Is Man of Steel a victim of its own success?
Motley Fool wonders if, while the Man of Steel movie has been a success when it opened, DC still destroyed Superman in the process:
And when the movie uses an ultra-serious approach that offers little or no sense of humor, that's one more reason why this movie, now that I think of it, isn't bound to leave a long-term impression any more than the movies produced in 1978, 80, 83 and 87, which did rely on some logic holes likely drawn from the older quirks of the comics. I can understand why not everyone's impressed with those in retrospect (even I found Superman's way of erasing Lois' memory of him as Clark with a kiss peculiar in the 2nd film), but turning it too far in the opposite direction can also have some unfortunate repercussions.
Man of Steel broke the June record for a box office debut and has raked in more than $400 million in ticket sales as of this writing. But is the payoff worth it? Fool contributor Tim Beyers says DC Entertainment parent Time Warner (NYSE: TWX ) is taking a big risk by making Superman unrecognizable at times during the film.Sadly, the answer to the question is yes, they've already wrecked Superman in comics, for more than a decade now. Forcing darkness into Superman comics as an overall theme has only hurt it, and the sad thing about the movie is that if they consider the box office grosses so far justification enough, they'll use that as an excuse to inject even more into the comics. They've already done this with the Injustice: Gods Among Us game, and it's pretty apparent by now that it's all part of an editorial mandate extending to the upper echelons of Time Warner.
A darker tale, spun by director Zack Snyder with help from screenwriter David S. Goyer and executive producer Christopher Nolan, Man of Steel saw a 65% drop in grosses in its second weekend, according to data compiled by Box Office Mojo.
Could it be because Henry Cavill's Superman is no boy scout? Unlike the common legend of the hero who stands for "truth, justice, and the American way," Snyder and Goyer show us a shy, confused, and angry "hero" who transforms into a living weapon of mass destruction on screen, Tim says.
And when the movie uses an ultra-serious approach that offers little or no sense of humor, that's one more reason why this movie, now that I think of it, isn't bound to leave a long-term impression any more than the movies produced in 1978, 80, 83 and 87, which did rely on some logic holes likely drawn from the older quirks of the comics. I can understand why not everyone's impressed with those in retrospect (even I found Superman's way of erasing Lois' memory of him as Clark with a kiss peculiar in the 2nd film), but turning it too far in the opposite direction can also have some unfortunate repercussions.
Heh, I didn't bother to even go see the superman flick. I'm going to wait for it to show up on the movie channel in a year. I'm not interested in Dan Didio's Dark Knight Superman. But I'm an old school fan so there you go.
Posted by
LC Douglass |
8:03 PM