Superman: The Man of Steel Page 54

  • Page

    of 64 First / Last

  • kalel 21 Jun 2013 14:56:37 84,073 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Also just let Millar or Waid or someone who actually gets (and likes) Superman write the thing.
  • captbirdseye 21 Jun 2013 15:03:34 4,386 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I guess they need all the fighty fighty stuff and killing one of his own as a way of maybe explaining for future films why he doesn't kill or fight all the time.
  • kalel 21 Jun 2013 15:07:06 84,073 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's a way of doing that, but not the only way.

    I'm pretty sure the fighty fighty was a direct reaction to the common criticism for Superman Returns, which that there wasn't enough (or in fact any) fighting.

    But that wasn't what was wrong with SR in truth. It was a just a very silly plot and some bad casting.
  • captbirdseye 21 Jun 2013 15:08:33 4,386 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    True, the last Superman was a travesty though and on par with A Quest for Peace.
  • RunningMan 21 Jun 2013 15:08:39 2,357 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    They had to get the origins out the way again, so hopefully they can pick a decent story from Millar and get on with that.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 15:09:13
    Returns mostly failed because it didn't get the balance right between homage and sequel, and ended up feeling a bit like an am-dram reinterpretation of Supes 1. That and Superman's Child, anyway.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 15:10:15
    At least it wasn't this:

  • captbirdseye 21 Jun 2013 15:13:09 4,386 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The fact that Superman could lift an island made out of Kryptonite was just plain awful. So many things wrong with Returns.

    Edited by captbirdseye at 15:14:17 21-06-2013
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2013 15:21:09 41,910 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's pretty basic, they should be nailing these things down in the first brainstorming sessions. How they drift so much from something so basic is beyond me.

    Example: Batman physically should be:

    Imposing
    Fast
    Brutal
    Elusive
    Cruel

    Batman in TDKR was:

    Slow
    Static
    Clunky
    Visible

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 21 Jun 2013 15:21:36 84,073 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I've never really understood why people get their knickers so badly in a twist over the whole island thing. It's a pretty standard comic book type story and it makes sense within the internal logic of the film. It's perfectly well explained how he lifts the island.

    But anyway, it's not a very good film, but yeah, mainly because of what meme said. I'd still give it a 6/10 though, whereas Quest for Peace is seriously a 1 or 2.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 15:25:16
    It's no more silly than him turning back time in the first Superman anyway.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 15:46:18
    The worst part about Quest for Peace is that, if you dig into the making of it, it could have actually been really really good.
  • nickthegun 21 Jun 2013 15:49:55 56,081 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Its just an oddity. its got the budget of a made for TV movie, margot kidder looks like the reanimated corpse of margot kidder and its *such* a product of the 80s its like stepping into a time machine.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 15:51:27
    The reused special effects are the highlight for me. The greenscreen zoom is used about a dozen times.

    It's actually hard to name which is worst out of Supes 4 and Supergirl, though.
  • Deckard1 21 Jun 2013 15:52:59 25,539 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I wish that Nicolas Cage had been made.

    Called it

  • Deckard1 21 Jun 2013 15:53:26 25,539 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    And fuck off, Supergirl wasn't that bad

    Called it

  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 15:55:05
    It was terrible. Almost everyone in the film looks embarrassed to be there.
  • Deckard1 21 Jun 2013 15:55:59 25,539 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    You monster

    Called it

  • nickthegun 21 Jun 2013 16:03:34 56,081 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Supergirl is kind of a guilty pleasure. I would rather watch Peter Cook chew the scenery than Hackman at any rate.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 16:06:18
    He doesn't so much chew the scenery as look a bit confused. It does have O'Toole hamming it up, but that was during his period where he'd sign up for the opening of a packet of crisps.
  • kalel 21 Jun 2013 16:06:25 84,073 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I quite like Supergirl. It's definitely worse than 4. Shame Reeve wasn't able to be in it as planned.
  • mcmonkeyplc 21 Jun 2013 16:09:30 38,942 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I like them all...but yeah 4 was this shittest. Worse than Supergirl.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • nickthegun 21 Jun 2013 16:09:47 56,081 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Still, at least we got Jimmy Olsen to smooth the transition.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 16:11:13
    Superman 4 is a film that had the potential to be awesome, but ultimately turned out to be godawful. Supergirl is a film that was going to be shit from the beginning. It seemed like an attempt to get girls interested in superheroes.

    On a related note, has anyone seen those Marvel chick-lit things they're doing now? The She-Hulk Diaries and whatnot?
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2013 16:12:22 41,910 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    It's no more silly than him turning back time in the first Superman anyway.
    That's actually not that silly.

    (Sorry if I read it here first but) The theory goes that Superman is HIMSELF travelling back in time by going faster than the speed of light (just in a circle rather than a straight line), rather than pulling the Earth back through time or whatever it looks like he's doing. Earth doesn't spin the other way because he's dragging it that way through his flying, it's spinning that way because time is going backwards.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Shikasama 21 Jun 2013 16:12:23 6,288 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    How empowering. Especially involving She-Hulk who, as a side effect of her powers, becomes a massive slut.
  • nickthegun 21 Jun 2013 16:14:01 56,081 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Supergirl tries, though. The tetrahedron(?), the magic, the phantom zone, the other dimension thing, shower scenes, invisible monsters... peter cooks magic wand... all that Jazz..

    Superman 4 was 'lets get another superman derp and call him nuclear man derp because cold war derp'. Its just lazy.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 16:14:46
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    It's no more silly than him turning back time in the first Superman anyway.
    That's actually not that silly.

    (Sorry if I read it here first but) The theory goes that Superman is HIMSELF travelling back in time by going faster than the speed of light (just in a circle rather than a straight line), rather than pulling the Earth back through time or whatever it looks like he's doing. Earth doesn't spin the other way because he's dragging it that way through his flying, it's spinning that way because time is going backwards.
    Nah. After he's done he spins the other way around the Earth to make it spin the right way again, which is completely at odds with that theory.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2013 16:16:15 41,910 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Well slowing down from light speed while time reverts from flowing backwards to flowing forwards (from our pefrspective as observers) would mean he would appear to travel in the opposite direction. Sort of.

    What really kills the theory is Margot Kidder having a go at him when he rescues her for not rescuing her before. But then that makes no sense full stop.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 16:16:44
    No, it's pretty unambiguous. 1:40 or so here:



    Edited by meme at 16:18:27 21-06-2013
  • Page

    of 64 First / Last

Log in or register to reply