|
|
Post by WildKnight on Mar 30, 2011 9:35:28 GMT -5
First of all, you can't do a Superman movie and void all other context for Superman. He's an American icon. Some polls have shown that as many people around the globe recognize Superman's shield as recognize the Star of David and the flags of some neighboring countries.
Second, most of the complaints I mentioned are still valid, devoid of any other context for Superman. A hero shouldn't be a wishy washy nerd in his heroic persona, even Spider-Man knows better than that. A villain should be menacing, not goofy.
Even in 1978, good storytelling existed, and Superman fails pretty badly in that regard. Superman II, more so, and the others that followed were so bad that they hardly deserve mention, except by way of pointing out that it is actually possible to have worse third and fourth entries in a film series than X3 and X Men: Origins.
I'm also really tired of people constantly refusing to blame the actors for the poor job they do. "It's the scripts fault". Really? The fact that Superman came across as the kid I saved from bullies in 7th grade is the scripts fault? How, exactly? Did the script give Chris Reeves the physique of an accountant or the dopey smile of a half-baked college student? Did the script make Margot Kidder incapable of acting? Did the script strip away any chemistry between Kidder and Reeves?
There were scripting problems, particularly for Lex Luthor. Gene Hackman is great, Kevin Spacey is great, but the movie version of Luthor was... unforgivably bad. He didn't reflect any version of Luthor from the comics ever; he was just an incompetent goober with the gall to call himself the Napoleon of Crime. But the scripting problems didn't make the casting bad. Those were just two of the factors that added up to a terrible movie.
Let's be honest. You guys are defending it out of nostalgia. I seriously doubt that if you went back and watched those movies now, devoid of the childhood sense of glee at seeing a guy fly and lift cars, you would have anything but the same sense of contempt I have for those movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcr on Mar 30, 2011 9:38:44 GMT -5
I would like to see John Glover get more work as a Luthor. That's what I'm going to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Mar 30, 2011 9:55:34 GMT -5
I would like to see John Glover get more work as a Luthor. That's what I'm going to say. He is amazingly ruthless. I definitely think he could make an unforgettable Lex. Unfortunately, as Tom Welling found out last time around, WB isn't interested in casting anybody from Smallville in these movies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2011 11:18:59 GMT -5
I think Tim Welling as Superman would have ruined the "no tights" policy that Smallville had. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I think some of the big wigs might have said no just because of that.
I think if I watched any of it without having liked it in my child hood that I wouldn't be a fan of anything but Music, and partying. Which takes up most of my non studying hours now.
Without the childhood nostalgic factor comics would pretty much be nothing, because they are marketed toward kids. Because they know if you get them young you get them for life, or at least a long time. I mean, if you take a guy who's never seen any kind of comic ever, and you show him the best Superman animated feature, or try to get him to read the comic books and he either won't do it, or say something like "Well the movie sucked, but Lois wasnt' too bad."
If I hadn't seen the Superman TV shows growing up, and watched some of the animated features then I probably would be into documentaries even more so than I am already. It's true that you probably would think the movies sucked...but you'd think everything else sucked too. Without the childhood factor Superman would have died in the 40's or 50's regardless of media.
I know about this, because I know about the era before superman. One of my neighbors was a WWII vet that recently passed away, but I did ask him about that time period. I even asked him about Captain America, and so on. That time period was more about the great depression.
The children of that time period were more about working, and if they played it was something things like tag, swinging, swimming, and so on. The heroes were Wild Bill Hitchwee wee, and other gunslingers. Most of their movie collections consisted of Westerns, or something else. Their kids and grand kids grew up on superman, but they themselves really didn't think one way or the other about him.
So, without any childhood value we probably wouldn't care about Superman at all either.
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Mar 30, 2011 11:38:16 GMT -5
Let's be honest. You guys are defending it out of nostalgia. I seriously doubt that if you went back and watched those movies now, devoid of the childhood sense of glee at seeing a guy fly and lift cars, you would have anything but the same sense of contempt I have for those movies. I flat-out said I was biased because I loved it as a kid. So, brilliant deduction, Holmes! ^__^ And I have seen the 78 Superman film more recently and I still loved it, again, mostly because it brought back memories. It really isn't a fantastic movie (it has 94% at Rotten Tomatoes with an average score of 8/10; clearly we aren't the only ones feeling nostalgic) nor is it so campy that it wraps back around into unintentionally-awesome territory. But I like it. I don't know what to tell ya. And no, I still don't blame Reeves for portraying the character that was in the script, or for obeying the directing, nor do I blame him for not being a roid monkey muscle man. It was 1978. He looked pretty buff for 1978. ~TWF |
|
|
|
Post by mcr on Apr 10, 2011 21:10:18 GMT -5
Michael Shannon (spellcheck that for me please) as General Zod has been confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 11, 2011 7:19:07 GMT -5
Why are they putting Zod in the first movie???
|
|
|
|
Post by OurLadyWar on Apr 11, 2011 7:45:35 GMT -5
Love me some Michael Shannon. He will nail that role!
|
|
|
|
Post by mcr on Apr 11, 2011 7:59:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 11, 2011 9:22:59 GMT -5
... one more movie I won't bother seeing.
At least Hollywood has started saving me money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hypester on Apr 18, 2011 14:40:27 GMT -5
First of all, you can't do a Superman movie and void all other context for Superman. He's an American icon. Some polls have shown that as many people around the globe recognize Superman's shield as recognize the Star of David and the flags of some neighboring countries. Second, most of the complaints I mentioned are still valid, devoid of any other context for Superman. A hero shouldn't be a wishy washy nerd in his heroic persona, even Spider-Man knows better than that. A villain should be menacing, not goofy. Even in 1978, good storytelling existed, and Superman fails pretty badly in that regard. Superman II, more so, and the others that followed were so bad that they hardly deserve mention, except by way of pointing out that it is actually possible to have worse third and fourth entries in a film series than X3 and X Men: Origins. I'm also really tired of people constantly refusing to blame the actors for the poor job they do. "It's the scripts fault". Really? The fact that Superman came across as the kid I saved from bullies in 7th grade is the scripts fault? How, exactly? Did the script give Chris Reeves the physique of an accountant or the dopey smile of a half-baked college student? Did the script make Margot Kidder incapable of acting? Did the script strip away any chemistry between Kidder and Reeves? There were scripting problems, particularly for Lex Luthor. Gene Hackman is great, Kevin Spacey is great, but the movie version of Luthor was... unforgivably bad. He didn't reflect any version of Luthor from the comics ever; he was just an incompetent goober with the gall to call himself the Napoleon of Crime. But the scripting problems didn't make the casting bad. Those were just two of the factors that added up to a terrible movie. Let's be honest. You guys are defending it out of nostalgia. I seriously doubt that if you went back and watched those movies now, devoid of the childhood sense of glee at seeing a guy fly and lift cars, you would have anything but the same sense of contempt I have for those movies. Okay, so I got Superman 78 from the library and watched it. I realized that I'd never seen the movie all the way through from the beginning before, oddly enough. I can say I certainly don't have the contempt that you express, though I do see the flaws more clearly. Overall, I got the same feeling I have when rewatching a New Hope. I was impressed with how epic it was, and was surprised that it was intentionally laugh out loud funny in places. Is Luthor a goober? Claiming to be a criminal mastermind but going on his own three man ops (that should be four man?) yes, absolutely. Was he still entertaining, and somehow, true to his claims, a threat? Yeah, he was. Was Chris Reeves a bit underbuilt for a man of steel? Yes. Was his Superman markedly different in personality and demeanor from his Clark Kent? Yeah, he actually was, while your other complaints seem really solid, even if I don't have them, I really think Reeves' Superman was strong and distinctive. My biggest problem with the film is the going back in time. I don't feel it was adequately foreshadowed, not really. The whole 12-year out of time sequence was what surprised me the most. That Superman is psychologically an 18 year old. That's hilarious. My second biggest problem was how smarmy and self assured Superman was. It seems like the film is the source of the 'Clark Kent is Superman's critique on humanity' thinking, which I loathe. |
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 18, 2011 15:14:13 GMT -5
... if you think Lex Luthor was a "credible threat" in those movies, we aren't even in the same arena.
Once we learn that Superman can reverse time itself, there is no way Lex Luthor (as presented in those movies) can do anything worth Superman breaking a sweat over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2011 15:19:27 GMT -5
Hmmm, I just realized something. WK takes responsibility for the board being in a "lull." It all began whenever news of the new Superman movie, and bad casting came up.
It's my theory that WK is suffering from sort of creative distress brought on by the bad casting, and poor director choice of the new Superman movie which in turn triggered his past bad experiences from the past Superman movies resulting in decreased board activity.
In theory a good Superman movie would cause the board's activity to explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 18, 2011 15:24:56 GMT -5
Irrespective of my personal activity level; a super hero movie of any stripe that didn't suck would boost board activity. But that will never happen, judging by the gigantic pile of crap heading to theaters from the direction of Hollywood.
It's funny... people pile on top of each other to tell me how wrong I am about how stupid it is to make core changes to well-known stories and characters when translating them into movies; yet super hero movie franchises continue to drop dead left and right, and the one thing they NEVER seem to try is sticking true to the original.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2011 15:37:36 GMT -5
In this perspective I completely blame Hollywood for the boards lull.
|
|
