^^^
Or he'd say, "I'm going to need a bigger boat."
Or he'd say, "I'm going to need a bigger boat."
I still haven't seen ASM. Basically, I was happy with the Raimi movies despite the third's let down (and it still wasn't THAT bad) and had no desire to see a rebooted Spider-Man. Raimi loved the comics and it showed in the final product. I am sure I will watch ASM on television sometime, but preferred to spend my money elsewhere.
I was really excited at the idea of an edgier and more sophisticated interpretation of Spidey... but the final product ended up feeling like just a dull and generic rehash of the first Raimi movie unfortunately.
Although I did really like Garfield and Stone, so as long as the sequel has a better story (and better villains) I think it'll make up for much of the disappointment with the first movie.
^^^
Or he'd say, "I'm going to need a bigger boat."
Tim Burton had almost nothing to do with Batman Forever. He had one story meeting with Schumacher and that was it. His producer credit was a mutual face-saving thing for him and the studio to help ease the transition in the franchise.(And yeah I know Tim Burton helped produce Batman Forever as well, but I don't think that was really meant to be a whole new Batman like they're doing here)
That's a longer way of saying exactly what I said: he's dead. Yeah, he can be brought back at some point if a writer decides to bring him back (a writer can just as easily bring Zod from MoS back through some explanation about the effects of the yellow sun healing even a broken neck over time... or cloning... or some other contrivance), but for the purposes of the story we're watching, the villain is dead now.No, the rule of thumb is that he's presumed to be effectively dead for the purposes of that particular story, but can easily turn up alive in a later episode or sequel. Many archvillains make a habit of turning up alive after seemingly unambiguous deaths, such as Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the Joker, and MacGyver's archnemesis Murdoc.
Sure, but not too many years, otherwise it'll be hard for the sequel to deal with the aftermath.And the scene that followed was clearly a time-jump to some point in the future, probably days or weeks later.
Given the Hiroshima-scale level of destruction in Metropolis, it would've realistically been more like years later. Neither the city nor its inhabitants could return to anything resembling normality in mere weeks.
I didn't see it as a flaw or a failure at all. I didn't need to see people coping with the aftermath, because we already saw that represented by Perry White and co. struggling to survive and help each other. I didn't need to see first responders and newscasts and reconstruction, or whatever else dealing with the aftermath would entail. We already know what all that looks like. 9-11 wasn't that long ago.For all you know, his actions will still be haunting him in 2015's Superman/Batman film. It may haunt him, and it may worry Batman, and that may influence the way they interact.
They'd better, and Goyer has suggested that the sequel will deal with the aftermath. But that doesn't make MoS's failure to address the aftermath any less of a flaw where that film itself is concerned.
Just to be more clear, I'm referring to the Insurgency version from the comic book series, not from the game. In the game, it looks too bulky to me. The comic book version is probably the best batsuit i've ever seen.I'd be happy with the "Injustice: Gods Among Us" bat suit.I wonder if they'll dust off the Weta designs for Batman from Justice League: Mortal and go for the very high tech look Weta reportedly came up with.
Which one, the Insurgency Batman or the regular Batman?
^^^^^
But it would have been nice to see a couple minutes of Superman helping to rebuild the city. A short montage of him pulling survivors from the rubble, reuniting families, and cleaning the damage or lending a hand to reconstruction would have gone a long way to showing us the Superman we know--the one who spends most of his time helping people rather than just fighting crime.
^^^^^
But it would have been nice to see a couple minutes of Superman helping to rebuild the city. A short montage of him pulling survivors from the rubble, reuniting families, and cleaning the damage or lending a hand to reconstruction would have gone a long way to showing us the Superman we know--the one who spends most of his time helping people rather than just fighting crime.
I have no problem assuming that Superman did help out, once he finally collected himself after the killing of Zod. And we saw plenty of him helping people out earlier in the movie, so I don't think we really needed further proof of that.
I think the bigger issue is just with the level of destruction itself. It didn't bother me nearly as much as it did others, but it does raise some questions. And it make the shift in tone later on feel more than a little jarring.
I was actually glad NOT to see that. Before the last scene, I was assuming I was going to see a retread of the end of Superman II (where Superman symbolically started rebuilding the White House with the flag). I was thinking it would take me out of the movie as much as Spock screaming "KHAAAAN!" took me out of Into Darkness. I was relieved when it didn't happen.^^^^^
But it would have been nice to see a couple minutes of Superman helping to rebuild the city. A short montage of him pulling survivors from the rubble, reuniting families, and cleaning the damage or lending a hand to reconstruction would have gone a long way to showing us the Superman we know--the one who spends most of his time helping people rather than just fighting crime.
I was actually glad NOT to see that. Before the last scene, I was assuming I was going to see a retread of the end of Superman II (where Superman symbolically started rebuilding the White House with the flag). I was thinking it would take me out of the movie as much as Spock screaming "KHAAAAN!" took me out of Into Darkness. I was relieved when it didn't happen.^^^^^
But it would have been nice to see a couple minutes of Superman helping to rebuild the city. A short montage of him pulling survivors from the rubble, reuniting families, and cleaning the damage or lending a hand to reconstruction would have gone a long way to showing us the Superman we know--the one who spends most of his time helping people rather than just fighting crime.
The one thing I do wish they'd done differently was have Superman try to rescue a few more civilians in the midst of the battle. But I forgive that because his decision to end Zod when he did was ALL about saving that one family (not to mention the entire human race).
The one thing I do wish they'd done differently was have Superman try to rescue a few more civilians in the midst of the battle. But I forgive that because his decision to end Zod when he did was ALL about saving that one family (not to mention the entire human race).
Let's assume this is true and does happen - how do you do such a film?
Of course, the director forgot that this family was even there in all subsequent shots of that bus terminal. The family wasn't important. We don't even see a reaction or a thank you from them. The family was a plot contrivance.
Of course, the director forgot that this family was even there in all subsequent shots of that bus terminal. The family wasn't important. We don't even see a reaction or a thank you from them. The family was a plot contrivance.
Because the focus at the end was on Superman's grief, as it should have been. It was a hugely important moment, and to cut away from that to the family would have just been weird and distracting.
That's coming too.Let's assume this is true and does happen - how do you do such a film?
To be honest I would prefer to see an ensemble Justice League movie than just Batman and Superman. I'm not saying the movie will be bad but that would have excited me more. What I liked about Avengers wasn't just when my favorite heroes were on the screens but seeing the lot of them interact and advance in the plot.
My comment was more about Filmmaking 101. If something is in a scene, it shouldn't disappear when it goes to a wide shot and all subsequent shots.Of course, the director forgot that this family was even there in all subsequent shots of that bus terminal. The family wasn't important. We don't even see a reaction or a thank you from them. The family was a plot contrivance.
Because the focus at the end was on Superman's grief, as it should have been. It was a hugely important moment, and to cut away from that to the family would have just been weird and distracting.
They're the big two, and the two of them encountering each other deserves an entire film.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.