SOOOO much better than Man of Steel!!!!!
-
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 -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 04:47 AM)
"No but its pretty close."
Not at all. Try again.
"Well given every other superhero manages to be MORE heroic while punching someone, yes Superman 1 has no excuse."
Punching someone doesn't make a person heroic, dip$hit. Any moron can throw a fist into someone's face. What you're interested in isn't heroism as it is action.
"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."
Some of the camp aspects can be attributed to the Salkinds. "Gene Hackman is even MORE campy than Jesse Eisenberg" - You claim to not be biased..but yet you are defending Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I rest my case.
"Wow, you are retarded. All that was showing the STAKES. And none of those things were disasters."
Just when I think you couldn't get any dumber, you decide to top yourself! It is one thing to have stakes, but it is another thing to be downright excessive and tastelessly exploitative.
"So you admit the fight scenes in Man of Steel were better."
Nope. The CG maybe good, but the fight scenes are so monotonous, bludgeoning and indistinguishable from each other in "MOS".
"Every single Michael Bay film is better that Superman 1, 2, 3, 4 and Returns."
Better than 3 and 4, perhaps (which isn't saying something". Better than 1, 2 and "Returns"? Hell no.
"Nope, try again and this time without deflecting."
You were the one who's been deflecting, junior.
"Apart from the terrible set designs."
Oh please, there's a clear difference in terms of quality and design. Try again, and this time give a clear, concise explanation as what makes the sets on-par with "Plan 9" outside of "I say so".
"So you claim it doesn't look the same except for when it does. Not a good argument."
And just like that you prove your stupidity! I was talking about how it looked like OLD Krypton from the comics, before John Barry's vision, genius.
"Krypton was supposed to be made of crystal? Well apart from how stupid that looks, it certainly didn't look like crystal to me."
Not even the interior details with all the quartz and crystal? How did you miss those aspects? Then again, you seem to be prone to missing out on such.
"Nope."
Then something is wrong with you.
"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?"
Nope. "Jason Rebourne's opinion contradicts mine" - fine. Not indicative of mental disability.
Reasons for saying that "S1" is bad is obtuse to both the time period in which film was made, to the genre that it's a part of and to filmmaking itself. Misreads and disregards whole details, barely dwelling on any potential aspects or meanings within scenes, even going so far as to deny their existence. Has no reflection on what defines a superhero outside of throwing a punch. Has made no refutes with regards to film history.
Possible explanations: 1) mental illness, 2) limited exposure to the filmmaking process with an equally limited understanding of film history, 3) self-indulgence due to being part of generation that grew up on CG with no appreciation for the works of the past and the techniques that were used back then.
"Except those things don't make a good film"
For a Superman movie they do, especially when you consider the film as a whole. There is more to a superhero movie than just "punch man in the face". What you're interested in isn't actually heroism, but action, which the movie has, but not the kind that you want. Punching people doesn't make a good movie, not even for a superhero movie. If you want two people beating on each other, go to a boxing match.
"Plus, the damn film just drags on for so long without anything interesting actually happening."
Interesting like punching someone in the face? Son, you are a pure dumb-a$$.
"So you're saying he should have become Superman straight away. You do realise this is an origin story. Plus, you assume that Clark is a Mary Sue who can hear everything. Sorry, this one isn't a Mary Sue, his powers have limits. Besides if that is your problem, then your Superman is even worst because he pulls powers out his arse and still can't help EVERYONE on the entire planet."
Except he still has the same abilities (able to hear someone from miles away, laser beams, flight, X-RAY vision etc). Even if you could make the argument "but-but, it is an origin story! He hasn't had all of his abilities yet!", that doesn't change the fact that for his entire life he's been taught to be apathetic. What, in all of his life he hasn't flicked on the TV or radio and heard about some of the stuff happening out there, let alone during his travels? He's blind, deaf and dumb to the rest of the world and the various problems within it - the murderers, rapists, dictators, terrorists, wars and so on - but yet it is the arrival of the big mot -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 07:27 AM)
Not at all. Try again.
Don't need to, I already succeed the first time
Punching someone doesn't make a person heroic, dip$hit. Any moron can throw a fist into someone's face. What you're interested in isn't heroism as it is action.
So Superman should have let Zod kill everyone?
And your Superman gets millions of people killed to save one woman and also gives up his powers for this one woman, not very heroic.
Some of the camp aspects can be attributed to the Salkinds. "Gene Hackman is even MORE campy than Jesse Eisenberg" - You claim to not be biased..but yet you are defending Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I rest my case.
Well, given that Eisenberg is at least better than Gene Hackman, yeah, its a valid argument.
Just when I think you couldn't get any dumber, you decide to top yourself! It is one thing to have stakes, but it is another thing to be downright excessive and tastelessly exploitative.
Exploitative? Are you some kinda SJW?
Nope. The CG maybe good, but the fight scenes are so monotonous, bludgeoning and indistinguishable from each other in "MOS".
Compared to the crappy fight scenes in Superman 2 where he throws his S at people.
Better than 3 and 4, perhaps (which isn't saying something". Better than 1, 2 and "Returns"? Hell no.
More like hell yes. Hell, even 3 and 4 were better than 1.
You were the one who's been deflecting, junior.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't come up with any real argument so you deflect.
Oh please, there's a clear difference in terms of quality and design. Try again, and this time give a clear, concise explanation as what makes the sets on-par with "Plan 9" outside of "I say so".
They were completely generic and instantly forgettable.
And just like that you prove your stupidity! I was talking about how it looked like OLD Krypton from the comics, before John Barry's vision, genius.
Still got the problem that they don't actually look alike.
Not even the interior details with all the quartz and crystal? How did you miss those aspects? Then again, you seem to be prone to missing out on such.
Well, that must be some beep design if they were supposed to be crystal.
Then something is wrong with you.
You mean my opinion contradicts yours?
Reasons for saying that "S1" is bad is obtuse to both the time period in which film was made, to the genre that it's a part of and to filmmaking itself.
Yet I'm making a stronger argument about them than you are.
Misreads and disregards whole details, barely dwelling on any potential aspects or meanings within scenes, even going so far as to deny their existence.
No, that would be you.
Has made no refutes with regards to film history.
Actually, I made lots of them. They just fly over your head.
Possible explanations: 1) mental illness,
Because I say things you don't want to hear.
2) limited exposure to the filmmaking process with an equally limited understanding of film history
Because I say things you don't want to hear.
3) self-indulgence due to being part of generation that grew up on CG with no appreciation for the works of the past and the techniques that were used back then.
Oh those damn millennials always saying things you want to hear.
For a Superman movie they do, especially when you consider the film as a whole. There is more to a superhero movie than just "punch man in the face". What you're interested in isn't actually heroism, but action, which the movie has, but not the kind that you want. Punching people doesn't make a good movie, not even for a superhero movie. If you want two people beating on each other, go to a boxing match.
And neither does being a goofball, camp, annoying women and not having a villain worthy of your hero so Superman 1 is not a real superhero film.
Interesting like punching someone in the face? Son, you are a pure dumb-a$$.
Like someone who can actually take Superman on.
Except he still has the same abilities (able to hear someone from miles away, laser beams, flight, X-RAY vision etc). Even if you could make the argument "but-but, it is an origin story! He hasn't had all of his abilities yet!", that doesn't change the fact that for his entire life he's been taught to be apathetic.
Not apathetic, careful, he's been taught to be careful.
What, in all of his life he hasn't flicked on the TV or radio and heard about some of the stuff happening out there, let alone during his travels? He's blind, deaf and dumb to the rest of the world and the various problems within it - the murderers, rapists, dictators, terrorists, wars and so on - but yet it is the arrival of the big mothership that finally makes him say "Alright, now is the time for me to announce my presence"? Because who gives a $hit about the rest of that noise, right? He only emerged out of self-interest, when the mothership threatens to destroy the planet he's living on. At least the Christopher Reeve version actually goes out and tries, and it isn't due to his planet being threatened by a damn flying saucer.
You do realise he had -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 10:42 AM)
"So Superman should have let Zod kill everyone?"
No, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he was just as responsible for the damage as him.
"And your Superman gets millions of people killed to save one woman and also gives up his powers for this one woman, not very heroic."
He didn't get millions of people killed, he reset time to prevent the disaster from happening. That in itself is heroic.
"Well, given that Eisenberg is at least better than Gene Hackman, yeah, its a valid argument."
It isn't. Eisenberg's Lex is just as bizarre, if not more so than Gene Hackman's or Kevin Spacey's versions, filled with all sorts of neurotic ticks, quirks and so on. Not even comic book Lex Luthor had been this nuts.
"Compared to the crappy fight scenes in Superman 2 where he throws his S at people."
For the time period in which it was made, it's impressive. "MOS", on the other hand, is too one-note and bloated in its CG effects.
"And neither does being a goofball, camp, annoying women and not having a villain worthy of your hero so Superman 1 is not a real superhero film."
This was a superhero movie, give it up. Again, this was back in the late 1970s. If you honestly think that all there is to a superhero movie is "punch bad guy", then you're about as thoughtful as a snail.
"More like hell yes. Hell, even 3 and 4 were better than 1."
Judged solely on the fist-fighting. I pity you.
"They were completely generic and instantly forgettable."
Again, lack of detail.
"Because I say things you don't want to hear."
Because your lack of attention to detail and very short attention span.
"Because I say things you don't want to hear."
Because you haven't given any reason to believe that you possessed greater knowledge of either film tradition or history outside of mentioning one or two movies. You never discussed technique, writing structure, etc.
"Actually, I made lots of them. They just fly over your head."
Three films/serials do not count as "lots". You hinted at some tenuous connection, but you have made no effort at all in terms comparison, be it breaking down said-films scene by scene and describing what it is that made "S1" derivative of that, be it through shots, music, plot, etc. The only thing you keep saying is "It's bad", but made no conscious effort to reflect on any of the other similarly budgeted movies and how they had looked in those days, let alone noted the technical achievements of film in that time.
"Like someone who can actually take Superman on."
Physically, no, unless they find Kryptonite. Psychologically and emotionally, though, Clark is vulnerable in those areas. Think about it - a villain who may not be as strong as Superman but is still wickedly intelligent, able to outsmart the Man of Steel and using his own abilities against him. What is so hard about doing a movie around that?
"Not apathetic, careful, he's been taught to be careful."
If he had wanted to be "careful", he could have easily just put on a mask. But no, he hid away until the mothership came to beam him up.
"You do realise he hadn't learned to fly yet, right? Why do you think he was so excited about his flying for the first time?"
So what? He's traveling around the world. Hell, even the Superman in his debut didn't have the ability to fly, but that hadn't stopped him. Same with New 52 Superman, when he lost his abilities.
"1, How many alien films were released in 2013?"
Thirteen altogether. Before that in 2012, ten.
"2, What the beep does it have to do with 9/11? You do realise films like Independence Day, Armageddon, Deep Impact, etc, existed before 9/11, right?"
This is different in that it's reflected in the imagery of "MOS". Theres a sequence in which he cycles through a series of street-level closeups, showing the faces of random Metropolis citizens (whom we all read as New Yorkers, obviously) moments before a huge space laser starts destroying skyscrapers. In the montage that follows, Snyder observes as those same characters flee from the clouds of dust and rubble billowing down city streets. From the expressions on the extras faces to the ground-level view of such a cataclysm, these images directly reference/rip off the footage captured and endlessly repeated on-air by news crews following the collapse of the World Trade Center. It treats the destruction as spectacle, and it's because of that it's exploitative. Look at the destruction of Krypton in "S1" - in that movie it was actually terrifying to watch. With its hellish red lighting, imagery of people falling and the ways shots were done, it was like seeing one of those church frescoes depicting the Apocalypse, Judgement Day, brought to life; it wasn't spectacle. In "MOS", the destruction was overkill. In fact, the whole movie became about destruction. Seeing building after building collapsing eventually became numbing.
"You have a strange definition of psychopath."
You have an even more questionable definition of a hero.
"He appeared to protect humanity."
Only when the mothershi -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 07:56 AM)
No, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he was just as responsible for the damage as him.
I don't remember Superman helping Zod kill anybody.
He didn't get millions of people killed, he reset time to prevent the disaster from happening. That in itself is heroic.
No, he reset time and stopped the OTHER missile but didn't stop the one he otherwise stopped. Thus millions died. All so Superman could shag one annoying woman.
It isn't. Eisenberg's Lex is just as bizarre, if not more so than Gene Hackman's or Kevin Spacey's versions, filled with all sorts of neurotic ticks, quirks and so on. Not even comic book Lex Luthor had been this nuts.
Nope, try again. Gene Hackman was way more campy.
For the time period in which it was made, it's impressive. "MOS", on the other hand, is too one-note and bloated in its CG effects.
There's nothing impressive about someone throwing his S so yeah, Man of Steel was better.
This was a superhero movie, give it up. Again, this was back in the late 1970s. If you honestly think that all there is to a superhero movie is "punch bad guy", then you're about as thoughtful as a snail.
Says the one who thinks campiness, annoying character, bad actors and no climax to be enough.
And good films did exist during the 70s so Superman has no excuse.
Judged solely on the fist-fighting. I pity you.
Based on be closer to the comics.
Again, lack of detail.
Yes, I know the Krypton in Superman 1 lacked detail. Good to see you admit it.
Because your lack of attention to detail and very short attention span.
AKA say things you don't want to hear.
Because you haven't given any reason to believe that you possessed greater knowledge of either film tradition or history outside of mentioning one or two movies. You never discussed technique, writing structure, etc.
Well, the techniques and writing structure in Man of Steel was vastly superior to Superman 1.
Three films/serials do not count as "lots". You hinted at some tenuous connection, but you have made no effort at all in terms comparison, be it breaking down said-films scene by scene and describing what it is that made "S1" derivative of that, be it through shots, music, plot, etc. The only thing you keep saying is "It's bad", but made no conscious effort to reflect on any of the other similarly budgeted movies and how they had looked in those days, let alone noted the technical achievements of film in that time.
Actually I did, they just flew over your head. And your best argument is to tell me to name a film and then when I do, you just tell me to name more. You're desperate, mate.
Physically, no, unless they find Kryptonite. Psychologically and emotionally, though, Clark is vulnerable in those areas. Think about it - a villain who may not be as strong as Superman but is still wickedly intelligent, able to outsmart the Man of Steel and using his own abilities against him. What is so hard about doing a movie around that?
You should ask Richard Donnor. He wasn't able to do it. Superman needs more than a green rock.
If he had wanted to be "careful", he could have easily just put on a mask. But no, he hid away until the mothership came to beam him up.
He should have been Batman?
So what? He's traveling around the world. Hell, even the Superman in his debut didn't have the ability to fly, but that hadn't stopped him. Same with New 52 Superman, when he lost his abilities.
If he couldn't fly, how would he be able to be everywhere?
Thirteen altogether. Before that in 2012, ten.
And apart from the existence of aliens, what do they actually have in common?
This is different in that it's reflected in the imagery of "MOS". Theres a sequence in which he cycles through a series of street-level closeups, showing the faces of random Metropolis citizens (whom we all read as New Yorkers, obviously) moments before a huge space laser starts destroying skyscrapers. In the montage that follows, Snyder observes as those same characters flee from the clouds of dust and rubble billowing down city streets. From the expressions on the extras faces to the ground-level view of such a cataclysm, these images directly reference/rip off the footage captured and endlessly repeated on-air by news crews following the collapse of the World Trade Center. It treats the destruction as spectacle, and it's because of that it's exploitative. Look at the destruction of Krypton in "S1" - in that movie it was actually terrifying to watch. With its hellish red lighting, imagery of people falling and the ways shots were done, it was like seeing one of those church frescoes depicting the Apocalypse, Judgement Day, brought to life; it wasn't spectacle. In "MOS", the destruction was overkill. In fact, the whole movie became about destruction. Seeing building after building collapsing eventually became numbing.
That doesn't a 9/11 make.
You have an even more questionable definition of a hero.
Yeah, its to nothing to do with killing millions of people to save one woman or having to be brainwashed by -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 02:12 AM)
"I don't remember Superman helping Zod kill anybody."
He was smashing Zod through buildings and didn't control the destruction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyG5axoTtlc
At 1:03 - 1:17, he drove Zod through one of those pillars and into a gas station, causing an explosion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1SYSiesNjY
O:38 Drove him through steel beams.
1:09 Drove his face into the side of a building.
2:10 Drove him into a museum from orbit, with people still inside. Does nothing to relocate while Zod was stunned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGzoeY0XcGI
At 1:01 onwards he causes Zod's ship to crash into five or six buildings.
"No, he reset time and stopped the OTHER missile but didn't stop the one he otherwise stopped. Thus millions died. All so Superman could shag one annoying woman"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpBfR7GT5zE
During her drive the earthquake was causing rocks and stuff to crumble of cliffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0
Notice how everything is still. No earthquakes. He prevented it from happening.
"Nope, try again. Gene Hackman was way more campy."
And Eisenberg wasn't? Especially with the candy? He's as far a departure as Hackman's. Sure, he's a manipulator and evil master mind just like all the other Luthors, but he's much more mentally disturbed than comic Lex. Several people I've sat with said his tweaking and peculiar habits make him seem more like the Joker.
"There's nothing impressive about someone throwing his S so yeah, Man of Steel was better."
The throwing the s bit was Lester's stuff. The Donner cut removes that along with the other Lester elements. When looking at a film, you have to keep in mind the time period in which it was made and the technical innovations at the time. Prior to this, nothing like this has ever been done or seen before.
"Says the one who thinks campiness, annoying character, bad actors and no climax to be enough."
It had a climax. Forgot about that, I see. The actors weren't bad at all, Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder included. Some of the camp elements detract but their few and overall the picture was solid, even with its problems.
"And good films did exist during the 70s so Superman has no excuse."
I never said that good films hadn't existed at the time. For what is and in terms of how it contributed to the superhero genre and the Superman mythos, it's good.
"Based on be closer to the comics."
Could you sound any more like a dumb petulant child? It is close to the comics. It retains all his powers, origins, Krypton and shows him being a hero, while also adding some elements. Prior to this, no other version, not even the George Reeves Superman, attempted something so ambitious and epic in scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcwEsiC3STg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bb5T-WBRY
You talk of being "closer to the comics" - what about Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns"? They're faithful in parts but they also differed from the comics in a number of areas, including the Joker among other things. Or what about Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies? Were they also $hit just because they weren't "close enough"? Fanboys like you make me want to vomit.
"Yes, I know the Krypton in Superman 1 lacked detail. Good to see you admit it."
I was referring to your previous comment, witless one.
"AKA say things you don't want to hear."
In your imagination, that's what it translates as. In reality, your inability to perceive the smallest of details and very short attention span.
"Actually I did, they just flew over your head. And your best argument is to tell me to name a film and then when I do, you just tell me to name more. You're desperate, mate."
You're the one who's desperate. I asked you to name a film and to go into detail in terms of what made Superman a rip-off of said-film and what made them equivocal in their imagery, the only "answer" you give is "it is complete generic and instantly forgettable".
"If he couldn't fly, how would he be able to be everywhere?"
Even the original Superman went places, and that version just leapt over tall buildings. Also New 52 Superman, who had been rendered flightless.
"He should have been Batman?"
No, but if he was soooo concerned about keeping his identity secret, he could have done a number of things, be it disguises, just used his speed to blur right by, use stealth and his advanced senses to pinpoint his way around without others knowing, etc.
"Well, the techniques and writing structure in Man of Steel was vastly superior to Superman 1."
Not so. It tries aping the narrative of "Batman Beyond", but it's so utterly clumsy and disjointed in comparison that it's a joke. The problem is that the editing and the way the story is unfolded is completely unnatural. The narrative flow to it just bounces haphazardly between past and present with no form of cohesion. The thing about Nolan's execution in relation to "Batman Begins" was that the narrative never faltered, especially when it alternated between -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 05:42 AM)
He was smashing Zod through buildings and didn't control the destruction.
And how was he supposed to control the destruction. You got to remember Zod was also Kryptonian. If Superman held back, MORE people would die.
During her drive the earthquake was causing rocks and stuff to crumble of cliffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0
Notice how everything is still. No earthquakes. He prevented it from happening.
Except he rewinded time to before he stopped it and did nothing. How did he prevent it from happening?
And Eisenberg wasn't? Especially with the candy? He's as far a departure as Hackman's. Sure, he's a manipulator and evil master mind just like all the other Luthors, but he's much more mentally disturbed than comic Lex. Several people I've sat with said his tweaking and peculiar habits make him seem more like the Joker.
Actually, Hackman wasn't really a mastermind. He just wanted to do evil stuff with missiles, hanged around Zod not actually doing anything and got involved with Nuclear Man (who should have been Bizarro).
At least Eisenberg was doing actual masterminding by getting Batman to fight Superman and then using Doomsday.
The throwing the s bit was Lester's stuff. The Donner cut removes that along with the other Lester elements. When looking at a film, you have to keep in mind the time period in which it was made and the technical innovations at the time. Prior to this, nothing like this has ever been done or seen before.
That doesn't excuse throwing your S. Superman could have just punched Non or shot laser eyes at him. Would have been much less silly. The Richard Donnor manages to actually be worse.
It had a climax. Forgot about that, I see. The actors weren't bad at all, Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder included. Some of the camp elements detract but their few and overall the picture was solid, even with its problems.
It had no climax, just Superman messing about with missiles. Christopher Reeve was too goofy and Margot Kidder was just even worst than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane.
I never said that good films hadn't existed at the time. For what is and in terms of how it contributed to the superhero genre and the Superman mythos, it's good.
And what did it contribute exactly? Three more crappy films (four if you count Supergirl) and nothing of merit. It wasn't until 1989 that GOOD superhero films started getting made and even that it still didn't really take off (thanks studio behind Batman 3 and 4) until 1998.
Could you sound any more like a dumb petulant child? It is close to the comics. It retains all his powers, origins, Krypton and shows him being a hero, while also adding some elements. Prior to this, no other version, not even the George Reeves Superman, attempted something so ambitious and epic in scale.
No, he adds a stupid amount of powers like rewinding time, throwing his S and rebuilding the wall of China with laser eyes. And saying its at least its better than George Reeves isn't a good argument.
You talk of being "closer to the comics" - what about Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns"? They're faithful in parts but they also differed from the comics in a number of areas, including the Joker among other things. Or what about Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies? Were they also $hit just because they weren't "close enough"? Fanboys like you make me want to vomit.
Actually those were close enough so whatever argument you're trying to make here instantly falls apart. Try again.
I was referring to your previous comment, witless one.
And it just so happened to describe Superman 1 Krypton. In fact, did we even need to see Krypton in Superman 1? They should have just started with the planet exploding and Superman's spaceship being sent to Earth. Everything happening on that planet had nothing to do with Luthor's messing about.
In your imagination, that's what it translates as. In reality, your inability to perceive the smallest of details and very short attention span.
No, not in reality, that is your imagination. The reality is actually what I said. Try again.
You're the one who's desperate. I asked you to name a film and to go into detail in terms of what made Superman a rip-off of said-film and what made them equivocal in their imagery, the only "answer" you give is "it is complete generic and
You were asking about the genericness of Krypton. The fact you are now moving the goalposts shows how desperate you are.
Even the original Superman went places, and that version just leapt over tall buildings. Also New 52 Superman, who had been rendered flightless.
So how did he get there without flying?
No, but if he was soooo concerned about keeping his identity secret, he could have done a number of things, be it disguises, just used his speed to blur right by, use stealth and his advanced senses to pinpoint his way around without others knowing, etc.
Have you not seen his powers? There is no way he could do that stuff without being noticed.
Not so. It tries aping the narr -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 02:45 AM)
"And how was he supposed to control the destruction. You got to remember Zod was also Kryptonian. If Superman held back, MORE people would die."
In Smallville he could have easily taken the fight elsewhere to a more isolated environment, if not remained in the fields away from the bloody town. Metropolis, he could have first taken out the machine there, then the Kryptonian ship, carrying it to someplace where people wouldn't be squashed or have access to it.
"No, he adds a stupid amount of powers like rewinding time, throwing his S and rebuilding the wall of China with laser eyes."
The ability to rewind time was from the comics at that time. The Donner cut got rid of throwing the S.
"And saying its at least its better than George Reeves isn't a good argument."
Considering no superhero film had ever been done on this wide a scale, and the fact that it laid the groundwork for good superhero movies, including Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. In fact, Christopher Nolan's inspiration for his Batman movies came from "S1". Here's a quote:
"One of the great films that I am very influenced by that we havent talked about was Dick Donners Superman 1978, that came out. It made a huge impression on me. I can remember the trailers for it, I can remember about Superman the movie, all of that. You know, you had Superman in 1978, but they never did the sort of 1978 Batman, where you see the origin story, where the world is pretty much the world we live in but theres this extraordinary figure there, which is what worked so well in Dick Donners Superman film. And so I was able to get in the studio and say, 'Well, thats what I would do with it.'"
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/
"And what did it contribute exactly? Three more crappy films (four if you count Supergirl) and nothing of merit. It wasn't until 1989 that GOOD superhero films started getting made and even that it still didn't really take off (thanks studio behind Batman 3 and 4) until 1998."
Your memory is really poor.- It helped reshape Lex Luthor from a criminal scientist into a multimillionaire.
- It made the "s" insignia the family crest on his home planet, something never done in the comics at that time.
- The crystalline-based technology of the planet Krypton, featured in later comics and cartoon shows, movies and video games.
- Ursa and Non characters created specifically for the film are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod. (Action Comics #845
- A computer-generated simulacrum of Jor-El survives in the Fortress of Solitude to advise his adult son Kal-El. (Action Comics #844
- Clark Kent commences his public superhero career as the adult Superman, rather than the teenage Superboy. (The Man of Steel #1)
- Lois Lane first meets Superman when he rescues her as she falls from a disabled helicopter in Metropolis. (Superman: Secret Origin #3)
- Lois is the one who first names the hero "Superman". (The Man of Steel #2)
- Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, but Martha survives as his widow. (Action Comics #870)
- Although she is an excellent reporter, Lois frequently misspells words (Superman: Secret Origin #3)
In other words, it contributed significantly to the Superman mythos.
In terms of the superhero genre, it was revolutionary. "Superman 1" brought it to the national spotlight, something no other superhero movie had done before. Comic-books had not been that successful on screen before Superman. There were a number of comic-book characters that had been adapted to the screen during the era of the serials Dick Tracy (1937), Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), Batman (1943), Captain America (1944), the aforementioned Superman serials. However, these were cheap productions, where the fantastique had been compromised by budget and a prosaic dullness in opening up and letting the superheroes be super the most heroic exploits ever got was the serial Superman swinging on a crane or lifting a truck. (The sole exception in regard to successful comic-book adaptations would be the non-superheroic Flash Gordon serials). A second wave of screen superheroes came in the 1960s after the success of tvs Batman (1966-8) but the tv Batman defined the mode of the superhero as camp where all the heroic epithets and po-faced seriousness of the comic-book originals was played for maximum silliness. The Salkind-Donner Superman could be measured as the demarcation point where cinematic superheroes started to be taken seriously on screen. A much greater budget allowed Superman to fly with a full flight of fantastic imagination and the results are a simply marvellous incarnation of a comic-book. This, Tim Burtons two Batman films, Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992), The Crow (1994), X-Men (2000) and The Dark Knight (2008), would have to count as the handful of great comic-book to film adaptations. Yugoslav front projection specialist Zoran Perisic invented a new special effects system the Zoptic Process that allowed matte work of a flying Christopher Reeve to b
-
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 06:24 AM)
In Smallville he could have easily taken the fight elsewhere to a more isolated environment, if not remained in the fields away from the bloody town. Metropolis, he could have first taken out the machine there, then the Kryptonian ship, carrying it to someplace where people wouldn't be squashed or have access to it.
Superman's priority at that point was to save Martha. And he tried to take the fight elsewhere several times but the and guy wouldn't else that happen.
The ability to rewind time was from the comics at that time. The Donner cut got rid of throwing the S.
Yeah, the bad comics. And Donnor made many mistakes that removing the S throw doesn't redeem for.
Considering no superhero film had ever been done on this wide a scale, and the fact that it laid the groundwork for good superhero movies, including Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. In fact, Christopher Nolan's inspiration for his Batman movies came from "S1". Here's a quote:
"One of the great films that I am very influenced by that we havent talked about was Dick Donners Superman 1978, that came out. It made a huge impression on me. I can remember the trailers for it, I can remember about Superman the movie, all of that. You know, you had Superman in 1978, but they never did the sort of 1978 Batman, where you see the origin story, where the world is pretty much the world we live in but theres this extraordinary figure there, which is what worked so well in Dick Donners Superman film. And so I was able to get in the studio and say, 'Well, thats what I would do with it.'"
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/
No, it didn't lay the groundwork at all. The comics laid the groundwork. The good superhero films themselves laid the groundwork. The bad superhero films didn't help at all.
Also people are always saying they got "inspiration" from things when they didn't. South Park's creators claim Monty Python somehow influenced their work despite the two having literally nothing in common. They say this to pull in audiences from those films/TV shows.- It helped reshape Lex Luthor from a criminal scientist into a multimillionaire.
No that was the comics. - It made the "s" insignia the family crest on his home planet, something never done in the comics at that time.
Except the film never really touched on it. - The crystalline-based technology of the planet Krypton, featured in later comics and cartoon shows, movies and video games.
Even though it didn't look anything what you're saying. - Ursa and Non characters created specifically for the film are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod. (Action Comics #845
Oh another two bad guys are are just rip offs of Faora and Jax Ur. - A computer-generated simulacrum of Jor-El survives in the Fortress of Solitude to advise his adult son Kal-El. (Action Comics #844
Sure it did - Clark Kent commences his public superhero career as the adult Superman, rather than the teenage Superboy. (The Man of Steel #1)
- Lois Lane first meets Superman when he rescues her as she falls from a disabled helicopter in Metropolis. (Superman: Secret Origin #3)
- Lois is the one who first names the hero "Superman". (The Man of Steel #2)
Not exactly important. - Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, but Martha survives as his widow. (Action Comics #870)
Except that's not how it happened in the comics since he was alive when Clark became Superman. - Although she is an excellent reporter, Lois frequently misspells words (Superman: Secret Origin #3)
She's obviously not a very good reporter then.
In other words, it contributed nothing of significance to the Superman mythos.
Fixed it for you
In terms of the superhero genre, it was revolutionary. "Superman 1" brought it to the national spotlight, something no other superhero movie had done before. Comic-books had not been that successful on screen before Superman. There were a number of comic-book characters that had been adapted to the screen during the era of the serials Dick Tracy (1937), Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), Batman (1943), Captain America (1944), the aforementioned Superman serials. However, these were cheap productions, where the fantastique had been compromised by budget and a prosaic dullness in opening up and letting the superheroes be super the most heroic exploits ever got was the serial Superman swinging on a crane or lifting a truck. (The sole exception in regard to successful comic-book adaptations would be the non-superheroic Flash Gordon serials). A second wave of screen superheroes came in the 1960s after the success of tvs Batman (1966-8) but the tv Batman defined the mode of the superhero as camp where all the heroic epithets and po-faced seriousness of the comic-book originals was played for maximum silliness. The Salkind-Donner Superman could be measured as the demarcation point where cinematic superheroes started to be taken seriously on screen. A much greater budget allowed Superman to fly with a full flight of fantastic imagination and the results a
- It helped reshape Lex Luthor from a criminal scientist into a multimillionaire.
-
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 02:43 AM)
"Superman's priority at that point was to save Martha. And he tried to take the fight elsewhere several times but the and guy wouldn't else that happen."
Again, your butchery of the English language. Saving Martha is one thing, but where is the common sense of driving Zod into a pillar and a gas station?
Let's look at when he "tried" to take the fight elsewhere, shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWmIL4cBFyA
2:52 Not here. Could have taken the opportunity to lure the Kryptonians (and by extension the soldiers in planes and helicopters) away from the town by flying away so that no one would get caught in the crossfire, but didn't. Instead, he's waltzing down the street to square off with them like gunfighters in a Western.
4:30-4:32 - Tackles Faora into an IHOP restaurant. Not here.
4:45 After being attacked he divea forward to strike back. Definitely not at 4:53 either, where he continues striking back at Faora in the middle of the restaurant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsqAJKFc59w
1:52 - Tackles Faora into a truck, then flings her through the other side of the building, and just right after tries smashing right into her while she was on the ground. Not here.
2:08 - Continues his attempts at attacking Faora before being grabbed from behind by Namek. Not here.
2:42 - Oh, would you look at that! Clark tries to retreat, but that has more to do with avoid getting his a$$ beaten on than to move the fight.
2:47-2:50 - Grabs Faora and slams her against Namek, then tries to fly off with her. One might suppose it's here we finally see him attempting to take the fight else, but by the same token it looks like he intends to slam her down someplace before being caught by Namek.
3:33-38 - Nice to see something vaguely resembling heroism and concern!(though his moving so fast would have killed the guy, practically crushing every bone in his body.) Still didn't try moving the fight away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqlaXylsMwQ
The full fight.
3:09 - Clark punches Namek into a train, causing it to explode. Not here.
3:27 - Saves another soldier by tackling into Faora.
3:29-53 - Hit by train. Definitely not here.
Three to four minutes of fighting, and not once did we see him make an effort to draw them away.
"Also people are always saying they got "inspiration" from things when they didn't. South Park's creators claim Monty Python somehow influenced their work despite the two having literally nothing in common. They say this to pull in audiences from those films/TV shows."
Your attempts at defusing is downright laughable. Gaining inspiration from something isn't the same as borrowing wholesale from an existing work. Going to "Monty Python" and "South Park", the humor is somewhat similar in its being schoolboyish and at times scatological, even to the point where the bounds of good taste are exceeded. They're both satires. In terms of Christopher Nolan's gaining inspiration from "Superman", one can see certain elements in "Batman Begins", especially with regards to scope and its being a little more based in the real world (not entirely, but just enough).
"About what? You gotta finish your sentence."
Oh dear, it seems my answer hadn't been properly saved. To repeat what I was trying to say, given the extraterrestrial nature of the characters and their society, we can only apply so much of our own understandings and rationale to theirs, even if certain parts are somewhat recognizably human.
"Yeah, the bad comics."
Like modern Superman comics are any better, especially with him going up like a solar flare, his gaining new abilities from Kryptonite in one series, etc.
"But he was a baby on Krypton so if it was about his journey, we didn't need those scenes."
As an introductory chapter those scenes worked, especially in relation to setting up its themes.
"In fact, he didn't need all those "chapters"."
He did, because each of those chapters highlighted how he develops into the person that he ultimately becomes.
"This was another with Fantastic Four."
I don't follow. What does "Superman" have to do with "Fantastic Four"?
"And Jor El was really just a mad scientist mind controlling people with computers."
Again, not a mad scientist, and not really a computer. You can't argue that he's "mind controlling" Clark given that Clark himself is fully cognizant of the fact that he's not human and already living a dual identity.
"So it was "revolutionary" by being less beep than the ones before it"
Not by being "less $hit than the ones before it" - but by being great (at least, in the time period in which it was released)! Prior to this, no superhero movie ever had a budget or the sense of epic scale as featured in "Superman 1", nor did they have the effects to adequately depict a man flying. Everyone associated the superhero with the campy antics of the 1960s Adam West "Batman". Plus, none of the other "Superman" films before it had such an aching lost childhood sense of purebred red, white and blue American innocence. It a -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 10:52 AM)
Again, your butchery of the English language. Saving Martha is one thing, but where is the common sense of driving Zod into a pillar and a gas station?
Where was he supposed to drive him? This was Clark's first fight with real villains, mistakes were going to happen, especially since he was fighting people with way more experience than him. There was no taking the fight away.
The fact you have to include grammar in your argument shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
Your attempts at defusing is downright laughable. Gaining inspiration from something isn't the same as borrowing wholesale from an existing work. Going to "Monty Python" and "South Park", the humor is somewhat similar in its being schoolboyish and at times scatological, even to the point where the bounds of good taste are exceeded. They're both satires. In terms of Christopher Nolan's gaining inspiration from "Superman", one can see certain elements in "Batman Begins", especially with regards to scope and its being a little more based in the real world (not entirely, but just enough).
Superman 1 wasn't based on the real world. It was based on a fantasy about a Mary Sue.
Oh dear, it seems my answer hadn't been properly saved. To repeat what I was trying to say, given the extraterrestrial nature of the characters and their society, we can only apply so much of our own understandings and rationale to theirs, even if certain parts are somewhat recognizably human.
And that has what to anything?
Like modern Superman comics are any better, especially with him going up like a solar flare, his gaining new abilities from Kryptonite in one series, etc.
And that excuses rewinding time how?
As an introductory chapter those scenes worked, especially in relation to setting up its themes.
We didn't need all that stuff about Zod if he was just going to disappear for the rest of the film.
He did, because each of those chapters highlighted how he develops into the person that he ultimately becomes.
The person he becomes is a mind control slave controlled by a computer. Its literally, he shows up to the Fortress, Jor El mind controls him for over a decade.
I don't follow. What does "Superman" have to do with "Fantastic Four"?
Both films involved chapters they didn't need whether it be the Zod scenes in Superman or the childhood scenes in Fantastic Four.
Again, not a mad scientist, and not really a computer. You can't argue that he's "mind controlling" Clark given that Clark himself is fully cognizant of the fact that he's not human and already living a dual identity.
Except he brainwashes him into becoming Superman.
Not by being "less $hit than the ones before it" - better! Prior to this, no superhero movie ever had a budget or the sense of epic scale as featured in "Superman 1", nor did they have the effects to adequately depict a man flying. Everyone associated the superhero with the campy antics of the 1960s Adam West "Batman". Plus, none of the other "Superman" films before it had such an aching lost childhood sense of purebred red, white and blue American innocence. It also revolutionized special effects - nothing like this had ever been done before.
AKA at least it was better than the even worse 60s Batman. Under that logic Batman and Robin must have been brilliant because 60s Batman was worse.
The truth isn't that they're "bad" films, the truth is that you are a petty, spoiled fanboy brat who doesn't want to admit to their significance and contributions.
Nope, the truth is they're bad films. You are a petty, spoiled fanboy who doesn't want to admit they're insignificance and lack of contribution. Try again.
You don't know what "climax" means, do you?
Its a basic storytelling concept and Superman 1 lacked this.
After "Superman 1", in DC's post-Crisis Universe.
Nope, try again.
A "very" reporter? Man, your writing keeps getting worse.
You might want to try reading the entire sentence.
Also featured in various comics, TV shows, cartoons, and so on, later taken by Snyder.
Sure it did.
Keep denying. Never mind the various comics, cartoons, video games and animated movies featuring it, but if you keep denying, you just may end up believing it.
The reason I'm denying it is because it isn't true. Try again.
Not really.
If you keep denying, who know, you may end up believing it.
There, fixed it for you. No need to thank me.
Oh, that's cute. Watch this.
In other words, it contributed nothing of significance to the Superman mythos.
See, changed it back.
You never gave any details, you lying weasel. You pointed out three movies and serial, and all you stuttered out was "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable" when I asked you to elaborate. You showed nothing in terms of how visuals and sets were comparable in their design or quality, let alone considered what the standard was for that time. I gave you chance after chance to talk about it, to go into detail and elaborate, but all you did was mutter the same damn thing, and then you try to b -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 11:25 AM)
"Where was he supposed to drive him? This was Clark's first fight with real villains, mistakes were going to happen, especially since he was fighting people with way more experience than him. There was no taking the fight away."
Anywhere other than
towards the bloody town
, thereby endangering civilians.
"Superman 1 wasn't based on the real world."
"Real" world in the sense of scale and it looking like an actual city rather than, say, Gotham City in the Tim Burton films, which was a more isolated, grimy, retro-1940s futurist netherworld with gothic elements.
"And that excuses rewinding time how?"
Different time periods, where Cold War fears were prominent in those days and the threat of annihilation loomed over the heads of everyone. Superman provided a source of comfort and stability in his representation. Superman was essentially an All-American hero a Boy Scout in a cape, his heroics were the heroics that American cinema has traded in since time immemorial. "I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way."
"Both films involved chapters they didn't need whether it be the Zod scenes in Superman or the childhood scenes in Fantastic Four."
I never saw "Fantastic Four", so I can't comment on it. I'm assuming your talking about the more recent effort?
"Except he brainwashes him into becoming Superman."
Again, not so. Clark was
already
Superman (Kal El) - his human identity was just a mask for him to fit in. You can't brainwash someone to become someone else when they're already that person to begin with.
"AKA at least it was better than the even worse 60s Batman. Under that logic Batman and Robin must have been brilliant because 60s Batman was worse."
LOL What? Where did you get
that
from? Then again, you have a tendency of pulling things out from your a$$. Don't know how you arrived to that conclusion, junior, but no, "Batman and Robin" is just as bad, if not worse than the 60s Batman.
"The person he becomes is a mind control slave controlled by a computer. Its literally, he shows up to the Fortress, Jor El mind controls him for over a decade."
That is not how it went and you know it. Clark received a psychic call from the Fortress. Having learned who he actually was, where he's from and the fact that he had other powers that had yet to be tapped, what would you have him do, just take off and say "Sorry, not interested"? Pa Kent died because of Clark's own limitations, and he was grief-stricken because of that. Plus he already knew from the get-go he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. Staying at the Fortress allowed him to not only learn and control his powers, but it also allowed him to be who he actually was without fear of hiding it. Consider Clark's talk with Jon before he died:
"Young Clark Kent: [going over to Jonathan] Um I didn't mean to show off, Pop. It's just that, guys like that Brad, I just want to tear him apart.
Jonathan Kent: Yeah, I know, I know.
Young Clark Kent: And I know I shouldn't
Jonathan Kent: Yeah, I know, you can do all these amazing things and sometimes you feel like you will just go bust unless you can tell people about them.
Young Clark Kent: Yeah. I mean every time I kick the football I can make a touchdown. Every time! I mean, is it showing off if somebody's doing the things he's capable of doing? Is a bird showing off when it flies?"
When we see Clark flying as Superman, it is a majestic and poetic moment that goes back to what he and Pa Kent were discussing - he's now in his home element, able to do precisely what he hadn't been allowed to do when he was living with humans.
"The reason I'm denying it is because it isn't true."
Ohh really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EveTC9ndksQ
1:20-1:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0di__79bIw
:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODpI5ixws8
39:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_3COe4pMo
22:32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Hv7bjX7cw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le3qgBqKaJs
Seems you need to get your eyes checked, laddy. I could go on and on pointing things out.
"Nope, the truth is they're bad films. You are a petty, spoiled fanboy who doesn't want to admit they're insignificance and lack of contribution. Try again."
Oh how cute, you're trying to turn my own words against me! The problem, though, is that that particular description doesn't apply to me. I admitted that they're dated when looked at today, but I'm reflexive enough to know when to view things according to current standards and when not to, to look at a work in terms of how it contributed to a genre and to view it from that era. I'm not the one denying its importance and contributions because of something inane such as "he didn't punch someone". "Superman" featured pioneering special effects, a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special. It won Academy Awards. It was the first of its kind, and no matter how much you try to deny, there' -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 10:07 AM)
Anywhere other than towards the bloody town, thereby endangering civilians.
Oh, sorry, he was a little busy focusing on the immediate threat.
"Real" world in the sense of scale and it looking like an actual city rather than, say, Gotham City in the Tim Burton films, which was a more isolated, grimy, retro-1940s futurist netherworld with gothic elements.
Didn't you just say it was 0% unrealistic that he was an alien? Yet, you're now trying to make claim realism?
Different time periods, where Cold War fears were prominent in those days and the threat of annihilation loomed over the heads of everyone. Superman provided a source of comfort and stability in his representation. Superman was essentially an All-American hero a Boy Scout in a cape, his heroics were the heroics that American cinema has traded in since time immemorial. "I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way."
Oh god, that crap.
I never saw "Fantastic Four", so I can't comment on it. I'm assuming your talking about the more recent effort?
More recent effort, it suffers from similar problems to Superman 1.
Again, not so. Clark was already Superman (Kal El) - his human identity was just a mask for him to fit in. You can't brainwash someone to become someone else when they're already that person to begin with.
No, he wasn't. Also, he was raised on Earth as Clark Kent. Kal El is just some name he found out was his. You said Superman was just a name Lois came up with.
I'm trying not to laugh. Your argument makes no sense.
LOL What? Where did you get that from? Then again, you have a tendency of pulling things out from your a$$. Don't know how you arrived to that conclusion, junior, but no, "Batman and Robin" is just as bad, if not worse than the 60s Batman.
No, Batman and Robin only raped some of the characters in the Batman mythos. 60s Batman and his TV series raped the entire mythos. It took an Elseworlds comic book by Frank Miller, a Tim Burton film and a cartoon series to fix it.
That is not how it went and you know it. Clark received a psychic call from the Fortress. Having learned who he actually was, where he's from and the fact that he had other powers that had yet to be tapped, what would you have him do, just take off and say "Sorry, not interested"? Pa Kent died because of Clark's own limitations, and he was grief-stricken because of that. Plus he already knew from the get-go he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. Staying at the Fortress allowed him to not only learn and control his powers, but it also allowed him to be who he actually was without fear of hiding it.
I dunno, how about Clark actually CHOOSING to be a hero like he did in Man of Steel. Also what does Jonathan's death that do with Jor El's bad science?
Seems you need to get your eyes checked, laddy. I could go on and on pointing things out.
Nope, its exactly what I said was going on. Try again.
The problem, though, is that that particular description doesn't apply to me.
Actually, it does, try again.
I'm not the one denying its importance and contributions because of something inane such as "he didn't punch someone".
No, you're doing it because he DID punch someone.
"Superman" featured pioneering special effects, a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special.
Oh please, its nothing the early Bond film didn't do.
It won Academy Awards.
I already explained the money thing to you.
It was the first of its kind, and no matter how much you try to deny, there's no changing that fact.
Apart from all the ones that came before.
Since you have a miniscule understanding of storytelling, here's something to help you:
http://writeshop.com/5-stages-of-storytelling/
You might want to read up on how to write stories for film.
So you admit Superman 1 was lacking it.
Not so. It haphazardly hops between past and present with no reason outside of trying to ape "Batman Begins".
Come on, it was very easy to follow. I don't know why you're so confused about this.
Bull$hit, and you know it. You talk of having "realism", and when confronted with the fact that "MOS" is guilty of the same crimes as the previous Superman films, you back-track and stutter "But-but I didn't mean 100% realism!". A high school dropout would more likely be hired as a janitor at a news station than as a reporter. And that's not even talking about the issue of his adoption/being raised by the Kents. I could spend a looooong time discussing the various ways where "MOS" departs from reality/breaks it entirely (despite your claims of a "realistic" tone).
I never back-pedalled. You simply didn't have a strong enough argument so you try to change mine. It failed. When people talk of realism, nobody means literally 100%. I thought you would be smart enough to understand that. Guess, I was wrong.
"but the and guy wouldn't else that happen." Not your exact words. I wrote your forum post that way. Keep telli