Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    Superman could be vindictive in the comics. Steve Lombard was constantly pulling mean pranks on Clark. And then Clark would get him back surreptitiously--which was some passive-aggressive conduct, since Steve would have no way of knowing this was payback for what he'd done to Clark earlier.

    However, there was never any real damage to Steve--and it was funny enough to see the guy get his comeuppance. Whereas, the scene in SUPERMAN II doesn't sit well with me--Clark is a bully. If something is funny then it's worth the contortion of logic--but that scene wasn't funny enough for me to forgive it.
    Superman is a good guy, but he's never been a pacifist. Not even in the Silver Age. He's never had a problem giving people their comeuppances. Look at all the crap he pulled on Lois during the 1960s. It was her comeuppance for all the crap she pulled on him, but today he'd be seen as abusive and misogynist.

    I think the diner scene was simply a nice tag to wrap up that bit of business. Everyone in the theater cheered when he did it because it was a wish fulfillment moment where we vicariously got back at our own bullies, so it felt satisfying.

  2. #62
    Spectacular Member Last Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marhawkman View Post
    Was this the first time that guy had lost a fight? I suspect not. It's like Clint Eastwood said, it's a very petty sort of revenge. And while he probably won't forget it, he most likely didn't change because of it.
    I don't see what's petty about it. Rocky violently assaulted him and could have ended up hurting him a lot worse than he did. He did punch him through a glass door after all. You don't just let guys like that continue to operate with impunity, thinking they can just abuse anyone they want without repercussions.

  3. #63
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son View Post
    I don't see what's petty about it. Rocky violently assaulted him and could have ended up hurting him a lot worse than he did. He did punch him through a glass door after all. You don't just let guys like that continue to operate with impunity, thinking they can just abuse anyone they want without repercussions.
    If only I truly believed that's the reason he did it, to teach him a lesson so he wouldn't bully other people. But he specifically chose the guy that beat him up, not some random bully. I can't buy that it wasn't for revenge. Maybe I'm falling into the trap myself of expecting too much from Superman by 1978-1980, that he's above such things as giving in to the desire for petty revenge. Nobody is saying the guy didn't deserve it. It's Superman's motives that are the issue.

    I would add that, in the commentary, Richard Donner (the Director) specifically states that one thing he never forgave Clint Eastwood for was that Bronco Billy never went back and got even with the guy that bullied him. "Got even" were the specific words and he made sure that "mistake" didn't happen with Superman.
    Last edited by Powerboy; 02-15-2018 at 04:24 PM.
    Superman was a beacon to the world. He didnít just save people, he made them see the best part of themselves.

  4. #64
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,325

    Default

    I'm late to the thread, so I'll just respond to OP.

    Sadly, I think much of Superman is better in idea than execution, and I feel that can be said about this movie, too. There are aspects of it I like, but I have a hard time sitting through the entire movie again. I feel this is true for pretty much every Superman movie, even though I own several of them on BluRay. I guess I hold Superman to too high of a standard.

  5. #65
    Mighty Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son View Post
    I don't see what's petty about it. Rocky violently assaulted him and could have ended up hurting him a lot worse than he did. He did punch him through a glass door after all. You don't just let guys like that continue to operate with impunity, thinking they can just abuse anyone they want without repercussions.
    Except that he did... sure, he smacked him around a bit.... but ultimately, what did he accomplish? He didn't hand him over to the police and he messed up the diner.

  6. #66
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Well, I've moved on to Superman III. This is only the second time I've ever watched it, the first being in the theater in 1983. It feels pretty sad compared to what the series had been. But this is one movie that I found fascinating for the subplot rather than the main plot. Forget the rest of the movie. This movie is about Clark returning to Smallville and developing a relationship with Lana Lang. Annette O'Toole was great as both Lana Lang in this movie and later as Martha Kent in "Smallville". Darn but this is the relationship that should have existed between Clark and Lois in the first two movies. As others have said, other than physical attraction, there's just zero reason why Clark would be interested in this version of Lois in the first movie except that he's been in the Fortress for twelve years and she just happens to be an attractive woman he works with.

    But here, Clark and Lana actually talk to each other, have things in common, share feelings and have believable reasons why he's attracted to her. As I said, this subplot IS the movie. Forget the rest.

    I do find it funny that, when he turns evil, Superman's costume also turns evil. In other words, it suddenly becomes dark and drab instead of bright and vibrant, sort of foreshadowing later takes on the costume.
    Superman was a beacon to the world. He didnít just save people, he made them see the best part of themselves.

  7. #67
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    6,569

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I do find it funny that, when he turns evil, Superman's costume also turns evil. In other words, it suddenly becomes dark and drab instead of bright and vibrant, sort of foreshadowing later takes on the costume.
    Good observation/connection. Zach Snyder Miller should have cut straight to his endgame.
    Zstop9ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp.jpg
    Thank you America for voting for change.

  8. #68
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBatmanFan05 View Post
    Good observation/connection. Zach Snyder Miller should have cut straight to his endgame.
    Zstop9ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp.jpg
    I read an article a while back comparing Reeve to Cavill and their respective movies and trying to evaluate which was better in one aspect or another and the article was about 50/ 50 in terms of which movie was better at something and I even agreed with most of it. But the one thing that baffled me was when the guy who wrote the article gave Cavill the win on the costume describing it as bright and vibrant compared to the duller traditional costume Reeve wore. Flabbergasted beyond the capacity to respond would be a good description of my reaction to that. But then I realized he was comparing photos of the two costumes, not how either looked in the actual movies. Without the grey filter that was constantly used in the movie, the Cavill costume really is very bright though I think you can only fairly judge by what was shown in the movie, not in photos outside of it. I always wondered why, if they wanted to continue the atmosphere and feel of the Reeve movies in "Superman Returns", they went with a leathery dark costume?
    Superman was a beacon to the world. He didnít just save people, he made them see the best part of themselves.

  9. #69
    Spectacular Member Last Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I read an article a while back comparing Reeve to Cavill and their respective movies and trying to evaluate which was better in one aspect or another and the article was about 50/ 50 in terms of which movie was better at something and I even agreed with most of it. But the one thing that baffled me was when the guy who wrote the article gave Cavill the win on the costume describing it as bright and vibrant compared to the duller traditional costume Reeve wore. Flabbergasted beyond the capacity to respond would be a good description of my reaction to that. But then I realized he was comparing photos of the two costumes, not how either looked in the actual movies. Without the grey filter that was constantly used in the movie, the Cavill costume really is very bright though I think you can only fairly judge by what was shown in the movie, not in photos outside of it. I always wondered why, if they wanted to continue the atmosphere and feel of the Reeve movies in "Superman Returns", they went with a leathery dark costume?
    Probably because they wanted to have it both ways. Nostalgic and Donner-inspired but also dark, gritty and modernized, which was superficially exemplified in the darkening of the movie's overall color palette. I'd say a lot of the reason they went along with Singer's idea was because of the negative reactions the subversive ideas of Jon Peters, Tim Burton, McG, and JJ Abrams which would have radically reimagined Superman in an attempt to modernize him. By comparison, a Donner-inspired Superman movie was a traditional depiction of the character after all the talk of fighting polar bears, living symbiotic Super suits with designs that look like they came from the mind of the Schumacher Batman costume designer, Superman not flying, giant mechanical spiders, Krypton not exploding, and Lex Luthor as a CIA agent/vacuum salesman/alien or whatever the hell Abrams was planning with him.
    Last edited by Last Son; 02-16-2018 at 03:28 PM.

  10. #70
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Son View Post
    Probably because they wanted to have it both ways. Nostalgic and Donner-inspired but also dark, gritty and modernized, which was superficially exemplified in the darkening of the movie's overall color palette. I'd say a lot of the reason they went along with Singer's idea was because of the negative reactions the subversive ideas of Jon Peters, Tim Burton, McG, and JJ Abrams which would have radically reimagined Superman in an attempt to modernize him. By comparison, a Donner-inspired Superman movie was a traditional depiction of the character after all the talk of fighting polar bears, living symbiotic Super suits with designs that look like they came from the mind of the Schumacher Batman costume designer, Superman not flying, giant mechanical spiders, Krypton not exploding, and Lex Luthor as a CIA agent/vacuum salesman/alien or whatever the hell Abrams was planning with him.
    I had forgotten about some of those. I remember those pictures of Nicholas Cage in a Superman costume with long hair and looking like Jack Nicholson in a movie poster for "The Shining". "Daddy's home". Or Lex Luthor as an alien bounty hunter, sort of "What if Lex Luthor and General Zod" were the same character?" Compared to those ideas, what we finally got in "Superman Returns" probably sounded like a great idea.

    And speaking of things that sounded like great ideas but were the worst disasters in history, I finally watched Superman IV which I had never seen before and I actually like it- for about the first 25 minutes. Oh, the special effects didn't even deserve to be called special effects. But I liked the touch of Clark going home after Martha Kent died and I get now that there was another reason SR ignored III and IV besides the obvious. It was also that there were references in both of those movies to the death of Martha Kent. There were several little personal scenes I liked.

    But, oh my gawds. Lois gradually remembered the stuff that happened in Superman II so he robs her of her memories again???? And for absolutely no reason. Yet even after that, she implies that she still knows. Too bad she doesn't know how often he's violated her very mind. Maybe she'd have a very different opinion of him then. It's the ultimate go nowhere relationship but since it's live action and the characters don't stay the same age forever, it just feels disgusting like he's robbing her of her memories and wasting her life.

    The Nuclear Man is just too easy a target to bother criticizing. But Superman just deciding to confiscate all nuclear weapons? He doesn't ask. He doesn't try to persuade and inspire. He just does it. And nobody in the entire U.N. seems to have any problem with this because it's not like it will change the entire power structure of the world or anything. And the only people who do object are greedy, self-serving war profiteers. This really is black and white good and evil. Granted, even Superman sees his mistake at the end and, once the Nuclear Man shows up, the original message is tossed aside anyway.

    So much bad stuff I've got to say even "Batman and Robin" is looking good.

    In fact, the last few minutes of Superman II, almost all of Superman III except the Lana Lang stuff which was great and this leaves the first movie as the only one I have no problems with and think was one of the greatest superhero movies.
    Superman was a beacon to the world. He didnít just save people, he made them see the best part of themselves.

  11. #71
    Mighty Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,339

    Default

    I liked the concept of the bad guys in both 3 and 4.

    Gus Gorman's computer, it's not Brainiac, but it's along those lines. The synthetic Kryptonite was a neat idea too.

    The bad? The special effects? Ugh... I'd love to see the cyborg done with modern effects. While I'm not fond of how much focus they gave to Gus... it kinda worked, though it was weird. Having him give the fake kryptonite to Superman? Dumb... then again, what would be better? Things that'd require them to cast more actors. Part of why 1 and 2 were as good as they were is that the story didn't need a large cast. All the Donnerverse movies had a low budget. it was less obvious in 1 and 2 since they didn't try to stretch it as far.

    The other annoying part to me is that the movie spent too much time trying to figure out the limits to Superman's character. Would he do or not do this? It's ok when done sparingly, but got over used.

    Superman vs Nuclearman is a cool fight. The concept of making a supervillain that's a mutant Kryptonian is a sound concept. I LOVED seeing Superman figure out Nuke's weakness and use it against him.

    The biggest issue with 4 is there are holes in the finished movie because scenes were cut. why is Nuke obsessed with Lacey? I REALLY wish they hadn't cut the Nuclearman prototype from the finished movie. Also, the Nuke prototype explained why Lex knew he needed to incubate his creation in the sun. the finished version makes it seem like it was simple infatuation, but one of the cut scenes established that he'd already met her before going after her. So in the end the movie suffered because the final script was NOT rewritten when they decided to cut things after filming them. Why did they do it? Possibly to shorten it. But it'd make more sense to me to shorten the fights. It's the same problem they had in SvB... they cut out parts of the story. :/

    The part with Supes confiscating the world's nuclear weapons? that was dumb, but he'd done equally dumb things in the comics...

  12. #72
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marhawkman View Post
    I liked the concept of the bad guys in both 3 and 4.

    Gus Gorman's computer, it's not Brainiac, but it's along those lines. The synthetic Kryptonite was a neat idea too.

    The bad? The special effects? Ugh... I'd love to see the cyborg done with modern effects. While I'm not fond of how much focus they gave to Gus... it kinda worked, though it was weird. Having him give the fake kryptonite to Superman? Dumb... then again, what would be better? Things that'd require them to cast more actors. Part of why 1 and 2 were as good as they were is that the story didn't need a large cast. All the Donnerverse movies had a low budget. it was less obvious in 1 and 2 since they didn't try to stretch it as far.

    The other annoying part to me is that the movie spent too much time trying to figure out the limits to Superman's character. Would he do or not do this? It's ok when done sparingly, but got over used.

    Superman vs Nuclearman is a cool fight. The concept of making a supervillain that's a mutant Kryptonian is a sound concept. I LOVED seeing Superman figure out Nuke's weakness and use it against him.

    The biggest issue with 4 is there are holes in the finished movie because scenes were cut. why is Nuke obsessed with Lacey? I REALLY wish they hadn't cut the Nuclearman prototype from the finished movie. Also, the Nuke prototype explained why Lex knew he needed to incubate his creation in the sun. the finished version makes it seem like it was simple infatuation, but one of the cut scenes established that he'd already met her before going after her. So in the end the movie suffered because the final script was NOT rewritten when they decided to cut things after filming them. Why did they do it? Possibly to shorten it. But it'd make more sense to me to shorten the fights. It's the same problem they had in SvB... they cut out parts of the story. :/

    The part with Supes confiscating the world's nuclear weapons? that was dumb, but he'd done equally dumb things in the comics...
    I do think that, had this movie been made with the kind of budget the first two or even the third one had, it would not be criticized as much or considered one of the worst movies ever. Though I compared it badly even to "Batman and Robin", B&R had a huge budget and failed on it's lack of merits (even though I begrudgingly enjoyed the homage to the 1960s show but trying to honor the Adam West show AND honor the Burton movies and the new origin for Mr. Freeze are sort of mutually exclusive goals). But, if it had a real budget, it would have been a drastically different movie. I've seen some of the deleted scenes and they would add more background but the first Nuclear Man is so unbelievably corny that he really does belong in a 1930s Frankenstein movie even compared to the second Nuclear Man that we see.

    And yet, there are still some nice touches. It's unfortunate that Clark going to the graves of the Kents was not only deleted but apparently lost forever on the cutting room floor because everyone involved in the movie says it was one of the best scenes. I think the cuts were to get it to a length that allowed for more showings per night and hence more ticket sales.

    I know Donner was constantly fighting with the Salkinds and has stated that all they cared about was "How much will it cost?" I've heard a rumor that Warners essentially stepped in and took over the first movie and that the Salkinds were constantly telling Donner he was over budget but they would never even tell him what the budget was. It is unfortunate that these companies, especially Cannon Films, just would not realize that they would have made ten times back what they spent if they had just put a real budget into the fourth movie rather than promising a real budget and then yanking it away at the last minute, probably never really intending to give the budget they promised. Even the guy who wrote the movie, in his commentary, cannot help but go on about the original intent and what the budget cuts did.
    Superman was a beacon to the world. He didnít just save people, he made them see the best part of themselves.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •