Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 5, 2009 10:06:39 GMT -5
Lucasfilm should do the CGI! Brilliant!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 5, 2009 11:18:41 GMT -5
I agree- I also think it's ALMOST perfect- but I wish that they'd have had a twist where there was an innocent Romulan family on board the Romulan ship, or SOMETHING (a pregnant Romulan woman on the ship might have been an interesting parallel to Kirk's situation as a child on a ship under attack as well) to give Kirk and Spock some moral ambiguity when they go to blow up the ship---.
The joy of Spock/Kirk's revenge at the end was probably the only note that felt 'off' and made me cringe as that part felt anti-Trek.... - but I'm pretty nit-picky.... especially with Trek. (A whole other forum/thread, I'm sure).
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 5, 2009 11:42:52 GMT -5
Trek was perfect for me. Plot holes or not, it is the best live action movie I've seen in a long time. Is it better than SR? I feel it is. Where SR failed, ST excelled. This coming from an SR lover.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 5, 2009 13:10:21 GMT -5
its not as if STM}SII}SR or STM}SIIRDC}SR or STM}SII}SIII}SIV are exactly free of plot-holes.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 5, 2009 16:26:14 GMT -5
I would agree... Though the main area that I thought SR lacked was having a dynamic where Superman was able to battle something 'fresh'.... if there had been a Brainiac or another dynamic to have a superpowered fight between Supes and that character, that might have given SR the extra 'oomph' to satisfy even more audiences.
I think it was Michael Dougherty who was campaigning for a super-battle, but Singer felt it was overloaded already.
Personally, if they were able to squeeze that in, it might have given SR a little more juice and meet Trek's level of excitement throughout. (Luthor and real estate was never that strong a force).
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 5, 2009 18:46:23 GMT -5
Spacey's Luthor >> Bana's Nero
Easily for me. Nero was a poor wannabe Khan for Spock. Just Didn't enjoy Bana in that role. He always had the same face. He seemed too one-dimensional. He reminded me of a little kid with a tantrum. Or maybe he just isn't that good an actor.
I enjoy both SR and ST 2009 very much, but I don't know yet if I love ST (I know for sure that I adore SR despite its faults, which are not many). Have seen it 2 times so far I think, or is it 3? Don't remember exactly. And I'm not in a hurry to watch it again. SR, however, moved me so much when I first saw it that I ended up watching it over 10 times in theaters, plus a few more at home.
ST 2009 is a movie full of energy, has great visuals, it's fun, and has a great cast. I really like it. But it isn't perfect for me. Like I said in my review, some things just didn't make sense or seemed kinda dumb, IMO, like Kirk becoming a captain so soon, for instance. I just didn't buy it. The villain, like I said, was boring and dull. And those excessive solar flares are really annoying. They annoy me as much as some of those dark scenes during Supes and Lois' night flight.
|
|
|
|
Post by reevevsrouth on Dec 5, 2009 22:00:14 GMT -5
Yeah I don't get all this ST love either, SR was much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 6, 2009 0:46:41 GMT -5
good article, thanks. followed the links to some interesting TERMINATOR articles too. |
|
|
|
Post by Scissorpuppy on Dec 6, 2009 10:15:43 GMT -5
What about an Old Luthor ( Hackman ), Middle-Aged Luthor (Spacey) and young Luthor (Smallville guy) TEAM UP! HOLY SHIT!  But Seriously... Arbrahms is the man. His movies at least. Some of his shows didn't do it for me, but I dig Fringe. Basically, sit him down and give him a few rules. Like Krypton is gone, Luthor isn't a superhero FBI agent. I think if he handled Superman like he handled Star Trek, recreating while staying TRUE to the characters, JESUS that would be a bad ass flick! |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Dec 6, 2009 12:27:02 GMT -5
What about an Old Luthor ( Hackman ), Middle-Aged Luthor (Spacey) and young Luthor (Smallville guy) TEAM UP! HOLY SHIT! Brilliant. When Superman turns the world back at the end of STM, Old Luthor hitches a ride with him through time, and gives Young Luthor a real estate almanac, showing where property prices are expected to soar. Young Luthor invests heavily. When Superman returns to 1978, he finds the world is ruled by Middle-Aged Luthor who has become a billionaire. That's why it was forbidden to interfere with human history. It also explains why he has to turn the world back a second time. It's so that he can go back the 1960s and fix the situation, stopping long enough at the Smallville High prom to ensure that Lana and Donald meet and that Donald decks Brad in the parking lot. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 7, 2009 6:12:04 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D I'd pay to see that!
To be fair to SR, Singer did do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scissorpuppy on Dec 7, 2009 8:29:56 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D I'd pay to see that! To be fair to SR, Singer did do this. Yeah he did, in the vein of STM. Which I still see no problem with. heck, I'd still like to see Singer/Routh return. But if someone else has a crack at it, I WANT something new, Something that reflects the Superman of the comics. Which STM did, but from a different age. There is a WHOLE world of Superman stories from the 80's, 90's and even the 00's that were never possible to tell because of special effects and such. Hollywood no longer has those limitations, but yet we still get nothing but Luthor's schemes for land. So yes, Singer did stay true to the characters, but didn't recreate as much as much as revamped. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 7, 2009 8:58:12 GMT -5
I'd still go for WB 96 cartoons. Definitely move away from STM; can't be basking in that film's glory for ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 9, 2009 12:59:12 GMT -5
I'm a big supporter of SR- but I loved ST- but I did think that ST hit the marks a little stronger than SR, but that they were incredibly different marks than ST to begin with...
ST 2009 in a number of ways, was "Top Gun" mixed with "Seven Samurai" (Or "Magnificent Seven", the USA version) + classic Trek--- and was done so well, it deserves the praise it gets.
SR wasn't a gathering of an ensemble (which, if done right, is a great advantage in a movie), it wasn't an origin story, and it wasn't about coming of age (which ST 2009 pretty much was as well). It didn't have the advantages that come with those particular stories (plus, we'd already pretty much been there already with STM- and if you're not going to do it BETTER than STM- why do a Supes reboot/outside of eliminating time travel?)
Instead, it tried to say: "Ok, these are the characters pretty much as they've been established for a long time- no changes to Jimmy/ Clark/ Lois--- EXCEPT- they had a kid, and he left for a long time and the world has changed since he was gone".
The easy route (which was tried by other directors) would have been to radically change the characters (a la Abrams' original script + Burton's attempt)--- but by keeping the characters as we've known them - Singer chose to honor what was already there and not try to gain credit for re-inventing the wheel (as in Abrams' original script).... though he gets attacked for keeping the Donner version of the characters.
Anyhow- The Trek franchise at the core is about a group of very different friends who come together and learn- and those stories have a different appeal than a story about a lone survivor of a dead planet with the burden of the world's problems on his shoulders.
The Trek film had a variety of emotions and action throughout the film- SR focused mainly on Superman's sadness and his trying to find his place back in the world--- which I was fine with, but if there had been a 'boxing match' of sorts for Superman to show off the spectacle side of what his character was capable of in the film outside of his sadness, or if there had been a fresh presence like a Ledger Joker or a Brainiac to add a different energy to the film as well--- SR might have been a more satisfying experience to match up to ST 2009's energy, if comparing the two.
Love both films, but I agree that SR was at a bigger disadvantage by not having the 'boxing match' or an additional villain (I'm not always in favor of two villains, but in this case, it would have helped) to bring a little more 'oomph' to it.
A sequel to SR would have solved it, though,imo.
|
|
belloq
New Member
www.amazon.com/rosetta_stone/%hovitos "5 Stars"
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by belloq on Dec 9, 2009 14:22:52 GMT -5
Well said. SR is a challenging film. Its not what a lot of fans wanted it seems, and it doesn't bother me in the least that there appears to be a fair faction of dissenters. I do understand where they come from even though I disagree about the quality of SR. I liked it a lot when I first saw it, then it waned a little, and now it just gets better each time I see it. Again, I think its a challenging film where action takes a backseat to emotion, which is fine by me. I get a bit tire of watching shit explode anyway.
As far as ST goes, I think it was at an initial disadvantage compared to SR. Prior to SR, I think there was quite a bit of anticipation for a Superman movie, whereas the ST franchise was all but dead. The difference IMO was marketing. The ST ad campaign was incredible. As soon as you saw the trailer and started feeling the hype, you knew ST was going to rise that franchise out of the ashes like a phoenix. SR's marketing on the other hand, was just shit. I remember standing in line for SR and it was all Superman fans. You could here people talking and they all knew their shit. The people that were there, were there for their love of that character. Standing in line for ST could have been a fucking grocery store check out line for all you knew. All walks of life, all ages, they were all there because you were getting the feeling early in the summer that ST was the movie to see. Anyway, I really think that SR had more of an advantage than ST going in, its just that Paramount kicked the shit out of WB marketing their movie. Paramount treated theirs like a baby, and WB treated SR like a bastard step-child.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 9, 2009 19:06:35 GMT -5
Great points.
I agree about the 'challenging film' part--- I remember two thoughts right off the bat on leaving the theatre the first time- overall, I LOOOOOOVED it--- -but- second, "Will this be enough superheroics for the mainstream crowd looking for action to top the other superhero films that have thrown their hats into the ring? This might be too deep to satisfy those who want an action-packed disposable summer film."
So- when it made $400 worldwide, I thought WB should have been pretty impressed. Funny how a modest hit can be twisted into seeming like a big disappointment. I guess it's glass half-empty/half-full. Whatever one says, a $200+ million Superhero movie is a risk.
About the marketing: Agreed 100%-
The trailer for ST rocked.... and the SR trailers didn't look like anything special. But then again, given that the fireworks in the movie was more the drama and bittersweet romance, I would have been hard-pressed myself to find a good way to market something that -on the surface- looked like nothing we hadn't seen before, and relied on seeing the movie to really realize what a great drama it was, with special touches.
(Of all the trailers, the international one I thought the best- character driven, and the never-put on dvd trailer that the writers put together for the Comicon presentation was next)
I also agree on the INITIAL disadvantage- but...
...having NO Trek around for awhile (in any form) + amazing trailer.... I thought gave it more of a headstart later on- versus the confusion of having Smallville around + weak trailer that didn't necessarily look like anything new.
Would like to see in some form (comics?) eventually how SInger would have continued this, if there's not gonna be a movie.....
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Dec 14, 2009 3:10:49 GMT -5
STILL CANT BELIEVE WE ARE NOT GETTING A FREAKING SEQUEL BURNS ME INSIDE
|
|
|
|
Post by reevevsrouth on Dec 14, 2009 6:09:33 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D I'd pay to see that! To be fair to SR, Singer did do this. Yeah he did, in the vein of STM. Which I still see no problem with. heck, I'd still like to see Singer/Routh return. But if someone else has a crack at it, I WANT something new, Something that reflects the Superman of the comics. Which STM did, but from a different age. There is a WHOLE world of Superman stories from the 80's, 90's and even the 00's that were never possible to tell because of special effects and such. yeah i want to see kryptonite man on the big screen. :)i'm not joking i really do. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 14, 2009 13:24:14 GMT -5
Amen to that.
We get a sequel to:
* Punisher
* Highlander
* Hulk
and even Ghost Rider!
But no SR sequel?
Bah.
I would think that with "Thor", "Iron Man 2", "Spiderman 4", and "Captain America" on the way, that WB should feel SOME embarrassment. Geez.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 14, 2009 14:29:48 GMT -5
 A picture of my heart. They say time heals all. That's the hope. |
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by matt on Dec 14, 2009 14:38:38 GMT -5
This post is about Luthor's land scheme. I know some people didn't like this rehash of this plot. I didn't bother me, I liked how Luthor used the Krpton crystals against Superman. I liked the idea of Superman's cystals being used as a weapon. Luthor's land scheme, I don't think was about money like STM. It was more about revenge of using Superman's crystals against him and earth. Having Superman knowing and not being able to do anything about it. They should have left in the line in the movie where Luthor confesses to Superman about him being responsible for him going back to Krypton. They also should have kept you won't be able to live here either line. That scene makes Luthor's revenge even better.
|
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Dec 14, 2009 17:02:04 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, the concept of Luthor taking advantage of Superman's absence by pillaging the Fortress of Solitude (based on his knowledge of its existence in SII) was brilliant. However, using it for another land scheme? Not so much. Ideally Superman would have returned to a Metropolis that was a true city of the future (as it is often depicted in the comics), all thanks to Luthor stealing and adapting of Kryptonian technology. At the same time this would bridge the gap between the Donner Luthor and the Post-Crisis Luthor, that lack of that transition being IMO SR's greatest missed opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 14, 2009 17:41:28 GMT -5
i acompletely agree that luthor telling superman that he planted the evidance for the existance of krypton was an epic-twist and a huge error to cut out!
i have seen on youtube where someone used the spacey dialog from the SR videogame and pasted it over the "passion" scene- the audio doesnt exactly match but it helps add to the scene when superman isnt just beaten, but he learns that luthor has tricked him big-time.
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 14, 2009 17:58:28 GMT -5
A picture of my heart. They say time heals all. That's the hope. CUTE picture. Very cute. |
|
Conor
New Member
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by Conor on Dec 14, 2009 18:25:03 GMT -5
And here's the gameplay scene!
|
|
