|
|
Post by realjla on Mar 30, 2016 0:32:55 GMT -5
Superman I is the perfect origin story, as well as a beautiful film on its own right. The only thing holding it back from perfection is the tacked on obligatory plot that comes in the final quarter of the film. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor was an interesting choice, but it did not fit the tone of the film. What he said. If 75 % of the first movie could go up against all the others in their entirety, I'd go for it. But the whole Luthor-Otis-Eve thing, while entertaining, is a little too goofy. John Byrne likened the three of them to some Hollywood film exec's idea of 'villains', in the manner of the '60s 'Batman' show. And I haven't even mentioned the 'turning back time' ending. I like Hackman better in the second movie, and the only real nitpick is Clark's 'hypnosis' on Lois. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 30, 2016 4:09:28 GMT -5
Superman IV is included in the poll as a mental health screening, right? It's included because it's a Superman movie (i.e.. a feature film). There's no unanimous consensus, as to how long a film has to be, in order to be considered as such, but the fork goes between 40 and 80 minutes. For me, if it's more than one hour, it's a movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 30, 2016 4:25:54 GMT -5
To me, this is the defining characteristic of Superman, and something the Donner films got right. Man of Steel missed this mark by miles. I really wanted to like MoS, and actually, the first half or so of the movie isn't bad. The whole scene with Jor-El where he talks about how Kal must be a symbol of hope and a guide for the humans to reach their potential, that hit a lot of the same notes as the Donner films. But it all went downhill when Zod shows up. Snyder set up Superman's mission on Earth in such a promising way but didn't deliver on any of that. He threw it all out the window because he wanted to show Superman punching things and buildings exploding. It all depends on whether you prefer the Golden Age version of the character, or a later revision. Snyder is trying to tell a contemporary story, about DC characters, Donner didn't even live up to the comics of his time. Lois Lane coming back to life? Superhero girlfriends started getting killed years before that movie, and the most notorious one still remains dead, to this date. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 30, 2016 4:34:52 GMT -5
1. Superman 2. Superman II 3. Superman and the Mole Men 4. Superman III 5. Superman Returns You'd have to pay me to make me rewatch the rest. Did you finally watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,868
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2016 6:14:36 GMT -5
1. Superman 2. Superman II 3. Superman and the Mole Men 4. Superman III 5. Superman Returns You'd have to pay me to make me rewatch the rest. Did you finally watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? Probably still not going to, but I've been continuing to follow the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 30, 2016 6:28:18 GMT -5
Did you finally watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? Probably still not going to, but I've been continuing to follow the discussion. Which ones are the rest you mention, then? The rest you'd have to get paid for, in order to watch it again. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,868
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2016 6:45:39 GMT -5
Probably still not going to, but I've been continuing to follow the discussion. Which ones are the rest you mention, then? The rest you'd have to get paid for, in order to watch it again. IV and Man of Steel |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 30, 2016 20:25:00 GMT -5
To me, this is the defining characteristic of Superman, and something the Donner films got right. Man of Steel missed this mark by miles. I really wanted to like MoS, and actually, the first half or so of the movie isn't bad. The whole scene with Jor-El where he talks about how Kal must be a symbol of hope and a guide for the humans to reach their potential, that hit a lot of the same notes as the Donner films. But it all went downhill when Zod shows up. Snyder set up Superman's mission on Earth in such a promising way but didn't deliver on any of that. He threw it all out the window because he wanted to show Superman punching things and buildings exploding. It all depends on whether you prefer the Golden Age version of the character, or a later revision. Snyder is trying to tell a contemporary story, about DC characters, Donner didn't even live up to the comics of his time. Lois Lane coming back to life? Superhero girlfriends started getting killed years before that movie, and the most notorious one still remains dead, to this date. Perhaps, but the problem is exacerbated by the fact that Snyder himself is internally inconsistent with tone and characterization. He spends the entire first half of the movie setting up Superman as a character having a grave existential crisis. He desperately wants to know who he is, where he comes from, and what his purpose is. Jor-El comes along and reveals that his purpose is to be a symbol of hope, to inspire humanity to loftier ideals and pursuits. He even has Kal-El wear an outfit that has the Kryptonian symbol for hope plastered all over his chest. At this point, Snyder's Jor-El is not all that different from Donner's. But whereas Donner then reveals a Superman who actually delivers on this promise of fulfilling his destiny, Snyder completely ignores all this set-up and gives us disaster porn and a generic superpowered action hero. That's what's so frustrating about MoS. I would have been more forgiving if he had just made it this big dumb action movie from the first frame. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Mar 30, 2016 20:56:31 GMT -5
Superman I is the perfect origin story, as well as a beautiful film on its own right. The only thing holding it back from perfection is the tacked on obligatory plot that comes in the final quarter of the film. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor was an interesting choice, but it did not fit the tone of the film. What he said. If 75 % of the first movie could go up against all the others in their entirety, I'd go for it. But the whole Luthor-Otis-Eve thing, while entertaining, is a little too goofy. John Byrne likened the three of them to some Hollywood film exec's idea of 'villains', in the manner of the '60s 'Batman' show. And I haven't even mentioned the 'turning back time' ending. I like Hackman better in the second movie, and the only real nitpick is Clark's 'hypnosis' on Lois. Ohhh, I think the turning back time ending is perfect. It plays so well with the morality issues featured in the film. He couldn't save Jonathan, Jor-El putting limitations on what he should do, and it all boils over to where Clark decides to use his power to save the woman he secretly loves. What good is all his power if he can't even save her in the end? That one shot where he finds her body, steps back weeping, turns and flies away in a RAGE, SCREAMING......Wow. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,868
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2016 20:59:35 GMT -5
So if flying around the world in the opposite direction of the sun's movement across the surface at blinding speeds could actually turn back time, then couldn't Superman fly around it a lot more, fly back to Krypton, and tell everyone that the world is going to blow up?
|
|
|
|
Post by realjla on Mar 30, 2016 22:36:45 GMT -5
What he said. If 75 % of the first movie could go up against all the others in their entirety, I'd go for it. But the whole Luthor-Otis-Eve thing, while entertaining, is a little too goofy. John Byrne likened the three of them to some Hollywood film exec's idea of 'villains', in the manner of the '60s 'Batman' show. And I haven't even mentioned the 'turning back time' ending. I like Hackman better in the second movie, and the only real nitpick is Clark's 'hypnosis' on Lois. Ohhh, I think the turning back time ending is perfect. It plays so well with the morality issues featured in the film. He couldn't save Jonathan, Jor-El putting limitations on what he should do, and it all boils over to where Clark decides to use his power to save the woman he secretly loves. What good is all his power if he can't even save her in the end? That one shot where he finds her body, steps back weeping, turns and flies away in a RAGE, SCREAMING......Wow. Yeah, that scene is great, but I grew up on 'Superman can't change the past' thing. Better to have Lois not quite dead, and Superman taking her to the Fortress to save her...with Jor El's image involved, somehow(probably couldn't have had Brando for more time than they actually had.) |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 31, 2016 1:19:36 GMT -5
He spends the entire first half of the movie setting up Superman as a character having a grave existential crisis. […] But whereas Donner then reveals a Superman who actually delivers on this promise of fulfilling his destiny, Snyder completely ignores all this set-up and gives us disaster porn and a generic super powered action hero. I don't know if "generic" would be the word to describe the events unfolding, upon Zod's arrival. In the Donner version of this menace, we were dealing with someone who wanted world domination and was ultimately dealt with, trough Kryptonian technology that seemed to be made available for that particular purpose. Snyder's Zod isn't interested in such Golden Age objectives, and the menace he represents, won't we defused trough an ad hoc device. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 31, 2016 1:54:44 GMT -5
So if flying around the world in the opposite direction of the sun's movement across the surface at blinding speeds could actually turn back time, then couldn't Superman fly around it a lot more, fly back to Krypton, and tell everyone that the world is going to blow up? Then he'd create a paradox which woud change his own history, resulting in his not being on Earth to meet Lois, see her die, and discover in attempting to save her that he could travel back in time, meaning that he'd never have returned to Krypton and created the paradox, so he'd be back on Earth, learning he coud travel back in time, then returning to Krypton, creating a paradox, which would mean he'd never... |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,868
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 31, 2016 7:31:43 GMT -5
So if flying around the world in the opposite direction of the sun's movement across the surface at blinding speeds could actually turn back time, then couldn't Superman fly around it a lot more, fly back to Krypton, and tell everyone that the world is going to blow up? Then he'd create a paradox which woud change his own history, resulting in his not being on Earth to meet Lois, see her die, and discover in attempting to save her that he could travel back in time, meaning that he'd never have returned to Krypton and created the paradox, so he'd be back on Earth, learning he coud travel back in time, then returning to Krypton, creating a paradox, which would mean he'd never... Pretty sure he could just kiss someone and fix all of that  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Mar 31, 2016 8:23:45 GMT -5
My fave superman movie is by far Hollywoodland!  Great story, great acting, great ending. |
|
