RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,791
Posts: 5,217,783
Members: 24,221
Currently online: 689
Newest member: soccerjerseys29

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
A+ 28 11.16%
A 53 21.12%
A- 46 18.33%
B+ 25 9.96%
B 27 10.76%
B- 11 4.38%
C+ 13 5.18%
C 12 4.78%
C- 9 3.59%
D+ 8 3.19%
D 10 3.98%
D- 5 1.99%
F 4 1.59%
Voters: 251. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 29 2013, 07:32 PM   #1006
Savage Dragon
TheSeeker
 
Savage Dragon's Avatar
 
Location: New York, NY
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

I don't know where you were watching it but I wasn't watching it at home.
Savage Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2013, 07:41 PM   #1007
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

Dr.H wrote: View Post
Honestly, this needed a lighter color palette. I think the film looks really good, but Superman needs to look more like something akin to the Avengers.3

On the other-hand, perhaps the palette fits this more realistic take on Supes.
I'm sure it's something they experimented with, but they probably decided anything brighter and more colorful would have risked making the movie look too comic booky.

Which I can definitely see. I don't think the documentary-style approach would have worked quite as well with the brighter colors of an Avengers or Spider-Man 2.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 03:19 AM   #1008
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

sojourner wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post
Most aircraft would disagree with this statement.
In that case, I suggest you read up on the causes of aerodynamic lift.
You mean the part where its the result of lower pressure on the upper half of the wing as opposed to the under side of the wing? Yes. That's an inherently dangerous example of pulling or pushing masses outside the aircraft that could plausibly be harmful or fatal to the people around the plane. Oh, wait... No, it's not.

Or are you confusing propulsion with lift? Maybe you should read up on that.

Take for example a glider. it can bank and turn with no means of on board propulsion, but it does use lift. Technically, assuming th glider didn't clip you, it could fly and turn within inches of a person and do no real harm. You might get your hair messed up and be frightened. Now, a jumbo jet attempting the same thing would be a problem. Those engines providing propulsion can ruin a person's day real quick. Superman has no engines that we can see. He seems to use "force of will" for propulsion. There are no masses being pushed against.
No, what you said was that most aircraft would disagree with the idea that momentum must be conserved (because what I said was nothing more than that). That's false; it must be.

Also, I was talking about Superman changing his trajectory, which, if it were to occur under real world physics, would mean that a compensating force must be applied to another body. For example, say he's floating stationary right next to Lois Lane one second, and then the next second, he's flying away at 500 miles per hour. If the compensating momentum were imparted to Lois, she'd be dead.

Now, am I saying that has to occur? No, I explicitly said that that level of realism is not necessary. I simply said, it would plausible if it did kill her.

Edit: And I also said that the momentum could be imparted to a massive and virtually stationary body, such as the Earth itself. Of course, this need not occur, either.
__________________
John

Last edited by CorporalCaptain; June 30 2013 at 03:43 AM.
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 03:45 AM   #1009
montag01
Ensign
 
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

I quite liked the movie. There were several instances of dodgy plotting and story conveniences to be sure, but I thought the overall narrative was pretty tight and made a very effective use of flashbacks. This is a welcome change after the bloated Avengers movie. Zod was far more interesting here than the Terrence Stamp version. Kidder's Lois Lane, while never effectively used in the Donner/Lester Superman movies, remains a bit more satisfying to me than what Amy Adams gave us.
montag01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 04:12 AM   #1010
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

I never bought into Margot Kidder's ditzy version of Lois Lane. Amy Adams was for more interesting and appealing.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 04:13 AM   #1011
Savage Dragon
TheSeeker
 
Savage Dragon's Avatar
 
Location: New York, NY
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

I honestly think she is the best Lois we have ever gotten on screen. I'm a fan.
Savage Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 04:15 AM   #1012
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

My favourite Lois Lanes: Phyllis Coates, Dana Delaney, Erica Durance and now Amy Adams.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 04:51 AM   #1013
Enterprise is Great
Rear Admiral
 
Enterprise is Great's Avatar
 
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

I saw this again this morning and really enjoyed it as much as the first time...maybe even more. Henry Cavill, Amy Adams and Michael Shannon were all great and are my favorite onscreen versions of these characters. Kevin Costner gave his best performance in years.
I eagerly await the blu-ray.
__________________
JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!
Enterprise is Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 04:53 AM   #1014
Casas9425
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

I've been waiting for a long time for a good Superman movie and I finally got it with Man of Steel, I loved it. Superman Returns might be the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, it was awful.
Casas9425 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 05:09 AM   #1015
Tosk
Rear Admiral
 
Tosk's Avatar
 
Location: On the run.
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

Casas9425 wrote: View Post
I've been waiting for a long time for a good Superman movie and I finally got it with Man of Steel, I loved it. Superman Returns might be the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, it was awful.
You must not have seen Catwoman, Batman & Robin, Superman III or IV, The Punisher '89, Wolverine, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider 1 and 2, or Hulk.

To name just a few.
Tosk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 05:37 AM   #1016
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post

In that case, I suggest you read up on the causes of aerodynamic lift.
You mean the part where its the result of lower pressure on the upper half of the wing as opposed to the under side of the wing? Yes. That's an inherently dangerous example of pulling or pushing masses outside the aircraft that could plausibly be harmful or fatal to the people around the plane. Oh, wait... No, it's not.

Or are you confusing propulsion with lift? Maybe you should read up on that.

Take for example a glider. it can bank and turn with no means of on board propulsion, but it does use lift. Technically, assuming th glider didn't clip you, it could fly and turn within inches of a person and do no real harm. You might get your hair messed up and be frightened. Now, a jumbo jet attempting the same thing would be a problem. Those engines providing propulsion can ruin a person's day real quick. Superman has no engines that we can see. He seems to use "force of will" for propulsion. There are no masses being pushed against.
No, what you said was that most aircraft would disagree with the idea that momentum must be conserved (because what I said was nothing more than that). That's false; it must be.

Also, I was talking about Superman changing his trajectory, which, if it were to occur under real world physics, would mean that a compensating force must be applied to another body. For example, say he's floating stationary right next to Lois Lane one second, and then the next second, he's flying away at 500 miles per hour. If the compensating momentum were imparted to Lois, she'd be dead.

Now, am I saying that has to occur? No, I explicitly said that that level of realism is not necessary. I simply said, it would plausible if it did kill her.

Edit: And I also said that the momentum could be imparted to a massive and virtually stationary body, such as the Earth itself. Of course, this need not occur, either.
Two words from your original post that I quoted. "during flight"

Then in your followup post you introduced lift, as seen above.

A change in trajectory can be achieved through flight without using "outside forces"as my example above demonstrates. Now instead of trajectory, maybe you meant to say velocity?
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...

Last edited by sojourner; June 30 2013 at 05:53 AM.
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 06:23 AM   #1017
Casas9425
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

Tosk wrote: View Post
Casas9425 wrote: View Post
I've been waiting for a long time for a good Superman movie and I finally got it with Man of Steel, I loved it. Superman Returns might be the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, it was awful.
You must not have seen Catwoman, Batman & Robin, Superman III or IV, The Punisher '89, Wolverine, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider 1 and 2, or Hulk.

To name just a few.
True. I stand corrected. SR still sucked though the story outline of its sequel was pretty good.
Casas9425 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 11:29 AM   #1018
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

sojourner wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post

You mean the part where its the result of lower pressure on the upper half of the wing as opposed to the under side of the wing? Yes. That's an inherently dangerous example of pulling or pushing masses outside the aircraft that could plausibly be harmful or fatal to the people around the plane. Oh, wait... No, it's not.

Or are you confusing propulsion with lift? Maybe you should read up on that.

Take for example a glider. it can bank and turn with no means of on board propulsion, but it does use lift. Technically, assuming th glider didn't clip you, it could fly and turn within inches of a person and do no real harm. You might get your hair messed up and be frightened. Now, a jumbo jet attempting the same thing would be a problem. Those engines providing propulsion can ruin a person's day real quick. Superman has no engines that we can see. He seems to use "force of will" for propulsion. There are no masses being pushed against.
No, what you said was that most aircraft would disagree with the idea that momentum must be conserved (because what I said was nothing more than that). That's false; it must be.

Also, I was talking about Superman changing his trajectory, which, if it were to occur under real world physics, would mean that a compensating force must be applied to another body. For example, say he's floating stationary right next to Lois Lane one second, and then the next second, he's flying away at 500 miles per hour. If the compensating momentum were imparted to Lois, she'd be dead.

Now, am I saying that has to occur? No, I explicitly said that that level of realism is not necessary. I simply said, it would plausible if it did kill her.

Edit: And I also said that the momentum could be imparted to a massive and virtually stationary body, such as the Earth itself. Of course, this need not occur, either.
Two words from your original post that I quoted. "during flight"

Then in your followup post you introduced lift, as seen above.

A change in trajectory can be achieved through flight without using "outside forces"as my example above demonstrates. Now instead of trajectory, maybe you meant to say velocity?
Everything I said was correct. Trajectory means in the sense of a curved path under the effect of forces including friction due to air resistance, and gravity. I mentioned lift only because you mentioned airplanes, as if they were somehow special; they're not. The thing that distinguishes airplanes from other vehicle is their wings, but the way that wings generate lift still involves conservation of momentum.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 11:32 AM   #1019
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 01:12 PM   #1020
AllStarEntprise
Captain
 
AllStarEntprise's Avatar
 
Location: Galactica Actual
Re: MAN OF STEEL - Grading & Discussion

Having watched MoS a second time I think a lot of what is in the movie works as is.

The first time I thought their was way too much action but the second time I felt it all fit. Zak Snyder is one to push the limits of visual effects in all his movies. I think the first time it was all too much "In your face" action. Going in a second time and knowing what to expect made it easier to digest.


Now another complaint I've heard is that the fight scenes were too long. I chock that up to Snyder, Goyer and Nolan trying to be as faithful to the abilities of their characters as they can be without bringing in escape clauses (kryptonite or red sun rays)to make them shorter.

Kryptonians receive amazing strength, speed, stamina, endurance and a list of other powers under a yellow suns radiation. The fight between Superman and Faora and the nameless Kryptonian (we can call him Non or Quex-Ul for our purposes) in Smallville reflected that they are all equals in terms of power. Faora was easily the best fighter we saw in the movie, but since Supes has the same levels of strength and invulnerability as she does the fights seem to last forever. Add to the fact that it's a bright sunny day in Smallville, sun is refilling the Kryptonian energy reservoirs. They could literally fight all day, unless someone delivered a killing blow like Supes did to Zod. Also remember we are not talking about humans, but aliens with out of this world powers. We should expect a their display of abilities to be larger than life.



I'm a big Superman myself so I can explain some of the details as to how his powers work. Notably his flight power. Superman doesn't fly. He defies gravity. This is in the first superman movie, several comics and in Man Of Steel. Krypton was a super gravity planet. Comparable to Jupiter I think, I can't remember the exact force of gravity. Do to the photo-nucleic effect the yellow sun has on Kryptonian physiology. Members of that race are able to defy gravity and through force of will propel themselves through it. Force of will are the exact words used in the comics. Sorry I can't explain them any clearer. However this explains how debris seem to levitate with Superman before he takes off into the air. This force of will/defy gravity flight is also used to explain how Superman can lift extremely heavy objects. When he lifts something the force of the planets gravity loses it's pull on the object. Essentially Superman is only lifting mass but not weight of objects.

Strength wise, Superman and other Kryptonians are in the megaton range. Marvel's heavy hitters like the Hulk and Thor are good measures of strength to compare to Superman.

Speed wise. Is never really explain in the comics but I think it has to do with defying Earth's gravity principle that his flight power works on.

Endunrance/Invulnerability: Combination of Kryptonians having a thicker molecular density compared to humans since they come from a super gravity planet, and the sun's radiation energizing their cells. This invulnerability does not work against any and all things but their is a tolerance threshold Krytponians can endure. Again fighting someone at a comparable strength level Superman vs Faora, or Zod or Thor or inital Hulk, they probably won't feel how hard they are being hit for some time. Bring in a heavier hitter like a pissed off Hulk, Darkseid, Gladiator or Doomsday that's a whole different story.

Magic is also something that doesn't mix with Kryptonian physiology. Magic spells, characters, and weapons all render kryptonian invulnerability useless. A good example would be Superman vs Thor. Physically they are roughly equal. However Thor's physical strength is from magical background. It can hurt Supes, as can blows from beings like Hercules, Atlas and Captain Marvel. Thor also wields the enchanted hammer Mjölnir a blow from this would cause serious damage and pain to any kryptonian. The lightning from Mjölnir being also magical would cause damage and pain. Other magical weapons like Excalibur, those used by Wonder Woman and other Amazons, The Master Sword, wands and spells from Harry Potter and anything else from magical genre make Kyrptonian invulnerability not count for squat.


Then vs Now:
A criticism I've seen a lot of is how this film is that Superman seems to neglect his duty to protect the civilian population. Given the extreme circumstances present in this movie. The 2 Kryptonian devices on opposite sides of the planet terraforming the Earth. I think we can cut Supes a little if not a lot of slack. People seem to have unreal expectations for the character. This is not the Superman of the Silver Age who literally had no limit to his powers. The modern Superman is fallible. He cannot be at all places at all times. He has limits. You look at Superman Returns and the "crisis" Superman had to deal with there. A plane falling, and a series of destructive events across Metropolis that Superman had no trouble quelling with the variety of powers he possess. Nothing was a challenge for him. If there is no challenge where is the investment?

I know it's not the whimsical Superman movies we saw in Superman 1978 and Superman II 1980, but we need to accept that those movies came out 30 years ago. The world, movies, and the character have changed since then. Superman Returns gave the public a whimsical movie very reminiscent of the classic Superman films and it is seen as a failure. It didn't even inspire a sequel as far back as 2008 with the director and producers (the same directors and producers of X-Men and X2) all abandoning the any potential sequel. Man of Steel in 2 weeks has already made more money domestically and worldwide that Returns did. From Boxofficemojo, SR was alledgedly in theaters for 19 weeks and ended with a domestic haul of just over $200 million. MoS is not perfect but it's a step in the right direction.


Lastly Superman vs The Avengers and property damage bills

I can't believe this is actually a thing. The damage to New York was caused by alien invaders of flying scooters with laser beams and giant flying alien slugs. The damage to Metropolis was caused by a terraforming machine that was increasing the gravity of the planet. The Kryptonian world engine isn't nearly as fast or neat as TWOK's geneis torpedo as a terraforming device but it did facilitate the need for destruction in the context of the film. Part of having a fallible Superman is he can't be all places at once. I equate it to ask Thor to defend New York all by himself from the Chitauri. As far as the death toll goes. The Avengers glossed over this part as well. MoS's destruction is reminiscent of what we see in Transformers 3 when Chicago got decimated. I think the destruction in MoS is appropriate for a credible alien invasion movie. Snyder doesn't pull any punches in delivering this in your faces action film. With the sequel he may dial the action back a bit (unless Brainiac is the villain) but as a reboot i think it succeeds.


Lastly Superman killing I don't have a problem with it. Zod was an unrepentant bad guy who had already caused the death of thousands, intended to kill billions and threatened to do so again after Superman had thwarted his plans. I really see it as death by cop. Zod was beaten and forced Superman to execute him. Superman has killed Zod before in the comics. Only it was after Zod had succeeded in murdering Earth's populace of 5 billion (this was in 1988) and was gloating he would do so again on a parallel Earth.

Last edited by AllStarEntprise; June 30 2013 at 01:55 PM.
AllStarEntprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
christopher nolan, man of steel, superman

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.