It's been on HBO and/or one of the other premium channels for the past couple months, and I watch at least a few minutes, sometimes more, everytime I see it's on.
It's been on my Blu-ray rewatch list. I wanted to squeeze the new RoboCop & Stripes in first. Thankfully, the Sox are in the west coast this weekend.
M
Sidebar! Did you watch Robocop? I saw it in theaters. My expectations were low.
It didn't meet them.
Yes. I saw it in the theatre & bought it the day it was released. I enjoyed it the same way I enjoyed Rob Zombie's Halloween.
M
You ENJOY Rob Zombies Halloween? DISAGREE. Violently.
It's been on HBO and/or one of the other premium channels for the past couple months, and I watch at least a few minutes, sometimes more, everytime I see it's on.
It's been on my Blu-ray rewatch list. I wanted to squeeze the new RoboCop & Stripes in first. Thankfully, the Sox are in the west coast this weekend.
M
Sidebar! Did you watch Robocop? I saw it in theaters. My expectations were low.
It didn't meet them.
Yes. I saw it in the theatre & bought it the day it was released. I enjoyed it the same way I enjoyed Rob Zombie's Halloween.
M
You ENJOY Rob Zombies Halloween? DISAGREE. Violently.
Sure. The scenes with young Michael & Loomis. The killings later are just reruns. Its the psychology of his transformation growing into adulthood is what interested me.
Although I looked forward to the movie from the trailers, Rob Zombie's Halloween (the remake) was nothing more than a tedious serial killer origin film that incorporated copious amounts of graphic brutality and spent way too much time focusing on Michael’s early history and in the process removed any hint of scariness or menace from him. Furthermore, knowing his origin in-depth made it hard to swallow his superhuman strength and apparent immortality – things we could accept much more easily when he was just an enigmatic boogeyman in John Carpenter's master work. Zombie's was merely a tedious, unimaginative endeavor, but he sure can film naked women being terrorized well! The film's shifted between being boring to displaying crass, heartless brutality. Kind of like what I felt when I saw Man of Steel. No thanks :).
Although I looked forward to the movie from the trailers, Rob Zombie's Halloween (the remake) was nothing more than a tedious serial killer origin film that incorporated copious amounts of graphic brutality and spent way too much time focusing on Michael’s early history and in the process removed any hint of scariness or menace from him. Furthermore, knowing his origin in-depth made it hard to swallow his superhuman strength and apparent immortality – things we could accept much more easily when he was just an enigmatic boogeyman in John Carpenter's master work. Zombie's was merely a tedious, unimaginative endeavor, but he sure can film naked women being terrorized well! The film's shifted between being boring to displaying crass, heartless brutality. Kind of like what I felt when I saw Man of Steel. No thanks :).
I guess some of us prefer to see the journey & others just want to see the end.
My daughter wound up watching the movie with me. So yes, she's exposed to a Superman movie before a Batman movie.
;)
M
Well... She's exposed to a movie about a guy with an S on his chest and a red (-ish) cape.
Who shares as much with this character called "Superman" as Donner's does with the original concept introduced in 1938.
I also see when we have a debate on another topic, you're just providing me with more information to prove my point to you. I'll be sure to bookmark this your post here.
I also see when we have a debate on another topic, you're just providing me with more information to prove my point to you. I'll be sure to bookmark this your post here.
M
I'll be sure to look forward to understanding your post here.
Although I looked forward to the movie from the trailers, Rob Zombie's Halloween (the remake) was nothing more than a tedious serial killer origin film that incorporated copious amounts of graphic brutality and spent way too much time focusing on Michael’s early history and in the process removed any hint of scariness or menace from him. Furthermore, knowing his origin in-depth made it hard to swallow his superhuman strength and apparent immortality – things we could accept much more easily when he was just an enigmatic boogeyman in John Carpenter's master work. Zombie's was merely a tedious, unimaginative endeavor, but he sure can film naked women being terrorized well! The film's shifted between being boring to displaying crass, heartless brutality. Kind of like what I felt when I saw Man of Steel. No thanks :).
I guess some of us prefer to see the journey & others just want to see the end.
M
To wit, we get stinkers like Hannibal Rising when it could never match Silence of the Lambs. I merely prefer to see well made movies, journey, beginning, or ending matters not as long as it is well told.
Zack Snyder somehow manages to tell his Superman story in a drab, cynical and ultimately tone-deaf way. And there is certainly no shortage of people that identify with this perspective...
Man of Steel isn’t about a hero who comes to Earth to save people, because he doesn’t really do that. He saves the planet at the end of the story, but most of the film is more about Clark deciding if he should go public or not. Which bring’s me to his adopted Dad. Aside from one of the most laughable death scenes in cinema history (Swallowed by a tornado after running into it to rescue a dog is a new one for me.) Kent Sr. has only one role in the film. He tells Clark the world will reject him if they find out about him. That a man like Superman will change the world, they will fear him and hate him when he is discovered. But the film isn’t about this either. Superman is feared at first, but that’s mostly because Zod is threatening to destroy the planet because of him. One saved helicopter later, and most people are on board with Superman.
And just why is Superman here?
Is this a film about a father desperate to save his son from sharing the fate of his planet? That’s the famous Superman plot, but Man of Steel is more concerned with The Codex, a library of Kryptonian DNA saved in Clark’s blood. This strand of the plot renders Superman as little more than a tool for Krypton’s preservation. Though, a pointless tool, since neither Clark nor Jor-El seem to think rebuilding Krypton on earth is that good an idea. Is Kal-El his beloved son or is he a biological tool? Little attempt is made to harmonise these threads.
Jor-El gets a quote that sounds great on the trailer. It’s a momentous speech about Superman being a guiding light that mankind will strive towards. But Man of Steel is a film in which mankind does no striving. Mankind is a pawn in this game and even when Superman is finally revealed to them, they’re a bit too busy running from collapsing buildings. Perhaps mankind will do some striving in later films, but as it is, it’s just another Messiah Metaphor that goes nowhere.
You can continue to defend the movie to your heart's content, but it won't change what everyone who was disappointed in the movie thinks about it.
Bottom line is that I didn’t hate Man of Steel, but I certainly didn’t love it enough to defend its myriad of shortcomings. It's very interesting to look at and I can tell that Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
This guy should avoid Superman II & IV if he feels that way! At least Kent was upset about the death in Man of Steel.
Although I looked forward to the movie from the trailers, Rob Zombie's Halloween (the remake) was nothing more than a tedious serial killer origin film that incorporated copious amounts of graphic brutality and spent way too much time focusing on Michael’s early history and in the process removed any hint of scariness or menace from him. Furthermore, knowing his origin in-depth made it hard to swallow his superhuman strength and apparent immortality – things we could accept much more easily when he was just an enigmatic boogeyman in John Carpenter's master work. Zombie's was merely a tedious, unimaginative endeavor, but he sure can film naked women being terrorized well! The film's shifted between being boring to displaying crass, heartless brutality. Kind of like what I felt when I saw Man of Steel. No thanks :).
I guess some of us prefer to see the journey & others just want to see the end.
M
To wit, we get stinkers like Hannibal Rising when it could never match Silence of the Lambs. I merely prefer to see well made movies, journey, beginning, or ending matters not as long as it is well told.
Zack Snyder somehow manages to tell his Superman story in a drab, cynical and ultimately tone-deaf way. And there is certainly no shortage of people that identify with this perspective...
Man of Steel isn’t about a hero who comes to Earth to save people, because he doesn’t really do that. He saves the planet at the end of the story, but most of the film is more about Clark deciding if he should go public or not. Which bring’s me to his adopted Dad. Aside from one of the most laughable death scenes in cinema history (Swallowed by a tornado after running into it to rescue a dog is a new one for me.) Kent Sr. has only one role in the film. He tells Clark the world will reject him if they find out about him. That a man like Superman will change the world, they will fear him and hate him when he is discovered. But the film isn’t about this either. Superman is feared at first, but that’s mostly because Zod is threatening to destroy the planet because of him. One saved helicopter later, and most people are on board with Superman.
And just why is Superman here?
Is this a film about a father desperate to save his son from sharing the fate of his planet? That’s the famous Superman plot, but Man of Steel is more concerned with The Codex, a library of Kryptonian DNA saved in Clark’s blood. This strand of the plot renders Superman as little more than a tool for Krypton’s preservation. Though, a pointless tool, since neither Clark nor Jor-El seem to think rebuilding Krypton on earth is that good an idea. Is Kal-El his beloved son or is he a biological tool? Little attempt is made to harmonise these threads.
Jor-El gets a quote that sounds great on the trailer. It’s a momentous speech about Superman being a guiding light that mankind will strive towards. But Man of Steel is a film in which mankind does no striving. Mankind is a pawn in this game and even when Superman is finally revealed to them, they’re a bit too busy running from collapsing buildings. Perhaps mankind will do some striving in later films, but as it is, it’s just another Messiah Metaphor that goes nowhere.
You can continue to defend the movie to your heart's content, but it won't change what everyone who was disappointed in the movie thinks about it.
Bottom line is that I didn’t hate Man of Steel, but I certainly didn’t love it enough to defend its myriad of shortcomings. It's very interesting to look at and I can tell that Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Who said or implied it was better then the original? Was the goal to match the original? The background added to what Carpenter did. Without it, the complaint would be that its nothing new.
I just don't get how Kent needs to be doing a stand up routine to be a good Superman movie.
Obviously the people who didn't like the movie will latch onto the same issues.
Was Kent sent to Earth to survive & guide its people or restart Krypton? Jor-El embedded the codex in Kent to keep it away from Zod.
So, if Kent is supposed to immediately inspire people when he makes his debut, he has failed in every facet of interpretation. Even in the comics not everyone is 'inspired' by him.
And if going back to save your dog is a stupid reason to risk your life, then it'll be hard for me to take you seriously in anything.
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
This guy should avoid Superman II & IV if he feels that way! At least Kent was upset about the death in Man of Steel.
M
Have I defended either of those movies a single time in this thread?
Some other film having a crap script in no way justifies this film having a crap script.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
Yet again, you're avoiding the actual point.
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
Yet again, you're avoiding the actual point.
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
No, the point is, both were done before. They seem to awkward to the group who didn't like the movie. I'm the first to roll my eyes at religious imagery. I also know its going to be included with Superman movies.
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
This guy should avoid Superman II & IV if he feels that way! At least Kent was upset about the death in Man of Steel.
M
Have I defended either of those movies a single time in this thread?
Some other film having a crap script in no way justifies this film having a crap script.
I'm not referring to you. I'm referring to the dude you were quoting.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
Yet again, you're avoiding the actual point.
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
No, the point is, both were done before. They seem to awkward to the group who didn't like the movie. I'm the first to roll my eyes at religious imagery. I also know its going to be included with Superman movies.
Although I looked forward to the movie from the trailers, Rob Zombie's Halloween (the remake) was nothing more than a tedious serial killer origin film that incorporated copious amounts of graphic brutality and spent way too much time focusing on Michael’s early history and in the process removed any hint of scariness or menace from him. Furthermore, knowing his origin in-depth made it hard to swallow his superhuman strength and apparent immortality – things we could accept much more easily when he was just an enigmatic boogeyman in John Carpenter's master work. Zombie's was merely a tedious, unimaginative endeavor, but he sure can film naked women being terrorized well! The film's shifted between being boring to displaying crass, heartless brutality. Kind of like what I felt when I saw Man of Steel. No thanks :).
I guess some of us prefer to see the journey & others just want to see the end.
M
To wit, we get stinkers like Hannibal Rising when it could never match Silence of the Lambs. I merely prefer to see well made movies, journey, beginning, or ending matters not as long as it is well told.
Zack Snyder somehow manages to tell his Superman story in a drab, cynical and ultimately tone-deaf way. And there is certainly no shortage of people that identify with this perspective...
Man of Steel isn’t about a hero who comes to Earth to save people, because he doesn’t really do that. He saves the planet at the end of the story, but most of the film is more about Clark deciding if he should go public or not. Which bring’s me to his adopted Dad. Aside from one of the most laughable death scenes in cinema history (Swallowed by a tornado after running into it to rescue a dog is a new one for me.) Kent Sr. has only one role in the film. He tells Clark the world will reject him if they find out about him. That a man like Superman will change the world, they will fear him and hate him when he is discovered. But the film isn’t about this either. Superman is feared at first, but that’s mostly because Zod is threatening to destroy the planet because of him. One saved helicopter later, and most people are on board with Superman.
And just why is Superman here?
Is this a film about a father desperate to save his son from sharing the fate of his planet? That’s the famous Superman plot, but Man of Steel is more concerned with The Codex, a library of Kryptonian DNA saved in Clark’s blood. This strand of the plot renders Superman as little more than a tool for Krypton’s preservation. Though, a pointless tool, since neither Clark nor Jor-El seem to think rebuilding Krypton on earth is that good an idea. Is Kal-El his beloved son or is he a biological tool? Little attempt is made to harmonise these threads.
Jor-El gets a quote that sounds great on the trailer. It’s a momentous speech about Superman being a guiding light that mankind will strive towards. But Man of Steel is a film in which mankind does no striving. Mankind is a pawn in this game and even when Superman is finally revealed to them, they’re a bit too busy running from collapsing buildings. Perhaps mankind will do some striving in later films, but as it is, it’s just another Messiah Metaphor that goes nowhere.
You can continue to defend the movie to your heart's content, but it won't change what everyone who was disappointed in the movie thinks about it.
Bottom line is that I didn’t hate Man of Steel, but I certainly didn’t love it enough to defend its myriad of shortcomings. It's very interesting to look at and I can tell that Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Of course the same could be said about the detractors. Much has been said about its critics RT score (56%), but that is not the rating of the movie. It's a percentage of the reviews they deem positive vs negative. It has 285 total reviews by professionals. 159 were "positive" and 126 were "negative". That does not mean that the negative reviews were all trashing it. It means when they used their software to go over the words in the review, they decided it was negative.
It could mean that the negative reviews just weren't impressed, or it could mean they absolutely hated it. It could mean the positive reviews thought it was OK, or it could mean they thought it was great. There's no way to know just by looking at the percentage. It is worth noting that the average rating by the professionals was 6.2 out of 10.
The score amongst the fans is a much healthier 76%, with a 3.9 out of 5 rating.
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
This guy should avoid Superman II & IV if he feels that way! At least Kent was upset about the death in Man of Steel.
M
Have I defended either of those movies a single time in this thread?
Some other film having a crap script in no way justifies this film having a crap script.
I'm not referring to you. I'm referring to the dude you were quoting.
M
He actually acknowledged the existence of and failings those scenes as well. And the Byrne story.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
Yet again, you're avoiding the actual point.
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
No, the point is, both were done before. They seem to awkward to the group who didn't like the movie. I'm the first to roll my eyes at religious imagery. I also know its going to be included with Superman movies.
M
YET AGAIN, you avoid the point.
Do it, fine.
Nail Superman to a freaking cross if you want.
Just do it well.
Then I don't know what your point is. Do I like seeing Kent used in crucifixion imagery, put up on a pedestal, jock sniffed, need to be the gold standard, is "the best of the best (with honors)", no. Drop it all and treat him the same as the rest of the lot.
Do I accept its going to be that way with the character? Yes.
... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
Yet again, you're avoiding the actual point.
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
No, the point is, both were done before. They seem to awkward to the group who didn't like the movie. I'm the first to roll my eyes at religious imagery. I also know its going to be included with Superman movies.
M
YET AGAIN, you avoid the point.
Do it, fine.
Nail Superman to a freaking cross if you want.
Just do it well.
Then I don't know what your point is. Do I like seeing Kent used in crucifixion imagery, put up on a pedestal, jock sniffed, need to be the gold standard, is "the best of the best (with honors)", no. Drop it all and treat him the same as the rest of the lot.
Do I accept its going to be that way with the character? Yes.
M
Do you accept that some films are made with more craft than others?
Comments
M
M
I also see when we have a debate on another topic, you're just providing me with more information to prove my point to you. I'll be sure to bookmark this your post here.
M
Zack Snyder somehow manages to tell his Superman story in a drab, cynical and ultimately tone-deaf way. And there is certainly no shortage of people that identify with this perspective... You can continue to defend the movie to your heart's content, but it won't change what everyone who was disappointed in the movie thinks about it.
For fun, and much better writing than mine, check out "7 Reasons the 'S' Stands for Sucks" via WhatCulture.com
Or "On My Planet the S Stands for Sucks" via ComicsAlliance.com
Bottom line is that I didn’t hate Man of Steel, but I certainly didn’t love it enough to defend its myriad of shortcomings. It's very interesting to look at and I can tell that Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
"Well-groomed Bee Gee." =))
And this:
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
M
I just don't get how Kent needs to be doing a stand up routine to be a good Superman movie.
Obviously the people who didn't like the movie will latch onto the same issues.
Was Kent sent to Earth to survive & guide its people or restart Krypton? Jor-El embedded the codex in Kent to keep it away from Zod.
So, if Kent is supposed to immediately inspire people when he makes his debut, he has failed in every facet of interpretation. Even in the comics not everyone is 'inspired' by him.
And if going back to save your dog is a stupid reason to risk your life, then it'll be hard for me to take you seriously in anything.
Didn't you throw the towel in for this thread?!
M
Some other film having a crap script in no way justifies this film having a crap script.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
But there was nothing in that scene that made the necessity of Pa's death believable.
If you're gonna write your character into a corner, at least establish the existence of the freaking corner!
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
One man's wilderness is another man's amusement park.
One man's food is another man's poison.
One man's folly is another man's wife.
One man's hero is another man's villain.
One man's Bible is another man's doorstop...
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
M
Until I'M blue in the face?
So you're threatening to smother me to death with irrelevant precedents and missed points?
Sure, I'm passionate about the ideal of Superman, but not enough to die for!
M
Do it, fine.
Nail Superman to a freaking cross if you want.
Just do it well.
It could mean that the negative reviews just weren't impressed, or it could mean they absolutely hated it. It could mean the positive reviews thought it was OK, or it could mean they thought it was great. There's no way to know just by looking at the percentage. It is worth noting that the average rating by the professionals was 6.2 out of 10.
The score amongst the fans is a much healthier 76%, with a 3.9 out of 5 rating.
Do I accept its going to be that way with the character? Yes.
M
I just figured it out.
@Matt, you're really Andy Kaufman, aren't you?
This thread is your latest, greatest performance piece, surpassing even the wrestling matches and the faked death!
Bravo, Mr. K.! Bravo!