SOOOO much better than Man of Steel!!!!!
-
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 02:52 AM)
"So you think he should have let Zod kill his mum?"
No, but that doesn't mean he should endanger the lives of other people by bringing the fight to the bloody town, smashing into a pillar and a gas station in the process. Since when has thought processing or common sense been an issue?
"I thought we were on about the character of Superman. Why have you changed the subject?"
We were discussing how "S1" inspired Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" - that's what we were talking about. I was talking about how both films tried to incorporate a vast, epic sense of scale and a sense of verisimilitude by having the worlds the characters are apart of seem like real places.
"Even though its completely debunked yours."
You haven't even debunked a single point.
"So you've run out of arguments and are just repeating the same BS now, I see."
Only because you keep trying to ignore them and don't want to face reality. Newsflash, junior - it isn't a good film, not even close.
"No, they did the exact opposite, proving my very point."
Marketing and bribery aren't the same - get that through your thick skull.
"Except he was fighting a beep missile."
Again, the story wasn't about punching people in the face. Again, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey
"There was about as much logic as any other film that does this. You're just nitpicking."
Even less so, especially compared to "Batman Begins".
"See above, retard. I was able to follow it perfectly, I don't know why you have so much trouble with it. And my Teletubbies reference refers to your IQ. If it bothers you that much, I could refer you to some other kiddies show that your mentality will prefer."
Again, it wasn't the question of being able to "follow it", you mental midget, it was the question of narrative cohesion. The jumps between past and present are completely abrupt and don't flow well together, unlike the ones done in "Batman Begins". There was nothing natural in going from a scene of Clark staring up at a whale underwater to a flashback of him as a child.
"Well, bribery would have come into it but it is actually a good film. I've also explained that they HAVE to resort to bribery because everyone is doing it. And achieved what, another film about a flying dude?"
Marketing isn't the same as "bribery". If you have a low budget movie that's only playing at one or two movie theaters in the country and there's nothing else to indicate its presence, chances are it will be ignored. Also, if every Academy Award was the result of a bribe, then you cannot say with certainty that "Aliens" was a good film. In terms of what "S1" had achieved, it set the standard for superhero films in terms of having a sense of mythic stature.
"They weren't going to let his love interest stay dead. Hell, the Dark Knight is literally the only superhero film that actually did."
Hollywood didn't want her to stay dead in order to give the movie a happy ending, that's true, but no one could have foreseen Superman breaking the boundaries of time and space in order to do so. At best, one would have expected him to do the whole fairy tale BS kiss of life like in those old Disney movies.
"And what makes you think they work in tandem? They are massive machines that destroy everything around them."
Given that both started unleashing devastating gravity beams at the exact same time might have been a clue. Again, use your eyes.
"Oh, a nuclear missile. Yeah, no way that's not gonna cause even more collateral damage."
If nukes aren't an option, other missiles, battleships, planes and so on could have been sent.
"I already explained to you that the military were taking care of the one in the city and there was nobody to stop the other one. The whole send another military unit there falls apart once you realise that Superman was faster. Try again."
Your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that a) the region where the other machine was placed was isolated, with no f#cker around, and b) the military's being ridiculously, hilariously unprepared and unequipped for taking on Kryptonian soldiers, something that even Clark himself knew and witnessed in person back in Smallville. Clark just leaving them to take on Kryptonian soldiers alone doesn't paint him in a very bright light.
"Oh, you mean later elements that had nothing to do with the film whatsoever. And even if the comics took one of two elements, that doesn't actually mean Superman 1 is any good"
Those elements had plenty to do with the film. If they were so awful, would Byrne and other writers at DC have bothered including them into the Superman mythos? They helped form the comics and characters as we see them today, including Lex Luthor. Without them, Lex would still have been a red-haired criminal scientist.
"That's not a disguise."
Maybe not in the sense of dressing differently or putting on a fake mustache, but it is in the sense of camouflage and trying to fit in with his surroundings.
"If he had done that instead of focu -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 07:24 AM)
No, but that doesn't mean he should endanger the lives of other people by bringing the fight to the bloody town, smashing into a pillar and a gas station in the process. Since when has thought processing or common sense been an issue?
Since someone was trying to kill his mum. This isn't Superman who's been doing it for eighty years, this is Superman just starting out.
We were discussing how "S1" inspired Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" - that's what we were talking about. I was talking about how both films tried to incorporate a vast, epic sense of scale and a sense of verisimilitude by having the worlds the characters are apart of seem like real places.
And has what to do with anything?
You haven't even debunked a single point.
I've debunked all of them.
Only because you keep trying to ignore them and don't want to face reality. Newsflash, junior - it isn't a good film, not even close.
No, that would be you.
Though, it is good to see you admit Superman 1 is a bad film.
Marketing and bribery aren't the same - get that through your thick skull.
When it comes to Academy Awards and beep their pretty close.
Again, the story wasn't about punching people in the face. Again, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey
It doesn't say anything about being boring, or having to be a mind controlled slave to be a hero, or killing millions of people to save one stupid bitch.
Even less so, especially compared to "Batman Begins".
Now, you're trying to compare it to a Chris Nolan. Obviously most films are gonna be inferior to something he makes.
Zack Synder might not be as good as Nolan but he's still miles better than Richard "Had No Idea What He Was Doing" Donnor.
Again, it wasn't the question of being able to "follow it", you mental midget, it was the question of narrative cohesion. The jumps between past and present are completely abrupt and don't flow well together, unlike the ones done in "Batman Begins". There was nothing natural in going from a scene of Clark staring up at a whale underwater to a flashback of him as a child.
AKA you couldn't follow it.
Marketing isn't the same as "bribery". If you have a low budget movie that's only playing at one or two movie theaters in the country and there's nothing else to indicate its presence, chances are it will be ignored. Also, if every Academy Award was the result of a bribe, then you cannot say with certainty that "Aliens" was a good film. In terms of what "S1" had achieved, it set the standard for superhero films in terms of having a sense of mythic stature.
What you're talking about it not marketing.
And I already explained that a lot of the time, they are generally good films but because everyone else is giving out bribes, they have to do the same thing themselves to have any chance.
The problem was that there were no good films out in 1978 so the Awards that year could only have gone to bad films. As for what S1 achieved, no it didn't set any standard beyond being slightly less crap than the previous superhero films. And its "mythic stature" made no god damn sense whatsoever.
Hollywood didn't want her to stay dead in order to give the movie a happy ending, that's true, but no one could have foreseen Superman breaking the boundaries of time and space in order to do so. At best, one would have expected him to do the whole fairy tale BS kiss of life like in those old Disney movies.
Oh please, breaking the boundaries of time is essentially the same thing as a BS kiss of life.
Given that both started unleashing devastating gravity beams at the exact same time might have been a clue. Again, use your eyes.
That doesn't prove they work they work like. It just shows they were both activated at the same time.
If nukes aren't an option, other missiles, battleships, planes and so on could have been sent.
And yet Superman is faster and couldn't take as long as the military to get there.
Your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that a) the region where the other machine was placed was isolated, with no f#cker around,
No, that actually further proves my point that military wouldn't get there in time.
b) the military's being ridiculously, hilariously unprepared and unequipped for taking on Kryptonian soldiers, something that even Clark himself knew and witnessed in person back in Smallville. Clark just leaving them to take on Kryptonian soldiers alone doesn't paint him in a very bright light.
Well, unfortunately, Superman didn't make the power to split himself in two. He had to take care of one of the problems first. Better to focus on the machine nobody is stopping than the one the military are already working on.
Those elements had plenty to do with the film. If they were so awful, would Byrne and other writers at DC have bothered including them into the Superman mythos? They helped form the comics and characters as we see them today, including Lex Luthor. Without them, Lex would still have been a red-haired criminal scientist.
You are just making -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 01:02 AM)
"Since someone was trying to kill his mum. This isn't Superman who's been doing it for eighty years, this is Superman just starting out."
So what? How does that excuse the lack of both common sense and rational thought? It doesn't.
"And has what to do with anything?"
You really do have memory problems. I pity you. To remind you once again, we were discussing how Nolan drew inspiration from "Superman 1" for "Batman Begins".
"I've debunked all of them."
You've debunked nothing. The only thing you proved was how much of a f$ck-up and idiot you are.
"What you're talking about it not marketing."
You have no idea what marketing is, do you? Allow me to give you the definition: "marketing - noun
the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."
Soo yeah this falls under marketing.
"No, that would be you. Though, it is good to see you admit Superman 1 is a bad film."
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing. Your attention span is pitiful. I said "Man of Steel" was a bad film, not "Superman 1".
"Well, they don't look very crystal to me. Also, why the beep was everyone made of "crystal" anyway?"
Not the film's fault you have $hit vision - it's hard to mistake a crystal for anything else.
"It doesn't say anything about being boring, or having to be a mind controlled slave to be a hero, or killing millions of people to save one stupid bitch."
If a movie is boring to someone, that doesn't mean it's a "bad" movie. It depends on what the viewer wants to get out of said-movie. It also depends on what the movie wants to be, and in this case the movie was true to itself - a hero's journey, complete with chapters showcasing the protagonist's development into the character he ultimately becomes. And again, Superman wasn't a mind-controlled slave - you cannot argue "mind control" when someone wasn't even that person to begin with. And again, no, he didn't let millions die.
"Now, you're trying to compare it to a Chris Nolan. Obviously most films are gonna be inferior to something he makes."
Because the movie is aping that style (among other things) but even less successfully.
"Zack Synder might not be as good as Nolan but he's still miles better than Richard "Had No Idea What He Was Doing" Donnor."
Snyder, not "Synder". In terms of Richard Donner's take on "Superman", he knew exactly what he was doing when he worked on the film, and in comparison to "MOS", it's miles better.
"AKA you couldn't follow it."
There was no correlation between these scenes. Let me it say it again for you, only this time slower since you yourself are slow. What. Does. A. Whale. Have. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood? At least with "Batman Begins" there was a correlation between scenes past and present.
"Oh please, breaking the boundaries of time is essentially the same thing as a BS kiss of life."
Not so; if a person were kissed and brought back to life, it would be an isolated event. Turning back time, however, affects history, people, even the universe, with any number of consequences involved.
"And yet Superman is faster and couldn't take as long as the military to get there."
"No, that actually further proves my point that military wouldn't get there in time."
They could have contacted other bases/ships close by while Clark dealt with the one in the city where people were brutally being killed.
"Well, unfortunately, Superman didn't make the power to split himself in two. He had to take care of one of the problems first. Better to focus on the machine nobody is stopping than the one the military are already working on."
Given Clark himself knew how pitifully and woefully outmatched the military were against Kryptonian soldiers, it would have made more sense to deal with the one in the city than to just leave it to them and knowingly send them to their deaths.
"You are just making more of a fool of yourself. Lex wasn't influenced by Hackman at all, otherwise he'd be wearing a wig. Also, Luthor was bald before S1."
Please, it is you who is the fool. Prior to this, Lex was a criminal scientist with red hair. The baldness originally came from a printing error. Then, in "Adventure Comics" #270, a chemical accident made Lex bald. If it hadn't been for the Donner films, Lex would still have been a criminal scientist and not a plutocrat.
"The reality is that both machines were gonna kill everyone. If Superman went for the one in Metropolis, the other one would have killed everyone."
Not if Clark got to the one in Metropolis first, destroyed it then went after the other one.
"Also, none of the Spiderman films involved him having to go to the other end of the Earth and back within a short amount of time."
And yet Spiderman was able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to taking in his surroundings and saving civilians at the same time.
"Who cares about the process? They would have made the perfect CGI for Superman 1 and the plot would have still been bad."
You said that the Zoptic Process h -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 09:28 AM)
So what? How does that excuse the lack of both common sense and rational thought? It doesn't.
Common sense and rational thought are, "OMG, he's trying to kill my mum! I gotta save her!"
You really do have memory problems. I pity you. To remind you once again, we were discussing how Nolan drew inspiration from "Superman 1" for "Batman Begins".
Except that he just said that to draw in the Superman 1 crowd.
You've debunked nothing. The only thing you proved was how much of a f$ck-up and idiot you are.
No, that would be you.
You have no idea what marketing is, do you? Allow me to give you the definition: "marketing - noun
the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."
Soo yeah this falls under marketing.
Nope, try again.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing. Your attention span is pitiful. I said "Man of Steel" was a bad film, not "Superman 1".
Says the guy who can't follow Man of Steel's plotline.
Not the film's fault you have $hit vision - it's hard to mistake a crystal for anything else.
Well, normally crystal looks like crystal.
If a movie is boring to someone, that doesn't mean it's a "bad" movie. It depends on what the viewer wants to get out of said-movie. It also depends on what the movie wants to be, and in this case the movie was true to itself - a hero's journey, complete with chapters showcasing the protagonist's development into the character he ultimately becomes. And again, Superman wasn't a mind-controlled slave - you cannot argue "mind control" when someone wasn't even that person to begin with. And again, no, he didn't let millions die.
Its not someONE that found it boring. Most people agree its a terrible film. And it wasn't true to Superman at all. Also, my arguments about him vein under mind control as a "superhero" and killing millions of people stands because that's what happened.
Because the movie is aping that style (among other things) but even less successfully.
Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull.
Snyder, not "Synder". In terms of Richard Donner's take on "Superman", he knew exactly what he was doing when he worked on the film, and in comparison to "MOS", it's miles better.
Even though Donnor had the worst cast, a terrible plot and an sympathetic character.
There was no correlation between these scenes. Let me it say it again for you, only this time slower since you yourself are slow. What. Does. A. Whale. Have. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood? At least with "Batman Begins" there was a correlation between scenes past and present.
Let me say it slowly for you. Who. Cares. What. A. Whale. Has. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood?
Not so; if a person were kissed and brought back to life, it would be an isolated event. Turning back time, however, affects history, people, even the universe, with any number of consequences involved.
Except the only consequences were that the people Superman saved before all died and he didn't seem to care about that, anyway.
They could have contacted other bases/ships close by while Clark dealt with the one in the city where people were brutally being killed.
And how would it have taken for those military to get there? The machine had to be destroyed right NOW.
Given Clark himself knew how pitifully and woefully outmatched the military were against Kryptonian soldiers, it would have made more sense to deal with the one in the city than to just leave it to them and knowingly send them to their deaths.
You seriously rather he just left the other machine unattended?
What you are saying is retarded.
Please, it is you who is the fool. Prior to this, Lex was a criminal scientist with red hair. The baldness originally came from a printing error. Then, in "Adventure Comics" #270, a chemical accident made Lex bald. If it hadn't been for the Donner films, Lex would still have been a criminal scientist and not a plutocrat.
Jerry Siegel altered Luthor's backstory to incorporate his hair loss into his origin in 1960.
That was nearly twenty years before Superman 1.
Not if Clark got to the one in Metropolis first, destroyed it then went after the other one.
Going after the one in Metropolis, he would have had to fight aliens, then destroy the machine, then go after the other machine which would have been destroying the planet at the SAME TIME. I don't know why this is so difficult for you comprehend.
And yet Spiderman was able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to taking in his surroundings and saving civilians at the same time.
He only had to fight one or two super villains at worst. He wasn't dealing with anything as powerful as Zod.
You said that the Zoptic Process had been used in other films before "Superman 1". Also, considering this was made before the era of CG, the effects were pretty good. In terms of plot, there was hardly anything wrong with it.
Apart from unsympathetic characters and the lack of any real threat.
I've been talking about it since we started conversing.
N -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 12:40 PM)
"Common sense and rational thought are, "OMG, he's trying to kill my mum! I gotta save her!""
That doesn't excuse the lack of both by taking the fight over to Smallville, thereby endangering the rest of the town. Common sense and rational thought would be "Hey, this is dangerous, better take it someplace else rather than smash into that pillar and gas station!".
"Except that he just said that to draw in the Superman 1 crowd."
Ah, your powers of telepathy are back again, I see. You're pathetic.
"No, that would be you."
Please. You've been lying, exposed multiple times and then you tried to hide that fact but failed.
"Nope, try again."
Keep trying - you're only embarrassing yourself. The fact is, that does classify as marketing.
"Says the guy who can't follow Man of Steel's plotline."
I said I understood the "plotline" of "MOS", it's just the logic (or rather, lack of logic) behind its scene transitions that doesn't make sense.
"No, you've just been making straw man arguments that prove nothing."
They didn't "prove nothing", you're just too much of a dumb-a$$ and a fanboy brat to even listen or acknowledge them, despite their overwhelming evidence.
"Well, normally crystal looks like crystal."
Crystal looks like crystal. Don't be stupid.
"He only had to fight one or two super villains at worst. He wasn't dealing with anything as powerful as Zod."
And yet he was still able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to controlling destruction and being aware of his surroundings.
"Going after the one in Metropolis, he would have had to fight aliens, then destroy the machine, then go after the other machine which would have been destroying the planet at the SAME TIME. I don't know why this is so difficult for you comprehend."
He could have destroyed the machine first, blasted into their ship, which in turn would let Earth's atmosphere in and cause the Kryptonians to collapse/ become weakened since they can't breathe in it, thereby allowing Clark to subdue them, then go down to the other machine. It's so easy to understand.
"And how would it have taken for those military to get there? The machine had to be destroyed right NOW."
Given that it was in the Indian Ocean, I'm pretty sure they could have called in some planes or ships to launch a missile strike. Or hell, bombard the thing with drones. Any number of ways.
"You seriously rather he just left the other machine unattended?"
No, Clark could have left that to the military while he dealt with the one in the city. If the military were unsuccessful, then he'd go and deal with it himself.
"Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull."
Nope. Try again. Glad to see you admitting that "MOS" is derivative.
"Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull."
Nope. Even less so, especially compared to the even lesser superhero films.
"Its not someONE that found it boring. Most people agree its a terrible film."
I don't doubt that there would be a couple of people who aren't fans of it, but a couple of people isn't the same as "most". The overwhelming majority actually preferred the Donner films.
"And it wasn't true to Superman at all."
It was very true to him.
"Also, my arguments about him vein under mind control as a "superhero" and killing millions of people stands because that's what happened."
But that wasn't what happened - that's what you
want
to believe had happened. You can't say he's been "brainwashed" when he was never that person to begin with, and he didn't kill millions of people.
"Actually, Superman 1 was LESS than "punch bad guy""
It was a monomyth showcasing his development into the hero he ultimately becomes. The fact you can't see beyond punching people is a sure-sign of your intelligence. I pity you.
"Let me say it slowly for you. Who. Cares. What. A. Whale. Has. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood?"
Let me make it clear to you what's wrong with it - in "Batman Begins", the cuts between past and present made sense because they had dealt with certain themes and issues in those moments (ie Ras' question about Bruce's fear, the beginning with Bruce as a child falling into a hole before transitioning to the present with him as a bearded, dishevelled adult in an Asian prison, etc) thus the transitioning was seamless. I think you don't even know yourself.
"Jerry Siegel altered Luthor's backstory to incorporate his hair loss into his origin in 1960. That was nearly twenty years before Superman 1."
I didn't debate that the hair loss was something Donner brought, I said his change from a criminal scientist to a plutocrat.
"The lack of any real threat."
Lex Luthor and the missiles don't count?
"While I can accept Kong and Metropolis for being good at the time, they doesn't actually make them good films."
They are good films, for they have contributed heavily to the science fiction genre, even founded certain sub-genres. Also, "The Cat People" is a cult classic.
"The problem with that argument is that Superman 1 had no sense of scale or mythic either. It jus -
death-lord — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 06:38 PM)
im on your side butno matter how old the film is, metropolis, superman 1978, and kong have actual character development and great writing which puts it above average beep like most modern films including man of steel
however the mediocrity and awfulness of man of steel and dawn of justice do not excuse the equally but in a different way awful writing of superman returns
its poorly written "characters", wasted ideas(the son of superman is being done better in the comics), its slavish devotion to a abstract irreplicatable feel(the feel of the donner films do not lend itself to new needed directions like brainiac or darkseid), and its poor cast bring it down and no amount of beep on other crappy films are gonna change that -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 05:31 AM)
"however the mediocrity and awfulness of man of steel and dawn of justice do not excuse the equally but in a different way awful writing of superman returnsits poorly written "characters", wasted ideas(the son of superman is being done better in the comics), its slavish devotion to a abstract irreplicatable feel(the feel of the donner films do not lend itself to new needed directions like brainiac or darkseid), and its poor cast bring it down and no amount of beep on other crappy films are gonna change that"
"SR" was hardly awful, let alone mediocre. In terms of its slavish devotion to the Donner films "not lending itself to new directions like Brainiac or Darkseid", that is bull$hit - of course it could have. In fact, a follow-up had been planned with Brainiac, and from what I heard, the son would have been a pivotal part. -
death-lord — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 07:14 PM)
lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is beep disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess)
-
death-lord — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 07:18 PM)
lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is beep disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess as well as a enraged jason beating the beep out of clark as i feel he would beep deserve it)
-
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 10:09 PM)
"lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is beep disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess as well as a enraged jason beating the beep out of clark as i feel he would beep deserve it)"
Personally I actually like the idea of Brainiac possessing someone Superman cares about and trying to force him to do something he doesn't want to do, but it doesn't have to end with Supes killing his own son. If done well, it could work. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 02:29 PM)
"How would you end it without destroying the character or makin another depressing film?"
Me personally, I'd try having the confrontation between Superman and Brainiac being more about intellectual prowess than just physical, with the former outsmarting the latter in order to get his consciousness out from his son.