crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Aug 27, 2016 3:15:29 GMT -5
One reason is because STM was set in the 1970's and the sequels were set in the 1980's.
I feel that 1970's style has actually aged better than 1980's style.
Thoughts?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on Aug 27, 2016 6:02:03 GMT -5
Yes.
It's also because a the first half of STM is timeless.
The Krypton part could have been set in any era.
And the Smallville part also has a classic feel to it. Even though it is clearly identifiable at the 1950s/60s, it doesn't really get dated.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 27, 2016 7:48:13 GMT -5
I've always enjoyed the Metropolis sequence best.
I understand and appreciate all those qualities from Krypton and Smallville, but as a kid, I always found those two sections of the film to be very bleak and heart wrenching with a lot of death and misery, and tragedy.
I didn't enjoy seeing millions of Kryptonians swirling in a horrible, screaming death before a massive fireball. I didn't enjoy seeing young Clark see his father die and poor Ma Kent screaming and hollering and then get left alone.
I found it so punishing to watch that I remember being 9 or 10 and saying to myself, "Enough." And fast forwarding to the Fortress.
When we finally get to Metropolis, I can remember this heavy weight on my chest suddenly be lifted away, and I could breathe a little easier.
So much more fun.
So yeah, while I can appreciate the timelessness, craft, and acting of Krypton and Smallville, I simply had more fun in Metropolis.
And let's not forget the most important part of Metropolis: Christopher Reeve.
With his reassuring smile and kind demeanor, he made me feel that everything was going to be ok.
|
|