Superman: The movie is 7.3 and Superman Returns is only 6.1
-
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. -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 03:40 PM)
"Fixed it for you"
You haven't. Also, just to let you know, the straw man arguments were on your end.
"Except he was raised on Earth as a human. He's not like the Martian Manhunter."
Clark's not like Martian Manhunter, and yes, he was raised on Earth as a human, but that doesn't change the fact that he knew of his not being human and his pretending to be one. Again, he disguised himself via camouflage, by blending in with everyone by not showing off his powers.
"No, I mean the comics, try again."
Still doesn't change the fact that those movies played a pivotal role in the comics' development in later years.
"That's still disaster porn."
That is not disaster porn, as the difference between a "disaster film" vs "disaster porn" is determined by the matter of excess.
"Except that its all pure fantasy."
It was in the film, with Superman's preventing train crashes, welding tectonic plates, etc.
"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."
You haven't been watching the film, I see. Try again.
"Also, he was being attacked by aliens, he had no opportunities to prevent anything and he did minimise it as much as possible."
He had plenty of opportunities. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 08:48 AM)
You haven't. Also, just to let you know, the straw man arguments were on your end.
Nope, they were on yours. Try again.
Clark's not like Martian Manhunter, and yes, he was raised on Earth as a human, but that doesn't change the fact that he knew of his not being human and his pretending to be one. Again, he disguised himself via camouflage, by blending in with everyone by not showing off his powers.
That's not really a disguise.
Still doesn't change the fact that those movies played a pivotal role in the comics' development in later years.
Except that they didn't.
That is not disaster porn, as the difference between a "disaster film" vs "disaster porn" is determined by the matter of excess.
And according to that definition, Superman 1 is disaster porn.
It was in the film, with Superman's preventing train crashes, welding tectonic plates, etc.
And where was the super villain?
You haven't been watching the film, I see. Try again.
Well, were the explosions in those scenes?
He had plenty of opportunities.
No, they didn't give him a chance. Maybe if Superman had the Justice League with him, he might have been able to do but the collateral damage was simply unavoidable.
I don't care about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.