The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Superman Sequels

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-14-2007, 08:34 PM   #1326
NotFadeAway
Side-Kick
 
NotFadeAway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Mirror Universe
Posts: 5,421
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

The film itself was lame and emotionless in general. A big bundle of emotionless crap. And lame crap. With bad storylines and bad dialouge. With a horrid take on Lex Luthor. And more emotionless, lame crap.

Seriously though, the film tried so hard to be grand, epic, and emotional, but it just, well, wasn't. It failed.

__________________

LOST- 2004-2010: "The most important part of your life was the time you spent with these people. "

Best comic film of all time. The Dark Knight Rises!



Last edited by NotFadeAway; 11-14-2007 at 08:41 PM. Reason: vv
NotFadeAway is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 08:41 PM   #1327
NotFadeAway
Side-Kick
 
NotFadeAway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Mirror Universe
Posts: 5,421
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
To me, and to a lot of people. Kryptonite hurts Superman. How is him being hurt "not being Superman"? And then the man, despite the presence of Kryptonite and his strength being sapped, manages to LIFT A CONTINENT INTO SPACE after his solar bath. And you tell me Superman is nowhere to be seen in this film?

Powerful, as in emotionally powerful, not as in Superman being powerful in every scenario. Superman didn't "fight back" because he was standing on an island made of Kryptonite, and he was essentially *****slapped, and by the time that was over, it was over regardless. And he did put up a fairly good struggle considering everything he was going through. Wah wah, he didn't throw any punches. Probably had something to do with the fact that he could barely stand after landing on New Krypton and soaking in the K radiation.

And if you don't think that Superman, after being exposed to that much Kryptonite, being beaten, stuck with Kryptonite, and almost drowning and then escaping, knowing he's going to die and going back regardless, soaking up the sun and doing what he does at the movie is somewhat powerful, you should just stop caring about Superman right now, because you don't get the character.

What do you want, powerful emotional moments like "I failed them Alfred. Despite the fact that none of this is my fault, I'm just going to give up right now because my house is on fire"?



Let's see how much of a fight you would put up exposed to an entire island that is composed of a radiation that absolutely drains you of all strength, and then being thrown down a flight of stairs and taking a savage beating. He was essentially mortal at that point.
It was a character moment, and an emotional moment that tied into Bruce's childhood and his father. Character moments were somthing Superman Returns did not have.

I'm sorry, again, but the entire plot of New Krypton itself took the everything out of said scenes.

I'm sorry again, but anytime the Singer/Donner version of Lex is used it is a total loss because of the amazing villian potential that a corporate/politician Lex has, for the mere fact of our current social and political enviroment. The perfect opponent for the Man of Steel. And it's just a better version of the character. Like I said, no bimbo's turning on Lex, no bimbo's periond, no lackey's named otis and brutus, no lackey's at all, no corny comments, no wigs, no real estate, none of that crap

__________________

LOST- 2004-2010: "The most important part of your life was the time you spent with these people. "

Best comic film of all time. The Dark Knight Rises!


NotFadeAway is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 08:52 PM   #1328
Super Kal
Side-Kick
 
Super Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: a northern state :(
Posts: 47,659
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotFadeAway View Post
The film itself was lame and emotionless in general. A big bundle of emotionless crap. And lame crap. With bad storylines and bad dialouge. With a horrid take on Lex Luthor. And more emotionless, lame crap.

Seriously though, the film tried so hard to be grand, epic, and emotional, but it just, well, wasn't. It failed.
exactly... reminds me all too much of Star Trek: The Motion Picture...

__________________
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome.
Super Kal is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 08:54 PM   #1329
Matt
The Man
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Camp Manuel
Posts: 75,449
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON View Post
Agreed 100%, in fact is a lot more powerful than 90% of CB movie 3rd acts IMO, but it just takes you through so many emotions in a short space of time.
To me it wasn't the least bit emotional or powerful. Do you know why? Because the character had virtually no development. He was a stiff as a board guy moping about his ex-girlfriend for the two acts leading up to it. To be quite frank, I didn't give a **** about him. That is why the third act fails. Singer did not establish a connection between the character and the audience in the first two acts. He is essentially the first victim in a slasher movie. The guy no one cares about outside of how gory his death is. For a scene like that to be powerful, the audience has to relate to and care about the character. Hell, the movie would've been more relatable if it were Richard getting beat.


Last edited by Matt; 11-14-2007 at 09:04 PM.
Matt is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 09:10 PM   #1330
gkokujin
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 2,439
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

GREAT post NFA!

__________________
If you are offended, remain offended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateJustin View Post
no kid in fifteen years will recall what was going on in the haze of animated card game shows where cat faced japanese children yelled annoyingly and danced around and shot mushrooms out of their mouths.
gkokujin is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 10:11 PM   #1331
NotFadeAway
Side-Kick
 
NotFadeAway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Mirror Universe
Posts: 5,421
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by gkokujin View Post
GREAT post NFA!

Thank You

__________________

LOST- 2004-2010: "The most important part of your life was the time you spent with these people. "

Best comic film of all time. The Dark Knight Rises!


NotFadeAway is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 10:11 PM   #1332
NotFadeAway
Side-Kick
 
NotFadeAway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Mirror Universe
Posts: 5,421
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
To me it wasn't the least bit emotional or powerful. Do you know why? Because the character had virtually no development. He was a stiff as a board guy moping about his ex-girlfriend for the two acts leading up to it. To be quite frank, I didn't give a **** about him. That is why the third act fails. Singer did not establish a connection between the character and the audience in the first two acts. He is essentially the first victim in a slasher movie. The guy no one cares about outside of how gory his death is. For a scene like that to be powerful, the audience has to relate to and care about the character. Hell, the movie would've been more relatable if it were Richard getting beat.
Exactly!

__________________

LOST- 2004-2010: "The most important part of your life was the time you spent with these people. "

Best comic film of all time. The Dark Knight Rises!


NotFadeAway is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 10:12 PM   #1333
NotFadeAway
Side-Kick
 
NotFadeAway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Mirror Universe
Posts: 5,421
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Kal View Post
exactly... reminds me all too much of Star Trek: The Motion Picture...

It is scary how much Superman Returns and Star Trek The Motion Picture are alike!

__________________

LOST- 2004-2010: "The most important part of your life was the time you spent with these people. "

Best comic film of all time. The Dark Knight Rises!


NotFadeAway is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 10:25 PM   #1334
wellsy
All crews reporting.
 
wellsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 775
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Well, given that we agree on the SR ST:TMP analogy, can we consider the Wrath of Khan sequel?

I'm honestly not fussed about Singer directing, but I do think that, if we're going for a direct sequel to SR, that he be connected with the project at least.

*Raises wine glass full of Romulan Ale*

To the Undiscovered Country!

__________________
Avert Not, Thine Eyes
wellsy is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 10:57 PM   #1335
The Guard
Side-Kick
 
The Guard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 25,341
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Excellent post. Though i disagree about the BB part, the rest is spot on.
Eh, it's an ok scene. I just found it awkward and inconsistent, and out of character.

Quote:
a knife hurts me too, but I'm not gonna take it like a b***h and yell "I'm still Superman!"...
A knife is not kryptonite. You are missing the point entirely. The man is SURROUNDED by the element that literally poisons him. He touches it, it BURNS him, saps his strength, etc...

Quote:
lame as s**t... and I don't care what you or anyone else says.... If he can lift a continent of Kryptonite, he can definitely put up a fight on the damn rock.
How anyone can call that lame is beyond me. Hard to believe? Cheesy? Sure. But actually lame? Eh, to each his own.

The movie went to some lengths to show why he was able to lift New Krypton in the first place. One, he soaked in a lot of solar radiation, and two, the Kryptonite was not seeded all the way throughout the continent. There was rock below it, shielding him from it's major effects until it continued to grow through as the continent grew in size.

Quote:
It was a character moment, and an emotional moment that tied into Bruce's childhood and his father. Character moments were somthing Superman Returns did not have.
Bunk. If that's supposed to be a "character moment", it's a poor attempt at one. Since there's never any doubt Alfred was backing Bruce, him saying he won't ever give up on him is kind of pointless. And Bruce's reaction the manor burning is just incredibly forced. You can't just "tie" something to something else if you haven't bothered to develop that something and something else. That's what Goyer tried to do. He (or Nolan, whoever's gem it was) figured "Hey, this will be a great character moment". But it's that "Now we'll have one character repeat something he said earlier in the film to drive home the trite lesson of the film" school of screenwriting. A la "No sacrifice, no victory" in TRANSFORMERS. Completely meaningless even when taken into context because there's been no exploration of the topic during the film. Now, had BEGINS had some exploration about Bruce's abandonment issues and how that related to what he did psychologically...

But it didn't.

Lost on the filmmakers apparently was the fact that Bruce Wayne spent half the story/movie apparently hating his parents legacy and then ruining it in the public eye, and then BAM, when the manor comes down on top of him, he's suddenly all weepy and repentant about it for some reason, even though what's happening is not remotely his fault, and even though he has previously shown no desire to give a damn about his parents legacy, and in fact just broke up an entire party where there's a fairly subtle flash that he MIGHT have given a damn about what Fredericks told him re: apples and trees, but hardly enough to be that weepy about things.

That's very vague character development, and a completely unneccessary moment in my mind. It's equivalent to the children's movies where characters suddenly just "change their behavior" for no reason at all so they can learn a lesson.

No, we can't just show Alfred patching Bruce up and show Bruce's determination to go on despite Alfred's objections and then Alfred standing behind him, we have to show Bruce uncharacteristically sink into despair just when Gotham is screwed if he does so.

Something appropriate would have been...well, frankly, not having Bruce hate Wayne Manor and what his parents represented to begin with, as that's fairly out of character anyway, and a disservice to the character overall. "This house is a mausoleum"? Hey, way to be a student of the comics, Chris and Dave. Maybe a nice visit to the grave of his beloved parents? Nah, it's more "realistic" for him to hate them...right on.

Quote:
I'm sorry again, but anytime the Singer/Donner version of Lex is used it is a total loss because of the amazing villian potential that a corporate/politician Lex has, for the mere fact of our current social and political enviroment. The perfect opponent for the Man of Steel.
Corporate/politician Lex is just a Kingpin ripoff without what REALLY makes him interesting, and that's his motivation for hating Superman. I can't believe you would dismiss the entirety of the film just because it's real estate Lex. Real estate Lex did things we've all wanted to see ANY Lex do for years, and Singer and co get props for that.

Quote:
And it's just a better version of the character. Like I said, no bimbo's turning on Lex, no bimbo's periond, no lackey's named otis and brutus, no lackey's at all, no corny comments, no wigs, no real estate, none of that crap.
-Who cares if the bimbo turned on Lex? If she didn't, he has Superman's crystals. Do you WANT Luthor to have Superman's technology?
-Don't forget "Stanford". Would you prefer nameless lackeys? At least Luthor's had SOME personality to them, and weren't just completely stock thugs.
-Lex Luthor has always had bimbos. Always. And I mean always. And he's always "used" them. Her presence was one more way to show just what kind of a man he was.
-Wigs aren't really that big a deal, as the man was clearly bald, was depicted as such most of the time, and only used his wigs as disguises.
-Lex Luthor has always been about real estate, and some of his biggest coups in the comics involve landgrabs (NO MAN'S LAND, for instance). He was about land AND revenge in SUPERMAN RETURNS, and the nature of his revenge far outweighed his actual plan. So who cares if he thought he could make a few bucks on the side. That's very in character for Lex Luthor.

The entire point of the SUPERMAN RETURNS Lex Luthor is that he doesn't strike you as a threat at all at first, but little by little you see what he's capable of and then just how far gone he is...and then he's just the meanest SOB you ever saw and downright evil. It isn't perfect. But there's value there.

Quote:
To me it wasn't the least bit emotional or powerful. Do you know why? Because the character had virtually no development. He was a stiff as a board guy moping about his ex-girlfriend for the two acts leading up to it.
It's Superman saving the damn world. This is one of those things you just...get...or you don't. You don't need to set up "Superman is going to die" for an entire film for it to be powerful when it happens, nor do you actually have to completely LIKE everything he does to see his actions at the end as a noble and amazing act, period.

If you didn't like Superman getting beat because he...what...left Earth and didn't tell Lois...I don't know what to tell you. Personal preference, I guess. I FORGOT YOU NEVER MADE A MISTAKE!!!

Points for the reference...

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

Last edited by The Guard; 11-14-2007 at 11:07 PM.
The Guard is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 04:21 AM   #1336
Kevin Roegele
Do you mind if I don't?
 
Kevin Roegele's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 23,351
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory


__________________
There is no Marvel/DC rivalry. Most of the great comic creators worked for both; Jack Kirby, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Walt Simonsen, Gil Kane, Steve Ditko, John Byrne, Steve Englehart, Mark Waid...even Stan Lee.
Kevin Roegele is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 05:49 AM   #1337
Dan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard
Eh, it's an ok scene. I just found it awkward and inconsistent, and out of character.



A knife is not kryptonite. You are missing the point entirely. The man is SURROUNDED by the element that literally poisons him. He touches it, it BURNS him, saps his strength, etc...



How anyone can call that lame is beyond me. Hard to believe? Cheesy? Sure. But actually lame? Eh, to each his own.

The movie went to some lengths to show why he was able to lift New Krypton in the first place. One, he soaked in a lot of solar radiation, and two, the Kryptonite was not seeded all the way throughout the continent. There was rock below it, shielding him from it's major effects until it continued to grow through as the continent grew in size.



Bunk. If that's supposed to be a "character moment", it's a poor attempt at one. Since there's never any doubt Alfred was backing Bruce, him saying he won't ever give up on him is kind of pointless. And Bruce's reaction the manor burning is just incredibly forced. You can't just "tie" something to something else if you haven't bothered to develop that something and something else. That's what Goyer tried to do. He (or Nolan, whoever's gem it was) figured "Hey, this will be a great character moment". But it's that "Now we'll have one character repeat something he said earlier in the film to drive home the trite lesson of the film" school of screenwriting. A la "No sacrifice, no victory" in TRANSFORMERS. Completely meaningless even when taken into context because there's been no exploration of the topic during the film. Now, had BEGINS had some exploration about Bruce's abandonment issues and how that related to what he did psychologically...

But it didn't.

Lost on the filmmakers apparently was the fact that Bruce Wayne spent half the story/movie apparently hating his parents legacy and then ruining it in the public eye, and then BAM, when the manor comes down on top of him, he's suddenly all weepy and repentant about it for some reason, even though what's happening is not remotely his fault, and even though he has previously shown no desire to give a damn about his parents legacy, and in fact just broke up an entire party where there's a fairly subtle flash that he MIGHT have given a damn about what Fredericks told him re: apples and trees, but hardly enough to be that weepy about things.

That's very vague character development, and a completely unneccessary moment in my mind. It's equivalent to the children's movies where characters suddenly just "change their behavior" for no reason at all so they can learn a lesson.

No, we can't just show Alfred patching Bruce up and show Bruce's determination to go on despite Alfred's objections and then Alfred standing behind him, we have to show Bruce uncharacteristically sink into despair just when Gotham is screwed if he does so.

Something appropriate would have been...well, frankly, not having Bruce hate Wayne Manor and what his parents represented to begin with, as that's fairly out of character anyway, and a disservice to the character overall. "This house is a mausoleum"? Hey, way to be a student of the comics, Chris and Dave. Maybe a nice visit to the grave of his beloved parents? Nah, it's more "realistic" for him to hate them...right on.



Corporate/politician Lex is just a Kingpin ripoff without what REALLY makes him interesting, and that's his motivation for hating Superman. I can't believe you would dismiss the entirety of the film just because it's real estate Lex. Real estate Lex did things we've all wanted to see ANY Lex do for years, and Singer and co get props for that.



-Who cares if the bimbo turned on Lex? If she didn't, he has Superman's crystals. Do you WANT Luthor to have Superman's technology?
-Don't forget "Stanford". Would you prefer nameless lackeys? At least Luthor's had SOME personality to them, and weren't just completely stock thugs.
-Lex Luthor has always had bimbos. Always. And I mean always. And he's always "used" them. Her presence was one more way to show just what kind of a man he was.
-Wigs aren't really that big a deal, as the man was clearly bald, was depicted as such most of the time, and only used his wigs as disguises.
-Lex Luthor has always been about real estate, and some of his biggest coups in the comics involve landgrabs (NO MAN'S LAND, for instance). He was about land AND revenge in SUPERMAN RETURNS, and the nature of his revenge far outweighed his actual plan. So who cares if he thought he could make a few bucks on the side. That's very in character for Lex Luthor.

The entire point of the SUPERMAN RETURNS Lex Luthor is that he doesn't strike you as a threat at all at first, but little by little you see what he's capable of and then just how far gone he is...and then he's just the meanest SOB you ever saw and downright evil. It isn't perfect. But there's value there.



It's Superman saving the damn world. This is one of those things you just...get...or you don't. You don't need to set up "Superman is going to die" for an entire film for it to be powerful when it happens, nor do you actually have to completely LIKE everything he does to see his actions at the end as a noble and amazing act, period.

If you didn't like Superman getting beat because he...what...left Earth and didn't tell Lois...I don't know what to tell you. Personal preference, I guess. I FORGOT YOU NEVER MADE A MISTAKE!!!

Points for the reference...
Wow! Is this actually an intelligent reply in the Superman forums? I think it is!

I agree with you, Guard. It's extremely refreshing to read a reply from someone who actually has an understanding of the arts of filmmaking and screenwriting. Comic fanboys and their redundant views on movies have become so predictable. Regardless, I'm not surprised that they disliked SUPERMAN RETURNS; after all, the people you replied to in your reply, Guard, actually enjoy watching recycled, nonsensical cinematic drivel like TRANSFORMERS.

Dan is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 08:29 AM   #1338
Super Kal
Side-Kick
 
Super Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: a northern state :(
Posts: 47,659
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
A knife is not kryptonite. You are missing the point entirely. The man is SURROUNDED by the element that literally poisons him. He touches it, it BURNS him, saps his strength, etc...
no, I didn't miss it... you're just too busy trying to make it sound like Singer is Superman's savior and he can do no wrong with the franchise.


the movie sucked.
the sooner WB sees that, the better off the Superman franchsie will be.

__________________
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome.
Super Kal is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 09:20 AM   #1339
WhatsHisFace
Banned User
 
WhatsHisFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: In school. (and cool)
Posts: 39,016
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Kal View Post
the movie sucked.
Not true.

WhatsHisFace is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 09:27 AM   #1340
Super Kal
Side-Kick
 
Super Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: a northern state :(
Posts: 47,659
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

for me it's true... it couldn't be any closer to the truth.

__________________
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome.
Super Kal is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:39 AM   #1341
Dan
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Kal
you're just too busy trying to make it sound like Singer is Superman's savior and he can do no wrong with the franchise.
No, he isn't. He's simply defending a decent film that is senselessly bashed by over-zealous comic fanboys because it wasn't faithful to their oh-so-precious toilet paper books (yes, I called them that; get over it). Singer is hardly Superman's savior. I don't think ANYONE actually thinks that. Quit exaggerating and go back to doing what you do best: whining about the colors of the Superman suit that NO ONE in their right mind gives two ****s about and listening to your recycled, simplistic, "epic" (psh, fanboys overuse the word epic) Steve Jablonsky (aka Hans Zimmer) TRANSFORMERS score.

Don't get me wrong: I have my fair share of problems with the film, too (after all, no film is perfect), but the extreme extents to which you fanatics take is just ridiculous, and quite frankly, laughable.

There's a reason critics recently listed Bryan Singer as one of the top 100 directors of all time (living and dead). You may laugh that 100 is a large number, but most of the ones included were obscure foreign directors, you’d never hear about. And, by the way, your precious Michael Bay was no where NEAR the list.

I honestly don't know right now whether or not Singer is going to direct a sequel. Would I like him to? Abso-****ing-lutely, only because I know exactly what type of film it’s going to be if WB should choose not use him. Fanboys need to wake up if they think that if WB isn’t going to use Singer again, there's still a possibility of them hiring a good character director. No, if they’re going to get another good character director, like Singer, they're just going to keep him. In other words, if they don't hire Singer again, they're going to go for the extreme opposite (i.e. a Michael Bay-type director) and that's EXACTLY what I DON'T want to see done to, what is, in my opinion, the most amazing superhero ever.

Then again, I know that's exactly the type of director you'd want to see on this film.


Last edited by Dan; 11-15-2007 at 10:48 AM.
Dan is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:50 AM   #1342
Showtime
Accomplishing Wonders
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Showtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Sky
Posts: 41,364
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Wow...Dan. Take it down a notch. Just like you get to go ballistic about the value of a movie, others can say they don't like it. The whole freedom of speech thing. Since I know you were another poster here before, why don't you just tell me who you are so I don't have to ask somebody to find out?

__________________

Showtime is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:56 AM   #1343
Super Kal
Side-Kick
 
Super Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: a northern state :(
Posts: 47,659
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Then again, I know that's exactly the type of director you'd want to see on this film.
oh, okay now... then tell me...even though you don't know a damn thing about me... what do I want in a film, since you know exactly what I want?

__________________
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome.
Super Kal is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:56 AM   #1344
Porygon
Banned User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 282
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

I liked Transformers

Porygon is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:58 AM   #1345
Super Kal
Side-Kick
 
Super Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: a northern state :(
Posts: 47,659
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

so did I... there were problems in the movie, but I still liked it, because it kept me entertained.


something SR never did.

__________________
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome.
Super Kal is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 11:12 AM   #1346
Porygon
Banned User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 282
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Kal View Post
so did I... there were problems in the movie, but I still liked it, because it kept me entertained.


something SR never did.
Transformers was entertaining because it was a wonderfully crafted popcorn movie, appealing simply because of the concepts and visuals and the endearing nature of the autobots themselves. Essentially, light entertainment. But absolutely no substance (and for anyone expecting for there to be and criticizing the film because of that fact, what did you expect?)

While SR does require the need to present itself in an entertaining manner like every other film (and IMO it did), for me it is unquestionably better simply because of its depth, superior plot and substance.

But the two simply shouldn't be compared against each other, so I don't.

Porygon is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 11:24 AM   #1347
Showtime
Accomplishing Wonders
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Showtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Sky
Posts: 41,364
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Kal View Post
oh, okay now... then tell me...even though you don't know a damn thing about me... what do I want in a film, since you know exactly what I want?
He's another incarnation of a previous poster.

__________________

Showtime is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 11:39 AM   #1348
Porygon
Banned User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 282
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime View Post
He's another incarnation of a previous poster.
How do you know?

Porygon is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 11:58 AM   #1349
Showtime
Accomplishing Wonders
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Showtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Sky
Posts: 41,364
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porygon View Post
How do you know?
I have glowing eyes?

__________________

Showtime is offline  
Old 11-15-2007, 12:00 PM   #1350
I SEE SPIDEY
HYPE AWARD WINNER!
 
I SEE SPIDEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In Superman's arms
Posts: 29,214
Default Re: Scaling back the budget/Wrath of Khan theory

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
To me it wasn't the least bit emotional or powerful. Do you know why? Because the character had virtually no development. He was a stiff as a board guy moping about his ex-girlfriend for the two acts leading up to it. To be quite frank, I didn't give a **** about him. That is why the third act fails. Singer did not establish a connection between the character and the audience in the first two acts. He is essentially the first victim in a slasher movie. The guy no one cares about outside of how gory his death is. For a scene like that to be powerful, the audience has to relate to and care about the character. Hell, the movie would've been more relatable if it were Richard getting beat.
Why am I still posting?

The funny thing is, I totally agree with The Guard about that scene in Batman Begins, I didn't believe it for a second, it was so f'n forced and out of character.

I disagree with him on just about everything else, because watching the ending of SR is the equivalent of being waterboarded.

__________________
Come think with us:http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/

The Lego Movie: 8.5/10-RoboCop 6.5/10-Captain America: The Winter Soldier 9.5/10

I SUPPORT GIVING BATFLECK A CHANCE.
I SEE SPIDEY is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:50 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.