Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Obiwanshinobi, Jan 30, 2011.
^That review sounds very encouraging...and has a ring of authenticity to it.
All of this talk about The Artist has convinced me to finally watch it. I've been curious about it ever since I saw the reactions it go when it was in theaters, but I never got a chance. I honestly thought it was great when I heard that it was silent. I love it when people take a chance and do something different. The fact that someone said it was the done by the same guy who the most recent OSS117 movie has been pretty confident because I really liked those?
Kirk55555 have you ever even tried any silent movies? If not you should seriously check out Metropolis, it's a great sci-fi movie with some impressive visual effects and a good story.
I used to be like you, but then I actually tried some foreign movies and indie movies, and I now really like them. You really don't need big budget effect or big actions scenes to make a good movie. All you need is a good story, and some talented people to bring that story to life.
Wow, that's a very encouraging read. But of course, so far everything I've read about the film sounds great. I cannot wait for it to come out.
This is true. For example, I went to see a play with Kenneth Branagh last year. On tv and films, I'd always thought he was a good actor but not necessarily the most charismatic type. But when he walks onto a stage, he OWNS it. Totally fills the room. My wife and a few female acquaintances and friends who saw the play were all of the view that they'd never found him attractive onscreen but WOW, in person, different story....
I would be willing to say so. When Nolan was first announced as a producer on this film, I was very curious to see how it would turn out. When Snyder was announced as the director, I lost all interest; of his previous films that I've seen, I haven't liked any of them. When the first trailer came out, my interest was ignited again and made me start thinking that my concerns over Snyder might be unfounded.
At this point, I'm pretty solidly looking forward to the film, but if it ends up disappointing me it won't be difficult to admit (though I will be sad that it did so).
I really looked forward to Star Trek into darkness but didn't like the film - so I can't see this being any different. Looking forward to something isn't the same as uncritically accepting it once you have the full finished product to think about.
This and this again.
I'm more than happy to say that it sucks if it sucks. But, I don't think it's going to suck. Of course, I thought that way about Star Trek Into Darkness and Skyfall before I saw them... so...
Dare I admit that the Universal Monster buff in me was really looking forward to Van Helsing?
Alas, that didn't pan out so well . . .
I don't neccessarily need big budgets or anything, i just have certain types of films I like. I just can't even consider watching a silent film. Its completely unappealing. I'd lose my mind in the first ten minutes, even if it was a type more appealing than a romance movie like The Artist. Indie movies just aren't for me, either. Whenever I hear of one, it always seems to have some stupid/bizarre story that wouldn't work as a normal movie anyway, which is why its "indie". I've seen a few foreign movies (some horror movies, and one or two random movies) and while I'm willing to watch one if it sounds interesting, its not a type of movie I usually consider watching. My comment about The Artist was not meant to cause any problems, it was just a shot at weird films that win awards. I never thought it would be defended probably more than Man of Steel or that it would start a big thing. I guess I underestimated how many people liked a movie with no dialog in 2013, at least on this site. It never even crossed my mind that anyone would pay any attention to a comment about it.
Honestly, I don't even hate Nolan all that much any more, in a general sense. His superhero work is crap and he sucks when it comes to that, but after really liking Memento and Inception, I've been forced to admit that he's not a horrible director/writer/etc, he just can't do superhero movies (and probably any movie with an already established character). In that genre, he's sucked and made the worst movies in the superhero genre ever, even including stuff like Catwoman and Fantastic Four 2.
But, he can make a good movie, just not with superheroes. He's not like JJ abrams, who I do hate in general and wish would just stop ruining my favorite sci Fi. I'd be as open minded about an interesting sounding Nolan film that has nothing to do with superheroes as most people are about movies in general. He can make good non-superhero movies, and he can make bad. I'll never be a fan really, and there was a time where I considered him just like JJ abrams and thought everything he did was something i'd despise, but at this point if its not involving superheroes, I can (and probably will be) open minded about his movies, as long as they don't have a completely ridiculous premise. Man of Steel obviously is a type of nolan movie that is set up for me to hate it, and the trailers and TV spots do nothing but support my idea that it will be horrible. That said, if it actually turned out to be something I liked I'd admit it, but I just don't think there is the slightest chance of that.
Just curious, how old are you?
Did you see the featurette? It shows we are not getting the Hobo Superman or the emo Superman you once thought.
What would it take to opne your mind?
The only thing that has me a bit nervous from these trailers is the amount of superspeed CG action. Even if the CG is the best it could possibly be... it still just looks fake and unnatural to see people moving around that fast (and unfortunatley reminds me a bit too much of the videogame-style CG in the Matrix movies).
I can only hope it'll look much more believable in the context of the movie...
That's because it is unusual to see people reacting and moving that fast That's one of the thing that impressed me when they first showed the super speed. Is it perfect CG? No, but it's pretty damned cool looking to me
That is one of the things I like about this movie, how they can depict superspeed. I think it looks very good. It is one of the things that bothered me about the Reeves movies. Due to where technology was at the time they really couldn't show superman moving at fast speeds.
I love it: super-speed would look fake no matter how it's done, or nerfing Superman's powers for a film isn't faithful to the comics.
I thought they did a pretty good job realizing it, whether it was him spinning down into Lex's lair, or flying around the Earth to reverse time. It didn't show up during the battles, but that didn't bother me, and I can't say I really missed it.
I mean, for me the junkyard battle in SIII wouldn't have been nearly as cool if Clark and Evil Supes were zipping around each other like cartoon characters the entire time. I think you would have lost a lot of the menace and tension in the scene.
I didn't know about that featurette, but it doesn't change anything. None of the people in it were neccessarily being honest. They're just trying to sell the movie, they'll say whatever they are told to say.
The featurette just makes it worse, it looks more like the horrible Nolan Batman movies to me now. Everything they said sounds like Nolan's Batman. I watched it all, and all it did was make me hate this movie more than I already did. I just wanted to see someone punch everyone in that featurette. The whole anti-underwear thing almost made me scream. They're all morons. All the pics of the kryptonians look like a blind person made their costumes. They look stupider than the Guardians in the Green Lantern movie, and they had clear heads and robes that were about 20 feet long.
They also showed Russel Crowe "armor up" like he's freaking Iron Man. The pics of Krypton make it seem like they all live in caves, because thats exactly where you move to if you have any kind of technology, dank looking caves with no devices or technology visible. Don't forget to have everything look dark and be painted grey. Also, he may not technically be "Hobo clark" but he is exactly what I said, an agsty a-hole looking to "find himself", which one of the people outright said. They showed the Johnathon Kent wants kids to drown scene, because that just screams superman. Also, Amy Adams is as bland as I thought she was, she looks like an extra. She was kind of annoying me in her few c"interview" clips in the featurette, but most actors are annoying when they're being told to sell their movie. I hope she has a lot of personality, or she'll be a pretty forgettable Lois at best. So, overall, the featurette disproved nothing, enhanced the things I hate from what we've seen so far, and actually showed more horrible things. I'm also now convinced that Snyder is an a-hole. It could probably only be worse if Zod had a goofy voice like Bane. Its surprising that, even at this late date, they can still show new things that make me hate this movie more.
22 years old
Don't the Kryptonians in the Donner Superman live in crystal caves? The FOS in the Donnerverse is a basically a cave.
Not sure that the problem with Jor-el wearing Kryptonian armor is. In the old comics he wears a superhero suit. In the other films he wears robes.
Was is it important to open up his mind? He's made a decision. His decision to make.
Separate names with a comma.