SOOOO much better than Man of Steel!!!!!
-
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 -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 26, 2016 01:34 AM)
"Oh, sorry, he was a little busy focusing on the immediate threat."
He tackled into Zod and was beating him repeatedly while sliding through a field. At any time, he could have kept what he was doing away from the town. "Focused on the threat" is one thing, but what happened in Smallville was bloody careless and apathetic.
"Didn't you just say it was 0% unrealistic that he was an alien? Yet, you're now trying to make claim realism?"
I was speaking of
cities
and how they look like real places, dip$hit, not
character
.
"Oh god, that crap."
No matter how much you refute, it still doesn't change those facts.
"More recent effort, it suffers from similar problems to Superman 1."
Can't say much about "Fantastic Four", but with you as a source, I doubt its problems are similar.
"No, you're doing it because he DID punch someone."
My issue isn't that "he punched someone", my issues with the movie stems from the fact that
a) it's derivative of much better movies including "The Avengers", "Superman 1" and "2" and does nothing to distinguish itself from said-films,
b) because of Clark's utter disregard for the collateral damage around him, where he saved four people but let hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions die. I'm not saying he should have stopped just to catch a kitten falling from a tree, but even Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns" thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate falling debris after a sonic boom.
c) The narrative was completely disjointed with no logic in its structuring.
And finally,
d) The result was a generic, mediocre mess.
"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."
Of course he was - he knew that he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. It was reflected in his discussion with Pa Kent - don't be stupid. In terms of "Superman" being a name that Lois came up with, I wasn't talking about how he gained the title, you dumb $hit, I was talking about the
person
. Big difference.
"Nope, its exactly what I said was going on."
The crystals are clearly present in all those scenes. But no matter, you'll continue denying because you are an impotent, petty fanboy coward that doesn't want to acknowledge them for fear of being proved wrong. Guess what, though - it's too late. You've been caught, and no matter how many times you write "try again", the fact will remain that you've lost.
"Actually, it does, try again."
Ah yes, the same deflective answer one can rely upon you to give when you're backed into a corner, with no arguments to back yourself up and to hide your impotency. You've lost.
"Oh please, its nothing the early Bond film didn't do."
Such as?
"I already explained the money thing to you."
There is a very clear difference between trying to market a film in order to apply for the Academy Awards and bribery. Also, if every film that had received an Academy Award was the result of bribery rather than, say, innovation and technical achievement, then I suppose classics such as "Alien" should be dismissed entirely, right? Because everyone knows that people like Stan Winston don't deserve it.
"So you admit Superman 1 was lacking it."
It had a climax, give it up already.
"Come on, it was very easy to follow. I don't know why you're so confused about this."
Because as a narrative it doesn't make sense and isn't cohesive. At least in "Batman Begins" the intercuts between past and present had level of cohesion and narrative sense. In "MOS", not so much. What is the correlation between Clark staring up at a whale and a flashback to him as a child?
"I never back-pedalled. You simply didn't have a strong enough argument so you try to fact 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."
I try to "fact yours"? Oh I love this. Your attempts at weaseling your way out are sure-signs of your desperation. There is a very clear difference between being "realistic" and "verisimilitude", and "MOS" achieves neither. Keep trying to backpedal, you've already lost.
"Are you done acting like a 5 year old? Can we get back to the topic at hand?"
Considering that those quotes are still on the post that
you
had written, that continues proving you to be a liar. Keep trying, you lying weasel.
"Another non-answer, I see."
You want the exact quote, here it is:
"General Zod: What have you done to me?
Superman: My parents taught me to hone my senses, Zod. Focus on just what I wanted to see. Without your helmet, you're getting everything.
General Zod: Unh!
Superman: And it hurts, doesn't it?"
Caught again.
"So you admit the Hackman portrayal had nothing to do with it."
Actually, Byrne's inspiration for "Man of Steel" came directly from "Superman 1", including the redesign of Luthor.
"If you don't have to, why should I?"
Oh but I ha -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 26, 2016 06:38 AM)
He tackled into Zod and was beating him repeatedly while sliding through a field. At any time, he could have kept what he was doing away from the town. "Focused on the threat" is one thing, but what happened in Smallville was bloody careless and apathetic.
This was literally the only way. You're being retarded.
I was speaking of cities and how they look like real places, dip$hit, not character.
Except that how the cities looked is irrelevant to this argument. Try again.
No matter how much you refute, it still doesn't change those facts.
The only one trying to change the facts is you.
Can't say much about "Fantastic Four", but with you as a source, I doubt its problems are similar.
No, at least Fantastic Four had a better cast.
My issue isn't that "he punched someone", my issues with the movie stems from the fact that
a) it's derivative of much better movies including "The Avengers", "Superman 1" and "2" and does nothing to distinguish itself from said-films,
Well, it distinguished itself from Superman 1 and 2 by actually being a good film.
b) because of Clark's utter disregard for the collateral damage around him, where he saved four people but let hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions die. I'm not saying he should have stopped just to catch a kitten falling from a tree, but even Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns" thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate falling debris after a sonic boom.
The collateral damage was unavoidable.
c) The narrative was completely disjointed with no logic in its structuring.
AKA you weren't smart enough to follow the plot and should go back to watching Teletubies.
And finally,
d) The result was a generic, mediocre mess.
No, you're thinking of the Superman films before it.
Of course he was - he knew that he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. It was reflected in his discussion with Pa Kent - don't be stupid. In terms of "Superman" being a name that Lois came up with, I wasn't talking about how he gained the title, you dumb $hit, I was talking about the person. Big difference.
The person was Clark Kent. He wasn't disguising himself at all.
The crystals are clearly present in all those scenes. But no matter, you'll continue denying because you are an impotent, petty fanboy coward that doesn't want to acknowledge them for fear of being proved wrong. Guess what, though - it's too late. You've been caught, and no matter how many times you write "try again", the fact will remain that you've lost.
Nope, that would be you, try again.
Ah yes, the same deflective answer one can rely upon you to give when you're backed into a corner, with no arguments to back yourself up and to hide your impotency. You've lost.
Also you.
Such as?
Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majestry's Secret Service, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun and the Spy Who Loved Me.
There is a very clear difference between trying to market a film in order to apply for the Academy Awards and bribery. Also, if every film that had received an Academy Award was the result of bribery rather than, say, innovation and technical achievement, then I suppose classics such as "Alien" should be dismissed entirely, right? Because everyone knows that people like Stan Winston don't deserve it.
The problem with your argument is that Alien is actually a good film and Superman isn't. Try again. Also, there were no good films released during 1978 so they would only be able to award bad films that year.
It had a climax, give it up already.
Nope, at no point did it look like Superman might fail. Even when Lois died, it was pretty obvious Superman would fix it.
Because as a narrative it doesn't make sense and isn't cohesive. At least in "Batman Begins" the intercuts between past and present had level of cohesion and narrative sense. In "MOS", not so much. What is the correlation between Clark staring up at a whale and a flashback to him as a child?
If you can't follow this, you're a retard. So maybe Batman Begins is better, Man of Steel is still better than all the crappy Superman films before it.
I try to "fact yours"? Oh I love this. Your attempts at weaseling your way out are sure-signs of your desperation. There is a very clear difference between being "realistic" and "verisimilitude", and "MOS" achieves neither. Keep trying to backpedal, you've already lost.
This is what I'm talking about. You can't make your own argument so you try to somehow change my argument, creating a strawman and it just proves how desperate YOU are.
Considering that those quotes are still on the post that you had written, that continues proving you to be a liar. Keep trying, you lying weasel.
Translation: "Wah! Jason Rebourne is winning this argument! I can't counteract him! I know, I'll just make some beep up! That'll show him"
You want the exact quote, here it is:
"General Zod: What have you done to me?
Superman: My parents taught me to hon -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 01:00 AM)
"This was literally the only way. You're being retarded."
You're the one being retarded. This wasn't the only way, and you know it. Of course, you're too stubborn and stupid to even admit it.
"Except that how the cities looked is irrelevant to this argument."
In terms of it looking like it's part of the real world it does.
"The person was Clark Kent. He wasn't disguising himself at all."
He was pretending to be human, hiding his abilities. Of course it was a disguise.
"And your point is."
Your argument has no validity.
"The only one trying to change the facts is you."
Please, I haven't tried denying the impact "S1" and 2 had and then tried to further dismiss them by dismissing the Academy Awards.
"Well, it distinguished itself from Superman 1 and 2 by actually being a good film."
It isn't a good film. It borrows from every other movie better than it, including "S1" and "2", but is completely indistinguishable from the rest.
"The collateral damage was unavoidable."
Collateral damage may have been unavoidable, but the movie could have at least had Clark control some of it, if not showed some indication of his trying but failing (which the movie never did).
"If you can't follow this, you're a retard. So maybe Batman Begins is better, Man of Steel is still better than all the crappy Superman films before it."
Again, there was logic in the narrative behind "Batman Begins" and the intercuts made sense. In the case of "MOS", there was no logic at all for them. That is one things that makes it weaker than not only "Batman Begins", but also "S1" and "2".
"AKA you weren't smart enough to follow the plot and should go back to watching Teletubies."
Again, it's not the question of being able to follow the plot, it's the fact that the jumps between past and present are disjointed and clumsy to the point of hurting narrative cohesion. Your obsession with Teletubbies communicates volumes about your own mentality.
"No, you're thinking of the Superman films before it."
Just "MOS", son.
"The problem with your argument is that Alien is actually a good film and Superman isn't."
Ohhh, so now you admit that not
every
film that received an Academy Award was the result of bribery, it just happens to be "Superman 1". You pathetic weasel. Prior to this, the Zoptic Process had never been done before, and the Superman films of old never achieved anything like this. Hell, no film achieved anything like this, period.
"Nope, at no point did it look like Superman might fail."
With the first missile moving around it and his trying to catch up it had looked like he was going to fail. Plus, he had missed the second missile, which ended up causing disasters. So, there you go. Still doesn't change the fact there was a climax.
"Even when Lois died, it was pretty obvious Superman would fix it."
You were able to predict even before watching the movie that he would break the boundaries of space and time?
"The military were going after the one in Metropolis. Superman focused on the one they couldn't go after. Plus, both machines were causing destruction around them. You complain about the collateral damage and now say he should have let one of the machines kill everyone."
One machine was causing destruction in the middle of a heavily populated city, the other in a far-off area with no people around
at all
. Plus, it's completely inconceivable to alert military bases close to the general region to take that machine out, if not launch a nuke to destroy it? Not hard to get, but then again, you have a tendency of forgetting details. And no, I didn't say that Clark "should have let one of the machines kill everyone", I said "take the one out in the middle of the city" to prevent further death and destruction, then the other. Again, if the World Engines worked in tandem and destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth, what difference would it have made had he attacked the one in Metropolis first vs taking the scenic route?
"No, the comic book paved the foundation, you retard. Superman 1 was just a badly made film that only managed to not suck as hard as the ones before it which wasn't really worth bragging around."
It had a slight foundation, but it was the Christopher Reeves movies that had further solidified it, even going so far as to inject elements within the comic mythos that had never been featured up to that point.
"Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majestry's Secret Service, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun and the Spy Who Loved Me."
Which of these featured James Bond flying or first utilized the Zoptic Process? Discuss in detail how these movies created a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special.
"This is what I'm talking about. You can't make your own argument so you try to somehow change my argument, creating a strawman and it just proves how desperate YOU -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 05:40 AM)
You're the one being retarded. This wasn't the only way, and you know it. Of course, you're too stubborn and stupid to even admit it.
So you think he should have let Zod kill his mum?
In terms of it looking like it's part of the real world it does.
I thought we were on about the character of Superman. Why have you changed the subject?
He was pretending to be human, hiding his abilities. Of course it was a disguise.
That's not a disguise.
Your argument has no validity.
Even though its completely debunked yours.
Please, I haven't tried denying the impact "S1" and 2 had and then tried to further dismiss them by dismissing the Academy Awards.
No, they did the exact opposite, proving my very point.
It isn't a good film. It borrows from every other movie better than it, including "S1" and "2", but is completely indistinguishable from the rest.
So you've run out of arguments and are just repeating the same BS now, I see.
Collateral damage may have been unavoidable, but the movie could have at least had Clark control some of it, if not showed some indication of his trying but failing (which the movie never did).
If he had done that instead of focusing on the machines, more people would have died.
Again, there was logic in the narrative behind "Batman Begins" and the intercuts made sense. In the case of "MOS", there was no logic at all for them. That is one things that makes it weaker than not only "Batman Begins", but also "S1" and "2".
There was about as much logic as any other film that does this. You're just nitpicking.
Again, it's not the question of being able to follow the plot, it's the fact that the jumps between past and present are disjointed and clumsy to the point of hurting narrative cohesion. Your obsession with Teletubbies communicates volumes about your own mentality.
See above, retard.
I was able to follow it perfectly, I don't know why you have so much trouble with it. And my Teletubbies reference refers to your IQ. If it bothers you that much, I could refer you to some other kiddies show that your mentality will prefer.
Just "MOS", son.
Yeah, the first one to get Superman right.
Ohhh, so now you admit that not every film that received an Academy Award was the result of bribery, it just happens to be "Superman 1". You pathetic weasel. Prior to this, the Zoptic Process had never been done before, and the Superman films of old never achieved anything like this. Hell, no film achieved anything like this, period.
Well, bribery would have come into it but it is actually a good film. I've also explained that they HAVE to resort to bribery because everyone is doing it. And achieved what, another film about a flying dude?
With the first missile moving around it and his trying to catch up it had looked like he was going to fail. Plus, he had missed the second missile, which ended up causing disasters. So, there you go. Still doesn't change the fact there was a climax.
Except he was fighting a beep missile. That's like the tornado from the end of the Superman Returns video game (film is still better than the film).
You were able to predict even before watching the movie that he would break the boundaries of space and time?
They weren't going to let his love interest stay dead. Hell, the Dark Knight is literally the only superhero film that actually did.
One machine was causing destruction in the middle of a heavily populated city, the other in a far-off area with no people around at all. Plus, it's completely inconceivable to alert military bases close to the general region to take that machine out, if not launch a nuke to destroy it?
Oh, a nuclear missile. Yeah, no way that's not gonna cause even more collateral damage.
Not hard to get, but then again, you have a tendency of forgetting details. And no, I didn't say that Clark "should have let one of the machines kill everyone", I said "take the one out in the middle of the city" to prevent further death and destruction, then the other.
I already explained to you that the military were taking care of the one in the city and there was nobody to stop the other one. The whole send another military unit there falls apart once you realise that Superman was faster. Try again.
Again, if the World Engines worked in tandem and destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth, what difference would it have made had he attacked the one in Metropolis first vs taking the scenic route?
And what makes you think they work in tandem? They are massive machines that destroy everything around them.
It had a slight foundation, but it was the Christopher Reeves movies that had further solidified it, even going so far as to inject elements within the comic mythos that had never been featured up to that point.
Oh, you mean later elements that had nothing to do with the film whatsoever. And even if the comics took one of two elements, that doesn't actually mean Superman 1 is any good.
Which of these featured James Bond flying or first utilized the Zoptic Process? Discuss in -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 02:52 AM)
"So you think he should have let Zod kill his mum?"
No, but that doesn't mean he should endanger the lives of other people by bringing the fight to the bloody town, smashing into a pillar and a gas station in the process. Since when has thought processing or common sense been an issue?
"I thought we were on about the character of Superman. Why have you changed the subject?"
We were discussing how "S1" inspired Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" - that's what we were talking about. I was talking about how both films tried to incorporate a vast, epic sense of scale and a sense of verisimilitude by having the worlds the characters are apart of seem like real places.
"Even though its completely debunked yours."
You haven't even debunked a single point.
"So you've run out of arguments and are just repeating the same BS now, I see."
Only because you keep trying to ignore them and don't want to face reality. Newsflash, junior - it isn't a good film, not even close.
"No, they did the exact opposite, proving my very point."
Marketing and bribery aren't the same - get that through your thick skull.
"Except he was fighting a beep missile."
Again, the story wasn't about punching people in the face. Again, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey
"There was about as much logic as any other film that does this. You're just nitpicking."
Even less so, especially compared to "Batman Begins".
"See above, retard. I was able to follow it perfectly, I don't know why you have so much trouble with it. And my Teletubbies reference refers to your IQ. If it bothers you that much, I could refer you to some other kiddies show that your mentality will prefer."
Again, it wasn't the question of being able to "follow it", you mental midget, it was the question of narrative cohesion. The jumps between past and present are completely abrupt and don't flow well together, unlike the ones done in "Batman Begins". There was nothing natural in going from a scene of Clark staring up at a whale underwater to a flashback of him as a child.
"Well, bribery would have come into it but it is actually a good film. I've also explained that they HAVE to resort to bribery because everyone is doing it. And achieved what, another film about a flying dude?"
Marketing isn't the same as "bribery". If you have a low budget movie that's only playing at one or two movie theaters in the country and there's nothing else to indicate its presence, chances are it will be ignored. Also, if every Academy Award was the result of a bribe, then you cannot say with certainty that "Aliens" was a good film. In terms of what "S1" had achieved, it set the standard for superhero films in terms of having a sense of mythic stature.
"They weren't going to let his love interest stay dead. Hell, the Dark Knight is literally the only superhero film that actually did."
Hollywood didn't want her to stay dead in order to give the movie a happy ending, that's true, but no one could have foreseen Superman breaking the boundaries of time and space in order to do so. At best, one would have expected him to do the whole fairy tale BS kiss of life like in those old Disney movies.
"And what makes you think they work in tandem? They are massive machines that destroy everything around them."
Given that both started unleashing devastating gravity beams at the exact same time might have been a clue. Again, use your eyes.
"Oh, a nuclear missile. Yeah, no way that's not gonna cause even more collateral damage."
If nukes aren't an option, other missiles, battleships, planes and so on could have been sent.
"I already explained to you that the military were taking care of the one in the city and there was nobody to stop the other one. The whole send another military unit there falls apart once you realise that Superman was faster. Try again."
Your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that a) the region where the other machine was placed was isolated, with no f#cker around, and b) the military's being ridiculously, hilariously unprepared and unequipped for taking on Kryptonian soldiers, something that even Clark himself knew and witnessed in person back in Smallville. Clark just leaving them to take on Kryptonian soldiers alone doesn't paint him in a very bright light.
"Oh, you mean later elements that had nothing to do with the film whatsoever. And even if the comics took one of two elements, that doesn't actually mean Superman 1 is any good"
Those elements had plenty to do with the film. If they were so awful, would Byrne and other writers at DC have bothered including them into the Superman mythos? They helped form the comics and characters as we see them today, including Lex Luthor. Without them, Lex would still have been a red-haired criminal scientist.
"That's not a disguise."
Maybe not in the sense of dressing differently or putting on a fake mustache, but it is in the sense of camouflage and trying to fit in with his surroundings.
"If he had done that instead of focu -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 07:24 AM)
No, but that doesn't mean he should endanger the lives of other people by bringing the fight to the bloody town, smashing into a pillar and a gas station in the process. Since when has thought processing or common sense been an issue?
Since someone was trying to kill his mum. This isn't Superman who's been doing it for eighty years, this is Superman just starting out.
We were discussing how "S1" inspired Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" - that's what we were talking about. I was talking about how both films tried to incorporate a vast, epic sense of scale and a sense of verisimilitude by having the worlds the characters are apart of seem like real places.
And has what to do with anything?
You haven't even debunked a single point.
I've debunked all of them.
Only because you keep trying to ignore them and don't want to face reality. Newsflash, junior - it isn't a good film, not even close.
No, that would be you.
Though, it is good to see you admit Superman 1 is a bad film.
Marketing and bribery aren't the same - get that through your thick skull.
When it comes to Academy Awards and beep their pretty close.
Again, the story wasn't about punching people in the face. Again, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey
It doesn't say anything about being boring, or having to be a mind controlled slave to be a hero, or killing millions of people to save one stupid bitch.
Even less so, especially compared to "Batman Begins".
Now, you're trying to compare it to a Chris Nolan. Obviously most films are gonna be inferior to something he makes.
Zack Synder might not be as good as Nolan but he's still miles better than Richard "Had No Idea What He Was Doing" Donnor.
Again, it wasn't the question of being able to "follow it", you mental midget, it was the question of narrative cohesion. The jumps between past and present are completely abrupt and don't flow well together, unlike the ones done in "Batman Begins". There was nothing natural in going from a scene of Clark staring up at a whale underwater to a flashback of him as a child.
AKA you couldn't follow it.
Marketing isn't the same as "bribery". If you have a low budget movie that's only playing at one or two movie theaters in the country and there's nothing else to indicate its presence, chances are it will be ignored. Also, if every Academy Award was the result of a bribe, then you cannot say with certainty that "Aliens" was a good film. In terms of what "S1" had achieved, it set the standard for superhero films in terms of having a sense of mythic stature.
What you're talking about it not marketing.
And I already explained that a lot of the time, they are generally good films but because everyone else is giving out bribes, they have to do the same thing themselves to have any chance.
The problem was that there were no good films out in 1978 so the Awards that year could only have gone to bad films. As for what S1 achieved, no it didn't set any standard beyond being slightly less crap than the previous superhero films. And its "mythic stature" made no god damn sense whatsoever.
Hollywood didn't want her to stay dead in order to give the movie a happy ending, that's true, but no one could have foreseen Superman breaking the boundaries of time and space in order to do so. At best, one would have expected him to do the whole fairy tale BS kiss of life like in those old Disney movies.
Oh please, breaking the boundaries of time is essentially the same thing as a BS kiss of life.
Given that both started unleashing devastating gravity beams at the exact same time might have been a clue. Again, use your eyes.
That doesn't prove they work they work like. It just shows they were both activated at the same time.
If nukes aren't an option, other missiles, battleships, planes and so on could have been sent.
And yet Superman is faster and couldn't take as long as the military to get there.
Your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that a) the region where the other machine was placed was isolated, with no f#cker around,
No, that actually further proves my point that military wouldn't get there in time.
b) the military's being ridiculously, hilariously unprepared and unequipped for taking on Kryptonian soldiers, something that even Clark himself knew and witnessed in person back in Smallville. Clark just leaving them to take on Kryptonian soldiers alone doesn't paint him in a very bright light.
Well, unfortunately, Superman didn't make the power to split himself in two. He had to take care of one of the problems first. Better to focus on the machine nobody is stopping than the one the military are already working on.
Those elements had plenty to do with the film. If they were so awful, would Byrne and other writers at DC have bothered including them into the Superman mythos? They helped form the comics and characters as we see them today, including Lex Luthor. Without them, Lex would still have been a red-haired criminal scientist.
You are just making -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 01:02 AM)
"Since someone was trying to kill his mum. This isn't Superman who's been doing it for eighty years, this is Superman just starting out."
So what? How does that excuse the lack of both common sense and rational thought? It doesn't.
"And has what to do with anything?"
You really do have memory problems. I pity you. To remind you once again, we were discussing how Nolan drew inspiration from "Superman 1" for "Batman Begins".
"I've debunked all of them."
You've debunked nothing. The only thing you proved was how much of a f$ck-up and idiot you are.
"What you're talking about it not marketing."
You have no idea what marketing is, do you? Allow me to give you the definition: "marketing - noun
the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."
Soo yeah this falls under marketing.
"No, that would be you. Though, it is good to see you admit Superman 1 is a bad film."
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing. Your attention span is pitiful. I said "Man of Steel" was a bad film, not "Superman 1".
"Well, they don't look very crystal to me. Also, why the beep was everyone made of "crystal" anyway?"
Not the film's fault you have $hit vision - it's hard to mistake a crystal for anything else.
"It doesn't say anything about being boring, or having to be a mind controlled slave to be a hero, or killing millions of people to save one stupid bitch."
If a movie is boring to someone, that doesn't mean it's a "bad" movie. It depends on what the viewer wants to get out of said-movie. It also depends on what the movie wants to be, and in this case the movie was true to itself - a hero's journey, complete with chapters showcasing the protagonist's development into the character he ultimately becomes. And again, Superman wasn't a mind-controlled slave - you cannot argue "mind control" when someone wasn't even that person to begin with. And again, no, he didn't let millions die.
"Now, you're trying to compare it to a Chris Nolan. Obviously most films are gonna be inferior to something he makes."
Because the movie is aping that style (among other things) but even less successfully.
"Zack Synder might not be as good as Nolan but he's still miles better than Richard "Had No Idea What He Was Doing" Donnor."
Snyder, not "Synder". In terms of Richard Donner's take on "Superman", he knew exactly what he was doing when he worked on the film, and in comparison to "MOS", it's miles better.
"AKA you couldn't follow it."
There was no correlation between these scenes. Let me it say it again for you, only this time slower since you yourself are slow. What. Does. A. Whale. Have. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood? At least with "Batman Begins" there was a correlation between scenes past and present.
"Oh please, breaking the boundaries of time is essentially the same thing as a BS kiss of life."
Not so; if a person were kissed and brought back to life, it would be an isolated event. Turning back time, however, affects history, people, even the universe, with any number of consequences involved.
"And yet Superman is faster and couldn't take as long as the military to get there."
"No, that actually further proves my point that military wouldn't get there in time."
They could have contacted other bases/ships close by while Clark dealt with the one in the city where people were brutally being killed.
"Well, unfortunately, Superman didn't make the power to split himself in two. He had to take care of one of the problems first. Better to focus on the machine nobody is stopping than the one the military are already working on."
Given Clark himself knew how pitifully and woefully outmatched the military were against Kryptonian soldiers, it would have made more sense to deal with the one in the city than to just leave it to them and knowingly send them to their deaths.
"You are just making more of a fool of yourself. Lex wasn't influenced by Hackman at all, otherwise he'd be wearing a wig. Also, Luthor was bald before S1."
Please, it is you who is the fool. Prior to this, Lex was a criminal scientist with red hair. The baldness originally came from a printing error. Then, in "Adventure Comics" #270, a chemical accident made Lex bald. If it hadn't been for the Donner films, Lex would still have been a criminal scientist and not a plutocrat.
"The reality is that both machines were gonna kill everyone. If Superman went for the one in Metropolis, the other one would have killed everyone."
Not if Clark got to the one in Metropolis first, destroyed it then went after the other one.
"Also, none of the Spiderman films involved him having to go to the other end of the Earth and back within a short amount of time."
And yet Spiderman was able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to taking in his surroundings and saving civilians at the same time.
"Who cares about the process? They would have made the perfect CGI for Superman 1 and the plot would have still been bad."
You said that the Zoptic Process h -
JasonRebourne — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 09:28 AM)
So what? How does that excuse the lack of both common sense and rational thought? It doesn't.
Common sense and rational thought are, "OMG, he's trying to kill my mum! I gotta save her!"
You really do have memory problems. I pity you. To remind you once again, we were discussing how Nolan drew inspiration from "Superman 1" for "Batman Begins".
Except that he just said that to draw in the Superman 1 crowd.
You've debunked nothing. The only thing you proved was how much of a f$ck-up and idiot you are.
No, that would be you.
You have no idea what marketing is, do you? Allow me to give you the definition: "marketing - noun
the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."
Soo yeah this falls under marketing.
Nope, try again.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing. Your attention span is pitiful. I said "Man of Steel" was a bad film, not "Superman 1".
Says the guy who can't follow Man of Steel's plotline.
Not the film's fault you have $hit vision - it's hard to mistake a crystal for anything else.
Well, normally crystal looks like crystal.
If a movie is boring to someone, that doesn't mean it's a "bad" movie. It depends on what the viewer wants to get out of said-movie. It also depends on what the movie wants to be, and in this case the movie was true to itself - a hero's journey, complete with chapters showcasing the protagonist's development into the character he ultimately becomes. And again, Superman wasn't a mind-controlled slave - you cannot argue "mind control" when someone wasn't even that person to begin with. And again, no, he didn't let millions die.
Its not someONE that found it boring. Most people agree its a terrible film. And it wasn't true to Superman at all. Also, my arguments about him vein under mind control as a "superhero" and killing millions of people stands because that's what happened.
Because the movie is aping that style (among other things) but even less successfully.
Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull.
Snyder, not "Synder". In terms of Richard Donner's take on "Superman", he knew exactly what he was doing when he worked on the film, and in comparison to "MOS", it's miles better.
Even though Donnor had the worst cast, a terrible plot and an sympathetic character.
There was no correlation between these scenes. Let me it say it again for you, only this time slower since you yourself are slow. What. Does. A. Whale. Have. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood? At least with "Batman Begins" there was a correlation between scenes past and present.
Let me say it slowly for you. Who. Cares. What. A. Whale. Has. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood?
Not so; if a person were kissed and brought back to life, it would be an isolated event. Turning back time, however, affects history, people, even the universe, with any number of consequences involved.
Except the only consequences were that the people Superman saved before all died and he didn't seem to care about that, anyway.
They could have contacted other bases/ships close by while Clark dealt with the one in the city where people were brutally being killed.
And how would it have taken for those military to get there? The machine had to be destroyed right NOW.
Given Clark himself knew how pitifully and woefully outmatched the military were against Kryptonian soldiers, it would have made more sense to deal with the one in the city than to just leave it to them and knowingly send them to their deaths.
You seriously rather he just left the other machine unattended?
What you are saying is retarded.
Please, it is you who is the fool. Prior to this, Lex was a criminal scientist with red hair. The baldness originally came from a printing error. Then, in "Adventure Comics" #270, a chemical accident made Lex bald. If it hadn't been for the Donner films, Lex would still have been a criminal scientist and not a plutocrat.
Jerry Siegel altered Luthor's backstory to incorporate his hair loss into his origin in 1960.
That was nearly twenty years before Superman 1.
Not if Clark got to the one in Metropolis first, destroyed it then went after the other one.
Going after the one in Metropolis, he would have had to fight aliens, then destroy the machine, then go after the other machine which would have been destroying the planet at the SAME TIME. I don't know why this is so difficult for you comprehend.
And yet Spiderman was able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to taking in his surroundings and saving civilians at the same time.
He only had to fight one or two super villains at worst. He wasn't dealing with anything as powerful as Zod.
You said that the Zoptic Process had been used in other films before "Superman 1". Also, considering this was made before the era of CG, the effects were pretty good. In terms of plot, there was hardly anything wrong with it.
Apart from unsympathetic characters and the lack of any real threat.
I've been talking about it since we started conversing.
N -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 12:40 PM)
"Common sense and rational thought are, "OMG, he's trying to kill my mum! I gotta save her!""
That doesn't excuse the lack of both by taking the fight over to Smallville, thereby endangering the rest of the town. Common sense and rational thought would be "Hey, this is dangerous, better take it someplace else rather than smash into that pillar and gas station!".
"Except that he just said that to draw in the Superman 1 crowd."
Ah, your powers of telepathy are back again, I see. You're pathetic.
"No, that would be you."
Please. You've been lying, exposed multiple times and then you tried to hide that fact but failed.
"Nope, try again."
Keep trying - you're only embarrassing yourself. The fact is, that does classify as marketing.
"Says the guy who can't follow Man of Steel's plotline."
I said I understood the "plotline" of "MOS", it's just the logic (or rather, lack of logic) behind its scene transitions that doesn't make sense.
"No, you've just been making straw man arguments that prove nothing."
They didn't "prove nothing", you're just too much of a dumb-a$$ and a fanboy brat to even listen or acknowledge them, despite their overwhelming evidence.
"Well, normally crystal looks like crystal."
Crystal looks like crystal. Don't be stupid.
"He only had to fight one or two super villains at worst. He wasn't dealing with anything as powerful as Zod."
And yet he was still able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to controlling destruction and being aware of his surroundings.
"Going after the one in Metropolis, he would have had to fight aliens, then destroy the machine, then go after the other machine which would have been destroying the planet at the SAME TIME. I don't know why this is so difficult for you comprehend."
He could have destroyed the machine first, blasted into their ship, which in turn would let Earth's atmosphere in and cause the Kryptonians to collapse/ become weakened since they can't breathe in it, thereby allowing Clark to subdue them, then go down to the other machine. It's so easy to understand.
"And how would it have taken for those military to get there? The machine had to be destroyed right NOW."
Given that it was in the Indian Ocean, I'm pretty sure they could have called in some planes or ships to launch a missile strike. Or hell, bombard the thing with drones. Any number of ways.
"You seriously rather he just left the other machine unattended?"
No, Clark could have left that to the military while he dealt with the one in the city. If the military were unsuccessful, then he'd go and deal with it himself.
"Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull."
Nope. Try again. Glad to see you admitting that "MOS" is derivative.
"Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull."
Nope. Even less so, especially compared to the even lesser superhero films.
"Its not someONE that found it boring. Most people agree its a terrible film."
I don't doubt that there would be a couple of people who aren't fans of it, but a couple of people isn't the same as "most". The overwhelming majority actually preferred the Donner films.
"And it wasn't true to Superman at all."
It was very true to him.
"Also, my arguments about him vein under mind control as a "superhero" and killing millions of people stands because that's what happened."
But that wasn't what happened - that's what you
want
to believe had happened. You can't say he's been "brainwashed" when he was never that person to begin with, and he didn't kill millions of people.
"Actually, Superman 1 was LESS than "punch bad guy""
It was a monomyth showcasing his development into the hero he ultimately becomes. The fact you can't see beyond punching people is a sure-sign of your intelligence. I pity you.
"Let me say it slowly for you. Who. Cares. What. A. Whale. Has. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood?"
Let me make it clear to you what's wrong with it - in "Batman Begins", the cuts between past and present made sense because they had dealt with certain themes and issues in those moments (ie Ras' question about Bruce's fear, the beginning with Bruce as a child falling into a hole before transitioning to the present with him as a bearded, dishevelled adult in an Asian prison, etc) thus the transitioning was seamless. I think you don't even know yourself.
"Jerry Siegel altered Luthor's backstory to incorporate his hair loss into his origin in 1960. That was nearly twenty years before Superman 1."
I didn't debate that the hair loss was something Donner brought, I said his change from a criminal scientist to a plutocrat.
"The lack of any real threat."
Lex Luthor and the missiles don't count?
"While I can accept Kong and Metropolis for being good at the time, they doesn't actually make them good films."
They are good films, for they have contributed heavily to the science fiction genre, even founded certain sub-genres. Also, "The Cat People" is a cult classic.
"The problem with that argument is that Superman 1 had no sense of scale or mythic either. It jus -
death-lord — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 06:38 PM)
im on your side butno matter how old the film is, metropolis, superman 1978, and kong have actual character development and great writing which puts it above average beep like most modern films including man of steel
however the mediocrity and awfulness of man of steel and dawn of justice do not excuse the equally but in a different way awful writing of superman returns
its poorly written "characters", wasted ideas(the son of superman is being done better in the comics), its slavish devotion to a abstract irreplicatable feel(the feel of the donner films do not lend itself to new needed directions like brainiac or darkseid), and its poor cast bring it down and no amount of beep on other crappy films are gonna change that -
evolution_500_2 — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 05:31 AM)
"however the mediocrity and awfulness of man of steel and dawn of justice do not excuse the equally but in a different way awful writing of superman returnsits poorly written "characters", wasted ideas(the son of superman is being done better in the comics), its slavish devotion to a abstract irreplicatable feel(the feel of the donner films do not lend itself to new needed directions like brainiac or darkseid), and its poor cast bring it down and no amount of beep on other crappy films are gonna change that"
"SR" was hardly awful, let alone mediocre. In terms of its slavish devotion to the Donner films "not lending itself to new directions like Brainiac or Darkseid", that is bull$hit - of course it could have. In fact, a follow-up had been planned with Brainiac, and from what I heard, the son would have been a pivotal part. -
death-lord — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 07:14 PM)
lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is beep disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess)
-
death-lord — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 07:18 PM)
lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is beep disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess as well as a enraged jason beating the beep out of clark as i feel he would beep deserve it)