1/6 Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: Superman Collectible Figure

[Ramatuelle]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

yes I know they are, that's why its refreshing to NOT see it ran into the ground in MoS, like it almost always is everywhere else. They went there and moved on... yay

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

yes I know they are, that's why its refreshing to NOT see it ran into the ground in MoS, like it almost always is everywhere else. They went there and moved on... yay

So glad they told his origin the way they did in MoS. I liked seeing Clark's current situations reflected in his younger years. The structure worked very well.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

MoS seems like almost a throwback to the Burton/Schumacher approach of 89-97 or even the Star Wars prequels.

Now, that obviously sounds like a downright awful comparison but I think MoS had a more retro, basic approach that actually WORKED and was what those lesser films were going for but failed to achieve.

So, I gotta ask. What was wrong with the character development or love interests in Batman and Batman Returns? How are those two lesser than Man of Steel?

I just saw both films, in theaters a week ago and other than Prince and dated special effects, it still holds up extremely well.

Character development? Batman 1989 is about divulging and slowly carving away at the mystery of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. In fact, '89 does a much better job of doing the "journalist follows the hero, finding more about him" shtick than MoS. From following Bruce to the alley where his parents were killed and watching him place down the roses to finding the police records in the newspapers.

The villains? Joker and Penguin and Catwoman? They're much more developed than Zod, Faora, or even any of Nolan's villains. They're even much more tragic and have the purpose if mirroring Batman himself.


Just because the first Batman didn't take the conventional origin approach for the hero doesn't make it bad. That was done with Superman in '78 and it worked brilliantly. But with Batman, they went a different route, a noirish approach and had the character established. Then they slowly revealed more about him as the film progressed. It made sense because Batman isn't like Superman, they left him a little more mysterious in the opening and first act to give the character and anonymous presence (while shifting the interest to Wayne).


To compare that to the Schumacher and Prequel films is sort of insulting. They were all flash. The only character that was really developed in the Schumacher movies was Robin. Everyone else, including the villains were literally without substance. The Phantom Menace? That's isn't about ANY character.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

So, I gotta ask. What was wrong with the character development or love interests in Batman and Batman Returns? How are those two lesser than Man of Steel?

I just saw both films, in theaters a week ago and other than Prince and dated special effects, it still holds up extremely well.

Character development? Batman 1989 is about divulging and slowly carving away at the mystery of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. In fact, '89 does a much better job of doing the "journalist follows the hero, finding more about him" shtick than MoS. From following Bruce to the alley where his parents were killed and watching him place down the roses to finding the police records in the newspapers.

The villains? Joker and Penguin and Catwoman? They're much more developed than Zod, Faora, or even any of Nolan's villains. They're even much more tragic and have the purpose if mirroring Batman himself.


Just because the first Batman didn't take the conventional origin approach for the hero doesn't make it bad. That was done with Superman in '78 and it worked brilliantly. But with Batman, they went a different route, a noirish approach and had the character established. Then they slowly revealed more about him as the film progressed.


To compare that to the Schumacher and Prequel films is sort of insulting. They were all flash. The only character that was really developed in the Schumacher movies was Robin. Everyone else, including the villains were literally without substance. The Phantom Menace? That's isn't about ANY character.

While we disagree on MoS, we are of one mind on this one. The romance in the Burton films was handled better than in any of the Nolan films. And I love the tragic villains of the Burtonverse. Heck even non comic book villains like Shreck present a look at what could have been Bruce. Plus I think Keaton did a better job of playing damaged Bruce than Bale did. I really need HT to release the Returns version with my Keaton headsculpt.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

Well I actually like MoS's character development for Supes/Clark. I loved the childhood flashbacks, thought they were touching. Who couldn't like the bus scene where he saves the bus, or when his powers/senses are going crazy and Ma kent has that talk with him.

It's the plot, story and genetic codex, terraforming thing that doesn't sit right with me. Or the end after the destruction.

 

[Femtech]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I imagine this post might make me sound arrogant. Sad Panda is sad.

Leonidas' is correct. They're both correct, usually it's a lack of consistency in how the writer applies their possessives that is the issue.

"s' " is solely for plural-possessive usage. The "s" does not denote more than one "Leonida;" the letter is part of the proper noun.

Superman: "It's not an --"
Femtech: "THIS ONE IS AN 'S'!"
Superman: "..."
Femtech: "..."
Superman: "Where I come from..."
Femtech: "AAAAH!"

"Leonidas" is singular, so "Leonidas's" is the only correct way to literarily convey the-man-to-whom-the-name-belongs's ownership of something (see what I did there?). Any other way of writing it is entirely attributable to the seduction of popular misusage. This is akin to how too many people say, for example, "there's problems" instead of "there're problems."
Or: "SDCC 2013 -- it's going to rock" instead of "SDCC 2013 is going to rock."

Plots for most comic book movies are secondary to the visual candy directions the movie houses are taking on these films.

The term, "plot," refers to that which you see and hear in a film. When one refers to eye candy or whatnot, she is, by definition (though not necessarily by practice unfortunately) referring to plot. The thematic material, suggestions, and general intangibles as derived from what you see and hear are categorized as elements of "story." To streamline it: "story" refers to that which encompasses the "plot" and everything that the plot infers.



Barry, your point about TT is interesting. I haven't read any of the New 52 comics; admittedly, the last mainstay DC issue I read was something from Blackest Night. ^_^" What was the justification for Kal's flight capability in MoS? Your explanation of TT sounds good, but would Goyer really attribute the means of flight to something non-comic readers wouldn't be even remotely privy to? I remember a VO from Jor saying something along the lines of Earth's gravity being weaker than Krypton's or something, but that hardly equates to flight capability. Was Kal's mid-air pushing with his freak strength what was doing it, like a double jump in Super Smash Bros?

Superman: "The 'S' is for 'Smash'."
Femtech:

 

[Ultron-7]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

Well I actually like MoS's character development for Supes/Clark. I loved the childhood flashbacks, thought they were touching. Who couldn't like the bus scene where he saves the bus, or when his powers/senses are going crazy and Ma kent has that talk with him.

It's the plot, story and genetic codex, terraforming thing that doesn't sit right with me. Or the end after the destruction.

Yeah for me the character development was good enough, Clark's was well done imo (especially as everyone know's it already), Zod's and Jor Els was also well done, again we pretty much knew their motives already but they got fleshed out a bit. The Kents got hat they needed, some lessons to Clark and caring scenes they didn't need anymore imo. Lois Lane was the same, enough development for the first film.

The rest didn't need developing imo, it's a comic book movie so it's never gonna be perfect and it was great for what it was. You can never be too real with an actual Super-hero movie, cause the powers and stories needed to show those powers aren't normal.

 

[hokietwo]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

The villains? Joker and Penguin and Catwoman? They're much more developed than Zod, Faora, or even any of Nolan's villains. They're even much more tragic and have the purpose if mirroring Batman himself.

This is a very good assessment DiFab's. When you think about it, those 2 films really stand alone in developing both hero and villain in a way that moves the plot forward. Instead of a flashback, the villain origins are done in the flow of the movie. Which is difficult to do and says something for the writing on those films to pull that off.

But I do think Bale was fantastic as a miserable SOB, and played the reluctant hero the best. When I think of Bruce Wayne till the day I die, it is Christian Bale for me. He just absolutely looks the part. Keaton was excellent and the 89' is a superb CB movie.

I will always refer to Kevin Conroy's voice as batman and Bale will always be the visual for me.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

This is a very good assessment DiFab's. When you think about it, those 2 films really stand alone in developing both hero and villain in a way that moves the plot forward. Instead of a flashback, the villain origins are done in the flow of the movie. Which is difficult to do and says something for the writing on those films to pull that off.

But I do think Bale was fantastic as a miserable SOB, and played the reluctant hero the best. When I think of Bruce Wayne till the day I die, it is Christian Bale for me. He just absolutely looks the part. Keaton was excellent and the 89' is a superb CB movie.

I will always refer to Kevin Conroy's voice as batman and Bale will always be the visual for me.

I would kill for him to dub the Dark Knight Trilogy!!

 

[hokietwo]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I pity the fool that has to play Batman in these next wave of movies and Justice League. I think it will be a fail greater than Brandon Routh proportions. Not calling Brandon the demise of that film, more so of the next person having to follow up bale in the suit. Do not envy WB at all.

Good Luck.

 

[hokietwo]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I would kill for him to dub the Dark Knight Trilogy!!

He is quite awesome!

 

[Viking Spawn]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I love this new superman movie, better than IM3

if we don't get at least a tease for Zod and/or Faora then, I am going to be super disappointed, do pardon the pun.

I too, badly want to see the villians made. If not, it would be just like the releases for the original Thor movie with just the title character and Odin. Always felt that was lacking without Loki and Hemdall. Now with TA, we finally have Loki. A MoS display will be disappointing without, at least, a Zod.

 

[Femtech]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I'd really like a figure of Zod as he appeared in that dreamscape with Kal on the Kent farm.

 

[Sachiel]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I would kill for him to dub the Dark Knight Trilogy!!

Pssh. You'd kill for him to dub a few movies? I'd kill for him to follow me around and dub me so I'd sound like Batman whenever I talked.

 

[Gage]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I too, badly want to see the villians made. If not, it would be just like the releases for the original Thor movie with just the title character and Odin. Always felt that was lacking without Loki and Hemdall. Now with TA, we finally have Loki. A MoS display will be disappointing without, at least, a Zod.

Yeah man really Hope HT announces Zod and Faora. She was awesome in the movie. If I had to pick Zod or Faora I would get Faora.

 

[Femtech]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

Pssh. You'd kill for him to dub a few movies? I'd kill for him to follow me around and dub me so I'd sound like Batman whenever I talked.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

Pssh. You'd kill for him to dub a few movies? I'd kill for him to follow me around and dub me so I'd sound like Batman whenever I talked.

You are an inspiration!!

 

[Username]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I imagine this post might make me sound arrogant. Sad Panda is sad.



"s' " is solely for plural-possessive usage. The "s" does not denote more than one "Leonida;" the letter is part of the proper noun.

Superman: "It's not an --"
Femtech: "THIS ONE IS AN 'S'!"
Superman: "..."
Femtech: "..."
Superman: "Where I come from..."
Femtech: "AAAAH!"

"Leonidas" is singular, so "Leonidas's" is the only correct way to literarily convey the-man-to-whom-the-name-belongs's ownership of something (see what I did there?). Any other way of writing it is entirely attributable to the seduction of popular misusage. This is akin to how too many people say, for example, "there's problems" instead of "there're problems."
Or: "SDCC 2013 -- it's going to rock" instead of "SDCC 2013 is going to rock."



The term, "plot," refers to that which you see and hear in a film. When one refers to eye candy or whatnot, she is, by definition (though not necessarily by practice unfortunately) referring to plot. The thematic material, suggestions, and general intangibles as derived from what you see and hear are categorized as elements of "story." To streamline it: "story" refers to that which encompasses the "plot" and everything that the plot infers.



Barry, your point about TT is interesting. I haven't read any of the New 52 comics; admittedly, the last mainstay DC issue I read was something from Blackest Night. ^_^" What was the justification for Kal's flight capability in MoS? Your explanation of TT sounds good, but would Goyer really attribute the means of flight to something non-comic readers wouldn't be even remotely privy to? I remember a VO from Jor saying something along the lines of Earth's gravity being weaker than Krypton's or something, but that hardly equates to flight capability. Was Kal's mid-air pushing with his freak strength what was doing it, like a double jump in Super Smash Bros?

Superman: "The 'S' is for 'Smash'."
Femtech:

Some spoiler talk ahead. Avoid if you haven't seen the movie.




An aside before i begin is to point out that an incredibly large portion of the city was destroyed by the graviton effects of the planet engine.
I know there was a lot of destruction, but this happens in almost every Superman storyline(This aspect of Superhumans was famously lampooned, very successfully in The Incredibles).
Also, i applaud you on your fine command of the english language.
Well done.
About the TT i talked about, it is correctly pointed out above that it is Superboy that possesses this power in New52, NOT Superman, but the most famous usage of the TT power was in Chronicle. Although Superman doesn't have Telekinesis in the true sense, it's a localised field, that not only is capable of lifting him, but objects around him.
Below are a couple of clips i uploaded to show it.
First one has the snow particles and rocks spiraling up around his hand as he prepares to harness his flight(If left the clip a bit longer than i needed to. I just love the extended flight sequence). If anyone can give me an alternative to a localised TT field around him, i'd like to hear it..
Second one has Zod doing the same. Pay CLOSE attention to Zod's armoured gauntlet and other parts on the floor levitating.
It's a by-product of his flight. There's really no other way to see it.
Superman:



Zod:

 

[The Iron Koob]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I definitely saw the Chris Reeve easter egg on my second viewing thanks to a post here, now apparently it's gone viral.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-scene-man-steel-where-163000784.html

 

[Username]

Re: Hot Toys MMS200 - Man of Steel: 1/6th scale Superman Collectible Figure

I definitely saw the Chris Reeve easter egg on my second viewing thanks to a post here, now apparently it's gone viral.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-scene-man-steel-where-163000784.html

It looks a lot like him.