Cool News
Harry watches the Donner Cut of SUPERMAN II! What a wonderful geek moment!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Wow.
Wow.
Wow.
Just got finished watching Richard Donner’s SUPERMAN II which got released on DVD yesterday. I picked up the whole big SUPERMAN super set – and the two things I wanted to watch immediately was SUPERMAN II followed by SUPERMAN RETURNS. Why? Because Singer and crew meant for SUPERMAN RETURNS to be seen after this cut. And frankly – I dearly loved SUPERMAN II, the theatrical cut overseen by Richard Lester – only… I hated all the bullshit stuff he pulled.
Well, you see – I was a film addicted geek back a billion years ago – and I remember reading in STARLOG or some similar magazine at the time. It came out right after SUPERMAN the movie did – and it talked about the toppling of the Washington Monument in D.C. That shot – which Burton played with so wonderfully in MARS ATTACKS! Had otherwise been just a forgotten enzyme in my mind until today. Watching it topple filled me with delight.
However, more so – all the BS random powers like replicating Superman and that mind-numbingly lame Super Kiss…. GONE. The fight in Metropolis is slightly grander but in particular – Supes being tossed into Lady Liberty’s torch, instead of a building was awesome. Just about everything about the film is tighter and less goofy.
Is it perfect – Oh god no. You see, while this may be Richard Donner’s intended cut of the elements that he shot back while shooting SUPERMAN the movie… There’s several things that he wanted to reshoot and develop when he was supposed to go back to work on it after the release of SUPERMAN. Sadly – Donner never had that opportunity.
What would Donner have done with the very end of the film? That’s something that we’ll probably never really know. However, what this is – is a cleaned up version of what would have been Donner’s starting cut of SUPERMAN II, prior to doing the reshoots and film completion.
The ending where SUPERMAN reverses the planet backwards to before the Phantom Zone was broken – thus repairing all the damage that Zod and crew inflicted upon the Earth, going back to a Lois that didn’t suspect Clark as being Superman – and sure – it’s a knock off from the first film -- but dear god it’s better than multiple Supermen in the Fortress and the Magic Super Kiss. Which have always driven me crazy.
Gone is the Paris opening, the Niagara jump and a lot of the shoddy sequences from the Theatrical cut that drove me bats.
The film has loose ends and some things that needed desperately to be filled in by anyone that wasn’t camping it up ala Lester. But the goofiness of the made up superpowers being gone is just great.
I miss Superman flying to make the diamond and a few brief moments that Lester was responsible – but this rough unfinished version is a vast improvement. Sticking to what Kryptonians can do. For real. Not made up stuff. (I’m fully aware of the irony I’m running around with)
But as the end of the film played out – I had this amazing tidal wave of Nostalgia - just watching it all play out – things that I had heard hinted at over the last 26 years or so. Rumored scenes, Brando’s final farewell… it’s just a blessing. A true blessing.
I’m SO amazed to finally be able to see this. It may not be perfect – but it is as close to the original intentions of Donner, Reeve and Brando – their performances and Donner’s direction. Excellent work.
-
+ Expand All
-
I think
-
Thanks guys for the campaigning and highlighting the amazing footage.
I appreciate it a lot. -
I have had the Ultimate Collection on pre-order since October 3rd!!
And I can not wait to see this version of Superman 2.
Even with some of the reported problems with this boxset im still looking forward to a good Superman filled christmas this year, My kids getting all the new toys where going to watch all the films together, I cant wait!! -
and I can't wait to see this tomorrow...
Go Forward... -
once again, all i got to say
-
The movie ends with him reversing the earths orbit which magically reverses time AGAIN (yeah I know that was the original ending planned for PT II and it got moved to Pt. I) so the entire movie never happened. Beware this final cut sucks terribly Getting rid of donner was the best thing they did for PT. II.
-
Is for someone to make a definitive cut of Superman II, merging both the theatrical and Donner versions. Some of the stuff in the Donner Cut is just plain goofy and the theatrical version has a lot of redeeming qualities too. So, keep the Paris opening, keep the Niagra jump (both never bothered me) but lose all the scenes with Kal-El's mother and use the Brando scenes instead. You get the picture. I myself have always liked Supes II but having seen both versions, I still feel that there is a better, even more definitive version that could be made. Just a thought.
-
This movie was better than I could have imagined considering it is an incomplete film and way better than the original (except for the ending). Was worth it most for the extra Hackman material even thought the Brando stuff was great. My only Gripe is that the new additional special effects look dreadful (Washington Monument, Phantom Zone and Brando’s floating head…why couldn’t they just use the ghosted head effect they used in Superman the Movie)… Oh and the making of where Richard Lester is being interviewed taking credit for Donners work and vision ..Grrrr! BTW. Our release date here in Ireland was over a week ago..woohoo!
-
What do I win?
The admiration of other AICN'ers?
Or do I get I signed pair of Harrys underoo's?.......................................................................I'll take the admiration, No offence Harry!! -
...and no doubt this has been said a million times already, but WTF - any time he's pissed off enough he can timewarp anything out of existence, and the only thing that stops him generally is the prospect of a ticking off from his dad who's been dead for 30 years??!! I know that the whole concept of DC Superman isn't exactly supposed to be as realistic as say Nietche's, but WTF?????? LOL. IMHO. HND (Have A Nice Day). Oh, and before I forget, TTTH (Talk to the hand - FYI)
-
I'm sorry for what i said earlier about Firing Donner This recut was done without his blessing but with that said screw throwing a giant "S" sticker screw the ability to multiply and create holograms spinning the earth backwards to reverse time is the single Dumbest plot device of all time. Besides being against the laws of Temporal Physics it is also the laziest plot device of all time.
-
You're saying there are two movies that are silly but enjoyable, but there's something else'wrong' about them? Isn't that most movies?
-
Nov 29, 2006 4:53:04 AM CST
Harry is this your utopian vision of the prequel of SR.
by im_spartasoth
Because personally, the hand by hand Niagra falls scene, was (at the time) the sort of shit I was likely to be doing when the film was released, and one of the defining remebories I chose to keep of the film. This, didnt detract from the film, and was IMHO an almost spielburgian moment in its "shitty, kid derivative". I love the ineffectual musings of fans of Donners vision. As mentioned .."we will NEVER know". Another director took the helm, its a pity... but why should this be an almost Darwinian Vs Creationism debate/profiteering exersize out of it.
-
How come Zod has telekinesis and Superman apparently doesn't? I'd imagine this is the sort of question that has been dealt with a hundred times, but is this another example of "made up powers"?
-
Since Superman turns back time (again), does this know mean Clark beats the shit out of the poor truck driver at the end for nothing? WTF?
-
Who was responsible for that Godawful interior monologue poem that Lois recites when she flies with Superman in the first director's cut? Good God... my heart sank.
-
You've clearly been blinded by a magazine article you read as a child and it's not allowing you to see sense. You have a problem with multiple Supes and his magic kiss and yet not one word on just how godawful a cop-out it was to reverse time in either version? Not just a physics cop-out. A storytelling cop-out too. Donner was no more respectful to the 'reality' of a Kryptonian than anyone else. And, though I missed Brando in Lester's version, his scenes in this cut did nothing that Lester's cut didn't and the mom did them better. If this cut has taught me anything, along with the 'Fincher' Alien3 and the original Exorcist prequel, it's that directors who get dumped from movies are usually dumped for very good reasons. It's not a decision any studio would take lightly and I haven't yet seen an example of the 'original' cut being (or even having the potential to be) better.
-
Singer and crew meant for SUPERMAN RETURNS to be seen after the Richard Lester cut right? Cause Superman Returns would make zero sense after the Donner Cut ending. By turning back time Lois and Clark would have never hit the sheets thus never having the little Super Kid in Returns. By the way I thought the Donner Cut was interesting and more in tone with Returns because it seemed like less action and less Superman scenes. The Donner Cut is worth it for fans and has some really great unseen moments but its not this holy grail of a movie nor a better version than Lesters. A brand new cut should be made having a better mixture of Lester and Donners Cut to form the best possible version of Superman 2. I hated the kiss too but at least it didnt made the Diner scene at the end and the Lois having a kid later make more sense. If time was turned back Zod never escaped the Phantom Zone..but it never explains how after turning back time he kept the rocket from releasing Zod..which means Zod is still going to escape in a matter of hours after the movie ends..thus he has to fight him all over again but this time not letting Lois know hes Superman I guess..a risky move trying to fight those 3 again and try and trick them the same way he did last time. plus lois not knowing and being his love interest the second go around after turning back time Zod would have never used her to get to superman..changing the whole fight and maybe never getting back to the Fortress to take Zod and crews power...all so lois doesnt remember who he really is..very risky move!
So the good things about Donners Cut:All of Brandos added scenes..All of Lexs added scenes..Some good moments with Reeves. A Better way of getting his powers back.The fight in the city seemed more important and less humorous.
-
Thanks Pandamaster - I forgot the poem too. Donner's genius at work? At least Superman II didn't have a poem.
-
Should really be seen as an opportunity to see some fantastic missing footage (notably all the Brando stuff and a few other gems) but ultimately Lester's version of Superman II will always be the definitive one for me anyway. The package is really more of a what if, and gives us a chance to see the missing footage reincorporated into the film, instead of scrolling through some boring Deleted Scenes menu and watching them in isolation. As for the original cut, I happen to really like the Paris opening and the extended cut of Superman II (the version shown on ABC many, many years ago) is way better than the theatrical cut. Loads more character development and we even get to see what happens to the super villains at the end (stripped of their powers and taken away by the Arctic police, along with Lex). We see Superman destroy the Fortress of Solitude and see Non kill the kid (the one with the British accent?????) with the police beacon. And the kiss at the end never bothered me either. Much better than a rehash of the "spinning the globe" finale that still to this day is the only thing that really bugs me about the first flick. So, the Donner Cut is interesting, yes, but the Lester version is better and makes more sense in the overall narrative of the films. Oh yeah, and we did get it earlier here in Ireland, but no sign of the boxset yet.
-
You know its true
-
Until I discovered that Clark had secretly laced his lip tissue with rohypnol.
-
The kiss was one thing that always bothered me, too. I guess I remember how Superman used his interlect to perfection before people started making Batman smarter than him. Ever since Dark Knight Returns, Superman has lost a lot of his mojo and now he should get a lot back. Please, let the next movie be about more than stopping him with Krytonite.
-
Does this stand-alone disc have BOTH versions of the movie or is that just in the box set?
-
Ok, I really wanted to think this was going to be great, but seeing the choices made in this new cut, I can see why Donner was released from the film. The entire thesis that the first film had no comedic elements and was so much darker than the second really isn't valid - listen to the music cues and the entire introduction to Otis in the first film and you will see what I mean (another good spot is the attempts by lex and crew to hijack the missles - those scenes are DEFINATELY played for laughs, right down to Larry Hagman's campy "about face"). So those that said that Lester upped the "camp" factor can be dismissed.
In fact, Lester's version began to bridge the gap between camp and that darker tone that everyone is in love with these days. That version made complete sense (ok, I will agree that the super "S" was a bit wacky and that the ommission of Brando was a travesty, but aside from those two elemets - NOTHING REALLY NEEDED FIXING).
This new "cut" is of course unfinished and of course cannot be judged as the true vision of Donner - but if anyone thinks this is a better superman film, they are kidding themselves. The pacing is off kilter, the musical cues diminish the excitement value, there are now INCREDIBLE logic gaps at every turn, and the performances of the leads are rather uneven (the opening with Lois jumping throught the window is followed by the walking in Niagra Falls scene and Lois - note the entire shift in her performace between these scenes - and then how she "reverts" to the tone of the opening scene - just one example. If anything, these should have been released as simply deleted scenes period without intercutting them into the movie (or perhaps, as a prior talkbacker said, include the "brando" moments and leave the rest).
In any case, it is interesting to see these scenes, but overall, I must defer to the superior work of Lester. Sorry Dick, but he was the right way to go...
-
...DEFINATELY needs to become the standard spelling.
-
It is a CLASSY movie. Well shot, well acted, well scripted. Lex's plan is a little dubious, but it works completely in comic book context of this world. People complain that it's another real estate jig. So what? The man has no super powers... the man likes his real estate. It may have been a mistake altogether to bring Luthor back and not go with a n actual super-villain, but I LOVE Spacey in this. He has the charm and humor of Hackman, but with more menace and less camp. As for Routh, he's not as good a Superman as Reeve, though he does a more than adequate and admirable job. He IS however a better Clark Kent. More believable, a bit of a geek but not the bumbling retard of Reeve's Kent. Bosworth was miscast. Mistake. Admitted. She does fine with what she has, and she doesn't kill the movie for me... but yeah, probably my biggest gripe is in her casting (not in her actual performance). The kid? He works for me in this movie and I thought the actor was very natural and very un-JakeLloydy (aka grating as all fuck). I'll give that his inclusion may be difficult to work story-wise in any sequels, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, the kid's alright. I actually like Ottman's score and what he dide with William's original themes and think that there is PLENTY of action in the movie (I don't need to see Superman punch people or fight people... especially when those people are humans... it would almost be WRONG to have him beating up on human villains). Oh and one last thing... Marsden. Great. That was one of (to me) the CLASSIEST aspects of the movie. They made Richard White a GOOD MAN. It would have been so easy to make him a dick... make everyone root for Supes and Lois... but no, they made him a mortal equivalent to Superman. Someone in love with Lois, someone with a good heart, someone with no powers who was willing to risk his life to save his woman and "his" kid and then Superman... I dunno. That really nailed it for me. OK, why am I doing this? Nevermind me. Carry on.
-
You are correct sir; one of my first thoughts upon reading this as well. Harry, the diamond creation was in Superman III (remember Lois sees it on Lana's hand and gets semi-jealous when she finds out Clark gave it to her)
-
Same for Captain Kangaroo...it is a kiddie movie, best enjoyed by kids.
-
It did seem to me that the villians seemed to be more darker. Zod actually came across as a bad ass. The only real thing I didn't like was that fact that Superman pretty much erased the whole movie. There was no poing in going back to the diner where he never should up for in the first place. One question for anyone. If this circling the earth was meant for the second movie then what ending did they have for the first movie?
-
I went into Superman Returns wishing Bryan Singer would go back to smaller films like The Usual Suspects, and I came out thinking he was the new Spielberg. Very good film. I can't wait to see it again on DVD, just to make sure it's as good as I remember. I've been reading too much AICN and I'm doubting myself, I think. I hope I'm not suffering from IDS (Independence Day Syndrome) - love a film at the cinema, realise with embarrassment that it's shit on video.
-
BEWARE: The single disc version has no single extra.
-
haha...that is funny. I suffered from the same thing. But Superman Returns was shit in the theater and shit on DVD, so no problem there.
-
I, too, was surprised by the negative reception of Superman Returns. My brother and I saw an advanced screening and we were both certain it would garner 'Spider-Man' level box-office. This film was all the better due to Singer's passion for the character. I thought it was great and look forward to the sequel. Again, back to your regularly scheduled TalkBacks....
-
True story here: I remember back in school on the seventh grade or something we had this Geography class and had this huge exam on several interesting topics such as weather, winds, storms and whatnot and one of the questions was "what would happen if Earth would spin the other way", the teacher expecting us of course to speculate on the effects over the wind direction, global climate or whatever, and get this: some poor bastard acually answered "Time would go backwards". I shit you not. He was publicly humilliated from that day onwards, and his answer came up on PTA meetings... THAT'S what this fucking PLOT DEVICE causes. Absolute fucking misery. I can't believe you prefer that over the magic kiss. He's an alien for chrissake he can do anything with that lizard tongue of his.
-
They did a terrific job in portraying just how difficult it is to "be" Superman. From losing the love of his life, being an outsider, having a son that he can't be with (for the moment, at least) and also constantly hearing everyone's problems (the scene at the tip of the atmosphere when he can hear so many voices was very good), we got a Superman that was vulnerable and emotional. I think that's what was needed, especially as Superman has fallen from grace in terms of being "cool" with the general public, in comparison to other heroes like Batman and Spiderman. I think Spiderman 2 excelled in showing the sacrifices and struggles of being a superhero, and Superman Returns laid out a similar framework. Brando's voiceover ("You are not one of them") was used very effectively when he was racing up through the crowds after seeing Lois happily settled in her new life. It was such a refreshing cinematic take on Superman - barely fighting back the tears after seeing that everything had changed in his absence. I thought there was enough action in the movie, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see a super-powered punch-up in the sequel. I'd like to see Luthor have a smaller role in the sequel, perhaps making plans to capture the kid, while Superman focuses on another opponent.
-
... that's just dumb!!! *shoves glasses up nose with index finger*
-
I'm sorry but anyone with a basic knowledge of screenwriting, plot, narrative and story structure would have junked that script as soon as they read the opening scene. Don't give Superman baggage, let him BE Superman and take on bad guys and save the world. Sheesh. Idiots.
-
I believe using the human eye it would seem like multiple supermans. But I always thought he was moving so fast from one point to an other that he made it appear as if there was 4 or 5 of him in the room. I guess some geeks have bigger imaginations then others. Also as much as I love the first Superman the turning the earth part always seemed goofy, yet alot of people say it makes sense. We need some fucking scientists on this debate, and no, not Dr. Emmit Brown.
-
I thought that when you saw the earth moving backwards, that it wasn't literally spinning backwards: it was just a conceptual image, relational to what Superman would experience. If you go faster than the speed of light (which is meant to be impossible), I think you could theoretically go back in time. If superman uses the Earth's gravity to hold him in the same general area in space, and if he goes fast enough, he should be able to go back in time but still remain in the same area (as opposed to just speeding up really fast and ending up somewhere outside the milky way six hours back in time).That's my take on it, but I'm an English student, not a physicist.It is pretty weak Deus ex machina. My favourite "goofy" part of Superman was when the little kid runs into the appartment to tell mum that there's a flying man outside and all we hear from inside the building is *smack!* and then a little whimper. That was funny.
-
Do you remember the movie? One Superman was a hologram, another was made of stone, and the third one was real. And all three appeared on screen simultaneously. How is Superman "moving so fast from one point to an other (sic)" jive with what was actually on screen? Maybe you should leave your imagination behind next time and pay attention to the movie.
-
The moment you reverse everything is the moment the shark has been jumped and the movie is pointless. Lester's version is BETTER WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. The only think that's worth ANYTHING is Brando. Just take the Lester cut and add Brando and voila there it is.
-
It's clearly the "Jar-Jar Binks" point in the movie.
-
I have a roommate who, whenever he recalls childhood memories, ALWAYS attributes adult-like thought processes. So, for instance (SPOILER), he knew Vader was Luke's dad, he hated the Ewoks because they were a commercial product, he couldn't wait to see Platoon, and on and on. Things kids generally aren't cognizant of. And so when I read reviews by people who were such sophisticated children I have to wonder: Did you really not just sit there masturbating over the fact that A.) Superman existed on the big screen at all and B.) That he flew down Niagra falls and got smashed through a building. Really, Harry? Your child heart wasn't racing? You weren't like, "Holy shit! This is the greatest thing my pea brain has ever experienced!--What's going to happen to Superman next?" Instead you were all, "God, this is nonsense. I wish the studio had gone with the Donner cut." DUDE, YOU WERE LIKE NINE!
-
... It's still baloney.
All this goofiness in BOTH versions of Supes II is the reason Singer should have done a reboot instead of a lame-o sequel. -
"I want my Liberace records back...tonight."
-
AFLAC: Yeah, and according to Batman Forever, it's in Gotham as well. That's one "harbor chick" that gets around!
YACK: How is he even VAGUELY cowardly in this movie? He doesn't do a single thing in the movie that is any more selfish than giving up his powers to hump Lois in 2... and does nothing more deceptive than his ever-present hiding of his identity. Where are you seeing this? As for the "peeping Tom". I don't buy that either. It's not like he was being a creepy voyeur or watching Lois shower. He wants to know if she still loves him and knows she's too muddled and proud to tell him flat out. He observes her at home for a fleeting moment, she tells Richard she wasn't ever "in love" with Superman and he takes off. He may be Kal-El, and he may be better than everyone on earth in nearly every respect, but he IS NOT perfect. Obviously Kryptonians are subject to their own emotions as well. I don't want to see him acting like Batman or The Punisher or anything, but a little realistic humanity (or the Kryptonian equivalent) is certainly not out of order. And as for lifting the island (it wasn't nearly a continent yet) after the Kryptonite beatdown... when the Kryptonite was removed from him and his presence, he was weak, but strong enough to fly. He flew over the storm and directly into the sunlight to recharge his batteries (so to speak) before lifting the island... Several shots made it clear the at that point in its growth, the majority of the Kryptonite was on the island's surface and in it's core (as it was breaking up while moving out of the earth's atmosphere more and more Kryptonite became more and more visible visible as he became weaker and weaker). That being the case, he wasn't being DIRECTLY exposed to it during the initial "lift off and flight" as he was carrying it from underneath where the concentration was weakest. Once he got out of the atmosphere and it was hitting him full on... he used his last strength to push it off... and then he fell into a coma. So where is the plot hole? It may be a bit of a leap, but it certainly wasn't unexplained. -
Erm, don't you remember Lois and Supes flying around the Statue of Liberty at night in the first film?
-
Well I'm going to pick this up since it's been getting some good reviews. It's as I expected, not the best it could be but an interesting alternative to the lester cut. It should be fun to watch.
-
...but the turning-back-time thing was originally supposed to be the ending for the second one, then they decided to make it the ending of the first one instead, and tacked on the super-kiss on the sequal. So the second one isn't ripping off the ending from the first one; the first one ripped off the ending from the second one. Cheers!
-
I just assumed he flew over to New York ... I mean, I can buy flying at super speed. But the Statue of Liberty in Metropolis? Come'on!! Frijole: You're right! but at least they changed the design a bit for the statue in Gotham ... at least I remember that one being a tad different.
-
Isn't Lois hopping out of an office window just a wee bit insane? She draws a pair of glasses onto a Supey photo and decides,"Oh yeah, I'm convinced, I'm gonna jump outta the f#@%ing window."(there is apparently no shortage of watermelon vendors in downtown Metropolis). When she leaps into Niagra Falls(still insane)in the Lester v. at least there's been some kinda buildup in Lois' mind at that point...the exchange between L & C after the identity outing is completely gone in the Donner v...a hand in the fire beats a gun fulla blanks any day.
-
The reason for all the hate of SR is the LAME plot from Lex Luthor to "take over the world". To sum up..."let's throw crystals in the ocean and grow some Bull Shit"
Lame, lame, lame. -
but time travel still? Sorry but thats bs. Superman cannot go back in time by travelling around the world at superspeeds. Even if he is going a 100 times the speed of light or something and manages to change the rotation of the earth... changing the rotation of the earth is the most retarded explaination of travelling back in time.
-
I watched SR last night and I think it would have been a lot better if Singer went with the "Slightly Insane" Lex... For whatever reason, he went mad and had the kryptonite island built to soley kill Superman instead of using it for Real Estate...
-
Who plays the baddies in a new version? My choices: Alan Rickman for Zod, Carrie-Anne Moss for Ursa and Paul Wight (WWE's Big Show) as Non.
-
Well it was definitely the Statue of Liberty, except it said "GOTHAM" in her headband thingie under her crown. Very lame (though not as distracting as Carrey's BULGE in his leotard in the scene where they blow up the BatCave. NIPPLES ON BATSUIT > "GOTHAM" ON LADY LIBERTY > BULGE ON THE RIDDLER.
-
jeesh!
-
I think the Lex plot is pretty dumb but it depends how you look at it. See, most people who don't have a problem with Superman Returns look at it as though Lex knows fine well that he's not going to make a penny from the land. The fact that they just sit playing cards until Superman comes along shows that they only did it to kill Superman (even though they didn't come out and explicitly say it). Wolvendom, I'm not defending it, and I think it is still dumb, but as I said, I don't think the world is literally spinning backwards: it's a bit like in the Matrix with bullet time: it's not that everything has slowed down, I think that it's just what it looks like from the character's point of view.
-
I walked out of that movie with the biggest smile on my face, and I hate action/comic book movies. There were issues with the film's structure (how could there not be? The thing was in development longer than some of you have been alive) but, on the whole, it was triumphant. There are some transcendent scenes in SR that are truly classic and (as frijole said) classy.
-
Most people who don't have that particular problem with it.
-
Yeah, I think it could be inferred that the real estate angle was imply to get a goon squad on board for the caper. Too often villains have henchman following them around blindly on hair brained escapades with little to no motivation. Good point.
-
Personally, it's my favorite comic book movie. Ever. Having just watched the DVD, I think it would have been even better if they had included some of the deleted scenes, which included a lot more of the Kent farm stuff. The shooting script also provides more detail on Luthor's plan which I would have liked to have seen in the movie. Basically, Luthor plants that idea that Krypton still exists in order to get rid of Supes. He plans on Superman dying when he gets close to remnants of Krypton, which are now basically large pieces of kryptonite. When Supes survives, he hatches the plan that we see in the movie. That said, I love this movie all the same. End trasmission.
-
Yeah, I wonder what would've happened if he'd just said to his dead parents "piss off, I'm not going in that box just because you told me to: why can't I have a lover and keep my powers? More to the point, why don't I just tell you that I'm not seeing anybody and I'll still keep my powers? It's not like you grounded me for intervening in human history a couple of year back, is it? Now, hold still till I wipe you down. Damn static..."
-
WTF? That's like my favorite part of the whole damn movie.
-
Well it was in most of the superman movies if you were a little observant. He flies past it with Lois in part 1. He meets the blonde up there in part 3. I won't watch 4 again, but wouldn't be surprised if they show it in that one too. So use your index finger somewhere else. Sheesh.
-
What do you mean you miss Superman flying to make the diamond? I've seen Superman 2 quite a few times and I can't think of what you're talking about. I know in Superman 3 he turnes a piece of coal into a diamond and gives the ring to Lana Lang, but what diamond are you talking about in part 2???
-
As to Luthor's plan again. It's no more or less silly than any legion of other evil genius plans in the history of movies/ comics... And I think that Panda made a good point in that the whole thing could have simply been a plot to kill Supes and nothing more- that all the real estate stuff was a ploy to get others in on the plan. Either way, it works for me on a comic book/ action movie level... doesn't work for you. C'est la vie. Glad you're willing to give it another shot. And yes, I wanty Brainiac too. Like I said, in this movie (like in the original) I didn't want to see him fighting anyone. Supes phsyically duking it out mortal humans has always seemed wrong. But boy do I want something epic on that front to wash the still bitter taste of Nuclear Man from my memory.
-
I had the misfortune of re-watching Superman IV recently and yes, the Statue of Liberty is in it. Not only is it in it, but Nuclear Man rips it out of the ground and flies it into the centre of the city and drops it over a crowd of people. Supes catches it, of course and returns it to where it belongs. Christ, what a horrible, horrible film. Reeve is still good in it, amazingly, but it doesn't save the picture.
-
isn't the Statue of Liberty also in Supes III? When the hot chick tries to seduce kryptonite dazed Supes, I seem to recall a scantily clad rendezvous at Lady Liberty.
-
...just saw your post. Never mind.
-
When Miss Tessmacher remarks about how boring the design of the Fortress of Solitude was. Reminded me of my big beef with Lex's scam in SR...who the hell would pay money to live on that dismal looking green rock? As for the Donner Cut itself, there were some great ideas there... Clark's "reveal" scene with Lois as well as the building jump, Zod portrayed as much more of a badass instead of a cliche, anything with Marlon Brando. But waaaay too many "quiet" moments, the ending was completely cut out (what the hell happened to Lex and the "Arctic Police"?) and the plot device at the end was completely unnecessary and cheapened the entire movie. If anything it showed that Donner had very little to work with, and given a bigger budget and some more footage could have made it one of the best superhero movies ever.
-
Before the movie came out, the biggest gripe from fanboydom was that Singer had 'homo'ed' it up. i.e. casting Spacey, making Supes' outfit a guaranteed best seller for the gay pride day costume ball (that might be an oxymoron). And, of course, Singer himself. After the premiere, all of the griping (legitamate this time) concerned the crappy script, crappy villain, and crapatudinal plot. I mean, why in the world do we need to see Lex romancing a 100 year old dying woman to get his fortune? Yes, it was nice to see Noel Neill (I actually had to look in the credits to be sure that was her) but couldn't he have just made her a barfly in Ol' Jimmy's tavern? Now, I am not against cracking open a brain cell or two and having to follow a good plot in an action flick, but dagummit, it IS an action flick! His Xmen movies had magnificent non-super powered elements and human interest. But they damn sure had action too! Having Supes getting his Krypton kicked by human baddies, well that just sucked baboon shit. Having Lex at all, was mere Hubris by a Director who thought a 'great actor' was all he needed in a comic book adaptation. The truly laughable plot to destroy the greatest ecomomic engine in the world, and then expect to sell real estate on an uninhabitable piece of green glass that would rip you a new hole every time you squatted to take a crap, well that was priceless. The movie is not crap. It was simply very disappointing. When I was a child I saw Superman at the theatre. Too long and too boring - until he gets to California. Supe II was far more entertaining. Why? because it had action. Look at Star Trek the Motion Picture(Still used to induce sleep in the somnombulant impaired) then the magnificence of Star Trek II. I will view the so-called Donner cut, but from what I have read I truly doubt it will be any better than what preceeded it.
-
Several people have expressed opinions basically saying lex's real estate plot is ok because he's human. The "he has no powers what else is he supposed to do" argument. Well, there are two seasons of Superman the animated series and the last three seasons of Justice league to look to for inspiration on what a powerless lex can accomplish without clamoring for real estate. Lex Luthor as "used car saleman on crack" was corny the day hackman did it. Singers Superman: the movie redux was uninspired. Besides all the other suspect decisions made on the plot and character arcs, Lex Luthor was the worst.
-
The diamond from coal is from Superman 3, not from Superman 2.
-
Superman didn't turn the Earth backwards. He FLEW FASTER THAN LIGHT AROUND THE EARTH. HE went backwards in time, using the old idea of extending relativistic time dilation past c enters a *negative* time dilation zone, as a paralell to the postive time dilation on the other side of c. * For those who don't know about time dilation with relativistic frames of reference, here goes: As you move from your origin frame of reference, say Earth in orbit, the faster you move, the slower the time in your frame of reference -- say Supes body -- moves in relationship to Earth. The time dilation effect is far too small at any speeds up to a hair below 186,000 miles per second -- speed "c", that of light, to be noticable. As Superman moves closer to "c", he requires more and more power to get ever smaller increases in his speed, BUT at the same time Superman's time frame slows WAY down in relationship to Earth. Supes technically can never reach speed "c", as it would take infinite energy at that end of the curve. Harder he pushes, smaller the increase in speed, and the more time slows down -- for him. Theoretically, at speed of light, time stops for Clark. * Now, science fiction writers know you can't reach c, since it requires infinite energy, but have always speculated that if you could do it, time dilation would not only reach maximum at c -- time stop -- but would actually go negative, moving Superman backwards in time, with a greater effect the faster he goes.
That's what happened as he was circling the earth. He was moving faster with each circle, until he passed c and time reversed. He stopped when he went back, oh, ten minutes. Rescue accomplished. -
I can't take full credit (or blame) for this; I originally heard something to this effect discussed by Dave "Cormorant" Farabee a long time ago. Yes, spinning the Earth backwards defies logic. It's impossible. But at that moment, the movie is making a statement about love, and how the power of love can sometimes do the impossible. It's essentially a moment of magical realism that you can either accept based on the emotional groundwork created up to that moment, or not. It's a really enjoyable movie for those of us who do.
-
Nice try dude, but he loved Pa Kent too, and he did not try and bring him back. Once you start down that slippery slope of bad plot devices, you open up a whole can of maggots. Just look at Deja Vu!
-
I agree with Harry on the "made up" super powers argument. I was glad they werent there. The fight over Metropolis, while dated, is a vast improvement. However, I thought the opening sequence of the film with all the cuts from the first film felt haphazard and slipshod. Very erratic. The end....was god awful. Take out the scene with the trucker at the diner and I could stand the rehash of the end of part one. With it in however, makes no sense at all. Overall not a bad rough cut of what could have been, but a rough cut none the less.
-
Yep, going back in time makes Superman more powerful than God; bad idea. But since it was supposed to happen at the end of the *second* movie, I suppose it was the end point for Donner's exhibition of Superman's powers. Remember, the whole faster-than-light thing came at the end of the sixties, when Kryptonite was eliminated, red sun energy was introduced, and Superman could move the planet itself, move faster than light, and move backwards in time. This movie was made ten years after those powers were introduced, so Donner was being true to the character's comic book description. Time travel was in canon for Superman in 1980. As for him not going backwards in time to save Dad, well, Dad died of a heart attack. Superman can't make heart tissue grow back, no matter how far back he wants to go. And, look at it this way; he did the time travel trick under great duress, at the end of his story arc (per Donner), so we were never to see who Clark dealt with his new godlike power. But I never said it was a good idea -- time travel at will wrecks an SF story if written badly. In Heroes, at least, Hiro finds that godlike powers don't make him omnipotent, because he lacks godlike omniscence to use it effectively. John Byrne de-powered Superman in the 80's, and it was a damned good idea, since it reduced him from a god to an alien from another planet.
-
I'm shocked that there is so much hate towards Lois' "Can you read my mind" monologue in Superman... I really enjoyed that part... Maybe because I'm a "romantic", who knows... But it was a really nice scene... to each his own i guess... -_-
-
The world was showing spinning back not because Superman was turning it -- he wasn't touching it, so how? -- but because time was moving backwards, and showing the planet turning backwards -- east to west -- would be visible if the frame of reference of someone outside the superman/earth frame were possible. It's not: photons have to bounce off the planet to your eyeball at that point, and photons moving through time-twisted space ain't gonna happen. But it was a nicely visuallized representation of time moving backwards -- planet jacks several degrees back in spin to time he's moving to. Not literally possible, but good cinematic metaphor. But he ain't moving the planet by spinning it in a space vortex or whatever it is people think he's doing. There's no such thing as a space vortex, no piece of reality to hook it on. But negative c time travel is borderline SF and has been used many times in stories.
-
Jack Parsons was pretty much fucked by L. Ron Hubbard and his own explosive garage, so further fucking is not necessary. But nice of you to care. Read a book.
-
I had no idea how much of Donner's cut existed. It was amazing to see. It flowed so much better. I didn't hate all the changes Lester chose to make, but I could tell at 12 that those scenes had a different voice than the rest of the movie. And I know I newer liked the liberties made with Superman's and the evil trio's powers. {SPOILER] I'm glad I watched Donner's intro, otherwise I would have been scratching my head as to why II ended the same way the first one did. I can't imagine the first one ending any other way, but I never liked the kiss as a way to wrapping things up. Overall, kudos to everyone involved. And a great victory to all us fans clamoring to see it. Thank you WB for seeing the light.
-
The whole time travel/spin the earth backwards device was bad when I saw it as a kid and is even worse now. It really puts a stain on the movie, and I'm disappointed to hear it's been used again. And the earth moving backwards was not a metaphor. In the first movie Donner spends several minutes showing objects on the planet going in reverse and Lois is dazed when supes returns to her if I remember correctly. Doesn't matter awful plot device.
SR was an ok movie, and I didn't have a huge problem with Lex's plan, but one thing really pissed me off, maybe someone can explain. After Lex creates his country, where the hell is the US military? They would have been all over that place probably even before Superman. I mean White just flies on in and out. The military would have been there long before him. That really bugged the heck out of me. Not as bad as time traveling though. -
In the scene from PT. I supes flies around the freaking planet reversing it's orbit then when he get it to right point he does not just stop he flies in the opposite direct to get it to spin forward again. the theory that he's traveling at the speed of light and time is going backwards is shot full of holes due to him spinning the world clockwise after he reaches the time he wanted one thing that is never explained is where is the Superman from the previous times in both superman movies in PT 1 Superman would still be stopping a Missle from hitting NJ. in PT II he would still be stopping Lois from falling out of a window. point is How come he does not exist in 2 timelines?
-
1) Did they cut out the plastic wrap super "S"? I remember seeing that as a little, naive kid and even then I realized it was stupid. I always thought I was the only one who thought it was incredibly stupid until they riffed it on FAMILY GUY. That was a riot.
2) I don't understand how SUPERMAN RETURNS was so expensive. There couldn't have been that many FX shots. How much more expensive will it be if he is battling Braniac or Doomsday in the sequel? -
I like the replicating Superman Fortress battle too. Actually, I have zero problems with the Lester version. I'm interested in seeing this Donner cut, and I suspect I'll enjoy it, but I don't understand how one can reconcile loving Superman II and having this many problems with it.
-
I agree, Superman Returns is classy as hell. It's easily in like my top 3 comic films ever. I cannot understand all this hate for it.
Also, while I don't think they should bring Zod back, Alan Rickman is a damn good choice to play hime. -
No need to be a jerkoff ... I'm merely saying that the Statue of Liberty is in New York! ... not Metropolis ... sorry you can't wrap your mind around that one.
-
Glad more people that I thought agree on that. Classy.
-
Nov 29, 2006 3:27:31 PM CST
One of my college professors looked like Margot Kidder.
by gibsonusa returns
Even acted like her. It was awesome. I couldnt learned because I kept thinking how she looked and walked like Kidder.
-
All were entertaining movies. Nitpicking at them the way people have you could do with absolutely any movie to make them look bad. Returns was incredibly entertaining and my favorite popcorn movie of the year, above X3 and whatever else came out.
-
I think the weight of the fact that he let Pa Kent die *added* to his motivation to save Lois -- i.e., he be damned if he was going to let that stuff happen again. And if you're suggesting that he should have gone all the way back in time to save Pa, look at the supreme effort it took for him to go back just a couple of hours. Going all the way back to save Pa probably wouldn't have been feasible.
-
No argument whatsoever on Clark/Kal/Superman's motivation to save Lois - especially after he watched his father die. My problem is with the device itself. Should have never been used - should never be used. is a total cop-out by writers who donot know how to end a story. And worse, do not know how to deal with the ramifications of tome travel. i.e what I alluded to in the current movie Deja Vu - just a dreadful ending to that promising flick. As for whetehr he cpuld have kept going and saved Pa, well if the graphic representation of the earth spinng backwards (sorry jackparsons) is accurate, he could have just let it go on for a few more moments before he reversed the tide (so to speak). It is ridiculous though, and regardless of how touching it may be, it just smacks of a writer not taking the time to investigate a serious use of such a device. Just an 'aha, now i know how to get out of the corner i painted myself into.' A Deus ex machina.
-
Yeah, that part never made sense, especially the part when Superman leans over to Lois and says, "We used to play like this when we were kids. He never was any good at it." WHAT!!?? Zod had been banished to the Phantom Zone while Kal-El was still a baby! Somebody dropped the ball on that one.
-
I enjoyed Batman and Batman returns. In fact, Batman returns is the only film where the multiple villians concept worked, and worked well. Burton still didn't understnad Batman. It became obvious as Batman stacked up the body count. Burton was enamored with the character, but missed the point. Singer has an obvious affection to Superman, but got trapped in one facet of the character, the Christ metaphor, and his slavish devotion to the Donner film...not to mention plot holes i could drown in.
-
....even more so than Superman 4: The Quest for Peace. There can be no debate over this. At least there (in Superman 4) he was fighting a supervillain; a lame villain, but a supervillain nonetheless - and, of course, it had the immortal Christoper Reeve, as a plus. Anybody who claims Singer's Superman tripe was enjoyable or even decent, needs to donate their brain to science, ASAP; because, clearly, they don't use it much. That is all.
-
i am recommending the single disc, crappy cover and no special features edition of supes returns as a quick single day rental from your favorite video rental store if you were a] blown away by the movie in theaters, b] just wanna see the movie and nothing else when you find it, c] have the 2 disc special edition with bitchin' cover and cool special features on your christmas list and want something like it to hold you over till then, or d] all of the above. and especially since all the stores you go to from now till christmas will be chaotic and wish to avoid such hell until you actually start christmas shopping and possibly finish it with flying colors. i usually go to wal-mart or blockbuster for this stuff. and since this is just a slow week for pretty much everything. i have not much to say about clerks 2, ant bully or all the other stuff out this week. but as for the other supes releases this week {the chris reeve movies and richard donner cut of the second} those are all recommended as early gifts and best buys for die hard supes and comic book and comic book movie fans for christmas, han-a-kah, or just for personal shit. everything else is just for renting and stuff that will come and go like rock candy. plus....next week, i get to buy pirates 2!! peace.
-
in the next movie? i think the best zod would be jeremy irons. and have terence stamp in a cameo as a retiring reporter.
-
The thing that I think is funny is that people who hate Superman Returns are fucking militant about it, like KaiMcGriddle or whatever his name is up there a couple of posts. Y'know, I have experience with having to debate the quality of a film (I know a lot of people who love the Boondock Saints, and I even have a friend who says Van Helsing is his favorite movie), and if you're the guy who thinks the film sucks, saying that liking the movie makes you dumb and retarded and brainles or whatever, usually just pisses people off. If you're going to argue a point, at least do it intelligently instead of adding to all the crap already spewed here. Why can't we all just get along? Agree to disagree? Let's call the whole thing off?
-
between the Recut ans smalleville I am sick of Zod. i would love to see some form of brainiac and if we are going to pull out all the stops Bring out Darksied.
-
So Superman Returns sucked because it didn't have a supervillan? Is that your only argument? Because technically Batman Begins didn't have a supervillan either...it had a villan, but he wasn't the focuspoint of the movie. Calling Superman Returns worse than Superman IV just destroys your credibility even further.
-
I actual liked Super man Returns For people who can believe the earth spinning backwards is Donners way of SHowing time is reversing they can't generally assume that A. The Crystal create what ever the User needs such as shelter, food, WMD's (yeah I said it). And spaceships for intergalactic travel. Then where is your imagination. Also I believe that the Direct Contact of the sun gave Superman Temporary use of his powers before he lifted the Kryptonite City into out space. But thats just me.
-
I just wrapped up the Donner cut. Wow. I actually feel robbed by the Lester version. Though Donners cut is crude in some spots, with some aged special fx (including an odd choice for "new" aged special fx) this story just floored me. THIS is how it should have been. I enjoyed this even more then Superman I. Zod was much more impressive, a lot of the campiness is gone, and even though a screen test was used to fill in the gaps, I enjoyed the trap Lois set for Superman, far more then a jump in the river. Yes this movie is crude at some points, and dated by 20 years, but the story is great. thanks Donner!
-
You said you hate comic book/action movies. That's why you really enjoyed Superman Returns and came out with a smile on your face.
-
.....Batman "I wear a utility belt. That's what I do" Begins, also sucked donkey balls. Actually, come to think of it, it sucked Mammoth balls. I realize this must come as a surprise to you, coming so late after it's release, but this is generally accepted as fact. Until Nolan learns how to use the Zoom (out) function on cameras when filming fight scenes, none of what he regurgitates can be taken seriously neither. Especially with a lame "Super" hero like Batman " I wear a utility belt. That's what I do." So much for that counter-argument. And so much for YOUR credibility. Speaking of which, I'll repeat (and this time I'll type slowly just for you); Christopher Reeve in a sucky Superman movie, and on his worst acting day, no less, still trumps a stalker, deadbeat-dad "I lift things: that's all I do" Superman wannabe in a laughable Halloween costume, any day, any time. Routh ain't filling those boots anytime soon in yours or my lifetime. Class dismissed.
-
All your Michael Bays are belong to us.
-
QFHT
-
The main benefit is now nearly all the Donner and Lester footage is out there. There's probably a way to put I and II together into one long movie that would make sense, have Brando throughout, and need no flashbacks/recaps because it would be one long movie. With Donner and Lester you have two directors each trying to minimize the percentage of the others' footage at all costs. A neutral arbiter is needed to bring us the best of both.
-
and blend Donner's II cut with Superman 1 for the Definitive Superman film. Take out the turning back of time in 1. Have Lex's nuke free Zod, start from there.
-
change it or remaster it or fuck with it. IT WAS A COMPLETE TRAIN WRECK!!! THE SUPER POWER BOX, THE CELLOPHANE S, THE COMICAL GENERAL ZOD AND CO., THE PATHETIC LUTHOR, THIS NEW IMPROVED TIME TRAVEL DEVICE, LOIS LANE FINDING OUT WHO KENT REALLY IS, THE SUPER KISS.. the only redeeming part was the battle in the city, and zod's half assed lust for revenge on jor el........ IT SUCKED! SUPERMAN 1 WAS THE ONLY GOOD SUPERMAN! AND IT WAS ALMOST TURNED INTO A TRAIN WRECK AT THE END WITH TIME TRAVEL.
-
Batman 1 was saved by Nicholson's performance as the joker and batman begins was arguably the second best comic book movie ever after spider-man 1&2... the rest of the batmans sucked, all but one of the supes films sucked (that being the first), X3 Blows, and let us not speak of daredevil, hulk, electra, the soon to be trainwrecked ghostrider, the mediocre blade films, fantastic four, and the rest of garbage comic films.
-
I think I get where you're coming from with this whole thing, and if this talkback indicates anything, you're not alone. The "Turn back time" thing just doesn't compute for a lot of people, and whatever poetic aspects it may have doesn't override that. Like I said, rather than fully examine the ramifications and holes (that come with time travel, with the physics, etc., etc.), I think other people are able to see the emotional truth of what happened, and let that be enough. It's a tall order for the film to ask, and, again, not everybody can get on board. You can't, I can. C'est la vie.
-
It was, flat out. 'Let's kill off billions of people and sell the land to....who? Oh shit I just killed off a billion people...who the fuck am I going ot sell this big hunk of crystal land mass to?' It blasted Superman mythology out of the water...and Singer 'supposedly' is a fan of the character? Moreso of the films and not the comics. They should have just done a retelling of A Superman For All Seasons by Loeb and Sale, since that's a great jump point for a new Superman flick and it incorporates all the roots of the character (sort of like the nods towards Long Halloween and such in Batman Begins). SR was a trainwreck with flashy special effects. The Superkid was a really lame idea, almost like turning back time, a weak plot point. I remember as a kid, always blasting Hollywood for not making mroe comic book films since all the components were there: storyboards, plot, script, etc. Now I wish they would leave their dirty little hands off them since nine times out of ten they only manage to fuck it up. It's like going to Ikea, getting a crappy bookcase, and not following the directions and just deciding to do it yourself. It ends up a pitiful, chaotic mess.
-
Bay is the Coke head not Singer who needs malaysian boys when you Magneto on speed dial.
-
Can someone please explain how in SR that Clarkie disappears for the same five years as Supes, then returns, and no one connects the dots? And for the record, SR, as flawed as it is, is no where near as bad as Supe IV - I mean, Reeve looked like he weighed 170 1bs in that flick, and was solely in it for the $$. Xmen3 beat the slop out of SR as a very entertaining kick ass comic book movie. A supervillain is not always needed, but if you are gonna make a super hero movie, you damn diddly better have a worthy adversary. Yeah, Hulk bit the big green one.
-
That movie was EXTREMELY derivitave, filled with boring cliches, nonsensical parts, a ridiculous and predictable plot, and seemed like it was a bad fanfic. I'm surprised it somehow has its cult of fans. I guess because it's superman after all these years, some don't care what they get...
-
What I dont understand about SR is the marketing. I've seen toys stacked up everywhere I go, but any kid who went and saw this movie would have fallen asleep within the first five minutes. This is an an adult superman (minus anything that made him interesting to some degree) for sure, and I see no entertainment value in it for kids. They made an awful lot of toys for a movie that is no where near "kid friendly". It seems an odd direction.
-
In the DVD Goodies article you said the following:
"If all that is too much for you, then just pick up this new version of SUPERMAN II by Richard Donner and crew. There’s some wonderful stuff on this – but frankly I prefer the original Theatrical Cut… Though there are improvements, there are also some problems… especially with the ending. But then, this isn’t really Donner’s cut – as had he been able to finish the film back in the day, he would have been afforded re-shoots, ADR direction, etc… and it could have been amazing. But that’s a bit of fantasy and we’ll never see his version. To find out more – listen to Donner’s commentary on this disc – frankly it’s the best thing about it all."
In this review of the Donner Cut, you said the following:
"I miss Superman flying to make the diamond and a few brief moments that Lester was responsible – but this rough unfinished version is a vast improvement."
So I don't get it. Which one's better? Or are you still deciding? -
But I guess they thought she wasn't pretty enough for Routh.
-
and put Ratner on Superman, then at least X3 might have been good.
-
Nice to see Superman Returns finally get some well earned praise around these parts. I was starting to dread any superman talkback as they were getting hammered with negative posts. It seems like the movie is getting new life on DVD and people who previously were trashing it have started to warm up to it. I loved the darker, more dramatic approach to Superman and it's one of my favorite comic movies ever.
I think time will be very kind to this film. -
CLARK KENT DRINKING A BUDWIESER WITH JIMMY OLSON! call me a prude but Superman doesn't drink PERIOD
-
I meant Superman Returns
-
Martian Manhunter. Hellz yeah.
-
I meant it in the sense of "processing data in a way that works for you." Bad choice of metaphor.
In any case, I'm not sure I like Superman drinking either, Phategod2, but I think I'm even a little more disturbed by the prospect that Superman allowed the Phantom Zone Villains to die in the end of II. -
1.We would have got his planned doubleshot of the Phoenix storyline, and most likely majo screentime fo Scott.2.Warner Bros. might have ditched the Supes film and showed a bit more interest in that other, far superior, franchise.Singer may have got his dream job of helming a Trek flick with Star Trek XI. He's been talking about the franchise since before the first X-flick came out, and he's payed homage to ST2 in X2, as well as promises the the next Supes flick would be his Wrath of Khan.But no, things didn't work out tht way.X-men, outside of a Wolverine flick (if they recast Sabretooth) is fucked.Superman, does have the kid storyline, which is great, but the cast is terrible.Smallville, the jury is still out on that. If Warner Bros doesn't attempt a spinoff flick, or at least a direct to dvd one, they may be missing out.And as far as Trek goes, as much as I like Lost and everything but the last fifteen minutes of MI3, I think Singer, given the tone of X2, would have been a waay better choice for this property. I'm just hoping J.J. doesn't go nuts like he did with his Superman script.X-men, Superman, Smallville, Trek, and who knows what else are so intertwined it's crazy.
-
But I'll see the sequel.
-
Theres a game I've been dying to play "What If Singer Did X3", Scott would have had alot more screen time he was underused in the first we got a glimps of him in part 2 and 3 was down right disrespectful. we might have gotten a Danger Room scene but after that mockery I could do with that scene burnt into my skull. since where at it instead of Kitty Pryde maybe Gambit could have made a appearance cause every team needs a playboy. OK my rants done.
-
I would've hoped that Kitty would have still been in 3&4, and Bryan and gave her and Pete a few moments. Seriously, if there's ever a reboot, or even if theres a New Mutants spinoff, and the budget is there for more screentime for Colossus, they should give it to him. Some of the shit he went through is waaay more compelling than Remy.
-
Just wanted to say that.
-
Okay guys, this is pathetic. This may have been said before in this TB, but please: Superman 1 was an amazing movie despite the fact that it had one of the most insultingly stupid endings in the history of all film. The whole 'flying around the planet reversing it's spin and this turning back time' is just so stupidly stupid that the word stupid fails to capture it's stunning stupidity. But, hey, it was a good movie besides that. Compared to that amazingly stupid plot mechanic, sticky logos, multiple holographic Supes, and even the almost-as-stupid 'super kiss' look downright logical. For Harry to sit there and talk like those elements were absolute travesties, but then be A-OK with the ending to Superman one, and then on top of THAT be okay with that SAME FRICKIN' ENDING tagged onto Superman 2??? Okay, that's just horseshit, man. Please, oh God PLEASE, leave the site with the writers you have who still have the ability to make sense and can keep their penises from composing their articles. You have just plain stopped making any sense on any level. It's a sad, sad thing when I actually look forward to a Vern review more than one of Harry's.
-
I didn't like him getting "axed", but his scenes were short and sweet.God, if only he hadn't been killed, just incapacitated, and Scott mans up and takes the team to confront Jean at her house, we get a fullblown fight with the Brotherhood (Did y'all see the cut fight on the dvd? WTF did they cut that? It was sweet!).Chuck still dies, everything pretty much plays out like it did, minus the jumping mutants at the end, and Scott and Logan have a heart before Wolverine sticks Jean, Cyclops watches on from the bridge, and before she croaks, we get a psychic vision sequence of her and Scott.Simple changes that would've made the flick better.
-
"Scott and Logan have a heart before Wolverine sticks Jean"Heart to heart, I mean.
-
because it gave us the single greatest moment of the Reeve era, and thats the "Super Scream".
-
I like this movie alot. Especially liked the special features alot too. Too paraphrase, this film was 30 years in the making. I was definitely impressed to get such a good look at the way things in this movie franchise could have been. I really liked in this movie how Lois Lane is portrayed as intelligent. *Spoilers ahead* Lois Lane tricks Supes in the new cut, The love of her life is hiding as the man she least suspects ... She knows supes would never let her die. He made sure that didn't happen in the last movie. When her gut to told her the first time Supes was hiding as the man she least suspects, she jumped out of a window when Supes was in the room. Sure it sounds crazy but have you ever been crazy in love? Supes doesn't appear to save Lois, but she oddly survived the 78 story drop while Supes is still pretending to be the person she least suspects. Later in the film Lois realizes she had the rouse backwards. Then in the end, Lois is forced to deal with her emotions like an adult then her and Supes have a regular sloppy kiss ( instead of a superbrainwash kiss )And Supes turns back time to cover his tracks. I thought that take on the love story in this cut was really entertaining. But with all the continuity changes from the Supes franchise, I can understand why some folks won't like this.
If the SR2 sequel had Darkseid as the villian I'd have a fanboy panic attack and I would start screaming "They better not fuck this one up!!!" constantly -
That was another thing, where was the love between him and kitty? it would have been alot more fun with Wanda there too. but at least the did not make him a Mo. But he had two lines so who knows, (he did have his hand all over wolverine). one thing I can't grasp is Piotre can trun into solid metal strong as crap but when a Jugs flys off and tears into Alcatraz they let 110 pound little girl handle it! what rocket science is that? but the one thing the whole series missed was that one Fun Character that Han Solo. we all know there was pretty much Two Nightcrawlers there was the brooding Zealot that annoyed the hell out me compared to Charming fun loving, Romantic. in the cartoon Gambit kind of took his place. and no Josh holloway would not have made a good Gambit. again I'm ranting. Summer of the Rattner is over (relax, release, exhale.)
-
letting the spirits of STO VO KOR know a warrior was coming.
-
But I'm pretty sure Harry absolutely had a geekgasm, reminisced about some BS story from when he was a boy, fell madly in love with Margot Kidder (again), talked about the quality of cock fertilizer this movie is, ranted about the studio fucking with Donner's superior orgiastic vision of the Man of Steel, proclaim the film as "delicious" and "motorscooter perfect" etc etc etc. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and I'll realize there's so much more to that guy.
-
I liked SR way more than spiderman 1 or 2 I would not change a thing . Good movie
-
I think I just made a better script then Superman Returns Intstead of Baldy being the Villian Kalibak with the Female Furies. then after a thrashing we get we Kalibak return To Apokolips where we catch a glimps of Darkseid.
-
I'm quite calm. However, I'm not saying that Metropolis should or should not have the SOL... I'm merely saying that YOU CLEARLY insinuated that it's something new to the Superman series on this Donner cut and I simply let you know that it's in all the films. Sorry, you were wrong, and you need to calm down. :) Read your original post and you'll see how anyone reading it would read it that way.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-11-29-fantasticar_x.htm
-
that movie was crap, and the sequel will be crap. I just know it.
-
Who cares as long as they keep Singer's funny little hands off it -
I'm actually really looking forward to Abram's take on Star Trek. One thing Trek needs is a director with a great visual style, which IMO it hasn't had since Nick Meyer, but Abram's also knows how to craft a good story, build suspense and develop characters. After seeing MI:3 this summer (which I thought was excellent) I am very excited to see what he will do with the franchise, which is now basically dead. I can't even tell you the last time I was excited about an upcoming Trek project, but I'm counting down for this one.
-
That would be cool. But Orion would have to be in it. Then it would have to be a New Gods movie.
-
But I got to see where there these movies pan out. Your are right Yack we will probably get good 3 movies out of both but I really got see where they go with the movies. Christopher Nolan seems to go with the "happy ending everything resolved with a little Hint at a sequel" where Singers left you with alot of questions. Namely "where are they going with this son idea" Personally I think it would be great if Darkseid killed his son or made him believe that he did and turned him into Kalibak or Orion. But I pose this question Until we're ready for a Worlds finest movie Who does Superman fight in the meantime.
-
It's more footage of Reeve's as Superman and more Brando. That right there is a wonderful thing to cherish forever.
-
What nobody gets, the kid ruins the franchise. Who cares if SR was even ANY GOOD...the kids ruins the franchise in every conceivable way.
No crappy silver-age Jimmy Olsen is a monkey, Superman is an ostrich crap can come close...Supes never had a kid. Not even in ELSEWORLDS to my knowledge...it fundementally changes the nature of an ICON, just because BRYAN SINGER HAS DADDY ISSUES. imo -
Gotta say I liked X-Men, REALLY liked X-Men 2 (pretty much like-like if you know what I mean) but what else about Singer excites? He pulled off Suspects with a killer script, but then completely miscast Apt Pupil
(McKellen excepted). I feel so silly for saying it, but maybe a RATNER supes would have been better? At least then Singer could have finished his vision with X3 which seems incomplete compared to the other 2. imo
-
http://tinyurl.com/vpmwq -
What would it have taken to have Apocalypse in a X-men Movie? I heard a rumor that raimi is going with the Alien Origin of the symbiote suit. So it makes me wonder if hollywood would actually allow such a far fetched story with Apocalypse
-
Look at them bulge.
-
It's much more believable than Wolverine's hair style!!!!
-
The relaunch of both franchises were abortions. Why is it so hard to make a decent movie nowadays? Both these movies should have been easy home runs, and they barely made it to first base. Maybe they were hoping that today's teenagers would forget how great the originals were?
-
I have to agree with Bill Clay here, Abortion all the way. Try and tell that to mu Cunt girlfriend who's only 15
-
That's why fanboys blew their loads over it.
-
I finally got to watch the Donner Cut last night and there were new scenes I loved, others I hated, and others I just plain missed from Lesters' cut. Here's a little of how I would arrange it:
1. Use Donner's cut as the main structure
2. Swap the Paris scenes with the elevator bomb from Lester's cut for the SUPERMAN I footage involving the nuclear missile. The missile seems way too coincidental.
3. Swap the Niagra Falls identity reveal from Lester's cut. The hairstyle and glasses changing from Donner's cut is way too distracting and the "I know, freshly squeezed" line makes no sense out of the original context.
4. Add the scene of Superman flying to get flowers for the Fortress dinner with Lois back in from Lester's cut
5. Add more of the footage of the Phantom Zone Criminals in Texas back in (the arm wrestling scene and resulting destruction) from Lester's cut
6. Swap Mount Rushmore getting defaced from Lester's cut instead of the Washington Monument
7. As cheesy as it is, swap the hypno-kiss from Lester's cut for the time-travel. Using the time-travel ending makes the second diner scene with the bully seem like Clark's going after a guy who never attacked him.
So, Warner Brothers, do you want to bankroll my cut for a special DVD release for Superman's 70th anniversary in 2008?
-
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/_Kayser_/Venom.jpg
-
If Superman turned back time again, then how did he ever end up knocking up Lois as the setup for Superman Returns?
-
batman with michael keaton... michael keaton is a sissy compared to Christian bale. I'm sorry but Bale ranks 10 on the batman scale while keaton ranks physical strength of a 4 year old on the batman scale. Nicholson was the only good part about the first batman movie. I mean a batman with curly hair? How fucking gay is that? Everything was improved in begins... the car, the villains, the plot, the gadgets, the actors, the origin, ... everything... there is a small list of people who i believe are totally void of anything approaching sanity and in that list is people who think that Michael Keaton's batman was better than Begins. SO STFU before you injure your brains anymore you should.
-
anything's better than the Lester abortion. Kudo's to whomever was responsible for making the Donner cut happen -- it's a much,much better Superman movie, even though it's obvious that Donner would have gone back and finessed a few things, had that been possible. Maybe this version will eventually wash away all the slap-stick, camp trash that the Newmans and Lester heaped on their version of Donner's movie.
-
So, yeah, if he turned back time then that's right, going back to the diner to drop that hick trucker would seem pretty mean. Then again, Superman's also a peeping tom and a home wrecker, so laying a few on some bully seems par for the course. LOL.
-
batman begins sports some of the worst dialogue ever committed to the silver-screen, it's incredibly one-dimensional thus rendering virtually all of the characters incredibly dull. The movie is tedious.....even the action is boring. Batman and Batman Returns are in a different league to that drivel...at least those movies took risks and are actually memorable. Superman Returns had some nice ideas, but the structure and pacing really let it down....
-
When it comes to sets, just consider what Ridley Scott did in Gladiator. In the DVD commentary, he states that he used the same location for six different backdrops by redressing it for each new scene. It was Commodus’ palace in one scene and the Roman Senate chamber in another. He says too often directors make the mistake of constructing new sets when all they need to do is make alterations. For one particular set redress, all Scott did was add curtains and shoot from a certain angle.
-
and judging by your critique of begins dialogue you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
-
...the director basically making the movie for himself only and not the fans. Hate to say so, but that's what it boils down to. It's been happening on more than a few occasions in the genre lately.
-
Well Yack, to each his own. Glad you at least gave it another spin (even if you aren't) and I'm glad we can at least agree on Routh. He's fantastic.
-
lol, if you mean at doing nothing more than a impression of Reeve, yeah, ok, he's "fantastic".
-
if you prefer begins, then I can understand your reasoning, but I still think that the burton movies are stronger. Why? well I'll elaborate....
Whilst I liked the final act of Begins, and would say Begins is by no means a terrible movie..... the whole thing is kind of a blur. Judging by set-pieces alone, Batman and Batman Returns are so much more memorable.
Burton made Batman into MORE than a breathing comic-book *like Nolan did with begins *, he made it into a sardonic, gothic fairy-tale.... which to me is instantly more unique. He literally made it his own. It takes alot more vision to create something this balanced, rather than say create a comic-book movie in the conventional sense that we're used to today. Leesons dialogue in Begins ruined it for me....no-one talks like that outside of a comic-book..."feel the darkness inside you..." etc etc, I'm paraphrasing but you get the picture. Burtons batman might not be the Batman from the comics, or even a "true" comic book movie to some but who cares when the alternative was so good? Given the time it was created 89 is a real accomplishment when you think about it. Comic-book movies werent the staple diet, and more often than not, characters would undergo several changes in translation-that no longer necessary today. Ever wondered why "The Crow" was such a successful translation, and yet "The Flash" wasn't?
Movies back then were constrained by greater limitations-everything had to be done in camera, and people expected movies to be...well, movies. How do you sell the idea of a batman movie to the majority of grown adults?!
This is why I'm glad that it took Spider-Man so long to get to the screen. (camerons dark spider-man sounded horrible) Granted "Superman" is the counter-argument....but well that's the exception...very few directors could have pulled that off.*hell they didnt even quite manage it 20 years later*
I liked Jack Nicholson Joker. Keaton's portrayl of wayne was far more complex, despite the simplicity of the reason given for him becoming batman in that film. Bale, on the flip side, got batman dead on, but the way wayne was written was far too one-dimensional for my liking.
Burton made Batman in a more challenging climate where there were no comic-book movies at all, so his challenge was to not just create a comic book movie, but to create a movie that people could invest in. In order for people to believe in it, he walked this incredible tightrope between realism (motivations, dialogue) and style...shaping batman into something he could use.....and not for one moment, when youre watching, do you ever find yourself questioning what you're seeing. Unlike my personal experience with begins.....
Batman and Returns will stand the test of time....Begins on the other hand?...I don't think it will.
Oh and I'm not a Burton fan-boy or anything......
-
BATMAN= greater achievement given the time and climate it was made in. One of the few examples where straying from the source material works better. Stronger dialogue. Characters are determined by their actions more than dialogue. Unique visual style. BEGINS= Easier climate to make the movie. The "comic-book style" equals lazy characterisation i.e Neeson explaining his character to the audience through long-winded and poorly-written dialogue. Style of the picture totally overshadows everything else.
anyway thats my rant. -
GOOD----1.The kid, and the whole son plotline.2.Jimmy3.The classic Williams theme4.James Marsden and the seaplane sequenceT5.he Action Comics shot6.The cannibalistic pooch7.Luthor's white jacket.BAD---1.Bad casting in Routh (impressionist), Bosworth (too young), and Langella (meh)2.The cut of the Krypton intro3.The bullshit characterization of Lois,. No spunk? No thanks.4.Peta Wilson not as a villian5.The game, guilt by association6.Spacey's Lex compared to Rosenbaum's7.The ridiculous bullet to the eye scene8.The ripping of the suit n the e.r.9.The lifting of the krypto-island10.The 5yr round trip to Krypton not matching up with space travel time frame of the original11. That fucking curl12. It was boring.
-
I haven't watched any of the special features yet. Sword & The Sorcerer came from Netflix and I got caught up in Pyun's finest (heh...) work. We're on flips of Routh though it seems. I think his Clark is better than Reeve's where his Superman falls a little short (though not by much). I think his Clark is more natually awkward and less RETARDEDLY awkward. He still doesn't quite have Reeve's gravitas as Supes, but he's better than anyone else who's ever worn the cape besides him. And to the others... I don't see Routh as impersonating Reeve at all. They share a phsyicality and a facial resemblance and there were obviously nods to Reeve's dialogue in the script. But beyond that, I don't see it at all. And I'm not an aplogist for the movie, folks. I have some issues with it (despite my overall extreme satisfaction with it) but Routh is DEFINTELY not one of them- and overall he carries the movie admirably. Oh, and I agree with whoever said Parker Posey should have been Lois Lane. Good call. I liked Kitty Kowalski, but she could have been better utilized as Lois. I could even see her adopting a (slightly) more subtle JenniferJasonLeightInTheHudsuckerProxy vibe and it working well.
-
We need to get all the original @$$holes together in a superhero movie TalkBack and then it'll be just like old times! Anyway, like most smart-asses (and we're all smartasses these days, aren't we?), I hated the spin-the-earth backwards thing as a kid. Nowadays I like it on two levels. First, as a throwback to Silver Age wonder: it's like the ultimate act of mind over matter: Superman defying the very laws of nature and being the one guy with the power to do it. I noticed someone noted that he didn't turn back time for Pa Kent. Well, he was just a li'l kid then - boy didn't have it in him yet! Plus, the heat of romantic love can trump familial love - not always, but it can. (And really, Jonathan Kent's only an *adopted* daddy-o; Jor-El's the guy who wasn't firing blanks ;) Seriously, though, like Village Idiot said, Superman was partially spurred to save Lois over the grief of being unable to save his father. I also can enjoy the scene on a more adult level with a bit of rationalization. That is, Supes didn't just turn the planet backwards by spinning it the other way - he bent the laws of physics, flew faster than light, created a localized warp in the space/time continuum, and the visual effect was that, of course, the planet appeared to be turning backward as time slipped backward. I defer to Jack Parsons' post a ways up for the technical stuff - I'm a luddite. Mostly, though, I like that scene as the one selfish act of superherodom's most unselfish man. I've likened it to Harlan Ellison's original screenplay for "City on the Edge of Forever", where Kirk DOES try to save Edith Keeler - risking the whole of the future in the process - and it's the cold, logical Spock who has to stop him. It all amounts to a very human sentiment, and while I like my heroes heroic, if they're gonna have a flaw, it's hard to be too critical of them if it's over true love, eh? Shut up, tough guys. You all loved Princess Bride too.
-
btw I watch movies either high, drunk, or both while jerking off to the opening credits. But newer movies suck these days cause they got no opening credits. Just a title then it starts, I WANT JERKING OFF TIME!! All well, Pirates 2 is released by Disney so I'll have loads of previews on the dvd to watch before the menu screen comes up. Oh, I'd hit the menu button, but then I can't jerk off. Now thats selfish.
-
Yack- I've been posting here on and off for quite some time (though much moreso recently) and I honestly think this is the first time I've ever had a decent discourse with someone that didn't devolve into "nanny-nanny-booboo... I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit. So thanks. On another note... I'd like to see the costume changed a BIT in the sequel. I have ZERO problem with the muting of the colors, the lengthening of the cape, the lack of 'S' on the cape or even the 'S' on the belt. I WOULD however like to see the trunks beefed up (heh) a bit, the chest 'S' made slightly bigger (though not as big as Reeve's and I don't have an issue with the raised rubber)... and the neckline brought down a BIT. These are all minor quibbles, but I think those aspects kind of alter the proportion of the whole costume and make Rought's body look odd when he's standing still (though it looks more than fine in the flying sequences).
-
No one gave an explanation before so I'll ask again.
SR was an ok movie, and I didn't have a huge problem with Lex's plan, but one thing really pissed me off, maybe someone can explain. After Lex creates his country, where the hell is the US military? They would have been all over that place probably even before Superman. I mean White just flies on in and out. The military would have been there long before him. That really bugged the heck out of me. Not as bad as time traveling though.
It was ok though, and hopefully sets up a better sequel like X-Men1. Please just ignore the kid for at least 2 movies though. -
to undo the mess that Lester created. I'll be checking this out, but Supes bedding Lois and giving up his powers was another big mistake.
-
I just could not take him seriously. Did we really need another WB version of Superman and Lois? What is wrong with casting mature actors? He would've made a good Nightwing, though.
-
As a major Superman 1 and 2 fan I have to say the Donner cut is a disappointment. Let’s cover the pluses first, short that they are: 1) The whole experience is like “Superman 2 deleted scenes: The Movie,” which was…amusing, and 2) The idea of Lois parading around the Fortress of Solitude wearing “her boyfriend’s shirt,” aka the top half of Superman’s costume, was, well…cute. Now for the flaws. Sit down; this’ll take awhile. First of all: it was one thing for the first film to have Superman rewind to *just* *minutes* before the missiles struck. Having Superman rewind to DAYS before the whole movie started? Dumb. Having his father talk to him with a big giant head, like the freaking Wizard of OZ? Dumb. Superman turning back time so Zod is alive and well, yet the truck driver gets his arse kicked, even if they never even met? Dumb. And even if a whole lotta kids didn’t “get” that the Fortress of Solitude was filled with hologram projectors for his educational crystals and whatnot, and THAT’S how he could cause all the illusions he did in the original cut (no; *seriously*), the idea of NO Fortress fight(!), and jumping straight to the “molecule chamber trick”…? Dumb. Last but not least: Lois seems like a quasi-suicidal stalker in this cut. “I drew a cartoon suit on a black and white photo of superman so that proves it’s him…as soon as I jump out a freaking window!” Dumb, dumb, dumb!!! Even dumber; that superman wouldn’t know the difference between being shot by a bullet and blanks. Sure he’s bulletproof; that doesn’t mean he “doesn’t feel a thing.” I’m sure Lois would reeeeally appreciate learning that the latter was true after sleeping with him, *as* *Superman*. Speaking of which: seeing as how he could, in Donner’s cut, *still* be Superman and *still* bang Lois...what the heck was the point of this whole movie? As Harry said; watching this was an amusing “geek moment,” though I kind of missed the time where I was supposed to say “Wow Wow Wow.” Three wows? Where?!?
-
You missed one of the best flame wars I've ever been in with one of Murphy's sycophants ot to mention a piss poor pic of skorponok. The best way I'd take care of the Kid for the Sequels is A. Have Darksied kill the kid B. Have the kid return as Kalibak.
-
Until Jim Gordon is taken seriously all those films suck. he is just as important to the stories as Batman and he is a damn good cop. Also Nicholson was not good as the Joker because he didn't play the Joker he just played Nicholson with face paint. And quit putting Batman in a fucking rubber suit. At what point has he ever worn rubber apart from the films of the last 20 years. Various fan films have shown batman can look good out of rubber.
Oh and as for SR - parts of it I wasn't keen on but I enjoyed the cinema experience. I just hope I enjoy it as much on DVD. . . and the pacing can't be that bad . . i took my 9 yr old nephew to it and he absolutely loved it.
And now my rambling ends -
Braniac Braniac Braniac all the way. Just give me Braniac.
-
I think there is one thing being overlooked. what we are essentially seeing is a rough cut, a first run through Donner was trying to create with this movie. So YES there are flaws, leaps of logic not quite filled out, but we were never presented with the "final" product (and really we NEVER will). This is still a rough edit, first run through with the film. So there are definately some points that dont quite add up, or seem illogical, but at this point, 20 some years later, this is as good as it can possibly get. Donner can't go back and reshoot what he needed (which he discussesin the DVD he needed lots of reshoots and fillers but of course, was fired). I don't think you can criticize the crap out of this film, and complain about story elemnets, or special FX or the illogical reprecussions of turning back time, or what someone was wearing. It is simply an incomplete film. It needed more time, but it was great to see WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. All films start this way, unfortunately we will never get to see the real outcome. I loved this take, better then Lesters, even though it is incredibly rough around the edges.
-
Oh, you meant BRAINIAC. Silly me.
-
Travesty. As for Supes, first, you have to recast the entire film. Second, you pretend the kid never existed, and then tell a great story about the nature of power and responsibility and not one about daddy issues. Perhaps an invasion of Metropolis by Darkseid, as in the Animated Series.
-
Lol . . . I wonder what could be done with a villain called Braniac. Ahh hell I may just have put an idea in Hollywoods mind. . .now I'm wondering what other cereal based characters there are . . killer frosties anyone?
-
a beautiful film. I find the nitpicking by the people who hated it is a little overboard and obsessive.
"Where was the military?" Where was the military in any of those films (okay, they show up briefly and get the shit kicked out of them in 2)?
"Who's gonna buy Lex's land?" How about the fact that the land mass was only hours old?
"Who would buy that when everyone is dead?" There are other people in this world outside of America.
"Superman's a stalker..." Fuck, the guy messed up by taking off and was obviously having a hard time dealing with the fact that he lost the love of his life... I didn't see it as stalking at all... It was almost like a form of self punishment. This is what I lost. This is what I could've had. Christ, he's not peeping on her in the shower. (ehh..who would with that 12 year old body of hers).
"Bullshit! They ripped the suit!" Whatever. That is such a lame, non-issue it makes me laugh. Have mommie drive you to CompUSA for some X1-11 power converters.
-
himself with his pregnant girlfriend whose memory he wiped left behind. Superman does not really have an identity crisis and stories that attempt to explore that undermine the character's most positive aspects. So, the writers and director didn't even understand the character to begin with. The film was also dark and somber and the most heroic character was Lois's boyfriend.
-
SuperN alot people are clamoring for him but I think that the movie would wind up being like a cross between DragaonBall Z and Terminator 3. SM gets his butt kicked in the beginning by a machine able to control anything with a chip in it, Trains hards, and lays the smack down on it. But I would love to see a live action flashback a kin to the pilot of the animated series, where Jor-el goes though hell trying to get his son off of Krypton and escape Brainiac.
-
How would you feel if you found out you were the last of your kind? If the writers DIDN'T give him that aspect, he would remain a one dimentional character and, ultimately, boring. And as for taking off... he didn't KNOW she was pregnant.
-
Apparently I'm clamoring for Braniac. . . not sure what that means for the franchise. And you almost made it sound like a rocky film which got me a little excited. . . i know, it doesn't take much
-
I think the main reason he left was because he wanted help. The thing he was trying to express to lois is how he has to decide who, where, and when to help someone every second someone is crying out for help and he can hear it but there are times when he has to ignore it. He has to be clark, he has to sit, and eat a buger, take a crap watch ESPN. Imagine all that responsibilty on your shoulders, and hearing people Cry out for help knowing you can do nothing. Its enough to make a Superman Fly to the UN building and say give me all your Nukes so I can throw them in the Sun :')
-
since his teens. In the film, it's explained that he goes soul searching because some scientists supposedly may have found Krypton's remains and then he's gone for five years. This is after he has established a serious relationship with Lois, had sex with her, and then mindwiped her (whatever). I don't know if you realize this, but all of that is completely out of character for Superman. Besides being contrived, it is completely selfish and unheroic. But if that is the Superman you prefer, who am I to say? It's just that it has very little to do with the established character up until this point when they decided to EMO him up.
-
I don't find the evil computer/AI concept all that interesting. It's better as a plot device. To me Superman is a character where you can actually have characters representing different philosophical views battling over the nature of power. Darkseid for instance, wants to destroy everything to remake it in his own image. While Luthor has a different view of power than Superman, he would join forces with Superman against Darkseid. I would like to see something more intelligent than a Five For Fighting music video about Superman resolving his daddy issues.
-
the Earth spin backwards to avoid being a deadbeat dad. Wow, selfish AND lazy!!!!
-
Not a fan of the films there. Methinks you have the same issues about this franchise as I do about the batman. I just figure that movies retcon characters to play to a different wider market. Doesn't make you respect it anymore when you think they could pretty much take their pick of good stories out there already with story board
-
I find the logic sort of mystifying when Hollywood acts as though appealing to the core audience is somehow too narrow, when those are the people who liked the character enough to draw filmmaker's attention to the property to begin with! Not to say that geeks don't fixate on inconsequential things, but one would expect a professional to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff anyway. Changing the costume colors is not what made Superman Returns a dud. It was the complete misrepresentation of the character.
-
I totally agree . . . yet I still found myself enjoying characters I don't know too much about from comics like hulk and I hope you'll forgive me SR. Not sure whether it was the cinema experience and that fact I took my nephew to see it like my uncle had taken me to see the originals. Not sure how well it will stand up when I watch it at home. I do find fault when thinking back about it.
-
films - a fun moment or two. It's just when taken as a whole, most of them are not that good. Why is it so difficult for them to adapt them? I can honestly say the only part of SR I liked is when he saves the plane.
-
. . .only wished they hadn't shown it constantly on all promotions for it. Makes you wonder why they ignore the storyboards that already exist from comics and novels. Personally been begging for a Batman Year One film ever since I read it
-
signature. They always have to change it. And then there is the problem of predictability when you've already read the story and know what to expect - it removes the tension (your example of SR overpromoting the best scene in the entire film). I think it is perhaps less important to adapt the story beats exactly and moreso to capture the essence of the story. Part of the problem is that writers string a lot of cool moments together that taken as a whole are meaningless. I don't think you could say that is true of Superman, but it is of Elektra or Daredevil.
-
yet i still think i would pay good money at cinema and dvd for my favourite Bat stories well told on film. But methinks filmakers egos will always get in the way
-
I believe Lex explains his motives in the first five minutes of the movie. He says "You see whoever controls technology controls the world. The Roman empire ruled the world because they built roads. The British empire ruled the world because they built ships. America; the atom bomb. And so on and so forth." You see Lex wants his cut, which makes sense for Lex but he also wants the POWER. He also wants to kill Superman. His plan accomplishes all those things, so Lex's scheme makes perfect sense for Lex.
-
Even if you buy into the idea of him having reasons, the fact of the matter is that it was just a narrative time-killer. He didn't learn anything he didn't know before. He knew Krypton was destroyed, some Earth astronomers said maybe it wasn't, and he took five years to fly out and realize he was right the first time. He gains nothing, learns nothing, and the whole trip serves no narrative purpose. Besides which, why not tell everybody, "Hey, I'm taking off, be back in a few years." Utterly pointless.
-
best formula, which are the characterizations from the Animated Series. There is nothing more Superman than THAT Superman. They have the perfect Batman, cool and methodical without making him completely unlikeable. One of the things I did like very much about Batman Returns is the focus on the nature of justice and that they made Bruce heroic and driven, not a psycho or kook.
-
People talk of how they hated the cheesy parts of Superman I and II and wish there was a film without them in it well look no further than Superman Returns. As a long time fan of Superman, one reason I think Superman Returns was so great was that not only did it add extra dimension to the character of Superman also it managed to not excluded any the classic elements of the Superman story we love (Kent farm, Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El, Lex Luthor, Daily Planet, Superman saving people) all the elements were there. Combine that with great direction by Singer and I'd say it did more beat any expectations I had.
-
And I agree that the Search for Krypton thing was a contrivance in a long list of contrivances.
-
easily the best (not the new batman). The voicing, writings etc etc were perfect even when mixed in with the JLU show. Shame they have decided against making all that. Mask of Phantasm is still THE best Batman film made
-
I would like a more mature Superman for film thanks. and yes I know the irony of that.
-
I believe Superman is a more complex individual. The weight of the world on your shoulders must be very stressful which would lead any individual in need of some serious soulsearching. He deserves it, humans can't depend on Superman for everything, I don't think it was selfish for him to leave. It reminded me of Dr. Manhattan disapeering to Mars when the world was about explode in the Watchmen. I don't think him leaving was merely a plot device.
-
but one my favorite nods to the comic came from Return of the Joker "SHHH or Papa spank" I nearly crapped my pants when the Joker said that>
-
If anything Superman does reminds you of something in the deconstructionist Watchmen, it probably represents a misstep for Supes. Superman needs *some* depth, but part of what separates him from all the other heroes is his near total devotion to his duty. It's the quality that gives Clark Kent's nebbish act all its tragic weight, Kent's sad sack life being the closest Superman can come to taking a break from the grind of saving the world. Interpretations vary, but I think that one's the most potent.
-
I suspect that you haven't really watched much of it, Mr. Deconstruction.
-
...it's just often used that way. But in the same way that A Wrinkle in Time and the Narnia books are accurately described as juvenile fiction, the 90s Batman and Superman cartoons fit the bill. I dunno. He probably meant it the bad way, but... **** By the by, Superninja, you reading All-Star Superman? Thoughts?
-
It is a blockbuster movie, so most of it will be played for entertainment purposes, but the best kind of those films, like ones by Spielberg and Lucas, explore some basic adult themes which Superman Returns acheived in leaps and bounds. I would imply it had the depth of Alan Moore. Just reminded me of.
-
I *wouldn 't* imply
-
There are some better parts, and some worse parts. A lot of the original release is better than the shot footage they used. Niagra Falls is way better than her jumping out of the window. The scene where he tells his father rather than his mother is better than the original and takes out some flaws in the movie later on, but the acting could've been brushed up a bit on Christopher's part. It was really cool to see. Watch the scene that was originally a screen test. The one where they're not in the pink honeymoon room, but in a smaller room. His hair goes from poofy to slicked back a couple of times.
-
hey, it was a nice jacket!br>Oh yeah, and I forgot to include, the lame retro feel of the film (it should have been modernized), and Supes as Christ to the "BAD" column.No need to reply, we've had this conversaion a billion times over the summer. lol
-
I KEEP SKIPPING LETTERS WHILE ON THE NET!!! DAMIT!!!
-
Anyone who thinks he "spun the world backwards" is an idiot. He exceeded lightspeed by going around the earth as fast as he could. Time went backward. The earth went backward only because time was going backward. He did not physically affect the planet at all. The earth did not "stop in its tracks."
-
I still hate that ending, and it doesn't make much sense with theoretical physics at all. It makes about as much sense as the "Austin Powers" time travel did. Nice to see Marlon Brando, though.
-
You could've ditched Bosworth and put in Posey as Lois, and right there we would've had the spitfire Lois we know and love.
-
I used to subscribe to the "Superman is not spinning the world backwards, what we're seeing is a visual representation of Superman going back through time" explanation. Unfortuantely, not only is this explanation creaky under the weight of the fact that, if it's true, it's just not communicated clearly at all, but also if you listen to the commentary, Donner and Mankiewicz, the guys behind the sequence, joke about the impossible physics of "spinning the world backwards." If that's the way *the creators* interpret the scene...I'm willing go with it.
-
...is still the best animated version IMHO. Blame it on the geek in me. !-)
-
How can anyone prefer the Lester version? The Donner very is (understandably) incomplete and rough by comparison, but one can easily see the superior path the Superman II was to take. Even the "Lester version" of Superman II is a Donner film. It's a Donner film: Lester's remix. Sure it has a bunch of new scenes filmed by Lester, but it was based off the platform of Donner's Superman I and the "70%" of footage Donner shot for the sequel. The slapstick jokes are lame, and Donner's IDEA for the opening (Lois jumping from the building) was far more sweet than the Paris thing. Donner's "reveal" scene in the honeymoon room was FAAR more powerful and emotional than Lester's version. Imagine if Donner had got to actually film that scene properly. Compare Superman I with Superman III and you'll see the difference between Donner and Lester. What did you think of the Superman III opening? Superman II is all Donner, with an "assist" from Lester.
-
there you have it straight from the horses mouths the earth was spinning backwards stop defending it Thats what they wanted now can pretend that what happended It still doesn't Deal with the fact there would have been 2 supermen after all was said and done.
-
Wouldn't exploded pieces of Krypton be poisonous to Supes? And as long as we're on temporal theories, wouldn't many more years have passed on earth if Superman was away for any length of time? Something about traveling at light speed for a year from earth and back and time passing faster here. Judging by how he was a baby on Krypton and a toddler when he got to earth, Krypton is very far away. He would have to fly fast to get there and back in 5 years.
Yeah, it's just a movie... -
The fortress actually "Built" the ship that he traveled to and from in and it could have been slightly more advanced then the one that brought to earth as a child.
-
good thing I didn't see it in theaters OR rent it, just DLed a torrent and burned it to a DVD-RW (yeah, a DVD-RW b/c it sure as hell wasn't worth wasting a DVD-R). I agree with the haters! SR sucks!
-
Dec 01, 2006 12:36:46 AM CST
Supersperm - impervious to the space/time continuum
by gibsonusa returns
Once release and fertilization complete....thats IT.
-
If you get a chance to listen to Ridley Scott's Gladiator commentary (which I referred to earlier), it is striking to see how much care went into the script, plot and story. He shows you how it's done...And Ditto regarding Superninja.
-
the donner cut is not even the donner cut. they put back scenes that donner filmed in but it is not completely what donner have intended. if they would have let donner do it the way he wanted it would have been better than lester's version. saying lester version is better is an insult to film.
-
It is classy. Almost everything outside of Bosworth's acting (and the writing) reeks of class and effort. What isn't classy is the retarded script, the horrid plot holes and the sheer lack of excitement in it. Not to mention the horrid stalkerman scenes and Bosworth's appalling acting. I have now put myself through this shitfest three times (Because I am an idiot, and I keep seeing the passionate defence of it here and thinking that maybe it is not that bad) and am going to sell my pirate copy of it on today to stop myself making the same mistake again. No faith at all in a sequel and I would rather watch any cut of Superman 2- because it is fun. Sure, bits of it are bloody stupid, but overall it pisses all over singer's inept remake/reboot/sequel/ whatever the fuck it is meant to be.
-
Superman Returns rocks gigantic intergalactic space worm balls! No, Superman Returns sucks farts out of dead cats! Superman Returns is homosexual in some way!! No, Superman Returns enjoys the boobies!! It's no wonder I'm confused. Maybe I should stop reading this talkback. This DVD comes out here on Monday, and I can't wait to see it and decide once and for all which side of the balls/farts homo/boobies argument I am really on.
-
Donner's cut doesn't have the luxury of reshoots, uses screen tests, and has Lester's scenes to fill the gaps. It still owns and finally completes the epic that is Superman: The Movie and Superman II. As for Superman Returns. Keep Routh. Get Rachel McAdams for LL. Hire Cameron to direct. Villain must be Doomsday. Follow the Kevin SMith treatment.
-
WOW, I just saw the donner cut and holy fuck. Undeniably Superman returns has the advantage of being made today when cgi fx are nearly flawless, but its story was a fucking boring mess. If you want to see a real superman story, with some flaws, yes, but give it a break, it's not completed... then see the donner cut. This is all the superman you need.
-
Since Singer foolishly decided to set SR in the same continuity as Superman 1 & 2 then when Supes confirmed that Krypton was indeed no more, he could've just flown round the debris in a circle until time started to go backwards and Krypton reverse exploded. Could maybe even have gotten Ottman to do an orchestral version of Cher's 'If I Could Turn Back Time' in a Williams stylee. That would be awesome!
Oh, but I guess if Supes went back and saved Krypton, then he'd never have been sent to Earth and would never have gained his super powers, and would therefor not be able to travel back to Krypton to save it.
Damn... -
dude, if thats not in the movie, i dont wantto watch it.
-
about that very possibility. Superman goes back in time and stops krypton from exploding somehow. Then he realizes it caused him never to become superman and then he goes back in time and makes krypton explode. It's some fucked up shit.
-
Isn't this then a different film?
-
I want Shazam/Captain Marvel to get a jumpstart from Hollywood. And it must feature Mr. Tawny, the Talking Tiger.
-
... didn't Barry Allen Flash do some kind of superspeed trick that made him look like multiple Flashes? As a kid, I just always assumed Supes was doing the same in Superman II (even though that explanation is admittedly lame... but it's better than him pulling a Jamie Maddrox). Also, I always thought the "turning the Earth back" was just him travelling back in time. Why be literal? In Star Trek IV, are we REALLY supposed to think that time travel literally causes giant morphing statue heads to be carved in the image of the time-travelees? The cellophane "S"... pure Hollywood dumbassedness... no other explanation required.
-
Any reason they didn't finish the SFX of Jor-El with Luthor? It looks more than odd. Also, I LOVED the look Jor-El gives Lois when Kal-El is losing his powers!!! Awesome scene!!!!!
-
I remember going on 13 when I saw it in theatre. I liked it even better than the first- but there was a lot of slapstick in it that just did not do it for me. Like when Zod uses his superbreath to blow back the NYers after he attck Supes... And you see the obligatory black in rollerskates being blow backwards. But I love the film even with it's follies, but I want the Donner cut!
-
In the silver age comics, one of the common illustrations of Superman going back in time was to portray him flying around the earth at super-speed. Maybe that is where the whole concept came from.
-
The obligatory 'Black' in Superman. Pimped out, and his signature line -'Saay Jim'.
There is a disussion over on the FF thread about race and casting in that movie, but aside from Richard Pryor in Supe III, and including SR, I get the feeling that the DC universe is devoid of color. -
...if it's the one from the old serials. That guy was a roughneck who would throw bad guys off bridges without a second thought. Supes in SR is a bona fide softy compared to him.
-
SUPERMAN 2, PETULIA, HARD DAY'S NIGHT, HELP, THREE & FOUR MUSKETEERS, THE KNACK, THE BED-SITTING ROOM, CUBA, JUGGERNAUT, ROBIN AND MARIAN vs. the LETHAL WEAPON movies,MAVERICK, and TIMELINE?
-
Yes, the Captain Marvel serial is kick ass - especially for the forties. But it was a different set of rules back then when heroes could and did kill people. That mostly changed (and for the better) in the late fifties and early sixties. Still, I do remember the fierce debates in the late seventies/early eighties concerning Wolverine and whether or not he kills. A moot point now given what he does in the movies, but it illustrates a point. No, Supes need not become a killer - just give him a worthy adversary.
-
...Black Lightning, Vixen, Mr. Terrific II, Cyborg, Thunder, Grace, Atom III, Dr. Light II, Steel, Starlight, Skyrocket, Lady Shiva, Bumblebee, Vox, The Great Ten, Amanda Waller, Bronze Tiger, Renee Montoya, the current Star Boy, the current Karate Kid, Atom Girl, Spectre III, Crimson Avenger II and others...
-
The new Blue Beetle and the new Firestorm...
-
Donner's record is VERY spotty... and whoever called him a "genius" before must need meds... but in his defense, you left out The Omen and The Goonies- which are both shining examples of their respective genres.
-
I realize that DC has Black heroes, has had them since at least the late seventies too! But the DCU in movies (I left that out of the earlier post)has been woefully devoid of color (hero or otherwise) and the color that they have had, has been of the stereotypical variety.
-
Dec 01, 2006 2:25:51 PM CST
If Superman can time travel, why fight any villian?
by gibsonusa returns
Why even bother fighting Zod in the city? Just fly into space and time travel immediately back to before he arrived. Then again, couldn't zod do the same thing....except travel forward in time simultaneously? Wow, that'd be a mess....
-
That may be true, but I think a bigger problem is that the Movies have been woefully devoid of the DCU, with the exception of the big two. Now of course we did get the exceptional "Steel" with the auteur Shaquille O'Neill, but I wouldn't want to claim that one.
-
Nothing beats watching an uber powerful being travel back in time and/or lift heavy objects
-
That would be interesting...the Superman pre-time travel and the Superman that just went back in time
Hmmmm
Are you sure this cut is good? -
Damn near fell off the chair when you mentioned that one! I think one of the reasons that DCU is not as represented in Hollywood is the simple fact that their characters have not had the braod based appeal of the Marvel Universe. Remember, DC is or was owned by a movie studio, so the opportunity existed, just not exploited. Marvel, whatever it's flaws, embraced a far more inclusive, and thus more realistic depiction of the world. When I went back through the list of character names you and SpuGuy privided, I could not help notice that a helluva lot were the second or third geneartion of the a previously non-black hero.
-
Not intentional
-
But if DC ever wants to get more characters of color on the screen, they're going to have to put real effort behind ALL the second-tier heroes in the roster; like I said before, all we have to point at are Batman and Superman. We don't have a clue what Wonder Woman is gonna be like, there hasn't been word that I've heard in a while on that Flash movie David Goyer was working on, and the only peep I've heard about my all-time favorite hero, GREEN LANTERN, was that crap about him being played by Jack Black! (Side note - John Stewart rocks on the Justice League cartoon, and I'd be happy to see him get just as much screen time as Hal Jordan). I'm afraid that until we see a great end product with a lesser-known DC hero, it doesn't look good for DC heroes of ANY color to make it to the screen.
-
I think it's interesting as an artifact, but I think that when rewatching SUPERMAN II, I'll be throwing in the Lester version. Who knows what would have happened if everything had gone according to plan for Dick D., but this cobbled together version really didn't work for me. And even if I 'imagine' the movie to be completed and not to have weird truncated sequences or scenes that look like Test screenings filmed in somebody's basement, it's still basically a different eye's view of the same movie, and still has all the weirdnesses of these Superman movies that I can forgive but never really forget. Ah well, maybe in 20 years I'll finally see the Superman movie I've always wanted to see. ** PS. Hi Dave, VI.
-
I live vicariously through @$$hole reviews instead. :)
-
a lion with friggin lazerbeams shooting out of his eyes? Hey thanks for the shoutout Yack! I just stop by for the comic book news and to bash SR. :)
-
was handled in the JLU two parter "Twilight" where Batman had to pull Clark off Darkseid before he killed him.
-
Those are better than anything Lester could ever manage to come up with. You are forgetting Lester is the "yes" man who ruined the Superman franchise. Superman I is a classic, the only frustrating part of watching the Donner cut of Superman II is seeing the potential greatness it could have been and the mess that it became. Donner may have fallen off late in his career but so did alot of shining director from the 70s. Still he has enough great films under his belt to be noted. He was probably the most versatile genre director ever.
-
You're correct. Superman need not be a killer. But he's got to at least have killer instinct. Routh needs that element next time around IMHO. Even a deadly NBA three point shooter like the now retired Reggie Miller had an assassin's mentality.
-
That's what I'm talkin' about.
-
Folks, it was 26 years ago. Let it go.
-
in any sort of calculated way. You actually have to break him to get him to kill.
-
...calculating killer. I'm not calling for the hero as thug thing either (very non-heroic IMHO). But the Man of Steel is supposed to be "steely" enough to take out the bad guy like Tony Jaa or Maximus would to defend the people who rely on him (i.e. Metropolis and such) should it come to that. Just a thought.
-
People have said that super heroes don't kill people intentionally. I'm only talking about movies here. Didn't Daredevil throw a thug in from of a train in that movie? I thought that was the first time I'd ever seen a 'hero' do that.
-
Superheros are generally reactive, not preventitive. When they start whacking people they are vigilantes. I think the DD movie definitely suggested he was a vigilante.
-
You don't have to worry about him losing it because he's got friends that keep him in check. Wondy would give him the Wonder Neck Massage like she did Max Lord, or Batman would beat him to death with remanants of his homeworld.
-
where Superman is depicted as a fascist, because no one in Hollywood would write that with any kind of nuance, and the character's response would in all likelyhood be pablum - like trying to destroy every nuclear arsenal in the world. The Animated Series did an episode where Superman goes all 1984 when Lois is killed, but I don't even think that's true to the character. As an alternate reality, perhaps, as with the Justice Lords, but not the real guy. Luthor is jealous of Superman not because Superman is dangerous, but because he is dangerous to Luthor. Luthor WOULD abuse such power. Luthor's jealousy is more a reflection on Luthor than on Superman.
-
You have just illustrated the difference in the 'real world' Marvel universe - where that kind of questioning has taken place, and the DCU. Another illustration is in the crossover DC/Marvel universe where the Marvel characters are incredulous that all of the DC heroes are so beloved and their cities so clean, etc. etc. with the exception of Gotham City of course. I do agree with superninja that a 'darker' version od Supes pushed to the limit, would be very intriguing. But I do not think the studios have the gorilla nuts to OK such a treatment of Big Blue. Perhaps in time - or desperation when they try and revive the franchise yet again. As good a start that Batman Begins gets off to, we still have yet to see the true 'Dark Knight' Batman. Long ago when Burton was developing his Batman movie, fanboy's salivated at the prosoect of the Frank Miller Batman - and sadly were let down. Although in fairness I will say that Keaton did the definitive portrayal of Bruce Wayne's psychosis.
-
He is jealous in every way. Luthor is a self-made man and an elitist. His goals are power and adoration and he struggled to achieve his place in society. Superman was born with incredible power and comes along and what does he do? He becomes a glorifed policeman - he saves people - he doesn't try to own them and control them. If Luthor were in his place, he would do exactly the opposite.
-
I think when you have superheroes acting like villains, it's an ugly distortion of the genre. Miller's Batman is hideous and ultimately pointless. He destroys the character and then says its cool. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but that's how I feel.
-
now. Part of the reason I stopped reading comic books. The evening news is more uplifting. That is not to say you want everything to be squeaky clean and never fail, never be tested, but ultimately, you wan your heroes to perservere in some way - some kind of balance.
-
They are deliciously evil. I mean, they really wussed Vader out there, you know? I liked him unsympathetic. Luthor is Alexander the Great in modern times. His army is his business empire. Of course he thinks he's right about everything, but he only trusts himself and Superman is an obstacle. Luthor is not afraid of Superman in the slightest - he is only annoyed he can't permanently remove him. Superman rubs it in his face by being everything Luthor thinks he deserves to be without even trying. The Hackman Luthor, needless to say, is a friggin' joke.
-
well-defined chest. Hot businessman Luthor from the Animated Series? Thumbs up, baby. Tubby bald Luthor or carsalesman Hackman Luthor? Give me a break.
-
I do understand your point about wanting heroes to be heroes. But any true exploration of character, heroes included, will probably show a flawed individual who despite his/her flaws triumphs over them and does the heroic or 'right' thing. i truly loved Dark Knight, nit just for the re-imagining of Batman, but for the culmination of his character taht started back with Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams. Batman is flawed as most heroes are. But he over comes those flaws.The best of any fiction, comic book or otherwsie, will present the characters as human beings. Most of us are capable of heroic deeds, but how many of us are willing to bear the cost of those deeds. Nothing comes free, and even heroes suffer their acts. Stories such as Dark Knight, draw back the veil and show what it really takes to be a hero and not just a stereotype who does good because that is what he is supposed to do.
-
Yackbacker, when i first discovered that Khan's chest was a fake, well, part of my childhood died! I mean Ricardo Montalban wearing plastic?
-
Donner is a better director of SUPERMAN movies than Lester! And based on the alleged "humor" he added to SUPERMAN II and completely originated for SUPERMAN III (that's his baby, after all)...he's not such a funny guy.
-
Am I *dreaming this?*
The scene at Niagra Falls with Lois and Clark in the tux is, arguably, the single finest reading MR REEVE ever *gave* as Clark; he comes across as SERIOUS and even a little George Reeves-y
as opposed to Goofyclark, which pleases and delights me no end. . .Thanks, MR DONNER :) Well done. -
No!! By the great warthog, say it isn't so! Yackbacker, how can you say that? How is it even legal to disparage the Great One's mane? I am aghast. Take it back!
-
...because, as a boy, Superman made Lex Luthor's hair fall out during a rescue attempt. It's right there on the page and it's not that complicated. I don't know why you all are confused. Sheesh, it's like reading the IMDB message boards for THE PRESTIGE over here.
-
Was Superman creepy in this one or what? Singer, what have you done with one of America...Yes, America's greatest icons! Absolutely shameful story, characterizations, acting, and casting. You neutered X-Men and now you have done it to Superman. Note to Warner Bros: Get a new director, recast superman (with some charisma and testosterone), recast Lois Lane (too young), and never ever cast Luthor in another Superman movie til say next reboot. What am I saying? We already have to reboot after this disgrace. This movie had little or no soul to it at all, let alone a pulse. Bryan, please step aside and let someone else try to resuscitate this franchise again. Go do you little indie low budget movies and leave the comic book movies to boffo directors that actually understand how comic book movies should be created. Give us something fresh and original WB like new villains. Use your imaginations, you only have about umteen decades of source material to draw from. Okay, enough ranting already!
-
Only it was my pubic hair he blew out.
-
I can't believe I just posted that. In my defense, I'm feelin' kind of punchy here at 3:16 in the morning.
-
If I'm at the stage where I'm rationalizing something unexplained in a movie, I don't give a hoot what even the creators tell me their intent was. If it ain't on the screen, it ain't canon. Power to the viewers!
-
...it's just possible you might want to come out of your anti-comics hibernation for the giddy fun of Morrison's All-Star Superman. Possibly, maybe. It's only on issue 5 of what's supposed to be a 10 or 12 issue run, so best wait it out to see how the final reports come in. Morrison dropped the ball on Seven Soldiers and tends to have issues with endings, so the jury's still out, but he's been making a good case so far. In one issue Superman fights Samson and Atlas for the affections of Lois - that'sa good readin'!
-
I just watched the Donner cut...still upset I paid $20 for it. I really think the movie had some potential to be really good had Donner finished it, but this cut was very dry in my opinion. The flow was horrible and it just didn't have everything paced well enough to really keep your attention. I did like the added intensity of Zod and his amigos, but that didn't save it. I think this possibly should have been attached somehow to a two disc set like the theatrical version of the Star Wars films were. I really don't feel this was worth $20. It is hard to ponder on what could have been when you only have a rough cut and not a pristine finished product. And I am sorry, Christopher Reeve was great, but in all honesty, I still believe Superman Returns was cinematically a better picture than the old Superman's. Sure there may have been some plot holes, but what previous Superman wasn't filled with them. I think the SR may not have lived up to the expectations people hoped after watching Batman Begins, but it is a better piece than the originals. Don't hate me for saying it!
-
to the Superman franchise, watch Superman III again. What a hunk of garbage. Superman III shows what happens when Richard Lester and David & Leslie Newman create when they're not being contained by Donner's genius.
-
What made Superman II sooo cool was that he had all these new powers and you never knew what he was going to be able to do next. Superman Returns disappointed a lot of the fans because we had seen everything before. They need to get back to giving Superman some new powers every movie if they want this series to work. That's why Smallville has lasted so long.
-
I can't argue that it was great or even consistantly competent, but I remember liking it as a kid and my girlfriend's son liked it as well. There is a lot of silliness in it (and no, I don't care for that), but there are sillinesses in the first two movies too (and no, I don't care for them either). I think the big problem with SUPERMAN III is that it's a Superman movie that nobody really asked for or wanted to see. Just like BATMAN AND ROBIN. Or SUPERMAN RETURNS. "Hey, let's have a goofy Superman movie where he's a supporting character to Richard Pryor and when he is on screen, he gets drunk and sleeps with bimbos." "Hey, let's have a dark Superman movie where Lois Lane is fucking another guy and the two of them are raising Superman's kid while he comes to emotional terms with that." I guess you can only mess with your girlfriend's head by pretending to be two different people for so long, before she packs up your kid and shacks up with Cyclops.
-
It was much better when he slept with her, then mind-wiped her, so that she woke up pregnant and confused. "Pregnant? You think it's mine? *pushes up glasses* Golly Lois, I don't know where you get these ideas."
-
Superman Returns screwed it up with the kid. If you keep the first then Lois has no memory of sleeping with Superman. She should be pondering how the hell did I get pregnant. Even if she figures out the kid is Supermans you would think that she would use those great reporting skills to try to figure out when Superman and her tore up the sheets. If you use the Donner version then none of the sleeping happened. Either way it is a huge hole in the plot that no Superman Returns fan has even fully explained and never will. You can tell that Superman Returns has many issues with the plots simply by all the questions being raised. I have never seen so many people question a movie that shouldn't have had that much to question in the first place.
-
Lois knew it was hers because the damn kid has superpowers. Plus, its never mentioned ONCE that Richard is the father...
-
She told luther RIchard was his Father.
-
So there.
-
Richard is the punitive Father meaning he's there acting as the Father but he's one weird blood test away from losing his actual PATERNAL rights to the child. But in the sequel He believes his saving his child buy turning the child over to Darkseids minion granny. Who returns to the ship and as Superman returns to the ship to save his son Darkseid destroys the ship. Superman believing his son dead Does something horrible to Richard. And Proceeds to have to most Violent fight with superhero ever filmed. in the Third movie the returns as Kalibak. At least in my warped little mind. P.S. as bad as many of you believe Superman Returns to be It is still better then the Transformer movie coming out next year.
-
im tired
-
It still doesn't clear anything up. I assume that we are using the Lester version of S2. Again, she had no memory of sleeping with Superman whether her kid has powers or not. Once he exhibited those powers then she knew. That is a no brainer. Still, one would think that she would wonder when did I sleep with Superman. If she did remember then she also knows Clark and Superman are the same. Not once is that issue explored. I can see why there is so much disagreement with this movie. There are enough plot holes that every viewer can create their own storylines and actually be correct. I enjoy Singers movies but this one left me scratching my head and right nut. I thought Singer was a stickler for getting details right. If there is a sequel then I hope he pays better attention to things.
-
When he was holding her at the end of Superman II, he was actually injecting her.
-
Remember when He jump off loiss Balcony and turned into Superman IN PT. IV they flew around again then he did the Kiss thing again.
-
Dec 04, 2006 2:16:22 AM CST
Superman special effects have not aged well at all....
by gibsonusa returns
It'd be embarassing to show to the kids of today.
-
Seriously, you the only folks who like it. And I know AICN likes it shout outs. Like say the Robot Chicken one...
-
I admit, I loved Lester's version (for all its flaws) so I was probably a tough sell. But I just didn't see the need to "improve" upon what was already a competent entry in the series.
-
and agree it was fun, but nothing to set my pubes on fire or anything.
-
anyway, so it's perfectly understandable why Lois was with him.
-
Are all the huge Marlborough bill boards and truck murals still in there. It would be a shame to lose them. When Superman is spinning around the earth, they should have had a lit cigarette hanging out of the corner of his mouth. After all it is not like he is going to die of lung cancer. Unless he smokes Kryptons or Krypton lights.
-
This was your basic shlock fest movie Young teens with Chips and brain washing To make them nice and wholesome then it all goes wong James (Cyclops) was in this and he wasn't half bad he was way too underused in the X-men. and if he was taller he would have made one hell of a superman. Katie Holmes-cruise was in it as well playing her strongsuit....Underaged T N A.
-
But more to the point, it really is a shame that Singer dropped the ball so hard on SUPERMAN RETURNS. I figure I'm probably gonna rent it sometime soon, just to cement where I stand on it, but I doubt I'll be any less disappointed. Most of the time it was mediocre. When it wasn't mediocre it was moving in a bad direction for the character. The one time everything was working was obviously the plane rescue. Anyone know what led Singer to put so much emphasis on what a swell guy Lois' husband was? For a while, I appreciated that he was bucking the obvious route of having her hook up with a jerk, but then it was like Singer was really trying to sell us on the guy. By the time he was in his Rescue Copter, I was thinking, "Why couldn't Marsden have had this much screentime in the X-flicks?" Anyway, he got crapped on in X3, but I still liked his work in the scene where Jean rises from the lake.
-
And he made an excellent Cyclops, with what little he had to work with. Man, that character got the shaft in the last two movies. I'm surprised his last words weren't "Help me, Wolverine!" But yeah, he's pretty much an emotionally-available Superman in RETURNS. I kept thinking, "Man, this poor guy is really gonna get fucked over here." Which is, of course, exactly what I want from a goddamned Superman movie: concern over how badly Superman and Lois are going to fuck over Perry White's nephew when they finally get around to resolving this misguided story direction. Oh well, maybe they'll throw him into an industrial accident and become Parasite or Metallo or something and it'll all sort itself out.
-
Marsden could play a monkey. He's that good.
-
It would have been totally transparent to make him a jerk. Making him likable and heroic not only underscores that super powers do not alone make someone a SUPERman. And if he WAS a jerk, there'd be no hesitation on Lois's part and no reason for Clark to not take him to the mats. I think that was one of the BEST choices in the story actually...
-
I'd have to argue that. A 76% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes means that 3/4 of the critics liked the movie and a $400million worldwide gross means that the movie got lots of repeat business all over the world (and considering that the Supes movies have never performed as well abroad as they have here and him being an American icon and with today's political climate and whatnot... I'd say that was quite a mighty feat). Perhaps not as much as the studio was hoping (and certainly not as much as POTC) but to say that no one liked the movie is just retarded.
-
...Superman should never be upstaged in his own movies and Marsden's Dudly Do-Right routine upstaged him any number of times. If you want to make the point that superpowers aren't necessary to be "super" (sounds like something Flanders would say), then fer Chrissakes do it with Superman HIMSELF! Have him lose his powers but stand up to the bad guys anyway. Or inspire a nation to rise up against the oppressive robot hordes of Brainiac. Something on that order. But a Superman movie is most definitely NOT the place you waste valuable entertainment time with a message about how we can all friggin' be heroes. Audiences are there to revere Super-Jesus, not his disciples.
-
Superman as the perfect entity both physcially morally and emotionally, surrounded by nothing but lesser peoples... is flat out boring to me and many others. And yes, I understand there are just as many others that disagree. C'est la vie. I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong... but we disagree. Fine. You can cut the "any way you slice it" crap though, because I can slice it another way.
-
He is underused completely in X-Men. He was my favorite part of Superman Returns and I kept wishing he would've been cast as Supes. Of course, with that script, it wouldn't have mattered.
-
It felt like a movie where stuff happens to a guy pretending to be Superman. It kind of meanders along, never really picking up any more steam than that great plane-save scene. Sucks to be Singer's Superman. I'm not sure what's so boring about being heroic and morally upright, though. I guess you have to be a tortured douchebag like Batman to be interesting. :)
-
And I do believe that Superman is still a pillar of morality and virtue... but he's not perfect. He WAS raised by humans and grew up in our world after all.
-
But I agree Batman's a slag.
-
Kiddin'. It's all good, and I've got too much respect for the Superman ethos an' all that to try and browbeat you to my point of view. I will say, though, that while I do think of Superman as being above most people, a Superman movie should never *play up* any sense of superiority to average folks. I've come to think of Superman as the ultimate, benevolent father figure, not as some naturally gifted athlete who everyone should be jealous of. And certainly his adopted parents and the Daily Planet crew show us the quality of non-super-types in his stories. But I do think Supes needs to be center stage, and yeah, I do think he should represent an ideal more than a flawed person. He IS flawed, of course. At least a little. Just the fact that he spends a little humanizing time as Clark when he could be out saving the world 24/7 indicates he's not above a little self-interest. And the lying-to-all-his-friends thing...well, it's only ever in the back of my head, but it's there. It protects them, but it also allows him to live among them. Not that I think followers of his adventures were ever intended by the writers to think of these aspects as something that lessen Superman - secret identities are also just a practical device to aid in reader wish-fulfillment (geek secretly has a hero in him!) and to provide plot hooks - but just the same, the adult viewer can't help but be aware of them, if only subconsciously. So I'm with you about him not quite being perfect. Part of what makes him interesting to me is the dual life hook. I just don't think his imperfections should be so overt as they were in Returns. Of course, I also think that once a son is introduced, his story is effectively over. It's what I envision for a *last* Superman story - a sense both that Superman should settle down for the sake of his child and that there will be a legacy to carry on his work. That's why Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" hits quite a few right notes with me, capricious casualties aside. And needless to say, I'm not really looking forward to subsequent Superman outings by Singer, all of which will now be saddled with the unwanted kid/legacy element. These are themes I don't think plays to the strengths of Superman's mythology. ****** Frijole, out of curiosity, do you follow Superman outside the movies? If so, what comics have you liked? Do you follow Smallville? Now *there's* a pretty flawed take on Clark Kent...!
-
OK, I'll buy that... I honestly think that in the context of this story, that it makes sense that he would be at his MOST flawed... he is in the midst of realizing that he made the biggest mistake of his life (even bigger than temporarily giving up his powers)... so it's certainly a valid time for serious regret and uncertaintly... even for the best of men. I don't think this is the final take oh Supes... nor do I think that this is Singer's overall take on what the character represents as a whole... but it IS a valid interpretation (in my eyes) of where he would be emotionally after fucking up BIG TIME (which he had to do in the movies at SOME point)...
-
I don't know if anyone watched the second to last season of Angel where they did they did all though interesting things with his son what I've saying is to have the boy be Kalibak you know there not going to stick to the canon and probably the won't have Orion in there as well.
-
have to operate from the premise that Superman would leave to begin with. Everyone is capable of making mistakes, but it's another thing to act completely out of character for no real reason. There is no setup as to why Superman would decide to leave, only that he left and we should accept it when this is totally out of character. Would it have been acceptable if they had actually built up to it instead of starting with it? Possibly, but that is not the story they told. Even building off the Donner story, there is nothing to suggest he would do something so irrational. Not to mention it's a bad story idea because everyone already knows Krypton is dead, so it makes him look like a fool.
-
It's as simple as that. We've covered this before. No need to go on about it. It works for me and others... it DOESN'T work for you and others. OK.
-
Brando didn't give A FLYING FUCK about either Superman movie. He cared about child support payments and the couple million dollars he made (or was it 1 million for 3 days?) I can't remember... anyway, I know from personal experience that Brando was officially done with acting as an art form after Godfather and Last Tango in Paris. After that it was a way to collect a check that didn't take much time or effort.
-
The Passion crowd with the messianic allegory? Hollywood is looking to make more "spiritual" movies. I found that to be distracting about SR. I like a Superman who is more in touch with his humanity, and besides, Superman is more like Moses than Jesus anyway (which he says but you don't get the impression he was drawing from that so much). But interesting that Singer speaks about Superman as an important myth, but his movie completely undermines what makes the Superman mythos so wonderful. Instead he chose to make him distant and messianic and then humanize him by giving him very unheroic flaws. Weird dichotomy. Not that I'm disagreeing with everything he is saying, but the product don't match the words, dig?
-
First I will say I really like the first two Superman movies. Generally great stuff. OK, so in Donner's Superman world, anytime any really disastrous event happens, Supes can just reverse time and stop it from happening in the first place? I don't know, but if I was sitting in the theatre watching this sequel, and they pulled the exact same "reverse time" reset button plot trick, I woulda thrown my Junior Mints at the screen...
-
as Donner turning back time on the mistakes Lester made. :) I doubt if Donner had made the film he would've used that ending, but instead he had to work with what was there.
-
And I bought that Magento would take the opportunity to use Cerebro to destroy all humans. It's a reocurring theme with Magneto: "join us or die". Stryker's antagonism of using the machine to destroy all mutants is enough to get Magento self-righteous enough to wipe all homosapiens out. I think Singer understands X-Men fairly well. Most of his movies are about losers, and the X-Men are the losers of the supehero set. :) Not to say they are not great characters, but it's not really about pure heroism as much as it is about how you respond to prejudices. Superman is about selflessness and heroism, and Singer struggled with that and found the messianic aspect appealing as a solution to his interpretation of character. Most post modern types struggle with the concept of heroism, which is why PoMo Superman sucks hard.
-
X3 was a clusterfuck of nonsense thank God summer 06 is over. the day of the Ratner is over. I mean Singer might have changed alot of things about the X-men but Ratner and Rothman completly Bayized it. Singer made a promise with X-2 and then Ratner did his best to shit that promise out. Singer might not be the best director in the world but he's a better genre Director, and director period then, Ratner ever will be. X3 sucked hard and while Ratner might not be fully to blame he did nothing but sit there and take it up the ass from Fox. He didn't get a check for his work he got a jar of vasoline.
-
You're right - it's the most exciting and Singer is not great with action. But I like the series as a whole from a characterization standpoint, particularly Wolverine's overall arc. Even in SR, it surprises me that in the digital age, the best Singer could come up with was a plane rescue (helicopter rescue which was 10x more exciting the Donner way). How about sealing a hole in a cruise liner with your bare hands and heat vision, or something else we haven't seen in live-action before? He could've looked at the Fleischer shorts, but instead he showed something we had already seen before in a previous Superman film!
-
that was better then the attack on the mansion in X-2. or the scene with Nightcrawler in the white house or the scene where the X-wing is crashing. most of the action sequences seemed piss poor too short and contrived.
-
Nightcrawler's action scenes were killer. So was Mystique's surrender to infiltrate the dam base. As for X3, I loved the scene where Dark Phoenix destroys the house and wipes out Charles (quite horrific) and where Magneto borrows the Golden Gate Bridge. Maybe you're right about overall scenes, but perhaps Yack is referring to a general sense of urgency/pacing?
-
Theres pics of Barricade the decepticon Police car, and Ratchet Floating around the net in robot mode. Newsflash they don't completely suck but they looks nothing like Transformers.
-
live action and promise they will be voiced by the original actors with sugar on top and I still won't be seeing that sucker.
-
after the "MURPHY Incident" I'm done with any movie attached to him. Until he gives me a public apology on seibertron.com
-
I ran into him (Phartgod) on a TB about the Halo movie thats where first showed off his new Phartgod persona it was funny he had nothing to say about Halo. He came ranting about how why harry hates Don murphy because Singer was kicked off a set blah blah blah so I engaged him and after about 3 hours of intelligent retort he tells me that he is not Don murphy but a college student. So for a while I leave it at that and for most of that Trolling that took place last week I believed that to be the case. But the incident I was referring to was at the Q&A back in August he (Don Murphy) took part in and a couple of months ago where he and a stooge called for the banning of my account (which failed 475 post and going strong) but during that Q & A someone asked don murphy "Please explain why you said "you so glad we got rid of Soundwave"?" Murphy's response was "Thats not your real name" in reference to the guys username. During that trolling last week I asked Phartgodd seriously why was he here No one likes him, he was not accomplishing anything, what was his purpose for posting. His responded by correcting my grammer on a conjunction. He shows the same evasive behavior as Don murphy the same sentence structure and immature attitude if he's not Don Murphy he's closely related.
-
right, it blows you away. Van Helsing was monster porn and exhausting to watch. (It also made me want to beat Kate Beckinsdale with a stick, but that's another issue.) Just because you are against bad CGI doesn't mean you're against CGI altogether, but it gets to the point where you realize the Emperor has no clothes because the CGI is compensating for something else. SR had a bad story to start with, and the CGI should be the crescendo of all of those character moments and story to a place you've been building up to. Every big moment in Raiders demonstrates Indy's dogged determination and tops the one before it. In SR you get the feeling that Routh doesn't have to try that hard and you wonder why he even cares because there is no character there.
-
the very thing you describe in those classics are missing from all of todays movies even those terrible SW prequels lacked any soul it was formulaic to the tee. I was more entertained by the Shlocky Love story of Han and Liea then all the tripe with Ane and Padme. It's a total lack of Imagination, and todays Hollywood doesn't have the balls it did 20 years ago to try anything short of the cut and paste job they do with all of the movies today. "Burn Hollywood, Burn"
-
The fact that even one person tries to make this argument absolutely discredits all opinions on this board. Damn, what a bunch of nerds.
No wonder you guys like "Heroes." -
Someone just said that? I agree with Mojo-Wan above.
-
...had the time-reverse shit and the destruction of the FOS remained out. Why couldn't it have just ended with Lois getting dropped off at her apartment and then Clark going back to the diner and kicking the dude's ass...along with TFOS remaining entact? It would have totally connected to SR and felt like a more "complete" film had those two things not been re-inserted (they should have been deleted-scenes like the Luther getting arrested bit). Right up until the ened I was thinking, "this totally works". Even the test-footage stuff didn't come out nearly as bad as I thought it would. It actually played just fine other than the hair and the glasses. I've seen way bigger continuity-errors in other movies including the Lester cut. The only other problem was that toppling of the monument came just a smidge too early. But seriously, right up until those two scenes, The Donner-cut and SR could have replaced Supes II and III easily. Why-why-why did Thau put that shit back in???
-
is better than Returns. Or part 3 for that matter. It's just hyperbole like the people saying "This is the worst movie I've ever seen!"... To that I say... well, then you haven't seen "The Brown Bunny". Heh.
-
Kitty sinking the Juggernaught into the floor, subtle yet so cool. In fact I love all the little things in all the Xmen movies. Magneto's " I thought you lived in a school " line in X1 and his " We love what you've done with your hair" in X2. Also I wonder if Wolverine has a regenerating hymen since he sort of a fancy boy.
-
and I had a great time until the same goddamn stupid reversing time bit! Are you freakin kidding me?????
WTF?!?!??!
-
...that is, if you look at it like a regular movie. Now sure, there were problems that couldn't be fixed, but to actually say this is a great movie? C'mon. Just one of a thousand things that bothered me about it (the reversing time routine at the top of that list) is how the villains landed on Earth, and the next thing you know, the TV reporter is talking about all the death and destruction or however he put it. Hmm, we certainly didn't see anything at that point! The movie, AS A MOVIE, is a complete MESS.
However, if you look at it differently, it's a great and fun thing to watch. After all, it is new Chris Reeve as Clark and Superman footage ("Haven't you ever heard of freedom of the press?") Hackman, and of course Brando...and all the otehr stuff we've never seen (Lois in Superman's shirt, awwwww), just to see all this "new" footage was incredible.
But as a movie? C'mon, don't be delusional. The movie, as an actual movie, was fucking horrible. -
The Donner cut of the movie was definitely better than Lester's version. The scenes with Brando - great. FINALLY explaining how Clark got his powers back - excellent. No more stupid Fortress of Solitude magic tricks - a big plus.
The one annoying thing was the time turning. That pretty much erased the whole movie. And as mentioned previously, it doesn't fit in with the ending diner scene.
Also, Harry stated above that Singer had this cut in mind when making Superman Returns. Works for me except for one thing - Lois Lane can't be pregnant with Superman's baby, because technically that never happened, right? -
Try this one on for size:
How, exactly, did the Phantom Zone mirror wind up arriving in our solar system? Kal-El's ship was PROGRAMMED to get here; the chances of something like the mirror RANDOMLY travelling *trillions* of light years to somehow wind up here are ASTRONOMICALLY small, wouldn't you agree? :) And the fact is, neither MR LESTER nor MR DONNER
ever provided ANY explanation for THAT. So how did it happen? It is impractical on a GALACTIC scale.
(BTW, WRT Zod. . .either Jonathan Rhys-Meyers from VELVET GOLDMINE or Marilyn Manson.) :-)
-
But I just received the set for Christmas and have only recently watched it. I actually agree with most of what Harry said. So much so that I'm not going to bother reading the TalkBack and getting in a bunch. This cut is CLEARLY better than the Lester cut - even with it's faults. I actually felt real emotion watching the "Donner" cut. Something that had never happened with the original cut of S2.
-
I thought Harry was going to play apoligist for that stinking pile of dookie.
-
Nuff said
-
After all these years of hearing about it and finally seeing it, i think the Donner cut is proof that movies should be collaborative efforts. If "creative differences" start to develop on the set, and the director is not willing to listen to others' suggestions - that is not necessarily a good thing. It takes a lot of different input from a lot of different people to make a film great, last i checked movies are collaborative efforts with many people's talents coming into play and SI was more of a success through numerous creative heads at their peaks, not the wisdom donner whose been overpraised to the stratosphere. the core of the movie, the love story, Donner cut takes virtually ALL the romance out of the movie and makes Superman's sacrifice of his powers seem like a selfish act instead of an act of true love as it is in the 1980 movie. Some people point out the Lester version has campy humor making it inferior to Donner's vision. Honestly, I just don't see this. In the Lex Luthor scenes in Donner's cut, I counted no less than four bathroom jokes early on in the movie, and Miss Teschmacher using the can in the Fortress of Solitude?? what's with all this fascination with toilets/bathrooms in the Donner cut? Lester had the good taste to leave that fecal tasteless shit out of there. In the RDC, things are too convenient and it didn't seem that anyone had to "work" for any payoff. For example Lex Luthor just happens to stumble onto the crystal that explains the story of the three Kryptonian villians by chance... after trying just two other crystals. Superman has all these superpowers but doesn't realize Lois shot a blank at him. in the 1980 movie, Lester added a lot of good stuff like the cool arm wrestling scene with Ursa, the love making scene between Ursa and Zod (heck even the scenes with Richard Pryor, which I doubt we'll ever get to see) The 1980 film's portrayals are much more believable and sincere, Lester got a lot better performanes out of the actors. And the superbaddessery of the line "General, care to step outside?" Is replaced in the RDC with "freedom of the press!", it felt like the mind-numbing worse-than-Scwarzenneger punmanship that Brosnan Bond used to do in his 007 movies every 15 seconds. Why mess with the music cues during the fight scenes? The new generic cues (notably with the theme missing) during the fight scenes take a lot of dramatic impact out of them. I would get chills everytime I saw those newspapers fly off the rack and then John Williams main theme would cue up and you knew Superman was back! When I saw the Donner cut, that scene suddenly did nothing for me without that music intact. That is just one instance of many turned from dramatic and exciting in the original to ineffective in the new cut.Lester's movie feels more epic and majestic, not to mention more flowing and actually coherent, I liked the Paris scene in Lester's, i mean is this guy operating only in the US or around the globe? and niagra falls. The much vaunted Brando scenes in the RDC were interesting to see but doesn't replace what the mother scene in 1980 did adequately, besides we got plenty of Jor-El in the first one which was fine and plenty, am i to assume now he's like Zordon from the Power Rangers giving Supes guidance every fucking movie? And Donner's ending, that wretched ending, he(donner) pulled that time travel shit out of donner's ass again. In the first movie at least it felt like a once-only type thing and had greater weight since.. lois was DEAD, here it's tiresome and like an afterthought, and of course unlike just turning back only a section of time like the earthquake in I it undues the whole of the movie, Zod and company are put in a position to get free again, where before he goes back in time they're no longer a threat. At least the superkiss ending in the 1980 version originates from the comics which Supes regularly used to do. Going back in time it would get rid of his first encounter with the diner thug, so they should have had no idea who clark was when he showed up and beat the shit out of him. All the Old Superman (1-4) movies were camp and had comedic moments interlaced with the action and love stories (these are based off the 30s/40s supes comics which had plenty of cheesy humor), only the krypton/smallville scenes are supposed to have been continuously serious in the series, once Reeve is onscreen it's supposed to be like the comics which where the tone for the rest of the series was already set when we arrive to metropolis in I, it's more ofthe same in 2,3,4. I'd rather have that than some emo-cynical pretentious mind-numbery. here's an article on Lester's TRUE contributions to the series http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/36/lester1.html , how he helped with Superman: The Movie's success, and aside from bringing humor (you know, that stuff that was regular in the pre-crisis superman comics), he gave a bit of a deeper angle to Supes' character in his 2 movies. The RDC felt like an ego trip, made as an anti-Lester movie rather than utilize his scenes more whiich would've made it less choppy, and i don't care the ifs and buts of what this 2006 Glorified Outtake reel was intended to really be (RD says in the commentary he would've done things differently from his 2006 cut), since this is comparing the 1980 theatrical vs. 2006 version, 1980 annihilates it.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts