The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Superman Returns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2014, 11:28 PM   #426
sf2
Side-Kick
 
sf2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Much as the rest of his personal life, Superman's fatherhood won't be normal. Nevertheless the inclusion of a son gave the whole story a sense of closure to the fatherhood theme that started in STM (with Jor-el and Jonathan). And Superman will always be around for Lois and Jason, so don't worry. Opposite of dying, his fatherhood gave him a new meaning to his life.

Now if for making Superman's world smaller, I'd say that eliminating the Clark-Lois-Superman

But he's not a stalker or peeping tom, for those who know the actual meaning of those terms.




Oh, it IS a sequel. THAT's the sad part of it.
A closure to a movie made 30 years ago??? That's exactly why SR is paralysed and can't stand by itself. We were looking for a beginning. But he offered us an ending.

A perfect reason why SR got no sequel. Poor Routh thought he gonna carry a new franchise.

I agree if SR continued, it should let Lois go and do superman fatherhood story like the movie zorro got a son. However it's a suicidal move as very few audience interested in action hero fathering a kid story.

__________________
“Everything you can imagine is real.”
― Pablo Picasso

Last edited by sf2; 01-09-2014 at 11:33 PM.
sf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 12:04 AM   #427
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
My word...okay then. There are uplifting moments in SR; however, I did not find them particularly uplifting.
That's more like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
I really only brought it up because it goes back to my question on what Singer was thinking by adding Jason. The fact he had plans to have Superman actually kill his own son in a later installment is...crazy! It really makes me wonder what he was doing, and why did he use Donner's template to make a quasi-sequel when the tone of the previous movies didn't lend themselves to the sort of tone he wanted. It really makes no sense to me.
Killing Jason was supposed to be in order to save the planet. You understand about sacrifices and such. Pa Kent killing himself, telling his son it's better to leave people be killed than save them (and Clark actually buying that)? Crazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
I don't understand what you mean by rescued by MOS? What does that mean? Again, SR failed on many levels and is an utter failure as a CBM. Notice I don't say it's a bad movie. It's well-crafted and well-directed...it just sucks as a CBM because it's boring and sad.
Before SR no one had thought of adding a sense of loneliness for Superman. It was impossible because Superman had to be uplifting al the time and happy of being who he is. Singer gave him this feeling of being the only one of his kind, of being different and sad because of it. It's good to see Goyer and Snyder kept that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
I can't believe you are a comparing a light hearted moment in STM, which was used for gags, to a scene in SR where Superman is spying on Lois, Richard and Jason because he's sad.
It's the same take on the same character. Believe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
*shakes head* I won't even go there.
You already did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
Ahh...semantics again. There is action in SR, but it sucks. Is that better? Is that clearer now?
That's more like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
He is getting a sequel. You keep saying he's not, but he is, so I don't get your point.
I actually said: "Oh, it IS a sequel." How could you have been possibly confused about that rather simple sentence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
I think Superman Returns is garbage. I really enjoy MOS and think it's a great film. Obviously some people feel differently. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me because my feelings aren't going to change, and I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion.
No problem. As long as you don't put yourself above others by saying, literally, that you "feel sorry" for those who don't share your opinions.


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


Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
A closure to a movie made 30 years ago??? That's exactly why SR is paralysed and can't stand by itself. We were looking for a beginning. But he offered us an ending.
"We"? How many people are yourself?

Anyways, I said he gave the theme of fatherhood a closure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
A perfect reason why SR got no sequel. Poor Routh thought he gonna carry a new franchise.
Don't kid yourself. It was because of the money they expected to get.


Last edited by Senator Pleasury; 01-10-2014 at 12:20 AM.
Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 12:25 AM   #428
charl_huntress
The Offender w/ Magic
 
charl_huntress's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outside the doors of Arkham Ayslum
Posts: 10,748
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Killing Jason was supposed to be in order to save the planet. You understand about sacrifices and such. Pa Kent killing himself, telling his son it's better to leave people be killed than save them (and Clark actually buying that)? Crazy.
*shakes head* You still miss the point. Why would Singer use Donner's template to tell that sort of story? It's a bad idea to begin with, but it's retarded to use the blueprint of a 30 year old movie when the movies in question are lighthearted and fun.

Oh...you think you're making some point by mentioning MOS in relation to SR, but you're not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Before SR no one had thought of adding a sense of loneliness for Superman. It was impossible because Superman had to be uplifting al the time and happy of being who he is. Singer gave him this feeling of being the only one of his kind, of being different and sad because of it. It's good to see Goyer and Snyder kept that.
I'm not really sure I understand. I am familiar with comics and there have been plenty of stories about Superman where his isolation and loneliness have been highlighted. That's actually been a pretty common theme in the comics for a while, so I'm not sure I understand your point this was something new and different Singer did. There's also a sense of isolation in SII, so Singer's theme was not something new and different. MOS was not something new or different either, so I don't get your point and don't think you really have one either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
It's the same take on the same character. Believe it. You already did.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
I actually said: "Oh, it IS a sequel." How could you have been possibly confused about that rather simple sentence?
*shrugs* Then stop saying MOS is not getting a sequel. That's what you keep implying. But seriously, I think you're just upset SR will languish forever in your mind...and no where else. No need to play these semantic games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
No problem. As long as you don't put yourself above others by saying, literally, that you "feel sorry" for those who don't share your opinions.
I do feel sorry for those who didn't like MOS. I wish they did because they probably won't like the sequel either, and they'll have to wait awhile before another Superman is on the screen. Why do you have a problem with that?

__________________
Mission Accomplished!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowsdower! View Post
I've heard so many people talk about how Superman would kill Lois if they ever had sex, but I've never heard someone make this point before and it's brilliant. If Superman's bodily fluids are so dangerous, then he'd have to use a kryptonite toilet every time he takes a dump.

Last edited by charl_huntress; 01-10-2014 at 12:29 AM.
charl_huntress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 12:37 AM   #429
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
*shakes head* You still miss the point. Why would Singer use Donner's template to tell that sort of story? It's a bad idea to begin with, but it's retarded to use the blueprint of a 30 year old movie when the movies in question are lighthearted and fun.
Superman II had a story in which Superman has to renounce to the love of his life. Sounds familiar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
Oh...you think you're making some point by mentioning MOS in relation to SR, but you're not.
I am since you seem to accept certain controversial elements in one but not in the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
I'm not really sure I understand. I am familiar with comics and there have been plenty of stories about Superman where his isolation and loneliness have been highlighted. That's actually been a pretty common theme in the comics for a while, so I'm not sure I understand your point this was something new and different Singer did. There's also a sense of isolation in SII, so Singer's theme was not something new and different. MOS was not something new or different either, so I don't get your point and don't think you really have one either.
So we agree that Singer followed Donner's movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
Superman spies in STM, yay. Superman spies in SR, booo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
*shrugs* Then stop saying MOS is not getting a sequel. That's what you keep implying. But seriously, I think you're just upset SR will languish forever in your mind...and no where else. No need to play these semantic games.

Really. "Oh, it IS a sequel" means literally that I do believe is a sequel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charl_huntress View Post
I do feel sorry for those who didn't like MOS. I wish they did because they probably won't like the sequel either, and they'll have to wait awhile before another Superman is on the screen. Why do you have a problem with that?
Oh, they'll like the sequel. Batman is in it. And Wonder Woman too. Fail-proof. They wouldn't make another movie with Superman alone.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 12:46 AM   #430
charl_huntress
The Offender w/ Magic
 
charl_huntress's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outside the doors of Arkham Ayslum
Posts: 10,748
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Superman II had a story in which Superman has to renounce to the love of his life. Sounds familiar.
For sanity sakes let's stick with the theatrical cut. Say what you want...it's not a sad movie or sad ending. Superman wipes Lois with a mind-raping kiss and it's like it never happened. It's similar to turning the world backwards in STM. Maybe if Singer would have had his Superman turn the world around after mind-raping Lois so he could erase the last five years...then he could have killed Jason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
I am since you seem to accept certain controversial elements in one but not in the other.
We've already established it's a matter of taste. Why you want to keep bringing it up is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
So we agree that Singer followed Donner's movies?
He made a quasi sequel and picked elements he wanted to follow. If that's what you're saying then we agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Superman spies in STM, yay. Superman spies in SR, booo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Really. "Oh, it IS a sequel" means literally that I do believe is a sequel.
Good. There is a sequel. So that is something we can obviously agree on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Oh, they'll like the sequel. Batman is in it. And Wonder Woman too. Fail-proof. They wouldn't make another movie with Superman alone.
You know this for fact, or is this the fanboy equivalent of trying to pull some **** out of your ass to make your point sound better? You tell me...

__________________
Mission Accomplished!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowsdower! View Post
I've heard so many people talk about how Superman would kill Lois if they ever had sex, but I've never heard someone make this point before and it's brilliant. If Superman's bodily fluids are so dangerous, then he'd have to use a kryptonite toilet every time he takes a dump.

Last edited by charl_huntress; 01-10-2014 at 01:03 AM.
charl_huntress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 09:42 PM   #431
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Not to intrude on the back and forth going on,but here's my two cents on the film.It basically failed on two levels:
1. There was just not that much excitement involved in a plot that has Lex build a kryptonite island (Which I remember Roger Ebert astutely commenting that it looked like "not even a goat would live on") and has Supes (arguably the most powerful hero in comicdom) getting his backside kicked by a bunch of two bit thugs that Batman would've handled in 30 seconds or less.Nothing particularly "Super" was done by Supe,and certainly nothing that we haven't see before.

and

2nd,which has been commented on countless times,Superman as an "out-of wedlock" dad with a possibly super powered kid,was pretty insulting to most dyed in the wool Supes fans.At least the ones who see him as the "original Boy Scout".The strength of the Reeve films,is that Supes never came across as mopey and emotionally defeated.Here,it's a chore to wallow in his depression with him for over two hours.

Also,it's hard to root for a hero to break up a happy relationship.Do we want Supes to get back with Lois?Sure,especially when we find they have a kid together!But where does that leave Richard?Are we supposed to hope Supes becomes a home wrecker?Unfortunately,that's the only original thing Singer brought to the table,and it was the most misguided move in the whole of Superman history,even (dare I say) trumping the Zod neck twist.

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 07:52 AM   #432
BH/HHH
Cavill's Hairychest
 
BH/HHH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 14,839
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Nothing particularly "Super" was done by Supe,and certainly nothing that we haven't see before.
Landing a falling plane, saving Metropolis from the effects if an Earthquake, etc

So I wouldn't say he did nothing Super, he was just inconsistent in his super actions.

I agree that him getting his ass kicked was ridiculous and as most things in this film post the plane sequence we didn't get any payoff from it.

__________________
MAN OF STEEL


THE GREATEST COMIC BOOK MOVIE OF ALL-TIME
BH/HHH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 08:09 AM   #433
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Not to intrude on the back and forth going on,but here's my two cents on the film.It basically failed on two levels:
1. There was just not that much excitement involved in a plot that has Lex build a kryptonite island (Which I remember Roger Ebert astutely commenting that it looked like "not even a goat would live on") and has Supes (arguably the most powerful hero in comicdom) getting his backside kicked by a bunch of two bit thugs that Batman would've handled in 30 seconds or less.
So, you don't know how kryptonite affects Superman? Let's blame Singer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Nothing particularly "Super" was done by Supe,and certainly nothing that we haven't see before.
Yeah, like that plane rescue, fire control through super-breath, saving Metropolis from the earthquake, rescuing Lois, Jason and Richard, taking a whole continent to the space. You know, all of which Superman did in... Superman IV, I think. Nothing new, nothing super.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
2nd,which has been commented on countless times,Superman as an "out-of wedlock" dad with a possibly super powered kid,was pretty insulting to most dyed in the wool Supes fans.At least the ones who see him as the "original Boy Scout".The strength of the Reeve films,is that Supes never came across as mopey and emotionally defeated.Here,it's a chore to wallow in his depression with him for over two hours.
Superman's son was not more out of character than having a suicidal Pa Kent who taught young Clark that his identity was more important than people's lives. Let's not think of a way to disguise him, let's not try and see if he is fast enough to rescue people without being seen, just let them die. And certainly not more depressed than the new Superman either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Also,it's hard to root for a hero to break up a happy relationship.Do we want Supes to get back with Lois?Sure,especially when we find they have a kid together!But where does that leave Richard?Are we supposed to hope Supes becomes a home wrecker?Unfortunately,that's the only original thing Singer brought to the table,and it was the most misguided move in the whole of Superman history,even (dare I say) trumping the Zod neck twist.
Superman only went to Lois because to see what was her true feelings. And when she said she would be with Richard, then Superman stepped back. What would have been tragic was that Lois stayed with Richard while in love with Superman. It's unfair to Richard but people with some experience know that life and love are just what they are, and certainly not fair.

Sure, it's not the classic black-and-white world they use to show us, and that could have discomfit some, but it was a step forward.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 02:51 PM   #434
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
So, you don't know how kryptonite affects Superman? Let's blame Singer.
Are you serious?Most laymen would tell you Supe can't even STAND next to kryptonite.Now Singer has him lifting an ISLAND laced with the stuff.Obviously,Singer didn't know how kryptonite affects Superman.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Yeah, like that plane rescue, fire control through super-breath, saving Metropolis from the earthquake, rescuing Lois, Jason and Richard, taking a whole continent to the space. You know, all of which Superman did in... Superman IV, I think. Nothing new, nothing super.
Most of the feats he did were done in some form in a previous movie.
Helicopter rescue STM/Plane rescue SR
Saves Lois from earthquake STM/Saves Lois, Richard & Jason from drowning SR
Lifting the continent in SR/Lifting a small mountain top to plug a volcano in SMIV/Lifting a frozen lake in SM3


Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Superman's son was not more out of character than having a suicidal Pa Kent who taught young Clark that his identity was more important than people's lives. Let's not think of a way to disguise him, let's not try and see if he is fast enough to rescue people without being seen, just let them die. And certainly not more depressed than the new Superman either.
Eh,I wasn't thrilled with MOS either,so I won't argue that.The Pa death was certainly ill conceived.

I tend to give the infamous "What am I supposed to do,let them die?" "Maybe" a pass.Here you have a simple guy with a child of superhuman abilities.His greatest fear would naturally be "Don't let anyone find out,no matter what the cost or else they'll take you away from me!"So I can appreciate what they were going for.Much like most of SR,it was a noble attempt that didn't quite pan out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Superman only went to Lois because to see what was her true feelings. And when she said she would be with Richard, then Superman stepped back. What would have been tragic was that Lois stayed with Richard while in love with Superman. It's unfair to Richard but people with some experience know that life and love are just what they are, and certainly not fair.

Sure, it's not the classic black-and-white world they use to show us, and that could have discomfit some, but it was a step forward.
It was just an awkward situation for the character.Superman is not the kind of character that you can play with an out of wedlock child.I mean,had this kind of scenario went down with Batman,people won't bat an eye.But,Superman is supposed to be "better" than that.At least to most .

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 02:55 PM   #435
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BH/HHH View Post
Landing a falling plane, saving Metropolis from the effects if an Earthquake, etc

So I wouldn't say he did nothing Super, he was just inconsistent in his super actions.

I agree that him getting his ass kicked was ridiculous and as most things in this film post the plane sequence we didn't get any payoff from it.
Yeah,that's why Tommy Mank said it was so important for Clark to go back to the bully at the end of SMII.There is something unsatisfying about seeing Superman get beaten,without getting vindication at the end.

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 03:01 PM   #436
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Are you serious?Most laymen would tell you Supe can't even STAND next to kryptonite.Now Singer has him lifting an ISLAND laced with the stuff.Obviously,Singer didn't know how kryptonite affects Superman.
So you didn't see the movie. Its core was kryptonite but the island was not made entirely of it. This is why the effects took their time to be felt. In fact kryptonite can be see coming out from the core when Superman is in space about to throw the island away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Most of the feats he did were done in some form in a previous movie.
Helicopter rescue STM/Plane rescue SR
Saves Lois from earthquake STM/Saves Lois, Richard & Jason from drowning SR
Lifting the continent in SR/Lifting a small mountain top to plug a volcano in SMIV/Lifting a frozen lake in SM3
And all of that was seen in comics first so no Superman movie has shown anything new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Eh,I wasn't thrilled with MOS either,so I won't argue that.The Pa death was certainly ill conceived.

I tend to give the infamous "What am I supposed to do,let them die?" "Maybe" a pass.Here you have a simple guy with a child of superhuman abilities.His greatest fear would naturally be "Don't let anyone find out,no matter what the cost or else they'll take you away from me!"So I can appreciate what they were going for.Much like most of SR,it was a noble attempt that didn't quite pan out.
Maybe some other people. But Clark and his father are smarter than that. You know, when you're super-powered you can find ways to do things and go unnoticed, specially when you regard human life above everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
It was just an awkward situation for the character.Superman is not the kind of character that you can play with an out of wedlock child.I mean,had this kind of scenario went down with Batman,people won't bat an eye.But,Superman is supposed to be "better" than that.At least to most .
Same with the "let them die" situation. At least Superman in SR did it unintentionally. Neither Lois nor Superman knew that Jason was Superman's. And Superman respected Lois's decision at once.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 03:13 PM   #437
charl_huntress
The Offender w/ Magic
 
charl_huntress's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outside the doors of Arkham Ayslum
Posts: 10,748
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Also,it's hard to root for a hero to break up a happy relationship.Do we want Supes to get back with Lois?Sure,especially when we find they have a kid together!But where does that leave Richard?Are we supposed to hope Supes becomes a home wrecker?Unfortunately,that's the only original thing Singer brought to the table,and it was the most misguided move in the whole of Superman history,even (dare I say) trumping the Zod neck twist.
Well said.

__________________
Mission Accomplished!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowsdower! View Post
I've heard so many people talk about how Superman would kill Lois if they ever had sex, but I've never heard someone make this point before and it's brilliant. If Superman's bodily fluids are so dangerous, then he'd have to use a kryptonite toilet every time he takes a dump.
charl_huntress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 03:14 PM   #438
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Lois was not in love with Richard, she didn't want to marry him.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 03:30 PM   #439
charl_huntress
The Offender w/ Magic
 
charl_huntress's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outside the doors of Arkham Ayslum
Posts: 10,748
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

As I've said before in this thread and 7 years ago... The Superman/Lois/Clark...and Richard/Jason situation really made the movie depressing for me. I just didn't care for it and I really didn't want to see that in a Superman movie. I don't need that sort of art-house drama in my CBM.

__________________
Mission Accomplished!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowsdower! View Post
I've heard so many people talk about how Superman would kill Lois if they ever had sex, but I've never heard someone make this point before and it's brilliant. If Superman's bodily fluids are so dangerous, then he'd have to use a kryptonite toilet every time he takes a dump.
charl_huntress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 05:26 PM   #440
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
So you didn't see the movie. Its core was kryptonite but the island was not made entirely of it. This is why the effects took their time to be felt. In fact kryptonite can be see coming out from the core when Superman is in space about to throw the island away.
Even a sliver of Kryptonite the size of a gem in Lex's ring has been shown to instantly cripple the Man of Steel.The pieces of Kryptonite right in front of him were more than big enough to do the same.....to say nothing of the piece broken off that was still inside him.

It was a blatant disregard of the series internal logic.In STM,Supe is too weak to take the chain from round his neck and simply swim away,here he's carrying an island laced with the stuff with a piece still lodged in his body!

Call it a triumph of his will over the weakness of the flesh or what have you,it's still illogical.But I contend that was the lesser of the film's flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
And all of that was seen in comics first so no Superman movie has shown anything new.
Nice try,but we're comparing what Singer did with Reeve's series.It's almost identical.That's why MOS went so far the other way trying perhaps too hard for a different spectacle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Maybe some other people. But Clark and his father are smarter than that. You know, when you're super-powered you can find ways to do things and go unnoticed, specially when you regard human life above everything.
I don't disagree that Pa should've been a bit more pro-active.Clark also should've been less whiny too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Same with the "let them die" situation. At least Superman in SR did it unintentionally. Neither Lois nor Superman knew that Jason was Superman's. And Superman respected Lois's decision at once.
I question that Lois didn't know he was Superman's son.Of course,a lot of the plot hinges on the vagueness of the premise.

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 05:31 PM   #441
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Lois was not in love with Richard, she didn't want to marry him.
That doesn't really cast her in the best light either,now does it?People criticize MJ in Raimi's Spider-Man films,but is it really that different here than in SM 2?

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 05:37 PM   #442
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Even a sliver of Kryptonite the size of a gem in Lex's ring has been shown to instantly cripple the Man of Steel.The pieces of Kryptonite right in front of him were more than big enough to do the same.....to say nothing of the piece broken off that was still inside him.
Those effects of kryptonite (Luthor ring) didn't happen in the Donnerverse. Still, the surface of the island was not kryptonite. He saw the green mineral under the surface. He also flew to recharge his powers before lifting the island.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
It was a blatant disregard of the series internal logic.In STM,Supe is too weak to take the chain from round his neck and simply swim away,here he's carrying an island laced with the stuff with a piece still lodged in his body!
That's because the kryptonite was immediately in front of him, not under a surface. And he hadn't flown above the clouds to recharge his cells.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Call it a triumph of his will over the weakness of the flesh or what have you,it's still illogical.But I contend that was the lesser of the film's flaws.
Totally. Superman was unable to stop two missiles within the USA territory but minutes later when Lois was dead he was able to surround the earth several times per minute. So there IS a precedent as to how Superman's will makes a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Nice try,but we're comparing what Singer did with Reeve's series.It's almost identical.That's why MOS went so far the other way trying perhaps too hard for a different spectacle.
Visually, nothing in the previous movies comes close to the plane rescue or the earthquake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
I don't disagree that Pa should've been a bit more pro-active.Clark also should've been less whiny too.
Still, in SR Superman was still able to have his priorities right when it's about human life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
I question that Lois didn't know he was Superman's son.Of course,a lot of the plot hinges on the vagueness of the premise.
It's in the movie. She was absolutely appalled when she saw Jason displaying super-powers.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 05:55 PM   #443
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
That doesn't really cast her in the best light either,now does it?People criticize MJ in Raimi's Spider-Man films,but is it really that different here than in SM 2?
No problem. Lois was never portrayed as a role model in Donner movies. She always despised Superman when he was "only" Clark. But would surrender at Superman's feet when he was all shiny, handsome and muscular before her eyes.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 06:03 PM   #444
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Those effects of kryptonite (Luthor ring) didn't happen in the Donnerverse. Still, the surface of the island was not kryptonite. He saw the green mineral under the surface. He also flew to recharge his powers before lifting the island.



That's because the kryptonite was immediately in front of him, not under a surface. And he hadn't flown above the clouds to recharge his cells.
Was the Kryptonite inside his body close enough to him to effect him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post



Still, in SR Superman was still able to have his priorities right when it's about human life.
Yep,the film got some things right about Superman and that was one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
It's in the movie. She was absolutely appalled when she saw Jason displaying super-powers.
I interpreted it as surprise that he was superpowered,and confirmation at her suspicions.But as I said,it's purposely left vague.

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 06:07 PM   #445
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Was the Kryptonite inside his body close enough to him to effect him?
As was the sun beams to recharge him. And we already covered the will power that has made a difference since STM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Yep,the film got some things right about Superman and that was one of them.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
I interpreted it as surprise that he was superpowered,and confirmation at her suspicions.But as I said,it's purposely left vague.
She tells Superman at the hospital, only after she finds out.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 07:22 PM   #446
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
As was the sun beams to recharge him. And we already covered the will power that has made a difference since STM.
Ultimately,it's not something that bothers me enough to ruin the film,but it's the same thing as the leg brace in TDKR.They establish Bruce can't function without it,but eventually he's just fine regardless.In the same way,Supe should still be unable to function with a piece of kryptonite in him,but he can anyway.

I just see it as an unnecessary addition in both cases.Don't bother introducing the bum knee or the kryptonite fragment if it's completely implausible for the character to function.It only serves to induce a severe case of "" and the film would be as well without it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post

She tells Superman at the hospital, only after she finds out.
As I said,Supe didn't know until then,but I can only suspect that Lois had her suspicions before then.I think she was more surprised that Jason had powers,than surprised that he could be Supe's son.Again,it's left vague.

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 09:41 PM   #447
sf2
Side-Kick
 
sf2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Just wanna say superman didn't step back. He later trying to seduce Lois by flying her around and trying to kiss on her.
And I hate that superman beaten up scene particularly. So cheap n make superman so stupid as he knew that his fortress was broken and all his crystals were stolen. Yet he just did nothing.

__________________
“Everything you can imagine is real.”
― Pablo Picasso
sf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 11:41 AM   #448
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Ultimately,it's not something that bothers me enough to ruin the film,but it's the same thing as the leg brace in TDKR.They establish Bruce can't function without it,but eventually he's just fine regardless.In the same way,Supe should still be unable to function with a piece of kryptonite in him,but he can anyway.

I just see it as an unnecessary addition in both cases.Don't bother introducing the bum knee or the kryptonite fragment if it's completely implausible for the character to function.It only serves to induce a severe case of "" and the film would be as well without it.
The difference is that SR did show how Superman recharged his cells by flying towards the sun. TDKR simply forgot about the thing.

You didn't like it? Was it not enough? Maybe so, but they addressed the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
As I said,Supe didn't know until then,but I can only suspect that Lois had her suspicions before then.I think she was more surprised that Jason had powers,than surprised that he could be Supe's son.Again,it's left vague.
Exactly what in the movie makes you suspect that Lois knew?


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


Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
Just wanna say superman didn't step back. He later trying to seduce Lois by flying her around and trying to kiss on her.
Wrong. He went with Lois because he knew that she wasn't in love with Richard as she had refused to marry him even when he had proposed, so it was possible that she was with Richard just out of spite. They flew together and AFTER that Lois said 'I'm sorry, it's too late, cannot do this to Richard' and Superman stepped back and never again flirt with her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
And I hate that superman beaten up scene particularly. So cheap n make superman so stupid as he knew that his fortress was broken and all his crystals were stolen. Yet he just did nothing.
What does the crystals' theft have to do with the beating scene? His crystals cannot defeat him. Kryptonite does.

So the kryptonite weakened Superman. How is that cheap?

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 02:11 PM   #449
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,830
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
The difference is that SR did show how Superman recharged his cells by flying towards the sun. TDKR simply forgot about the thing.

You didn't like it? Was it not enough? Maybe so, but they addressed the subject.
It's still highly illogical that anything would nullify the effects of Kryptonite on Supes,sun or no sun.The concept itself was created to give Supes a weakness,and now even that has been shown to be ineffective to a degree. Supe should be virtually unstoppable now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury View Post
Exactly what in the movie makes you suspect that Lois knew?
Common sense.She would've had to get with Richard pretty darn quick after Supe's departure to really believe it was Richard's son.Which makes little sense,since the movie would have us believe she cried herself to sleep for months before moving on.

__________________
We always need to hear Both Sides of the story.
Human Torch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 02:19 PM   #450
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
It's still highly illogical that anything would nullify the effects of Kryptonite on Supes,sun or no sun.The concept itself was created to give Supes a weakness,and now even that has been shown to be ineffective to a degree. Supe should be virtually unstoppable now.
Superman can fight the effects of kryptonite, not nullify them. In the ed he still died for a moment and his health was in serious risk. A weakness might stop the hero, but cannot kill him.

Batman was shot in TDK, yet he managed to throw Dent off the building and save Gordon's son and he was stabbed and still saved Gotham City.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Torch View Post
Common sense.She would've had to get with Richard pretty darn quick after Supe's departure to really believe it was Richard's son.Which makes little sense,since the movie would have us believe she cried herself to sleep for months before moving on.
What in the movie makes you think she cried for months?

Knowing Lois's impulsiveness, it makes all the sense that she moved on right away out of spite.


Last edited by Senator Pleasury; 01-13-2014 at 02:23 PM.
Senator Pleasury 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 02:36 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.