 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2013 - 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I really don't have a pulse on this film. It could be different enough, dark enough to attract an audience.
While "Into Darkness" will never make it's money back, it made a lot more than it would have, if it was presented as a "fun sci fi space romp".
Of course "Avengers" came the year before, and was a colossal hit. It's context and mood more in tune with Star Wars (77).
Bottom line, ppl could be burnt out on "dark".
yeah, Solium, for me I saw Thor as a lot of fun, there was a nemesis there, but it was lighthearted and fun. Then I saw the trailer for Thor2 and Man of Steel when I saw Into Darkness and I thought both of those seemed to discouragingly dark and not fun at all.
I think that Nolan and the last few Harry Potter films might have squeezed the last few ounces out of the audience out here. I was glad that the last Spiderman was less dark, and Captain America had a more comedic banter along side the battle stuff. I was one of the few that found Avengers lacking, on paper it ticks the right boxes, but it never hung together as one whole piece of material for me. I think that there were too many characters in Avengers, and that alien stuff just did not convince me.
After the second viewing Into Darkness come across a little less dark than it is sold as. It has a violence to it that was a little over the top though.
In any case, they basically were forced by court order to move Man of Steel into production by a certain date, so it suffered here even though they spent a lot, the story is lacking and they should have picked a different director than Snyder. He always wants his picture tilted dark and somber and sort of odd. I am speculating that America had the fill with tormented dark hero in Batman, I know that I did. The accomplishment of the original Superman is that it had joy and wonder along side conventional battle of an enemy, I cannot see this one being that way from these two reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2013 - 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
The review from Forbes. Pretty harsh.
Review: 'Man Of Steel' Fails To Take Flight
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/06/11/review-man-of-steel-never-takes-flight/
After seeing Man Of Steel, I’m still not entirely sure what Chris Nolan’s “big idea” for Superman was. The film is less a mythic story and more a propulsive study in consistent movement, in a way that will remind people of J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek films. But while those often weakly-scripted action pictures are saved by the chemistry of their cast and a periodic sense of adventure, no such miracles occur here. The film lacks the very things we expect from a Superman film, especially one telling his mythic origin. There is no joy, no sense of discovery, no sense of wonder or hope. The film is so plot-heavy that is lacks basic character interaction, leaving only big-scale spectacle which can only be enjoyed if one turns off their moral compass.
---
Honestly, it’s a crap shoot how well the film will do at this point. If it had provided the soaring and emotionally-draining action epic that the trailers promised, I’d gladly call it a surefire mega-blockbuster. Heck, even Superman Returns received initially semi-positive reviews and had a surprisingly leggy theatrical run ($200 million domestic off of a $83 million five-day debut) for a film that everyone now claims to hate (for what it’s worth, I hated it on opening night). The big concern going ahead is that the film is a big hit purely based on advance marketing hype and the third act action, but word of mouth grows negative over the next year and thus Man of Steel 2 isn’t quite the must-see event that Warner Bros. is counting on to set up their eventual Justice League film.
Warner Bros. is playing long term with this one, so it’s not just a question of immediate box office success but also audience goodwill for future installments. The Amazing Spider-Man may have made $750 million worldwide, but is anyone uber-jazzed for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 dropping next May? We’ve seen from Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows and Star Trek Into Darkness what happens when a blockbuster original doesn’t quite beget an even bigger sequel, and Warner Bros. isn’t in the DC Comics game to just do ‘pretty solid’ each time out. As for the box office take for Man of Steel, ask me again in November.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I predict it will be a huge hit.
If , the lame SUPERMAN RETURNS can gross $300 million......
btw the more i think about it the more i am convince that merchandising toys to kids is the main $$$ generator for these flics. The 3 y/o son of a friend has ALL the superhero nicknacks even though he is too young to see the films e.G. IRON MAN
BRM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I know that. The "professional" critics really seem all over the place don't they! And in NYC the ad blitz has extended to the subways where entire cars are filled with Gillette billboards asking the important question, "How Does Superman Shave" -- and prompting persons reading the posters to join in the discussion online. There was also a terrible tie in commercial running during some of the college baseball regional games that featured HC kind of mugging for the camera -- so despite the film's arthouse pretensions, it is clear they are hoping for a merchandizing bonanza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2013 - 5:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
You know you're not supposed to copy and paste content from other websites onto this forum.
nope, not in the rules.
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=83724&forumID=1&archive=0
Guys, please don't cut and paste copyrighted articles onto the board in their entirety -- quoting is fine but not the whole thing.
Thanks
Lukas
Yeah, maybe so, but it is still not stated in the forum rules.
You referred to something Lukas said two years ago but he never put it into the rules.
I shortened it anyway.
It's a copyright issue that can get the board in trouble.
Which, *gasp*, IS IN THE RULES.
"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this Message Board."
Certainly a few high profile sites with original articles might make a gripe. But if we took the rules to heart, any photograph, screenshot, audio or video posted on this forum is breaking copyright laws.
Edit: Ado beat me to it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
