SOOOO much better than Man of Steel!!!!!
-
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.