Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Re: The Man of Steel

I think it's the complete opposite.

Because of the fantastical elements, if it doesn't take itself seriously, suspension of disbelief will be dead on arrival.

The other side of the coin is sheer camp, which also isn't good but that's a trap the American films seem to fall into more often. Burton's '89 take was the perfect balance for me, TDK comes in second with BB, TDKR, and Batman Returns about even. Though I'd prefer just about anything from Burton's films design-wise over Nolan's.

None of these are terrible films, but in many ways Nolan's stuff still feels like an interesting side course after Burton's main course hit all the right buttons. I'll also concede the bias of being a kid when 1989 batmania swept the nation.
 
Re: The Man of Steel

I was 15 when it hit and I didn't get it. Stylistically, it felt like the videos Madonna was putting out at the time. Nolan's films were what I'd been waiting for since I was 3 years old, and of a mind that was capable of taking the 60's show seriously.

Maybe it does just come down to personal taste.
 
Re: The Man of Steel

The perfect example would be a Wonder Woman movie. She has it in her to be an amazing character, right up to the point where people start treating her as a joke. The onus to be convincing is much higher on a filmmaker than it is a comic artist. If it's not going to be more realistic than a comic book, there is no point in using the most realistic medium available.

The medium automatically grants you much more realism up front, unless the film specifically designed to mirror the comics visual style slavishly (Sin City). The tone of the movie is extremely difficult to balance and it could be said it's better to be bland than overly goofy. Daredevil seemed to be going for gritty realism visually then going the opposite extreme with all the cheesy dialog and acting. it was practically a musical when he and Elektra started dancing in the park.

The English have a reputation for being meticulous storytellers and I think that was evident in Nolan's films. They're very specific, smart and practical. Americans tend to communicate more through symbolism and enjoy ambiguity perhaps a little more because it allows us more freedom as individuals to interpret for ourselves. Superheros must maintain a certain air of mystery and strong visual presence in order to hold onto the popular imagination.

Wonder Woman for example might benefit from a lighter approach ala Thor. Thor btw was all the more remarkable given how Branaugh regained some of the light human touch he was known for early in his career. Notice that Marvel has found a way to hit that sweet spot more or less throughout their string of Avenger related movies.

DC had it made when the Donner Superman movies came out because they could afford to delve into darker territory (Lois' death, giving up power) while peppering the story with Clark Kent's comedic performance and Hackman's (often campy) Lex Luthor. Visually, he looked like he was taken right off the comic book pages without looking like an embarrassment. That alone probably carried the movie a good part of the way.

I don't expect this or even want this film to be "better" than the Reeve/Donner classic, but with Superman you really have to be careful about how dark and realistic you go before he turns into something all too common and boring... one of us. Even Superman II couldn't end with him retiring permanently without his powers. Sure he might have grown as a person, but he would suck as a superhero. Unless of course his power is to get beat up by truckers. :horror
 
Re: The Man of Steel

I was 15 when it hit and I didn't get it. Stylistically, it felt like the videos Madonna was putting out at the time. Nolan's films were what I'd been waiting for since I was 3 years old, and of a mind that was capable of taking the 60's show seriously.

Maybe it does just come down to personal taste.

Express Yourself does have a similar corporate/gothic/art deco feel and if you could stand not looking at Madonna in those days. Though I'd say it was reaching more for a cinematic standard than the average music video dreck back then.

As for the 60's show, well it was fun but I could never take that stuff seriously. The people who made it certainly didn't. But hey, if it entertains everyone wins. Everything else is just icing.
 
Re: The Man of Steel

I could take the tv show seriously because I was 3. By the time I was 6, I thought even Super Friends was junk.

I think Marvel's take has produced a certain type of film that balances mainstream tastes with comic fandom. That is largely Marvel's take on everything they do these days. I once called them the MTV of comics and I still don't think that's too far off. DC has elements of that as well (the Joneses are doing it) but after Nolan's trilogy, they've cleared the ground for something that relies less on pandering to a pop audience. Superman does not need comic relief or light-heartedness to be a beacon of positivity and virtuous inspiration. All he needs is to show that he can resist evil as well as crush it. The more profound that evil is, the brighter he can shine against it. A film that is dark in tone is generally more capable of delivering a message regarding of the power of good against evil than something that renders mortal conflict with a smirk.
 
Re: The Man of Steel

I could take the tv show seriously because I was 3. By the time I was 6, I thought even Super Friends was junk.

I think Marvel's take has produced a certain type of film that balances mainstream tastes with comic fandom. That is largely Marvel's take on everything they do these days. I once called them the MTV of comics and I still don't think that's too far off. DC has elements of that as well (the Joneses are doing it) but after Nolan's trilogy, they've cleared the ground for something that relies less on pandering to a pop audience. Superman does not need comic relief or light-heartedness to be a beacon of positivity and virtuous inspiration. All he needs is to show that he can resist evil as well as crush it. The more profound that evil is, the brighter he can shine against it. A film that is dark in tone is generally more capable of delivering a message regarding of the power of good against evil than something that renders mortal conflict with a smirk.

Interesting comparison. Never thought of it like that before but I agree with you. :exactly:
 
Re: The Man of Steel

I could take the tv show seriously because I was 3. By the time I was 6, I thought even Super Friends was junk.

I think Marvel's take has produced a certain type of film that balances mainstream tastes with comic fandom. That is largely Marvel's take on everything they do these days. I once called them the MTV of comics and I still don't think that's too far off. DC has elements of that as well (the Joneses are doing it) but after Nolan's trilogy, they've cleared the ground for something that relies less on pandering to a pop audience. Superman does not need comic relief or light-heartedness to be a beacon of positivity and virtuous inspiration. All he needs is to show that he can resist evil as well as crush it. The more profound that evil is, the brighter he can shine against it. A film that is dark in tone is generally more capable of delivering a message regarding of the power of good against evil than something that renders mortal conflict with a smirk.

I was 15 when it hit and I didn't get it. Stylistically, it felt like the videos Madonna was putting out at the time. Nolan's films were what I'd been waiting for since I was 3 years old, and of a mind that was capable of taking the 60's show seriously.

Maybe it does just come down to personal taste.

Very very good post!...you sir have a brain compared to some
 
Re: The Man of Steel

The Nolanverse, for all of it's subtlety and realism lacks the mood and characterization that gush out of every pore in the Burtonverse.

I agree with most of what you said, except this.

There's nothing "subtle" about any of Nolan's Batman films. Any theme or message is blatantly told, over and over again, constantly hitting the audience over the head. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I can only take it in doses. Both Burton films are full of subtlety, some very clever and interesting, some annoyingly unexplained (fill in the blank for yourself). Some of the greatest subtle moments come from Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Where Burton will SHOW you what Bruce Wayne is feeling in a human, relateable way, Nolan will tell you in a dramatic, analytical way. That's the biggest difference.





Best way to sum it up is how Bruce Wayne describes himself in Burton's flicks vs. Nolan's. Burton's seems like a natural response most people would have,



"Sometimes I don't know, either. It's just something I have to do."

"Why?"

"Because nobody else can . . . . I tried to avoid all this, but I can't, this is how it is. It's not a perfect world."


"It doesn't have to be a perfect world. I just have to know, are we going to try to love each other?"


"I'd like to . . . but he's out there right now, and I've got to go to work."


Pretty much sums up Batman and the reasons he's compelled to fight crime. His Batman is almost like a silent film or a film noir type.








Nolan's is more dramatized, character's are literally themes and wear their emotions on their sleeves. They discuss and talk about everything, almost like cardboard cut outs of what they represent. Rachel is the worst culprit, then Dent (talking about Rome) and Gordon. Gordon is pretty normal and relateable in Begins as "one, good cop" but in TDK and TDKR, he starts to be come overly melodramatic and preachy. They don't talk like normal or real people, they speak of scripted ideals and Shakespearean melodrama.



"I'm sorry I didn't tell you about . . ."


"I said some terrible things."

" But true things I was a coward with a gun, justice is about more than revenge, so, thank you."

"I never stopped thinking about you. About us. And when I heard you were back, I started to hope, but then I found out about your mask.

"Batman's just a symbol, Rachel."

"No, *this* is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again."










That's the big difference. There's not as much nuance in Nolan's Batman films as there are in Burton's.
 
Re: The Man of Steel

I agree with most of what you said, except this.

There's nothing "subtle" about any of Nolan's Batman films. Any theme or message is blatantly told, over and over again, constantly hitting the audience over the head. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I can only take it in doses. Both Burton films are full of subtlety, some very clever and interesting, some annoyingly unexplained (fill in the blank for yourself). Some of the greatest subtle moments come from Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Where Burton will SHOW you what Bruce Wayne is feeling in a human, relateable way, Nolan will tell you in a dramatic, analytical way. That's the biggest difference.





Best way to sum it up is how Bruce Wayne describes himself in Burton's flicks vs. Nolan's. Burton's seems like a natural response most people would have,



"Sometimes I don't know, either. It's just something I have to do."

"Why?"

"Because nobody else can . . . . I tried to avoid all this, but I can't, this is how it is. It's not a perfect world."


"It doesn't have to be a perfect world. I just have to know, are we going to try to love each other?"


"I'd like to . . . but he's out there right now, and I've got to go to work."


Pretty much sums up Batman and the reasons he's compelled to fight crime. His Batman is almost like a silent film or a film noir type.








Nolan's is more dramatized, character's are literally themes and wear their emotions on their sleeves. They discuss and talk about everything, almost like cardboard cut outs of what they represent. Rachel is the worst culprit, then Dent (talking about Rome) and Gordon. Gordon is pretty normal and relateable in Begins as "one, good cop" but in TDK and TDKR, he starts to be come overly melodramatic and preachy. They don't talk like normal or real people, they speak of scripted ideals and Shakespearean melodrama.



"I'm sorry I didn't tell you about . . ."


"I said some terrible things."

" But true things I was a coward with a gun, justice is about more than revenge, so, thank you."

"I never stopped thinking about you. About us. And when I heard you were back, I started to hope, but then I found out about your mask.

"Batman's just a symbol, Rachel."

"No, *this* is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again."










That's the big difference. There's not as much nuance in Nolan's Batman films as there are in Burton's.

:goodpost:
:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap
 
Re: The Man of Steel

Man+of+Steel+Movie+Masters_Figure_Mattel.jpg


:lol :lol :lol :slap
 
Last edited:
Re: The Man of Steel

That is a custom.

Proto shots from Mattel of their basic figure line i would assume.

28099-00%20Head.jpg


Man+of+Steel+Prototype_Blue-GeekSummit_Front.png
 
Re: The Man of Steel

Interesting comparison. Never thought of it like that before but I agree with you. :exactly:

Nothing against Marvel, of course. They still do awesome work.

Very very good post!...you sir have a brain compared to some

:lol

Just out of curiosity do76, what are your thoughts/feelings on the classic '66 show now, here in almost 2013?

I haven't seen it in a really long time, but I think this sums up my current feelings...

julie-newmar.jpg-12992.jpg
 
Re: The Man of Steel

Definitely excited for this movie, although I've been a huge batman fan since I was a little kid. I always thought Batman was doing what other people couldn't. He cleaned up the mess that other people made and the bad people would look at him and see that it was possible to be better.

However, with Superman, I just can't find whats so interesting about him. I'm not really interested in his powers, what about the character interests you guys? What's the appeal? I always thought it was some personality thing that made him interesting besides his powers, but I don't really see it. Is it just that he's an all american hero? He doesn't come off like Captain America to me.

I was always interested in Superman being corrupted. Then he was very interesting because he's so difficult to deal with.
 
Back
Top