|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 21, 2012 18:56:56 GMT -5
All the delegates roaring in applause when Superman said he'd rid the world of nukes - stuuuuuupid. Israel's reaction would have been "oh shit." So what, all the countries of the world were magically for this, and launched the nukes for Superman to catch in space? Did Superman and world leaders coordinate or something? ;D It's as if all the countries hated having the nukes. No, they LIKE having them. It gives them power. If Superman took the nukes away, it wouldn't end the Cold War. The nations would then just turn to non-nuclear weapons for posturing and the status quo. Did Superman rid the world of biochemical weapons and terrorism too?  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 21, 2012 19:05:31 GMT -5
Superman IV to me:
Nod to STM, try to get series back on track
Reeve's (very) naive politics.
80s Cartoon villain
Only point A works. It definitely does have sincerity that 3 lacked. A crap script but a game cast. I like Reeve less and less in this one as I get older. He didn't phone it in at all as he had creative input. My guess is he lost interest midway through when the plug was pulled. He got his $4M + another movie deal, so not feeling too sorry for him
Jor, good post. Unfortunately, RDC was presented as a feature film, which didn't work. Reused cues, piss poor editing, etc etc. Would have worked better as deleted scenes with Thorne's music worked in (IMO)
As Ca said, pretty much everyone acknowledges SR is (easily) a superior film. Superman IV is fucking awful ;D but to us, more watchable than dreariness.
We had a decade of moping on Smallville. Kid's today probably get the wrong idea of what Superman is really about. Where has the fun and majesty been?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 21, 2012 19:44:29 GMT -5
All the delegates roaring in applause when Superman said he'd rid the world of nukes - stuuuuuupid. Israel's reaction would have been "oh shit." So what, all the countries of the world were magically for this, and launched the nukes for Superman to catch in space? Did Superman and world leaders coordinate or something? ;D It's as if all the countries hated having the nukes. No, they LIKE having them. It gives them power. If Superman took the nukes away, it wouldn't end the Cold War. The nations would then just turn to non-nuclear weapons for posturing and the status quo. Did Superman rid the world of biochemical weapons and terrorism too? Its crazy how The SIV Superman and the DKR Superman were polar opposites in a cold war environment. One was a conservative lapdog and the other was an almost socialist liberal progressive. ;D Reagan would have tried to shoot Reeve's Superman out of the air with one of those nukes. Or nuked the Fortress of Solitude. Superman IV's handling of the whole disarmament issue truly is God f*ckin awful. The middle east would have gone apesh**. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 22, 2012 2:26:58 GMT -5
The plot was pretty silly- but I didn't think it much sillier than STM's real estate plot, nor turning back time--- but I took it as (like STM) a fairy tale- Compared to the comics at the time, at least it TRIED to answer:"Why doesn't Superman get involved in world affairs?"and tried to take a simple plot, with a general idea to the resolution to it--- that, no matter what, ultimately---
Superman has to stay away from problems that people need to solve on their own- it's a dumbed-down version of Paul Dini's "Peace On Earth" which took a similar question much more seriously--- but for the age range that SIV was going for, I was alright with the plot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2012 2:42:30 GMT -5
Superman V: The Soviets Start WWIII and Conquer Europe Once They Realize MAD No Longer Matters and They Have a Crapload More Tanks Than NATO 
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 22, 2012 5:56:19 GMT -5
Compared to the comics at the time, at least it TRIED to answer:"Why doesn't Superman get involved in world affairs?"
And there is a REASON that comics stayed away from that issue, and continue to stay away from it. Not unlike why they've stayed away from giving Superman a child...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 22, 2012 7:07:52 GMT -5
Yeah its called the can of worms Marvel opened when they acknowledged 9-11 so much in their books. There wasn't really anything wrong with the basic idea of asking that question when it concerns Superman but you need great writers to pull that off. Reeve's own speech at the end would make sure he didn't try again since he learned a lesson. In Peace on Earth I think he got an RPG up his red undies thanks to a suspiciously familiar looking dictator from Lybia who is spending his days in a meat freezer now. There are consequences to a man with that much power making those kinds of decisions for the human race. |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 22, 2012 8:53:19 GMT -5
Superman IV is better. It had Reeve. It had Hackman
The plot could have been Superman having a fight with David Letterman for all I care.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 22, 2012 9:16:50 GMT -5
Having Reeve and Hackman doesn't automatically make it better. I loved Reeve as Superman more than anybody but I'm not gonna let it blind me with bias. Got to be objective. Reeves intentions for IV's message were good but it was boiled down to simple minded one sided leftist propaganda swathed in cheese.
I've seen a lot of good actors in movies that were still shit. And the end off the day its about the whole not the parts. If it ain't there as a whole it doesn't work. Despite all SR's flaws its got more going right in it than SIV does.
Spider-man 3 had the same cast (just like Superman IV) ...and its still crap. The reboot could EASILY be better and I'm not even crazy about the idea of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 22, 2012 19:31:55 GMT -5
I think it is two things, though...
#1: Well, they DID do it with "Peace on Earth" with Dini- which was great- but it sure took long enough.
Similarly, I thought it interesting how Marvel comics (i don't remember if it was Simon & Kirby or Stan Lee who invented him) took a different approach to a similar problem and created Red Skull as the Hitler surrogate so that they could have Captain America deal with the real 'World War II'- and yet not at the same time. Very clever.
#2: As to why they stayed away from giving Superman a child--- I get why. The issue of being able to keep characters ageless, if they're able to keep it going past a generation or so--- and so as not to worry about timeframes.
With "Star Trek: the next Generation", I thought it interesting in their commentaries that one of the big keys to a successful change was accidentally giving one of their characters a kid (Worf)..... which then (according to the producer) necessitated going forward in continuity--
And what I liked about Superman having a kid in the Superman movies--- since ACTORS can't be ageless, there's a finite amount of time for them to portray characters- and I think by taking on the idea of doing a limited amount of stories would have allowed them to take more chances and do a good run --- including aging the characters, having kids, and maybe even having them die (Like the Star Trek movie series did for the original characters, but hopefully done better)--- why not? If there's an eventual reboot later on when actors reach a certain age--- then I say go for broke.
Pity that the powers that be didn't just back/push Singer to complete a trilogy and move on, if he really needed to- and probably the only thing I like about Nolan leaving the Batman series--- at least he finishes it his way, doing whatever he will at the end with it. (Though I suspect it may be open-ended to a degree)
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 22, 2012 19:37:31 GMT -5
Good points, but...
Even with SIV and Spiderman 3 turning out pretty horrible, if given a choice between them existing and not--- I'm still glad that they exist just to able to enjoy the cast one last time before reboots. It may not be at all what it coulda/shoulda been, but to me it's better than never seeing the actors as the character again at all...
(Which is why I woulda been more fine with MOS if Routh was in it)
Anyhow, I can see both sides. I just grew up at a time where ANY superhero film that had money behind it was extremely rare...so, I even go to the bad ones, just because I keep feeling that the genre could dwindle to nothing all over again....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 22, 2012 20:14:15 GMT -5
Hey there are things about them that I like too but I'm not going to say they are better than such and such movie JUST because they have certain actors in them. There are bits and pieces of movies like SIV and S-M3 that I can greatly enjoy but if another movie is doing more things better then I'm going to give it the credit for that.
I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to IV and its nice to rewatch it sometimes. I also remember a time when most comic book movies were cheaply made and not taken seriously. And thats what I had to enjoy growing up.
I LIKED Eric Kramer as Thor...maybe even just as much as I liked Chris Hemsworth as Thor...but the Hemsworth movie was a much cooler presentation. Thats not dismissing the good things about The Incredible Hulk Return...but its not putting it over a better film either.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 22, 2012 20:56:56 GMT -5
Right....I got off-point. I hear ya.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 22, 2012 20:57:57 GMT -5
That's the Richard Lester version of SIV.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 19:47:24 GMT -5
Superman IV is better. It had Reeve. It had Hackman The plot could have been Superman having a fight with David Letterman for all I care. So it could have been Superman and Luthor having gay sex for an hour but as long as it was Reeve and Hackman you'd enjoy it more? Seems a little short sighted! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 23, 2012 20:33:54 GMT -5
Superman IV is better. It had Reeve. It had Hackman The plot could have been Superman having a fight with David Letterman for all I care. So it could have been Superman and Luthor having gay sex for an hour but as long as it was Reeve and Hackman you'd enjoy it more? Seems a little short sighted! Reeve already made Deathtrap  |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 26, 2012 7:01:09 GMT -5
Superman IV is better. It had Reeve. It had Hackman The plot could have been Superman having a fight with David Letterman for all I care. So it could have been Superman and Luthor having gay sex for an hour but as long as it was Reeve and Hackman you'd enjoy it more? Seems a little short sighted! Not really. On their own, those two actors have more talent than the entire cast of SR. Spacey aside. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 26, 2012 7:55:50 GMT -5
Frank Langella is just as talented as Hackman or Reeve. He's certainly got more more range than either one. From Sherlock Holmes to Skeletor?
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 26, 2012 8:25:25 GMT -5
Langella was so far from his best in SR its not even worth talking about him.
But not better than Hackman, at least an equal, no more.
But if you offered me Hackman and Reeve or Spacey and Langella, I'd take the latter
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 26, 2012 11:20:29 GMT -5
Hackman's great but he plays the same thing: Gene Hackman. Watching him try to attempt a Polish accent in A Bridge Too Far was laughably bad. He got upstaged by Redford, Hopkins, Connery, Caan, and Caine in that film.
Langella has always been better at becoming a character that's radically different from himself. Like I said Hackman never had that kind of range. Langella owned Frost/Nixon. Theres no way Hackman could have pulled off Skeletor as well in MOTU but Langella probably COULD have been a great Lex Luthor in STM. He did more for Cannons MOTU than Hackman did for Cannons Superman IV despite Hackman having experience in the Luthor role and Langella having none in the Skeletor role.
I'm a huge fan of Reeve but Langella was a better actor than him. As for Langella not being at his best in SR Reeve and Hackman weren't exactly at their best in Superman IV either. ;D
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 26, 2012 13:20:24 GMT -5
Agreed. Thought he was awful in that Eastwood film where he played the president around 1997.
Agreed. Odd thing with Reeve he was so brilliant in STM, but not much else, even coming off as bland in quite a few films.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 26, 2012 13:51:37 GMT -5
I can think of maybe one film where Hackman tried a performance outside of his comfort Zone that actually worked brilliantly: Young Frankenstein.
He played a southern white supremacist in The Chamber...which wasn't very good. He's been great in a lot of films like Mississippi Burning and French Connection but its usually him playing him. His performance in The Quick and The Dead was a weaker version of his performance in Unforgiven.
Absolute Power is the film you're thinking of, Ye5man. Probably one of Eastwoods weaker films from the last 15 years. The only one I can say for sure that is worse is Blood Work. Clint and Hackman were brilliant together in Unforgiven so I was disappointed.
As for Reeve he almost always played the white bread straight man/leading man or the buffoon/rival in a supporting role.
Reeve was pretty good in Somewhere in Time, Deathtrap, and The Remains of The Day (he was out shined by better actors though because his part was pretty bland).
He got upstaged by Morgan Freeman in Street Smart.
He was funny in Noises Off and Speechless but he was a buffoon in supporting roles. I don't think he ever REALLY outdid his performance in STM either. He was usually a solid dramatic or comedic actor in some mediocre movies but I can't think of too many times where he was truly outstanding though.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 26, 2012 14:27:15 GMT -5
Does versatility necessarily make you a BETTER actor?
You could play a number of differently roles averagely, or you could play similar roles superbly.
French Connection, Posiedon, Superman, No Way Out - I enjoy all of those performances very very much
I'm not dissing Langella. But if we're talking bland....then Langella in SR was surely that
I need to see more Reeve films. But I've enjoyed him in everything I've seen him in so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 26, 2012 14:44:48 GMT -5
GREAT point. I guess it all depends on what the criteria is....
Some actors rule in specific parts, and nothing else.
Other actors are pretty good in everything, but don't necessarily rivet you to the screen in any one role.
So, hard to say which is more accurate, but I think it's definitely a gift to all when the right actor is in just the right role that really brings out his/her particular gifts.
Good or bad, (Donner's) Superman made Chris Reeve's career what it was, and gave him the wide range of opportunities that he got. Sadly, his expectations were much higher than what he ended up with, and looked at things with the glass half empty, according to his autobiographies.
Still, Reeve has the most longevity (so far) in the movies as Supes-so he has that advantage, just as Shatner will always be Kirk (moreso than the good Chris Pine, if only through the sheer volume of hours Shatner has played Kirk onscreen), Keaton will always be Beetlejuice, Ahnuld will always be the Terminator (and Conan), Stallone will always be Rocky/Rambo.....and Reeve Supes.
While Supes fit a lot of Routh's natural gifts, I thought he ruled even more in a supporting role in "Scott Pilgrim". It's no secret that I wish he was still playing Supes, but I think the length of time an actor plays such a famous role also plays a part on how deep an impression will be over time with an actor 'being' that other part..... so,(sadly) it may well be if Cavill rules as Superman in more than one movie, Routh could be more and more the Lazenby--- unless, of course, MOS becomes another John Carter.
??
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 26, 2012 15:55:46 GMT -5
Does versatility necessarily make you a BETTER actor? You could play a number of differently roles averagely, or you could play similar roles superbly. French Connection, Posiedon, Superman, No Way Out - I enjoy all of those performances very very much I'm not dissing Langella. But if we're talking bland....then Langella in SR was surely that I need to see more Reeve films. But I've enjoyed him in everything I've seen him in so far. Depending on the role...YES. A more versatile actor can be better suited for certain parts. You can' always go into every part and play it the EXACT same way all the time and except it to work every time. You'd have a point..IF Hackman hadn't don't a sh*tload of AVERAGELY played roles despite basically playing himself in many of them. Even though he's always played things about the same his record has never been perfect. For every "French Connection" on Hackman's CV there's a "Loose Cannons," "The Replacements," "Heartbreakers," or "The Package" that ANY number of older actors could have done just as well or better. You only listed his best when he has a shitload of stinker films on his resume that ANYBODY could have phoned in and sometimes I think he did. Langella may have been bland in SR but Hackman was in no way extraordinary in SIV...which is even worse considering it was his third (or second if you want to get technical) time doing it! By that point you'd assume he wouldn't need nearly as much coaching to turn in a better performance. He's not bad but there have been actors that have done far better with these kinds of roles...even his performance in STM. |
|
