Oof, I forgot that he's adapting Fountainhead.
Oof, I forgot that he's adapting Fountainhead.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
The Ayn Rand fascination will forever remain elusive to me.
I dunno, that makes sense for my perception of Snyder. Dude wears gym t-shirts to Comic-Con, and I know that there's a huge crossover between men who are into Ayn Rand and men who are really into fitness. I suppose the main philosophy of the two is basically the same. I remember that Joe Manganiello credits Fountainhead for his physique.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
This is welcome news: http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/dc-wo...-universe.html
Anyway, this is a pretty informative article about how DC and WB coexist as subsidiaries, although it's kind of a fluff piece, too, because much of this reads like a mea culpa. It's trying to paint Geoff Johns and Diane Nelson as their Kevin Feige and blaming the previous DC universe movies' failures on WB execs not listening to them/DC.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
It's welcome news, but I'm a little more ambivalent because WB keeps following trends, and the trends change with each new movie. It feels like whatever happens with "Justice League," good or bad, they will alter their strategy as a result.
This I genuinely don't understand. "Wonder Woman" takes place in a war zone, the film emphasizes combat, and Diana kills someone at the end. How do they think those choices were markedly different from what they did in "Man of Steel"? Because she smiled more than Clark and was nice to the dude with shellshock?
Also, contextually speaking, Cavill's Superman wasn't destroying any buildings purposefully. At best, you can say some of the violent sonic booms from his battle kicked into building facades, but anytime he's around destructing buildings, it's Zod that's throwing him through them, punching him through them, lasering them around the two of them. Superman tries to take the fight out of Metropolis, but Zod shoves him back in with the satellite that breaks apart.
The film doesn't successfully dramatize Superman's frustration and pain at seeing people suffering, so it does seem aggressively anodyne, for sure. After all, he kisses Lois on the smoldering ground of what looks like WW3. But that's something different.
Ive been saying this since 2013.Quoting Dead & Messed Up (view post)
Edit: must spread rep around...
I. DON'T. KNOW.Quoting Irish (view post)
Edit: People also seem to conveniently forget Zod was killed in Superman 2 (don't get me started on those sacred cows).
All I can guess is people hating Snyder. I don't know why the comic book community gets ultra nitpicky on DC films in the wake of Marvel finding success. Only other thing I can guess is that old and tired "DC v Marvel" fanboy feud which is ridiculous and anti-comic book. Great, you have a preference. They have a symbiotic relationship. A DC film bombing is bad for Marvel, and vice versa.
And Lois kills Ursa by pushing her into a crevice and the movie spins it like it's a lighthearted, funny moment. It's kinda fucked up.Quoting Skitch (view post)
Still, I can't hate any movie that has this exchange:
"Kneel before Zod."
"Oh, God."
"No, Zod."
Sort of, but yeah? This is why people didn't complain about the deaths in the Reeves movies. The criticisms have always been more about the characterization rather than the morality of the acts. The key phrase in that quote is "given who the character is." The appeal of WW is that she's more or less a diplomat; she acts pragmatically, but out of an otherworldly duty to being compassionate. The film definitely tried to translate that aspect. Superman, on the other hand, is known for boundless optimism and openness. I think it makes sense for someone as close to these characters as Geoff Johns to read the Man of Steel script and say, hmmmm, this feels way off. The criticism of the destruction porn and the neck snap has always struck me as a tangible scapegoat for criticizing the studio's choice to plant their flag on camp Broody Cool Color Temp Not-Yet-Boy Scout Superman.Quoting Irish (view post)
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
There's a degree to which I understand that, but at the same time I liked that they allowed themselves room to reinterpret Kal-El. I think if the premise is solid and the character has any depth, they can stand reinterpretation from time to time (cf: Sherlock Holmes and Batman, just to pick 2 out of the air). "Man of Steel" was an attempt to give the character a chance at an arc. I liked the way all the humans were paranoid about Supes, and it was very clear he wasn't 100% sold on them, either.Quoting number8 (view post)
By contrast, Diana has no arc. She comes out of the womb as the Patron Saint of Warrior Priestesses, grows up that way, and remains that as an adult. Her goals don't even change over the course of her film (although her understanding of "man's world" changes a little bit).
But still --- I dunno if I'd go so far as to say the approach markedly different. The level of violence is the same---it's extreme and unrelenting. I dunno why personal charm would completely change the audience's reaction to it.
Last edited by Irish; 09-29-2017 at 07:20 PM.
I get that, and I'm a cheerleader of reinterpretations usually, but I do believe that there are certain fundamentals when it comes to established characters that connect with people, and when you stray from it, it just plain weirds people out. You prompted an obvious example with Batman. I think a lot of people felt that Man of Steel was to Superman what Batman & Robin was to Batman.
B&R totally hits my kind of camp sweet spot personally, but I believe that the reason it didn't work as a franchise entry was because it fucked with the public's image of Batman as cool. Burton's movies and also Forever had funny cartoonish moments and played around with tone, but always portrayed their Batmen as this relentless knight-in-black-armor. B&R portrayed Batman as this dad bickering with his two teenagers who changed outfits a lot and didn't seem to know what he was doing for half the movie.
With Superman, I think the public's core image of him is someone who saves the day. You know, he'll catch you when you fall, he'll stand between you and a locomotive, that kind of thing. So when you decide to do a movie where he's still having his emotional arc and it climaxes with him appearing to be a conflicted, city-leveling powerhouse kind of hero... Some people might think he's a more interesting protagonist that way, but we know that a lot of people left feeling, well that Superman wasn't very charming or likable. I dunno if I'm off base here because I like the character so much, but I'm guessing most people want Superman to be a lovable dude.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
Yeah. Also, I'd hazard a guess that Man of Steel wasn't really intended as a re-interpretation. Goyer, Snyder and Nolan simply didn't seem to get the character.
I don't think the argument is solely that Superman destroyed buildings purposely or killed a bad guy at the end. The film conveys -- unintentionally, I think -- a wanton disregard for the loss of human life throughout that entire climatic battle. It is disturbing to watch in a way I don't think I've felt in any other "hero" movie. For me, it has little to do with the historical portrayal of Superman. It was plain unsettling, even in a vacuum.
letterboxd.
A Star is Born (2018) **1/2
Unforgiven (1992) ***1/2
The Sisters Brothers (2018) **
Crazy Rich Asians (2018) ***
The Informant! (2009) ***1/2
BlacKkKlansman (2018) ***1/2
Sorry to Bother You (2018) **1/2
Eighth Grade (2018) ***
Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018) ***
Ant-Man and The Wasp (2018) **1/2
I was thinking more Adam West vs Frank Miller, but yeah. (The other trouble is they changed the tone half way through the same franchise, which I think is a big no-no. That's like going from Goldfinger to Moonraker after a single sequel. No wonder the audience developed whiplash.)Quoting number8 (view post)
Anyway, I like the fans who can acknowledge and enjoy both approaches to Batman. (There was a moment years and years ago in the comics, and I wish I could remember which issue, where Gordon is having a conversation with somebody about Batman, Batman's reputation, and Batman's future. And Gordon is telling the guy how he used to worry, this and that, but he stopped once he realized that "Batman is bigger than all that." I can't remember the exact context of the convo, but it seemed like the writer was trying to create a metaphor about the comics themselves. Like, if you don't like this issue, this story arc, that writer or artist, don't freak out. Batman is bigger than all that and he'll keep going.)
So that's how I looked at "Man of Steel." I don't think the movie was wholly successful by any stretch (and I hate Snyder's overuse of desaturated palettes), but there were a ton of interesting things in it. I wanted to see the sequel because I wanted to see how they'd continue to grow and change the character---and them maybe, at some point, he'd become the Big Blue Boy Scout. It bummed me out that so many people refused to give it a chance.
I think the fan reactions (and tepid BvS box office) led to the more narratively conservative "Wonder Woman." It's all but assured that WB will focus on delivering a safe and staid experience going forward instead of one that's bolder and more experimental.
To clarify, I was trying to say there that it's not so much about the movie's tone as it is about how the audience get on board with how the movies want the character to come across. I'm a fan of so many different versions of Batman, but I think no matter how gritty or how campy you want to portray him, the constant is this determined guy who's the baddest motherfucker in the room. Adam West was colorful and silly as all get out, but ask anybody in the 60s if they didn't think the Batusi-dancing Batman wasn't fucking cool for that era. Everybody wanted to be that guy and made him a counterculture icon. That's the commonality between '66 Batman and Frank Miller Batman to me. But the Clooney Batman, nobody wanted to be that guy. I think this can be similarly applied to Superman's "I'm here for you" core. You want to believe that when Reeves or Routh or the TAS Superman show up, you immediately feel relieved. But Cavill presented an aura of Superman where he shows up and you'd probably go, ah, hell, now I really gotta get the fuck outta here.
It's hard to pinpoint this feeling, but another extreme example from the comics that perhaps illustrates what I mean. In Superman: Red Son, it's a version of Supes who's Stalin's right hand man and is a threat to the United States, right? You can't get any more radical of a reinterpretation. And yet, the reason why that book sold me was that there's this splash page of a totalitarian Superman, clad in the hammer and sickle, flying down to the heart of Moscow carrying a giant bag of food rations as starving Soviet citizens look up at him in awe. There's something about that that is so recognizable that you get the character even when everything about him's all new.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
I'm not disagreeing with this take (because obviously theres a lot of online community saying it), but it irritates the shit out of me that usually the same people give Tony Snark a pass on creating all his villains and being the cause of so much destruction because he's witty. Who cares if heroes are charming if they're the cause of the problem? Superman didn't cause Zod to attack Earth, yes, there was wonton destruction in their battle, but it was Superman's first battle ever.Quoting number8 (view post)
I think that's in Dark Knight Returns and Gordon is talking to Ellen Yindel, comparing Batman to Roosevelt.Quoting Irish (view post)
What, for real? Holy shit! Thanks!Quoting Grouchy (view post)
The page I think you're talking about is this one. I could be wrong, though.Quoting Irish (view post)
I honestly think it goes beyond charming/likeable, although I don't disagree with your point.Quoting number8 (view post)
During the climactic battle in Metropolis, there isn't a single moment where he makes eye contact with an ordinary human being, let alone express worry that we can empathize with. He is distant and unemotional, and that makes it tough to engage with the drama on a basic level.
If Snyder/Goyer wanted to put Superman in a "grittier" story, one where there is a genuine apocalyptic event and the necessity of cruelly killing a villain, then fine. But give us access to his emotional life so we can share in his aspirations, his desperation, his fury, his grief. Something.
Honestly, I suspect that's why so many people think Superman is knocking over buildings in the finale, even though he isn't. Because the film doesn't offer one shot of him looking in horror at a building collapsing, so really what's the difference?*
[]
Yeah, this has always been my take on why Man of Steel falls short. And I really like the movie. It's so close. There's 30 seconds missing where after Zod is dealt with Superman surveys the damage, is heartbroken for a moment, and then immediately starts saving people and shoring up falling buildings. That's really all they needed to do.Quoting Dead & Messed Up (view post)
last four:
black widow - 8
zero dark thirty - 9
the muse - 7
freaky - 7
now reading:
lonesome dove - larry mcmurtry
Letterboxd
The Harrison Marathon - A Podcast About Harrison Ford
Nah man, a rescue effort would be a cock block.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
Apart from helping with the morality issue and what not, showing some saving-people business (or at least some more normal human's perspective than just occasional glimpses of Perry White and co) would really help prevent the final fight from being a numbingly boring endless loop of two powerful figures throwing each other at buildings. Variety and vulnerability would help a lot. I am not a comic book fan so I have no qualm about changing Superman, but the choices that irks people about this version of character also happen to be poor storytelling, poor in-film characterization, and poor in-film internal/moral logic as well. I personally don't find Superman and Lois Lane kissing mid-fight among the ashes to be offensive, but it does come off almost hilariously grotesque. And Caville is too good that the neck-snapping moment and his reaction after do not completely clunk, but I'm... both baffled and indifferent by the film wanting me to feel in on his anguish, given all the ruins and possible off-screen deaths before that. Such a misguided mismatch of context and a climatic moment.
Last edited by Peng; 09-30-2017 at 03:25 AM.
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
Quoting number8 (view post)