At which point did you realise SR would be crap?

[MAVERICK]

Didn't vote.

I realize that I love it more every time I see it.

And to be honest, considering which people hate it so much, it makes me feel even better about it. ;D ;D ;D

[Bobby M]

Ouch.

[atp]

Jan 12, 2010 13:33:59 GMT -5 MAVERICK said:

Didn't vote.

Try to vote, please.

[MAVERICK]

;D ;D ;D

[ye5man]

Jan 12, 2010 13:33:59 GMT -5 MAVERICK said:

And to be honest, considering which people hate it so much, it makes me feel even better about it. ;D ;D ;D

That's kind of retarded.

[MAVERICK]

Nah, its no different than knowing that if Armond White disliked a movie, theres a good chance that its good. ;D

[stargazer01]

More retarded is this thread. Didn't vote of course. SR might not be a great movie for some but to say that it is pure crap well, it's just shallow and dumb, IMO.

[MerM]

One could argue that saying the same thing about Smallville is equally shallow and dumb.

[MAVERICK]

Nah, I dont think anyone here's opinion is shallow or dumb, unless they are just hating without making points or presenting their opinion as fact.

I just disagree in a big way.

[MerM]

Agreed.

I thought SR was an excellent film, very thoughtful and introspective, and had a heart. I have no doubt that Man of Steel would have been everything mainstream audiences wanted and then some.

[Shane]

loved it the first time i saw it still love it


atp its getting a bit stale mate

[belloq]

I tried to watch it and hate it last year. I even wore my official Player Hater's Ball smoking jacket. Didn't take. Still liked it. I'm going to try a more extensive hating of it in early Spring.

[ye5man]

"Annoying Name Change"

lol!!

[MAVERICK]

Jan 13, 2010 4:18:51 GMT -5 belloq said:

I tried to watch it and hate it last year. I even wore my official Player Hater's Ball smoking jacket. Didn't take. Still liked it. I'm going to try a more extensive hating of it in early Spring.

Holy crap you just hit it!

Thats what this stuff is like!


ATP is Buck Nasty ;D ;D ;D

[MAVERICK]

Jan 13, 2010 4:48:41 GMT -5 ye5man said:

"Annoying Name Change"

lol!!

Like that?


Tee Hee.

[atp]

The folks who don't hate SR are judging it too hastily. They should watch it again and give it a fair chance.

[zoom]

Superman Returns was bad and blew dog, that's my opinion.

Stick w/ the Donner versions.


Everyone I know (smart fans) that is, thought it was bad too, Superman Returns that is.

Of course those of you who havn't seen it, I wouldn't discourage you from seeing it. Go ahead and form your own opinion. Just a warning...


Anyone seen this from www.cinescapes.com site:

www.mania.com/8-movies-not-aged-well_article_119845.html

I would disagree.

[sandman1347]

When Superman started spying on Lois...

[MAVERICK]

Jan 14, 2010 18:23:58 GMT -5 zoom said:

Everyone I know (smart fans) that is, thought it was bad

Wow, what a completely stupid, revealing & retarded thing to say.

[Legsy]

Jan 14, 2010 23:27:08 GMT -5 MAVERICK said:

Jan 14, 2010 18:23:58 GMT -5 zoom said:

Everyone I know (smart fans) that is, thought it was bad

Wow, what a completely stupid, revealing & retarded thing to say.

I found it quite hilarious!

;D

[MAVERICK]

Indeed.

Unintentional comedy is always the best ;D

[zoom]

when I say "smart fans", I mean real ones who know inside info and not joe scmoe off the street.


It's a slang term used in wrestling too.


Oh and after the plane scene in SR, the rest of the movie was crap!

[Deleted]

I'm not a fan of Superman Returns. It's not that I think it's crap; it's not. It's just that all of the appealing aspects of it are taken from old material (the Williams Superman theme, comics imagery, the Donnerverse, etc.), while all of the new elements (mopey Superman, Superman Jr., etc.) are totally unappealing. It was a bad twist on a good thing. Much like Indiana Jones and John McClaine, Superman is an icon- and icons don't mope about over family issues. I know it's not realistic, but that's the point. Superman, McClaine, Indiana Jones, and all the rest are symbols of who we would want to be if we lived in the world of cinema. They're not supposed to be overly burdened by kids, heartache, and "normal" issues. That may be juvenile and unrealistic, but that's why fantasy exists. It's an escape from normal life. I don't want to see my icons in the same way as some random dude buying baby formula in Aisle 7. Superman Returns took a man who had an almost limitless ability to save people in danger and portrayed him as if he were some 20-something crying over an ex-girlfriend from high school. If Superman can't get past a failed relationship, then I can't imagine how he would deal with any kind of serious moral/emotional issue on a global scale. He'd probably just assume the fetal position and wet himself every couple of hours.

[crazy_asian_man]

Edit: Apologies to Ye5man--- only caught this morning that I typed in Ye5man's name instead of ATP's in this reply (since fixed). Need more coffee....
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I didn't vote: it's a funny slam, ATP-- it's like saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"--- Accusatory with no way to answer in any way but the way the questionnaire wants.

Funny, funny....

I'm not a fan of Superman Returns. It's not that I think it's crap; it's not. It's just that all of the appealing aspects of it are taken from old material (the Williams Superman theme, comics imagery, the Donnerverse, etc.), while all of the new elements (mopey Superman, Superman Jr., etc.) are totally unappealing. It was a bad twist on a good thing. Much like Indiana Jones and John McClaine, Superman is an icon- and icons don't mope about over family issues. I know it's not realistic, but that's the point. Superman, McClaine, Indiana Jones, and all the rest are symbols of who we would want to be if we lived in the world of cinema. They're not supposed to be overly burdened by kids, heartache, and "normal" issues. That may be juvenile and unrealistic, but that's why fantasy exists. It's an escape from normal life. I don't want to see my icons in the same way as some random dude buying baby formula in Aisle 7. Superman Returns took a man who had an almost limitless ability to save people in danger and portrayed him as if he were some 20-something crying over an ex-girlfriend from high school. If Superman can't get past a failed relationship, then I can't imagine how he would deal with any kind of serious moral/emotional issue on a global scale.

This is probably one of the fairest critiques of SR I've read- it's fairly specific on why the movie didn't work while acknowledging what the film did do, even if the choices made weren't liked.

For me, one of the great strengths of SR that made it special was that it took a fantasy (Donner's version) and gave it a human science fiction slant to it. It is darker in many respects than any of the other Superman films.... BUT I thought that it played fair in taking the elements of what existed in the prior Superman Donner films and said, "Ok--- what if the irony of the character is that he is the savior of the world.... BUT inside, he still feels the pangs and hurts of being an orphan that's different than everyone else at the core of his being?"

The heart of the drama was Superman's vulnerabilities- and moral choices- just as its the dramatic core of Singer's Xmen movies made that work for that series.

((*though in talking about showing Superman's emotional pains overriding his judgement- I'll say that the moment where Superman notices that Metropolis is going to be threatened right when he's headed off to save Lois- then chooses to save Metropolis instead demonstrated that he's got it together enough that he knows he's in a special category of world savior over being able to have personal happiness--- so that scene shows he's not THAT far gone over Lois.... contrast to the movie "2010" where the 'hero' of that film knows that Los Angeles is going to be destroyed, but only chooses to save his wife/kids over warning anyone else- still understandable choice, but not for Superman.))

With a Superman film, it could have gone either way. A family entertainment joyride or a personal drama. I dug the drama myself. (Though I would not have minded more action at all)

I thought (and totally agree) that with Indiana Jones, you're totally right. I don't want that character to be too human or burdened (the last Indy film was horrible with the same SR subplot, just didn't fit)--- but for Superman--- With all his incarnations in cartoons, tv, and film- none of them really address this dimension of Supes- that he's less than perfect and does have to make a personal sacrifice on a level to be a hero.

If Supes could get over everything, then where's the price to be paid?
SR chose to be about the cost of heroism--- and the magnitude of that price, and how deep that price is and that at the core of the character, there could still be pain (as there is for every person on the planet).

For Indy and Captain Marvel--- I agree, I don't want that angle.
For Superman--- I loved how Singer did it.

Ideally, WB would have no problems putting out TWO versions of Supes to make everyone happy.... but we all know that it's a miracle when WB make it's mind up to do even ONE film at a time...

[stargazer01]

Fantastic post, CAM.

I LOVE SR because it accomplishes what only Donner's film almost managed to do: make Superman downright MYTHIC. Not just in power, but in his struggles, his desires, his sacrifices, and his humanity. Superman is of this world, but isn't really a part of it. He's been deified by the masses and Singer's film really drives that point. Singer wasn't slavishly devoted to Donner's films, but rather he heightened everything that was good about them. Singer explored that line between Superman's godliness and his humanity. Sure, it was controversial for some, but for me it was powerful, poignant and inspiring.

.