View Single Post
Old 01-14-2014, 11:57 PM   #497
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
So you take something out of context to quote something that is further out of context? ...okay

No wonder you like SR!
You stated something and I disproved you. Clark is not completely unlikable just because he's clumsy, as you stated. It was just that Lois is that kind of woman who needs a muscular blue prince to feel attracted to a man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
lolololol....is that what you thought I was doing?

Good for you son! Never let anyone (including me) tell you what to do!
Yes, that's what you've been doing.

False accusations about my identity. Then moved to tell me when, to whom and how to reply. And then patronizing and laughing everything away. Classic flaming tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
It's really too bad Singer elected not to push forward with something original and instead used a 30-year movie to make a quasi-sequel. It's really sad because it SR might have been something good... Unfortunately it was not.
Could you believe there are people basing movies 70 year old comics and books!


******************************************

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
It's almost the exact same scenario as the Batman/Ra's one you hated.Supe says "I know there's living people on this island,but hey,they should have sense enough to get in the copter and fly away before I can get this big ol' island into space."
And it worked for Luthor and Kitty, pretty much everyone that didn't stay taking the money.

As for the Ra's/Batman situiation, that's different: in the movie, Bruce is forced to kill, but he refuses. Ra's tells him, "Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share," to which Bruce replies, "That's why it's so important. It separates us from them." I don't say Bruce was a killer, I say Bruce learned from Ra's precisely what he explicitly said that separated him from Ra's when he sAid "I don't have to save you."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
He more or less dumped her at the end of the first movie.Gave her a better motivation to move on (after two YEARS) than Lois had barely a month after Supe's departure.
Peter explained MJ he couldn't be more than a friend. She got the explanation, it was an average break-up (even when they weren't much of an item yet). In Lois's case, Superman didn't even say good-bye, that is completely different and is what put Lois against Superman, made her angry and spiteful.

But I have never ranted against MJ because she moved on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
As I said,her personality didn't in fact match up with Kidder,who practically worshiped Supe.Sure,it's all for the almighty drama,but I can't believe Kidder playing that same part.Not by a long shot.She'd have sat by the phone for five years,expecting he'd be back any time.
Kidder's Lois worshiped Superman because he didn't leave her for six years without explaining why or saying good-bye when Kidder played the character. The rest of what you think she would have done is just your personal conjecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
There's a difference between adding to the rules and outright ignoring them.

Kryptonite with tar= Evil Superman

Kryptonite stuck in Superman = him writhing in agoney on the ground.He'd never be able to stand,much less fly to the sun (which I suppose has become his battery,kinda like Green Lantern's Lanteren?He has to "recharge" every so often?)
Rules are that kryptonite works by presence. When it's in the room or close, it affects Superman. When it's not, it doesn't, right?

So, all of a sudden the addition of tar makes the whole kryptonite work differently, as in SIII Superman was affected by kryptonite when it was NOWHERE near him.

Rules changed right there! Kryptonite doesn't need to be near Superman anymore.

But there's the tar addition, that had never seen before in the movies (and comics, maybe), and we're there to believe that tar alone makes that whole difference.

Same with the sun re-charge, only this is closer to the basic rules, as we all know Superman gets his powers from the sun. Get it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
They already established that he's powerless in STM and (heck in every incarnation) that Superman can't even touch kryptonite to throw it away,much less do amazing feats with a piece in his body!
And I don't remember him flying to the sun to re-charge his cells in STM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Well,they also dropped the triangle in MOS,and it also left that film feeling flat as well.
Difference is, SR dropped the triangle only AFTER it had been there for two movies, not before it even had the chance to exist.


************************************************** **********


Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
Ya, u r right. If kryptonite was used, he must fall into the trap. That's the whole purpose.
Maybe I hope superman to be a little macho and I'm not ready to see superman being beaten by normal folks. Sorta weird n cheap.
Just like if Batman had been stabbed by Talia and he couldn't fight anymore. Kryptonite weakens Superman the same way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
I just think SR didn't do the 'Superman Returns' theme at all... just like the article Lois wanna write at the end, why does the world needs superman. After watching the whole movie, u don't see why the world need him. It's sad.
Yeah, who needed him to save the plane, the shuttle, Metropolis from an earthquake or that continent that was going to flood America.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote