|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 8, 2009 13:10:53 GMT -5
One thing is for sure, I thought the actors all seemed more comfortable and natural in their roles. Therefore, I think it makes sense that the romance in STM flowed better and felt better.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jun 8, 2009 14:19:04 GMT -5
enriqueh said,
Yeah, but we're talking about SR, which wasn't as brilliantly executed as STM.
Again, in your opinion, I happen to disagree with that. In fact, there are professional critics, other fans and people in general as well who think SR is a better film overall than STM. And yes, I love STM, but I also have my gripes with it. It is a matter of taste, imo.
You're also taking my comment out of context. The context being that for Superman's grand return to the big screen, we saw him get hurt way too many times when there wasn't even a supervillain. So we see Superman return...crawling out of a wreckage. We see Superman return... and get creamed by a group of veiny, no-name thugs, his screams muffled because he was getting owned. We see Superman return...andget overcome by Kryptonite...twice.
I enjoyed all of those things. Have no problem with them, personally. I thought/think SR is a well-done film that honors and respects the mythos, and even pushes the character in a new direction and challenging new ways. And I can appreciate the film without superfights, just like I appreciate STM. Superman is a savior, first and foremost to me. I was willing to wait for the supervillain and superfights in the sequel.
I also think that SR is a very interesting film that explores the character in a way that no other Superman film did or dared to do before. Like I've said before, it's the most personal and mature Superman tale there probably is out there, as far as I know.
One thing is for sure, though, the expectations were a lot bigger for Superman's grand return than with Batman's and other franchises. And WB just could not see and appreciate SR's performance, which was solid, imo.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed SR, but I do have problems with some of it.
I also have some problems with it, but they are really minor compared to how much I love about it.
|
|
belloq
New Member
www.amazon.com/rosetta_stone/%hovitos "5 Stars"
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by belloq on Jun 8, 2009 14:24:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Jun 8, 2009 15:06:30 GMT -5
Well wait a minute here stargazer. I understand that some people love SR but I wasn't aware that anyone liked it better than STM!
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 8, 2009 15:19:22 GMT -5
enriqueh said, Yeah, but we're talking about SR, which wasn't as brilliantly executed as STM. Again, in your opinion, I happen to disagree with that. In fact, there are professional critics, other fans and people in general as well who think SR is a better film overall than STM. Interesting. Who are these professional critics that like SR better than STM? I would be interested to read their thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jun 8, 2009 18:06:14 GMT -5
whoops ! meant to say "BOTH" but i was distratced disregard the " not a fan vote "  ;D |
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Jun 8, 2009 18:06:50 GMT -5
I like both the same. I prefer Batman 1989 to BB and STM to SR and I'd take SR over any Superman movie after STM as I would with BB after Batman 1989.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 8, 2009 18:47:32 GMT -5
Personally:
B89 > STM > SR > TDK > BB
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jun 8, 2009 19:22:00 GMT -5
Well wait a minute here stargazer. I understand that some people love SR but I wasn't aware that anyone liked it better than STM! Really?! Then you should go out/read some more..  ;D Enrique said, "Interesting. Who are these professional critics that like SR better than STM? I would be interested to read their thoughts." Sure, just give me some time, please. |
|
The Phantom Menace
New Member
Eyes to the stage, pilgrim, she's just warming up.
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Jun 8, 2009 19:26:25 GMT -5
For me:
TDK > BB > S:TM > SR > B89
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jun 8, 2009 19:30:48 GMT -5
I was torn on this one...but I went for Batman Begins. While I enjoy Superman Returns nearly as much, I feel I have to be more forgiving with SR than I do with BB.
My main (and almost only) gripes with SR remain "the kid", Bosworth, and the opening Lex gets his money scene.
SR gave me chills in some parts(which neither Batman Begins nor Dark Knight quite did), but I just feel that BB has a more consistent tone, and a better overall story.
|
|
The Phantom Menace
New Member
Eyes to the stage, pilgrim, she's just warming up.
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Jun 8, 2009 20:02:16 GMT -5
Well wait a minute here stargazer. I understand that some people love SR but I wasn't aware that anyone liked it better than STM! Really?! Then you should go out/read some more.. ;D Enrique said, "Interesting. Who are these professional critics that like SR better than STM? I would be interested to read their thoughts." Sure, just give me some time, please. It's hard to tell, though, if he considers Returns to be superior or equal to Superman: The Movie. However, I did find this passage interesting: |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 8, 2009 21:17:38 GMT -5
What's funny is that I don't even consider STM the best Superman movie. I consider SII extended the best. I realize that's a minority opinion.
Here's how I rank the Superman/Batman films:
1. SII
2. STM
3. TDK (I can easily imagine someone ranking this #1)
4. BB
5. SR
6. BR (I think this is superior to B89 in every way)
7. Batman 1989
8. Batman Forever
9. Batman & Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 8, 2009 22:03:21 GMT -5
What's funny is that I don't even consider STM the best Superman movie. I consider SII extended the best. I realize that's a minority opinion I'm with you there. Extended Superman II with less camp, more Brando and more Thorne, and you've got the best Superman movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 8, 2009 22:21:35 GMT -5
Batman Begins! I truly felt that Nolan reintroduced me to the character, while Singer kept digging up old graves and not using enough of his own ideas. The "new ideas" he had were too outlandish and didn't strike me as memorible. I think my hate for Superman Returns began when I saw Superman: The Movie at the theater the winter before the summer release date. When I walked out when the last reel rolled off the projector, I knew Singer and Routh weren't going to top it. I'm looking forward to the reboot, just like as I read or seen another take on the origin story in the comics or in another television show. I just hope they will get someone that will really suprise me, as Nolan, but not take way too many liberties away, like Abrams' Star Trek. So, basically, don't linger so much on the past and open up to a whole new generation with new ideas, but noting REALLY outlandish (Jason).
|
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Jun 9, 2009 1:42:32 GMT -5
I like both the same. I prefer Batman 1989 to BB and STM to SR What he said. Though I'll say while I think BB makes the better overall movie, I enjoyed SR much more in the theater, and it has moments of greatness which are not topped in BB (the plane rescue, the continent lifting, etc). Then there's the whole "failure" aspect to SR that Jimbo mentioned.  |
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Jun 9, 2009 6:22:54 GMT -5
SR
STM
BB
TDK
B89
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 9, 2009 8:06:30 GMT -5
I like both the same. I prefer Batman 1989 to BB and STM to SR What he said. Though I'll say while I think BB makes the better overall movie, I enjoyed SR much more in the theater, and it has moments of greatness which are not topped in BB (the plane rescue, the continent lifting, etc).( Yeah, there are some moments in SR that are unbeatable. It has been a while since I've seen SR, but I remember the plane and boat rescues being perfect. I also enjoyed the revelation that Jason is Superman's son-I didn't figure it out until Lex did, so I thought that was cool. It's too bad because I really liked SR and think it did took some courageous risks and I think it got more things right than wrong, but the things it got wrong, (i.e. less action, more soap opera), were pretty serious for a movie bringing Superman back to audiences after 19 years. |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jun 9, 2009 10:09:18 GMT -5
One of the reasons I didn't particularly care for SR was the baggage it introduced and would have to be dealt with in any sequel.
Does Superman become a homewrecker? Lois has moved on. heck, she doesn't even know she was in a relationship with Supes. How does Supes explain that it was HE that banged her and that is his son? How do you explain to the son who his real father is? I mean...this is a dream Maury Povich show.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 9, 2009 10:42:20 GMT -5
Well, I don't think we should judge SR based on the question of "How do you deal with this kid?" because that wasn't the point in SR. That's something we judge SR2 on. As it is, I thought it was handled very well in SR.
What Singer does from here is what the sequel would be judged on, not SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Jun 9, 2009 10:46:44 GMT -5
Well, I don't think we should judge SR based on the question of "How do you deal with this kid?" because that wasn't the point in SR. That's something we judge SR2 on. As it is, I thought it was handled very well in SR. What Singer does from here is what the sequel would be judged on, not SR. Well there is a conflict here. On of the reasons why certain folks now are saying that they'll regard SR with LESS fondness was because it didn't get a sequel. And a big reason for the film not getting a sequel (among others) was the introduction of the kid... a move typically made in the end of a series run. Therefore, it is apparently logical to assume that we can dislike SR because the kid helped seal the series future. Man, look at that poll; even I didn't expect that result! |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jun 9, 2009 11:05:06 GMT -5
Well, I don't think we should judge SR based on the question of "How do you deal with this kid?" because that wasn't the point in SR. That's something we judge SR2 on. As it is, I thought it was handled very well in SR. What Singer does from here is what the sequel would be judged on, not SR. I disagree somewhat...for instance, what if he never addresses some of those issues? That will lessen the impact of them in SR. Those things were introduced and I should be able to question them. I don't see how it could end well at all unless it is completely ignored. I look forward to Tony Stark addressing his outing at the end of Iron Man I. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jun 9, 2009 11:14:06 GMT -5
I like both the same. I prefer Batman 1989 to BB and STM to SR What he said. Though I'll say while I think BB makes the better overall movie, I enjoyed SR much more in the theater, and it has moments of greatness which are not topped in BB (the plane rescue, the continent lifting, etc). Then there's the whole "failure" aspect to SR that Jimbo mentioned. I dont see SR as a failure at all since I totally enjoy it, and since it rekindled my love for this character. What it does make me think of is this, Sigh, I can't believe WB didn't make a sequel to such an amazing film. So much potential is going to be wasted. WB = Morons. edit: concerning Superman & Batman movies, SR>STM> the rest in no particular order (Superman 2, TDK, BB, B89. I don't care about the rest) |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jun 9, 2009 11:24:49 GMT -5
Well, I wasn't aware that a "big reason" that a sequel isn't being made is because of the kid.
I would think that the film's lack of action was the major reason. Bringing the kid into SR was dynamic, I thought.
No, I think the film, in some circles, was heavily criticized for being boring. This was Superman returns, but there wasn't much to celebrate his return with except a lot of soap opera. This was the wrong movie to make after 19 years.
The movie definitely lacked the energy level of Dark Knight, Iron Man or X2. All those movies explored realistic themes, just as SR did, but the difference is that TDK, IM, and X2 had energy, excitement and action scenes to match.
To make matters worse, there was nothing new for Superman to compete with. He was battling Lex Luthor for the 4,301st time. The movie needed a supervillain quite badly to up the suspense and create those "money moments" that cause audiences to pump their fists in the air. But then, Superman was getting his ass kicked just fine without a super-villain and that's another thing. For Superman's big return, he got hurt badly, what, four times? For his big return, we see him crawl out with a whimper and being held by his mommy? No supervillain, but we got Kryptonite AGAIN...and AGAIN. That's right because he got hurt by Kryptonite TWICE in this film.
So after 19 years away from the screen, we get the same villains, Kryptonite, lots of soap opera and Superman getting hurt. You'd think after 19 years they'd figure a way to include a supervillain and use something besides Luthor and Kryptonite.
I think this hodgepodge of Superman returning with a whimper, too much drama and not enough action and the same ol' plot devices did more to sink the Donnerverse than the kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Jun 9, 2009 12:09:53 GMT -5
Well, I wasn't aware that a "big reason" that a sequel isn't being made is because of the kid. I would think that the film's lack of action was the major reason. Bringing the kid into SR was dynamic, I thought. No, I think the film, in some circles, was heavily criticized for being boring. This was Superman returns, but there wasn't much to celebrate his return with except a lot of soap opera. This was the wrong movie to make after 19 years. The movie definitely lacked the energy level of Dark Knight, Iron Man or X2. All those movies explored realistic themes, just as SR did, but the difference is that TDK, IM, and X2 had energy, excitement and action scenes to match. To make matters worse, there was nothing new for Superman to compete with. He was battling Lex Luthor for the 4,301st time. The movie needed a supervillain quite badly to up the suspense and create those "money moments" that cause audiences to pump their fists in the air. But then, Superman was getting his ass kicked just fine without a super-villain and that's another thing. For Superman's big return, he got hurt badly, what, four times? For his big return, we see him crawl out with a whimper and being held by his mommy? No supervillain, but we got Kryptonite AGAIN...and AGAIN. That's right because he got hurt by Kryptonite TWICE in this film. So after 19 years away from the screen, we get the same villains, Kryptonite, lots of soap opera and Superman getting hurt. You'd think after 19 years they'd figure a way to include a supervillain and use something besides Luthor and Kryptonite. I think this hodgepodge of Superman returning with a whimper, too much drama and not enough action and the same ol' plot devices did more to sink the Donnerverse than the kid. Completely agree. You have to admit, however, that the kid made it that much harder to do a sequel. |
|
;D
