SOOOO much better than Man of Steel!!!!!
-
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 04:01 AM)
Nope, this movie was basically Superman 1 all over again and since Superman 1 was the worst one ever, there was no way this was gonna be good.
Man of Steel is the one that finally got Superman right.
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 09, 2016 08:07 PM)
"Nope, this movie was basically Superman 1 all over again"
Not really.
"Superman 1 was the worst one ever, there was no way this was gonna be good."
It was hardly the worst. Everything that people knew about Superman was because of "Superman 1" and "2" - in fact, not only did the movies form the Superman that we know, but Donner also wrote several Superman comics himself.
"Man of Steel is the one that finally got Superman right."
"Man Of Steel" was just "Superman 1" and "2" all over again, but with more punching and destruction. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 06:57 AM)
"Nope, this movie was basically Superman 1 all over again"
Not really.
Yeah really. It was more BS about real estate instead of actually fighting a super villain. Almost everything, including most of the dialogue, was taken from the first film. Its like Bryan Singer just copied from the script of the original film.
"Superman 1 was the worst one ever, there was no way this was gonna be good."
It was hardly the worst. Everything that people knew about Superman was because of "Superman 1" and "2" - in fact, not only did the movies form the Superman that we know, but Donner also wrote several Superman comics himself.
Nope, everything people knew was from the SOURCE MATERIAL. Movies didn't form him, the comic books did.
"Man of Steel is the one that finally got Superman right."
"Man Of Steel" was just "Superman 1" and "2" all over again, but with more punching and destruction.
It was Superman 1 and 2 with a better plot, better cast (Terence Stamp was literally the only good actor in those films), better characterisation. Plus Superman wasn't a Mary Sue this time. It was perfect.
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 10, 2016 11:56 PM)
"Yeah really. It was more BS about real estate instead of actually fighting a super villain."
There's more to superhero stories than just "fighting a super villain".
"Almost everything, including most of the dialogue, was taken from the first film. Its like Bryan Singer just copied from the script of the original film."
Part of it was homage, but those scenes also served a purpose outside of "oh look, you've seen this like in the first movie"; they served to show change. Compare the night flight scene of the first Superman with the one featured here, how characters reacted in those scenes, along with the coloration and cinematography.
"Nope, everything people knew was from the SOURCE MATERIAL. Movies didn't form him, the comic books did."
Not true.
The idea of the S that Superman wears on his chest being a family crest came from this movie. The imagery of Krypton as this white-on-white world of crystal, lorded over by a regal, mellifluous Marlon Brando, came from this movie - prior to that, Krypton and Supe's Fortress of Solitude was Grecian architecture. The film has a stunning sense of otherworldly spaciousness in these scenes. Even Lex Luthor's character in terms of how it's portrayed was the result of this movie - in the comics before this movie came out, he was a criminal scientist rather than a plutocrat.
"It was Superman 1 and 2 with a better plot, better cast (Terence Stamp was literally the only good actor in those films), better characterisation. Plus Superman wasn't a Mary Sue this time. It was perfect."
"Better plot"? Definitely not. It was a derivative, soulless film consisting of explosions, more explosions, fist fights and a character that was neither "Clark Kent" nor "Superman". "Better characterization"? There was barely any, let alone character development. It had a good cast - Henry Cavil was good, along with Amy Adams, although I wasn't really impressed with the actor portraying Zod. Even worse, the movie took elements from much better movies. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 12:12 PM)
There's more to superhero stories than just "fighting a super villain".
Superman 1 and Returns was LESS than just fighting a super villain. Just more crap about a dumb rock.
Part of it was homage, but those scenes also served a purpose outside of "oh look, you've seen this like in the first movie"; they served to show change. Compare the night flight scene of the first Superman with the one featured here, how characters reacted in those scenes, along with the coloration and cinematography.
So actually the same thing then.
Not true.
The idea of the S that Superman wears on his chest being a family crest came from this movie. The imagery of Krypton as this white-on-white world of crystal, lorded over by a regal, mellifluous Marlon Brando, came from this movie - prior to that, Krypton and Supe's Fortress of Solitude was Grecian architecture. The film has a stunning sense of otherworldly spaciousness in these scenes. Even Lex Luthor's character in terms of how it's portrayed was the result of this movie - in the comics before this movie came out, he was a criminal scientist rather than a plutocrat.
Those don't make the film good.
And Lex Luthor was a far cry from how we see Lex Luthor. They didn't have anything that made him Lex.
"Better plot"? Definitely not.
Definitely so. Try again.
It was a derivative, soulless film consisting of explosions, more explosions, fist fights and a character that was neither "Clark Kent" nor "Superman".
No, Superman Returns was derivative. It was actually the same film just more Kryptonite.
And Man of Steel is the first Superman to actually HAVE a soul. And his Superman is the closer to the comics that the goofball from the Richard Donnor crap.
"Better characterization"? There was barely any, let alone character development.
You seem to have changed the subject. I was on about the Man of Steel, not the crappy Richard Donnor film.
Even worse, the movie took elements from much better movies.
Like what? The Dark Knight? Deadpool? Captain America: The Winter Soldier? Guardians of the Galaxy?
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 12, 2016 03:50 PM)
"Superman 1 and Returns was LESS than just fighting a super villain. Just more crap about a dumb rock."
They weren't about a "dumb rock". "Superman 1" was the first superhero movie ever, the first that treated superheroes as something serious even before Tim Burton's "Batman" ever came to be. It was also the story of an adopted child trying to find his place in the world, painfully aware of the fact that he's different from everyone around him before taking off as Superman. As a movie, it was a response to the disaster films of the 70s, showing him pulling off some feats of heroics that have yet to be topped in film. "Returns" has to be looked at in the broader cinematic sense; prior to its release, cinematically speaking, Superman was dead, killed off by the Salkinds with "3" and "4".
"So actually the same thing then."
Not so.
In "Returns", just as the character makes a return to the big screen, so too did Superman, only to find a world that's changed from the one he knew - people have died, Lois became engaged and has a kid, and to top it all off wrote an article on "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman". Not only that, but the world seemed to have moved on and didn't seem to need his help. That night flight scene in the first "Superman" was Superman and Lois' actual meeting, with both trying to feel each other out and clearly interested in one another. Now compare that scene with the one in "Returns" and the point it's making about the characters within that particular situation - Superman is literally trying to relive the past in the hopes of rekindling whatever connection he had with Lois, only to find no matter how hard he tries, he can't change the past. It's kind of like the relationship between Gatbsy and Daisy.
"Those don't make the film good."
Those aspects defined the character and Krypton in comics after this movie came out.
"And Lex Luthor was a far cry from how we see Lex Luthor. They didn't have anything that made him Lex."
You are comparing him to modern day comic book Lex Luthor, not the Lex Luthor of the 40s to 60s who was a scientist rather than a wealthy businessman.
"No, Superman Returns was derivative. It was actually the same film just more Kryptonite. And Man of Steel is the first Superman to actually HAVE a soul. And his Superman is the closer to the comics that the goofball from the Richard Donnor crap."
It wasn't the same film. There's a difference between taking familiar scenes to say something about the character, the situation they're in and doing something new vs just doing the same scene for nostalgia's sake like in "Superman 4". "MOS" is a soulless, disjointed rehashed mess that takes the same elements from the Donner films but goes no further other than putting loads of overly long, loud, unnecessary, monotonous scenes of destruction and fist fighting.
"You seem to have changed the subject. I was on about the Man of Steel, not the crappy Richard Donnor film."
You were the one who changed the subject. I was talking about "MOS".
"Like what? The Dark Knight? Deadpool? Captain America: The Winter Soldier? Guardians of the Galaxy?"
"Spiderman", "The Incredible Hulk", "X-Men", "Batman Begins", "Skyline", "The Avengers", "Avatar", "Lord of the Rings", "Gears of War"/"Quake 4", etc Oh, yeah, "Superman 1" and "2" (although to be fair, it's essentially a remake). -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 02:36 AM)
They weren't about a "dumb rock". "Superman 1" was the first superhero movie ever, the first that treated superheroes as something serious even before Tim Burton's "Batman" ever came to be. It was also the story of an adopted child trying to find his place in the world, painfully aware of the fact that he's different from everyone around him before taking off as Superman. As a movie, it was a response to the disaster films of the 70s, showing him pulling off some feats of heroics that have yet to be topped in film. "Returns" has to be looked at in the broader cinematic sense; prior to its release, cinematically speaking, Superman was dead, killed off by the Salkinds with "3" and "4".
No, Superman wasn't even the first SUPERMAN film. That was Superman and the Mole Men. Also, Superman 1 was trying to be "serious"? With a goofball as Superman, Lois' whining and Lex Luthor's dumb wig?
As for Returns, it proved to be a disappointing film that relied way too much on nostalgia for the Superman 1.
Not so.
In "Returns", just as the character makes a return to the big screen, so too did Superman, only to find a world that's changed from the one he knew - people have died, Lois became engaged and has a kid, and to top it all off wrote an article on "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman". Not only that, but the world seemed to have moved on and didn't seem to need his help. That night flight scene in the first "Superman" was Superman and Lois' actual meeting, with both trying to feel each other out and clearly interested in one another. Now compare that scene with the one in "Returns" and the point it's making about the characters within that particular situation - Superman is literally trying to relive the past in the hopes of rekindling whatever connection he had with Lois, only to find no matter how hard he tries, he can't change the past. It's kind of like the relationship between Gatbsy and Daisy.
Nope, try again.
The reason it was exactly the same film as Superman 1 wasn't because Superman was trying to relive his past but because Bryan Singer was too in love with the crappy original to make his own film.
You are comparing him to modern day comic book Lex Luthor, not the Lex Luthor of the 40s to 60s who was a scientist rather than a wealthy businessman.
Yeah, I'm comparing him to the real Lex Luthor.
It wasn't the same film. There's a difference between taking familiar scenes to say something about the character, the situation they're in and doing something new vs just doing the same scene for nostalgia's sake like in "Superman 4".
The Returns is the later one. Try again.
"MOS" is a soulless, disjointed rehashed mess that takes the same elements from the Donner films but goes no further other than putting loads of overly long, loud, unnecessary, monotonous scenes of destruction and fist fighting.
Rehashed, apart from having the same villain as Superman 2 its a completely different film. The elements it takes are from the COMICS, not the crappy original. Man of Steel explores the characters (example it actually explores all the stuff you pretend the original does) much further.
"Spiderman", "The Incredible Hulk", "X-Men", "Batman Begins", "Skyline", "The Avengers", "Avatar", "Lord of the Rings", "Gears of War"/"Quake 4", etc Oh, yeah, "Superman 1" and "2" (although to be fair, it's essentially a remake).
Nope, its better than Incredible Hulk, X-Men, Skyline, Avatar, Superman 1 and Superman 2. Also Gears of War and Quake 4 are video games so they don't compare.
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 07:20 AM)
"No, Superman wasn't even the first SUPERMAN film. That was Superman and the Mole Men. Also, Superman 1 was trying to be "serious"? With a goofball as Superman, Lois' whining and Lex Luthor's dumb wig?"
That's true, along with the Fleischer Studio cartoons in the 40s. But prior to this, comic book adaptations (good ones) were non-existent and were mainly smaller low budget productions. None of the other Superman films achieved such an epic scope, nor such an aching lost childhood sense of purebred red, white and blue American innocence. "Superman" was serious and important in the sense that it not only forged the character's mythos into what it is now but also the first movie that crafted Superman from being a comic book legend to an American myth. Plus, you have to keep in mind of the tensions between Donner and Salkinds.
A goofball as Superman - if you're referring to Clark Kent, traditionally in comics Superman always had two alter-egos, one being Superman, the other Clark Kent the klutzy reporter. No exception here.
Lex's wig - the reason for that is because the actor, Gene Hackman, was reluctant to be bald.
"The reason it was exactly the same film as Superman 1 wasn't because Superman was trying to relive his past but because Bryan Singer was too in love with the crappy original to make his own film."
Try again, this time with your eyes open and your attention focused on the details.
"Yeah, I'm comparing him to the real Lex Luthor."
The "real" Lex Luthor? This version formed the Lex Luthor you know in later comics, is part of the character's DNA. Without him, he'd still be a criminal scientist. In other words, the "real" Lex Luthor wouldn't have existed, at least the way we know/understand him today.
"Try again."
That applies to you.
"its a completely different film."
Only in having more destruction and fistfighting.
"The elements it takes are from the COMICS, not the crappy original."
And what, the Christopher Reeves movie weren't? They were also based on the comics. They just added certain elements that added to the character's mythos. You have to look at the comics that had existed at the time, not to current comics.
"Nope, its better than Incredible Hulk, X-Men, Skyline, Avatar, Superman 1 and Superman 2. Also Gears of War and Quake 4 are video games so they don't compare."
Better than the first and second "X-Men"? Give me a break. Better than "Superman 1" and "2"? In effects, perhaps, but definitely not story. Also, yeah, "Gears" and "Quake 4" are video games, but they're comparable in that "MOS" lifts their aesthetic straight up from those games, especially when it came to Kryptonian armor. -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 01:49 PM)
But prior to this, comic book adaptations (good ones) were non-existent and were mainly smaller low budget productions.
Except that GOOD comic book adaptations still didn't exist for another decade after Superman 1.
"Superman" was serious and important in the sense that it not only forged the character's mythos into what it is now but also the first movie that crafted Superman from being a comic book legend to an American myth.
Actually, Superman was already an American when they had him fight Nazis during WWII.
Plus, you have to keep in mind of the tensions between Donner and Salkinds.
You could use that to justify any bad film, the tensions on set during Fantastic Four, the studios messing about with Batman and Robin, etc.
A goofball as Superman - if you're referring to Clark Kent, traditionally in comics Superman always had two alter-egos, one being Superman, the other Clark Kent the klutzy reporter. No exception here.
Oh please, he never took it to the extend Christopher Reeve did.
Lex's wig - the reason for that is because the actor, Gene Hackman, was reluctant to be bald.
Then why was Luthor bald at all? Why not let him have hair? Or get an actor who will be bald (preferable one who's better than Gene Hackman)?
Try again, this time with your eyes open and your attention focused on the details.
I did. You should open your own eyes and focus on the details.
This version formed the Lex Luthor you know in later comics, is part of the character's DNA. Without him, he'd still be a criminal scientist. In other words, the "real" Lex Luthor wouldn't have existed, at least the way we know/understand him today.
No he didn't, try again. In fact the Lex Luthor in this film is closer to bad scientist Lex than he is to the Lex we all know and love.
Only in having more destruction and fistfighting.
AKA plot and characterisation.
And what, the Christopher Reeves movie weren't? They were also based on the comics. They just added certain elements that added to the character's mythos. You have to look at the comics that had existed at the time, not to current comics.
Nope, the Christopher Reeve films just half arsed the whole thing. There was no super villain for him to fight, they kept pulling new powers like time travel, throwing his S and super rebuilding the wall of china powers. They exaggerated the goofiness of both Clark and Lex.
Better than the first and second "X-Men"? Give me a break.
Yep. The X-Men films are good in their right but they felt a little overstuffed with too many characters.
Storm's accent was bad, her line about Toads was worse.
Pyro simply wasn't needed. Rogue and Iceman have barely anything to do in X2.
And both Famke Janssen and Sophie Turner were bad as Jean Grey.
Better than "Superman 1" and "2"? In effects, perhaps, but definitely not story.
There was no story in Superman 1 and 2.
Also, yeah, "Gears" and "Quake 4" are video games, but they're comparable in that "MOS" lifts their aesthetic straight up from those games, especially when it came to Kryptonian armor.
So it compares because body armour exists in it? That's a real stretch, you know.
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 09:22 PM)
"Except that GOOD comic book adaptations still didn't exist for another decade after Superman 1."
They did exist in the form of S2, then in the 80s and 90s came Tim Burton's "Batman", "Batman Returns", "The Crow" and others.
"Actually, Superman was already an American when they had him fight Nazis during WWII."
Slightly, but nowhere as prevalent as in the first and second Chritopher Reeves movies. One of the most prevalent genres of the 1970s was the disaster film where humanity was 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. Where disaster movies were giant spectacles in which humanity was constantly humbled by natural disaster and accident, Superman was cast as a heroic paragon of good that can stand up to such disasters. The climax had him
turning nuclear missiles in their path, acting as a bridge for a collapsed rail line, welding tectonic plates back together and even reversing the world and turning back time for the sake of love
a feat no other superhero film has managed to copy in scale. "Superman" along with Star Wars marked a move away from the defeatism of the disaster spectacle and a return to black-and-white morality. They were, in a sense, a reclaiming of America. As the warden of the jail (where Superman delivers Luthor seemingly without even the benefit of a trial at the end of the film) says, With you here, this country is safe again. It was a change mirrored in the real world Ronald Reagan sailed into the White House in 1980, just like Superman does here, consciously crafting himself as an upholder of old-fashioned decency and moral values.
"You could use that to justify any bad film, the tensions on set during Fantastic Four, the studios messing about with Batman and Robin, etc."
Not in all cases. The tensions between Donner and Salkinds caused trouble, but not enough to ruin the quality of the film as a whole. You can see some of that influence rubbed off in places, such as unevenness of tone in some scenes; the Kryptonian scenes in the first 45 minutes have a beautifully spacious mysteriousness; by contrast, the Smallville scenes evoke the pastoral lyricism of a Norman Rockwell American heartland; and finally the film turns camp in the Luthor scenes.
"Oh please, he never took it to the extend Christopher Reeve did."
Several comics say otherwise. You're too hard-a$$ed to appreciate what it is that Reeve is getting across in his portrayal of Superman/Clark Kent; anyone can easily see if they were to just stare at a photograph of those two that they are one and the same person, but it's the little things he does to defuse that notion through voice, posture, demeanor and so on. If people knew Clark Kent as a "country bumpkin lummox" and readily recognized him as such, it becomes harder to accept him as anything else - in fact, saying that he's Superman would be laughable.
"Then why was Luthor bald at all? Why not let him have hair? Or get an actor who will be bald (preferable one who's better than Gene Hackman)?"
They wanted to stay true to the character in having him bald but compromised on Hackman's behalf by having the hair styled different to indicate that he's wearing a wig. Before Hackman, several other actors were cast to play the part, including Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, George Kennedy, Jack Nicholson, and Gene Wilder.
"I did. You should open your own eyes and focus on the details."
Try harder. Or get glasses/contac lenses.
Elements of the Superman mythos which originated in the film have since been incorporated into the regular continuity of the DC Comics universe:- The crystalline-based technology of the planet Krypton.
- Superman's "S" logo originates as the El family crest.
- Ursa and Non characters created specifically for the film are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod.
- A computer-generated simulacrum of Jor-El survives in the Fortress of Solitude to advise his adult son Kal-El.
- Clark Kent commences his public superhero career as the adult Superman, rather than the teenage Superboy.
- Lois Lane first meets Superman when he rescues her as she falls from a disabled helicopter in Metropolis.
- Lois is the one who first names the hero "Superman".
- Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, but Martha survives as his widow.
- Although she is an excellent reporter, Lois frequently misspells words
- Last but not least, Lex Luthor becomes a plutocrat
"No he didn't, try again. In fact the Lex Luthor in this film is closer to bad scientist Lex than he is to the Lex we all know and love."
Keep denying, junior. Doesn't change the fact that Donner's Lex formed the basis for the Lex you "know and love". He was changed from a scientist to a rich businessman, and the movies were responsible for that - deal with it.
"AKA plot and characterisation."
Tons of destruction and fistfights do not equal "plot and characterization". If you believe tha
-
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 07:18 AM)
They did exist in the form of S2, then in the 80s and 90s came Tim Burton's "Batman", "Batman Returns", "The Crow" and others.
Nope, Superman 2 was only considered good because of how bad the others were. Good superhero films didm;t exist until Tim Burton's Batman.
Slightly, but nowhere as prevalent as in the first and second Chritopher Reeves movies. One of the most prevalent genres of the 1970s was the disaster film where humanity was 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. Where disaster movies were giant spectacles in which humanity was constantly humbled by natural disaster and accident, Superman was cast as a heroic paragon of good that can stand up to such disasters. The climax had him a feat no other superhero film has managed to copy in scale. "Superman" along with Star Wars marked a move away from the defeatism of the disaster spectacle and a return to black-and-white morality. They were, in a sense, a reclaiming of America. As the warden of the jail (where Superman delivers Luthor seemingly without even the benefit of a trial at the end of the film) says, With you here, this country is safe again. It was a change mirrored in the real world Ronald Reagan sailed into the White House in 1980, just like Superman does here, consciously crafting himself as an upholder of old-fashioned decency and moral values.
Nope, try again. You either are an American symbol or your not. What your doing is like asking how gay a person is. And your point on disaster films further proves this film is bad. Superhero films are not disaster films. We don't want to see them fight a tornado, we want them to fight super villains.
Not in all cases. The tensions between Donner and Salkinds caused trouble, but not enough to ruin the quality of the film as a whole. You can see some of that influence rubbed off in places, such as unevenness of tone in some scenes; the Kryptonian scenes in the first 45 minutes have a beautifully spacious mysteriousness; by contrast, the Smallville scenes evoke the pastoral lyricism of a Norman Rockwell American heartland; and finally the film turns camp in the Luthor scenes.
That's probably cuz the "quality" was already piss poor and couldn't be ruined any further.
The Kryptonian scenes are some of the poorest set designs I've ever seen. Even the old Doctor Who from fifteen years before were better than that.
And your comment about the Luthor scenes just further proves how bad it was.
Several comics say otherwise. You're too hard-a$$ed to appreciate what it is that Reeve is getting across in his portrayal of Superman/Clark Kent; anyone can easily see if they were to just stare at a photograph of those two that they are one and the same person, but it's the little things he does to defuse that notion through voice, posture, demeanor and so on. If people knew Clark Kent as a "country bumpkin lummox" and readily recognized him as such, it becomes harder to accept him as anything else - in fact, saying that he's Superman would be laughable.
Except for the fact he looks exactly like Superman and anyone with any sense would be able to realise Superman might put on a false persona to disguise himself.
They wanted to stay true to the character in having him bald but compromised on Hackman's behalf by having the hair styled different to indicate that he's wearing a wig. Before Hackman, several other actors were cast to play the part, including Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, George Kennedy, Jack Nicholson, and Gene Wilder.
So they half-assed it then.
Try harder. Or get glasses/contac lenses.
Elements of the Superman mythos which originated in the film have since been incorporated into the regular continuity of the DC Comics universe:- The crystalline-based technology of the planet Krypton.
- Superman's "S" logo originates as the El family crest.
- Ursa and Non characters created specifically for the film are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod.
- A computer-generated simulacrum of Jor-El survives in the Fortress of Solitude to advise his adult son Kal-El.
- Clark Kent commences his public superhero career as the adult Superman, rather than the teenage Superboy.
- Lois Lane first meets Superman when he rescues her as she falls from a disabled helicopter in Metropolis.
- Lois is the one who first names the hero "Superman".
- Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, but Martha survives as his widow.
- Although she is an excellent reporter, Lois frequently misspells words
- Last but not least, Lex Luthor becomes a plutocrat
None of those things actually make a film good. That's like crediting the 50s Thing for the 80s Thing being better.
And Ursa and Non, nobody cares about them.
Who cares how Lois met Superman or where Superman got his name from. And misspelling words, do not tell me that crap made it into the comics. If she can't even spell, then she can't be
-
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 01:53 AM)
"Nope, Superman 2 was only considered good because of how bad the others were. Good superhero films didm;t exist until Tim Burton's Batman."
Not even "Conan the Barbarian"? In terms of "Superman 2", if it truly was only considered "good" just because all the rest were garbage, why did it win two Academy Awards for "Best Sci-Fi Film" and "Best Actor" for Christopher Reeve?
"Nope, try again. You either are an American symbol or your not. What your doing is like asking how gay a person is."
My comment was nothing akin to "how gay a person is". Superman was the first superhero ever created and in those days was used as propaganda during WW2, but his becoming a full-blown American myth was due to the Christopher Reeve movie, which came about during a time when Reagan was entering presidency.
"And your point on disaster films further proves this film is bad. Superhero films are not disaster films. We don't want to see them fight a tornado, we want them to fight super villains."
That doesn't prove it to be a bad movie, dingus - you missed the point entirely. "Superman" was a
response
to
disaster movies, as a means of countering their defeatist attitudes and cynicism about the future by presenting a return to black and white morality and a more upbeat hopeful tone. Having Superman doing all these incredible things was to show that nothing was insurmountable. "MOS", ironically enough, is the very movie that "Superman" was trying to rally against - a disaster movie, or rather more accurately disaster porn, treating its destruction as something "cool". Again, there is more to superhero stories than just "punch the bad guy" - in fact, saying that that's all superhero stories have to offer and boil down to is an incredibly cheap and $hitty view to have. It's this kind of mentality that leads to really subpar and mediocre superhero movies.
"That's probably cuz the "quality" was already piss poor and couldn't be ruined any further.
The Kryptonian scenes are some of the poorest set designs I've ever seen. Even the old Doctor Who from fifteen years before were better than that."
It was far from piss poor. Compared to the Grecian architecture of the comics, it's a much more striking look, especially when you compare it to other movies of that period and earlier. It's also better than the version presented in "MOS", which looked like Middle Earth from "Lord of the Rings" mixed with "Avatar" and "Star Wars", in general just a generic alien world that could have been lifted from any science fiction movie. Plus, given that this shaped the look of Krypton in later comics, numerous cartoons, animated movies and video games, I think it's safe to say that the first movie left quite an impact in terms of how Krypton looked.
"None of those things actually make a film good."
Different argument entirely from what I'm talking about, and completely irrelevant. The point that I was making was that these elements worked in relation to Superman, and those elements helped define and improved upon the character and his mythology to the point of being featured in later comics and other media.
"Who cares how Lois met Superman or where Superman got his name from."
I see, details are of no interest. By any chance, do you have ADHD? If you do, then that's totally understandable and excusable.
"And misspelling words, do not tell me that crap made it into the comics. If she can't even spell, then she can't be that great a reporter."
This was the 70s, dude, different time period from today. Plus, she's human and can make mistakes.
"Jonathan dying from a heart attack is not something anyone cares about."
Uh, yeah it was in that it provided Clark with a tough life lesson about not being able to save everyone even with his powers, and was a much more dramatically done moment when compared to how Jonathan died in "MOS", which was downright stupid. The only good thing about that scene was this parody from Robot Chicken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs39HGOd25c
"And what the beep is a plutocrat?"
Millionaires/multimillionaires/billionaires, etc. A plutocrat is someone who derives power from their wealth.
"No he didn't, fool. He had literally nothing to do with it whatsoever. Try again"
Considering you didn't even know what a plutocrat was until now, that makes you the fool. Also, prior to the first Superman movie, the only representation of Lex Luthor was as a criminal scientist, not as a multimillionaire. After "Superman 1", that element became copied by DC Comics in their post-Crisis Universe and all subsequent portrayals of Luthor on tv. Your persistent denial of this makes you an even bigger fool.
"Yeah, they did kinda feel overstuffed. Its not as much as X3 or Mortal Kombat: Annihilation but its there."
Just slightly, but not enough to be bursting out the seams like those two movies you mentioned.
"Wow, you are delusional. Halle Berry spent the whole film trying to put on a bad Africa accent before giving up and dropping it in the sequels."
My not -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 08:53 AM)
Not even "Conan the Barbarian"? In terms of "Superman 2", if it truly was only considered "good" just because all the rest were garbage, why did it win two Academy Awards for "Best Sci-Fi Film" and "Best Actor" for Christopher Reeve?
1, Conan the Barbarian is not a superhero film.
2, Conan the Barbarian is not that great.
3, Superman 2 won Awards because MONEY. Its this thing called For Your Consideration Money.
My comment was nothing akin to "how gay a person is". Superman was the first superhero ever created and in those days was used as propaganda during WW2, but his becoming a full-blown American myth was due to the Christopher Reeve movie, which came about during a time when Reagan was entering presidency.
Don't be silly. The use of propaganda during WWII is what made him an American myth. Reagan might have said some BS but was because he knew Superman was already a popular American symbol. Christopher Reeve didn't invent it.
That doesn't prove it to be a bad movie, dingus - you missed the point entirely. "Superman" was a response to disaster movies, as a means of countering their defeatist attitudes and cynicism about the future by presenting a return to black and white morality and a more upbeat hopeful tone. Having Superman doing all these incredible things was to show that nothing was insurmountable. "MOS", ironically enough, is the very movie that "Superman" was trying to rally against - a disaster movie, or rather more accurately disaster porn, treating its destruction as something "cool". Again, there is more to superhero stories than just "punch the bad guy" - in fact, saying that that's all superhero stories have to offer and boil down to is an incredibly cheap and $hitty view to have. It's this kind of mentality that leads to really subpar and mediocre superhero movies.
1, Nobody was trying to counter any defeatist BS.
2, Having Superman stops those things only says nothing is insurmountable as long as you have way too many powers.
3, Man of Steel wasn't a disaster film. It was a science fiction/alien invasion/superhero film. Also the destruction was not treated as anything cool but as completely devastating. Just because they had good special effects doesn't mean they were trying to make it look cool. They destruction made it look realistic because when massively super powered beings fight, there is destruction. It also created real stakes, Superman HAD to stop Zod or billions would die.
It was far from piss poor. Compared to the Grecian architecture of the comics, it's a much more striking look, especially when you compare it to other movies of that period and earlier. It's also better than the version presented in "MOS", which looked like Middle Earth from "Lord of the Rings" mixed with "Avatar" and "Star Wars", in general just a generic alien world that could have been lifted from any science fiction movie. Plus, given that this shaped the look of Krypton in later comics, numerous cartoons, animated movies and video games, I think it's safe to say that the first movie left quite an impact in terms of how Krypton looked.
Striking look? Itw as completely generic. Everything was just black and whiteness everywhere. And no, Star Wars, Doctor Who and Star Trek were all better at creating unique worlds.
As for Man of Steel, that actually looked unique with all kinds of weird spaceships, animals, technology, you could actually tell there was a history on that planet compared to Superman 1 where the planet is just a plot device to get Superman to Earth. Seriously, I could watch a whole film about Man of Steel's Krypton.
Also, I've seen Krypton in the comics, it looks nothing like the bad imagery from Superman 1.
Different argument entirely from what I'm talking about, and completely irrelevant. The point that I was making was that these elements worked in relation to Superman, and those elements helped define and improved upon the character and his mythology to the point of being featured in later comics and other media.
Yeah, except that didn't. Try again.
I see, details are of no interest. By any chance, do you have ADHD? If you do, then that's totally understandable and excusable.
Can't defeat my argument, so lets make fun of mental disorders.
This was the 70s, dude, different time period from today. Plus, she's human and can make mistakes.
Oh right, because misspelling words is the most important about the character of Lois Lane.
Uh, yeah it was in that it provided Clark with a tough life lesson about not being able to save everyone even with his powers, and was a much more dramatically done moment when compared to how Jonathan died in "MOS", which was downright stupid. The only good thing about that scene was this parody from Robot Chicken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs39HGOd25c
No, tornados and regret work much better for dramatic effect than a heart attack he couldn't have done anything about.
Its like Uncle Ben not being shot or being shot some random guy Spiderman didn't have a chan -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 02:26 AM)
"3, Superman 2 won Awards because MONEY. Its this thing called For Your Consideration Money."
Talk about paranoid delusions! Do you have any proof that this was the case in relation to either "Superman" movies, or are you just talking out of your a$$?
"Don't be silly. The use of propaganda during WWII is what made him an American myth. Reagan might have said some BS but was because he knew Superman was already a popular American symbol. Christopher Reeve didn't invent it."
The use of propaganda during WWII made him a propaganda tool, not an American myth. "Superman 1", though was made around the time when Reagan was running for office, and the movie is a reflection of that to an extent, especially with regards to the Norman Rockwell pastoral imagery of Smallville, its black and white morality, the epic-sized climax of Superman doing all those amazing feats, fixing tectonic plates and so on, all evocative imagery people had about Ronald Reagan. Superman was in the first movie a metaphor of sorts and an idealization of Ronald Reagan, this larger than life figure who has come to "save"/"reclaim" America, solve its various problems and be an upholder of old-fashioned decency and moral values.
This was echoed in the warden's line - With you here, this country is safe again.
Christopher Reeve didn't invent Superman, that is true.but his portrayal is the defining gold standard of the character.
"1, Nobody was trying to counter any defeatist BS."
"Superman 1" clearly did by taking on the feel of a 70s disaster movie in those later scenes and then countered that by having Superman fix each and everyone of those situations. Sooo, yeah, it did.
"2, Having Superman stops those things only says nothing is insurmountable as long as you have way too many powers."
That's at face value, smart guy. Don't be stupid. Try again, and this time, analyze the film. Take into consideration the political context of that time period and consider the inherent allegory within it.
"3, Man of Steel wasn't a disaster film."
It was disaster porn.
"the destruction was not treated as anything cool but as completely devastating. Just because they had good special effects doesn't mean they were trying to make it look cool. They destruction made it look realistic because when massively super powered beings fight, there is destruction. It also created real stakes, Superman HAD to stop Zod or billions would die."
That wasn't at all reflected in the scenes' tone, let alone in the way they were shot/handled. Tone, pacing and presentation is everything, and the way the camera lingers on those scenes, as explosion after explosion pile on one after the other with buildings collapsing is so bludgeoning, so overly long (too long, in fact - there is such a thing as "going on too long for its own good") and gratuitous that it all just blurs together with no distinction and gives no consideration to its victims, let alone the tragedy and horror of what they're going through. Minute after minute after endless minute of Some Giant Machine laying so much waste to Metropolis that its inconceivable that we werent watching millions of people die in every single shot. And whats Superman doing while all this is going on? Hes halfway around the world, fighting an identical machine but with no one around to be directly threatened, so its only slightly less noticeable that thousands of innocents per second are dying gruesomely on his watch. Seriously, back in Metropolis, entire skyscrapers are toppling in slo-mo and the city is a smoking, gray ruin for miles in every direction. There's no humanity in those scenes. Compare this with the original 1954 "Godzilla" (different genre, or subgenre, I know, but still, we're on the subject of god-like beings capable of mass destruction) in its treatment of both its destruction and its victims. Or, if you want to stay within the superhero genre, then consider "The Avengers" - it had a similar climax, which "MOS" borrows from, with these demigod figures, along with a Norse god, taking on all manner of alien beings. The thing, though, about that movie and that there was humor, there's good pacing,
heroes were being heroes
regardless of big battles and took the initiative to aid the populace whenever they could, even giving instructions to authorites. Dialogue expressly indicated that they were trying to contain the situation from spreading.
"Striking look? Itw as completely generic. Everything was just black and whiteness everywhere."
It's that purity that makes it especially so. Name one movie prior to S1, or before it, that had this type of look.
"As for Man of Steel, that actually looked unique with all kinds of weird spaceships, animals, technology, you could actually tell there was a history on that planet"
There was no indication of "history". On screen it just looks like Stock Science-Fiction World No #47 - nothing standout about any of it.
"Also, I've seen Krypton in the comics, it looks nothing like the bad imagery from S -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 05:58 AM)
Talk about paranoid delusions! Do you have any proof that this was the case in relation to either "Superman" movies, or are you just talking out of your a$$?
That's what film and TV awards have always been about. Money talks.
The use of propaganda during WWII made him a propaganda tool, not an American myth. "Superman 1", though was made around the time when Reagan was running for office, and the movie is a reflection of that to an extent, especially with regards to the Norman Rockwell pastoral imagery of Smallville, its black and white morality, the epic-sized climax of Superman doing all those amazing feats, fixing tectonic plates and so on, all evocative imagery people had about Ronald Reagan. Superman was in the first movie a metaphor of sorts and an idealization of Ronald Reagan, this larger than life figure who has come to "save"/"reclaim" America, solve its various problems and be an upholder of old-fashioned decency and moral values.
This was echoed in the warden's line - With you here, this country is safe again.
Christopher Reeve didn't invent Superman, that is true.but his portrayal is the defining gold standard of the character.
Translation: "Blah! Blah! Same crap I said before!"
Just because he was a propaganda tool doesn't mean he wasn't an American myth.
"Superman 1" clearly did by taking on the feel of a 70s disaster movie in those later scenes and then countered that by having Superman fix each and everyone of those situations. Sooo, yeah, it did.
So it wasn't even a real superhero film then.
That's at face value, smart guy. Don't be stupid. Try again, and this time, analyze the film. Take into consideration the political context of that time period and consider the inherent allegory within it.
I did and its still beep Try again.
It was disaster porn.
No, that was Superman 1. Try again.
That wasn't at all reflected in the scenes' tone, let alone in the way they were shot/handled. Tone, pacing and presentation is everything, and the way the camera lingers on those scenes, as explosion after explosion pile on one after the other with buildings collapsing is so bludgeoning, so overly long (too long, in fact - there is such a thing as "going on too long for its own good") and gratuitous that it all just blurs together with no distinction and gives no consideration to its victims, let alone the tragedy and horror of what they're going through. Minute after minute after endless minute of Some Giant Machine laying so much waste to Metropolis that its inconceivable that we werent watching millions of people die in every single shot. And whats Superman doing while all this is going on? Hes halfway around the world, fighting an identical machine but with no one around to be directly threatened, so its only slightly less noticeable that thousands of innocents per second are dying gruesomely on his watch. Seriously, back in Metropolis, entire skyscrapers are toppling in slo-mo and the city is a smoking, gray ruin for miles in every direction. There's no humanity in those scenes. Compare this with the original 1954 "Godzilla" (different genre, or subgenre, I know, but still, we're on the subject of god-like beings capable of mass destruction) in its treatment of both its destruction and its victims. Or, if you want to stay within the superhero genre, then consider "The Avengers" - it had a similar climax, which "MOS" borrows from, with these demigod figures, along with a Norse god, taking on all manner of alien beings. The thing, though, about that movie and that there was humor, there's good pacing, heroes were being heroes regardless of big battles and took the initiative to aid the populace whenever they could, even giving instructions to authorites. Dialogue expressly indicated that they were trying to contain the situation from spreading.
Evidently, you weren't paying attention.
It's that purity that makes it especially so. Name one movie prior to S1, or before it, that had this type of look.
Pretty much every crappy sci fi film from the 1950s. And I don't mean the ones people actually like, I mean the ones that have all been completely forgotten about, the ones your parents will actually admit are beep
There was no indication of "history". On screen it just looks like Stock Science-Fiction World No #47 - nothing standout about any of it.
No, you're thinking of Superman 1. Try again.
Oh ho, this is just too funny.
http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Fortress_of_Solitude
http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Krypton
Looks nothing like the imagery from S1, you say? Didn't influence the look of Krypton or the Fortress of Solitude in later works, you say?
Yep, looks nothing alike.
I didn't make fun of mental disorders. It was a legitimate question that I actually wanted to know. Do you have ADHD, or some mental disorder.
Right, cuz that's only way someone can have a different opinion to you. Cuz they have mental health problems.
It's at this point that it's clear you have no idea what the hell you are talking -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 01:40 AM)
"That's what film and TV awards have always been about. Money talks."
What a load of crap! I don't doubt that there may have been cases in which bribery may have been involved, but to say that every movie and person involved that won an Academy Award only got said-award by doing such is extremely disingenuous and insulting. "S1" was considered ground-breaking at the time. And what of "MOS" awards, then? They were only bought as well? Or you planning on saying that those were actually earned because of its divine right?
"So it wasn't even a real superhero film then."
It is a "real" superhero film, stupid. Not every single superhero story has to be about "punching the bad guy" like in a boxing ring.
"I did and its still beep Try again."
Who are you kidding? You didn't even try. You are so fixated on not giving any merit to the Donner films whatsoever, even though a lot of elements have been directly lifted by Snyder in "MOS", including the fact that the "s" was Superman's family crest.
"No, that was Superman 1. Try again."
"S1" wasn't disaster porn. "MOS" was disaster porn - from the very first shot of Krypton, it was nonstop action and CGI explosions. The superpowered battles in "MOS" are also far less interesting than in Superman II despite thirty years advance in special effects (indeed, the advent of CGI). The latter half of "MOS" feels less like a superhero film than one of Michael Bays Transformers films or perhaps a sequel to "Skyline". There are various fights between superpowered beings that wreck Smallville and the climactic knockdown between Superman and Zod over Metropolis, which work well enough. Far less interesting is everything else, which feels like a combination of standard alien invasion cinema imagery and far too many mass destruction scenes of buildings collapsing. The film could easily have been cut of some twenty minutes of these scenes.
"Evidently, you weren't paying attention."
Oh, but I was. You, on the other hand, I put into severe doubt.
"Pretty much every crappy sci fi film from the 1950s. And I don't mean the ones people actually like, I mean the ones that have all been completely forgotten about, the ones your parents will actually admit are *beep"
Oh really? Name one.
"No, you're thinking of Superman 1. Try again."
It looks like Middle Earth mixed with stuff from "Avatar", "Star Wars" and so on. Believe me, after seeing TONS of alien worlds in movies, comics and video games, stuff from the 50s and onward, it is completely and utterly indistinguishable from any of them.
"Yep, looks nothing alike."
Look again, this time with eyes open and at all the images at the bottom.
"Right, cuz that's only way someone can have a different opinion to you. Cuz they have mental health problems."
Not at all. One doesn't have to like the same movie the other does, but the fact that you completely overlook whole details made me wonder if you did have some disability that I wasn't aware of.
"The heart attack didn't have anything to do with the story."
Ah, yeah, it did. The heart attack illuminated Clark's limitations, even as a god-like being. Not only was Clark unable to save his own father from dying, but at the same time, he was partly responsible. Allow me to explain - just after their little talk about his purpose, Clark wanted to race his dad, and it is at this moment when Jon gets a heart attack. Clark learns that not only that he cannot stop death, but that he can kill simply by failing to take into account human limits. It changes Clark's outlook on his duty to others.
"Jonathan Kent was afraid of what would happen if Clark exposed his powers. Clark reluctantly went across and instantly regretted it. And even if you believe Jonathan was wrong, it still works, he was raising an alien with superpowers, you think he would have really known best?"
No it doesn't, because a) it was completely avoidable, b) it taught Clark nothing but the importance of self-interest and preservation over aiding others, and c) he ultimately died for nothing. Theoretically, one could make the argument that Clark's doing nothing was to honor the man who he proclaimed a little earlier as not being his real father, that he valued his judgement, but even then, it only highlights Pa Kent's limitations as a parent. I get that raising a child isn't easy, and not all parents are going to have all the answers or know what they're doing, especially an alien, but one would think it would be in their best interest to produce the best possible person, especially someone as potentially dangerous as Clark. Thinking about it, this highlights an issue about the movie - it isn't a superhero movie. At least, not really. In fact, there is no "Superman". Sure, he put on the suit, but that didn't make him "Superman". Even the naming given by the soldiers is more out of sarcasm than any deliberate, conscious effort on his part to go out and do good. The entire film is the character decision of Superman should he reveal his presence as -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 02:54 AM)
What a load of crap! I don't doubt that there may have been cases in which bribery may have been involved, but to say that every movie and person involved that won an Academy Award only got said-award by doing such is extremely disingenuous and insulting. "S1" was considered ground-breaking at the time. And what of "MOS" awards, then? They were only bought as well? Or you planning on saying that those were actually earned because of its divine right?
That's how Awards work. In order to have any chance of winning, filmmakers donate "for your consideration" money, they have to because everyone else is doing it. This doesn't actually guarantee they'll win of course, but if they don't they will definitely lose to someone who did.
It is a "real" superhero film, stupid. Not every single superhero story has to be about "punching the bad guy" like in a boxing ring.
Nope, watching someone stop natural disasters is boring.
Who are you kidding? You didn't even try. You are so fixated on not giving any merit to the Donner films whatsoever, even though a lot of elements have been directly lifted by Snyder in "MOS", including the fact that the "s" was Superman's family crest.
I'm not fixated on anything. I'm judging objectively and have come to a conclusion you don't like. Try again. And Synder was actually going with the comics and what makes a good film.
"S1" wasn't disaster porn. "MOS" was disaster porn - from the very first shot of Krypton, it was nonstop action and CGI explosions. The superpowered battles in "MOS" are also far less interesting than in Superman II despite thirty years advance in special effects (indeed, the advent of CGI). The latter half of "MOS" feels less like a superhero film than one of Michael Bays Transformers films or perhaps a sequel to "Skyline". There are various fights between superpowered beings that wreck Smallville and the climactic knockdown between Superman and Zod over Metropolis, which work well enough. Far less interesting is everything else, which feels like a combination of standard alien invasion cinema imagery and far too many mass destruction scenes of buildings collapsing. The film could easily have been cut of some twenty minutes of these scenes.
1, You have a strange definition of disaster porn.
2, Did you actually say Superman 2 battles were better with him throwing his S at Non?
3, Well since Michael Bay is better than Richard Donnor, that's an up.
4, You have any idea how dumb it would be to cut out the destruction. Zod needs to be a threat.
Oh, but I was. You, on the other hand, I put into severe doubt.
Nope, try again. If you had been paying attention, we wouldn't be having this argument.
Oh really? Name one.
Plan 9 From Outer Space, Flight to Mars, Rocky Jones, Space Ranger, etc.
It looks like Middle Earth mixed with stuff from "Avatar", "Star Wars" and so on. Believe me, after seeing TONS of alien worlds in movies, comics and video games, stuff from the 50s and onward, it is completely and utterly indistinguishable from any of them.
So better than the crappy set design from Superman 1, then.
Look again, this time with eyes open and at all the images at the bottom.
I did, maybe you should try the doing the same thing.
Not at all. One doesn't have to like the same movie the other does, but the fact that you completely overlook whole details made me wonder if you did have some disability that I wasn't aware of.
Translation: "Your opinion contradicts mines! You must have a disability!"
Ah, yeah, it did. The heart attack illuminated Clark's limitations, even as a god-like being. Not only was Clark unable to save his own father from dying, but at the same time, he was partly responsible. Allow me to explain - just after their little talk about his purpose, Clark wanted to race his dad, and it is at this moment when Jon gets a heart attack. Clark learns that not only that he cannot stop death, but that he can kill simply by failing to take into account human limits. It changes Clark's outlook on his duty to others.
The problem is that Luthor's crappy real estate plan and nothing to do with heart attacks. Plus, if Superman could go back to save Lois, couldn't be go back and save Jonathan?
No it doesn't, because a) it was completely avoidable, and b) it taught Clark nothing but the importance of self-interest and preservation over aiding others.
1, Wow, you've completely missed the point altogether.
2, Clark spend all that time saving people. Do you not remember the bar scene or the oil rig? He was aiding people over his own self interest all the time.
Theoretically, one could make the argument that Clark's doing nothing was to honor the man who he proclaimed a little earlier as not being his real father, that he valued his judgement, but even then, it only highlights Pa Kent's limitations as a parent. I get that raising a child isn't easy, and not all parents are going to have all the answers or know what they're doing, especially an alien, but one would think it would be i -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 19, 2016 03:31 AM)
"That's how Awards work. In order to have any chance of winning, filmmakers donate "for your consideration" money, they have to because everyone else is doing it. This doesn't actually guarantee they'll win of course, but if they don't they will definitely lose to someone who did."
I know that there are certain requirements in order for a film to be included for Academy Awards and that studios and producers would market their films, but that is not the same as flat-out bribery.
"watching someone stop natural disasters is boring."
Because God forbid that a superhero does something decent for those in need and inspires hope within those suffering, to show they have humanity. Nooo, having someone stop natural disasters isn't heroic at all since they didn't have to punch someone.
"I'm not fixated on anything. I'm judging objectively and have come to a conclusion you don't like. Try again.
And Synder was actually going with the comics and what makes a good film."
Objective my arse - you just admitted right there of your bias! They were true to the original comic, they just had made some slight changes which helped shaped the character's mythos in later years, including Lex Luthor.
"MOS" is loosely based off of "The Man of Steel" comics by John Byrne, but it is a departure from that comic as well. In fact, it's a much shallower, pale representation of that comic.
"1. You have a strange definition of disaster porn."
Yours is even stranger. How is it that the destruction "MOS" features is played with such a cavalier attitude, blatantly and exploitatively evoking 9/11 and the Oklahoma Tornado in parts, with hundreds or thousands of people lifted up into the air before being slammed into the ground, and yet is not considered disaster porn?
"2, Did you actually say Superman 2 battles were better with him throwing his S at Non?"
For the time period in which they were done, where digital effects didn't exist, it was pretty good. Plus, it wasn't so monotonous and overdone as it was in "MOS", where everything was so bludgeoning and indistinguishable.
"3, Well since Michael Bay is better than Richard Donnor, that's an up."
Dream on. Donner is a better director than Bay. The only good movie the latter has done was the first "Transformers".
"4, You have any idea how dumb it would be to cut out the destruction. Zod needs to be a threat."
One can still have Zod as a threat even without all the destruction. Hell, "Supergirl" the TV series did it, "Superman: American Alien" did it, even "S2" (and that was back in the 70s/80s). Destruction doesn't make everything better. Even if one were to include destruction, there has to be humanity. Look at the 54 Godzilla movie in how it treated its destruction and its victims.
"Nope, try again. If you had been paying attention, we wouldn't be having this argument."
It is you who hasn't been paying attention.
"Plan 9 From Outer Space, Flight to Mars, Rocky Jones, Space Ranger, etc."
"Plan 9"? Where did you get THAT from? There's nothing in it that resembles the cold, sterile white on white crystalline world of either the Fortress of Solitude or Krypton designed by John Barry.
"Flight to Mars" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nvEtDbTPK8
Again, looks nothing like it. It's only similar in its cold-looking appearance. The scene at 1:00 looks like Silver Age Krypton, though, while the scene at 1:10 mark looks like some of the outfits worn by Kryptonians within the animated Superman cartoons.
"Rocky Jones, Space Ranger" - you'll need to be more specific. Where are the alien worlds made up of crystal?
"I did, maybe you should try the doing the same thing."
Look at images at the bottom. You don't see John Barry's inspiration in those images?
"Translation: "Your opinion contradicts mines! You must have a disability!""
It's not the fact that your opinion contradicts mine that indicates you having a disability, it's your lack of comprehension and disregard for detail that made me question it.
"The problem is that Luthor's crappy real estate plan and nothing to do with heart attacks."
Who cares if the real estate plans had to do with heart attacks or not? Nobody. The movie is a monomyth, a hero's journey divided into three acts, with this moment being the conclusion and character arc to the first act, which involved looking at Clark in his upbringing when he was in Smallville. "Superman: The Movie" provides a perfect allegory for the American immigrant experience. That experience, in short, is about coming to a land of opportunity, assimilating its cherished values, and then living those values at highest level possible.
Certainly, the Donner film doesnt short-change or deny the tragic aspects of its heros life, such as the death of his parents and destruction of his world, Krypton. Yet nor does Superman: The Movie make the grievous, depressing determination that after such a personal tragedy occurs, angst, depression, revenge, and darkness are the only emotions a hero can possibly face, feel, and -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 19, 2016 07:52 AM)
I know that there are certain requirements in order for a film to be included for Academy Awards and that studios and producers would market their films, but that is not the same as flat-out bribery.
No but its pretty close.
Because God forbid that a superhero does something decent for those in need and inspires hope within those suffering, to show they have humanity. Nooo, having someone stop natural disasters isn't heroic at all since they didn't have to punch someone.
Well given every other superhero manages to be MORE heroic while punching someone, yes Superman 1 has no excuse.
Objective my arse - you just admitted right there of your bias! They were true to the original comic, they just had made some slight changes which helped shaped the character's mythos in later years, including Lex Luthor.
"MOS" is loosely based off of "The Man of Steel" comics by John Byrne, but it is a departure from that comic as well. In fact, it's a much shallower, pale representation of that comic.
Nope, try again. Superman was not this much of a goofball in the comics and Gene Hackman is even MORE campy than Jesse Eisenberg. The only one admitted their bias is you.
Yours is even stranger. How is it that the destruction "MOS" features is played with such a cavalier attitude, blatantly and exploitatively evoking 9/11 and the Oklahoma Tornado in parts, with hundreds or thousands of people lifted up into the air before being slammed into the ground, and yet is not considered disaster porn?
Wow, you are retarded. All that was showing the STAKES. And none of those things were disasters.
For the time period in which they were done, where digital effects didn't exist, it was pretty good. Plus, it wasn't so monotonous and overdone as it was in "MOS", where everything was so bludgeoning and indistinguishable.
So you admit the fight scenes in Man of Steel were better.
Dream on. Donner is a better director than Bay. The only good movie the latter has done was the first "Transformers".
Every single Michael Bay film is better that Superman 1, 2, 3, 4 and Returns.
One can still have Zod as a threat even without all the destruction. Hell, "Supergirl" the TV series did it, "Superman: American Alien" did it, even "S2" (and that was back in the 70s/80s). Destruction doesn't make everything better. Even if one were to include destruction, there has to be humanity. Look at the 54 Godzilla movie in how it treated its destruction and its victims.
The Supergirl series was beep nobody knows what Superman: American Alien is.
And Man of Steel had way more humanity than Superman 1, 2, 3, 4 and Returns.
It is you who hasn't been paying attention.
Nope, try again and this time without deflecting.
"Plan 9"? Where did you get THAT from? There's nothing in it that resembles the cold, sterile white on white crystalline world of either the Fortress of Solitude or Krypton designed by John Barry.
Apart from the terrible set designs.
Again, looks nothing like it. It's only similar in its cold-looking appearance. The scene at 1:00 looks like Silver Age Krypton, though, while the scene at 1:10 mark looks like some of the outfits worn by Kryptonians within the animated Superman cartoons.
So you claim it doesn't look the same except for when it does. Not a good argument.
you'll need to be more specific. Where are the alien worlds made up of crystal?
Krypton was supposed to be made of crystal? Well apart from how stupid that looks, it certainly didn't look like crystal to me.
Look at images at the bottom. You don't see John Barry's inspiration in those images?
Nope.
It's not the fact that your opinion contradicts mine that indicates you having a disability, it's your lack of comprehension and disregard for detail that made me question it.
Yeah, here's how you're working this out.
Jason Rebourne's opinion contradicts mine,
therefore he lacks comprehension and "disregards" "details", can't be any other reason
therefor he must have a disability, only reason he could contradict me, right?
Who cares if the real estate plans had to do with heart attacks or not? Nobody. The movie is a monomyth, a hero's journey divided into three acts, with this moment being the conclusion and character arc to the first act, which involved looking at Clark in his upbringing when he was in Smallville. "Superman: The Movie" provides a perfect allegory for the American immigrant experience. That experience, in short, is about coming to a land of opportunity, assimilating its cherished values, and then living those values at highest level possible.
Certainly, the Donner film doesnt short-change or deny the tragic aspects of its heros life, such as the death of his parents and destruction of his world, Krypton. Yet nor does Superman: The Movie make the grievous, depressing determination that after such a personal tragedy occurs, angst, depression, revenge, and darkness are the only emotions a hero can possibly face, feel, and act upon. A real hero can still choose to take to the skies instead