Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Harry watches the Donner Cut of SUPERMAN II! What a wonderful geek moment!

first by boyblue	Nov 29th, 2006 02:34:33 AM
I think
Thanks to Superman cinema, capedwonder and the fans. by Darth Fart	Nov 29th, 2006 02:36:32 AM
Thanks guys for the campaigning and highlighting the amazing footage. I appreciate it a lot.
WOO-HOO, Cant wait!! by boyblue	Nov 29th, 2006 02:38:02 AM
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!!
Third by DarthMusashi2112	Nov 29th, 2006 02:39:42 AM
and I can't wait to see this tomorrow... Go Forward...
5th by mattthebat	Nov 29th, 2006 02:42:27 AM
once again, all i got to say
So let me get this right by Phategod1	Nov 29th, 2006 02:42:54 AM
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.
Turning back the world by YackBacker	Nov 29th, 2006 02:46:35 AM
Harry, you may not like the silly powers Lester had Supes perform in the theatrical cut, but in my mind the single most ridiculous thing Superman has done on film is turn the Earth backwards so he can undo whatever it was that went wrong. It's such a cop-out! And now, we get to see the cop-out twice! I know this Donner cut should not be viewed as critically as a "finished film" but I still hate the idea of that cheap ending being used again. It's like Superman is saying to us "Well, I tried to do it honestly, but a know, I just couldn't pull it off. Ok, where's the reset button?" The reset button is the worst plot device ever conceived. Shame on anyone that uses it (including Dick Donner).
What needs to happen now..... by Jay Jay	Nov 29th, 2006 02:49:00 AM
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.
WARNING RE: SUPERMAN DVD Set by YackBacker	Nov 29th, 2006 02:53:19 AM
FYI-- Apparently Warner Home Video messed up on some of these discs (the sound mixes are wrong, maybe some missing features, I'm not too sure yet). Anyway, WHV is doing a disc exchange with customers that have bought the defective videos. God knows how that's going to be done logistically. Maybe it's worth it to wait for the bugs to be worked out? Here's the link from Digital Bits. http://digitalbits.com/#mytwoc ents
Great movie if you look beyond the bad special effects by PaddyIrishman	Nov 29th, 2006 03:07:04 AM
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!
I got first!! by boyblue	Nov 29th, 2006 03:13:51 AM
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!!
'Good' as the first Supes film was... by Ghostball	Nov 29th, 2006 04:31:19 AM
...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)
OOOOOKKKKK by Phategod1	Nov 29th, 2006 04:37:13 AM
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.
What do you mean, my colon sucks... by Ghostball	Nov 29th, 2006 04:46:01 AM
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?
Harry is this your utopian vision of the prequel of SR. by Im_spartasoth	Nov 29th, 2006 04:53:04 AM
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.
Can I ask something? by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 05:02:00 AM
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"?
What about the truck driver? by YourDaddy	Nov 29th, 2006 05:04:59 AM
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?
Also by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 05:08:27 AM
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.
Harry, with all due respect... by TheBigDogg	Nov 29th, 2006 05:23:24 AM
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.
Harry Just to make things Clear... by Donnie_Drunko	Nov 29th, 2006 05:24:32 AM
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.
Oh yeah... by TheBigDogg	Nov 29th, 2006 05:25:18 AM
Thanks Pandamaster - I forgot the poem too. Donner's genius at work? At least Superman II didn't have a poem.
The Donner Cut by Jay Jay	Nov 29th, 2006 05:29:06 AM
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.
FLAMES ON OPTIMUS = TURNING BACK THE WORLD by YourDaddy	Nov 29th, 2006 05:45:25 AM
You know its true
I always found the kiss to be goofy too by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 06:03:24 AM
Until I discovered that Clark had secretly laced his lip tissue with rohypnol.
I might buy it now by Black Satin 2	Nov 29th, 2006 06:06:31 AM
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.
QUESTION... by BanAllFIRSTPosters	Nov 29th, 2006 06:45:14 AM
Does this stand-alone disc have BOTH versions of the movie or is that just in the box set?
Ok, geeks be damned... by PCMODEMTCG	Nov 29th, 2006 06:56:16 AM
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...
I agree... by zacdilone	Nov 29th, 2006 07:14:19 AM
...DEFINATELY needs to become the standard spelling.
I'm baffled by anyone who hates Superman Returns. by Frijole	Nov 29th, 2006 07:37:37 AM
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.
RighteousBrother... by Randall Flagg	Nov 29th, 2006 07:53:34 AM
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)
I liked it at age 13, but now it sucks by Rupee88	Nov 29th, 2006 07:58:29 AM
Same for Captain Kangaroo...it is a kiddie movie, best enjoyed by kids.
I will say this about Superman II: The Donner Version by mrfan	Nov 29th, 2006 08:02:10 AM
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, too, am baffled by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 29th, 2006 08:11:46 AM
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.
Superman Returns DVD by BanAllFIRSTPosters	Nov 29th, 2006 08:17:11 AM
BEWARE: The single disc version has no single extra.
ID4 Syndrome by Rupee88	Nov 29th, 2006 08:18:01 AM
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.
Frijole by YackBacker	Nov 29th, 2006 08:26:29 AM
A lot of us have taken issue with the way Singer has interpreted the character of Superman. Superman in SR is a stalker, a meddler, a third-wheel in the Lois-Richard relationship. Sure, he still loves Lois, but he's acting selfishly by messing with her head, and let's get down to brass tacks-- Superman ran away without so much as an explanation for 5 years. It would have made sense to at least show or mention that Superman contacted the JLA to keep an eye on things while he went to investigate his homeworld. How hard is that to do? Kal-El in SR is cowardly, he's not entirely honest, and he's a Peeping Tom. The plot was neither good nor original. The kid WILL be a difficult plot point to figure out in sequels (and given Singer's poor interpretation of Superman thus far, I'm really not optimistic about the kid's character) and Lois was miscast, as you've said. I don't think this is a piece of trash movie, but I think the movie failed to achieve any of its goals. And plot holes throughout are way too frustrating to accept (Superman is too weak to stand in one moment and he's able to lift a continent in the next, a continent made in part of Kryptonite!). I'm offended by Singer's hamfisted approach. Unfortunately, he's going to get another crack at it too.
well said Frijole... by awesomegeek	Nov 29th, 2006 08:29:14 AM
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....
Spinning earth. by Gilkuliehe	Nov 29th, 2006 08:53:44 AM
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.
I thought Superman Returns was fantastic by Rapmaster C	Nov 29th, 2006 08:55:47 AM
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.
Since when is the Statue of Liberty in Metropolis? by TheAFLACDuck	Nov 29th, 2006 09:14:16 AM
... that's just dumb!!! shoves glasses up nose with index finger
Superman Returns stinks by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 29th, 2006 09:24:37 AM
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.
Mulitple Supermans? WTF by DigitalDong	Nov 29th, 2006 09:26:16 AM
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.
My take (I'm probably wrong) by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 09:46:30 AM
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.
DigitalDong by DarthHomercles	Nov 29th, 2006 09:51:22 AM
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.
Now the movie doesn't make sense by performingmonkey	Nov 29th, 2006 09:57:54 AM
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.
Good God, that poem sucked... by Billyeveryteen	Nov 29th, 2006 10:06:04 AM
It's clearly the "Jar-Jar Binks" point in the movie.
GuyLombardo - I sort of agree with you by www.valiens.com	Nov 29th, 2006 10:07:45 AM
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!
Superman II: No Matter How Thin You Slice It... by Spamgelus	Nov 29th, 2006 10:12:09 AM
... 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.
best line ever... by Mustache Wax	Nov 29th, 2006 10:14:35 AM
"I want my Liberace records back...tonight."
AFLAC, then YACK... by Frijole	Nov 29th, 2006 10:17:32 AM
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.
TheAFLACDuck by Jay Jay	Nov 29th, 2006 10:30:10 AM
Erm, don't you remember Lois and Supes flying around the Statue of Liberty at night in the first film?
Super kid = nipples on batman by Pipple	Nov 29th, 2006 10:31:08 AM
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.
I don't know if it's been mentioned about the ending by 3 Bag Enema	Nov 29th, 2006 10:34:04 AM
...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!
Jay Jay by TheAFLACDuck	Nov 29th, 2006 10:38:48 AM
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.
Mustache Wax by Mustache Wax	Nov 29th, 2006 10:46:12 AM
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.
Superman Returns hater. by harrys_site_sucks	Nov 29th, 2006 10:54:24 AM
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.
no super kiss is a nice improvement by wolvenom	Nov 29th, 2006 11:01:23 AM
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.
LEX LUTHOR by THE KNIGHT	Nov 29th, 2006 11:08:54 AM
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...
Superman II 2 Cast list by KeithL	Nov 29th, 2006 11:10:59 AM
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.
DUCKIE by Frijole	Nov 29th, 2006 11:13:46 AM
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.
The diamond thing was from "Superman III" Harry by Mike_D	Nov 29th, 2006 11:13:56 AM
jeesh!
Superman Returns by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 11:14:29 AM
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.
SUPERMAN RETURNS was fantastic! by leeVSbenway	Nov 29th, 2006 11:15:18 AM
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.
I meant by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 11:15:36 AM
Most people who don't have that particular problem with it.
PANDA by Frijole	Nov 29th, 2006 11:17:24 AM
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.
Glad to see at least some love for SR. by Bubba Gillman	Nov 29th, 2006 11:28:56 AM
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.
ZombieSolutions by pandamaster83	Nov 29th, 2006 11:29:07 AM
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..."
No Paris opening? by Zarles	Nov 29th, 2006 11:37:24 AM
WTF? That's like my favorite part of the whole damn movie.
Frijole by YackBacker	Nov 29th, 2006 11:39:38 AM
Well, I bought the movie today and I'll watch it and see if my initial reaction from seeing it in the theater has softened at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm don't think the movie is a crapfest, I just dislike Singer's take on this character. On this, we can disagree. The production values, and the actors (save for Bosworth) were all quite good. Lex's plot is lame (build an ass ugly continent that will end up flooding N. America, thus destroying the world economy is not a smart economic plan by ANY stretch of the imagination) but like I said, I'll give it another look. And for this speculation that Zod will come back in the sequel, all I can say is PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT DIG HIM UP AGAIN. If Braniac doesn't show up next, I'm going to find Singer and punch him in the face. Period.
Re: TheAFLACDuck - Statue of Liberty by kilerb	Nov 29th, 2006 11:43:09 AM
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.
Harry, by the way... by kilerb	Nov 29th, 2006 11:45:10 AM
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???
YACK by Frijole	Nov 29th, 2006 11:45:29 AM
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.
Hey kilerb by Jay Jay	Nov 29th, 2006 11:55:03 AM
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.
If memory serves me, by Bubba Gillman	Nov 29th, 2006 12:06:06 PM
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.
Sorry kilerb... by Bubba Gillman	Nov 29th, 2006 12:07:22 PM
...just saw your post. Never mind.
My favorite moment of the Donner Cut... by DarthSnoogans	Nov 29th, 2006 12:15:18 PM
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.
SR - Just plain boring by toadkillerdog	Nov 29th, 2006 12:27:03 PM
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.
Lex Luthor... by AnakinsDiapers	Nov 29th, 2006 12:40:42 PM
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 is from Superman 3 by matthooper8	Nov 29th, 2006 12:50:30 PM
The diamond from coal is from Superman 3, not from Superman 2.
Enough with the TURNING EARTH BACKWARDS! by Jack Parsons	Nov 29th, 2006 01:16:33 PM
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.
An Apologists Explanation for Spinning the World Back by Village Idiot	Nov 29th, 2006 01:20:23 PM
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.
Re: Village Idiot by toadkillerdog	Nov 29th, 2006 01:45:35 PM
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!
Seen it and overall...not bad by sith-vol	Nov 29th, 2006 02:02:50 PM
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.
Never said it was a good plot idea by Jack Parsons	Nov 29th, 2006 02:07:19 PM
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.
YOU GUYS SUPRISE ME by THE KNIGHT	Nov 29th, 2006 02:08:01 PM
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... -_-
And the world "spun back" by Jack Parsons	Nov 29th, 2006 02:11:04 PM
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.
And by Jack Parsons	Nov 29th, 2006 02:22:09 PM
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.
Happy for the option! by Wilks	Nov 29th, 2006 02:25:19 PM
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.
RICHARD DONNER RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!!! by IndyCollector	Nov 29th, 2006 02:33:52 PM
:p
Time travel and SR by Cl_Kilgore	Nov 29th, 2006 02:53:40 PM
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.
Explain by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 02:54:51 PM
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?
Superman Franchise by BobParr	Nov 29th, 2006 02:57:05 PM
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?
HE SPUN THE PLANET BACKWARDS GET OVER IT by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 02:57:46 PM

I like the "lame" Super Kiss. by DarthCorleone	Nov 29th, 2006 03:05:24 PM
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.
Hey, frijole by QuinnTheEskimo	Nov 29th, 2006 03:11:55 PM
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.
Whoa there, kilerb ... calm down! by TheAFLACDuck	Nov 29th, 2006 03:15:34 PM
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.
CLASSY by Frijole	Nov 29th, 2006 03:16:19 PM
Glad more people that I thought agree on that. Classy.
One of my college professors looked like Margot Kidder. by GibsonUSA Returns	Nov 29th, 2006 03:27:31 PM
Even acted like her. It was awesome. I couldnt learned because I kept thinking how she looked and walked like Kidder.
BTW, Superman 1-2 & Returns were all good... by GibsonUSA Returns	Nov 29th, 2006 03:30:43 PM
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.
Toadkillerdog by Village Idiot	Nov 29th, 2006 03:49:02 PM
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.
Village idiot by toadkillerdog	Nov 29th, 2006 04:01:44 PM
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.
Multiple Supes by AragornElfstone	Nov 29th, 2006 04:03:12 PM
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.
Classy and good are two different things by AnakinsDiapers	Nov 29th, 2006 04:16:53 PM
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.
Superman Returns sucked donkey balls......... by Kai_Mah'gra	Nov 29th, 2006 04:24:04 PM
....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.
my online weekly dvd holiday updates {11/28}... by jig98	Nov 29th, 2006 04:24:31 PM
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.
and to everyone who wants alan rickman for zod... by jig98	Nov 29th, 2006 04:30:47 PM
in the next movie? i think the best zod would be jeremy irons. and have terence stamp in a cameo as a retiring reporter.
Jeremy Irons is good too by QuinnTheEskimo	Nov 29th, 2006 04:46:20 PM
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?
Please no Zod by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 04:59:08 PM
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.
Re: Superman Returns sucked donkey balls......... by GibsonUSA Returns	Nov 29th, 2006 05:07:58 PM
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.
Pardon My Love For SR by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 05:12:04 PM
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've been Robbed! by darkslab	Nov 29th, 2006 05:46:16 PM
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!
leeVSbenway by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 29th, 2006 05:51:15 PM
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.
GibsonUSA Returns : Newsflash...... by Kai_Mah'gra	Nov 29th, 2006 06:09:27 PM
.....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.
aicn blah blah by TheRealDilbert27	Nov 29th, 2006 06:12:33 PM
All your Michael Bays are belong to us.
"Wait, It Was Symbolic?" by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 06:21:17 PM
QFHT
Needs a Phantom Edit by Anakin Whoopass	Nov 29th, 2006 06:41:41 PM
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.
They now need to go back ,,, by dregmobile	Nov 29th, 2006 06:56:54 PM
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.
Superman 2 was a complete train wreck no matter how you by wolvenom	Nov 29th, 2006 07:01:38 PM
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.
In conclusion:XMEN>2 SPIDEY>2 BATS>2 SUPES>1 HULK>0 by wolvenom	Nov 29th, 2006 07:08:36 PM
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.
Toadkillerdog: Godspeed! by Village Idiot	Nov 29th, 2006 07:25:00 PM
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.
From a comic standpoint SR was horrible by Pete_Da_Geek	Nov 29th, 2006 07:35:30 PM
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.
HEY NOW by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 07:35:49 PM
Bay is the Coke head not Singer who needs malaysian boys when you Magneto on speed dial.
Village Idiot: I do get it, just don't like it. by toadkillerdog	Nov 29th, 2006 08:06:43 PM
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.
From any standpoint Returns was horrible... by Pipple	Nov 29th, 2006 08:09:42 PM
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...
sure enough by darkslab	Nov 29th, 2006 08:17:26 PM
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.
Um...Harry? You contradicted yourself here, sir by theguybehindtheguy	Nov 29th, 2006 08:31:38 PM
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?
Parker Posey should have been Lois Lane by SithMenace	Nov 29th, 2006 08:36:26 PM
But I guess they thought she wasn't pretty enough for Routh.
They should have kept Singer for X3 by SithMenace	Nov 29th, 2006 08:44:11 PM
and put Ratner on Superman, then at least X3 might have been good.
Praise for Supe Returns by Aluccard	Nov 29th, 2006 08:55:21 PM
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.
The One thing bothered me about superman by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 09:07:21 PM
CLARK KENT DRINKING A BUDWIESER WITH JIMMY OLSON! call me a prude but Superman doesn't drink PERIOD
Returns by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 09:07:58 PM
I meant Superman Returns
MELTING OWL & UNSOCIABLE HAMMER!!! by Shermdawg	Nov 29th, 2006 09:32:52 PM
Martian Manhunter. Hellz yeah.
Okay, "compute" was a bad choice of words by Village Idiot	Nov 29th, 2006 09:38:54 PM
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.
Yes, if Singer had stayed with X-men... by Shermdawg	Nov 29th, 2006 09:52:46 PM
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.
Sure SR wasn't great... by Billyeveryteen	Nov 29th, 2006 09:55:52 PM
But I'll see the sequel.
Sherm 100% right by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 10:18:09 PM
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.
Phategod2 by Shermdawg	Nov 29th, 2006 10:29:19 PM
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.
Super Kiss My Ass by Toshiro Kurasawa	Nov 29th, 2006 10:41:43 PM
Just wanted to say that.
Harry makes NO SENSE by KCMOSHer	Nov 29th, 2006 10:41:59 PM
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.
And regarding Scott in X3... by Shermdawg	Nov 29th, 2006 10:42:45 PM
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.
Correction... by Shermdawg	Nov 29th, 2006 10:44:47 PM
"Scott and Logan have a heart before Wolverine sticks Jean" Heart to heart, I mean.
I'm ok with Supes reversing th earths rotation... by Shermdawg	Nov 29th, 2006 10:49:36 PM
because it gave us the single greatest moment of the Reeve era, and thats the "Super Scream".
I saw S2RDC last night. by DarthSaul666	Nov 29th, 2006 10:53:02 PM
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 he did by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 10:57:13 PM
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.)
Hey Sherm That was a Klingon death yell by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 10:59:56 PM
letting the spirits of STO VO KOR know a warrior was coming.
I haven't read anything yet by thebearovingian	Nov 29th, 2006 11:21:38 PM
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.
super returns loved it even more on dvd by skiff	Nov 29th, 2006 11:23:42 PM
I liked SR way more than spiderman 1 or 2 I would not change a thing . Good movie
Who Could Play Darkseid & Kalibak. by Phategod2	Nov 29th, 2006 11:37:27 PM
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.
TheAFLACDuck/Statue Of Liberty 2 by kilerb	Nov 30th, 2006 12:07:18 AM
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.
The Fantasticar is revealed: by Forestal	Nov 30th, 2006 12:08:49 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/m ovies/news/2006-11-29-fantasti car_x.htm
who cares about fantastic four by Pipple	Nov 30th, 2006 12:37:50 AM
that movie was crap, and the sequel will be crap. I just know it.
Lester or Donner's cut?? by Kenny8	Nov 30th, 2006 12:40:55 AM
Who cares as long as they keep Singer's funny little hands off it
Abram's Trek by SithMenace	Nov 30th, 2006 12:45:20 AM
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.
Superman vs The New Gods by DarthSaul666	Nov 30th, 2006 01:01:37 AM
That would be cool. But Orion would have to be in it. Then it would have to be a New Gods movie.
SUPERMAN VS HORSE by greekopa	Nov 30th, 2006 01:36:19 AM
WAR
Save Darkseid for the WORLD'S FINEST MOVIE by YackBacker	Nov 30th, 2006 01:37:07 AM
They really need to team up Bale and Routh. There's no excuse for why it can't happen. Sure, it won't happen for a few years, but even if they waited to do a triology for Bats and Supes individually, that would place a WF movie about 8 years or so from now. It could be a farewell movie for those two actors in those roles. Am I smoking crack or should this be done?
That would be very Interesting by Phategod1	Nov 30th, 2006 02:07:54 AM
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.
No matter what anyone thinks of Donner's cut... by Orionsangels	Nov 30th, 2006 02:12:42 AM
It's more footage of Reeve's as Superman and more Brando. That right there is a wonderful thing to cherish forever.
THE KID THE KID THE blasphemous KID!!!! by CarmillaVonDoom	Nov 30th, 2006 02:13:04 AM
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
Is there any way to get Singer OFF SR2? by CarmillaVonDoom	Nov 30th, 2006 02:21:24 AM
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
Family Guy by Orionsangels	Nov 30th, 2006 02:21:58 AM
http://tinyurl.com/vpmwq
I know this is not a Traditional Forum but one ? by Phategod1	Nov 30th, 2006 02:22:37 AM
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
My pecks are MANLY, Yessssssss? by Pipple	Nov 30th, 2006 02:44:33 AM
Look at them bulge.
Sherm, I 100% disagree re: Singer on Trek by YackBacker	Nov 30th, 2006 05:27:58 AM
Given what Singer has done on SR, he is the LAST PERSON who should be directing a Star Trek feature. I've been following Abrams' involvement on TREK XI fairly closely, and from what I can see he gets it. I think Singer has talent, but I also think Abrams is a ton more professional and a lot more disciplined a storyteller. I just finished watching the special features on the SR DVD (pretty extensive videography of the whole production) and I could not believe how immature and time-wasting Singer was on set. It took them over 100 days to shoot that movie main unit. Are you kidding me??? And of course, we know of Singer blowing several million on an opening SFX sequence that was never used. And I know this was a big production, but I was shocked at how much money was being wasted on so many trivial details. And the decision to construct large sets from scratch where locations could have just as easily been re-dressed for a lot less money in retrospect seemed very foolish. And Harris and Dougherty were like Singer's little lapdogs, yessing their boss the whole time. Spacey ahd a great line as Singer kept rehearsing a simple scene where Lex walks down a flight of stairs, he screams from the top of the staircase "ARE WE GOING TO FUCKING SHOOT THIS SCENE TODAY?!?!" The whole set erupted in laughter because that's how that shoot went for the most part. So, Singer touching Star Trek would be the kiss of death- he'd go overbudget, he'd lose himself in the awe of the material and he'd generally fuck the whole thing up. No thanks.
"Turning back time" is a PERFECT comic book moment! by Bob Cryptonight	Nov 30th, 2006 07:38:14 AM
It's much more believable than Wolverine's hair style!!!!
Superman Returns & Batman Begins both sucked by Bill Clay	Nov 30th, 2006 07:40:30 AM
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 by arghhhhhhhh	Nov 30th, 2006 08:14:45 AM
I have to agree with Bill Clay here, Abortion all the way. Try and tell that to mu Cunt girlfriend who's only 15
Begins was shakespearian compared to batman and robin by Pipple	Nov 30th, 2006 08:34:14 AM
That's why fanboys blew their loads over it.
Someone should cut both versions into an Ultimate Cut by SpyGuy	Nov 30th, 2006 08:37:44 AM
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?
VENOM by _Kayser_	Nov 30th, 2006 08:48:03 AM
http://i11.photobucket.com/alb ums/a177/_Kayser_/Venom.jpg
One scene that needed to go by Knobules	Nov 30th, 2006 10:17:41 AM
Zod and crew just trashed a small town. Zod asks a general who his boss is and he responds he answers to the president. The guy who played the general looked and sounded like Don Knotts drunk older brother. Just some wobbly old fruit as a general. AWFUL! Yeah, picky I know.
OK, Harry, here's a question... by Arch Nemesis	Nov 30th, 2006 10:17:46 AM
If Superman turned back time again, then how did he ever end up knocking up Lois as the setup for Superman Returns?
i still dont get people who think begins was worse than by wolvenom	Nov 30th, 2006 11:16:22 AM
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.
Donner's cut may have it's problems, but by Snookeroo	Nov 30th, 2006 11:27:37 AM
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.

Talkbacks

Harry watches the Donner Cut of SUPERMAN II! What a wonderful geek moment!