Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 31, 2016 12:31:43 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... I'm pretty sure that I read some time ago that it wasn't Superman flying in the opposite direction to the sun's movement across the surface of the Earth that caused time to be turned back. What really happened was that Superman flew round and round the Earth until he reached and then exceeded the speed of light. Once that happened, he began to travel back through time. The Earth appearing to slow and then spinning in the reverse direction was just a cinematic device to show the audience that Supes was traveling backwards through time. Unfortunately, it was a very clumsy cinematic device, that left most of the audience (myself included) either confused or misunderstanding and reaching the wrong conclusion: that somehow Superman was reversing the spin of the Earth and turning time backwards. The subtle difference being that it was him alone that was traveling back through time, in order to save Lois. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 31, 2016 15:16:18 GMT -5
Lightning round reviews:
Superman the Movie: Hell, yeah, I believed a man could fly! Great start!
Superman II: Superman gets laid, punches out a bunch of other Kryptonians, sends Luthor back to jail, and kisses Lois into amnesia. Good follow up.
Superman III: Richard Pryor? Really? And the secret ingredient that makes Kryptonite work is nicotine? OK, whatever.
Superman IV: The Quest to Make More Money: AHHH! AHHH! My eyes!! Make it stop!!
Superman Returns: Kevin Spacey is Luthor? Superman is a dead-beat dad? What the hell?!?!
Man of Steel: Superman is back to protect Metropolis! No, wait, he and Zod pulverized it into powder and killed, at least, tens of thousands. Um, hooray for our hero?
Batman v. Superman: Haven't seen it yet, but bad reviews and securing the record for biggest drop-off in ticket sales from Friday to Sunday for any super-hero movie opening (including the last FF movie) are not good incentives to rush out to see it.
To sum up, I'm surprised it's even a question. Superman the Movie for the win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 31, 2016 15:26:57 GMT -5
Superman III: Richard Pryor? Really? And the secret ingredient that makes Kryptonite work is nicotine? OK, whatever. To be fair, it didn't work "correctly" (i.e. it wasn't lethal), it just made Superman reconsider his position on blondes. |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Mar 31, 2016 15:35:21 GMT -5
whoops! wrong thread  |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Mar 31, 2016 19:53:58 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. Unless he was closer to the makeshift phantom zone bomb, in witch case his threat totally would have been defused by an ad hoc device... |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 1, 2016 1:39:39 GMT -5
Superman III: Richard Pryor? Really? And the secret ingredient that makes Kryptonite work is nicotine? OK, whatever. It was actually tar, and the whole point was that it wasn't the correct ingredient... |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 1, 2016 2:46:05 GMT -5
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. Unless he was closer to the makeshift phantom zone bomb, in witch case his threat totally would have been defused by an ad hoc device… The "Phantom Drive" in the ship, had another purpose, the fact that it could be made to open a singularity, doesn't make it an ad hoc device, because it wasn't created for the particular purpose of exiling kryptonians. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Apr 1, 2016 7:35:10 GMT -5
Superman III: Richard Pryor? Really? And the secret ingredient that makes Kryptonite work is nicotine? OK, whatever. It was actually tar, and the whole point was that it wasn't the correct ingredient... Right, I got that. As to tar or nicotine, I'll take your word for it because it's been a long time since I've seen it (or want to see it again). My whole point was, it was stupid. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 1, 2016 9:08:03 GMT -5
The whole of Superman III is played much more for laughs than the first two movies. That's part of the problem with it; it lacks the seriousness and gravitas of the first two films. The best bits of the film are the bits that aren't played for laughs -- the chemical plant fire, evil Superman and the junk yard fight between Supes and Clark Kent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Apr 1, 2016 16:04:56 GMT -5
Superman III was a silly film, and it definitely lacked the gravitas of the first two. But for a 7-year-old kid, it was a lot of fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by String on Apr 5, 2016 12:45:58 GMT -5
With all the talk about Superman, I also think Terrance Stamp portrayed the best Zod. He had some of the best dialogue and how he altered his demeanor ranging from calm curiosity and puzzlement to simmering rage and power, simply amazing.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 5, 2016 12:54:35 GMT -5
With all the talk about Superman, I also think Terrance Stamp portrayed the best Zod. He had some of the best dialogue and how he altered his demeanor ranging from calm curiosity and puzzlement to simmering rage and power, simply amazing. Yeah, that was a pretty amazing performance all round. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Apr 11, 2016 8:36:52 GMT -5
Lightning round reviews: Superman the Movie: Hell, yeah, I believed a man could fly! Great start! Superman II: Superman gets laid, punches out a bunch of other Kryptonians, sends Luthor back to jail, and kisses Lois into amnesia. Good follow up. Superman III: Richard Pryor? Really? And the secret ingredient that makes Kryptonite work is nicotine? OK, whatever. Superman IV: The Quest to Make More Money: AHHH! AHHH! My eyes!! Make it stop!! Superman Returns: Kevin Spacey is Luthor? Superman is a dead-beat dad? What the hell?!?! Man of Steel: Superman is back to protect Metropolis! No, wait, he and Zod pulverized it into powder and killed, at least, tens of thousands. Um, hooray for our hero? Batman v. Superman: Haven't seen it yet, but bad reviews and securing the record for biggest drop-off in ticket sales from Friday to Sunday for any super-hero movie opening (including the last FF movie) are not good incentives to rush out to see it. To sum up, I'm surprised it's even a question. Superman the Movie for the win. Update: I bit the bullet and saw "Batman v. Superman" this past weekend. I went in with fairly low expectations, and it turned out better than I expected. I thought it might be too crowded (the movie, not the theater which was at least half empty), but Flash, Aquaman, & Cyborg were only short cameos. People have said it's unrelentingly grim, and they're right. Some of Batman's motivations (especially one in particular) were questionable, but the biggest downside of the movie was definitely the portrayal of Luthor. As others have said, it appears his portrayal of Luthor was based on watching Heath Ledger's Joker. Luthor has been characterized a few different ways in the comics, but a giggling lunatic was never one of them. Wonder Woman's main role was later in the movie, but was well done.
One minor spoiler to save you some time in the theater: there's no after credits scene.
Overall grade: still better than Superman IV and Superman Returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 11, 2016 9:34:45 GMT -5
As others have said, it appears his portrayal of Luthor was based on watching Heath Ledger's Joker.
One minor spoiler to save you some time in the theater: there's no after credits scene.
That's apparently what he did. At this point, it'd be fun to run a poll, to see if anyone, liked this Luthor. Good one. |
|
Golddragon71
Full Member
Immortal avatar of the Dragon Race The Golden Dragon
Posts: 343
|
Post by Golddragon71 on Apr 11, 2016 21:39:45 GMT -5
Yeah, No. Eisenberg's Luthor did not do it for me. (My favorite Luthors were Clancy Brown in the Animated Series and John Shea in Lois and Clark)
|
|
