Re: 'Man Of Steel' Set Pics/Vids

Apologist Puncher Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:46 pm

Oh, and get THESE responses from that same link and picture, and the same Apologist asshair:

golden123 - 1/11/2012, 5:28 PM
Login to report abuse

It's funny that some of you think this picture is better than anything "Superman Returns" had to offer. When I looked at the picture the first thing that came to mind was Superman Returns. Just the way random parts of the scenery jet out everywhere. Similar to how the kryptonite island and the Kryptonion spaceship looked. Not to mention the way that truck was misplaced reminded me of the various objects in Superman Returns that were misplaced due to accidents. I'm talking about the ship on the kryptonite island, the Jet on the Baseball feild, the Daily Planet Globe falling off, and the brakeless car running off course.

golden123 - 1/11/2012, 5:30 PM
Login to report abuse

It honestly looks like a shot out of "Superman Returns".

Need I say more about these pieces of shit, or does this retard say it ALL?

webhead2006 Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:56 pm

That is a cool photo. Can't wait to see how that happens iin the film.

thecolorsblend Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:13 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:'Man Of Steel' carnage:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=52650

Poor Optimus...

Apologist Puncher Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:29 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:Poor Optimus...

Yeah, same thing happened in Singerman Peeps..... Oh, that's right.

IT FUCKING DIDN'T.

thecolorsblend Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:36 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:
thecolorsblend wrote:Poor Optimus...

Yeah, same thing happened in Singerman Peeps..... Oh, that's right.

IT FUCKING DIDN'T.

Consider who we're dealing with here. Many Apologists aren't as committed to The Cause as they would have had you believe even a year ago. Now that it's looking like MOS will have some redeeming value (at the bare minimum), they need to find a way to embrace the movie without outright admitting their own stupidity. How best do you do this? Well, if you're an Apologist, find a way to tie the shit to Singerman any way any how you can. "Yeah, man, that shot looks TOTALLY like something the genius visionary filmmaker Bryanus Magnus Singerus would've come up with. Indeed, it looks like an outtake from his masterpiece [Singerman]!"

Most of us around here don't have to worry about facing that problem (A) because we're not douchebag Apologists and (B) because all any of us have promised Zack Snyder is a fair hearing. We've not proclaimed his movie to be either a masterpiece or the nadir of Superman's entire history, and we won't until we see the final product.

Intellectual honesty, ladies and gentlemen. You'll never regret using it. Not using it... well, look at the disarray that is any Apologist message board these days.

Apologist Puncher Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:41 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:Consider who we're dealing with here. Many Apologists aren't as committed to The Cause as they would have had you believe even a year ago. Now that it's looking like MOS will have some redeeming value (at the bare minimum), they need to find a way to embrace the movie without outright admitting their own stupidity. How best do you do this? Well, if you're an Apologist, find a way to tie the shit to Singerman any way any how you can. "Yeah, man, that shot looks TOTALLY like something the genius visionary filmmaker Bryanus Magnus Singerus would've come up with. Indeed, it looks like an outtake from his masterpiece [Singerman]!"

I just don't get how they can say stupid 'ish like this and expect ANYONE to take them seriously.

Most of us around here don't have to worry about facing that problem (A) because we're not douchebag Apologists and (B) because all any of us have promised Zack Snyder is a fair hearing. We've not proclaimed his movie to be either a masterpiece or the nadir of Superman's entire history, and we won't until we see the final product.

Exactly right. I saw Singerman before I called that shit sandwich a turd. Was I apprehensive before I saw it, when I heard what it was about, and what that fetish wetsuit looked like? You bet your sweet Aunt Fanny I was.

But I at least watched it first.

Intellectual honesty, ladies and gentlemen. You'll never regret using it. Not using it... well, look at the disarray that is any Apologist message board these days.

Fortunately they no longer really exist. And the world is better for it.

webhead2006 Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:47 pm

What action in sr. Getting shot at by machine gun, breaking a plane during rescue, or the krypto island. Those where so great of sr lol. There was hardly anything good from sr. Heck even the worst sv episodes had more action then sr.

thecolorsblend Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:52 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:I just don't get how they can say stupid 'ish like this and expect ANYONE to take them seriously.

I can see how WB execs would've in the beginning, maybe right as and perhaps two weeks after Singerman came out (heh heh) in theaters. They have some nitwit who probably makes minimum wage cruising message boards once or twice a month to see what people are saying. On an Apologist-centered page (oh hell, pick any of 'em), it would tend to give you a bit of a skewed perspective about the whole enterprise. "Gee boss, they're *ALL* onboard, this is really SOMEthing, we're really cooking here!"

But then you get into things like the Singerman Sucks blog that tells the other side of the story (not to mention the dismal box office returns) and, yeah, I can see how some WB execs had a pretty shitty time of it in July 2006...

Apologist Puncher wrote:Fortunately they no longer really exist. And the world is better for it.

Yep. It's been ages since I dropped in on Eyes Skyward but I think even they are taking a more, shall we say, moderate view of things these days (and I claim some credit for that, deprogramming some of them as I did). Where are the six or seven hardliners hanging out these days anyway? I thought I saw something about Superman Cinema closing up shop, either just the forum but maybe the whole damn site. And frankly, to my understanding, the admins were approaching the thing more as fans of STM/Donner than as fans of Superman... which, as a lot of us have learned to our bitter cost over the years, aren't necessarily always the same folks. So I'm not sure I'm entirely sorry they're gone (if they're gone). So hmm.

Apologist Puncher Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:59 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:I can see how WB execs would've in the beginning, maybe right as and perhaps two weeks after Singerman came out (heh heh) in theaters. They have some nitwit who probably makes minimum wage cruising message boards once or twice a month to see what people are saying. On an Apologist-centered page (oh hell, pick any of 'em), it would tend to give you a bit of a skewed perspective about the whole enterprise. "Gee boss, they're *ALL* onboard, this is really SOMEthing, we're really cooking here!"

But then you get into things like the Singerman Sucks blog that tells the other side of the story (not to mention the dismal box office returns) and, yeah, I can see how some WB execs had a pretty shitty time of it in July 2006...

I wonder how those morons, and I am POSITIVE they were out there, felt when their bosses found the SSS Blog?

thecolorsblend wrote:Yep. It's been ages since I dropped in on Eyes Skyward but I think even they are taking a more, shall we say, moderate view of things these days (and I claim some credit for that, deprogramming some of them as I did). Where are the six or seven hardliners hanging out these days anyway? I thought I saw something about Superman Cinema closing up shop, either just the forum but maybe the whole damn site. And frankly, to my understanding, the admins were approaching the thing more as fans of STM/Donner than as fans of Superman... which, as a lot of us have learned to our bitter cost over the years, aren't necessarily always the same folks. So I'm not sure I'm entirely sorry they're gone (if they're gone). So hmm.

They are on Twatter.

thecolorsblend Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:11 am

Apologist Puncher wrote:I wonder how those morons, and I am POSITIVE they were out there, felt when their bosses found the SSS Blog?

What else could they say or do? Apart from the fact-centered posts SSS used to write, there were the comments. A few at first, then a dozen, then a couple dozen and then, toward the end, hundreds. Anytime something got posted on there, BAM, instant comments. Sure, there were a few brave Apologist souls willing to waddle their fat selves once more into the breach but they tended to retreat when they realized there was little or no mod oversight to protect them (a new thing in the Apologist experience, to be sure).

And the criticisms were largely more substantive than "Singerman sucks, yuk yuk yuk". There were learned analyses of the box office returns, genuine criticisms of the film's many and varied shortcomings and other stuff. Sure, a lot of coarse language was in there but (A) fuck fuck fuckity fuck and (B) that doesn't immediately undermine the logic behind the sentiments.

Apologist Puncher wrote:They are on Twatter.

...

DAY-UM! Now THAT, sir, is a come down. They once had the run of the entire GD Internet, banning any dissident in their path... but now they've been relegated to the online equivalent of a knitting circle sharing a fuzzy glow over the latest Routh pic. "Here he is sipping a latté and swatting at a mosquito. Such a rugged chunk of undiluted masculinity! I just want to hug him and put him in my pocket!" And that's not to mention what the Apologist women are saying!

As with most things, it became a binary argument. SV vs. Singerman. Nevermind the fact that Singerman would've sucked any way you care to slice it, no no, it had to be SV vs. Singerman. But since THEY are the ones who set up that false dichotomy, it does amuse me that history will remember SV a hell of a lot more fondly than it does Singerman. Hell, we're already there in most respects.

Ah, justice...

Me and my lady are going through all the SV seasons right now. And right now, we're in the back six and something hit me. No, season 4 IS NOT SV at its best. Not by a long shot. If the "Lanaville" moniker EVER had teeth, it was during the fourth season. But aside from that, SV at its absolute worst (and that's what I think of season 4, if I haven't been clear) is still better than Singerman at its absolute best -- which, admittedly, is a pretty freakin low bar but still.

Apologist Puncher Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:19 am

thecolorsblend wrote:

What else could they say or do? Apart from the fact-centered posts SSS used to write, there were the comments. A few at first, then a dozen, then a couple dozen and then, toward the end, hundreds. Anytime something got posted on there, BAM, instant comments. Sure, there were a few brave Apologist souls willing to waddle their fat selves once more into the breach but they tended to retreat when they realized there was little or no mod oversight to protect them (a new thing in the Apologist experience, to be sure).

It was fun making them squirm. It was even MORE fun when they called for SSS to "protect" them from us "awful, awful men!".

And the criticisms were largely more substantive than "Singerman sucks, yuk yuk yuk". There were learned analyses of the box office returns, genuine criticisms of the film's many and varied shortcomings and other stuff. Sure, a lot of coarse language was in there but (A) fuck fuck fuckity fuck and (B) that doesn't immediately undermine the logic behind the sentiments.

Too true. Just because someone used some "colorful language" doesn't automatically invalidate what they said.

Didn't stop them from tossing that out there though, did it?

DAY-UM! Now THAT, sir, is a come down. They once had the run of the entire GD Internet, banning any dissident in their path... but now they've been relegated to the online equivalent of a knitting circle sharing a fuzzy glow over the latest Routh pic. "Here he is sipping a latté and swatting at a mosquito. Such a rugged chunk of undiluted masculinity! I just want to hug him and put him in my pocket!" And that's not to mention what the Apologist women are saying!

Oh yes. It is now just a pathetic LITTLE circle-jerk over there.

No need to hear those pesky counter-opinions anymore. No need to have the reality of Singerman and BJ Routh's failures brought into their own psychotic little world. No, on Twatter they ONLY hear what they want to hear.

Losers.

thecolorsblend Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:55 am

Since I'm the one who brought the subject up here, this alone has got more chemistry and humor than a thousand Singerman movies ever would've...

non_amos Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:12 am

Apologist Puncher wrote:Oh, and get THESE responses from that same link and picture, and the same Apologist asshair:

golden123 - 1/11/2012, 5:28 PM
Login to report abuse

It's funny that some of you think this picture is better than anything "Superman Returns" had to offer. When I looked at the picture the first thing that came to mind was Superman Returns. Just the way random parts of the scenery jet out everywhere. Similar to how the kryptonite island and the Kryptonion spaceship looked. Not to mention the way that truck was misplaced reminded me of the various objects in Superman Returns that were misplaced due to accidents. I'm talking about the ship on the kryptonite island, the Jet on the Baseball feild, the Daily Planet Globe falling off, and the brakeless car running off course.

golden123 - 1/11/2012, 5:30 PM
Login to report abuse

It honestly looks like a shot out of "Superman Returns".

Need I say more about these pieces of shit, or does this retard say it ALL?

'Man Of Steel' Set Pics/Vids - Page 8 Double10

Apologist Puncher Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:02 pm

Zack Snyder's "Thank You" to Vancouver, after production wrapped up there:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=53120

'Man Of Steel' Set Pics/Vids - Page 8 ZacksnyderthanksVancuver

'Man Of Steel' Set Pics/Vids - Page 8 ZacksnyderthanksVancuver

thecolorsblend Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:26 pm

That's pretty cool of him. Classy.

non_amos Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:08 am

I know this ain't really news to us but I find it kind of ironic that Snyder chose to film some of this film in Vancouver, especially since SMALLVILLE was so strongly tied to it. And it's not like it's been years since that ended either. But hey! I guess it beats trying to grow corn in an Australian wilderness to pass as Smallville or using Sydney to double for Metropolis. Even sweeter is that, as far as I know, duh Eunuch still ain't involved in this production. As far as I know. Looks like we just might get a SUPERMAN film this time. Excited

thecolorsblend Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:21 am

non_amos wrote:I know this ain't really news to us but I find it kind of ironic that Snyder chose to film some of this film in Vancouver, especially since SMALLVILLE was so strongly tied to it. And it's not like it's been years since that ended either. But hey! I guess it beats trying to grow corn in an Australian wilderness to pass as Smallville or using Sydney to double for Metropolis. Even sweeter is that, as far as I know, duh Eunuch still ain't involved in this production. As far as I know. Looks like we just might get a SUPERMAN film this time.

My favorite part of the whole deal is that the one Eunuch page staffer that was given set visit access was NOT given access in his office as a Eunuch staffer but for some other website. Therefore, as per his agreement with his other "employer" (or whatever), he couldn't divulge any details on the Eunuch page until that other website had made their hay out of it.

Call me crazy but I suspect a message was definitely being sent there.

As far as Smallville is concerned, the Vancouver angle fed speculation (half-hearted though it was) that there was still some small sliver of a chance that Tom Welling might play Superman. But on the other hand, it's not like Snyder is a stranger to shooting in Vancouver.

As for the Australia stuff, you really have to wonder sometimes how much of the Singerman budget got blown on stupid bullshit. Hell, if Barry Freiman is to be believed, one reason Singerman's CG effects are as shitty as they are is not because the effects companies can't do a competent job (talk about one hell of a competitive industry!) but because Singer was, at first, partying non-stop and, later, in rehab non-stop and so your normal QC checks and approvals for effects scenes were all pretty much last minute. So that's why you get Playstation 2-grade effect shots in what was supposed to be your top of the line "blockbuster action film". The effects companies had to bang things out as best they could with the time they had left.

Apparently, shit like that is the REAL reason why Singerman looks like a $100 million flick rather than the $220+ million "epic" it was intended to be.

You have to kinda feel sorry for those effects companies, actually. Every CG sequence in any movie they do is putting their reputation on the line, and I don't think they have the option of putting a "the director of this movie completely fucked us" disclaimer out there. Done properly, I'm a big defender of CG effects but Singerman definitely represents how badly things can go wrong if those techniques are not managed properly by talented filmmakers.

non_amos Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:42 am

Wasn't Singer too busy with the *ahem*, 'bath-houses'? I mean, forget for the moment his 'orientation', even so, he still could've done his job. It's called 'priorities'. The task at hand was supposed to have been to make a Superman film. Did we get that? What do you think?! He should've been focused like Snyder apparently is & if he had been, we might not even be having this discussion. But instead Singer was 'partying' like he was at some gay fraternity initiation or something. And the final product? SINGERMAN! Mad

Comicbookfan-V2 Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:40 am

thecolorsblend wrote:Hell, if Barry Freiman is to be believed, one reason Singerman's CG effects are as shitty as they are is not because the effects companies can't do a competent job (talk about one hell of a competitive industry!) but because Singer was, at first, partying non-stop and, later, in rehab non-stop and so your normal QC checks and approvals for effects scenes were all pretty much last minute. So that's why you get Playstation 2-grade effect shots in what was supposed to be your top of the line "blockbuster action film". The effects companies had to bang things out as best they could with the time they had left.

Apparently, shit like that is the REAL reason why Singerman looks like a $100 million flick rather than the $220+ million "epic" it was intended to be.

I've always wondered why SR look less expensive than the amount it cost to produce it, and here I thought the rest of the budget was use for that "Return to Krypton" scene!

thecolorsblend Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:23 am

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:I've always wondered why SR look less expensive than the amount it cost to produce it, and here I thought the rest of the budget was use for that "Return to Krypton" scene!

I can understand that. The amount of money on the screen at any given moment for any given movie can be a difficult thing to judge. That having been said, credible authorities have claimed that all expenses are tallied (everything; cast/crew salaries, stage rentals, pre-production costs, production costs in the form of set building and whatnot, editing, scoring, effects, EVERYTHING), the Return To Krapton (thanks Puncher) scene cost in the ballpark of $6 million to produce. If that figure is true and if we presuppose Singerman cost fully $200 million to produce (which is itself a conservative estimate, again, based on credible sources), you're still left with $194 million to play with. That's 97% of the budget that's still on the table.

In the grander scheme of things, the Return To Krapton sequence is ultimately a drop in the bucket. There's just no way the Return To Krapton scene ALONE is what drove Singerman into significant non-profitability. Any argument to the contrary is Apologist drivel and it just isn't going to fly around here where we depend on facts, reason and logic to advance our arguments.

From here, I go off on a Singerman tirade. Be warned.

What I will say though is that the Return To Krapton scene is probably the poster child for everything that was ever wrong with Singerman even on the basic conceptual level. It epitomizes everything you look for in a deleted scene. The scene was intended to take place at the beginning of the movie and so it carries a particularly special burden of introducing the character, setting up core conflicts of the film, grabbing the audience's attention with a fun action sequence and expositing useful information for the audience to latch on to. It need not accomplish all those things necessarily but ideally it would tackle at least a few.

I don't care what anybody says, the Return To Krapton scene is an unmitigated failure on those grounds.

In the first place, it simply isn't fun to watch. There's no excitement. It proceeds dully along to a plodding, foregone, predictable conclusion and there's no sense of genuine peril because, if for no other reason, there's just no way the headlining character of this type of film will die at all, much less in the first few minutes. Hell, what little peril is expressed in this sequence is very probably lost on someone who isn't familiar with the Superman mythology.

Worse, the lack of dialogue gives the audience nothing to latch on to. If they don't understand wtf is happening in this scene going into the thing, nothing in this scene will assist them. Michael Bay, Jim Cameron, Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, or any of a number of other filmmakers could've taken that same basic setpiece and really done something fun and exciting with it (a powerless Superman escapes from a death trap!!) while also cluing the audience in to exactly what's happening (Superman is being poisoned by gigantic fucking huge amounts of Kryptonite radiation!!); that level of dexterity is, however, simply beyond Singer's capabilities as a filmmaker.

Second, and somewhat on that same line, the scene accomplishes nothing in terms of exposition. The audience goes into the scene knowing nothing and they come out of the scene knowing nothing. During the scene, they don't learn anything. The scene does nothing to advance plot, character or theme. It's just kinda there.

There are other problems with the scene but that's a halfway decent sample. In summary, this scene is the gold standard of something that gets deleted from a movie because it simply contributes nothing whatsoever to the proceedings.

Putting aside the fact that the motherfucker was ever scripted in the first place, the fact that Singer waited until the scene had progressed so far as the scoring stage before making the cut proves once again that he was a very poor steward of the budget afforded him by WB. He had no focus or discipline in making this film. None whatsoever. The film is ostensibly about the character returning; where the character went is merely exposition designed to facilitate the conflicts and subplots engendered by his return. You cut through it and move on.

Of course, that line only leads you right back to just how fucking idiotic it ever was for him to leave Earth in the first place just on the off-chance that Jor-El was wrong and somehow there were survivors from Krypton. But I'll skip that. Suffice it to say that the plot, characters, themes and history of this thing (following on as it does from STM) are simply beyond Bryan Singer as a director; they always were and they always will be. Bryan Singer will never be able to tap into what makes Superman work because he never understood what those core elements were to begin with.

Any other explanation some fucking Apologist wants to put on the other side of this argument ignores how poorly conceived, crafted and executed Singerman as a film in general and this scene in particular always were.

Incidentally, 99% of the above could also be said to apply to that retarded flashback scene where Young BJ Blandon learns how to jump around and crash through barns. There are probably other scenes in the movie this could be said about but it's been ages since I've seen anything from it so I'll let someone else jump in on this one if they want to.

In other words, stick with me, kid; I'll change your world.

webhead2006 Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:25 pm

That was a nice newspaper article and deal snyder did for vancouver on end of filming there. Was very nice thing to do. As per that cbm article we still have a little more filming to go in la before first unit officially wraps. So can't wait for what else we hear filming wise. As for snyder/vancouver I didn't see any issues there he has shot a lot of films there and probably likes the city and studio space/equipment he can get there.

Apologist Puncher Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:38 pm

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=55531

Superman and Lois Lane:

'Man Of Steel' Set Pics/Vids - Page 8 MOS-01-958x1024

*EDIT* And Faora in the background??

thecolorsblend Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:43 pm

Nice find. Just hope Snyder overcomes the problem of putting Superman in the middle of motherfucking nowhere the minute an action sequence pops up (STM and S3, for example).

Apologist Puncher Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:25 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:Nice find. Just hope Snyder overcomes the problem of putting Superman in the middle of motherfucking nowhere the minute an action sequence pops up (STM and S3, for example).

I don't see that happening. But you never know....

non_amos Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:03 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:Nice find. Just hope Snyder overcomes the problem of putting Superman in the middle of motherfucking nowhere the minute an action sequence pops up (STM and S3, for example).

You raise an interesting point. As much as I like STM, what's the deal with the desert?! For that matter, what's the deal with multiple superhero films wanting to take place in the desert?! Look at Ang Lee's Hulk. Desert! But to be fair there though, there is some precedent for that in the comics. I know because I'm a long-time Hulk fan. Nevertheless there does seem to be some unusual attraction for the desert in these films. What's up with that? Is it cheaper to film or something? They don't have to build props? What?! Question

Sponsored content