Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Man of Steel

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films >> RE: Man of Steel Page: <<   < prev  101 102 103 104 [105]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Man of Steel - 3/7/2013 8:36:42 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2608
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Just because a comic book movie takes a serious approach to the material at hand, doesn't mean it needs to have an explanation for every element of the universe it portrays, sometimes just showing something on screen is enough, without having to say to the audience 'Oh yea, this tiny element of story, it's not important, but here you go, here is the whole backstory'.

Superman needs to get the suit, it's his costume and they need to have him interact with the AI memory of his dead father in the 'Fortress' setting, and they did that with just the right amount of explanation needed. There is no need to explain why the suit fits Clarke, there is no need to really explain why it is on a ship from 18k years ago, it's totally insignificant to the story being told (and in reality, they show what needs to to explain why the suit is there - the House of El is clearly shown as a part of the exploring parties that go off to terraform duing Jor El's exposition piece - thats all we need). To me, it's similar to the people who moaned about Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham from his pit cell in TDKR, we dont need to see it, a shot of Bruce heading towards civilisation is all we need. Why dont cops underground have beards and why do they look healthy? All that needs to be established is the fleeting shot of them washing, shaving, drinking coffee and receiving supplies, that's all the movie needs as that isn't what is important to the story. How does Clarke get a job at a military installtion? Do we seriously need that explaining, simply because the movie is approaching the material in a serious way, rather than having the approach of IM3 (which is such a terrible fucking movie I dont even know where to begin - head over to the rewview for my thoughts on that fucking turd)? It's established in a couple of fleeting lines that Clarke is creating fake identities, we dont need more than that, cos it isnt fucking important to the story. And as for the Pa Kent death scene, and more importantly the 'let the kids die', that isnt what Kent is saying at all, and if you dont get that, then I dont know why I would want to discuss that aspect of the film with you, cos it appears your wilfully ignoring the point the story is trying to get across. A few people on here have explained why they prefer the heart attack approach for Pa Kent, and I can understand their reasoning, although I dont agree it would work for MoS. At least those people dont seem to be ignoring what was actually put on screen though... Pa Kent isnt suggesting they should be left to die, he's forcing Clarke to think about the consequences of his actions. He is making the point (and it's an interesting question of the Superhero/Comic Book movie genre) that, just because we can intervene, doesnt mean we always should. Actions have consequences. Again, MoS has issues, but these arent really them.


I hardly think Superman getting into the suit is a tiny element of the story, or at least it shouldn't be. But they skirted over everything else so why not. All this stuff you say isn't important to the story! I am trying to figure out whats left of any importance to you? what do you deem key moments!.

The Pa Kent death scene is ridiculous and your right, whats the point in discussion it further, there is no defending it, its just shit storytelling. I have already covered why the heart attack or some other method works better.

What do you think MoS issues are?





The suit is not important to the story, it's an iconic element of the character, but it plays no more importance other than 'This is the Superman suit', and I feel the focus on the symbol was handled well, it's pondered two or three times how it resembles 'Hope'. The iconography of the suit is handled well during Kal's walk from the 'Fortress' into his first flight sequence. That sequence is where the story plays up to the iconography of the character, not by bothering with exposition explaining why it ia on the ship. The story doesnt need it.

The story being told is the journey of Kal finding out his heritage and dealing with his difference as a child and how that reflects to his older self when faced with the task of saving his adopted people from the remaining survivors of his actual Krypton ancestors/relations. The story is , the approach his adopted father takes in helping Kal/Clarke understand important lessons - that the world may not be ready to deal with someone so different, and that his actions have consequences. The first part of those lessons the story focusses on is played out and paid off when Zod arrives, the world has an extraterrestrial threat and the only saviour is the outsider that has been living amongst them. Now is the time to reveal himself. Pa Kent never suggests the kids deserve to die or that they shouldnt be saved, but that Clarke must consider the consequences of his actions. With Pa Kents heart attack death Kal has to learn a hard lesson that he cant prevent everything, cant save everyone. A great angle and its handled great in Superman. But that isnt the story approach here in MoS. The angle here is, just because you can get involved, does it mean you should? For a modern take on Superman it sets up possible interesting ways to take things. MoS doesnt really get to that point, but it certainly lays the groundwork pretty well.

The evolution of Kal into Superman is the crux of the story, only at the very end is he 'Superman' and I expect that the more traditional saviour role will be more apparent in following movies - Kal/Clarke himself says it!

What are my concerns? Check my comments in the reviews thread. In a nutshell, pacing during the opening half of the film, not spending enough time on Krypton, some questionable choices in the depiction of how a modern city would respond to a looming extraterrestrial threat, some poor cgi work (although i suspect its less poor cgi and more poor editing/camera work). And thefact that although they touch on really interesting aspects of what the role of a 'Superman' should be, they never really get there - hopefull the sequel can carry things on that are suggested here. These are things that are handled poorly or that keep the movie from being truly great, and my thoughts on those poorer elements certainly have more weight than 'Oh his suit fits, how convenient! Oh he stole some clothes, naughty boy!'


_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 3121
RE: Man of Steel - 3/7/2013 9:00:44 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12151
Joined: 30/9/2005
Regarding his stealing, I'm just amazed he found stuff that fit him. Maybe that wasn't the first house he went to? Maybe the police in that area had to respond to dozens of households phoning up to report nuisance behaviour by someone taking clothes off their washing lines and discarding them on the floor?

These are the issues that matter

< Message edited by Hood_Man -- 3/7/2013 9:01:02 PM >

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 3122
RE: Man of Steel - 3/7/2013 9:21:32 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Just because a comic book movie takes a serious approach to the material at hand, doesn't mean it needs to have an explanation for every element of the universe it portrays, sometimes just showing something on screen is enough, without having to say to the audience 'Oh yea, this tiny element of story, it's not important, but here you go, here is the whole backstory'.

Superman needs to get the suit, it's his costume and they need to have him interact with the AI memory of his dead father in the 'Fortress' setting, and they did that with just the right amount of explanation needed. There is no need to explain why the suit fits Clarke, there is no need to really explain why it is on a ship from 18k years ago, it's totally insignificant to the story being told (and in reality, they show what needs to to explain why the suit is there - the House of El is clearly shown as a part of the exploring parties that go off to terraform duing Jor El's exposition piece - thats all we need). To me, it's similar to the people who moaned about Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham from his pit cell in TDKR, we dont need to see it, a shot of Bruce heading towards civilisation is all we need. Why dont cops underground have beards and why do they look healthy? All that needs to be established is the fleeting shot of them washing, shaving, drinking coffee and receiving supplies, that's all the movie needs as that isn't what is important to the story. How does Clarke get a job at a military installtion? Do we seriously need that explaining, simply because the movie is approaching the material in a serious way, rather than having the approach of IM3 (which is such a terrible fucking movie I dont even know where to begin - head over to the rewview for my thoughts on that fucking turd)? It's established in a couple of fleeting lines that Clarke is creating fake identities, we dont need more than that, cos it isnt fucking important to the story. And as for the Pa Kent death scene, and more importantly the 'let the kids die', that isnt what Kent is saying at all, and if you dont get that, then I dont know why I would want to discuss that aspect of the film with you, cos it appears your wilfully ignoring the point the story is trying to get across. A few people on here have explained why they prefer the heart attack approach for Pa Kent, and I can understand their reasoning, although I dont agree it would work for MoS. At least those people dont seem to be ignoring what was actually put on screen though... Pa Kent isnt suggesting they should be left to die, he's forcing Clarke to think about the consequences of his actions. He is making the point (and it's an interesting question of the Superhero/Comic Book movie genre) that, just because we can intervene, doesnt mean we always should. Actions have consequences. Again, MoS has issues, but these arent really them.


I hardly think Superman getting into the suit is a tiny element of the story, or at least it shouldn't be. But they skirted over everything else so why not. All this stuff you say isn't important to the story! I am trying to figure out whats left of any importance to you? what do you deem key moments!.

The Pa Kent death scene is ridiculous and your right, whats the point in discussion it further, there is no defending it, its just shit storytelling. I have already covered why the heart attack or some other method works better.

What do you think MoS issues are?





The suit is not important to the story, it's an iconic element of the character, but it plays no more importance other than 'This is the Superman suit', and I feel the focus on the symbol was handled well, it's pondered two or three times how it resembles 'Hope'. The iconography of the suit is handled well during Kal's walk from the 'Fortress' into his first flight sequence. That sequence is where the story plays up to the iconography of the character, not by bothering with exposition explaining why it ia on the ship. The story doesnt need it.

The story being told is the journey of Kal finding out his heritage and dealing with his difference as a child and how that reflects to his older self when faced with the task of saving his adopted people from the remaining survivors of his actual Krypton ancestors/relations. The story is , the approach his adopted father takes in helping Kal/Clarke understand important lessons - that the world may not be ready to deal with someone so different, and that his actions have consequences. The first part of those lessons the story focusses on is played out and paid off when Zod arrives, the world has an extraterrestrial threat and the only saviour is the outsider that has been living amongst them. Now is the time to reveal himself. Pa Kent never suggests the kids deserve to die or that they shouldnt be saved, but that Clarke must consider the consequences of his actions. With Pa Kents heart attack death Kal has to learn a hard lesson that he cant prevent everything, cant save everyone. A great angle and its handled great in Superman. But that isnt the story approach here in MoS. The angle here is, just because you can get involved, does it mean you should? For a modern take on Superman it sets up possible interesting ways to take things. MoS doesnt really get to that point, but it certainly lays the groundwork pretty well.

The evolution of Kal into Superman is the crux of the story, only at the very end is he 'Superman' and I expect that the more traditional saviour role will be more apparent in following movies - Kal/Clarke himself says it!

What are my concerns? Check my comments in the reviews thread. In a nutshell, pacing during the opening half of the film, not spending enough time on Krypton, some questionable choices in the depiction of how a modern city would respond to a looming extraterrestrial threat, some poor cgi work (although i suspect its less poor cgi and more poor editing/camera work). And thefact that although they touch on really interesting aspects of what the role of a 'Superman' should be, they never really get there - hopefull the sequel can carry things on that are suggested here. These are things that are handled poorly or that keep the movie from being truly great, and my thoughts on those poorer elements certainly have more weight than 'Oh his suit fits, how convenient! Oh he stole some clothes, naughty boy!'



You lost me at the first sentence. We've all gone over the major poor elements already and i flat out refuse to argue any more with anyone who thinks Pa Kents death scene was anything but atrocious screenwriting. I am not a sith, I don't normally deal in absolutes, but dying needlessly for a dog is and always will be fucking stupid. We are down to how Martha and JK taught him thats its ok to Steal, Murder, vandalise and commit major fraud.

< Message edited by Dannybohy -- 3/7/2013 9:25:10 PM >


_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 3123
RE: Man of Steel - 3/7/2013 9:42:31 PM   
Vadersville


Posts: 3080
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
I am not a sith


No, you're a moron.

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 3124
RE: Man of Steel - 3/7/2013 10:59:26 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

The story being told is the journey of Kal finding out his heritage and dealing with his difference as a child and how that reflects to his older self when faced with the task of saving his adopted people from the remaining survivors of his actual Krypton ancestors/relations. The story is , the approach his adopted father takes in helping Kal/Clarke understand important lessons - that the world may not be ready to deal with someone so different, and that his actions have consequences. The first part of those lessons the story focusses on is played out and paid off when Zod arrives, the world has an extraterrestrial threat and the only saviour is the outsider that has been living amongst them. Now is the time to reveal himself. Pa Kent never suggests the kids deserve to die or that they shouldnt be saved, but that Clarke must consider the consequences of his actions. With Pa Kents heart attack death Kal has to learn a hard lesson that he cant prevent everything, cant save everyone. A great angle and its handled great in Superman. But that isnt the story approach here in MoS. The angle here is, just because you can get involved, does it mean you should? For a modern take on Superman it sets up possible interesting ways to take things. MoS doesnt really get to that point, but it certainly lays the groundwork pretty well.

The evolution of Kal into Superman is the crux of the story, only at the very end is he 'Superman' and I expect that the more traditional saviour role will be more apparent in following movies - Kal/Clarke himself says it!



An absolute perfect summary there. MoS is an origins films, ergo he is learning who he is (as are we: the audience). It's like Casino Royale, we never truly get Bond until the very last scene. However, we are treated throughout the movie of glimpses as to what they (as a character) will become.


_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 3125
RE: Man of Steel - 3/7/2013 11:18:53 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
I am not a sith


No, you're a moron.

And not being able to come up with anything other that pathetic name calling makes you a what? Is that yr contribution then?. Good day for you hey... now go chill out in a dark room

< Message edited by Dannybohy -- 4/7/2013 8:50:13 AM >


_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to Vadersville)
Post #: 3126
RE: Man of Steel - 4/7/2013 10:37:54 AM   
shool


Posts: 10058
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
Quit the insults please people and keep it on topic.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 3127
RE: Man of Steel - 4/7/2013 1:29:13 PM   
Vadersville


Posts: 3080
Joined: 30/9/2005
My predictions for the sequel: A lot of the common criticisms and nit-picking people have with the film will actually turn out to be well thought sequel bait.

The obliteration of a good chunk of Metropolis will directly feed into the next film's plot, and I suspect, will some people's snide remarks about Insurance companies not paying out. Some insurance companies will go bust, thers will simply refuse to on the whole alien attack not being covered, whatever the reason, many businesses will go bankrupt, people become homesless, poverty spilling out from the streets of what was (DC Universe's) America's most shining capital city. Sure Superman will try to help but what can he really do? What superpower fixes this? Money. In steps, Lex Luthor. Winning massive public popularity he pays for homes and businesses to be rebuilt, food for the hungry, all for seemingly nothing other than the satisfication of helping people (yeah right). He's up to no good. Maybe he has plans on taking over Metropolis, maybe even the U.S. Presidential campaign maybe? Think something along the lines of how he tried to seze Gotham by rebuilding it inthe wake of No Man's Land in the comics.

So in the eyes of the average joe in metroplis, Lex in their savior. And Superman? That alien, the one from the same planet as the ones who tried to destroy the Earth as we know it and wipe out humanity? The one that brought the evil aliens to our doorstep in the first place? He might have saved the world but all they saw is him crash through a roof and snap someone's neck (even if it was to save a family and on a larger sense everyone on the planet). Plus Lex Luthor doesn't trust him and Lex is the good guy, right?

As Jonathan was trying to warn Clark as a kid (when he wasn't telling him as so many people misunderstood, to let the kids on the bus to die) his actions will have consequences and even those he saves could turn out to fear him, just like Pete's mum.

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 3128
RE: Man of Steel - 4/7/2013 1:59:13 PM   
Artoo

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 29/1/2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

My predictions for the sequel: A lot of the common criticisms and nit-picking people have with the film will actually turn out to be well thought sequel bait.

The obliteration of a good chunk of Metropolis will directly feed into the next film's plot, and I suspect, will some people's snide remarks about Insurance companies not paying out. Some insurance companies will go bust, thers will simply refuse to on the whole alien attack not being covered, whatever the reason, many businesses will go bankrupt, people become homesless, poverty spilling out from the streets of what was (DC Universe's) America's most shining capital city. Sure Superman will try to help but what can he really do? What superpower fixes this? Money. In steps, Lex Luthor. Winning massive public popularity he pays for homes and businesses to be rebuilt, food for the hungry, all for seemingly nothing other than the satisfication of helping people (yeah right). He's up to no good. Maybe he has plans on taking over Metropolis, maybe even the U.S. Presidential campaign maybe? Think something along the lines of how he tried to seze Gotham by rebuilding it inthe wake of No Man's Land in the comics.

So in the eyes of the average joe in metroplis, Lex in their savior. And Superman? That alien, the one from the same planet as the ones who tried to destroy the Earth as we know it and wipe out humanity? The one that brought the evil aliens to our doorstep in the first place? He might have saved the world but all they saw is him crash through a roof and snap someone's neck (even if it was to save a family and on a larger sense everyone on the planet). Plus Lex Luthor doesn't trust him and Lex is the good guy, right?

As Jonathan was trying to warn Clark as a kid (when he wasn't telling him as so many people misunderstood, to let the kids on the bus to die) his actions will have consequences and even those he saves could turn out to fear him, just like Pete's mum.


I reckon you're onto a winner there!

I just hope Lex Luthor isn't the only baddie in it! I seem to remember hearing a rumour that Metallo may also be introduced along with Lex in the sequel. I have nothing to back that up - it's just something I heard somewhere.

_____________________________

Hey, get some beer and some.....cleaning products!

(in reply to Vadersville)
Post #: 3129
RE: Man of Steel - 4/7/2013 4:49:21 PM   
Dirk Miggler


Posts: 1106
Joined: 14/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

My predictions for the sequel: A lot of the common criticisms and nit-picking people have with the film will actually turn out to be well thought sequel bait.

The obliteration of a good chunk of Metropolis will directly feed into the next film's plot, and I suspect, will some people's snide remarks about Insurance companies not paying out. Some insurance companies will go bust, thers will simply refuse to on the whole alien attack not being covered, whatever the reason, many businesses will go bankrupt, people become homesless, poverty spilling out from the streets of what was (DC Universe's) America's most shining capital city. Sure Superman will try to help but what can he really do? What superpower fixes this? Money. In steps, Lex Luthor. Winning massive public popularity he pays for homes and businesses to be rebuilt, food for the hungry, all for seemingly nothing other than the satisfication of helping people (yeah right). He's up to no good. Maybe he has plans on taking over Metropolis, maybe even the U.S. Presidential campaign maybe? Think something along the lines of how he tried to seze Gotham by rebuilding it inthe wake of No Man's Land in the comics.

So in the eyes of the average joe in metroplis, Lex in their savior. And Superman? That alien, the one from the same planet as the ones who tried to destroy the Earth as we know it and wipe out humanity? The one that brought the evil aliens to our doorstep in the first place? He might have saved the world but all they saw is him crash through a roof and snap someone's neck (even if it was to save a family and on a larger sense everyone on the planet). Plus Lex Luthor doesn't trust him and Lex is the good guy, right?

As Jonathan was trying to warn Clark as a kid (when he wasn't telling him as so many people misunderstood, to let the kids on the bus to die) his actions will have consequences and even those he saves could turn out to fear him, just like Pete's mum.


Sounds like the perfect way to bring Luthor in to the mix. I also think we need another villain as well as Luthor for the sequel.

(in reply to Vadersville)
Post #: 3130
RE: Man of Steel - 4/7/2013 8:10:20 PM   
Ghidorah

 

Posts: 2902
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

My predictions for the sequel: A lot of the common criticisms and nit-picking people have with the film will actually turn out to be well thought sequel bait.

The obliteration of a good chunk of Metropolis will directly feed into the next film's plot, and I suspect, will some people's snide remarks about Insurance companies not paying out. Some insurance companies will go bust, thers will simply refuse to on the whole alien attack not being covered, whatever the reason, many businesses will go bankrupt, people become homesless, poverty spilling out from the streets of what was (DC Universe's) America's most shining capital city. Sure Superman will try to help but what can he really do? What superpower fixes this? Money. In steps, Lex Luthor. Winning massive public popularity he pays for homes and businesses to be rebuilt, food for the hungry, all for seemingly nothing other than the satisfication of helping people (yeah right). He's up to no good. Maybe he has plans on taking over Metropolis, maybe even the U.S. Presidential campaign maybe? Think something along the lines of how he tried to seze Gotham by rebuilding it inthe wake of No Man's Land in the comics.

So in the eyes of the average joe in metroplis, Lex in their savior. And Superman? That alien, the one from the same planet as the ones who tried to destroy the Earth as we know it and wipe out humanity? The one that brought the evil aliens to our doorstep in the first place? He might have saved the world but all they saw is him crash through a roof and snap someone's neck (even if it was to save a family and on a larger sense everyone on the planet). Plus Lex Luthor doesn't trust him and Lex is the good guy, right?

As Jonathan was trying to warn Clark as a kid (when he wasn't telling him as so many people misunderstood, to let the kids on the bus to die) his actions will have consequences and even those he saves could turn out to fear him, just like Pete's mum.



Saving mankind from ALIENS is one thing, but saving mankind from itself is another. End of the day Superman is an outsider and in reality many people will not be happy of a near undestructable creature being above the law. Superman would have to respect the people wishes and not take the law into his hands. If he does then it will give his opponents ammo and will be used to turn the crowd against Superman. If Lex becomes the rebuilder of Metroplis, his popularity will be high and Superman can't tourch him because he doesn't have the authority.

(in reply to Vadersville)
Post #: 3131
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 5/7/2013 9:18:31 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester
Our very own Empire have done a little article on who should be cast as Lex:~

Click Here if you've not read it

Must say, I'm liking the idea of Denzel Washington. I reckon that could play out very well indeed.

_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to Ghidorah)
Post #: 3132
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 8/7/2013 10:35:44 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6888
Joined: 18/11/2006
crowe up for krypton prequel-


http://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/45551/man-of-steel-prequel-could-star-russell-crowes-jor-el/

cameon says MOS did not need to be in 3 d-


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a496275/james-cameron-iron-man-3-man-of-steel-didnt-need-to-be-in-3d.html

(in reply to Ref)
Post #: 3133
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 9/7/2013 6:43:08 PM   
TomTron


Posts: 874
Joined: 2/10/2006
Going from a Michael Shannon type character actor casting standpoint, JASON CLARKE from Zero Dark Thirty / Gatsby / Lawless would kick ass as Lex. And he would rock the bald head with style.



< Message edited by TomTron -- 9/7/2013 6:45:34 PM >

(in reply to spark1)
Post #: 3134
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 19/1/2014 12:49:38 AM   
mysterious

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 16/1/2008
So, the sequel has been pushed to May 2016. I knew it was too good to be true for a 2015 release. Will we see a Justice League movie instead?

_____________________________

"Lets put a smmile on that facce!"

(in reply to TomTron)
Post #: 3135
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 19/1/2014 2:04:24 PM   
imdb_acc

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 7/6/2012
Am I the only one who thinks Gal Gadot doesn't suit the role of Wonder Woman? She can get a trainer but she'll still be thin with muscle. The body type required for Wonder Woman is completely different and I don't just mean b00bs. You can't change the body type of a woman and even the growth of the bone structure depends on it. It's not believable to have someone skinny in my opinion.


If it were me, I would have picked Lucy Pinder as Wonder Woman. Even without the body, her face resembles Diana the most. What do you think?



[image]http://i.imgur.com/BgehlEB.jpg[/image]

(in reply to mysterious)
Post #: 3136
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 20/1/2014 10:46:47 AM   
Chris Boomen

 

Posts: 233
Joined: 26/12/2013
From: The Netherlands
Why do you think they put the movie back a year? They need to give Gal Gadot acting lessons.

Jokes aside, she'll be great. Give her some muscle to make her look less boney and she's more than great. People talking about that she needs big breasts do not understand the marketing perspective of putting WW in a movie.

_____________________________

"I love all the arts, but I love movies most because they combine so many of them."
~Brad Bird

(in reply to imdb_acc)
Post #: 3137
RE: Man of Steel 2 - 20/1/2014 1:33:18 PM   
Ghidorah

 

Posts: 2902
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: imdb_acc

Am I the only one who thinks Gal Gadot doesn't suit the role of Wonder Woman? She can get a trainer but she'll still be thin with muscle. The body type required for Wonder Woman is completely different and I don't just mean b00bs. You can't change the body type of a woman and even the growth of the bone structure depends on it. It's not believable to have someone skinny in my opinion.


If it were me, I would have picked Lucy Pinder as Wonder Woman. Even without the body, her face resembles Diana the most. What do you think?



[image]http://i.imgur.com/BgehlEB.jpg[/image]



I think you are very, very wrong and I will explain you why.

1. Lucy Pinder

Lucy Pinder doesn't have the body to play as Wonder Woman and that because she is 5ft 5. Wonder Woman in the comics is meant to be around 6ft tall and in some stories she is taller than Superman. Cavil is around 6ft 5 and Ben Affleck is either 6ft 2 or 6ft 3. During the casting audtions WB requested an actress to be 6ft tall and there's a valid reason for this but due to spoiler reasons I can't explain why. It just going to make a certain scene very, very stupid.


2. Muscles

I don't think you are aware of this but muscles remember. It takes a lot of effort for someone who is fat or thin to start from scratch and build an athlete body. However it doesn't take long for someone who had an athlete body to get it back. This is because the muscles remember and doesn't take long to reach their original peak. This is why Tom Hardy could get into his Bronson size for Dark Knight Rises in quick session. It's also why Christain Bale went from very skinny(Machinest) to bulk pre Batman Begin and had to lose weight because he couldn't fit into the Batsuit.
Gal Gadot was originally a soldier in Israel army. While I'm not sure what she did but I'm pretty sure she didn't starve herself and would of had some sort of muscle mass on her to perform her role. It wouldn't take long to get it back.

3. Thin skeleton

I have a thin skeleton frame but due to weight training I'm bigger than your average joe. However people with a bigger skeleton frame and who look bulkier compared to me can't lift as much as me.

(in reply to imdb_acc)
Post #: 3138
Page:   <<   < prev  101 102 103 104 [105]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films >> RE: Man of Steel Page: <<   < prev  101 102 103 104 [105]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094