Originally posted by Kotor3you just agreed with what i said, does that mean you're also upset?
You guys sound upset.
but no, I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out that their particular criticism of the movie is dumb. Their displeasure with the movie is based on a series of movies that has nothing to do with MoS. It would be perfectly okay if they hated the movie because it was technically bad, or they visually unappealing, but no, their only beef is that "He's not Chris Reeve".
😐
Originally posted by Kotor3
I know that. I been reading the whining from you and others about people comparing this Superman to MOS.There dumb, biased, don't know the comics, blah, blah, blah.
You guys sound upset.
That is what people do they compare the new to classics.
Originally posted by ares834
Yes. Superman the Movie did nothing nearly to that level for Superman. He was a fairly accurate deception of the character at the time. By contrast, the Dark Knight Returns revolutionized Batman.
Please prove this point. DKR revolutionized Batman? LOL. I will be glad to prove mines.
Micheal Keaton's Batman revolutionized the character. It brought Batman back to life in the comics, television, and the movies. Please show me how DKR did that for Batman?
Reeves did nothing near that level for Superman? Really, I guess that would be the reason why his portrayal is consider the standard for Superman.
Let me guess you are going to say, only to those who do not know the comics. We can also go into that discussion.
Originally posted by Kotor3
Please prove this point. DKR revolutionized Batman? LOL. I will be glad to prove mines.Micheal Keaton's Batman revolutionized the character. It brought Batman back to life in the comics, television, and the movies. Please show me how DKR did that for Batman?
Reeves did nothing near that level for Superman? Really, I guess that would be the reason why his portrayal is consider the standard for Superman.
Let me guess you are going to say, only to those who do not know the comics. We can also go into that discussion.
Do you even know what The Dark Knight Returns is?
If you did, I doubt you would be wondering how Returns revolutionized the character.
And please, enlighten me how S:TM revolutionized Superman. It portrayed him in a similar way comics have been doing for years, that's not revolutionizing him.
Originally posted by marwash22
you just agreed with what i said, does that mean you're also upset?but no, I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out that their particular criticism of the movie is dumb. Their displeasure with the movie is based on a series of movies that has nothing to do with MoS. It would be perfectly okay if they hated the movie because it was technically bad, or they visually unappealing, but no, their only beef is that "He's not Chris Reeve".
😐
Understanding your statement means I agree?
I understand why you would feel that is not a good basis for criticizing the movie. It may not be fair but, I do not understand why this would not be expected.
The fact is, MOS was not good enough to make people forget about Reeves version of the character.
Originally posted by ares834
Do you even know what The Dark Knight [b]Returns is?If you did, I doubt you would be wondering how Returns revolutionized the character.
And please, enlighten me how S:TM revolutionized Superman. It portrayed him in a similar way comics have been doing for years, that's not revolutionizing him. [/B]
I guess I am getting tired. I mis-read your previous statement and initially thought you were talking about Nolan's TDK. You are correct about The Dark Knight Returns.
To clarify, I am only referring to on-screen displays, not the comics. Reeves did not revolutionized the look and feel of Superman, for the comics but he did for an on-screen display.
Hopefully you can agree with that statement.
Originally posted by Kotor3
Please prove this point. DKR revolutionized Batman? LOL. I will be glad to prove mines.Micheal Keaton's Batman revolutionized the character. It brought Batman back to life in the comics, television, and the movies. Please show me how DKR did that for Batman?
It you don't know/recognise what Frank Miller did to the comic industry in the past 30 years then it really is pointless arguing with you.
Miller revolutionised Batman's character as a serious portrayal no longer marketed to children. On it's release in 1986, it was considered as the first comic written for adults. Since then prominent writers & artists associated with Batman & Dc have always used the premise of TDKR as the bible. Numerous stories in comics, cartoons & the various movies have always hinted or payed homage to TDKR.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
It you don't know/recognise what Frank Miller did to the comic industry in the past 30 years then it really is pointless arguing with you.Miller revolutionised Batman's character as a serious portrayal no longer marketed to children. On it's release in 1986, it was considered as the first comic written for adults. Since then prominent writers & artists associated with Batman & Dc have always used the premise of TDKR as the bible. Numerous stories in comics, cartoons & the various movies have always hinted or payed homage to TDKR.
He thought it was Dark Knight Rises not Returns. Once he realized his error he agreed
Originally posted by Kotor3
Understanding your statement means I agree?
i called them dumb and you didn't disagree, so i assumed you agreed.
Originally posted by Kotor3i guess i expect people to not be dumb.
I understand why you would feel that is not a good basis for criticizing the movie. It may not be fair but, I do not understand why this would not be expected.
silly me.
Originally posted by Kotor3disagree.
The fact is, MOS was not good enough to make people forget about Reeves version of the character.
More like people went in with preconceived ideas of what the movie was going to be, because all they know of the character is Reeve's portrayal, and they were disappointed because that's not what the movie turned out to be.
The quality of MoS as a film has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by marwash22I went in expecting Superman to actually be an interesting or likeable person this time. I also expected Lois Lane's character to have a purpose in the film. I expected any lessons or morals taught by the film's father figures to make sense. I expected to not be bored by a 2013 big budget Superman filmed helmed by Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan.
More like people went in with preconceived ideas of what the movie was going to be, because all they know of the character is Reeve's portrayal, and they were disappointed because that's not what the movie turned out to be.
I was so, f*cking, wrong.
Originally posted by Lord Lucienokay. That's your opinion, i disagree, but at least it's better reasoning than "he no tell jokes or they no show what Superman eat for breakfast".
I went in expecting Superman to actually be an interesting or likeable person this time. I also expected Lois Lane's character to have a purpose in the film. I expected any lessons or morals taught by the film's father figures to make sense. I expected to not be bored by a 2013 big budget Superman filmed helmed by Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan.I was so, f*cking, wrong.