The Box Office Thread

Irrational love for Man of Steel.

"effective story structure"  Really?  The event that starts off the actual story is Clark just happening to overhear some people discussing a dig in the arctic, and deducing that it must have something to do with him, even though he has no reason whatsoever to believe so.  After going to the arctic and finding the Kryptonian ship, his holographic father tells him about his homeworld, and even mentions someone named Zod who caused a lot of trouble.  When Zod shows up the very next day, instead of going back to get advice from holo-Dad, Clark goes to church and asks a priest for advice so that we can all see Superman stand in front of a stained glass window of Jesus wearing a red cape.  

"compelling characters"  If you like having a whiny, emo Kal-El who hasn't got the slightest bit of common sense, a Johnathan Kent who chastises his son because he didn't allow all of his classmates to drown, or a villain who's dedicated his entire life to preserving the Kryptonian way of life, but tosses it all aside as soon as he has the opportunity to achieve his goal to rebuild his lost society.



"the story outline"  Seriously?  By wording this the way you have, it's clear you recognize that the actual story doesn't make any sense.  This is a finished movie, not a summary done during the development stage of the project.  What does it matter if a movie has great action, music, visuals, etc. if the story doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny?  

Since we're all posting our old reviews...

Man of Steel

There's a scene in Man of Steel where Lois Lane is explaining to some military commanders that she knows how to stop the invading Kryptonians. She mentions how Superman's ship has phantom technology and that they should collide that with the evil Zod's ship when she is immediately interrupted by a General who states that, obviously, it will create a black hole. What? How did he know that? Does he have some inside information on Kryptonian phantom technology? Such is the level of stupidity that Man of Steel falls toward, making a film so rushed, at times so idiotic that you almost wish Richard Donner was brought on board just to do a once-over. Man of Steel is a big, loud, clunky film that movie studios have been gravitating toward for years, hoping that spectacle and visual effects will blind viewers to the fact that the script was maybe 8 pages of dialogue, dialogue so inane that it not only leaves nothing to the imagination but makes no sense.

The film opens with Jor-El delivering his son, destined to be the Man of Steel, which conveniently coincides with a) the imminent destruction of Krypton, and b) a coup by the nefarious General Zod. Within minutes, Zod begins a war with Krypon's council, Jor-El steals the 'Codex' containing the genetic lifeblood of Krypton, Zod kills Jor-El but not before seeing Kal-El rocket into space, is defeated in his coup and sentenced to the phantom zone. Oh, and Krypton blows up. Quite a lot to absorb in less than ten minutes, but there's no time because we need to get to Superman on Earth. Everything on Krypton is stylistically ripped from other films. The setting as well as Zod/Jor-El chase is eerily reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels, the baby fields of Krypton are cut and pasted from The Matrix (I'm sure a lawsuit is pending as we speak), the phantom zone freeze was like some Demolition Man hybrid, the list goes on. And it would be too easy to mention the District 9 looking ships hovering over Metropolis(?) before watching the climax which could very well have been Avengers outtakes. There isn't an original idea in this movie because the (lack of) script couldn't afford any ingenuity, we had to get to the action.

The idea of even being a 'Super Man' is glossed over in this film compared to the previous incarnation. While working in the Arctic, Clark discovers a Kryptonian ship where he encounters the consciousness of his long dead father. In the few moments he's on the ship, Jor-El tells Clark of his true past, including the destruction of Krypton and the imprisonment of General Zod. He gives him a new suit that happens to be on board for some reason and tells Clark to go be the god of the humans. This series of events took place maybe over a few hours in movie time, if not much shorter. In the original Donner film, Clark likewise gets a briefing from Jor-El in the Fortress of Solitude. The main difference between the two is that Marlon Brando's Jor-El taught and guided Clark for a decade rather than just a few moments. We saw Clark's motivations and understood where he perfected his understanding of humanity and balanced his own moral compass. We understood Superman. Man of Steel doesn't afford us that time. We are given the brief encounter with Jor-El but almost immediately Superman must go defend humanity against General Zod. It's as if the filmmakers assume we already know who these people are so they just don't care to dish out more than the bare minimum.

Quick, describe the character of Lois Lane for me. How about Perry White? Jonathan Kent? Were they funny? Serious? Skeptical? Have any unique character attributes? No, they have none of those things. They exist solely to recite dialogue and keep whatever story that was created moving along. You feel nothing for these characters, whether they're trapped under a bus or sharing an intimate moment with Kal. Either way, again it's hard to build suspense when characters are in peril and you don't even know their names. At least Margot Kidder had this straight-forward but naive approach that made her and Superman gravitate towards each other. Lois Lane is hamfistedly brought along for the ride. Why did she need to go in Zod's spacecraft at all, other than to conveniently release Jor-El's consciousness? Why did she need to go on the cargo plane to deliver Clark's ship? Couldn't she have just as easily said 'just put this piece into that piece.' Nothing in this film is explained, and that which is explained makes no sense. So Jor-El just had a suit on his ship that was locked in the ice? Did every ship have a suit? You know, just in case his yet to be born son wound up on that planet alone and just happened to be near a sun that afforded him super powers? Or did Jor-El's consciousness just whip one up? His consciousness also took control of Zod's ship, claiming that 'he built it.' So how was Zod able to take it back over so easily? Couldn't Jor-El have locked him out, shut down the ship, or launched him into space? How did the scientist know that the gravity attacks were attempts at terraforming? The banal script just shines through, an no amount of action can fix a bad script. No matter how grandiose or extravagant the action pieces are, they can only make up for so much.

I will give credit to Michael Shannon, however. He was reserved when he needed to be and was able to display not just the treachery but also the logic of his character. He's not just hell-bent on mass destruction and genocide, he at least has reasons for his actions (I think this character trait was a complete accident).

Suffice to say, I was no fan of Man of Steel. Say what you will about Superman Returns or the first two Reeves films, at least those had some heart to them. There was depth to characters. I'll take that any day over the bombardment to my senses. So again, we're still waiting on a Superman movie that stands above the rest as the Superman film. As of now, it still belongs to the first one.

I think you're overthinking this a little.  The dude wanted to reforge Krypton and he unleashed terraforming machines to make that happen. All this gobbledygook about what color the sun is seems pretty beside the point.

Are we gonna ignore that turning Earth into New Krypton is the same fucking plot from Superman Returns?

Are we talking about Superman Returns, Man of Steel or both?

Don't forget Superman: The Movie.  The villains of Superman do always seem to be obsessed with the acquisition of real estate.

Coco, without Olaf this time, continued to be #1 at the box office. Its 3-week total is $135.5 million.

Opening on Thursday...

... the wait is over...

IT only cost $35 million. They'll use the profits from that to cover for Geostorm and Blade Runner. Wonder Woman and Dunkirk covered for King Arthur. Justice League is the one that got fucked because Warner Bros has no major releases until March. Overall, they probably broke even in 2017 and are crossing their fingers for a little push if Dunkirk becomes an awards darling.

Disney, on the other hand, was remarkable. Last year they had flops like Alice 2, The BFG and Pete's Dragon. The worse they did this year was Pirates 5 which wasn't a total disaster. Cars 3 "flopped" too but that series makes its money from merchandise sales.

Universal was the oddball this year. No major hits, domestically at least, but their budgets were so low, it was mostly profits for them. Split and Get Out, along with the success of Warner Bros' IT, made this a great year for horror. The Mummy was a notable flop but its budget was a relatively modest $125 million. Similar situation with The Great Wall. You can argue they did better than Warner Bros this year.

Now let's look at Fox since Disney is about to buy them. No major hits. No small films that did well, unless you count Hidden Figures or maybe even Murder on the Orient Express. But surprisingly, they had no major flops either. Alien Covenant only cost $97 million to make. The Apes and Kingsman underperformed but they'll have an afterlife on home media. They managed to turn an R-rated Wolverine into a hit - their biggest hit of the year. If they could have gotten at least ONE major hit, they could have been the #2 studio this year.

Disney releases less movies, but all their movies have budgets of $200+ million. WB releases a shit-ton but most are mid-budget movies. If Blade Runner and Justice League hadn’t flopped, their profit margin for 2017 would have been higher than Disney.

BOMB!