Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 234569141924 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 256

Thread: Man of Steel 2 begins filming

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas
    Posts
    6,445
    Images
    2
    The movie's only crowded if it's a bad script. Avengers wasn't crowded, and it advanced the story for each character to varying degrees and set up plot points for IM3, Thor the Dark World and probably the forthcoming Cap movie.

    Characters like the ones that have been mentioned can be set up without giving a detailed origin. All that has to be said about Nightwing is that he's Robin grown up. For Flash, he's fast. For WW, she's a powerful Amazon. Audiences are only as dumb as they are treated. The audience didn't need to see a flashback of the first time Clint Barton picked up a bow and arrow in the Avengers to get the fact that he is a great marksman.

    Now can the Goyer/Snyder/Affleck triumvirate pull off a strory/script in this genre as effective as Whedon's for Avengers? That's yet to be seen.

    Plus much of this is rumor. There was a page from a script introducing Flash floating around the Internet recently that was guessed to be from Superman/Batman that was actually from an old Flash script by Goyer and Geoff Johns that was scrapped when Green Lantern tanked. So Who knows if Flash is even in it?

    The exotic, athletic brunette that's being cast right now could just as easily be Talia or Selena Kyle as Wonder Woman.

    It does seem this film is being used to jump start a DC FilmU in quick fashion. It is a riskier choice than Marvel's slow path, using Nick Fury, Shield and mid credit scenes to link the films. But Marvel did the Pioneer work for the WB. The box office take for the Avengers proves there's an appetite for this type of film, so fear is the only thing that would hold the WB back from a multi-hero film. A More direct MOS sequel or Superman solo film could still be produced after this.

    Also, a Flash TV series is reportedly in the works for 2014 and is being introduced on the Green Arrow show this season. It would likely not be filmed until Superman/Batman is in post production. If WB's TV heroes and film heroes are going to cross pollinate as has been suggested, Flash would already be introduced to the public if the character is even in the film.
    Last edited by madmarva; Nov 9, '13 at 7:10 AM.

  2. #32
    ^^^ True. But as you stated Marvel did the leg work here with movies for each of the main characters before the Avengers. Plus lets keep in mind this is a sequel to Man of Steel. If the mindset in the industry suggests these are now just costume films that only need five minutes of back story the general public, who are not as well versed in these characters, will begin to think these films are abandoning good story telling for a cartoon plot. That's what happen with B&R when the studios felt the public was so accepting of Batman Forever, they could abandon any real sense of story and just sell spectacle with mindless one-liners. You still have to do the work to make these characters real on some level. People connect to some degree with the motivations of the Marvel characters based on their origins from previous films. Someone just showing up in a costume might be a leap that doesn't fool anyone, especially critics who will view it as a shortcut to catch Marvel. This will cause many people to start making B&R references especially with Nightwing.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas
    Posts
    6,445
    Images
    2
    Not if the movie is good. What are Hawkeye and Black Widow's motivations in the films they appeared in?

    The whole crew in Thor was introduced in one film from Odin to Loki to Sif and the Warriors Three, Heimdal, and the Jane Foster crew on Earth, Ice Giants and so on.

    If characters beyond Superman and Batman are in the film, they will carry only supporting or even cameo roles like the above-mentioned characters.

    These films are being produced as ultra-expensive serials to a degree, the whole story of every character doesn't have to be revealed at one time to make use of the character.

    I look at this film sorta like Frankenstein meets Wolfman. The movie was a sequel to the Wolfman although it did carry over kernels of storylines from the Frankenstein films. I'm guessing Batman v Superman will be a similar setup, sequel to MOS, but Batman plays a major role.

    I personally have doubts about Flash appearing in the film. same with Wonder Woman.

    We fundamentally disagree on the subject.

    I probably shouldn't have even responded this morning, lol. But I had just read about the guy whom DC is rumored to be considering for Nightwing. Man is he ugly and unfit for the role based on looks. He looks like Rondo Hatton's love child.

    I'm not saying The WB will be successful whatever pattern or formula they use. Their track record isn't great. Some feel the DC characters just arent't as good as the Marvel characters. I think all characters have their pluses and minuses, but you know some concepts and characters just don't transfer as well from one medium to the next as well as another.

    With a concept like Green Lantern that might be the case. I love Green Lantern. He's my favorite character, but I readily admit Spider-man is a better more durable and iconic character. Daredevil might fall into a similar category as Green Lantern. There have been some great DareDevil comics, but he's basically a lesser version of Batman.
    Last edited by madmarva; Nov 9, '13 at 6:26 PM.

  4. #34
    If the heroes appear in small cameo roles as you describe, then I think the film can still stand on it's own with a good story. I agree whole-hardheartedly with you. But doing a compare with the Avengers is not apples to apples. The Avengers, by design, is an ensemble piece. So having cameos is icing on the cake. Plus the Avenger's core players all had individual movies and the Black Widow appeared in many of them. We're going into a Man of Steel sequel with ONE hero rebooted and Batman coming from nowhere re-imagined (which I want). We certainly don't need another origin tale for the Dark Knight. But my hope is the core of the story involves those two and doesn't get diluted down by trying to introduce other heroes as much as just give them quick cameos (as you described). Too many and it begins to feel like Batman & Robin where characters are thrown in just to build the merchandise line. I want this to be a good movie, not a toy commercial. I think we agree on most things in principle here.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 19, 2003
    Location
    Oaktown, Califas
    Posts
    30,737
    Interesting read on Man of Steel and his controversial climatic scene with General Zod (and other tidbits)...

    http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...220800093.html


    I like one of the talkbackers' responses:

    "It's weird people are making such a big deal about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. In Superman 2 with Chris Reeve, Superman crushed his hand (After Zod was human and 0 threat), threw him into a wall and into a nearly bottomless pit, and Superman was smiling about it."


    Exactly, lol.
    Last edited by Hector; Nov 10, '13 at 5:10 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas
    Posts
    6,445
    Images
    2
    The world is just different today than it was in 1981. The Internet gives everyone a voice and exposes everyone who uses it to more opinions and criticism than one could ever have been exposed to in the 1980s, which only leads to more opinion and criticism.

    In 1981, I had minor gripes and quibbles about Supeman II, but none of my friends were into comics or movies like I was so I had no one to discuss the finer points of the movie with.

    Today, I still don't know anyone locally who would discuss all the crap we discuss on this board, but at least there is an outlet. But the discussion also makes you think about and deconstruct the movies in a way only critics and scholars and a relatively few others did 3 decades ago.

    This is seen in sports even to a greater degree. Because of the access TV provides with nearly every game being televised in some form or fashion, HD reception and DVRs, ESPN's 24 hour coverage with knowledgable analysts, who in describing the game teach everyday fans aspects of the game they just weren't privy to 30 years ago, every fan is now a critic and to a great degree they are armed with much of the same information columnists and journalists are. In some cases more. It may not be first hand, but it's there.

    There are things discussed today as big sports stories that never would have made TV news or a paper 30 years ago. I'm thinking directly about the Martin-Incognito story down in Miami.

    As for the Zod thing, it's kind of gotcha journalism to a degree. What can I complain about that will have the most resonance? Superman doesn't kill in the comics so he shouldn't in the film. It's a good argument.

    I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

    He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

    This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    3,300
    Images
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by madmarva View Post
    I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

    He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

    This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo.
    This.

    The event where the fans are separated from the true fans.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 16, 2001
    Location
    house
    Posts
    11,183
    Images
    63
    >In Superman 2 with Chris Reeve, Superman crushed his hand (After Zod was human and 0 threat), threw him into a wall and into a nearly bottomless pit, and Superman was smiling about it.

    Yeah, but that was old, and everything old is awesome, and MOS is new and new sucks....

    >This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling

    I think that hits the big problem with Superman in general: it's hard to make him interesting. He's got ALL the powers, he's super-smart, has access to super-technology, and he's the most noble, upright person ever. There's no challenge for this guy. He's so awesome he can even keep his identity secret with just a pair of specs and super-acting. It's tough to find a challenge for him. I think that's what we've seen in the last few movies; attempts to somehow make him vulnerable to something other than the oddly plentiful Kryptonite. This movie hilights that he can't be everywhere and save everyone. The last movie had him as a deadbeat dad.

    Don C.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 19, 2003
    Location
    Oaktown, Califas
    Posts
    30,737
    Quote Originally Posted by madmarva View Post
    The world is just different today than it was in 1981. The Internet gives everyone a voice and exposes everyone who uses it to more opinions and criticism than one could ever have been exposed to in the 1980s, which only leads to more opinion and criticism.

    In 1981, I had minor gripes and quibbles about Supeman II, but none of my friends were into comics or movies like I was so I had no one to discuss the finer points of the movie with.

    Today, I still don't know anyone locally who would discuss all the crap we discuss on this board, but at least there is an outlet. But the discussion also makes you think about and deconstruct the movies in a way only critics and scholars and a relatively few others did 3 decades ago.

    This is seen in sports even to a greater degree. Because of the access TV provides with nearly every game being televised in some form or fashion, HD reception and DVRs, ESPN's 24 hour coverage with knowledgable analysts, who in describing the game teach everyday fans aspects of the game they just weren't privy to 30 years ago, every fan is now a critic and to a great degree they are armed with much of the same information columnists and journalists are. In some cases more. It may not be first hand, but it's there.

    There are things discussed today as big sports stories that never would have made TV news or a paper 30 years ago. I'm thinking directly about the Martin-Incognito story down in Miami.

    As for the Zod thing, it's kind of gotcha journalism to a degree. What can I complain about that will have the most resonance? Superman doesn't kill in the comics so he shouldn't in the film. It's a good argument.

    I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

    He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

    This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo.
    Excellent post...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 31, 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,045
    Images
    17
    No one is acknowledging that why the "Internet Zod criticism" has more valid resonance, is NOT because "Superman doesn't kill", it's because of the destruction he allowed to occur in Metropolis that surely caused deaths that there was no acknowledgement of from Supes (positive or negative) as it was happening, yet he was so concerned about killing Zod at the close of the film.

    Don... I'll allow the whole "old people think all new stuff is bad no matter what" attitude (and I'm not the biggest fan of Superman II anyway), BUT, at LEAST Superman II had quite memorable moments/memorable lines regarding Superman feeling bad that innocent people were getting hurt.

    I liked how MOS approached it. Superman won, but still failed. Going forward, how does this shape him? Will being forced to kill Zod help him develop the no-kill rule or will This Superman find it a sometimes acceptable but regrettable action like with the police? To me, that's a more interesting approach than him already have made the decision not to kill before he confronts Zod.

    He was not planning to be a hero when the Kryptonians invaded. He had very little time to consider super hero ethics before being confronted with the situation that caused him to act.

    This is a rookie Superman who doesn't have all the answers which again is a more interesting storytelling choice than having Superman emerge as nearly perfect with all the answers after Jor-El's tutelage in Superman: The Movie, imo
    Anybody that knows anything about writing strategy realizes that what madmarva said above is cool and all... but that doesn't seem to excuse what I pointed out in the first part of my post.

    UNLESS, that (AGAIN) was a "rookie mistake".

    How many is he allowed to make?

    And, more importantly, how many can an audience tolerate.... especially when it's topped of by a close range killing of Zod.

    Personally, I don't have much of an issue with the above stuff (I was just curious why no one brought that stuff up in this thread)... I just think MOS was kinda "blah" in an overall sense. I hope... like BATMAN BEGINS, that the MOS sequel is a step UP from MOS. I certainly see that potential there.
    Last edited by huedell; Nov 18, '13 at 2:24 AM.
    "No. No no no no no no. You done got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna'. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. I think I'll scoot over here right by this winda', let this beautiful carriage rock me to sleep, and dream about how lucky I am." - Chris Mannix

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •