Man of Steel
Options
Comments
-
soul rattler wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »I see what broddie is saying. It's the difference between "villian" and "antagonist". Loki was an antagonist, a lieutenant of sorts, serving someone else's greater purpose. That's a nuance about movie series that alot of people get hung up on. They treat every movie like it's the finale and get upset if things aren't completely explained.
The fact that Loki will be supposedly recruited by Thor to help in Avengers 2 proves that he was simply an antagonizer and not a villian. Hopefully, if Thanos' role is reprised, we will see him as the true villian of the Avengers series.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. You don't revoke a characters villain status because you see in a 30 second cut scene at the end of the movie that they are working for someone else. Everything we see done in the movie was done by Loki. All Thanos and his henchman did was provide the army. It was Loki that stole the tesseract, weakened Shield and the Avengers while implementing his plan, and led the army in the invasion. Him not being the ultimate "Big Bad" in an extended storyline doesn't mean he wasn't the villain in this one piece of that storyline.
And because a villain is turned in a future story doesn't mean he wasn't a villain in a previous story. Vegeta was a villain in the Saiyan saga. He was a villain in the Frieza saga. He was neutral in the Cell saga. And he showed traits of villainy and heroism in the Buu saga with heroism ultimately winning out. Just because at the end of the series he's a bona fide hero doesn't mean he wan't just as purely a villain in the Saiyan saga.
Vegeta was shown to be more of an enigma than a villian. He explicitly identified himself as just Freiza's lil ? , AFTER we were told of Freiza's existance and rank over others. Vegeta went from pure antagonist to anti-hero. It's a matter of being patient enough to let the storyline unfold.
Come on man. You're trying to pick and choose the parts of the story you want in order to define the character a certain way. DBZ came in sagas, so it's easy to look at each one of those and make a decision about a character.
Saiyan Saga - Vegeta and Nappa come to Earth. They want to get the Dragon ? so they can become immortal and they are willing to ? whoever stands in their way. When Nappa gets beaten Vegeta kills him for his failure. When Vegeta is then overpowered, he attempts to destroy the entire planet. All of that is villainous behavior.
Freiza Saga - Vegeta is still trying to get the Dragon ? for his own selfish goals. He is also still killing innocent people to further those goals. He ends up joining with the heroes, but that's only because he realizes he stands no chance of winning alone. It is made pretty clear though that once he gets what he wants, he'll have no problem killing the heroes and other villains alike. This is still villainous behavior.
Android/Cell Saga - With Freiza gone, Vegeta is no longer obsessed with gaining immortality and revenge. Now he simply wants to reclaim his position as the most powerful Saiyan. Everything he does in this saga is to that end. He doesn't fight the Androids and Cell because he wants to save the world. He doesn't give a ? about the world. He demonstrates that by letting Cell attain his perfect form. All Vegeta wants to do is establish himself as the greatest warrior in the universe, and he doesn't really care what he has to do to make that happen. He doesn't really do anything villainous, but he doesn't display any heroic traits either. He's also not an anti-hero because he's not attempting to do good in a not so good way. He's still motivated by his own selfishness and it just so happens that fighting on the side of the heroes is the easiest way to accomplish his own desires.
Buu Saga - Vegeta basically reverts to being a villain here temporarily. At first he seems to be one of the good guys, but then he goes and kills a bunch of people just to get what he truly wants, a rematch with Goku. We're initially led to believe that it's done because he's under Babidi's control, but he himself clears that up and let's us know that he was actually in control the whole time. Once again, killing a bunch of innocent people just to accomplish your own selfish goals is a villainous act. Now, after that he does sacrifice himself in an effort to save the people around him and the world in general. That's a heroic act. And in the end after being resurrected, he finally gives up on his obsession with beating Goku and allows himself to take the ass whooping of a life time in order to give Goku a chance to beat Buu. And from there it's basically implied that he has become a true and lasting hero.
So basically Vegeta went from being a villainous ? to a plain old ? back to a villainous ? and finally a hero at the end. -
...and it's the SAME character being written by the SAME writers on the SAME show. It's a creative writing tool called 'continuity', so characters don't get repetitive, predictable, dull, and ultimately stereotypical. That's what makes Wolverine, Hulk, Vegeta, and other atypical characters compelling. There's more to them than what you'd expect someone in their position would say or do.
I'm not even saying Loki is going to become a hero in Avengers 2. I'm saying that he's not a bad guy for bad guy's sake. That's what a villian is, and Loki, in Avengers movie, was not a villian. Zod too.The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »I see what broddie is saying. It's the difference between "villian" and "antagonist". Loki was an antagonist, a lieutenant of sorts, serving someone else's greater purpose. That's a nuance about movie series that alot of people get hung up on. They treat every movie like it's the finale and get upset if things aren't completely explained.
The fact that Loki will be supposedly recruited by Thor to help in Avengers 2 proves that he was simply an antagonizer and not a villian. Hopefully, if Thanos' role is reprised, we will see him as the true villian of the Avengers series.
I'm sorry but that's just not true. You don't revoke a characters villain status because you see in a 30 second cut scene at the end of the movie that they are working for someone else. Everything we see done in the movie was done by Loki. All Thanos and his henchman did was provide the army. It was Loki that stole the tesseract, weakened Shield and the Avengers while implementing his plan, and led the army in the invasion. Him not being the ultimate "Big Bad" in an extended storyline doesn't mean he wasn't the villain in this one piece of that storyline.
And because a villain is turned in a future story doesn't mean he wasn't a villain in a previous story. Vegeta was a villain in the Saiyan saga. He was a villain in the Frieza saga. He was neutral in the Cell saga. And he showed traits of villainy and heroism in the Buu saga with heroism ultimately winning out. Just because at the end of the series he's a bona fide hero doesn't mean he wan't just as purely a villain in the Saiyan saga.
Vegeta was shown to be more of an enigma than a villian. He explicitly identified himself as just Freiza's lil ? , AFTER we were told of Freiza's existance and rank over others. Vegeta went from pure antagonist to anti-hero. It's a matter of being patient enough to let the storyline unfold.
Come on man. You're trying to pick and choose the parts of the story you want in order to define the character a certain way. DBZ came in sagas, so it's easy to look at each one of those and make a decision about a character.
Saiyan Saga - Vegeta and Nappa come to Earth. They want to get the Dragon ? so they can become immortal and they are willing to ? whoever stands in their way. When Nappa gets beaten Vegeta kills him for his failure. When Vegeta is then overpowered, he attempts to destroy the entire planet. All of that is villainous behavior.
Freiza Saga - Vegeta is still trying to get the Dragon ? for his own selfish goals. He is also still killing innocent people to further those goals. He ends up joining with the heroes, but that's only because he realizes he stands no chance of winning alone. It is made pretty clear though that once he gets what he wants, he'll have no problem killing the heroes and other villains alike. This is still villainous behavior.
Android/Cell Saga - With Freiza gone, Vegeta is no longer obsessed with gaining immortality and revenge. Now he simply wants to reclaim his position as the most powerful Saiyan. Everything he does in this saga is to that end. He doesn't fight the Androids and Cell because he wants to save the world. He doesn't give a ? about the world. He demonstrates that by letting Cell attain his perfect form. All Vegeta wants to do is establish himself as the greatest warrior in the universe, and he doesn't really care what he has to do to make that happen. He doesn't really do anything villainous, but he doesn't display any heroic traits either. He's also not an anti-hero because he's not attempting to do good in a not so good way. He's still motivated by his own selfishness and it just so happens that fighting on the side of the heroes is the easiest way to accomplish his own desires.
Buu Saga - Vegeta basically reverts to being a villain here temporarily. At first he seems to be one of the good guys, but then he goes and kills a bunch of people just to get what he truly wants, a rematch with Goku. We're initially led to believe that it's done because he's under Babidi's control, but he himself clears that up and let's us know that he was actually in control the whole time. Once again, killing a bunch of innocent people just to accomplish your own selfish goals is a villainous act. Now, after that he does sacrifice himself in an effort to save the people around him and the world in general. That's a heroic act. And in the end after being resurrected, he finally gives up on his obsession with beating Goku and allows himself to take the ass whooping of a life time in order to give Goku a chance to beat Buu. And from there it's basically implied that he has become a true and lasting hero.
So basically Vegeta went from being a villainous ? to a plain old ? back to a villainous ? and finally a hero at the end.
-
shiiiit i do...if the general consensus is that a movie is trash it saves me 20 bucksdarkone360 wrote: »Seriously, who in here actually cares what a critic think?
-
The new 52 take on Supes is really good. Theres an actual focus on one of his more understated abilities...his genius level intellect. Theres a great confrontation between lex and he during the h'el on earth storyline relating to it.
The new suit is awesome too -
soul rattler wrote: »...and it's the SAME character being written by the SAME writers on the SAME show. It's a creative writing tool called 'continuity', so characters don't get repetitive, predictable, dull, and ultimately stereotypical. That's what makes Wolverine, Hulk, Vegeta, and other atypical characters compelling. There's more to them than what you'd expect someone in their position would say or do.
I'm not even saying Loki is going to become a hero in Avengers 2. I'm saying that he's not a bad guy for bad guy's sake. That's what a villian is, and Loki, in Avengers movie, was not a villian. Zod too.
You don't have to be pure unrepentant evil to be a villain. Magneto plays the role of a villain regularly, but his motivations are understandable. Damn near every villain in Naruto has some backstory that makes them relateable. That doesn't change the fact that they are villains. You seem to think that 1-D evil for evil's sake characters are the only ones that can be considered villains. That's not true. By definition, a villain is just a character dedicated to wickedness or crime. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »
shiiiit i do...if the general consensus is that a movie is trash it saves me 20 bucksdarkone360 wrote: »Seriously, who in here actually cares what a critic think?
20 though? I hope thats including the ticket and a ton of ? from concessions stand, cause $20 just to see a movie is robbery. -
$20?? Its a little word called matinee, use that ? .
People taking this movie and not looking for it to tie into the next film.
The destruction and the death of Zod will be points of emphasis in the next film I guarantee you.
He's a young, naive and doesn't truly realize/understand he power possesses.
I liked the action because it showed how much a novice he was.
He wasn't thinking about the people he was just thinking they were a threat and needed to be stopped.
Supes caring about where fights will definitely come in time.
Like I said on my last post you didn't really get a sense of danger with what happened in the Avengers.
Its like these things just showed up and started wrecking ? .
In MoS you knew the reasoning behind Zods action even tho he was crazy that's something that resonated with the audience.
I feel that's what MoS has over the Avengers. Is it a better film? I honestly don't know I have to watch Avengers again to remember.
I do know Oh girl that played Faora was looking good tho.
That evil broad could get the super ? -
this movie was the ? ? and I have zero complaints. In fact, no disrespect to my fellow moviegoer but this will be my new measuring stick for whether I can take a person's opinion on movies seriously or not. I mean, what dafuq else did people want? people just complain for the sake of being miserable and complaining. ya'll might not agree with me but IMO this movie just took a giant ? on the superhero/comic book movie genre. this the movie Superman deserves. this movie is for the people and the fans. ? a critic and ? a fake ass fan just looking to hate on the low because they know deep down WB, DC, Snyder and Nolan just came through and gave fans the new GOAT.
watch out for the sequel because its fixin to be the new Dark Knight like Man of Steel is the new Batman Begins.. Luthor and Brainiac just imagine that ? . Been rackin my brain about who gonna play Luthor.. what ya'll think about Brad Pitt? Leo? Mark Wahlberg? (no really, think about that ? for a second, would be explosive and hilarious) Matt Damon? maann.. now that I think about it Heath Ledger would have been a perfect Lex Luthor -
Not a Superman fan at all but I thought Man of Steel was a good movie.
-
A.J. Trillzynski wrote: »now that I think about it Heath Ledger would have been a perfect Lex Luthor
I have to go back in the archives and see what the initial reaction was on the IC when it was announced that Heath Ledger would be playing our beloved Mister J. I bet ? lost their ? minds considering that he had just came off of doing this ? :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVK6yLqY54w
NO MUTHAFUCKIN' ? !
-
Superman has always been underrated by people thinking that he is some kind of boy scout that is predictable.
-
I still say john hamm or michael c hall for Lex.
-
joseph sun wrote: »too much krypton and jor-el
his earth parents should of been more inspirational in him becoming superman then his biological ones
lois lane was poorly casted
his dad dying (kent) was corny
it felt kinda matrix especially when supes fought that spaceship
im glad he killed zod though because I don't wanna see him in the sequel
daily planet should of been a tv stations affiliates news because news papers are dead
I don't like the suit... should of been earth made
MoS was dope. It made Superman look like a legit traitor to his people and made him not look like a hero. Also liked that the general public called Superman an alien and was cared of him and his raw power.
-
Are they really dropping another superman movie next year?
-
Thats what the rumors say. i think thats a little crazy tho, im pretty sure cavill already signed on to do different movies.
-
THIS MOVIE WAS WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BETTER THAN DARKKNIGHT
AND SUPER DUPER WAYYYYYYYY BETTER THAN THAT LAST IRONMAN BULLSHYT! -
right now there are no plans for another supes, its a a one and done deal. wb said if it can make 750 milli those plans could change
-
DELETE
-
no, theyre working on putting a sequel for 2014. Definitely dont see it as a summer 2014 though. Maybe Christmas, which is good. They'll be able to do a more serious flick maybe.
This article drops a LOT of good info on what a sequel might have.
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/goyer--superman-could-tackle-arab-spring-in-man-of-steel-sequel-155425621.html
Goyer: Superman could tackle Arab Spring in Man of Steel sequel
Inevitable sequel for Man of Steel could also feature Bill Gates-style Lex Luthor.
By Orlando Parfitt | Yahoo UK Movies Features – 9 hours ago
Email
Share9
Print
With vast box office numbers already (£144 million and counting… after five days), new superman flick ‘Man of Steel’ is surely the start of a new franchise.
But what can we expect from ‘Man of Steel 2’? Along with two other UK sites, Yahoo! chatted to writer David S. Goyer on the eve of the film’s release to pick his brains about the future of Superman.
[Man of Steel damage to New York would cost $750 billion]
*Warning: Some spoilers below*
Issues... How would Superman deal with real world problems? (Credit: Warner Bros.)
Real world problems
Supes’ antagonist in ‘Man of Steel’ is fellow Kryptonian General Zod. But for ‘Part 2’, the villain could be someone, or something, closer to home and far more grounded in reality. Talking about making the character relevant again, Goyer hinted at the uniquely 21st century issues facing Superman, such as social media, private military corporations and drones.
“I think that the challenge for us moving forward is how to depict Superman in a world like this,” he said. “Could he solve hunger in the horn of Africa? What would he do with the Arab Spring, what would he do with Syria? Partly you could argue, how could he NOT intervene in Syria? But then, is it a hornet’s nest if he intervenes? Does he have the wherewithal, or the knowledge, to intervene in things like this? It’s easier for Batman, he exists in his own pocket of the world, he’s not violating sovereign airspace everyday.” Intriguing stuff.
Lex Luthor... Gene Hackman as the classic Superman villain (Credit: Warner Bros.)
A new Lex Luthor
One earth-bound character who seems a safe bet to appear in a sequel is Lex Luthor. Goyer and director Zack Snyder worked several references to the evil genius into the movie, but the writer thinks a ‘Man of Steel’ Lex would be “very different” to the Gene Hackman version from the Richard Donner movies. “This is a Bill Gates-like-Lex, who is probably worth 60-70 billion dollars,” said Goyer.
[First trailer for Lego Movie features Batman and Superman]
Man Of Steel could set up the return of the Dark Knight (Credit: Warner Bros.)
A gateway to other DC movies
There’s also a cheeky shot of a ‘Wayne Enterprises’ satellite in the film, along with a mention of S.T.A.R. Lab (a research facility in the comics). It was obvious early on that ‘Man of Steel’ would - the studio hopes - usher in a new wave of DC comics movies to rival the far more successful Marvel franchise, but how this’ll work is only just becoming clear.
“It was our hope that [‘Man of Steel] would be the ‘zero issue’, that from this point onwards possible films would expand into a shared universe,” said Goyer. “In the ‘Man of Steel’ world, there might be other [DC] characters out there. There are other superheroes in that world, but I don’t know that they’ve come forward. They might be helping people but they don’t have costumes, and when Superman announces himself to the world, he’s the one that changes things.”
If the public accepts their version of Superman, Goyer argues, then they have a tone for a shared universe moving forward, a “DC world that is slightly more grounded”.
Keeping quiet... Superman's secret identity could prove tricky (Credit: Warner Bros.)
Secret keepers
The final thorny issue Goyer and co. will have to deal with in the sequel is Superman’s “disguise” – i.e. a pair of specs - an idea the writer said is “ludicrous”. ‘Man of Steel’s origin story manages to mostly sidestep the issue, but it’ll have to be confronted next time said the writer.
The conceit that Lois Lane can’t work out who Superman is has also been ditched here. “Lois [is] one of the secret keepers,” he said. There are several other people from the film who may know who the character actually is, including Daily Planet editor Perry White – which could make Clark Kent’s first day at work interesting. “We’re gonna have to go through some story gymnastics if we move the story forward,” he admits.
-
I hope they come up with a better title than Man of Steel 2. That's what I liked about Nolan's Batman movies, it wasn't just Batman 1, Batman 2, and Batman 3, they gave them different titles, and only The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises were similar titles.
-
definitely wont have 2 in the title.
I could see them taking a nickname from the comics for Superman (The Man of Tomorrow) or from a storyline (Superman:Godfall). hell even Superman: ? Among Us sounds bad ass -
nomuthafuckinsignDROSAIN_BOLT wrote: »THIS MOVIE WAS WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BETTER THAN DARKKNIGHT
comuthafuckinsignDROSAIN_BOLT wrote: »AND SUPER DUPER WAYYYYYYYY BETTER THAN THAT LAST IRONMAN BULLSHYT!
-
i can post the article from USA TODAY from a few days before the movie from WB studio heads, aint no sequel its all rumors, they specifically said 750 milli is the magic number for them to consider another
-
I always thought it was stupid if you haven't seen the movie but you're in the thread about it.
Anyways, great movie. In my top 5 of comic book movies. -
Enjoyed this movie. Liked the way they kept the main story going while still blending the origins of the characters.
R.I.P. Superman Returns .......... the franchise has been redeemed
