• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

Are silent films are actually the general audience? Yes, it must be so fun to see what wikipedia calls a romantic comedy-drama, without dialog. What is a "romantic comedy-drama" even supposed to be? I'm assuming thats just a fancy way of saying "chick flick". A french made, silent, black and white romance movie is definately an artsy movie, regardless of how much money it made. I may not have the most common tastes, but I refuse to believe that the average guy went and saw the Artist, atleast of their own free will. There is no way its a movie for the average person.

I picked up the DVD of THE ARTIST at our local small-town library in rural Pennsylvania. Trust me, there's not a lot of jaded art critics around here. And I'm pretty sure it was available via Redbox at the local grocery stores as well, alongside action movies and slasher flicks.

And, yes, nobody held a gun to my head. My girlfriend and I both saw THE ARTIST of our free will . . . and we genuinely enjoyed it. Why is that so hard to believe?

"Average" people may have broader tastes than you realize. It all depends on what you're in the mood for. Sometimes you feel like a comedy, sometimes you feel like a serious historical drama, sometimes you feel like an action flick, sometimes you feel like a fun, breezy return to the Silent Era.

To continue the culinary metaphor: Sure, you can always order the same thing every time you go out, because, hey, you know what you like. But why not try that new Ethiopian restaurant once in a while, just for variety's sake?

Heck, even "average" people go out for Indian or sushi sometimes, not just snobby restaurant critics! :)
 
Whatever. I'm not denying some people like it. This all just came from me barely mentioning it while taking a shot at awards from film snobs. I still say its that kind of movie. Its a silent film 80+ years (I mgith be wrong about how long, but I have to figure its around 80+ yeards since they left) after they were rendered irrelevant. There is a reason you don't see them anymore. It had a gimmick that critics liked, so it bevame famous.
 
So, uh....about the movie lol.

Anyone thinking about doing a midnight showing of this? This is right up there with STID in terms of anticipation.
 
Admiral Buzzkill said:
Not one of the guys who "slag off on women on the Internet," as you say, has ever been with anyone as attractive as the women they're criticizing. I guarantee you that.
They say that truth hurts. Sometimes it's just funny as hell. :guffaw:

Yeah, let's not just insult posters; let's drag everyone they've ever been out with as well. Should we insult their mothers next? Friends? Neighbours?
 
So, uh....about the movie lol.

Anyone thinking about doing a midnight showing of this? This is right up there with STID in terms of anticipation.

Up there with anticipation, hopefully not in disappointment.

I actually prefer now morning showings. So, I'll probably go Friday morning.

Hmmm morning showing....that's actually a pretty good idea. I might have to think about that.
 
So? I still know what superman is like (and I'd bet I've read/seen more with him than Snyder or Nolan). I don't need to have read every superman comic in the last 80 years to know what he's like. Moody, angsty, and having an earth Dad that tells him to let kids drown and having Jor El be some kind of fighter? Not superman. Bearded "hobo"? Not superman (outside of a hilarious looking silver age comic, apparently, and even then he didn't have a beard). He seriously looks like Christian bale's type of character in the bearded hobo clips, and all the clips look like generic dark superhero movie #456.

The Dark Man of Steel Rises just looks bad. Every clip makes it look worse. I haven't seen a superhero movie thats made me just shocked at how stupid it looked since Dark Knight Rises was showing tV spots/trailers. It will probably not be as bad as The dark Knight (I don't know if its possible to make a worse superhero movie than that) but its almost certainly going to suck. I'll admit that it is possible that it could be watchable (Snyder did direct a version of Watchman that I could sit through, even if the story still sucked) and its even possible it won't be as much of a Nolan superhero movie as I think, but it still looks like a bad superhero movie that will make Superman IV look like The Avengers.

OK, we get it. You're close minded and ignorant of how ignorant you are. You don't like the movie regardless of having seen it or not. You blame Nolan for things that you have no knowledge of. Have I got it all??

Now why don't you go find something to talk about that you like (if possible).:rolleyes:
 
Hmmm morning showing....that's actually a pretty good idea. I might have to think about that.

I'm not particularly old, but the idea of a midnight showing isn't as appealing anymore. Not with a baby in my life.

And the first show of the morning? Not crowded, and then, I have the rest of my day. It's a win for me.

Actually, I think the last midnight showing I went to was Superman Returns...
 
I used to love going to midnight showings, but then I got a job with regular hours that requires me to be in at six in the morning. Suddenly, midnight shows lost their appeal. Still, I'm going to go opening night with a couple of friends. I'm very excited.
 
The Dark Man of Steel Rises just looks bad. Every clip makes it look worse.

That's the problem....you think that is what this movie is going to be...but you're wrong and your hatred of Nolan will not even allow you to see this movie more objectively.
 
Wait a minute...General Zod's American, Superman's a Brit, and Ma Kent is hot? I don't know about this.... :p
 
The Dark Man of Steel Rises just looks bad. Every clip makes it look worse.

That's the problem....you think that is what this movie is going to be...but you're wrong and your hatred of Nolan will not even allow you to see this movie more objectively.
But I don't see how what Kirk is doing is that much different from people here who appear to me to be preparing to "love on" the movie no matter what, simply because it isn't Superman Returns and because Chris Nolan is behind it. This reminds me of how people prepared (and did) "love on" Batman Begins simply because it wasn't Batman and Robin and because Chris Nolan was directing.

If the movie does suck, and I am hopeful that it won't, the question in my mind is; how many of you folks will be willing to say so, here -- especially with old Kirk55555 ready to bring the, "I told you so" cannons online?
 
In fact, I'm not sure Ultimate Spider-Man even existed at the point that the script was written and the film was cast.

Ultimate Spider-Man started in 2000, Spider-Man came out in 2002, so unless they were filming for two years (and seeing as 9/11 caused a scene to get scraped thats very unlikely not to mention a Green Goblin suit that looks like the Ultimate Green Goblin design). So it did exist at that point and time.
Dunst and the rest of the leads for the film were announced in mid-to-late 2000. Which means the script probably existed in some form or another for quite a while before that.

(The first issue of Ultimate Spider-Man came out in October 2000)
 
Yes, it must be so fun to see what wikipedia calls a romantic comedy-drama, without dialog.

IIRC, I once read a comics pro who said (and he might've been referring to art submissions) that if an artist couldn't tell a story using ONLY pictures, then that person did not have what it took to be a comic artist. Film, like comics, is a VISUAL medium. You should be able to convey a story by nothing more than visuals. Sound is nothing more than an enhancement to the visuals. A film without sound is a silent movie. There is no such thing as a film without visuals. They call that "audio drama".

What is a "romantic comedy-drama" even supposed to be?

You seriously can't be struggling with this.

I'm assuming thats just a fancy way of saying "chick flick".

And you'd be wrong.

Again.

A french made, silent, black and white romance movie is definately an artsy movie,

Nope. It wasn't an "artsy" movie and your belief that it was tells me your actual experience with "artsy" movies is severely limited. All too often you speak and make judgements based on what you "think" something is, rather than actually "knowing" what something is.

The Artist was a fun, engaging, streamlined movie that required the audience actually pay attention while watching. It was a refreshing change of pace from the same old crap. While the director and two main leads were French, most everyone else outside of Malcolm McDowell was American.

John Goodman, James Cromwell, Missi Pyle, Penelope Ann Miller, Ed Lauter, Joel Murray (brother of Bill).

I may not have the most common tastes,

No, actually your tastes ARE quite common. You consider intelligent movies that break convention "snobbish" and you delude yourself into thinking that because you eschew pablum like "Transformers" while liking shallow sci-fi or super hero movies that you're above "what the masses like".

You're not.

You simply like a different brand of pablum. I've yet to see you like something that wasn't conventional or out of the ordinary. I see nothing more than the typical fanboy who wants to feel unique and out of the mainstream, but who rails against anything new and cannot brook taking an honest chance on something outside of a very small comfort zone. Hate to break it to you kid, sci-fi and super heroes are the mainstream these days. One need only look at the mountain of money made by both the Marvel films and Batman to get that.

but I refuse to believe that the average guy went and saw the Artist, atleast of their own free will. There is no way its a movie for the average person.

The Artist had more repeat viewings by me at the theater than any other movie I've seen. I saw it at different theaters with a wild diversity of audiences....And there were plenty of "average guys" at all the shows. You assume that because YOU aren't willing to try new things with an open mind that most people won't either. One of the amazing things about The Artist was watching the amount of people surprised at how much they enjoyed it.

Some had no idea going in that it was a silent movie and they still enjoyed it. I saw reactions from the audience months after the movie had been in the theaters that are usually reserved for opening day audiences for most movies. Especially the big scene near the end....a scene that simply could not have worked in a sound movie.

Your problem is that you place more value on thinking about things and patting yourself on the back for conclusions reached based on faulty or limited data instead of getting out there and experiencing things with an honest and open mind. From where I stand, you're about as common and mainstream as it gets.

But getting back on topic of Man Of Steel.....we get that you don't want to like the movie, and that you're looking for any reason to hate on it. We got it. At this point your posts on this subject have all the unpredictability and excitement of a straight line. I'd like to think that somewhere on this board is a subject you're actually enthused about and I know we'd all prefer to see you discuss something you're actually excited about rather than continue bleating on about a movie you haven't seen.
 
Okay, Superman smiling all to himself when he flies at super high speeds tells me that they finally got the character right.

Brandon Routh was all serious and concerned. Christopher Reeve didn't seem to have that much fun as well. But this new one actually seems to enjoy being super.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top