the difference in reaction.
Also, once the drones attack at the expo, don't Stark and Rhodey draw them into a big, empty arboretum to have the fight?
I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but I don't see many civilians or falling skyscrapers in this clip:
I'd agree that there's a difference in scale but Stark Expo seems to be an analog to the early days of Epcot or the World's Fair... It's still a heavy concentration of people but it doesn't have as great a vertical density. I'm specifically thinking of the scene immediately after the drones are debuted and leading up to the bio-dome. Army drones are launching artillery bombardment, Navy drones are firing off missile packs haphazardly, Airforce drones, and War Machine are letting loose with machine gun fire... Every round that misses Iron Man hits something. The artillery and missiles have an area effect so the ultimate result is still going to be a massive amount of trauma.
The big difference that I see is that the drones were ultimately tasked with destroying Iron Man so the pursued, allowing him to draw them off to the bio-dome. On the other hand, the Kryptonians defined the battlefield by deploying their terraformer (kryptonformer?) in Metropolis.
My 14 year old daughter has decided that she's interested in superhero movies, thanks in large part to Arrow. Watched Iron Man 1 & 2 with her, watching 2, I couldn't help wondering where the indignation was for the carnage that had to have ensued with the running gun battle at Stark Expo (to say nothing if the rampant epidemic of glass shard induced blindness among the LA glitterati). Between War Machine and the drones there was a HUGE amount of ordinance being expended toward a civilian population.
I think there is a difference in scale between an expo sort of out and away from the city being attacked, and a huge chunk of the city leveled. That may have affected the difference in reaction.
Also, once the drones attack at the expo, don't Stark and Rhodey draw them into a big, empty arboretum to have the fight?
I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but I don't see many civilians or falling skyscrapers in this clip:
I'd agree that there's a difference in scale but Stark Expo seems to be an analog to the early days of Epcot or the World's Fair... It's still a heavy concentration of people but it doesn't have as great a vertical density. I'm specifically thinking of the scene immediately after the drones are debuted and leading up to the bio-dome. Army drones are launching artillery bombardment, Navy drones are firing off missile packs haphazardly, Airforce drones, and War Machine are letting loose with machine gun fire... Every round that misses Iron Man hits something. The artillery and missiles have an area effect so the ultimate result is still going to be a massive amount of trauma.
The big difference that I see is that the drones were ultimately tasked with destroying Iron Man so the pursued, allowing him to draw them off to the bio-dome. On the other hand, the Kryptonians defined the battlefield by deploying their terraformer (kryptonformer?) in Metropolis.
After all this time I've realized if someone doesn't like Man of Steel, he/she isn't going to relent despite any comparison or reference you site to justify why the movie was presented the way it was. Likewise, if you like the movie, nothing sites will deter that.
The relevant quote could be, for those who don't want to watch the full 8 minutes
"“Do you know that in a Superman film not one person dies? Not one person dies. Perhaps, somebody in part one, but not thereafter. In part four, nobody dies. And if you can have a big screen entertainment with something like that, that’s very rare today. I mean look at what else is out there.”
Bull... freaking... crap. No one dies? Or no one dies on screen? I would argue that a nuclear bomb going off, as one does in part 1, would result in many many deaths. We see Superman fix a small fraction of the damage that would be done as a result. Now, of course he turns back time and undoes all that.
I would also argue, and I know many disagree, which is fine, that the Phantom Zone criminals are also killed. Now, as for part four. What happens to the nuclear man? Does he, or does he not, get thrown into a nuclear reactor by Superman. Are we meant to think, as an audience, that Nuclear Man survives said encounter?
The relevant quote could be, for those who don't want to watch the full 8 minutes
"“Do you know that in a Superman film not one person dies? Not one person dies. Perhaps, somebody in part one, but not thereafter. In part four, nobody dies. And if you can have a big screen entertainment with something like that, that’s very rare today. I mean look at what else is out there.”
Bull... freaking... crap. No one dies? Or no one dies on screen? I would argue that a nuclear bomb going off, as one does in part 1, would result in many many deaths. We see Superman fix a small fraction of the damage that would be done as a result. Now, of course he turns back time and undoes all that.
I would also argue, and I know many disagree, which is fine, that the Phantom Zone criminals are also killed. Now, as for part four. What happens to the nuclear man? Does he, or does he not, get thrown into a nuclear reactor by Superman. Are we meant to think, as an audience, that Nuclear Man survives said encounter?
Don't forget the Superman movie franchise got killed with The Quest for Peace!
I think it's safe to say he means nobody is ourwardly killed on screen. That it isn't glorified or gratuitous. If not, he's still more right than wrong and we all know what he's saying. To condemn his remarks is to be pedantic IMO.
The audience can only guess the fate of Zod and Co. As nothing was actually shown. they fell (or slid) down to we know not where, into what, or how far. We can assume Superman knows what's down there, and Superman had never shown himself to be cruel and or murderous to that point. Also, we know the script and deleted scenes show the trio survived to be arrested, so although we didnt see it, we know the movies intent for them wasnt death. But yes, a powerless kryptonian (or human) dropped down a frozen crevice would very likely die and I would normally assume that's what happened. And personally I have no problem with it (or with nuclear man or zod). Nuclear man was returned to / transformed back into "energy". Or imprisoned in the reactor is even another way to consider it. "Killed" perhaps depending on your pov or opinion on just how "alive" he ever actually was. Either way, it's ambiguous. At least by comparison. Same with the nuclear bomb issue. It's not solely WHAT happens or doesn't, but HOW. How it happens and how it's presented. Similarly how something is said is often more important or powerful than what is said.
Comments
M
M
I know people here will disagree with me, and that's expected, but looking at Snyder's "report card" of sorts from RottenTomatos you see Sucker Punch got a 23% rating, Watchmen got 60%, 300 got a 64%, Legend of the Guardians got a 50%, and Man of Steel received a 55% rating. Mostly all "rotten", and I can't really disagree. And this is who DC is banking the future of their movie universe on?
Even with the addition of Wonder Woman and Batman to be played by Ben Affleck, an Oscar winning producer and screenwriter, coming onboard, unless they get rid of Snyder, the failure of the DC universe to really be embraced by movie-goers could be indicative of how horribly managed DC Comics has been for a while. I don't have high hopes for this.
Shouldn't that really be '...comic book reading movie-goers...'? I know several people, including my wife, who aren't reading comics, but l enjoyed some of the movies on your list. One of my wife's favorite movies is Watchmen. She's never read the comics & probably only read about 2 dozen comics in the 8 years we've been together.
I actually think non-comic book reading movie-goers aren't shackled to the source material for Watchmen & Superman.
M
Furthermore, which of the movie critics that gave Zac's movies a rotten rating were "comic book movie-goers" do you suppose? The link I provided was an aggregation site of 100's of reviews ranging from Variety to blog sites. Were all of those critics shackled by the source material when they poorly reviewed Man of Steel (55%)? I'd say that's a stretch.
And the anecdotal evidence that your wife demonstrates is likely the exception rather than the rule although it was Zac Snyder's second highest rated film so far, so 60% of the critics liked it and your wife is most likely one that fell into that 60% column. A fairly wide margin of viewers and critics agree with her I suppose. Still, 60% isn't anything to trumpet which is why I'm surprised DC is banking on him.
You know what - never mind. If you're going to use Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer and you're going to ignore the audience rating or what those %s really mean, I can't be bothered.
Rotten Tomatoes. Yikes.
I added the possible qualifier because most people I know who really enjoyed Man of Steel didn't even know it was not in the same voice of the source material. I'm not a Superman fan, so I haven't actually read a lot of the source material, BUT I can recognize Man of Steel's Kent is different from it.
A lot of the criticisms I've read on this very forum involved the movie not being the same character as the source material. I'm not saying every comic book fan shackles him/herself to the source material. When I see the criticism involved complain it isn't "my Superman I want to read" I have to look at some type of binding.
I recall Ebert disliking Superman Returns noting it to be a less powerful version from the prior movies. I don't know of Ebert to have been a comic book reader, but he noted it. So, not every negative review has to come from a comic book reader.
I didn't use the universal identifiers like "always" "everytime" or "never". I know there are exceptions here. My zero interest in Sucker Punch has nothing to do with being a comic book reader.
I DO think there's an inherit disliking of Snyder's movies regardless of the content. I have never been a Tyler Perry fan & don't see the merits of his directed movies. It's completely subjective, I will admit it.
Man of Steel didn't do The Dark Knight or Avengers numbers, but still did well in the theatres & on home release. So I wouldn't completely say it wasn't embraced. Catwoman with Halle Berry wasn't embraced by movie-goers.
You were making a connection between the movie & how DC Comics is 'horribly managed.' I just wanted to add that I don't think there is a connection. Doesn't DC have a separate staff that deals with the entertainment from its comics staff? It could be you made a connection because you liked neither the current state of the comics or Man of Steel. I don't see one directly effecting the other.
M
I ranted and raved about the RT score on my little blog months ago.
Ok. So we can see the 55% critics score. That's what most people talk about of course. But then look at what the average rating is, 6.2. What does that mean? The percentage is a way for the site to calculate the number of "positive" reviews vs "negative" reviews. So if a movie has a 99% critics score, that does not mean that its a perfect movie and it doesn't mean that every critic is saying its an A+. It means that the vast majority of the reviews are "positive". MOS was reviewed by 283 "critics". 157 of them gave it positive reviews, the other 126 gave it "negative" reviews, thats how they get the 55% number. So not every critic is saying "this is a terrible movie" or "this is a55% movie". The site just figures out what is a positive or negative review and assigns the percentage that way. The average rating is a little more telling if you want to dig deeper into what it means. This means its a divided movie and Matt even talked about this. There are a lot of people giving it negative reviews, but the people that liked it, really liked it, which is why it was able to have a relatively high average.
Fast and the Furios 6 has a critics score of 69%, demonstrably higher than MOS. But, its average rating is the same, 6.2. So I higher percentage of reviewers had positive things to say about it, but it could be possible that people giving positive reviews of MOS were actually saying more positive things. It should be also noted that some movies get reviewed much more. MOS has 100 more reviews than Fast 6.
So, I'm not saying the Critics percentage is meaningless, but its not something you can automatically point to and say "see, this movie sucks." So what about the audience score? Well, you can see for MOS it's 76%. RT says this means 76% of the audience rated it 3.5 stars or higher (our of 5). The average audience rating is 3.9 and you can see my 4 star review in the picture too. Maybe some aren't as conservative with their reviews as I am, but to me, 4 is HIGH. Even 3.5 is pretty high.
So what we have, to me, with MOS is a movie that divided critics but that the audience (a self selecting audience) liked and the critics that liked it, really liked it. If you look at Zac Snyders other movies, I think its almost inarguable that there are critics who just don't like him. Not that there is a conspiracy because I don't think critics get together behind closed doors and talk, but I do think some have decided they don't like him.
Kind of reminds me of a certain scene in a movie. Though I cannot recall the bugaboo made about the Smallville episode!
M
Kent later goes on & helps people, more or less, in secret. That's why I never interpreted the scene as "let them die."
M
Also there was likely little bugaboo made about that Smallville episode because you actually had to watch Smallville first. ;)
Also, once the drones attack at the expo, don't Stark and Rhodey draw them into a big, empty arboretum to have the fight?
I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but I don't see many civilians or falling skyscrapers in this clip:
The big difference that I see is that the drones were ultimately tasked with destroying Iron Man so the pursued, allowing him to draw them off to the bio-dome. On the other hand, the Kryptonians defined the battlefield by deploying their terraformer (kryptonformer?) in Metropolis.
Haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love.
M
"“Do you know that in a Superman film not one person dies? Not one person dies. Perhaps, somebody in part one, but not thereafter. In part four, nobody dies. And if you can have a big screen entertainment with something like that, that’s very rare today. I mean look at what else is out there.”
Bull... freaking... crap. No one dies? Or no one dies on screen? I would argue that a nuclear bomb going off, as one does in part 1, would result in many many deaths. We see Superman fix a small fraction of the damage that would be done as a result. Now, of course he turns back time and undoes all that.
I would also argue, and I know many disagree, which is fine, that the Phantom Zone criminals are also killed. Now, as for part four. What happens to the nuclear man? Does he, or does he not, get thrown into a nuclear reactor by Superman. Are we meant to think, as an audience, that Nuclear Man survives said encounter?
M
The audience can only guess the fate of Zod and Co. As nothing was actually shown. they fell (or slid) down to we know not where, into what, or how far. We can assume Superman knows what's down there, and Superman had never shown himself to be cruel and or murderous to that point. Also, we know the script and deleted scenes show the trio survived to be arrested, so although we didnt see it, we know the movies intent for them wasnt death. But yes, a powerless kryptonian (or human) dropped down a frozen crevice would very likely die and I would normally assume that's what happened. And personally I have no problem with it (or with nuclear man or zod).
Nuclear man was returned to / transformed back into "energy". Or imprisoned in the reactor is even another way to consider it. "Killed" perhaps depending on your pov or opinion on just how "alive" he ever actually was. Either way, it's ambiguous. At least by comparison. Same with the nuclear bomb issue.
It's not solely WHAT happens or doesn't, but HOW. How it happens and how it's presented. Similarly how something is said is often more important or powerful than what is said.