Superman: The movie is 7.3 and Superman Returns is only 6.1
-
-
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 07:26 AM)
"Superman 1 needed TONS of fixing. It was one of the worst superhero films ever.
"Fixed it for you"
You didn't fix anything - you made even more errors.
What, you completely forgot about some of the truly awful superhero movies out there such as "Batman and Robin", "Batman Forever", "Spawn", "Ghost Rider", "Superman 3" and "4", along with some of the Marvel stuff made before "Superman 1"? Or even "Green Hornet"?
Granted, "Superman 1" wasn't a perfect film and it's dated, but for its time and in relation to superhero films in general, and especially in terms of how it contributed to Superman in comics, it's faaar from the worst superhero movie ever. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 01:32 PM)
Thank you, Jason Rebourne for fixing my many many errors.
Fixed it you
What, you completely forgot about some of the truly awful superhero movies out there such as "Batman and Robin", "Batman Forever", "Spawn", "Ghost Rider", "Superman 3" and "4", along with some of the Marvel stuff made before "Superman 1"? Or even "Green Hornet"?
All better than Superman 1.
Granted, "Superman 1" wasn't a perfect film and it's dated, but for its time and in relation to superhero films in general, and especially in terms of how it contributed to Superman in comics, it's faaar from the worst superhero movie ever.
Oh please, it never did anything for the comics.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 07:57 PM)
"Thank you, Jason Rebourne for fixing my many many errors.
Fixed it you"
Delusional thinking doesn't qualify as "fixing".
"Oh please, it never did anything for the comics."
Of course it did. You're just too much of a delusional hard-a$$ to not look at the facts and details regarding "S1" and 2 along with "Returns". You don't like them, fine, but that doesn't make them awful. "MOS", though, was an inexcusable mess. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 07:22 AM)
Yeah, but delusional thinking does need fixing and that's what I've been doing for you. Fixing your delusional errors.
Of course it did. You're just too much of a delusional hard-a$$ to not look at the facts and details regarding "S1" and 2 along with "Returns". You don't like them, fine, but that doesn't make them awful. "MOS", though, was an inexcusable mess.
Nope, that's you. I've just been looking at facts you don't wanna hear because they would shatter your delusions. Try again. Superman 2 is okay but 1, 3, 4 and Returns are inexcusable messes that Man off Steel managed to fix.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 02:00 AM)
"Yeah, but delusional thinking does need fixing and that's what I've been doing for you. Fixing your delusional errors."
You might want to look at yourself, 'cause the one with delusions isn't me. Like I said, the movies aren't perfect and are dated, but they're faaar from awful.
"Nope, that's you. I've just been looking at facts you don't wanna hear because they would shatter your delusions."
You haven't looked at any facts, just wilfully trying to avert your attention away from said-facts in order to convince yourself that "MOS" "fixed" things. "MOS" didn't fix anything - it's a disjointed generic mess that borrows from other movies and does absolutely nothing different or distinctive enough to make it even better than said-movies. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 07:42 AM)
You might want to look at yourself, 'cause the one with delusions isn't me. Like I said, the movies aren't perfect and are dated, but they're faaar from awful.
Nope, try again cuz you are definitely deluded.
You haven't looked at any facts, just wilfully trying to avert your attention away from said-facts in order to convince yourself that "MOS" "fixed" things. "MOS" didn't fix anything - it's a disjointed generic mess that borrows from other movies and does absolutely nothing different or distinctive enough to make it even better than said-movies.
Apart from having an actual plot, proper characterisation, a good cast, etc. Plus this is the first time Superman has not been a Mary Sue.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 08:02 AM)
"Nope, try again cuz you are definitely deluded."
Try again, junior.
"Apart from having an actual plot, proper characterisation, a good cast, etc. Plus this is the first time Superman has not been a Mary Sue."
It had a good cast, no doubt about that. "Actual plot" and "proper characterization? Give me a break. It was regurgitated material from "Superman 1" and "2" with nonsense such as the Codex. Kal-El was and still is a Mary Sue, you deluded geek - "MOS" only made him more angst-filled. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 08:57 AM)
Try again, junior.
Don' need to. I already succeed on my first try.
It had a good cast, no doubt about that. "Actual plot" and "proper characterization? Give me a break. It was regurgitated material from "Superman 1" and "2" with nonsense such as the Codex. Kal-El was and still is a Mary Sue, you deluded geek - "MOS" only made him more angst-filled.
Well given that Superman 1 and 2 were a mess and this film managed to be better. As for angst, he only had the approbate amount of angst for how someone would react in real life. Also Superman 1 and 2 gave him stupid powers like time rewinding, throwing his S and memory erasure, so Man of Steel is way less Mary Sue.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 02:32 AM)
"I already succeed on my first try."
You haven't. Pay attention to your grammar, junior.
"Superman 1 and 2 gave him stupid powers like time rewinding, throwing his S and memory erasure"
Those elements were from the comics, although DC later retconned them out.
"Man of Steel is way less Mary Sue."
Not much of a reconciliation. He's still a Mary Sue. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 05:20 AM)
You haven't. Pay attention to your grammar, junior.
If you have to complain about grammar, you have already lost the debate.
Those elements were from the comics, although DC later retconned them out.
Which is why he's not a Mary Sue anymore.
Not much of a reconciliation. He's still a Mary Sue.
No, he's actually realistic and doesn't have a stupid amount of powers pulled out his arse.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 08:30 PM)
"If you have to complain about grammar, you have already lost the debate."
No, I just prefer to read clear concise sentences.
"Which is why he's not a Mary Sue anymore."
"No, he's actually realistic and doesn't have a stupid amount of powers pulled out his arse."
Eh, "realistic" and "Superman" are not part of the same vocabulary, smart guy. If we're to talk about "realism", realistically Superman and his planet wouldn't exist. No matter how many ways you do it, he's still a Mary Sue with a butt-load of abilities, including freeze breath, laser beams, X-ray vision, flight, being able to survive in any and every condition that doesn't involve Kryptonite, in some cases, tactile telepathy, telepathy etc. Soo, yeah, no point in arguing "realism". In terms of the Donner/Silver Age Superman being "unrelatable" due to his having so many powers, so what? It's not like he's relatable to begin with. Never mind the fact that at that time people were still living under the specter of Cold War, in a post-Vietnam world of soaring violent crime, inflation, and severe economic shock.
Also, when has "relatability" ever been a prerequisite for a good movie or story? "Relatability" is a modernist conceit. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 02:57 AM)
No, I just prefer to read clear concise sentences.
There you've got nothing to complain about.
Eh, "realistic" and "Superman" are not part of the same vocabulary, smart guy. If we're to talk about "realism", realistically Superman and his planet wouldn't exist. No matter how many ways you do it, he's still a Mary Sue with a butt-load of abilities, including freeze breath, laser beams, X-ray vision, flight, being able to survive in any and every condition that doesn't involve Kryptonite, in some cases, tactile telepathy, telepathy etc. Soo, yeah, no point in arguing "realism". In terms of the Donner/Silver Age Superman being "unrelatable" due to his having so many powers, so what? It's not like he's relatable to begin with. Never mind the fact that at that time people were still living under the specter of Cold War, in a post-Vietnam world of soaring violent crime, inflation, and severe economic shock.
He didn't have telepathy in this film. Also, you bitch at me about about grammar and yet put telepathy twice. And the Cold War has nothing to do with it.
Also, when has "relatability" ever been a prerequisite for a good movie or story? "Relatability" is a modernist conceit.
Its basic screenwriting.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.