Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2012 23:58:56 GMT -5
I voted for Superman IV. Superman Returns is a better-made film no matter how you slice it, but I based my vote on which one I would rather sit down and watch all the way through. SIV wins.
Part of it is due to my perverse enjoyment of bad movies, but it's also because A.) the tone of SIV is much lighter, making it easier and more enjoyable to sit through, B.) there are more actual superheroic moments in it (even if they're, admittedly, ludicrously stupid), C.) I like the score slightly more, and D.) the original cast phoning it in is still more appealing to me than the SR cast. Rough-looking, taking-a-paycheck Kidder > Bosworth, Gene Hackman slumming it > Kevin Spacey, Jackie Cooper hamfistedly lecturing us on the evils of corporate pseudo-journalism > Frank Langella sleepwalking through the role, etc.
Really, they're both pretty dumb in their own ways. SR's main advantage is that it doesn't reek of Golan and Globus, and it's much more earnest. They both have fairly stupid main plots that recycle elements from the previous films; the only real difference is that SR keeps a straight face. SIV goes into full-on batshit goofy mode in the opening scene and never looks back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan D on Mar 20, 2012 4:04:45 GMT -5
Same. BBC used to show Jaws IV endlessly, and it always was the ending where Mario's character dies, and the shark just gets impaled. Bizzarely actually the BBC kept showing it at earlier and earlier time slots and had to edit a lot if the gore and violence out in doing so. Eventually it just became a mid-afternoon film with barely any of the shark attacks in.
Also agree that Jaws IV, while a terrible film, is much better than Jaws 3D
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 4:13:04 GMT -5
SR and SIV: Luthor's plan in both films would cause so much harm to the world, he would never really profit from them.
I never saw Luthor has an insane Bond villain with a grudge against the world, but its how he's presented in both films.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 20, 2012 5:17:11 GMT -5
I actually really dislike Spacey as Luthor, I just can't buy anyone else in the role but Hackman
That said, Shea did a decent job in L&C.
As for Jaws, I think Jaws II, III and IV are utterly crap films. At least Scheider is present for Part II, to give it some gloss, but 3 and 4 are monumentally bad and contradict each other. Lou Gossett JR, fresh off a career defining turn in Officer and a Gentlemen made a HUGE mistake by agreeing to star in that utter crap Jaws 3'D' - I can't beleive a film as bad as that could ever be made, then they topped it with Jaws IV, featuring Mario Van Peebles somehow surviving being caught in between the jaws of a great white shark and virtually being swallowed.
Superman IV, with all its faults, is a far better movie than Jaws 3 and 4. There was heart in that movie, I beleive that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 20, 2012 7:37:58 GMT -5
SR and SIV: Luthor's plan in both films would cause so much harm to the world, he would never really profit from them. I never saw Luthor has an insane Bond villain with a grudge against the world, but its how he's presented in both films. This is an interesting perspective. I feel the same way about Luthor in general. I've never liked when he's presented in some comics as this over-the-top, no-conscience, capital "e" E-VIL guy. He's not a Bond villain, or worse, a Batman villain. Luthor should either be an "arch-criminal", someone who does things to satisfy his own ego and/or line his own pocket, and/or he should be a tragic figure. A guy who, were it not for his blind/stupid hatred/jealousy of Superman would be the greatest hero in the world. A guy who could cure cancer, implement profitable clean energy, and feed the world who instead focuses on destroying someone he views as an alien interloper. THAT'S a proper villain! |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 8:09:10 GMT -5
I liked the idea of him hiding behind his "benevolent businessman" persona, more than "genius scientist". STM reinvented him as a land obsessed criminal (sadly continued in SR) which was left field for its time. STM's Luthor was Luthor in name only IMO (as say John Shea). Oddly, Superman IV presented him more as evil scientist as you see in the cheesy 50s-70s comics.
One of the bigger disappoints of SR was not updating Luthor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 20, 2012 8:17:07 GMT -5
The Justice League cartoon did a fine job of blending both the businessman AND the genius scientist versions of Luthor. Still, even that Luthor was a little too bloodthirsty at times for my taste, but it's still one of the best versions of the character.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 8:40:29 GMT -5
STAS and JL/JLU presented the best version of Lex Luthor ever. Period. Simply because of the quality of the writing for the character.
Atom Man vs Superman and Superboys Luthors were amusing but there wasn't enough depth there. It was simple stuff.
The Luthor of the Donnerverse films was too silly and his desires to simple minded for someone so intelligent.
Lois & Clark presented a Luthor that was too out of character, showing they didn't understand him that much. The writing only got worse with the lamer seasons.
Smallville had the best shot at crafting a great Lex Luthor but took the character in circles over and over again in some awful episodes and eventually gave the biggest cop out ending ever for his place in the shows mythology.
JLU went into the best psychological study of Lex Luthor. Like Val said he was a man of many sides: Nefarious captain of industry, felon on the run, mad scientist, etc. all blended into one character with a lot of depth.
Yeah he wanted money and power but even those were only means to an end. His ambitions were much more far reaching and befitting someone if his strength of will, intelligence, and most of all his ego.
It was even explained WHY he envies Superman so much because Superman will be able to do something that Luthor never can with all his wealth and genius. Yet the end he does exactly what Val says he would if Superman never existed because his greatest gift, something Superman doesn't have as much of, was the one thing that could. Thats the core of Lex Luthor.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 20, 2012 8:59:54 GMT -5
I think land-obsessed Luthor is perfect, it makes his schemes far grander and world-wide, something for which only Superman can solve.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 9:00:04 GMT -5
40% of us enjoy Superman IV more. Never would have thought it possible 6 years ago; epic fail from Singer. We all know it should be 100% in SR favour.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 9:07:47 GMT -5
Its called nostalgia. Thats tough for anything to overcome. SR is still winning the poll and rightly so. I "enjoy" SIV more but SR is clearly the better film.
Show both films to any unbiased kid now and even if SR bored them SIV would be made fun of mercilessly and the disc thrown in the trash or used for target practice.
We could be saying the same thing about SIV vs MOS in a couple of years.
It wouldn't be the first time Snyder has turned out a film INFERIOR to its predecessor despite having more money and modern techniques.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 20, 2012 9:30:44 GMT -5
SR isnt even close to SIV in terms of heart and soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Mar 20, 2012 9:38:12 GMT -5
SR isnt even close to SIV in terms of heart and soul. It's is played a few times on the piano though. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 9:55:34 GMT -5
Exactly my stance.
I think kids might enjoy IV which zips along and has its share of "super" moments (despite the execution) more than the dreary, never ending SR. I'd easily show a kid SIV before SR. SIV has a child's mentality lol
Both films try to be sincere, which are to their credit (unlike III). There's definitely heart in both films; probably just respect for the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 20, 2012 10:28:05 GMT -5
AGREED. Nah..... it's not epic fail....only in the eyes of the folks who were disappointed in the film.  SIV is fun & cheesy. SR is great, but not really a 'fun' movie. And definitely not for kids. Since Singer went for the adult drama- and was going for the older audience, he should have then committed to spectacular action, too. (ROTS had poor adult drama, but many visual fireworks and much action- and- like Transformers--- more box office as a result, I think...) Depends on the age group..... SR would bore tweeners and kids, I think- but the older adults who could relate to the drama would find it fascinating to see a well-done drama with summer blockbuster trappings. But SIV would play well to the young kids and young kids at heart who don't need good effects or a story that's too sophisticated for them. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 10:42:01 GMT -5
SR is at worst polarizing . SIV is a joke to the vast majority of film viewers who even bothered to see it. Annette O'Toole wasn't even sure there WAS a Superman IV. Kids might enjoy IV but only those under 6. Not exactly the biggest group. Anyone older than that would trash it.
If my preteen cousins trashed the Wolverine workprint for all the strings and stuff visible what do you guys think kids their age do to SIV? ;D
Ive got my rose colored glasses too but I can take them off. SR had just as much heart as SIV. anybody who says Singer and Routh didn't put a lot of heart into the movie compared to SIV isn't being objective. Golan and Globus saw SIV as nothing more than a piggy bank to break open to fund their bullsh** and to Sidney Furie it was just a job. At least Singer cared. The heart in SIV came form Reeve and the cast.
There's a difference between heart and fun. SR was lacking fun not heart. SR also had to try pick up the pieces after SIV was a failure, Lois & Clark was an embarrassment, and Smallville did its fair share to muddy the waters.
Smallville had a shitty lead actor who makes John Rockwell look like an old hand from Julliard and writers who couldn't cobble together consistently good scripts because they had their thumbs up their asses hoping they would turn into the new green kryptonite they needed for their next episode.
Not to mention WB's ten years of developmental ineptitude with projects that had nothing to do with SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 20, 2012 10:55:42 GMT -5
True.... we can enjoy it as a cheap homage to STM and as a 'fun dumb film'.... like the old Godzilla movies with bad fx and such. As far as the age change up, I agree--- Pity that past six or seven, kids do get pretty critical of entertainments....
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 20, 2012 11:02:31 GMT -5
Well said! Nice to see that some fans can still be objective. And yes, very little kids might find some enjoyment in SIV, but older ones would only laugh their ass off at how silly and shitty it really is. Even the supposed 'heart' feels manufactured, imo. At least that's what I remember since I saw it. SR's heart feels real and earned, and the plot/story developments feel organic for these characters in this universe, IMO.
Oh well, like you say, nostalgia does play tricks in people's minds many times.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 20, 2012 11:14:54 GMT -5
I'm perfectly objective. I just didnt like SR all that much.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 11:30:32 GMT -5
Not liking it is one thing but to say SR has so much less heart than SIV clearly isn't being objective. Its having a bias in favor of one over the other. Both those films had a lot of heart. Like I said there's a difference between heart and fun. But the fact that Singer and Routh cared so much about Superman and the fact that there IS emotion in the film shines through. It might not be portrayed well but it IS there.
Routh alone gives the film a shitload of heart. But heart does not always equal a great film. See SIV as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 20, 2012 11:37:50 GMT -5
I'm not really a fan of the Superman turns back time for Lois scene in STM. In fact, I mostly tolerate it because of how the scene plays out and how Reeve sells it. It's probably his best scene in the film.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 11:44:18 GMT -5
Reeve's performance and the heart/emotion in that scene are what make the whole thing work. Otherwise its awful lazy writing on so many levels. Cop out, duex ex machina, opening a can of worms, whatever.
Take away the heart and the talent and you get the shitty resolution of the Superman II Donner Cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 12:21:11 GMT -5
Theres little heart in SR as far as im concerned
Its a depressing, poorly acted, poorly constructed attempt at recreating STM.
Nostalgia might play a part for some people. But i'll watch SIV first on account of Reeve and Hackman being better than Routh and Spacey, and SIV not depressing the heck out of me.
Oh, and as good as Hackman is in STM. I'd agree, the land obsessed Luthor probably wasnt the best way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 20, 2012 13:03:44 GMT -5
One thing Hackman's Luthor definitely had on Spacey's was a cool lair. STM and S4, both pretty cool sets. All Spacey had was a yacht that he pilfered from an old lady, yawn.
Judging from the two Cannon movies I've seen, S4 and MOTU - shitty movies, great villain lairs. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 20, 2012 13:25:18 GMT -5
It's how you look at it-
In STM - there was Supes falling in love -
In SR- it's about paying for the consequences of mistakes made- (like SII)...
There's a ton of heart in it- but STM/SII are mostly joyful, whereas with SR it's about mourning the loss of things. Definitely a more adult approach....but not necessarily a summer fun film approach, like STM and (to a degree) SII had.
There's total heart- but it's about a broken one in SR, and healing from it.
|
|
SIV is fun & cheesy. SR is great, but not really a 'fun' movie. And definitely not for kids. Since Singer went for the adult drama- and was going for the older audience, he should have then committed to spectacular action, too. (ROTS had poor adult drama, but many visual fireworks and much action- and- like Transformers--- more box office as a result, I think...)
