The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

View Poll Results: Man Of Steel Or Superman: The Movie?
Superman: The Movie 53 37.32%
Man Of Steel 69 48.59%
Does it matter? 20 14.08%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2013, 06:48 PM   #376
Szetsilya
Lois Lane --> Leia Lane
 
Szetsilya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States of Obama
Posts: 1,478
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Oh gosh can Someone please get this back on topic and away from the back and forth bickering!?
MOS vs SM.....um, I prefered MOS cape. The Superman cape is too short and looks like something a child magician would wear. I think both MOS and SM had flying scenes that were less impressive than Superman Returns.

Szetsilya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 06:39 AM   #377
B
[insert witty comment]
 
B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,921
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Again, that might be unconvincing or too far-fetched, but it doesn't contradict the previous movies as the issue of being convicted for his crimes was addressed.
In completely contradicts it, in one film he has already been convicted & is serving his time in jail, then in the next film it claims he got out because Superman failed to appear as a witness in his trial.. which makes no sense given that he was already in jail serving his sentence in the beginning of the previous film, meaning his trial is already over.

Unconvincing & far-fetched elements of the idea of his release would be things like why was Superman's word so pivotal in his release? Surely there was actual evidence that convicted him in the first place? As well as other witnesses. What happened to whatever crimes Lex Luthor was wanted for in STM before Superman had even shown up? Meaning the ones Superman wouldn't have been a witness to. It's things along those lines ie questioning the trial in deep detail, which would lead things into areas that are unconvincing & far-fetched, however ironically for my own argument, I could let some of the more 'deeper' details of it go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
In Batman Begins Joe Chill is convicted and then released. Sure, in a much better explained way. But that's not a contradiction with the first part pof the movie; you wouldn't say the second part of Batman Begins is not part of the whole movie because Chill was released.
Well no I wouldn't because his release is explained in greater terms & actually makes some logical sense. In BB Chill kills Bruce's parents when he is roughly 10, we then fast forward about 15 years & we see Chill's parole hearing in which he is being granted conditional early release from whatever the duration of his sentence was for his cooperation with the police & testifying against one of the biggest crime bosses in the city. Something that does actually happen.

Lex Luthor being released after such a short period would be like Bin Laden being caught, then released without charge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Well, you talk like you had the answer.
I don't know what would give you that impression given that I'm saying that 'it doesn't make sense' & your argument is that 'it does make sense.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
And no, Jason being conceived in the Fortress doesn't make any more sense. It could have been after and that doesn't make SR any less of a sequel, as many sequels assume that time goes by in between a movie and the next, and things do happen in that time.

Now, I have always said that the premises of SR needed to be much better explained. But yes, Jason could have been conceived after SII, then Superman flies away leaving a very heartbroken and resentful Lois, who tried to move on as fast as he could, going to Richard's arms. This in a short period of time, thus Lois (and Richard, of course) believe that Jason is Richard's son too.
The sole reason(s) though it doesn't make sense is simply because Jason has powers & Lois knows that Superman could potentially be the father. However don't you think it would make a similar level of little sense if Superman did go back to Lois in whatever the time period is between the 2 films given that all he & Lois had went through in Superman II in order to try to be together? Given his time away from Earth & the age/appearance of cast, the timeframe you are talking about after SII for Superman to have went back to Lois, you are talking about weeks/months as opposed to years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Well, as you see, in SII he wasn't supposed to be re-gaining his powers and somehow he did.
Well no, he regained his powers because the only potion of the console left standing was the piece that controlled the molecule chamber as evidence from when Lex activates it at the end. The only reason he was able to access the console was because he'd give Lois the crystal which she'd accidentally dropped/misplaced. The 2 elements combined are how he managed to get his powers back in SII.

The knowledge crystals though & their access points on the console though were destroyed as they were in the console. Now if you fast forward to SR, he seemed pretty upset that they were missing. Why would he be so upset if something like that were easily repaired or replaced? I mean at that point in the film it's not like he knew who had taken them or why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Next to that, the console reparation is nothing. X-Men's jet has been destroyed and repaired for sequels, Batman's suit too, etc.

That asked, yes, they're comparable in terms of how many superhero's items are severely damaged in one movie and they're repaired for the sequel. That doesn't make the sequels any less of a sequel.
Batman's suit though is something that he is shown to have "mass produced", the same I imagine would be the case for the X-Men's jet, while it's custom, it does seem like something that can be repaired if you've got the money. Fair enough, I'll go along with Superman being able to rebuild the Fortress's control console somehow, but the crystals that contain all Jor-El's knowledge & whatnot.. I mean those surely can't be replicated once destroyed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Yes, all movies should be flawless, but no one actually is. Now, if you could produce a serious contradiction and not conjectures or just progression of things (Lex in jail, Lex out of jail), I could even agree.

Again, you haven't been able to describe one serious inconsistency.

In fact I can produce some myself: how come Superman's suit is different now, how come Lois Lane looks so different, how come it's not the 70's anymore. THAT is actually inconsistent with the previous movies, not those action progression or conjectures you have exposed.

THAT is probably what IMDB had in mind when they said they were going to take this as an independent movie. They make clear that it is only in regards of "chronology and story details" (not serious differences) that they're taking the movie as independent, not because it actually is.
Actually the link I sent you is Superman Returns "goof list". They aren't talking about things like Superman has a different suit or glasses, or different actors/actresses are playing roles. Go look at Batman Forever then Batman & Robin, I'd almost be willing to bet my house that they won't list the fact that Bruce Wayne/Batman is played by actors that look completely different to Michael Keaton as goofs, nor would they list things like the Bat Cave of Gotham looks different or the Bat suit looks different.

Chronology & story alterations are serious differences & it's that reason IMDB treats it as a separate film, otherwise you'd have a long list of inconsistencies between the chronology & story alterations listed as goofs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Sure, and the rest were official, unlike your IMDB opinion.
Rotton Tomatoes synopsis is hardly official or any more credible than IMDB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
So to protect the film of unfair criticism regarding inconsistencies?
Precisely. Look I may not be the biggest fan of the film, but Superman is my favourite comic book character & if I treat this film as a sequel to SII as opposed to a standalone film, then my own opinion of the film would become even lower & I'd probably have to consider it alongside some of the worst superhero films I've seen as opposed to hovering somewhere in the middle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
So you cannot/refuse to grasp the concept and therefore it means nothing?

Now please produce a link where Batman Begins is seriously treated as Batman 89 prequel. I am aware that a few people thought so back in the day but they were wrong, as TDK proved.
It's not that it means nothing, it's just that the concept itself is a loose, vague & in my opinion silly description for the very example I mentioned to you previously.

Batman Begins wasn't a prequel to Batman 89, not even close... however you could describe it as a loose prequel at a push because chronology & story wise it has about as many inconsistencies between BB & Batman 89, as you do between SII & SR.. well maybe a few more between the 2 Batman films, but there's not much in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
On the contrary, my only "mistake" was to assume you meant "plot" when you wrote "plot." When you came to realize the plots are very similar, you changed it to goal.
Once again trying to tell me what I did & why.

Here's the end to this portion of the discussion: Read the previous post I made regarding this to avoid further confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
They don't have to allow it. They don't even have to know Lex is able to grow more continents, so they don't have to know one helicopter is a menace. But hey, last time I checked, for you someone fooling the U.S. Army and hacking manually two nuclear missiles is plausible - because you meant "plausible" when you wrote "plausible," didn't you? - so this would be entirely plausible for you anyways.
Actually if you go back & read, you'll notice that the word I used to describe how Lex actually gained control of the missile(s) was - irrelevant - to the point I was making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
The key here is "When Zod is involved in an origin story." Why would he be, in the first place?

The rest of your post is talking about MOS as if it were a Zod origin story, which is not, therefore it doesn't have to include him. But it did, re-creating all the basic plot of STM/SII, as I told you.
It doesn't have to include him, but it did. No doubt because Zod & Lex Luthor are 2 of Superman's most well known villians.

Your whole point regarding this is moot. It's like me saying TDK is the same as B89 because Batman & Joker are in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
You said "It [Spider-man 1] was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy."

1) Spider-man 1 alleged realism has little to do with Avengers origin stories. Radioactive/genetically altered spiders giving you super-powers is as unrealistic as it goes.
2) You said "any Avengers origin stories." "Any"? Thor? Unrealistic. Iron Man? Unrealistic. Hulk? Unrealistic. Captain America? Unrealistic. Care to correct that "any"?

No matter how you take it, Avengers is unrealistic. Spider-man is too. hawkeye and Black Widow don't change that.
You've got me, you've siphoned through my post & found a crumb to base your entire phantom argument. Any - some**. The some being every single one of them except Thor & Hulk.

I didn't claim it was completely 100% realistic at all, which is what I feel you think I did say. I grouped it with a bunch of films that all walked a fine line between reality & fantasy, meaning that the films try to keep the majority of characters that are all fantasy, as close to reality as possible.

B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 06:45 AM   #378
B
[insert witty comment]
 
B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,921
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Szetsilya View Post
Oh gosh can Someone please get this back on topic and away from the back and forth bickering!?
MOS vs SM.....um, I prefered MOS cape. The Superman cape is too short and looks like something a child magician would wear. I think both MOS and SM had flying scenes that were less impressive than Superman Returns.
Err.. we are on topic. We are comparing STM & MOS, which has led to other sub discussions while still maintaining the original topic.

If the discussion is bothering you that much you could always make use of the ignore feature & ignore both of us. I won't lose any sleep over it.

B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 01:41 PM   #379
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
In completely contradicts it, in one film he has already been convicted & is serving his time in jail, then in the next film it claims he got out because Superman failed to appear as a witness in his trial.. which makes no sense given that he was already in jail serving his sentence in the beginning of the previous film, meaning his trial is already over.
And Joe Chill is the same case. He was in jail, trial over, but suddenly, he was elected for release since he had vital information against Carmine Falcone. Second part of the movie doesn't contradict the first; in stories, more often than not, things change.

Luthor never having been in jail when we all saw him going there in the previous movies, that's a contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Unconvincing & far-fetched elements of the idea of his release would be things like why was Superman's word so pivotal in his release? Surely there was actual evidence that convicted him in the first place? As well as other witnesses. What happened to whatever crimes Lex Luthor was wanted for in STM before Superman had even shown up? Meaning the ones Superman wouldn't have been a witness to. It's things along those lines ie questioning the trial in deep detail, which would lead things into areas that are unconvincing & far-fetched, however ironically for my own argument, I could let some of the more 'deeper' details of it go.
Key witnesses. They do exist.

It doesn't contradict the previous movies, as it's stated that Lex was in jail for his crimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Well no I wouldn't because his release is explained in greater terms & actually makes some logical sense. In BB Chill kills Bruce's parents when he is roughly 10, we then fast forward about 15 years & we see Chill's parole hearing in which he is being granted conditional early release from whatever the duration of his sentence was for his cooperation with the police & testifying against one of the biggest crime bosses in the city. Something that does actually happen.
Making sense is one thing, being contradictory is another. You don't quite grasp the difference, or decided to ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Lex Luthor being released after such a short period would be like Bin Laden being caught, then released without charge.
Yeah, weird. But doesn't contradict anything from the previous movies.

If Luthor was sent to jail in SII and SR addresses that, there's no contradiction there whatsoever. If anything Luthor's release is a nonsense within SR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
I don't know what would give you that impression given that I'm saying that 'it doesn't make sense' & your argument is that 'it does make sense.'
Your argument is "this doesn't make sense in the movie, ergo it's not a sequel." Quite a non sequitur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
The sole reason(s) though it doesn't make sense is simply because Jason has powers & Lois knows that Superman could potentially be the father.
So, Jason being conceived in the Fortress doesn't make any more sense. Exactly what I told you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
However don't you think it would make a similar level of little sense if Superman did go back to Lois in whatever the time period is between the 2 films given that all he & Lois had went through in Superman II in order to try to be together? Given his time away from Earth & the age/appearance of cast, the timeframe you are talking about after SII for Superman to have went back to Lois, you are talking about weeks/months as opposed to years.
I've known plenty of people who know they can't be together and yet they fall into temptation.

That said, I have stated multiple times now that the premises in SR (such as what happened exactly between Lois and Superman and when) should have been much better explained.

It doesn't contradict what happened in the previous movies in any case though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Well no, he regained his powers because the only potion of the console left standing was the piece that controlled the molecule chamber as evidence from when Lex activates it at the end. The only reason he was able to access the console was because he'd give Lois the crystal which she'd accidentally dropped/misplaced. The 2 elements combined are how he managed to get his powers back in SII.
That's one of SII incoherences: the first time Superman goes into the chamber, no crystal is needed to make it work (in fact, as you said, the crystal was somewhere else at the time). Then Lara clearly states: "But consider, once it is done there is no return.

The only reason why he re-gained his powers was because the story needed it.

And also, you saw the console being destroyed during Superman's de-powering. And yet at the end of the movie, it still works. I guess if earth technology can repair consoles, Kryptonian can too.

The console being okay in SR doesn't contradict the previous movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
The knowledge crystals though & their access points on the console though were destroyed as they were in the console. Now if you fast forward to SR, he seemed pretty upset that they were missing. Why would he be so upset if something like that were easily repaired or replaced? I mean at that point in the film it's not like he knew who had taken them or why?
If you had seen SR you would know what the crystals can do, like growing entire continents. I'd say I'd be upset too if someone stole them, considering how much damage they could make, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Batman's suit though is something that he is shown to have "mass produced", the same I imagine would be the case for the X-Men's jet, while it's custom, it does seem like something that can be repaired if you've got the money. Fair enough, I'll go along with Superman being able to rebuild the Fortress's control console somehow, but the crystals that contain all Jor-El's knowledge & whatnot.. I mean those surely can't be replicated once destroyed.
Batman costume was only mass produced AFTER his only suit (in B89) was destroyed.

Now, you think a simple crystal can grow a continent just being exposed to water, but that very technology is unable to replicate itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Actually the link I sent you is Superman Returns "goof list". They aren't talking about things like Superman has a different suit or glasses, or different actors/actresses are playing roles.
Actually that list doesn't refer to ANY inconsistencies between SR and the previous movies. They just mention there are some, but none is named.

What I did by talking to you about the suit and such was only to provide some real inconsistencies between SR and STM/SII, so you could see the difference between them and your conjectures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Go look at Batman Forever then Batman & Robin, I'd almost be willing to bet my house that they won't list the fact that Bruce Wayne/Batman is played by actors that look completely different to Michael Keaton as goofs, nor would they list things like the Bat Cave of Gotham looks different or the Bat suit looks different.
There are many inconsistencies between Burton's and Schumacher's movies. The latter ones are considered sequels to the former ones though. What does that tell you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Chronology & story alterations are serious differences & it's that reason IMDB treats it as a separate film, otherwise you'd have a long list of inconsistencies between the chronology & story alterations listed as goofs.

Rotton Tomatoes synopsis is hardly official or any more credible than IMDB.
And the fact that everything is based on the previous movies, that Luthor still has the same goals, that Superman and Lois behave the same, that Luthor suggests to have been at the FoS before, that Lois wrote the "I spent the night with Superman" article, all that tells you it's a sequel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Precisely. Look I may not be the biggest fan of the film, but Superman is my favourite comic book character & if I treat this film as a sequel to SII as opposed to a standalone film, then my own opinion of the film would become even lower & I'd probably have to consider it alongside some of the worst superhero films I've seen as opposed to hovering somewhere in the middle.
You can treat the movie as you want. The fact that it's a vague sequel won't change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
It's not that it means nothing, it's just that the concept itself is a loose, vague & in my opinion silly description for the very example I mentioned to you previously.
The only problem here is what I mentioned: SR should have stated clearly what its premises were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Batman Begins wasn't a prequel to Batman 89, not even close... however you could describe it as a loose prequel at a push because chronology & story wise it has about as many inconsistencies between BB & Batman 89, as you do between SII & SR.. well maybe a few more between the 2 Batman films, but there's not much in it.
WB didn't do that. It is officially a reboot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Once again trying to tell me what I did & why.
When you keep changing your argument, this is in order. Otherwise you could keep doing it forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Here's the end to this portion of the discussion: Read the previous post I made regarding this to avoid further confusion.
I have, and in fact I have quoted them. You refer to the plot, then to the goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Actually if you go back & read, you'll notice that the word I used to describe how Lex actually gained control of the missile(s) was - irrelevant - to the point I was making.
Well, since you mentioned it, I'd assume it was relevant to you. But it had to be mentioned as suddenly "plausibility" was such an important element to you, even when no Superman movie has been plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
It doesn't have to include him, but it did. No doubt because Zod & Lex Luthor are 2 of Superman's most well known villians.
Exactly. It did include Zod (even when Zod wasn't as popular as Luthor, at least not before SII). Which is why if you take the basic MOS plot, "it was STM and SII in one movie more updated."

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
You've got me, you've siphoned through my post & found a crumb to base your entire phantom argument. Any - some**. The some being every single one of them except Thor & Hulk.
And Iron Man, and Captain America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
I didn't claim it was completely 100% realistic at all, which is what I feel you think I did say. I grouped it with a bunch of films that all walked a fine line between reality & fantasy, meaning that the films try to keep the majority of characters that are all fantasy, as close to reality as possible.
Talking about the Avengers' origins you said: "all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy." That's simply not true. And in their respective movies nothing was done to make their origins realistic.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 01:41 PM   #380
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Szetsilya View Post
Oh gosh can Someone please get this back on topic and away from the back and forth bickering!?
MOS vs SM.....um, I prefered MOS cape. The Superman cape is too short and looks like something a child magician would wear. I think both MOS and SM had flying scenes that were less impressive than Superman Returns.
Yes, B and myself must stop talking about Superman the movie, Man of Steel and Superman Returns so you can go back to talking about Superman the movie, Man of Steel and Superman Returns.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 04:26 PM   #381
moonmooer
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Man of Steel, easily. I'm not particular fond of Superman the Movie (dislike most of its aspects, especially Lex), but can respect its place as a cinematic landmark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batman View Post
Watch out....apparently, MOS Superman is automatically more human than STM Superman because STM Superman was just a boy scout.
No. Marvel Studio's Captain America was a boyscout; STM Superman was something else entirely. STM Superman is Superman at his most infallible and godlike, a status even referenced by Lois Lane in her horrible monologue. He never falters either morally or psychologically, and remarkably for a superhero movie, never even has to deal with any level of physical conflict, being completely impervious to anything save for "a little green rock" as many detractors will refer to Kryptonite as. When people who hate Superman criticize him as a two dimensional archetype, it is Donner's Superman or the planet juggling Silver Age portrayals that they are referencing.

Part of this comes off of what Donner had to work with; Pre-Crisis Superman was not a complex character and was pretty much the poster child for the difference between Marvel and DC at the time (flawed characters with personal issues such as Spider-Man vs archtypical gods such as Superman). I'd hesitate to name any CBM superhero less human than Donner's Superman; yes, even Dr. Manhattan. Even he possessed psychological conflicts, a character arc, and a greater display of moral reflection. MoS Clark spent the bulk of the film grappling with his feelings of being alienated from the human race, whilst attempting to more deeply explore his heritage; STM Clark was a plot device.

moonmooer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 06:42 PM   #382
Skrilla31
Side-Kick
 
Skrilla31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 784
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonmooer View Post
Part of this comes off of what Donner had to work with; Pre-Crisis Superman was not a complex character and was pretty much the poster child for the difference between Marvel and DC at the time (flawed characters with personal issues such as Spider-Man vs archtypical gods such as Superman). I'd hesitate to name any CBM superhero less human than Donner's Superman; yes, even Dr. Manhattan. Even he possessed psychological conflicts, a character arc, and a greater display of moral reflection. MoS Clark spent the bulk of the film grappling with his feelings of being alienated from the human race, whilst attempting to more deeply explore his heritage; STM Clark was a plot device.
Sorry man, strongly disagree. Clark is very, very human up until the point where he discovers the truth about who he is. He struggles with his identity, feels alienated from his peers, questions what his purpose is, laughs, cries, gets mad, feels remorse, etc.

But after he discovers his purpose, his higher calling... that's when he changes. You're right from that point on he is essentially a god, a savior, an onlooker. He is playing the Jesus role. And yet even still, he struggles with being a god.

Skrilla31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 05:10 AM   #383
B
[insert witty comment]
 
B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,921
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
And Joe Chill is the same case. He was in jail, trial over, but suddenly, he was elected for release since he had vital information against Carmine Falcone. Second part of the movie doesn't contradict the first; in stories, more often than not, things change.
Exactly, there's nothing irregular about Chill's circumstances or release, he killed 2 people & was in theory 1/2 or 2/3's of the way through his sentence the released on parole for good behaviour & cooperation with an important investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Luthor never having been in jail when we all saw him going there in the previous movies, that's a contradiction.

Key witnesses. They do exist.

It doesn't contradict the previous movies, as it's stated that Lex was in jail for his crimes.
If Lex is already in jail at the start of SII serving his time for the missile scheme in STM (in addition to whatever other crimes he was wanted for in addition), then his trial has already taken place & he has already been convicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Making sense is one thing, being contradictory is another. You don't quite grasp the difference, or decided to ignore it.

Yeah, weird. But doesn't contradict anything from the previous movies.
Don't start this same rubbish you started with The Avengers/realistic nonsense. I've described Lex's release in this discussion as both contradictory & illogical, both of which would fall into the category of not making sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
If Luthor was sent to jail in SII and SR addresses that, there's no contradiction there whatsoever. If anything Luthor's release is a nonsense within SR.
So you're admitting that it's nonsense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
So, Jason being conceived in the Fortress doesn't make any more sense. Exactly what I told you.

I've known plenty of people who know they can't be together and yet they fall into temptation.

That said, I have stated multiple times now that the premises in SR (such as what happened exactly between Lois and Superman and when) should have been much better explained.

It doesn't contradict what happened in the previous movies in any case though.
In Superman II, Superman & Lois try to be together, Lois can't cope with Superman/Clark's secret & it doesn't work out. Superman memory wipes her & all that good stuff, credits roll. You're trying to say that Superman going back after what happened in SII, in addition to off camera & having another go with Lois without telling her his secret & while he is super powered, isn't at all contradictory of the conclusion he came to & events of Superman II? All of which to try to defend why Jason displays powers in SR.

No matter when Jason was conceived it doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
That's one of SII incoherences: the first time Superman goes into the chamber, no crystal is needed to make it work (in fact, as you said, the crystal was somewhere else at the time). Then Lara clearly states: "But consider, once it is done there is no return.

The only reason why he re-gained his powers was because the story needed it.

And also, you saw the console being destroyed during Superman's de-powering. And yet at the end of the movie, it still works. I guess if earth technology can repair consoles, Kryptonian can too.

The console being okay in SR doesn't contradict the previous movies.
It isn't an incoherence though, the console is almost completely destroyed with 1 portion of it barely left standing, the piece Lex activates at the end with the only crystal that wasn't in the console when it had blown up. It was a plot point, it hadn't been repaired in anyway, it had just barely survived the explosion.

Lara's words justify why the console blew up & why both the crystals/console could not be repaired so easily as shown in SR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Batman costume was only mass produced AFTER his only suit (in B89) was destroyed.
So then what's your point? You said the suit was destroyed in one film, then fine in the next. In each of the films the suits have been different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Now, you think a simple crystal can grow a continent just being exposed to water, but that very technology is unable to replicate itself?
Growing land, fine I can buy that. However the crystals are what contains all of Jor-El's wisdom & knowledge. How would those be replicated once destroyed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Actually that list doesn't refer to ANY inconsistencies between SR and the previous movies. They just mention there are some, but none is named.

What I did by talking to you about the suit and such was only to provide some real inconsistencies between SR and STM/SII, so you could see the difference between them and your conjectures.
Mate, go look at the Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever & Batman & Robin, they aren't talking about inconsistencies such as new suits or different actors/actresses playing roles, if they were the fact that 3 different actors have played the same character would be listed as an inconsistency.

They are talking about story & chronological changes. That's a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
There are many inconsistencies between Burton's and Schumacher's movies. The latter ones are considered sequels to the former ones though. What does that tell you?
Such as? Obviously I'm not talking about different actors or actresses playing the same characters, or Batmobile/Batsuit changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
And the fact that everything is based on the previous movies, that Luthor still has the same goals, that Superman and Lois behave the same, that Luthor suggests to have been at the FoS before, that Lois wrote the "I spent the night with Superman" article, all that tells you it's a sequel.
This has nothing to do with Rotton Tomatoes being more credible than IMDB.

I'd dispute some of what you said here in this post as well, but I'm growing tired of our discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
You can treat the movie as you want. The fact that it's a vague sequel won't change.
Of course I can & I will, I already know that there are story & chronological changes between STM/SII & SR & I take the film as a reboot that assumes people know the back story of Superman as a opposed to a continuation of Reeve/Donner's series of films.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
And Iron Man, and Captain America.
Iron Man walks the same line as Batman, Captain America walks the same line as both only with scientific advancements rather than technological. All of which walk a line between reality & fantasy as I've stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Talking about the Avengers' origins you said: "all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy." That's simply not true. And in their respective movies nothing was done to make their origins realistic.
Well, if you don't think the likes of Iron Man walks the same sort of line as Batman from BB of reality & fantasy, then we will just have to agree to disagree, as I feel will be the case with 90% of what we are discussing altogether.

B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 05:10 AM   #384
B
[insert witty comment]
 
B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,921
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Yes, B and myself must stop talking about Superman the movie, Man of Steel and Superman Returns so you can go back to talking about Superman the movie, Man of Steel and Superman Returns.
QFT.

B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 11:35 AM   #385
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Exactly, there's nothing irregular about Chill's circumstances or release, he killed 2 people & was in theory 1/2 or 2/3's of the way through his sentence the released on parole for good behaviour & cooperation with an important investigation.
That's called fleshing out. Luthor's case might have been far less convincing but it doesn't contradict anything from the previous movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
If Lex is already in jail at the start of SII serving his time for the missile scheme in STM (in addition to whatever other crimes he was wanted for in addition), then his trial has already taken place & he has already been convicted.
But he escaped, right?

Now, how come he escaped? Oh yes, a girl in a hor air balloon just came with a rope ladder. That's it. Luthor got out. That makes zero sense, no sense whatsoever. Does that mean it contradicts STM? No, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Don't start this same rubbish you started with The Avengers/realistic nonsense. I've described Lex's release in this discussion as both contradictory & illogical, both of which would fall into the category of not making sense.
But it doesn't contradict STM or SII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
So you're admitting that it's nonsense?
You're admitting you get the difference between far-fetched and contrdictory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
In Superman II, Superman & Lois try to be together, Lois can't cope with Superman/Clark's secret & it doesn't work out. Superman memory wipes her & all that good stuff, credits roll. You're trying to say that Superman going back after what happened in SII, in addition to off camera & having another go with Lois without telling her his secret & while he is super powered, isn't at all contradictory of the conclusion he came to & events of Superman II? All of which to try to defend why Jason displays powers in SR.
Superman tried to give it another chance. Yes, what's the big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
No matter when Jason was conceived it doesn't make any sense.
Now you don't care when Jason was conceived??? You're a little bit of a contradiction yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
It isn't an incoherence though, the console is almost completely destroyed with 1 portion of it barely left standing, the piece Lex activates at the end with the only crystal that wasn't in the console when it had blown up. It was a plot point, it hadn't been repaired in anyway, it had just barely survived the explosion.

Lara's words justify why the console blew up & why both the crystals/console could not be repaired so easily as shown in SR.
Quote me Lara's line/lines in which it's implicit/explicit that the console must blow up and it can't be repaired.

Only thing shje says about it is what I already quote ("But consider, once it is done there is no return."). And yet that was contradicted within the very movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
So then what's your point? You said the suit was destroyed in one film, then fine in the next. In each of the films the suits have been different.
And in SR the console was different too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Growing land, fine I can buy that. However the crystals are what contains all of Jor-El's wisdom & knowledge. How would those be replicated once destroyed?
When a piece of cristyal can grow that much, it's basically duplicating itself thousands of times; that's how it gains mass. Same as an embryo starts one cell and then grows. If you're fine and can buy that - and you admitted you are/can - then you get how did the crystals can be repaired.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Mate, go look at the Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever & Batman & Robin, they aren't talking about inconsistencies such as new suits or different actors/actresses playing roles, if they were the fact that 3 different actors have played the same character would be listed as an inconsistency.
But they're not considered inconsistencies. Because they get they're sequels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
They are talking about story & chronological changes. That's a fact.
This sequel was made 26 years later. It's expected some changes. Which is why IMDB didn't want to list them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Such as? Obviously I'm not talking about different actors or actresses playing the same characters, or Batmobile/Batsuit changes.
The tone, the look of Gotham, the bat-cave, Bruce Wayne now goes to public parties instead of being Burton's recluse. Batman declares that it's the first time he falls in love but we all saw him in love in BR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
This has nothing to do with Rotton Tomatoes being more credible than IMDB.
Absolutely. It has everything to do with the fact that SR is a sequel though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Of course I can & I will, I already know that there are story & chronological changes between STM/SII & SR & I take the film as a reboot that assumes people know the back story of Superman as a opposed to a continuation of Reeve/Donner's series of films.
The reboot aspect is given by how much time has happened in between. But if it's taking the past story from STM and SII, then it's a sequel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Iron Man walks the same line as Batman, Captain America walks the same line as both only with scientific advancements rather than technological. All of which walk a line between reality & fantasy as I've stated.
No. Gamma rays are real, they don't make people green and big. Super soldier serum is pure fantasy. And Iron Man's super-weaponized flying armor is giant steps away from kevlar armor and a cape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B View Post
Well, if you don't think the likes of Iron Man walks the same sort of line as Batman from BB of reality & fantasy, then we will just have to agree to disagree, as I feel will be the case with 90% of what we are discussing altogether.
Well, you show me Batman's propelling systems and his missiles within his armor and we can start talking about similarities and how both are so close in plausibility.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 05:30 PM   #386
Xak-Ell
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: kandor
Posts: 101
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

i like both equally. they are both a product of their times. and both got people interested in superman again. not just that, but a ton of elements of the donner superman movies bled into the superman comics. also, man of steel "made superman cool" again. it revealed to the general audience that clar kent "while being an alien" is still just a regular guy. and that made the character much easier to relate to

Xak-Ell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 06:39 PM   #387
John Lambert
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 632
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

I just figured out what is up with a seemingly much younger Lois than Clark in the train scene. Originally the train scene was going to be with Clark the 5th grader running along. He was not going to be a high schooler at that point. At least that is what the copy of the script they have on Superman homepage suggests.

John Lambert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 06:42 PM   #388
John Lambert
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 632
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Even more intriguing, they were going to have an opening shot in the film where we saw the baby Lois Lane, but we would only figure that out because the parents she was with on the train would obviously be the same ones we saw with a baby in the opening shot of Metropolis.

John Lambert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 06:43 PM   #389
John Lambert
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 632
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

The script calls for Lois to be 6 on the train, so I guess they were going for her to be 4 years younger then Clark (5th graders are 10, more or less).

John Lambert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 09:11 PM   #390
John Lambert
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 632
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

There is one line from the published Superman: The Movie script that I wish they had kept. After one of Lois's truly horrible questions about spelling something Perry quips "What did you major in at Ratcliffe, Middle English". Although I think it would be even better if she came back with "no, Chaucer was just my minor."

John Lambert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 11:02 PM   #391
Steamteck
Side-Kick
 
Steamteck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 452
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Roegele View Post
I think The Dark Knight will be a beloved classic thirty years from now; I don't think Man of Steel will be.

Kinda like how Bride of Frankenstein is remembered by the general public all these years later, when there were so many similar monster movies at the time that aren't.

I disagree. I think that the Dark knights flaws will become more apparent given time while Man of Steel will soar as people get out from under the Superman the movie campier interpretation and see its virtues without trying to shoehorn it into the older movie's sensibilities.

Steamteck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2013, 11:58 PM   #392
John Lambert
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 632
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

I think I finally figured out the number 1 reason I like Man of Steel more than STM. Man of Steel closes with Clark in the last scene. STM has Clark jump out a window and somehow turn into Superman on his way down, and we never see Clark again for the rest of the film.

MOS understands that Clark is a character, and that we need to see him at the end, not Superman. True, part of me wishes we would have seen Clark at the planet sooner, but I think the way they did it worked.

John Lambert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 02:13 AM   #393
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lambert View Post
I think I finally figured out the number 1 reason I like Man of Steel more than STM. Man of Steel closes with Clark in the last scene. STM has Clark jump out a window and somehow turn into Superman on his way down, and we never see Clark again for the rest of the film.

MOS understands that Clark is a character, and that we need to see him at the end, not Superman. True, part of me wishes we would have seen Clark at the planet sooner, but I think the way they did it worked.
Please feel free to explain why a character appearing at the end of the movie defines him as important.

If anything STM gave the journalist Clark plenty of screen time and incorporated him as a core part of the myth as his secret identity. The important word being "secret."

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 11:25 AM   #394
Szetsilya
Lois Lane --> Leia Lane
 
Szetsilya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States of Obama
Posts: 1,478
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Wasn't Clark the disguise back in the 78 film? I don't think we ever saw the real Clark Kent in the movie as an adult.
MOS didn't really show any difference between Kal El Clark and Superman. I wonder if they ever will.

Szetsilya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 12:30 PM   #395
Lead Cenobite
Exquisitely Empty
 
Lead Cenobite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,899
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonmooer View Post
Man of Steel, easily. I'm not particular fond of Superman the Movie (dislike most of its aspects, especially Lex), but can respect its place as a cinematic landmark.



No. Marvel Studio's Captain America was a boyscout; STM Superman was something else entirely. STM Superman is Superman at his most infallible and godlike, a status even referenced by Lois Lane in her horrible monologue. He never falters either morally or psychologically, and remarkably for a superhero movie, never even has to deal with any level of physical conflict, being completely impervious to anything save for "a little green rock" as many detractors will refer to Kryptonite as. When people who hate Superman criticize him as a two dimensional archetype, it is Donner's Superman or the planet juggling Silver Age portrayals that they are referencing.
There are plenty of examples of Reeve's Superman being fallible and human. Racing the train and beating Brad's car back to the Kent farm were examples of vanity, as was his first night of heroics, as noted in the fortress scene following it. He also showed favoritism to his friends when Miss Tessmacher made him promise to go after the east-bound missile first to save her mother rather than going after the west-bound missile where Lois and Jimmy were. His anguish and defiance of Jor-El when he turned back time to bring Lois back from the dead is another good example of his emotional fallibility.

The Donner version of Superman II basically centers around his humanity, when he gives up being Superman because Jor-El tells him that he can't serve humanity by investing his time and emotion into one human being. He couldn't accept giving up Lois entirely and having a monk-like devotion to being a hero.

As for not dealing with any physical conflict? Did you not watch Superman II? He was unable to defeat Zod and co. with brute strength so he had to resort to a trick in order to depower them.

__________________
Superman with realistic physics isn't Superman.

Last edited by Lead Cenobite; 08-10-2013 at 12:37 PM.
Lead Cenobite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 01:42 AM   #396
Jaxon
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 193
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite View Post
There are plenty of examples of Reeve's Superman being fallible and human. Racing the train and beating Brad's car back to the Kent farm were examples of vanity, as was his first night of heroics, as noted in the fortress scene following it. He also showed favoritism to his friends when Miss Tessmacher made him promise to go after the east-bound missile first to save her mother rather than going after the west-bound missile where Lois and Jimmy were. His anguish and defiance of Jor-El when he turned back time to bring Lois back from the dead is another good example of his emotional fallibility.

The Donner version of Superman II basically centers around his humanity, when he gives up being Superman because Jor-El tells him that he can't serve humanity by investing his time and emotion into one human being. He couldn't accept giving up Lois entirely and having a monk-like devotion to being a hero.

As for not dealing with any physical conflict? Did you not watch Superman II? He was unable to defeat Zod and co. with brute strength so he had to resort to a trick in order to depower them.
STM is unwatchable no matter how you try and romanticise it to your childhood. The plot holes and poor character development are so obvious it looks like it was written by a child. Compare that to something like Empire Strikes Back in around the same time period to see that these things could be avoided with good scripting in those days.
MoS presented a real world Clark that doesn't go and save a child in a pram or whatever rubbish was dealt up in STM and its sequels.

Jaxon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 07:37 AM   #397
Lead Cenobite
Exquisitely Empty
 
Lead Cenobite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,899
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxon View Post
STM is unwatchable no matter how you try and romanticise it to your childhood. The plot holes and poor character development are so obvious it looks like it was written by a child. Compare that to something like Empire Strikes Back in around the same time period to see that these things could be avoided with good scripting in those days.
MoS presented a real world Clark that doesn't go and save a child in a pram or whatever rubbish was dealt up in STM and its sequels.
You're not being the least bit respectful, so I'm not debating anything with you. You're a complete and utter prick.

__________________
Superman with realistic physics isn't Superman.
Lead Cenobite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:03 AM   #398
hopefuldreamer
I'm a girl!
 
hopefuldreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,138
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxon View Post
STM is unwatchable no matter how you try and romanticise it to your childhood. The plot holes and poor character development are so obvious it looks like it was written by a child. Compare that to something like Empire Strikes Back in around the same time period to see that these things could be avoided with good scripting in those days.
MoS presented a real world Clark that doesn't go and save a child in a pram or whatever rubbish was dealt up in STM and its sequels.
Weird. That's how I feel about MOS.

I'm not in the least bit a cheerleader for the Reeve films. I've been pretty vocal about the fact they have always been a bit lost on me, and I never liked the tone, the idealistic picture of the world or how they presented Superman/Clark as a character.

But I see WAY more plot holes and WAY worse character development in MOS, and that's a movie coming out at a time when the bar is set tremendously high for superhero films.

Besides, STM just deserves a lot more respect than you're giving it.

You can't shrug off the huge impact it had on the character, the genre and films in general.

__________________
I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."


*\S/T*

Last edited by hopefuldreamer; 08-11-2013 at 08:06 AM.
hopefuldreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:53 AM   #399
Batmannerism
Side-Kick
 
Batmannerism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 921
Default Re: Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

Great thread ! Its interesting to read the comments of so many people who've had similar experiences with these two films.

My turn. Okay, I've been a big Superman fan since I used to watch the old black and white tv show (from way back when).

I distinctly remember the feeling, coming out of the cinema back in 1978, having seen SM TM as an 8 year old, it was pure joy.
Superman was a big part of my childhood, I read comic book regularly and saw all the movies no matter how bad they got (ugh ! Nuclear man and "masonry vision")
I even watched a few episodes of Lois and Clark, (again, ugh!)
But it was the first two movies that were the definitive Superman for me.
I loved that John Williams march, have it as an alarm tone on my phone today.

Superman returns....another ugh. Suddenly the man of steel was boring.
(and stupid ! He landed on the kryptonite island, and then looked mildly surprised when Luthor's thugs kicked the crap out of him). I'm not really
a Bryan Singer fan, but this film really made

It's exactly like the guy said, he tried to recreate the Donner version, but
in 2006, which was bound to be a disaster - it was forced, slow and unengaging. The comic book Superman had come a long way since 1978,
he'd been successfully rebooted by JOhn Byrne, killed and resurrected, and even got married. But the film tried to behave as though it were
still 1978. If you watch SM TM , in that first public appearance of Superman, when he comes out of the revolving door and the pimp goes
"Wooo, that's a baaaaad outfit Jim ! Wooo" that summed up the mood
of those films, they were cheesy, but perfect for the times. In 2006 that
just didn't fly. Literally. How SM R got 75% on RT, I'll never know.

Okay, onto MOS !
So, having said all that, I was very anxious going to see MOS. Especially when I heard about the Zod ending. Anyway, I went to see it and
it surpassed all my expectations. I absolutely loved it. I felt that exact same feeling I had 35 years earlier, as a kid coming out of SM TM.
That alone is proof that MOS is not just a great film but a great Superman film.

There were so many things right with this film little touches (like the butterfly on the swing, Clark drinking Bud and watching football) the flashbacks (which gave the film its emotional depth and heart - especially "You're the answer son" magic !) and yes, even the epic destruction.
Krypton really did look like a dying world, inhabited by a highly advanced race.
Hans Zimmer's score set the pace for both soft and epic moments, perfectly.
Lois Lane wasn't a bimbo, fooled by a pair of glasses.
When Clark/Kal stepped out of the scout ship, wearing the costume for the first time, I wanted to cheer ! Which of course lead to the epic flight scene.
Zod wasn't just a prick for the sake of being one, he actually had a purpose.

Yes it was more serious, yes Superman frowns a lot, yes there was
collateral damage (but if we're going to transport Supes into a more
realistic world, then there has to be).
but those who said it was joyless must have been watching a different film. Those critics who panned it were just holding on to the Reeve films.
The mistake they made was going in to the movie and expecting it to
be 1978 again.

This was a different Superman, it's not 1978 anymore, and Chris Reeve, God rest him, is gone. This was Superman as he should be for the 21st century, conflicted, troubled, struggling to find his place in the world -and making mistakes.

So, all in all they are both great films, I judge that by my elated reaction.
But both are reflective of the times in which they were made. I guess that means if future Superman films have a lighter tone, that the world's becoming a better place. In the meantime MOS was a terrific movie, a terrific Superman movie, and worthy to stand level with SM TM.

Batmannerism is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.