Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Apr 23, 2014 - 12:22 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Clark clearly does not get it either.
To talk about Chris Reeve being dead is totally missing the point.
Making a good Superman film that is less like the ones that Zack Snyder is making, and more like the classic the Richard Donner made is certainly possible with a new director, and it is possible without Christopher Reeve.
But is not to be with a hack like Snyder, who understands surprisingly little about entertainment and escapism for someone who is charged with handling movies with $250 million budgets. To use violence that speaks to the condition of the modern world and the use the angst of our destruction as 'entertainment' is foolishness, really not imaginative, or original. It is just plain not entertaining or fun. It is downbeat, downtrodden naval gazing narcissism masquerading as sophistication.
This faux sophistication, courtesy of Christopher Nolan in the recent Batman pictures and then these Superman pictures, is intellectual mickey mousing and really shallow. The relative financial success of these pictures certainly means more about the quality of the masses than the quality of these pictures.
Lots of pigs like troughs.



Excellent post.

 
 Posted:   Apr 23, 2014 - 12:50 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Clark clearly does not get it either.
To talk about Chris Reeve being dead is totally missing the point.
Making a good Superman film that is less like the ones that Zack Snyder is making, and more like the classic the Richard Donner made is certainly possible with a new director, and it is possible without Christopher Reeve.
But is not to be with a hack like Snyder, who understands surprisingly little about entertainment and escapism for someone who is charged with handling movies with $250 million budgets. To use violence that speaks to the condition of the modern world and the use the angst of our destruction as 'entertainment' is foolishness, really not imaginative, or original. It is just plain not entertaining or fun. It is downbeat, downtrodden naval gazing narcissism masquerading as sophistication.
This faux sophistication, courtesy of Christopher Nolan in the recent Batman pictures and then these Superman pictures, is intellectual mickey mousing and really shallow. The relative financial success of these pictures certainly means more about the quality of the masses than the quality of these pictures.
Lots of pigs like troughs.



Excellent post.


Ditto!

 
 Posted:   Apr 23, 2014 - 12:54 PM   
 By:   drop_forge   (Member)

Making a good Superman film that is less like the ones that Zack Snyder is making, and more like the classic the Richard Donner made is certainly possible with a new director, and it is possible without Christopher Reeve.

This was attempted already. It was called Superman Returns, it was directed by Bryan Singer (IMO, a hack, though he appears to be revered by many), who looked to cast Brandon Routh because he wanted a guy who resembled Reeve.

The film was a shameless ode that was more expensive than, and grossed less than, Man Of Steel. The writers reinterpreted scenes from the original Donner film, like the mid-air nighttime romance between Kal-el and Lois, with the only differences being the advanced state of computer-generated FX.

Luthor was the villain yet again, and we got to see Kumar (Kal Penn) nearly kill Superman with a kryptonite shiv. How exciting that was (that's sarcasm, just in case).

The film's single greatest flaw, however, is the basis that Superman, Earth's sworn custodian, would choose to abandon the planet to go on an intergalactic field trip. (Even Peter David said that was bullshit.)

The only people who have a problem with MoS, in my opinion, are relics, regardless of age. I'm a fortysomething myself, but I don't yearn for more plagiaristic odes to the Donner films. We had Phantom Zone villains decked out in S&M outfits already. The past can and should be acknowledged, but to unnecessarily perpetuate it is no advancement.

Lots of pigs like troughs.

And relics favor dust. Dense layers of it.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 23, 2014 - 8:02 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Thank you Octoberman and Solium

 
 Posted:   Apr 23, 2014 - 8:57 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

I don't know what it has to do with anything now, but what the heck was THIS ever about, then:

https://www.blastr.com/2013-6-27/did-snyder-sneak-christopher-reeve-cameo-man-steel

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 5:42 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

The only people who have a problem with MoS, in my opinion, are relics, regardless of age.

So, if you don't like Man of Steel for any reason, then you're a "relic?" Seriously?

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 6:19 AM   
 By:   random guy   (Member)

I don't know what it has to do with anything now, but what the heck was THIS ever about, then:

https://www.blastr.com/2013-6-27/did-snyder-sneak-christopher-reeve-cameo-man-steel


Was meant to be a passing of the torch moment from the way I understood it. And Mr. Forge great job making the bunch that actually liked MOS come as a such great people

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 6:59 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I don't know what it has to do with anything now, but what the heck was THIS ever about, then:

https://www.blastr.com/2013-6-27/did-snyder-sneak-christopher-reeve-cameo-man-steel


I don't see Christopher Reeves in that animation loop. I think its an optical illusion, wishful thinking or whatever.

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 7:29 AM   
 By:   drop_forge   (Member)

And Mr. Forge great job making the bunch that actually liked MOS come as a such great people

When you have people who openly dismiss moviegoers who actually liked the film as pigs in troughs, who may possess the worst taste imaginable (according to Ado and LeHah), it's a two-way street.

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 7:31 AM   
 By:   drop_forge   (Member)

I don't see Christopher Reeves in that animation loop. I think its an optical illusion, wishful thinking or whatever.

Reeve's visage is clearly visible right before the end of the loop.

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 7:41 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I don't see Christopher Reeves in that animation loop. I think its an optical illusion, wishful thinking or whatever.

Reeve's visage is clearly visible right before the end of the loop.


If someone can do an animated gif they can also show me the actual frame. I took the liberty of loading that gif into Photoshop and looked at each frame. Reeves image is not in that loop. People see what they want to see I guess.

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 8:10 AM   
 By:   drop_forge   (Member)

I don't see Christopher Reeves in that animation loop. I think its an optical illusion, wishful thinking or whatever.

Reeve's visage is clearly visible right before the end of the loop.


If someone can do an animated gif they can also show me the actual frame. I took the liberty of loading that gif into Photoshop and looked at each frame. Reeves image is not in that loop. People see what they want to see I guess.


Or maybe you're in denial. wink

http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/img.news/NEhnoSfpvezzkn_1_1.jpg

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 8:20 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I don't see Christopher Reeves in that animation loop. I think its an optical illusion, wishful thinking or whatever.

Reeve's visage is clearly visible right before the end of the loop.


If someone can do an animated gif they can also show me the actual frame. I took the liberty of loading that gif into Photoshop and looked at each frame. Reeves image is not in that loop. People see what they want to see I guess.


Or maybe you're in denial. wink

http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/img.news/NEhnoSfpvezzkn_1_1.jpg


If that's Reeves face I'm a monkeys uncle! I suppose they could have superimposed Reeves image over Cavill's then mashed the two together. In reality it's neither Reeves or Cavill's face in one frame. That I can sort of believe, but it's a stretch. wink

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 8:25 AM   
 By:   drop_forge   (Member)

It's better to look at the penultimate frame in the loop. It's clearly Reeve.

 
 Posted:   Apr 24, 2014 - 9:17 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

I don't know what it has to do with anything now, but what the heck was THIS ever about, then:

https://www.blastr.com/2013-6-27/did-snyder-sneak-christopher-reeve-cameo-man-steel


Was meant to be a passing of the torch moment from the way I understood it.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3IQF_A6m4c

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.