Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[jvcarroll]

I hate double posting, but I just have to rant on the reaction to Man of Steel.

As I said before... What the frag do people expect out of a Superman movie? He only had 2 good ones prior anyway. Every single complaint I've seen boils down to, "I read all the spoilers a year in advance and wrote a different movie in my head, and as the film makers wanted to make their movie instead of the fan fiction, the stuff I envisioned wasn't there, so fail."

I read this painfully idiotic review that literally was a bunch of whining about the tone, the fact that Superman never kills (except when he totally does), and basically a laundry list of "I didn't get the point, and that makes me mad." Lets see, oh yeah... they even complained about it being serious. Wait? You mean the guys that did Dark Knight are making a not sunny happy Superman movie?

Above all, the reviews are absolutely what the heck is wrong with how we see entertainment. We expect way too much and we also expect what we want (not collectively) to see in things after we've read every single detail and put the thing in our heads, hyping it up to be a movie that should gel 100% with what out imaginations came up with. We can't go with the flow and let the directors and writers tell us their story anymore.

Seriously... it's a freaking guy in a cape that's been around since the 30's people stopped caring about because Spider-Man. Stop acting like that spoiled kid that got everything but one minor thing for Christmas and feeling betrayed that they didn't make your fan fic.

The truth is, the same people arguing that Man of Steel was "too dark" or too this or that are the same ones who complained that Superman Returns relied to heavily on the Reeve/Donner telling.

One thing that I really appreciated was the difficult choice Supes must make at the end of the film. Of course, this was quite a contrivance, but it's even more contrived no filmmaker had ever dared to give his character such an impossible choice. I think it was a defining moment in many ways that will solidify his code about saving lives.

 

[Drtooth]

The truth is, the same people arguing that Man of Steel was "too dark" or too this or that are the same ones who complained that Superman Returns relied to heavily on the Reeve/Donner telling.

And they'd find a lot more to complain about with the original Superman movies. Like I said, they only had those 2 good ones, and those 2 good ones are rife with problems. Gene Hackman does a barely serviceable job as Lex Luthor, but flat out refuses to be bald to play a character widely remembered as being bald to the point where one of his origins was that he went insane and evil from Superman's rescue attempt that left Lex Bald. But that can be over looked. The second Superman film was RUINED by the hacks that made the piece of crap third film (Too dark... yeah... how would they like it if Man of Steel featured random ice creams falling off cones?)... harder to overlook.

But the biggest problem with the first 2 are the insane Butt pulls. Superman circling the world backwards to turn time back to save Lois (what happened to everything else he saved? or did he prevent that, I actually kinda forget), and Superman's "Amnesia Kiss" in the second movie? Whatever anyone can say about Man of Steel, he didn't pull random plot based superpowers out of his tights. Just good ol' Flying, strength, X-ray vision, and heat vision. No cellophane "S" logo throwing. I mean, I'll accept those who said Man of Steel sucked if they'll admit that every other Superman movie (even said good ones) sucked far, far harder.

Still... the two insane complaints I heard otherwise were (SPOILERS)

Superman doesn't kill (yet he totally did multiple times, and that didn't Stop Batman from killing every villain except The Riddler in the original film series), even though the scene clearly shows that he wasn't happy about it and that it was the actions of a panicking man, battling someone about to kill and entire family with children. He snapped Zod's neck out of panicked desperation and people are actually whining about it because they think they know the Superman mythos. Not to mention the fact that, maybe that's the reason why he doesn't kill? Cuz he did it that one time and felt terrible about it? It came out that wasn't the original ending. They were going to have him sucked into the Phantom Zone, and it felt anti-climactic.

And what's more, there are those absolutely whining about Lois knowing Clark's identity. To quote a famous comedian when he still wore a fake arrow on his head, well excu-u-u-u-u-u-use me! Do you want to see more tired jokes about Lois trying to prove that Superman is Clark? I see it as a fresh take that gets the lamest joke in Superman's history a well deserved rest. I mean, people are clamoring for a lighter movie? You know that would mean more lame jokes about how Clark's disguise is a pair of glasses being stupid.

Jeez... you try to get a fresh take on a character that's almost 100 years old....

 

[jvcarroll]

And they'd find a lot more to complain about with the original Superman movies. Like I said, they only had those 2 good ones, and those 2 good ones are rife with problems. Gene Hackman does a barely serviceable job as Lex Luthor, but flat out refuses to be bald to play a character widely remembered as being bald to the point where one of his origins was that he went insane and evil from Superman's rescue attempt that left Lex Bald. But that can be over looked. The second Superman film was RUINED by the hacks that made the piece of crap third film (Too dark... yeah... how would they like it if Man of Steel featured random ice creams falling off cones?)... harder to overlook.

But the biggest problem with the first 2 are the insane Butt pulls. Superman circling the world backwards to turn time back to save Lois (what happened to everything else he saved? or did he prevent that, I actually kinda forget), and Superman's "Amnesia Kiss" in the second movie? Whatever anyone can say about Man of Steel, he didn't pull random plot based superpowers out of his tights. Just good ol' Flying, strength, X-ray vision, and heat vision. No cellophane "S" logo throwing. I mean, I'll accept those who said Man of Steel sucked if they'll admit that every other Superman movie (even said good ones) sucked far, far harder.

Still... the two insane complaints I heard otherwise were (SPOILERS)

Superman doesn't kill (yet he totally did multiple times, and that didn't Stop Batman from killing every villain except The Riddler in the original film series), even though the scene clearly shows that he wasn't happy about it and that it was the actions of a panicking man, battling someone about to kill and entire family with children. He snapped Zod's neck out of panicked desperation and people are actually whining about it because they think they know the Superman mythos. Not to mention the fact that, maybe that's the reason why he doesn't kill? Cuz he did it that one time and felt terrible about it? It came out that wasn't the original ending. They were going to have him sucked into the Phantom Zone, and it felt anti-climactic.

And what's more, there are those absolutely whining about Lois knowing Clark's identity. To quote a famous comedian when he still wore a fake arrow on his head, well excu-u-u-u-u-u-use me! Do you want to see more tired jokes about Lois trying to prove that Superman is Clark? I see it as a fresh take that gets the lamest joke in Superman's history a well deserved rest. I mean, people are clamoring for a lighter movie? You know that would mean more lame jokes about how Clark's disguise is a pair of glasses being stupid.

Jeez... you try to get a fresh take on a character that's almost 100 years old....

There's a different. Most superheros kill foes in combat, but they're not supposed to murder them. There is a difference. It's disappointing that comics writer Mark Waid disagreed with the decisions made in Man of Steel to the point of yelling at the screen. Not only is that disrespectful to other movie patrons, it also exposes sour grapes about someone else getting a chance to tell the Supes story. The core of the character was the same. In fact, 90% of what we know about Superman was the same. Very few liberties were taken here and some of those allowed for surprises. That was one of the greatest complaints people had going in...everybody already knows the story, how will we be surprised. Well, they managed that.

 

[Drtooth]

There's a different. Most superheros kill foes in combat, but they're not supposed to murder them. There is a difference. It's disappointing that comics writer Mark Waid disagreed with the decisions made in Man of Steel to the point of yelling at the screen. Not only is that disrespectful to other movie patrons, it also exposes sour grapes about someone else getting a chance to tell the Supes story. The core of the character was the same. In fact, 90% of what we know about Superman was the same. Very few liberties were taken here and some of those allowed for surprises. That was one of the greatest complaints people had going in...everybody already knows the story, how will we be surprised. Well, they managed that.

What's really annoying is, they're complaining about changing an aspect of the mythos for the sake of plot convenience of a character who's mythos was shaped by changes made for the sake of plot convenience. The flying? Created by the animated cartoons. The Kryptonite? Radio show had problems with Superman's voice actor (I think the story was that he was sick and or lost his voice). Lex Luthor became a billionaire in the 80's as a protest against Reagan's wealthy favoring policies and the rise of the shareholder. Not making that up! It's a documentary bonus feature on the Ruby Spears Superman DVD set.

I love this whole whine about the choices they made. Batman's parents were killed by the Joker instead of Joe Chill and no one said a word. The thing is, with these super hero movies, they change things to fit into a movie. They keep everything relatively the same, but nudge a few things. Meanwhile, I've endured seeing Inspector Gadget turn into a well meaning lovable lug instead of an arrogant, oblivious goofball, The Smurfs getting shot into the real world (worst part is, I'm coming back for more), Nell Fenwick turning into a Disney Princess while Dudley Do-Right takes place in the modern era, and other "artistic changes" to my childhood heroes. Seems you can make Goku a high school student, and Underdog a real dog, and everyone will tell you to shut up when you say those movies suck, but you tweak something for a nearly 100 year old character that's been genericized and Flanderized into Mr. Happy with a cape, and all shell breaks loose.

Besides, the whole "no kill Superman" thing seems like a crappy Silver Age thing forced by that Seduction of the Innocent schmuck. Kinda like Batman not using guns. He totally did before Seduction of the Innocent.

 

[jvcarroll]

What's really annoying is, they're complaining about changing an aspect of the mythos for the sake of plot convenience of a character who's mythos was shaped by changes made for the sake of plot convenience. The flying? Created by the animated cartoons. The Kryptonite? Radio show had problems with Superman's voice actor (I think the story was that he was sick and or lost his voice). Lex Luthor became a billionaire in the 80's as a protest against Reagan's wealthy favoring policies and the rise of the shareholder. Not making that up! It's a documentary bonus feature on the Ruby Spears Superman DVD set.

I love this whole whine about the choices they made. Batman's parents were killed by the Joker instead of Joe Chill and no one said a word. The thing is, with these super hero movies, they change things to fit into a movie. They keep everything relatively the same, but nudge a few things. Meanwhile, I've endured seeing Inspector Gadget turn into a well meaning lovable lug instead of an arrogant, oblivious goofball, The Smurfs getting shot into the real world (worst part is, I'm coming back for more), Nell Fenwick turning into a Disney Princess while Dudley Do-Right takes place in the modern era, and other "artistic changes" to my childhood heroes. Seems you can make Goku a high school student, and Underdog a real dog, and everyone will tell you to shut up when you say those movies suck, but you tweak something for a nearly 100 year old character that's been genericized and Flanderized into Mr. Happy with a cape, and all shell breaks loose.

Besides, the whole "no kill Superman" thing seems like a crappy Silver Age thing forced by that Seduction of the Innocent schmuck. Kinda like Batman not using guns. He totally did before Seduction of the Innocent.

Technically, it's not a no kill rule, it's a no murder rule. Again, there is a difference.

 

[Drtooth]

Tell them that.

I'll say this, though. Aside from baby Kal-El's undiaperedness, I thought the "60 Days without an accident" gag came at the wrong time for the movie. Unless it's a nod to what the jerks did to Superman 2.

But enough of that. I'm on pins and needles for Monster University and Despicable Me 2. I'm glad we're getting more (cheaper) Minion stuff as the movie date draws near. Now I kinda feel silly for complaining about Thinkway's line... I just got one of those guys free out of a cereal box. Now I'm happy.

 

[Oscarfan]

I actually laughed at the "60 Days" gag.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Tell them that.

I'll say this, though. Aside from baby Kal-El's undiaperedness, I thought the "60 Days without an accident" gag came at the wrong time for the movie. Unless it's a nod to what the jerks did to Superman 2. .

Was that in Man of Steel? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the film.

I remember The Incredible Hulk had that "__ without an incident" thing throughout the entire movie.

 

[Drtooth]

Was that in Man of Steel? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the film.

I believe Zod punched Superman into a sign that said "60 days without an accident" and it caused the 6 to fall off.

Funny bit, I laughed too... but it came at the wrong time in the film.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Hm. Must have missed that one.

Just got back from Monsters University:
Did Monsters Inc. ever need a sequel? No. It could've stood as a stand-alone film until the end of days, but instead, Pixar decided to take the Monsters franchise one step further, and produced this incredible (and extremely unnecessary prequel to the film!)

Monsters Inc. has always been my favorite Pixar film EVER. So, of course, I was major excited for this movie. (Got great seats at the theater. Middle of the theater, middle of the row of the middle row. Dead center. )

I'm not saying anything specific, since I don't want to ruin anything, but the movie ties so many things together from the original movie that you wouldn't even think of! (Like, why Randall and Sulley are such big nemesis, as well as other things. Again, not saying anything that happens in this movie.)

There are some great hidden gags from the original film, like great Monsters cameos (keep your eyes peeled!) as well as surprise voice actor cameos! (Specifically from the Parks and Rec/The Office crowd.)

Keep your eyes peeled for all that, and of course, as usual, stay 'till the end of credits in this movie as well. There's an funny additional scene at the end that ties into the movie.

Overall, Monsters University lives right up to it's predecessor. If you're a major Monsters fan like me, I have a feeling you'll really enjoy this one.
(I also suggest a review of Monsters Inc. before you see the movie. It should be fresh in your mind when you walk into the theater.)