Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This isn't an opinion...it's a bunch of pointless rants. 👇
I think he was talking more about the tone of the comments that the actual comments. Love it or hate it, that's fine, but keep it respectful....I think that's what he was getting at.
And we'd do well to remember that before lashing into a mod for no good reason.
😬
Originally posted by DigiMark007Didgi sucks, I say kill Digi 😠 😠 Go to hell 😠
I think he was talking more about the tone of the comments that the actual comments. Love it or hate it, that's fine, but keep it respectful....I think that's what he was getting at.And we'd do well to remember that before lashing into a mod for no good reason.
😬
Just kidding 😛
Originally posted by DigiMark007I think there's plenty of reason. If I'm mistaken then sorry about that digi, but I just think mods should have more respect for the opinions of others & that one mod in particular doesn't.
I think he was talking more about the tone of the comments that the actual comments. Love it or hate it, that's fine, but keep it respectful....I think that's what he was getting at.And we'd do well to remember that before lashing into a mod for no good reason.
😬
This movie sucked!!!!!
I agree with Dr. Zaius. The movie was horrible. He gave key reasons in a logical displayed anaysis. This movie may appeal to those affected with ADD being that all that stands out in the movie is the constant dramatic shift in loud orchestra music plus some goodCGI scenes. I remember the original movie and although I was around ten when it came out I can recall caring about the characters and feeling the frustration in Supes eyes and the build up of romantic tension between Supes and Lois. Here I got neither. I was left feeling like I was duped and that I was just not mindless enough to give into the CGI and loud noises. I am sorry for you if you see this movie or have seen this movie. My condolences.
This movie follows along with Superman 1 and 2. This movie does not strictly follow the comics, so subtle changes in characters are bound to be seen.
I agree that when you look at this movie from the eyes of a comic fan it falls short.
A friend of mine who never reads superman comics but loves the superman movies asked me how it was. This is what I told him.
"The movie is a perfect continuation of the superman movies. If you were a fan of the movies, you are in for a very big treat. I didnt like it as much as I wanted too because it still didnt have that Comic book superman feel, but over all I walked out happy, I mean god knows we could have had Superman Lives."
Over all I got pretty much what I expected. I walked out of the theater more than happy about spending the 10 odd bucks to see it. Theres a reason most comic book to movie conversions have problems. The problem is that you cant please everyone at the table. You can please the diehard fans and leave the casul readers scratching their heads, or you can make a movie that feeds the needs of the non comic fans.
I honestly just dont think making a movie that feeds both groups is going to work. Although I do feel the superman movies are as good as it gets to feeding both.
The movie should have showed Superman looking around the "graveyard" Krypton. It's the reason why he left and is returning. Hence the title.
Lex could have been more evil if he wasn't so caught up with real estate.
The comic book Lex, once he found out that his bad guy partner was killed with a piano by the little boy, would have immediately kidnapped him. Think of it, he has Superman's kid as a hostage.
Now that would have been a great ending to the film. Not him in a hospital bed. Jason is kidnapped and Superman is desperate to find him.
Re: This movie sucked!!!!!
Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
I agree with Dr. Zaius. The movie was horrible. He gave key reasons in a logical displayed anaysis. This movie may appeal to those affected with ADD being that all that stands out in the movie is the constant dramatic shift in loud orchestra music plus some goodCGI scenes. I remember the original movie and although I was around ten when it came out I can recall caring about the characters and feeling the frustration in Supes eyes and the build up of romantic tension between Supes and Lois. Here I got neither. I was left feeling like I was duped and that I was just not mindless enough to give into the CGI and loud noises. I am sorry for you if you see this movie or have seen this movie. My condolences.
That's not fair. You cannot slag others if they liked the movie. You didn't like it. We did. You have to respect that. Just because you didn't like it and thought it sucked doesn't make it true. It's an opinion.
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Superman fans are vengeful creatures... (even those that are mods.)Any Superman fan would think the movie was great. They've been starving for Superman cinematic, so whether the film was great, ok, or bad, they're satisfied, and you'd better not dare give the film negative criticism, or face their wrath. The guy might as well have said "Superman (the character) sucks" judging the responses he received.
Dr. Zaius stated his opinion, and I'm pretty sure that when he made this thread, he knew there would be some opposition, (though I did expect the moderator of this forum to be a bit more impartial,) but I think calling him an idiot is excessive, and such behavior should be corrected by a mod.
In my opinion, the action was great, but the story of Superman Returns was lackluster. X-Men's story sucked too. Maybe Brian Singer makes sucky movies?
I agree with your first two paragraphs there.
Originally posted by C-Dic
What if a movie isn't entertaining to someone?
Then don't watch it and move on...simple. To continue to beat the drum on not liking a movie displays signs of not even liking even before viewing. Peopld did go to see this movie with the negatives already at hand. And why are you thumping Superman Returns so much? Didn't you tell me about not getting so bent out over science fiction? This is science fiction...right?
Re: Unfortunately, Superman Returns Is Just Super-Bad. Here's Why.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...
I agree with a lot of the points you made. I totally agree with this one especially. He should have built some Kryptonian weapons. It would have been great to see him fight Superman in Kryptonian armor as well. Another plot could have been that since the five years that Superman had been missing, Luthor was able to manipulate his way into becoming the most powerful man in Metropolis--possessing great influence and undeserved respect. With Superman gone, people would have been desperate for a savior. Enter Lex Luthor, using "Superman betrayed our trust" propaganda to add to Lois' rant about "A world without Supes"--throw in some "I'm a reformed man" dialogue from Lex, and you get a major Daily Planet headline: Lex Luthor, Savior of Metropolis. Once Superman returned, that would have gave more motivation for Luthor to get rid of him. He should have stolen the crystals when Superman was still missing, built his Kryptonian base, and prepared the weapons. That would have made the movie more exciting. Not to say that it was not exciting considering it has been quite a few years since we saw Superman on screen again, but Singer could have done more to make it a more triumphant return for the Man of Steel.
Re: Unfortunately, Superman Returns Is Just Super-Bad. Here's Why.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
OK. Everyone release their collective breath. This movie is absolutely unforgivable! Not just disappointing, not just average, but terrible! As expected, the CGI was great--good thing too, because the story was nonexistent. Nonetheless, an iconic screen shot here and there does not a movie make. Here are but a few of the problems:1. The need for Superman's return is necessitated by the hero's 5 year leave of absence from earth, during which time, he presumably travels to Krypton in order to confirm its destruction. I say "presumably" since we never get to see any of this search, only a rehashed CGI effect of Krypton exploding. If you're going to use a return to Krypton as a plot device--and its an intriguing idea--develop it! Dont' leave it hanging there like an unzipped fly.
2. Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters. The movie opens with him swindling an old widow out of her fortune. Are you shaking in your boots yet? Isn't this guy supposed to be the smartest guy on the planet? Sigh...I suppose the screenwriters, out of some misguided desire to one-up Hackman's original performance, decided complete emasculation of Superman's nemesis was the only route to go. Kudos on that guys! Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis, the movie made sure to show Parker Posey literally dump his "crystals" into the ocean. At least that was less painful than witnessing the relentless zinging of the movie's villain with "you're bald" jokes.
3. Lois Lane and Routh are as flat as pancakes. There is no emotional depth to the characters at all. I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House", they decided to hide their faltering story by turning Lois Lane's 5 year old kid into a major character. As expected, this was typical bait and switch. Bring out the kid everytime we need a tear. And, for extra effect, lets make him speech impaired and only utter things like "Mommy, will he get better? I want him to get better."
Get my gun.4. Luthor's plan to destroy Superman starts off well--steal Kryptonian technology and use it to conquer the world and kill Superman--but leaves something to be desired in the execution. Luthor uses a crystal from the Fortress of Solitude to create a new continent--one based on the crystaline geology of Krypton. OK, so far. What now? Build some kick-ass Kryptonian weapons? Revive some long-dormant Kryptonian A.I. that runs amok? Build a suit of Kryptonian battle armor to give Supes a run for his money? None of the above. If you said, kick back, smoke a cigar and play a couple of hands of No-Limit Texas Hold-Em, you'd be more on the right track. Yawn...
5. What else? Oh yeah. Lois has a live-in boyfriend played by X-Men's James Marsden. If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. I guess I can't blame the guy. If I knew my girlfriend's ex was the last son of Krypton, I'd probably be a little uneasy too. However, all sympathy for the character quickly evaporates as he is remorselessly turned into a Women's Sensitivity Seminar Poster Boy.
6. In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man.
There has been some recent attention surrounding the question, "Is Superman Returns a gay film"? I don't think "gay" quite hits the mark on this one. Rather, terms like "limp", "flacid",and "impotent" come to mind.
1. You completely failed to understand that the film was about having Superman return to earth and how much he was missed by the world. The expedition to Krypton was only a backdrop of the story. It was never intended to centralized the story of the film.
2. "Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters." (rant #1) The Lex Luthor of this franchise is a minimal illustration of the true powerful Lex Luthor of the comic books. In this sense they did an excellent job by maintaining the image of the Lex Luthor from previous films. "Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis" (rant #2)
3. "I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House"," (rant #3) If you paid close attention the kid is essential in the story. For as later in the film we discover his connection to Superman.
4. You didn't paid ATTENTION!!!!!! Lex wasn't originally intending to kill Superman! He tried to kill him after the FACT that he hear his return. His original plan was to steal the crystals from the fortress and then execute his plan since Superman wasn't on earth!
"What now?" you went with the notion of hating this movie and taking ANY flaws to blow them out of proportion. Nice try!
5. "If only they had let Marsden unleash a well-placed optic blast to eleviate the mind-numbing boredom of watching him squirm from one insecurity complex to the next. " (rant #4) The boyfriend character is NOT to be taken as part of the main characters. Here are the main characters: Superman, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, The kid.
" Yawn..." yeah you putting me to sleep.
6. "In the end, I didn't know what to be irritated by the most--the film's inability to engage me in any way by the story, or its heavy-handed attempts to endorse some limp-d--k vision of the sensitive, modern man." (rant #5) This is completely a complain. You have no direct point to the movie. You're only posting your negative reaction.
I'm gonna level with you pretty clear right here and right now. You're welcome to disagree and post your thoughts in this forum. No one is going to stop you and if anyone tries I'll personally removed him. Criticism is welcome...however do expect to receive some criticism back. That's how things work. The film is a simple summer popcorn flick...if you were expecting an academy award winner and were disappointed....then by all means is your fault.
Feel free to read my review.
btw-avoid brainchild. I previously banned him for disorderly conduct and now has sour taste for me. Okie Dokie? you may continue...
Originally posted by Dr. ZaiusDeal. Having low expectations is a good way to avoid disappointment.
Thanks for the post, Moon Knight. I'm not too stressed about it. BTW, I'd go see the movie, if I were in your position too--especially considering the free ticket angle. Its one of those movies you almost have to see, just like all of the recent Star Wars flics. Just be prepared not to be blown away.
Re: Re: Unfortunately, Superman Returns Is Just Super-Bad. Here's Why.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfHave you never seen Barbara Walters angry? She's a veritable beast. And frankly a lot more menacing than Kevin Spacey.
2. "Lex Luthor is about as threatening as Star Jones in a verbal joust with Barbara Walters." (rant #1) The Lex Luthor of this franchise is a minimal illustration of the true powerful Lex Luthor of the comic books. In this sense they did an excellent job by maintaining the image of the Lex Luthor from previous films. "Oh yeah, and in case you missed the point that this guy has no penis" (rant #2)3. "I guess the writers realized this when they were penning the script because, a la "Family Ties", "The Cosby Show", "Phantom Menace", or "Full House"," (rant #3) If you paid close attention the kid is essential in the story. For as later in the film we discover his connection to Superman.
Too much of this film was about "maintaining the image" of the previous films. Was it meant to be a sequel or a remake? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, yes, but that doesn't mask the fact that Donner did it better, Reeve did it better and Kidder did it much, much better than the woefully miscast Kate Bosworth. If they were trying to avoid comparison to the Donner films this really wasn't the way to go. Too much reverence not enough innovation.
Routh gives a credible Superman but his Clark Kent is somewhat lacking. With Reeve you always had the impression that his Superman was so self-assured he really didn't mind playing the part of the bumbler, like he was secretly having a chuckle about it inside.
Don't get me started on Bosworth....
Competent but uninspiring. Watchable but not always entertaining.
A connection to Superman isn't essential in the story unless it's actually developed. Wheeling out the 5-year old plot device screams screenwriter desperation. "Look, the story's not the same... Lois has a kid."
For crying out loud, there was nothing wrong with Kate Bosworths performance.
Brandon Routh was better than Reeves. You just the kind of fan that thinks "Well, Reeves was the first big screen Superman, so therefore he MUST be the best..."
Margot Kidder did some things better than Kate. Kidder seemed more independant and strong. It seemed liked she really cared for Clark.
What I didn't like is that there was not even a friendship between Lois and Clark. It seemed like Lois cared nothing for him. The most she thought of Clark was that he was a "Guy I work with..."