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. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 01:19 PM)
"He didn't have telepathy in this film."
He had telepathy in the comics.
"Also, you bitch at me about about grammar and yet put telepathy twice."
I added in telepathy in order to distinguish it from tactile telepathy.
"the Cold War has nothing to do with it."
The Cold War had everything to do with it. In those days there was a great deal of uncertainty, especially about the future with the threat of nuclear warfare looming over the heads of everyone. Superman filled that gap, that uncertainty, gave a sense of stability.
"Its basic screenwriting."
"Relatabilty" is a modernist conceit. I mean, has anyone ever watched or read "Frankenstein" and said to themselves "You know, despite that he steals body parts, Vic seems like the kind of guy I'd go bowling with"? Has anyone watched or read "Macbeth" and said "You know, I really like this guy"? Or how about "High Plains Drifter", where every character, the protagonist included, were downright vile?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-gottlieb/book-protagonist_b_2918131.html
http://aspiringtvwriter.blogspot.ca/2014/09/is-relatability-important-in-script.html
"Relatability" is irrelevant. It depends on how the stories are being written and it also depends on what the reader wants to get out of the story. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 19, 2016 07:59 AM)
He had telepathy in the comics.
Yeah, the bad ones. Not exactly a good argument.
I added in telepathy in order to distinguish it from tactile telepathy.
1, How it tactile telepathy different from normal telepathy?
2, If you felt the need to distinguish different types of telepathy, maybe you should have specified them inside of just saying telepathy twice.
The Cold War had everything to do with it. In those days there was a great deal of uncertainty, especially about the future with the threat of nuclear warfare looming over the heads of everyone. Superman filled that gap, that uncertainty, gave a sense of stability.
I don't remember any Russians. The only film that touched on the Cold War was Superman 4 and we all know how that went.
"Relatabilty" is a modernist conceit. I mean, has anyone ever watched or read "Frankenstein" and said to themselves "You know, despite that he steals body parts, Vic seems like the kind of guy I'd go bowling with"?
I believe there were aspects besides stealing body parts.
Has anyone watched or read "Macbeth" and said "You know, I really like this guy"?
Yeah, we all want rise up the ranks just like Macbeth.
Or how about "High Plains Drifter", where every character, the protagonist included, were downright vile?
Never heard of it.
"Relatability" is irrelevant. It depends on how the stories are being written and it also depends on what the reader wants to get out of the story.
And in Superman 1, they got nothing out of it.
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 19, 2016 05:33 PM)
"Yeah, the bad ones. Not exactly a good argument."
Different times, dude.
"1, How it tactile telepathy different from normal telepathy?"
Telepathy involves reading minds. "Tactile telepathy" is using your mind to empower your body.
"2, If you felt the need to distinguish different types of telepathy, maybe you should have specified them inside of just saying telepathy twice."
If there had been another word for it, I'd have used it. I suppose clairvoyance would have been an alternative term, but arguably that deals more with seeing the future than reading minds.
"I don't remember any Russians. The only film that touched on the Cold War was Superman 4 and we all know how that went."
Again, nuclear missiles dropping out of the sky, the kind of doomsday images that everyone feared at the time. "Superman 2", when Zod and friends attack the White House, with the image of the American flag plummeting down. Plus, have you completely forgotten about Zod's crest emblem? It's a sickle, one of the symbols representative of the Soviet Union.
"I believe there were aspects besides stealing body parts."
Yes, such as his deceitfulness with friends, family and colleagues, his unreliability as a narrator, his irresponsibility as a father, his blasphemy in desecrating corpses in order to produce life.
"Yeah, we all want rise up the ranks just like Macbeth."
Based on some obscure prophecy told by three sinister women?
"Never heard of it."
Can't say I'm surprised. From everything you said, you seem to be of a generation with no appreciation for the classics, film history and/or innovation and take everything for granted, a spoiled child who becomes bored with a film if it didn't involve wall-to-wall action, fist-fighting or CG.
"And in Superman 1, they got nothing out of it."
Wrong, it's you who got nothing out of it, because the story wasn't about punching people in the face. You have every right to not like a film, especially "S1", but to declare it as "bad" because it didn't suit your childish tastes makes you nothing more than a whiney fanboy brat. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 06:50 AM)
Different times, dude.
Bad times.
Telepathy involves reading minds. "Tactile telepathy" is using your mind to empower your body.
The second one doesn't sound like telepathy at all.
If there had been another word for it, I'd have used it. I suppose clairvoyance would have been an alternative term, but arguably that deals more with seeing the future than reading minds.
Well, it you list a word twice, people are gonna think you made a grammar error.
Again, nuclear missiles dropping out of the sky, the kind of doomsday images that everyone feared at the time. "Superman 2", when Zod and friends attack the White House, with the image of the American flag plummeting down. Plus, have you completely forgotten about Zod's crest emblem? It's a sickle, one of the symbols representative of the Soviet Union.
That's not a Cold War thing.
Yes, such as his deceitfulness with friends, family and colleagues, his unreliability as a narrator, his irresponsibility as a father, his blasphemy in desecrating corpses in order to produce life.
He feared death, he lies, etc. Relatable things.
Based on some obscure prophecy told by three sinister women?
You're taking relateability too literally.
Can't say I'm surprised. From everything you said, you seem to be of a generation with no appreciation for the classics, film history and/or innovation and take everything for granted, a spoiled child who becomes bored with a film if it didn't involve wall-to-wall action, fist-fighting or CG.
So I'm not a pretentious beep big whoop.
Wrong, it's you who got nothing out of it, because the story wasn't about punching people in the face. You have every right to not like a film, especially "S1", but to declare it as "bad" because it didn't suit your childish tastes makes you nothing more than a whiney fanboy brat.
Fanboy? Who to you think the target audience is? And I got nothing of it because it was a bad film.
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 20, 2016 09:28 AM)
"The second one doesn't sound like telepathy at all."
In comics, it also is "the power to utilize a personal force field of telekinetic energy. The user's body is completely surrounded by an invisible field of telekinetic energy, protecting them from harm and enhancing their physical abilities. This can also be used to manipulate objects that are on the same surface as the user (such as the ground) or to fly by pushing their own body through the air (this usually requires effort though)."
"Well, it you list a word twice, people are gonna think you made a grammar error."
If there was another word for it, I'd have used it. Besides, given the frequency of your grammatical and spelling errors, you are not one to lecture.
"That's not a Cold War thing."
Eh, yes it was.
"He feared death, he lies, etc. Relatable things."
Everyone fears death and lie on some level. Just because everyone does doesn't make Frankenstein relatable.
"So I'm a pretentious beep big whoop."
Glad to see you admit your shortcomings.
"Fanboy? Who to you think the target audience is?"
Mainstream audiences, mainly American, especially with some of its jingoistic undertones. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:03 AM)
In comics, it also is "the power to utilize a personal force field of telekinetic energy. The user's body is completely surrounded by an invisible field of telekinetic energy, protecting them from harm and enhancing their physical abilities. This can also be used to manipulate objects that are on the same surface as the user (such as the ground) or to fly by pushing their own body through the air (this usually requires effort though)."
That sounds more like force field generation than telepathy. Completely different powers.
If there was another word for it, I'd have used it. Besides, given the frequency of your grammatical and spelling errors, you are not one to lecture.
I didn't put telepathy twice, nor with I use telepathy to refer to the ability to generate force fields.
Eh, yes it was.
Nope, try again.
Everyone fears death and lie on some level. Just because everyone does doesn't make Frankenstein relatable.
And what does then?
Also you made another grammar error when you said "lie" instead of "lies".
Glad to see you admit your shortcomings.
Wow, you can't come up with an argument to you accuse me of saying something I didn't. Try again.
Mainstream audiences, mainly American, especially with some of its jingoistic undertones.
So nobody who reads the source material.
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 21, 2016 09:34 AM)
"That sounds more like force field generation than telepathy. Completely different powers."
It's a slight variation of force field generation, though based more on the power of using one's mind. Regular telepathy involves just reading another's thoughts.
"I didn't put telepathy twice, nor with I use telepathy to refer to the ability to generate force fields."
"Nor with I use".the more you write, the more of a fool you make yourself out to be.
"And what does then?"
Nothing to do with relatability, that's for sure. It's like saying you can relate to him because he has an a$$hole - everyone has a$$holes, therefore they must feel/see some kindred spirit in him. It's not about relatability, it's about the story and how you tell it.
"Also you made another grammar error when you said "lie" instead of "lies"."
So I accidently missed a key before posting. Big whoop. Compared to the frequency of your errors, it's not exactly earth-shaking.
"So nobody who reads the source material."
It's faithful to the source material, although it made some changes that helped improved upon the original, such as the S being the family crest. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 04:57 AM)
It's a slight variation of force field generation, though based more on the power of using one's mind. Regular telepathy involves just reading another's thoughts.
That's still force field generation. Nothing to do with telepathy.
"Nor with I use".the more you write, the more of a fool you make yourself out to be.
Still less errors than you plus if you have to complain about grammar, you're clearly losing the argument.
Nothing to do with relatability, that's for sure. It's like saying you can relate to him because he has an a$$hole - everyone has a$$holes, therefore they must feel/see some kindred spirit in him. It's not about relatability, it's about the story and how you tell it.
And the one Superman 1 told was beep
So I accidently missed a key before posting. Big whoop. Compared to the frequency of your errors, it's not exactly earth-shaking.
1, I just couldn't resist after all your bitching about grammar.
2, You put telepathy twice and then tried to backpedal by saying you meant force field generation.
It's faithful to the source material, although it made some changes that helped improved upon the original, such as the S being the family crest.
Oh really? It was faithful? Okay, where was the super villain for him to fight? The comics were about him fighting super villains. Why isn't there one here?
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.