Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Patrick Sun, Jun 13, 2013.
From one of my faves:
A good read on why the film is so polarizing, and "Hulk" destroys the lack of solid characterizations in this film:
I'm in love.
Just read it. Brilliant! Literally gave me goosebumps! And those Iron Giant clips - man oh man, yes I did cry.
That is not just a smart write up of Man Of Steel, his reference to Up reminds me how strong those four minutes are.
It's a strong write up about what constitutes good story telling in any media.
How is it in a world in which Superman has yet to exist and Clark is a child, he puts on a red cape and strikes a pose like a superhero? Who is he pretending to be?
LOL! Yes, I guess it's out of context isn't it? Captain Marvel? I dunno...
I have varying problems with HULK'S writeup. It's easy to preach storytelling 101 from the bleachers, but the same rules don't apply in every situation. And, using UP and THE IRON GIANT as examples is pretty tough - the UP example is, literally, some of the best cinema ever made. A perfect example of perfect storytelling in 5 minutes. And, the IRON GIANT only works because we already know who Superman is - it is actually guilty of the sin of 'assumed empathy' that HULK describes. Yes, we're sad to see the Giant sacrifice himself because we have grown to like him through his relationship with the boy, but the Superman line is the zinger that really tugs at the heart strings because it is a way of saying, "I am going to do right."
Many of the other complaints about characterization in MoS are also tough to hang on the film because these same complaints can be made about the '78 Superman movie that we all loved. Unfortunately, Superman is an iconic character that carries with him a lot of assumptions. He is THE original superhero. He does good because he IS good - and we have created context over his decades of do-gooding to explain WHY he does good, but if you go back to Siegel and Shuster Action Comics #1 you will see that he simply does good BECAUSE. He is a superhero - no further explanations need apply.
Go back an re-watch Captain America - a film I think that NAILS the inherent goodness of a superhero. Why does Steve Rogers do good? Because he is a heroic soul. Period. It is shown early on with him trying multiple times to get into the Army and even jumping on a grenade. He is a hero with no life experiences or dramatic throughlines required to illustrate it.
The real problem with the MoS Superman is not assumed empathy or lack of characterization, it is the fact that WB decided to reinvent Superman as a reluctant hero. Superman is not meant to be a reluctant hero. He is THE hero. He is the ultimate icon who could be corrupted by absolute power but is not because he chooses not to be. It's tough to repackage that as a guy who is suspicious of the world and doesn't want to reveal himself.
lthough the CGI takes over far too many times, the personality and inner torment of the 'Man of Steel' win out over the special effects.
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that superheroes with capes exist in the MoS universe without being based on Superman. Smallville covered this concept of Clark having read certain comics as a kid that were substitutes for our world having Superman comics, but of course they had over 200 episodes to do so.
This was a part of the story that I liked, until it made no sense.Superman is inexperienced and does know how to fight. Zod is an elite warrior. How can Supes possibly win? This is so obvious that Zod actually ask this question!Change scene. Superman has won.WTF? The movie didn't answer the question. It asked it, then ignored it. The idea of Superman killing is spectacular and is of the present age. I'm not a comic book reader, but I understand that Alan Moore wrote a watershed comic series on just this event.But MOS completely fails with its own theme. The entire movie, the whole backstory, everything Jonathan Kent taught him was against this. There should be consequences. There were no consequences to this tremendous moment.
I saw this movie a little over a month ago and I'm just getting to this thread now...
I put Man of Steel in the good, not great category. The tone of the movie was very dark and sulky (if that's a word). Superman should be about hope. If we're lucky, maybe the next movie will work more on developing some of the characters (Lois, Perry White, even Ma Kent, etc) more.
This is not what assumed empathy is. We aren't suddenly empathetic with the giant because of him saying Superman; the audience has already invested in the character. What makes that line a zinger is that the audience is aware that a character has decided to fulfill his own worth he will sacrifice his life in order to save others; his recognition of the fact through the line (Superman..) tells us the character, a robot, is more then simple robotic parts and has made an emotional decision based on his love of the other characters. The line of dialog doesn't transfer empathy from Superman to the Character, and had the movie been altered for him and Hogarth to use "Ultraman" and him to say "Ultraman" the impact would have been the same; because it is the change in understanding of a character and self sacrifice.
BTW, that "Honest Trailer" does pretty much give away the whole movie, abundantly so.
Even though I loved the film, that was pretty funny. His two Robin Hood dads. Ha.
Like most honest trailers it's funny but also easy to see where it cheats with the perceived lack of internal logic for the film it jokes about.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
Best cracks were the dub step and "that's what she said."
Just watched this again on blu recently. In my opinion, it played much better on the second viewing. This might be because I was more used to the choppy/jumpy narrative. Definitely looking forward to my next viewing.