Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 28, 2012 8:52:58 GMT -5
He's totally looking at those tits in your sig ;D |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 28, 2012 9:42:57 GMT -5
Certainly am not getting the whole 'used car salesman' thing a few of you are coming out with. Hackman played it straight, you say the scheme is silly, but I say its pretty damn evil, the fact that he can smile about a plot that will kill millions is exactly what makes him sinister. Nothing wrong with a smiling villain, show they are enjoying their work dishonest used Car salesmen tend to have the same greasy smiled ptchman presentation as Hackman's Luthor. Just because he played it straight doesn't mean the character isn't presented as silly or tongue in cheek. What serious criminal WOULD associate with buffoons like Otis or walk around wearing ridiculous wigs and bad 1970's suits? His land scheme is absurdly overcomplicated. Buying land in some kind of turnaround scheme is car salesman ish...especially when the probability of success is so ridiculously low. There would be nobody left to buy his land. With a bomb of that magnitude if the blast didn't kill everyone the fallout and earthquakes would. If most criminals want money or power or to blackmail somebody they steal a nuke or release a poison. Luthors primary motivation is to make money. What kind of villain LEAVES his adversary and just assumes he's dead? Lex Luthor of all people shouldn't be such an amateur. His Luthor seemed to be more uncaring than just sinister. A lot easier to kill people who you've never met. Our leaders make decisions that kill innocent people every day. When Jack Nicholson's Joker GASSES people he's looking right at, laughs, and afterward doesn't give it a second thought later on is far more sinister to me. Well, look, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, you're obviously decided on this issue But it's not uncommon for comic book films to show the bad-guy hanging out with a couple of buffoons, it elevates their standing. I think if it was just Luthor alone, it would suck. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 28, 2012 9:48:20 GMT -5
At least Otis and Miss T had stuff to do in every scene, unlike Spacey's henchman, who for 90% of the time, were standing there gormless and embarrassed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 28, 2012 10:51:38 GMT -5
yeah I know the feeling. I'm amazed at a lot of things people say on the internet.. oh well it's kinda fun sometimes. Brando's monologue to the baby is perfect. If you try to drown out the music, you can hear his line delivery is bang on. That scene alone justifies him to me. Poor Routh came off amateur hour with his nasally tone, reciting those lines while we're all thinking of Brando ;D Don't worry Routh, how many could compare? I have nothing to feel sorry about Brandon saying those lines because he did a great job; there was so much love and emotion in his eyes and voice during that scene. It's an outstanding scene, IMO. I also adore that scene with Brando and Lara in STM while they say goodbye to baby Kal, but there is just more emotion for me when Superman says it to his son. To each their own. I'm just not going to praise the legandary Marlon Brando just because of his reputation as an actor in Hollywood. I think his line delivery was good, in fact that scene is easily in my top 5, but I don't feel like he was amazing. He was fine. I think I liked Lara a bit more. The music and imagery were absolutely outstanding. Any way, I'm done arguing this. To each their own. lalalalalala ;D |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 28, 2012 10:57:43 GMT -5
More emotion than parents saying goodbye knowing they'll be killed shortly and they'll never see the kid again?
Routh is "always around" so what's the difference? To me, that scene comes across as hollow; shoehorned in to show yet another STM "homage"
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 28, 2012 11:14:56 GMT -5
Well, look, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, you're obviously decided on this issue But it's not uncommon for comic book films to show the bad-guy hanging out with a couple of buffoons, it elevates their standing. I think if it was just Luthor alone, it would suck. Thats not all that common now. Ras Al Ghul didn't have any bumbling comedic henchman and neither did Obadiah Stane. Magneto had two henchman that were comedic but they could also kill an entire squad of soldiers if they wanted to so they were far more dangerous than Otis. The Green Goblin didn't have one. Dock Ock didn't have one. Sandman didn't have one. Howard Saint and Jizsaw's henchman weren't really what I'd call bumbling comedic fools. The Red Skull had Zola but Zola was a genius so he certainly wasn't worthless. Loki had no comedic Henchman as far as I know. Thunderbolt Ross had one but he could be pretty effective as a solider too. Deacon Frost had one. The few other recent movies where the bad guys had a bumbling idiot sidekicks was terrible crap like Blade Trinity so I don't think thats a good sign ;D I never felt Luthor had to be alone but he should have someone competent with him like Nigel from Lois & Clark or Mercy Graves from STAS. That just makes sense. I think these characters can offer comedic elements without being embarrassingly useless. Thats what Mercy did on STAS. Nigel was like an evil Alfred Pennyworth which was awesome. At least Otis and Miss T had stuff to do in every scene, unlike Spacey's henchman, who for 90% of the time, were standing there gormless and embarrassed. If you call being stupid and heaving your tits stuff to do. ;D Seriously most of them sucked, especially Spaceys men. Kitty was a boring clone. Tessmacher is the only one even hallfway interesting. Otis was a clown...amusing sometimes and embarrassing other times. If they dropped him from the movie I wouldn't have cared. Ned Beatty got stuck with a meatier part in Deliverance  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2012 11:23:14 GMT -5
Brando's scene with little kal-el has and will be remembered.
I hardly know anyone who remembers anything in from SR in terms of dialogue!
I think brando's scene is perfect. I don't know what it was about the man, but everything he said seemed epic.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 28, 2012 12:16:10 GMT -5
Wow, this thread sure heated up pretty fast....  For my two cents- Donner/Hackman's Luthor is extremely memorable because it's so over the top--- similar to how the 1960's Batman tv show was. Because of how it works into SII as a counterbalance to Donner's EXTREMELY serious Phantom Zone criminals, it's genius..... but by himself with Otis/Teschmacher--- well, it's something that we grew up with, BUT I've always thought from the get-go that I preferred the seriousness of Stamp's Zod in the first scene of STM to anything the approach that Hackman took. Just as Donner chose to have different toned films in one with STM/SII, along with them came vastly different characters that seemed like they came from different movies. Somehow it all clicks together almost perfectly... But- As a 'standalone' villain.... Luthor is more of a sinister prankster, than a true terror. More conman than anything else... SR tried to marry Donner's version of Lex and 'up the ante' by making him more like a hardened thug (using the ex-cons as lackies to give that impression- the guy on the boat who slammed Lois' head into the table was far scarier than anything in STM just by being so brutal)--- but it's an uneasy mix. I got what Singer was trying to do, and went with it, just as I went with Donner/Hackman's version..... but to me, it felt like a compromise on both fronts. I love enough of the rest of each movie to accept it, but for me, I'm still hoping/waiting for that 'perfect' Lex interpretation that blows me away. Hackman has the advantage of his interpretation being woven in from the beginning.... Spacey has the disadvantage/burden of having to be both the 'old' Luthor and be a truly new menancing one as well. It sort of works, but I definitely winced at the 'land plot' motivation for SR..... if it was for power or pure destruction of the human race, it'd make more sense. (Or if he were truly insane, have one of his cronies challenge how it DOESN'T make sense, and have Lex kill him off perhaps --- and reinforce the level of insanity, like was done with TDK's Joker when he burns the money stolen.) In any case, once Lex Hackman was established as serving a certain purpose in STM- (exposition/broad comedy/colorful villain)- it was easier to go along with when he finally interacts with Supes, and then with the villains, especially with the back and forth cutting between Supes/Lex's story in STM. But--- say, if the first introduction in STM to Lex was the dog whistle late in the film, arguably he'd feel WAYYY out of place as too campy for Supes to tackle as a threat. Anyhow.... MOS has a chance to reset Lex. Here's hoping it's as interesting as the reboot for Joker in TDK. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Mar 28, 2012 22:12:52 GMT -5
I would defend the otis/tesmaucher aspect by comparing superman to sherlock. In the actual stories dr.watson is highly intellegent and accomplished. In many films/tv depictions he is a bafoon. Its easy to write the words "watson is damn smart but holmes is way smarter" but its a challenge to act out. Its easy to act as if watson is there just to make sherlock look good by comparison.
A case can be made that luthor would not suffer any fools regardless of valerie perrines breast size- but for a live action depiction its a useful contrivance.
-also- STM established the idea of a semi-serious version of a comic book. They were making it up as they go. "Verisimilitude" was a principle- not a rule book.
Its been observed that STM is the same formula as 60-80's james bond:
- indestructable hero (downplay the sex/overplay the invulnerability)
-megalomaniacal villain who explains the caper before attempting to kill the hero
- hero escapes elaborate trap and foils caper ....closing theme.
In that sense STM is somewhat a product of the era - but it is also the innovator, and rightly regarded as the yardstick to measure comic book movies.
If,in modern cinema, some comic book movies measure more faveorably it's only because STM established the idea that you even could/would do so in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Mar 29, 2012 0:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan D on Mar 29, 2012 6:23:31 GMT -5
True. There are definite parallels between STM and Bond. But Bond has influenced so many plots in that way.
It is disappointing that STM never really gives a reason as to why Lex keeps Teschmacher and Otis around. It even asks the question and never really answers it: "Why is the most brilliantly diabolical leader of our time surrounding himself with total nincompoops?" It always bugs me when a film does that. Anyway, I rationalise it as this: Lex keeps Teschmacher around as his muse (obviously - although they seem to have an oddly asexual relationship in both STM & SII), and Otis is so stupid that he will follow orders that are horribly immoral without questioning them . . . not watertight but it gives a rationale for Lex keeping Otis around.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 29, 2012 7:44:24 GMT -5
My best guess is that he keeps them around to amuse himself or make himself look better. Otis is an easy target and since he's SO smart can still surround himself with poor assistants and still be successful. But at the same time Lex has never seemed like the type to suffer fools lightly either. He left Otis high and dry in SII but its not like he had much of a choice either. It was a typo but....you know he deserved it. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 29, 2012 8:14:39 GMT -5
You guys think too much.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 29, 2012 8:30:18 GMT -5
Agreed. It was a comic book movie...in the style of the 70s
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 29, 2012 9:04:06 GMT -5
Agreed. It was a comic book movie...in the style of the 70s We should have seen some ginormous bush then. Would have been even better. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 29, 2012 9:36:53 GMT -5
Tallo, your propensity for verbal barfings is astounding.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 29, 2012 10:06:08 GMT -5
Tallo, your propensity for verbal barfings is astounding. Thanks, amigo ;D I like you too! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 29, 2012 14:27:51 GMT -5
Great points--- There's really no way we can compare TOO much STM and SII as superhero films vs. what's possible today, plus how far they took the material. The fact that STM holds up as well as it does is amazing right there. Add to mix, it's hard to be too objective of movies that we watch during certain periods of our lives. Some age better, some worse. STM/SII were (at its core) fantasy/fairy tales in a rather innocent universe--- which I enjoyed greatly. Donner added a great amount of reverence and seriousness to it- and DEFINITELY heart. SR tried to take that innocent universe and add some of the muddy moral and social complexities we live with and update/blend it into the Superman mythos (out of wedlock parents/ a hero with internal ambiguous pain)--- which ruined the film for some, but transcended the genre itself and what it could do for others. To me, the film overall is amazing in areas that usually aren't given much attention (character development/moral conflict) in superhero films (or are done pooerly), but (to me) a little lacking in the stuff that most action films usually deliver. (spectacular action and fx). Oh well.... will see how/what MOS delivers. Something that in tone gives us a sense of innocence and wonder, or something that's a bit hard and cynical, or some blend that has a bit of both?  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 29, 2012 18:10:06 GMT -5
The stories of Spider-man 1-3 certainly share some broad similarities to the stortytelling techniques and ideas of Superman I-III so elements of the Superman films still hold up.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 29, 2012 18:39:20 GMT -5
True.... I never minded similiarities between the first two, because I thought plugging in Peter Parker and the villains made the stories different enough.... but the third one.... well, that one was just a mess all around. *sigh*
|
|
