Superman: The movie is 7.3 and Superman Returns is only 6.1
-
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. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 10:59 PM)
"Still less errors than you plus if you have to complain about grammar, you're clearly losing the argument."
LOL What? Are you delusional? You were the worst offender of that. Quit projecting your inadequacies onto me.
"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?"
Comic books aren't always about punching the bad guy, you dumb $hit. In those days, superheroes did things such as
actual
crime-fighting like, say, stopping crooks robbing a bank (which Superman did), rescuing people in their time of need, etc. Soo, in that regard, the movie follows that pattern down to the letter. In this day and age, though, that's not enough. "S2" had three supervillains, so there you go.
"1, I just couldn't resist after all your bitching about grammar."
Translation: "*sniff sniff WAAAH! HE POINTED OUT MY ERRORS! OH LOOK, HE'S MADE
ONE
MISTAKE! I made more, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, I'LL POINT IT OUT ANYWAY! THAT'LL SHOW HIM WHO'S BOSS!" Pathetic.
"2, You put telepathy twice and then tried to backpedal by saying you meant force field generation."
I didn't backpedal by saying I meant force field generation, I said that it's a slight variant of it. As far as I know, there's more involved that differentiates it from regular force field generation. I don't know, it's f#cking comic BS. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 06:36 AM)
LOL What? Are you delusional? You were the worst offender of that. Quit projecting your inadequacies onto me.
Quit projecting your inadequacies onto me.
Comic books aren't always about punching the bad guy, you dumb $hit. In those days, superheroes did things such as actual crime-fighting like, say, stopping crooks robbing a bank (which Superman did), rescuing people in their time of need, etc. Soo, in that regard, the movie follows that pattern down to the letter. In this day and age, though, that's not enough. "S2" had three supervillains, so there you go.
Every superhero needs a villain that is worthy of them. Superman 1 didn't have that. As for Superman 2, while Zod himself was a decent villain, Ursa and Non were just rip offs of REAL Superman villains. Plus, the overall was bad and only considered the best one because of how and the others were.
Translation: "sniff sniff WAAAH! HE POINTED OUT MY ERRORS! OH LOOK, HE'S MADE ONE MISTAKE! I made more, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, I'LL POINT IT OUT ANYWAY! THAT'LL SHOW HIM WHO'S BOSS!" Pathetic.
Wow, you are projecting.
I don't care about showing you who's "boss" or even the grammar errors you actually made. I just pointed out your grammar errors because its funny to do that to grammar nazis.
I didn't think you'd get this upset about it.
I didn't backpedal by saying I meant force field generation, I said that it's a slight variant of it. As far as I know, there's more involved that differentiates it from regular force field generation. I don't know, it's f#cking comic BS.
The two powers have nothing in common. It sounds more like you accidentally put the word twice and then tried to backpedal by saying its a different type of "telepathy".
Also telepathy means mind reading so regardless of how the specific force field generation work, I still see don't how its a form of telepathy.
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 23, 2016 11:00 PM)
"I don't care about showing you who's "boss" or even the grammar errors you actually made. I just pointed out your grammar errors because its funny do that to grammar nazis.
I didn't think you'd get this upset about it."
Funny, I wasn't the least bit upset. I was just amused of how pitiful you were in your desperation and eagerness to point out the one, single grammatical error and making a big deal out of it when you yourself are in no position to gloat, especially considering you consistently make errors, cold-blooded butcher of the English language. And by the way, it's "funny to do", not "funny do that".
"Every superhero needs a villain that is worthy of them."
To an extent true. Depends on the story being told.
"Superman 1 didn't have that."
It had Lex Luthor as the villain, but the focus of the film wasn't "punch bad guy and repeat". The focus of the story was to delve into the hero's journey, from his humble beginnings to his meteoric rise.
"It sounds more like you accidentally put the word twice and then tried to backpedal by saying its a different type of "telepathy". Also telepathy means mind reading so regardless of how the specific force field generation work, I still don't how its a form of telepathy."
If I recall correctly, one of the abilities of tactile telepathy outside of what I mentioned also involved reading minds through touch. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 10:02 AM)
Funny, I wasn't the least bit upset. I was just amused of how pitiful you were in your desperation and eagerness to point out the one, single grammatical error and making a big deal out of it when you yourself are in no position to gloat, especially considering you consistently make errors, cold-blooded butcher of the English language. And by the way, it's "funny to do", not "funny do that".
If I was desperate, I've have pointed out way more errors on your part but that wouldn't be as funny. Also, I never made a deal big about it, you did. In fact, you're still doing it right now by calling it "cold-blooded butcher" of the English language.
Its actually pretty funny how dead serious you are about it.
To an extent true. Depends on the story being told.
And this particular story needed an antagonist worthy of Superman. This is why they should have skipped Luthor and just gone straight for Zod in the first film.
It had Lex Luthor as the villain, but the focus of the film wasn't "punch bad guy and repeat". The focus of the story was to delve into the hero's journey, from his humble beginnings to his meteoric rise.
No, it was about a mad scientist who used a super computer to brainwash Superman into being a mind controlled slave.
If I recall correctly, one of the abilities of tactile telepathy outside of what I mentioned also involved reading minds through touch.
So first it means generating force fields, now it means reading minds through touch. What is the point on having this form of telepathy AND the normal telepathy that doesn't acquire physical contact? It makes no sense.
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 24, 2016 10:42 AM)
"In fact, you're still doing it right now by calling it "cold-blooded butcher" of the English language."
That was referring to you, smart guy.
"And this particular story needed an antagonist worthy of Superman. This is why they should have skipped Luthor and just gone straight for Zod in the first film."
If you just wanted a beat'em up. But that isn't the movie's focus.
"No, it was about a mad scientist who used a super computer to brainwash Superman into being a mind controlled slave."
Superman hadn't been brainwashed - he was perfectly aware of his not being human and was already living dual identities in the first place, so you cannot argue that.
"So first it means generating force fields, now it means reading minds through touch. What is the point on having this form of telepathy AND the normal telepathy that doesn't acquire physical contact? It makes no sense."
Look, I didn't invent these abilities. These were stuff taken from the comics, created by other writers. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 10:12 AM)
That was referring to you, smart guy.
No, you made it out to be a massive deal and got all stroppy when I gave you a sense of your own medicine. I couldn't have cared less.
If you just wanted a beat'em up. But that isn't the movie's focus.
The movie didn't have a focus.
Superman hadn't been brainwashed - he was perfectly aware of his not being human and was already living dual identities in the first place, so you cannot argue that.
And then Jor El brainwashed him into becoming Superman.
Look, I didn't invent these abilities. These were stuff taken from the comics, created by other writers.
So you admit having those powers was a bad idea.
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 25, 2016 09:09 PM)
"No, you made it out to be a massive deal and got all stroppy when I gave you a sense of your own medicine. I couldn't have cared less."
Please, if you hadn't had cared less in the first place, you wouldn't have answered or gone to such lengths to point out one single mistake. Pathetic.
"The movie didn't have a focus."
The movie had a focus. It was a hero's journey.
"And then Jor El brainwashed him into becoming Superman."
Read carefully - not brainwashing if he wasn't that person already to begin with. "Clark" was just a mask for him to use when he's around other humans.
"So you admit having those powers was a bad idea."
How does pointing out all these abilities and that I hadn't come up with them somehow translates to "having those powers is a bad idea"? You need a serious lesson in reading comprehension, son. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 26, 2016 05:43 AM)
Please, if you hadn't had cared less in the first place, you wouldn't have answered or gone to such lengths to point out one single mistake. Pathetic.
The "lengths" being literally one smartass comment.
Doesn't really constitute lengths.
The movie had a focus. It was a hero's journey.
No, you're thinking of Man of Steel.
Read carefully - not brainwashing if he wasn't that person already to begin with. "Clark" was just a mask for him to use when he's around other humans.
No, Clark was who he grew up as. He didn't even know who Kal El was. Try again.
How does pointing out all these abilities and that I hadn't come up with them somehow translates to "having those powers is a bad idea"? You need a serious lesson in reading comprehension, son.
No, that would be you, try again.
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 26, 2016 10:28 PM)
"No, you're thinking of Man of Steel."
Definitely not.
"No, Clark was who he grew up as. He didn't even know who Kal El was."
He didn't know about his alien name, but that still doesn't change the fact that he knew that he wasn't human.
"No, you're thinking of Man of Steel."
Definitely not. "MOS" was disaster porn that's built off the backs of the Donner films. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 05:43 AM)
Definitely so.
Fixed it for you
He didn't know about his alien name, but that still doesn't change the fact that he knew that he wasn't human.
But he was still Clark.
Definitely not. "MOS" was disaster porn that's built off the backs of the Donner films.
Oh please, Man of Steel was the first to actually go for the comics.
If anything Superman 1 was disaster porn.
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 27, 2016 11:51 PM)
"Fixed it for you"
Didn't do such thing, junior. You're living a delusion. No matter how many "fixes" (or more correctly, alterations) you do, it still doesn't change the fact that "MOS" is a mediocre generic film.
"But he was still Clark."
It doesn't change the fact that he's still aware of his being an alien and that he's impersonating a human.
"Oh please, Man of Steel was the first to actually go for the comics."
You mean "S1" and "2".
"If anything Superman 1 was disaster porn."
Not at all. The movie evoked the imagery of disaster films of the 70s but it in itself was not disaster porn, especially during the climax where Superman is fixing everything. Disaster films at that time were about humanity constantly being reminded of its fallibility as colossal size man-made structures were being rendered as rubble, perhaps a reminder of the social turmoil of the preceding decade. In contrast to that imagery and those fears, Superman was portrayed as the paragon of good that's able to stand up to such disasters, even going so far as to prevent them from even happening. "MOS" is by every definition disaster porn, as from start to finish the movie bombards the audience with scene after scene of explosions with a "Superman" that exacerbates the destruction of both Smallville and Metropolis rather than trying to minimize or prevent it despite the character having a number of opportunities of doing such. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 06:35 AM)
I didn't do such thing. I'm living a delusion. No matter how many straw man arguments I make, it still doesn't change the fact that "Superman 1" is a mediocre generic film.
Fixed it for you
It doesn't change the fact that he's still aware of his being an alien and that he's impersonating a human.
Except he was raised on Earth as a human. He's not like the Martian Manhunter.
You mean "S1" and "2".
No, I mean the comics, try again.
Not at all. The movie evoked the imagery of disaster films of the 70s but it in itself was not disaster porn, especially during the climax where Superman is fixing everything. Disaster films at that time were about humanity constantly being reminded of its fallibility as colossal size man-made structures were being rendered as rubble, perhaps a reminder of the social turmoil of the preceding decade.
That's still disaster porn.
In contrast to that imagery and those fears, Superman was portrayed as the paragon of good that's able to stand up to such disasters, even going so far as to prevent them from even happening.
Except that its all pure fantasy.
"MOS" is by every definition disaster porn, as from start to finish the movie bombards the audience with scene after scene of explosions with a "Superman" that exacerbates the destruction of both Smallville and Metropolis rather than trying to minimize or prevent it despite the character having a number of opportunities of doing such.
I don't remember any explosions during Clark's childhood or when he was working in a bar, or when he was on Jor El's ship, or when he was taken in by the military, etc.
Also, he was being attacked by aliens, he had no opportunities to prevent anything and he did minimise it as much as possible.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.