Last Film You Saw

Watched the new Superman. Quite enjoyed it and thought the actor playing Supes did a great job. It's definitely a James Gunn movie so if you're into that then great but if you're not I can see why it might be divisive. A few too many characters to introduce particularly at the daily planet but all around a good movie
 
mrbelfry said:
Watched the new Superman. Quite enjoyed it and thought the actor playing Supes did a great job. It's definitely a James Gunn movie so if you're into that then great but if you're not I can see why it might be divisive. A few too many characters to introduce particularly at the daily planet but all around a good movie
Click to expand...
It's shite on every single level and is indicative of a whole country not knowing what the fuck they are doing, or where they are going.
So they fall into 'nostalgia killing realism' type film making.
Yes, I know its a comic book character, but these things mirror the times lived in.
 
burning blue soul said:
It's shite on every single level and is indicative of a whole country not knowing what the fuck they are doing, or where they are going.
So they fall into 'nostalgia killing realism' type film making.
Yes, I know its a comic book character, but these things mirror the times lived in.
Click to expand...

So Gunn is in a difficult position cos pretty much all the angles have been covered with such a limited character. He needs to keep the old fans and bring in new ones in the young. Has to keep it PG as much as he can and can't travel the Snyder route as it's been done.

How would you have tackled it?
 
Watched sinners after seeing some recommendations on here.
I was quite enjoying it until it started to get daft,
Did they run out of budget towards the end or did the director simply get board.
Music was alright though.6/10
 
Bigga said:
So Gunn is in a difficult position cos pretty much all the angles have been covered with such a limited character. He needs to keep the old fans and bring in new ones in the young. Has to keep it PG as much as he can and can't travel the Snyder route as it's been done.

How would you have tackled it?
Click to expand...
The main character is not the problem. Him taken in isolation is a decent representation.
Unfortunately, everyone else around him is a parody of ridiculous film tropes. They add nothing to anything.
Metaphorically, Superman is written as the USA, and everyone else is the world around him.
The film is saturated with American elitism and might, with contrived enemies to vanquish.
I can't care enough to go into examples, but they are there.
This film could be a study of troubled national psychie and a whole industry that has sold the last bit of integrity it still had.
I didn't expect much from this film, and watched it because the family was watching it. I went in with low expectations and was disappointed I couldn't raise them.

The world is full of trauma and devastation, so maybe people need an escape (this is me being sympathetic to the film), but it turns serious people and serious troubles into 2 dimensional cartoons.
The more I write the more I am disappointed with the insulting caricatures of characters portrayed.

Edit.
In answer to your question, the film would have worked better with Supe being shown as arrogant, and being beaten and imprisoned through his underestimation of the changing challenges around him. NOT through surrender.
He needs to relearn what his powers mean to himself and all the people who look in awe at him (and also, let's be honest here, fear him) and rely on him for protection.
Not from enemies, but from themselves.
The original Supe 3 touched on this; but, again, it was always outside agency that causes the personality change, not his own failings. And he needs to fail badly, to then begin a real character arc.
You have to break the character for people to care about the resurrection of it again.
 
Last edited:
burning blue soul said:
It's shite on every single level and is indicative of a whole country not knowing what the fuck they are doing, or where they are going.
So they fall into 'nostalgia killing raealism' type film making.
Yes, I know its a comic book character, but theset things mirror the times lived in.
Click to expand...
t
Please expand. I have some thoughts. None as strong as yours seems to be though.

I didn't perceive it purely as nostalgia. The female characters certainly weren't and a black character saved Superman with some advanced technology. Superman did claim to be only representing himself and the starting conflict is if he does or does not represent America. He says no. His enemies say yes. The conflict stuff is how James Gunn writes this kind of stuff. He rarely posits leaders in any kind of positive light and often writes these kinds of issues as cartoonish.

Superman is not the USA. He repeats several times that he is an alien and his justification of being human at the end is broad enough to encompass anyone. There is an arguement to be made that it is a progressive movie as it does emphasise the importance of kindness over other responsibilities. He even saves a squirrel and corporations are shown to be ineffective at best.
 
Nightmare on Elm Street 1-5 & Wes Craven’s New Nightmare over the last couple of days. Freddy vs Jason up next and my Freddy rewatch is done. Nowhere near as scary as when I was a kid, and they got completely ridiculous by the end. Still good for a laugh though.
 
mrbelfry said:
t
Please expand. I have some thoughts. None as strong as yours seems to be though.

I didn't perceive it purely as nostalgia. The female characters certainly weren't and a black character saved Superman with some advanced technology. Superman did claim to be only representing himself and the starting conflict is if he does or does not represent America. He says no. His enemies say yes. The conflict stuff is how James Gunn writes this kind of stuff. He rarely posits leaders in any kind of positive light and often writes these kinds of issues as cartoonish.

Superman is not the USA. He repeats several times that he is an alien and his justification of being human at the end is broad enough to encompass anyone. There is an arguement to be made that it is a progressive movie as it does emphasise the importance of kindness over other responsibilities. He even saves a squirrel and corporations are shown to be ineffective at best.
Click to expand...
The only woman offered any intelligence was Lois. The others were parodies. Tits and teeth, or vacuous.
The black guys entire reason was as a plot devise to solve the writers problems, and as a racial box ticker.

What Supe says is at the behest of the scriptwriters. He's an alien until he dreams about his earth parents. He's an alien until his real parents are shown as tyrants. You need to suspend observation of plot and look more at message.
 
burning blue soul said:
The main character is not the problem. Him taken in isolation is a decent representation.
Unfortunately, everyone else around him is a parody of ridiculous film tropes. They add nothing to anything.
Metaphorically, Superman is written as the USA, and everyone else is the world around him.
The film is saturated with American elitism and might, with contrived enemies to vanquish.
I can't care enough to go into examples, but they are there.
This film could be a study of troubled national psychie and a whole industry that has sold the last bit of integrity it still had.
I didn't expect much from this film, and watched it because the family was watching it. I went in with low expectations and was disappointed I couldn't raise them.

The world is full of trauma and devastation, so maybe people need an escape (this is me being sympathetic to the film), but it turns serious people and serious troubles into 2 dimensional cartoons.
The more I write the more I am disappointed with the insulting caricatures of characters portrayed.

Edit.
In answer to your question, the film would have worked better with Supe being shown as arrogant, and being beaten and imprisoned through his underestimation of the changing challenges around him. NOT through surrender.
He needs to relearn what his powers mean to himself and all the people who look in awe at him (and also, let's be honest here, fear him) and rely on him for protection.
Not from enemies, but from themselves.
The original Supe 3 touched on this; but, again, it was always outside agency that causes the personality change, not his own failings. And he needs to fail badly, to then begin a real character arc.
You have to break the character for people to care about the resurrection of it again.
Click to expand...

Okay, I saw this late and @mrbelfry actually echoes my own answer as I was going to respond (a very good post btw).

This whole Superman = USA is actually not what Gunn is doing here. He's, literally, made the character an illegal alien who's expected to serve the US as they want control (while that's not said here, it's the usual inevitable US Gov arch) what he does (does he have permission to stop wars elsewhere when all he wants to do is save lives?). The US just happens to be where he landed and has some ties to, but he relates to Humanity, not the US and he fights to be himself in that regard.

That's the deeper writing that only flirts onscreen cos it's a heavy subject as is much of the political opinion throughout the film.

It's not an attack, but I'm a little confused with the examination of 'too many characters' in the Gunn film only to be "disappointed with the insulting caricatures of characters portrayed". 'Superman' is the main focus, no? He's the most needed character development so, by definition, others will have to be caricatures to some degree and why most of these side characters get their own spin off films or shows for deeper examination.

As for your edit, Snyder has already gone this route for the most part, but Gunn does flirt with it through 'Kal El' parentage. This may be further explored via the upcoming 'Supergirl' film, next year, so we'll see.
 
burning blue soul said:
The only woman offered any intelligence was Lois. The others were parodies. Tits and teeth, or vacuous.
The black guys entire reason was as a plot devise to solve the writers problems, and as a racial box ticker.

What Supe says is at the behest of the scriptwriters. He's an alien until he dreams about his earth parents. He's an alien until his real parents are shown as tyrants. You need to suspend observation of plot and look more at message.
Click to expand...

It's fair to say you're not a comic book reader; that's fine. The problem is, though, you miss the true arc of the characters introduced. 'Mr Terrific' is not token, he's canon to the DCEU. He's the top 3 brains in the world (he arguably thinks he's smarter than 'Bruce Wayne' and a par with 'Lex Luthor'). It's all debatable since 'Mr Terrific' is a relative newcomer in comparison to those two.

I wouldn't disagree, though, that the genre does think about diversity and that needs to be reflected as film goers, as much as Snyder used 'Cyborg' for such a component. However, Gunn integrates and utilises 'Mr Terrific' to genuine effect, so it's a plus for me.

As for your 'alien' thought process, I think 'Kent/ Kal El' holds on to what he believes he was on earth to do (and the Humanity) despite all the pressures of expectation from all sides.

Personally, I think you read that message differently than I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top