Slashdot Mirror
Man Of Steel Leaps Over Record With $125.1 Million To Mixed Reviews
The Superman reboot Man of Steel broke the record for the biggest June opening weekend ever with a whopping $125.1 million. Reviews have been mixed so far, ranging from: "DC and Warner Brothers have opted to produce a movie that foregoes a character-driven story. Instead, we're left with a trite blockbuster that holds beautiful special effects, an inspiring music score, a story that panders to the movie-goer who refrains from looking deep into the story, and neglects to define Superman as character, leaving him only as a hollow symbol and stock character, which ultimately leaves the movie about the events that transpire rather than the characters involved in them," to " What this version of the iconic DC Comics superhero does is emote convincingly. Thanks to director Zack Snyder and a serious-minded script by David S. Goyer (who shares story credit with his The Dark Knight collaborator, Christopher Nolan), Man of Steel gives the last son of Krypton an action-packed origin story with a minimum of camp and an intense emotional authenticity. Not bad for somebody who spends half the movie wearing blue tights." Personally, I found it to be the best 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to see this summer. What did you think?
OMG, those pirates will steal from us and are the reason the whole movie industry is going bankrupt.
Bankrupt my ass, if those suckers are able to make $1000000+ on one weekend with a bullshit movie, I don't want them complaining anymore about the death of their business.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Personally, I found it to be the best 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to see this summer. What did you think?
Since there is not likely to be another Superman movie this summer that's not saying much.
But if given the choice of watching 15 minutes of the other movies and watching the main trailers on repeat for 15 minutes, I'd choose the new trailers...
and neglects to define Superman as character, leaving him only as a hollow symbol and stock character,
(dons asbestoes flame suit) Superman's character definition is as a hollow symbol and stock character. I mean seriously, he's supposed to be perfect. No major character flaws. Unerringly good. Massively overpowered... and only weakness is a special mineral that fell to Earth and can only be found in small amounts, glows to alert you of its presence, and can be detected by the hero when brought nearby. In other words, the only weapon that can defeat him he's given ample warning is in play.
There's not a lot of character development to do there; How exactly do you improve on a guy that's the very personification of "good"? All you can do with a character like that is create dramatic tension and a sense of moral conflict. Superman's only plot device is thus conflict. There will never be any real character change per-se.
Let the nerd rage boileth over now... for I have smote a loved hero upon the mountainside. (pulls down face mask)
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
that money comes for 50% suckers that don't know about piracy and the other 50% is all the actors musicians and friends of there's and familly in the industry just shoveling cash into it to try and make it sound good
A) this is not the same super man we all know and love .....why cause hollywood itself is evil and hte movies are showing it.
B) its dark like all hollywood movies since 2001
C) there is no distinction as you might think between good and evil anymore
2.6 billion people on the net.....and all they can get is 125 million?
yup the net voted this movie as IT SUCKS right there....
took 4 11-y-o boys, and they said it was the best movie they had ever seen in their whole lives!
Pretty much describes Superman from his first appearance. Not a whole lot of character complexity there to dig out.
Buy! Buy! Buy more shit! And here's some action sequences to numb the pain of a two hour commercial.
... My 14 year old nephew loved it. I was looking at my watch a lot - the best thing I can say is that it is definitely a "reboot" of the franchise - Superman as Greek hero ...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
So many reboots lately.
Thought Superman was a very good $5 movie with poor character development and lots of fast blurry special effects. Unfortunately tickets were $10.
I will never watch this film again in my life. I didn't hate it. It's just not worth a second viewing.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I read this 'stream of consciousness review' by Tom Scioli, and I'm intrigued enough to watch it on a cheap day now. To his mind at least, it's loaded with unspoken references to the weirder elements of Superman's canon and earlier films, and visual homages to Heavy Metal magazine and artists like MÅ"bius.
1. I find movie critics to be a mixed bag with varying tastes, its almost as if they were human or something. What they normally have in common is a job that requires them to go to a lot of movies and try and say something about them. I think they become jaded and evaluate more and more on "artistic merit" instead of "good entertainment" .I have a hunch that most are "into film" and therefore lose touch with why most people read reviews, to decide whether to go see a movie and be entertained ( for various values of "entertain" ;-). I remember a guy named Clyde Gilmour who panned just about every movie he saw until he came across a little known film called "Star Wars", he said it was all right and that it would probably do well.
2. Talking about how much a movie grossed in box office sales without discussing how much it cost to make doesn't make sense. Of course Hollywood is known for its highly accurate, fair and transparent accounting practises so the data is always easily accessible and totally accurate ;-) ;-) ... .
Hulk tired of scripts, talk. Hulk want MORE ACTION, LOUD NOISES!!!! Hulk like new Superman movie!
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
http://elblancoswhitespace.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-man-of-steel-meta-reviewreview.html
Short answer, there's a massive disconnect between the critics and the audience on this one.
Spoilers abound, so stop reading if you haven't seen it yet.
----
The beginning of the movie started promisingly enough. Okay, over the top action sequence on Krypton, but I liked Russell Crowe's Badass Jor-El. Moving on to Superman's beginnings on Earth, the introspective moments and the slowing pace helps. Then finally Clark becomes Superman, and then... shit explodes everywhere. Superman seems completely unconcerned about the tens of thousands of people that are dying from his battle with Zod. In the Christopher Reeve movie with Terence Stamp as Zod, Superman had the sense to draw the bad Kryptonians away to the North Pole. Here, pft, he just doesn't care.
Also, this is the first time the people of earth has seen Superman. They have no reason at all to trust him, especially not the military (since they were playing that angle). There were no character-establishing moments where Superman doesn't just save the president, he also pulls kittens from trees (see Superman: The Movie).
Finally, didn't Superman practically lead the army to his mom's house where his spaceship was hidden? Didn't they figure out his identity already from there?
Frankly I'm tired of huge flaming spectacles with no substance to them. ALIENS! BIG BATTLE IN THE CITY! SPACESHIPS! SUPER-POWERED BEINGS! That describes every final act of most major tentpole summer movies I've seen in recent years - Transformers, Avengers, even Star Trek. Now this.
Sigh.
If the editor appends "what do you think?" on to the end of the article summary, it's just linkwhoring for ad impressions.
I liked it. Henry Cavill is from my tiny little island and was awesome enough to bring Russell Crowe and Amy Adams over to our one-and-only 10-screen cinema for a red carpet premiere, which is two more Oscar winners than we'd normally see (although apparently Hans Zimmer likes to take his holidays here).
Thanks Henry!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There's not a lot of character development to do there; How exactly do you improve on a guy that's the very personification of "good"?
It can be done. What you do is give him challenges that his powers and decency are limited to help. How does he stop us from killing each other for example? How does he protect us from our own bad decisions? How does he protect other species from humans when we are behaving badly?
Put him in situations where there is no obviously correct moral choice. You humanize him. Heck make him a bad guy for a while.
You have a guy who is something close to perfect and yet seeks to be "normal" among us imperfect humans. Why? What are the consequences? There has to be some interesting tension and character development somewhere in there.
This iteration of Superman has been going on for 2.5 hours?! It's definitely getting stale by now. Time for a reboot.
I decided this year I was going to try to avoid any movie that was a reboot or a sequel. Which pretty much will keep me out of the theatre this summer. Looking at the list of summer films we see Iron Man III, a new Superman reboot, Hangover III, a new Star Trek film.... Seems just about everything is just a rehash. That's fine, I'll put the money toward something else.
I enjoyed it, but I fear I may be getting old - a lot of the time I was thinking "Oh god, sooooooo much property damage...."
Some of it did seem gratuitous. And there were some "WTH" plot-holes... but it was a fun movie and I think pretty well made.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
For the whole second half of the movie, the characters repeatedly pound each other. No matter how hard they hit, no one seems to be able to get hurt at all.
At some point superman coughs, and the bad guy gets dizzy that is about it.
You become numb after a while, there is really no excitement in the fights because they have no consequences, absolutely nothing is at stake in the fights. As stunning visually as they are, the fights are nothing but fillers.
I'm just glad they didn't feminize him. I think they did a superb balance of Superman being a man with feelings without going metrosexual. I really liked the touch of Wolverine in his finding himself retcon for this version of Supes. Superman feels like the uncorruptible Patriarch with compassion but will still slap your ass silly if not a good guy.
IM3 was very entertaining, and I walked out thinking I'd go see it again. But before I got home I was already in "that was just dumb" mode.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Personally, I found it to be the best 2-hour action sequence with 30 minutes of stock romance involving Superman that I am likely to see this summer.
Wow, burn.
DC and Warner Brothers have opted to produce a movie that foregoes a character-driven story. Instead, we're left with a trite blockbuster that holds beautiful special effects, an inspiring music score, a story that panders to the movie-goer
In other words, they made a movie that movie goers want...
The Hollywood movie with a story is long gone, people that buy tickets don't want to see them. CGI and babes, none of that old shit with human "stunt men" and real explosions. This is what sells tickets.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Okay- so when you had a film in the 70's and they actually blew up a small city for a scene in the movie- that was impressive in its own right because you *saw* a real city being blown up.
The first aspect is that- as good as they are- special effects are not real. Something is missing. I'm sure they'll figure it out at some point. Or it may be there are just too many things to keep track of.
This was part of what made Inception so effective. Most of the "special effects" were not done with CGI. They built and destroyed a real fortress. They built a real elevator on its side and they built an entire bar on tilted it to tilt the water in the glasses. You looked at it and thought "but this is just CGI" but some part of your brain was saying "but it's real".
The second part is more critical tho. If you can literally portray ANYTHING then the act of portraying it no longer has emotional weight in itself. If you are going to show three cars being thrown around and destroyed because it is stupidly easy with computers- then the three cars should be saying something. Advancing the plot.
Don't ask me to sit there for 5 minutes looking at CGI and think I'll be impressed. I wasn't for star trek the motion picture, I won't be for your film. You need a story. You need plot. You need ideas. You need character development. You need character conflict. CGI only exists to provide the setting. CGI is not impressive. It should be seamless and allow you to get your point across (like the master in TAI CHI ZERO walking up the side of a wall.)
Superman's effects seemed to be a lot of "ooh look isn't this COOL!". Like the spacesuit helmet things. They wasted time showing them peel on and off the actors. What did it say to have the helmets do that?
A useful effect was things flying up and down to communicate the idea that gravity was reversing back and forth (tho how that was terraforming I don't know but I forgive movie makers a lot).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Walmart bought a bunch for pre-sale. Only a bout 2 million of the presale was actually sold over the weekend, but the entire thing is being reported in the 125 million number.
the reason for the "record breaking" takings is down to increases in ticket prices and nothing more. if you look at a graph of audience numbers you'll see it peak in the mid 1940s, It drops off sharply in the early 60s and continues to fall until the early 80s. If you adjust it for percentage of population then you'll see a slope more suited to a ski-jumper. record breaking sales are not what them appear.
"which ultimately leaves the movie about the events that transpire rather than the characters involved in them"
I'm sick and tired of movie critics who think a movie should only be about the characters. Any story and two major pieces: the characters AND the plot. Without the plot, the characters don't change. Without facing the crisis (brought to them via the plot) they don't grow and become the interesting characters that they are.
Without a plot the characters are just sitting around doing nothing.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
...a whopping $125.1 million....
With the ever-increasing price of tickets, using revenue as a judge of "record-breaking" is grossly inaccurate, as it erroneously compares unequal ticket prices and ignores the effect of inflation over the years.
.
It would be more accurate (though still not completely accurate) to use the number of tickets sold as the basis for judging whether all-time records have been broken.
Superman can be interesting, in the hands of the right writer. I think it was Superman II in which he gave up his powers to be with Louis. That's an interesting struggle between love and power, or personal happiness vs public good. Stories like that can make Superman an interesting dude. But if it's just him flying fast or being strong, then yeah, nothing too interesting about that.
*Spoiler* (sort of)
I wonder how many people were numbed by the never-ending action and missed Zod kicking the Lex Corp tanker at Superman.
As if anyone would make a Superman reboot and leave Lex Luther out of the multi-movie arc.
*End Spoiler*
Are these the same critics that praised the shit out of the most recent Star Trek movie? The movie is all about Superman's journey - not just about Superman himself, but the people around him - and while it doesn't SHOVE the development in your face, it's there. Do people REALLY need everything so obvious and overdone in movies these days that they cannot even recognize character development unless they are told "this is how I am changing and becoming a different person through my experiences"? These people must have REALLY been confused by the "short" life story of the old man in "Up". But they probably don't even know what they missed. I am now very sad - yes, I already knew all this, but I am still sad to be reminded of it.
They seem to think that only their childhoods deserved to see these characters on the big screen. I took my son and he enjoyed it as much as I remember enjoying the original in 1978. And from the consumers side that is kinda the whole point.
I was surprised to find that Man of Steel is a rather boring movie considering how much I enjoyed what Snyder did with Watchmen. However, I realize now that the reason Watchmen turned out so well is because the comic book is a frame-for-frame carbon copy of what would eventually be filmed. You can't screw something up if you're copying an award-winning comic. To me, Man of Steel is basically 1978's Superman without all of the charm and with a crapload of special effects added. If anything, it's an insult to audiences in that the producers seem to believe that our attention span is so limited that anything other than an onslaught of buildings collapsing and things exploding will confuse us. This despite the fact that Game of Thrones, in all of its complexity, is dominating audience interest.
I thought the role that dogs played in the movie was actually rather interesting. It's subtle, but there's definitely some subtext and allegory here, perhaps even theology. I also enjoyed the "trust versus verification" aspect - can we learn to co-exist with something or someone beyond our power to dominate and control, learning to accept demotion in the universe and a position of weakness?
The whole origin story was fantastic. This is probably the richest depiction of Krypton ever. Loved the examples of the evolution of Kryptonian technology. The scene where Supes is being given a retrospective on his world's history was simply top notch.
Most characters were likewise fantastic. Zod was believable, even a bit sympathetic. The pain he felt was palpable, and the conflict Superman felt when dealing with him, likewise. Fiora was superb, fierce and believable without being over the top or "grrrl". I wish she'd have gotten more screen time. Lois was great in the role of the intrepid reporter.
Cons included the lack of significant chemistry between Supes and Lois, an ending that was just too neatly wrapped up (huge city largely destroyed, tens of thousands presumably dead, but business-as-usual in the next scene? huh?), some cheesy dialog (Lois's first scene with the military made me cringe), and some two-dimensionality on the part of the secondary characters. I was happy to see the exploration of free will versus determinism, authoritarian control versus individuality, and exceeding the limitations imposed by society, but I thought more could have been made of this.
All in all, I'm hopeful for more Superman movies like this. There are "bugs" to work out, but finally we have a solid foundation upon which to present the original superhero tale to a new generation.
MILD SPOILER WARNING
... let's just say ... never stood on that side of the line.
I think they did a good job of building the character from someone who is afraid of being hurt (emotionally) to someone who is willing to trust. That's the arc of the character through this origin movie. Superman is physically impervious, but he's still "human" in his emotions -- and they played it up as well -- when he gets in dialogue with the villains and one of them *literally explains* that the difference between them is morality - he has it, they don't. I do believe that this is a movie targeted to the victims of bullying and their desire to be strong, the fantasy that the only reason the other guy survived is because the bullied kid held back. That may be throwing some people who
I found the symbolism of the movie - particularly the church scene with the image of Christ in Gethsemane in the background, a bit heavy handed. But this is definitely a movie that will yield scene by scene notes from the director - like the lexicorp gas tankers -- there are gems there to notice if you slow down and look at the whole scene.
I saw it yesterday and I am ambivalent. I found it entertaining, but wanting for a Superman story.
There was a slew more action than there was character development. Zod was the most completely developed, then Clark himself. The seemingly haphazard flashback style of Clark's backstory really didn't help. While the film was entertaining, the action was a little repetitive: lots of stuff tearing through buildings and buildings falling over, ... and over ... and over ... and over. The way Zod meets his demise was pretty uninventive and, for Superman, uncharacteristically low-brow. I love Amy Adams, and I appreciate that she's updated and supposed to be a tough-as-nails reporter with war-time cred -- but you just get that from the story or acting (and I'm quite fond of Amy Adams). If it were a little more like the first Superman movie (with Christopher Reeve, as hokey as that sounds) and a little less Fast and Furious, it would have been a stronger movie. If Lois Lane was a little more Kara Thrace than ... well, Mary from the Muppet Movie, all the better.
If I like a character, all I really want is more movies to be made in the future. And so I don't care how many tickets are sold. I care that the studio thinks it can make a profit.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I had assumed that "Man of Steel" was a film about Stalin.
and your point is?
Hollywood always has to be on some simple-minded kick or other. The current Hollywood trend is to DEMAND that producers/writers/directors aim the expensive blockbusters at the idealised 11/12-year-old demographic. This is a direct consequence of the success of Spielberg's Transformers movies. Hollywood needs to belive there is a brain-dead formula that, if followed, will bring automatic success.
Now it is assumed your 12-year-old has no filmic memory, and is thus unencumbered by recollections of the best movies from the 70s and 80s. Thus, reboots become possible, driven entirely by CGI spectacle. It is assumed the 12-year old has a poor grasp of logic, narrative, grammar, and plot, allowing Hollywood to employ the worst possible writers whose only skill is banging out a script in a reliable time-frame, and making simplistic references to previous pop-culture concepts.
Everything is new to a 12-year-old. That kid doesn't even read (remember, I'm talking about the idealised Hollywood representative of the perfect cinema goer). That kid LOVES useless gimmicks like 3D, and is far too thick to notice when a so-called 3D film is actually badly post-converted. For the 12-year-old, the trip to the cinema is a TREAT regardless of how rotten the blockbuster proves to be.
In Yank-land, where kids are to be treated like toddlers until they are 21 or older, Hollywood assumes that increasingly the 12-year-old is accompanied by many other members of his family. The kids opinion of the best film to go see thus becomes central to Hollywood's thinking.
Go watch the promotions for the coming giant robot film "pacific rim". People with a long history of making good movies humiliate themselves by repeatedly stating "we aim our film at 12-year-olds". It is the current Hollywood mantra.
So the new Superman can be one long (once it gets started) CGI action fest with no attempt to make sophisticated viewers feel the narrative weight of the action. The consequence is a film that stands ZERO chance of reaching the box-office heights of Avatar or The Avengers, but a film that will still make a lot of money for Warner Brothers.
Hollywood loathes SF. Worse, it loathes the idea that a SF movie should still contain logical rules that define its own world. A SF film to Hollywood is a film in which anything can and should happen. So a rebooted Star Trek has a 'transporter' that beams people across interstellar distances, and no-one is supposed to vomit in outrage at this abuse against Star Trek logic. After all, dribble dribble, it's SF, dribble dribble, and in SF, dribble, anything is possible at any time.
Internal logic allows for successful suspension of disbelief, and an audience that can invest in the lives of the characters onsceen or on the page. No internal logic (cos the script is a pile of puke from Nolan's people or JJ Abrams' people), and the audience feels distant and uninvolved. These films become like a roller-coaster ride, where you TRY to get off on the CGI spectacle, but largely fail to do so.
PS did you not notice how much Iron Man 3 pandered to 12-year-old kids? That film was written and directed by the person responsible for the best of the hard-R action movies of the 80s, and yet the producers of Iron Man 3 forced Shane Black to utterly humiliate himself by making an Iron Man film that actually steals the climax from Disney's BedKnobs and Broomsticks, and uses it as the basis for the major battle at the end of IM3. Animated suits of armour that can break apart and re-assemble become Stark's animated IM suits that can break apart and reassemble, so that they can (in both cases) fight a bunch of bad guys threatening our heroes.
PPS the real market Hollywood needs to reach are the ladies. It is the female demographic that was responsible for the success of such diverse movies as Robocop, Reanimator, Avatar, Titanic, and Die-hard. Most women don't like being patronised by 'girly' stuff (although they will flock to watch the best of this sub-genre). Women do like films they can emo
"use the number of tickets sold as the basis for judging whether all-time records have been broken"
Over the years, what about:
Without taking all that into account, it becomes easier and easier for modern movies to eclipse old movie records.
But that metric leaves out the un-equal population of people with disposable income enough to go see a movie. So really it would need to be percentage of likely movie goers who saw the movie that weekend.
Given how much CRAP is put out today, I didn't expect anything different.
I'm also not sold on dark edgy themed formulas which is what I expected this to be. Plus it seems that many things are intentionally loaded with propaganda for acceptance of the authoritarian world we are heading towards.
If there is a side agenda to take away the 50s ideal role model, only then would I be interested in seeing it for the culture war.
I would like to know how these mindless fads happen, where 1 movie tries some new FX like an infinite army running over a hill and then everybody has to do it for years and years as each director/producer catches up with the audiences boredom of it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
There are two ways to go:
(1) Shades of Gray: What a does a Good Guy do when confronted between conflicts involved good people doing bad things and bad people doing good things?
(2) Traveling Angel: The character growth happens to those around him. Do they choose to become better people when face-to-face with such an example? Or something else?
Your basic criticism is why my fondness for the TV show Smallville waned. Since Clark is Clark with nowhere to go, and is unwilling to entrust his secret, he becomes the antagonist -- the guy who is trying to prevent character growth. Lex was (often) the protagonist -- the person who was willing to try and change himself and his relationships for the better (even if the risk of failure was not small).
Superman II is, to my mind, still the best of all the comic book films, and General Zod, as played by Terence Stamp, is right up there with Khan in the list of the great science fiction villains.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...because a hero that is just and purely good and a villain that is only evil are boring. That's just me generally speaking, I haven't seen the movie. But I like it if characters have flaws and the enemy has good traits. It makes decisions and jugement more difficult. This is no Hollywood invention. Japanese movies have this since... there are Japanese movies.
Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
Exactly nailed it. These reboots are a combo of appealing to the old end of the ideal target demo enough to get them to take their kids - OR more likely, not drive the parents crazy while the CHILDREN watch it.
The real target is the KIDS who don't know any better and will attach to the franchise and later repeat the cycle and maybe consume some more stuff even though it is a formula and not as good just because of the connection to the past memories. When a fan makes the movie then it bends a bit more towards the older viewers and maybe appeals slightly outside the normal demo but the producers must be hanging around reminding them of the marketing.
One wonders how much damage is done to children with all these things targeted towards them but combined with things for the parents that would otherwise never be there. I hear from old elementary teachers that children today have a lot of sarcasm but it is worse than that, they don't really understand the sarcasm or expressions they are using.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Oh good lord people, Super main is a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER. You want literature? Read Dostoyevsky.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'm tired of reboots. The only reboot that got it right was Batman Begins.
Except the metric for whether a movie is successful has nothing to do with how many people saw it, it has to do with how much it makes in profit.
Profit is actually all that matters with blockbusters.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
...a whopping $125.1 million....
With the ever-increasing price of tickets, using revenue as a judge of "record-breaking" is grossly inaccurate, as it erroneously compares unequal ticket prices and ignores the effect of inflation over the years.
Also note the hedge "...biggest June opening weekend..." to avoid having to admit that it's only the sixth biggest opening weekend. And I fully expect to see future announcements of this type get down to absurdities like "...biggest first week of June opening weekend..." or "...biggest fourth week of July opening weekend among 17-21 year old males of Italian ancestry..." as the studios start scraping the bottom of the bowl in an attempt to find something, anything, positive that they can use to puff a movie and make it look like more of a blockbuster to attract people who otherwise wouldn't go to see it.
With the ever-increasing number channels of viewing movies, using number of tickets sold is grossly inaccurate, as it as it erroneously omits the effect of higher ticket prices on demand and ignores the home theater, dvd, and online streaming boom.
If you compare the cost of a 1939 ticket ($0.25) in todays prices, it would be only $4 -- which would make movie going far more affordable than $12-16 that a ticket in a major metro like NY costs these days.
It would be more accurate (though still not completely accurate -- after all the previous generations hardly had the options of home entertainment from video games to the Internet that we have ) to use the inflation adjusted revenue as the basis for judging whether all time records have been broken.
I'm watching a pirated copy on a stream right now, but did see it over the weekend at a 3D theater. My opinion is that it's the most enjoyable summer action movie this year so far, at least in comparison to Star Trek: Into Darkness, which was also very good, Fast Furious 6, which delivered on action even though it made little sense, and much more enjoyable than the Tony Stark movie, Iron Man 3, which I didn't particularly enjoy as a whole, even if it had some entertaining parts. I don't get the general disdain on 'reboots' here, but I think people should be able to retell the stories they want. I'm happy to compare and opine on what I like and don't like afterwards.
The movie was a little weird. Didn't expect Superman to be learning how to fly a few days before his epic showdown. The soundtrack, especially the score played when he was learning to fly, was kind of weird. Russell Crowe's screen time felt artificially inflated. But I love Zack Snyder (especially Watchmen), so I will likely be picking this up on BluRay. Man of Steel is an example of a movie that can be a little left of center and still be enjoyable. But I'm still scratching my head over the experience.
How did Clark Kent end up working at the Daily Planet at the end of the movie? The story makes it look like he became a wanderer after high school or something. When did he get a journalism degree? Confused.
Oh, and while I'm at it - what was Clark Kend doing in the Arctic (where he met Lois Lane). How did that happen?!
Now in theaters:
Coming Soon, Monsters N+1 and Despicable Me 2.
Hollywood has a severe idea shortage.
What's wrong with you people? They actually make a reboot that's better than any of the originals and all you can do is complain. Frankly I thought it rocked, we had action, character development, a bit of romance, a bad guy that actually makes sense and although there were plenty of special effects they served the story rather than the other way around. I don't see how you could do any better in a movie format.
The American government letting Lois Lane go even though she knows who superman is.
The American government not moving Martha Kent to an "undisclosed location" and telling superman to do what they want or she might get ill.
The aliens, explosions, and fight scenes didn't bother me. The lack of maliciousness of the American government did.
That's it keep Gone With The Wind at the top forever.
Not for kids, I don't care if they are selling toys.. But it's an awesome movie, I had a blast.. nothing boring. intense and well done. This isn't your kid's Superman. And whether this is by design or not, you will see a lot of resemblance to Tom Welling's Clark Kent in this movie, in all the characters portraying Clark Kent (young and old). Especially at the end when Cavill's Clark Kent meets the Daily Planet staff. Strong story and great effects. Amazing action scenes. there are some plot holes, but it's not that bad. I was surprised at how solid the writing was. However this is what I found. The Kryptonian suits are supposed to be filtering everything in/out. When their suit broke during battle, because they have no experience with the surges of powers they are getting, their senses become super-charged and makes them confused. It means that while in the suits, there are no Yellow sun radiation, no atmosphere, nothing. So, Kryptonians shouldn't have any powers, while in their suits. I had no problems with the super-surges, but, I had a problem that they shouldn't have been able to fight Superman to a stand still while in the protections of their suits.
I need to see this movie again, I'm sure there are other things, but seriously, that seems to be the only thing I can think of which I found could be better handled. Not bad at all when all things are considered!
Great movie.
We saw it in 3D IMAX which is a bit intense, but it should be great in 2D as well.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... when we're done with these comic-book characters. Spiderman, Superman, Batman, the reboots, the sequels... let's move on.
I mean it - please, god, make it stop.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
"as history shows, evolution always wins" - from a being that was essentially cloned over and over again for centuries...effectively stating she was going to lose. Other lines were just as bad, it was a horribly written script that adhered very little to the comic story.
I gave up when "Superman Returns" but not to fight for the American Way.
-- Jimtown Kelly
IM3 was very entertaining, and I walked out thinking I'd go see it again. But before I got home I was already in "that was just dumb" mode.
Iron Man 3 needed more Iron Man being Iron Man and less "30 empty Iron Man suits flying around ever so conveniently" while Tony Stark leaps off of girders.
Ben Kingsley's character however.. both in performance and what they did with him in the plot, were fantastic.
Studios care about money not number of tickets.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I gather (from puff pieces like this submission on Slashdot) that there may be yet another Superman movie in progress. Is it likely to address these important parts of the myth, AND be worth watching?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
This isn't news.
Move this to the supermarket checkout aisles.
But what was with ripping his S off his chest and throwing it?
Learn to love Alaska