Overrated Comic Book Films

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

If just based on the fan community--as the GA really has not raved years later about any of them, other than the very not-overrated TDK and TDKR classics--I would say:

1. The Avengers: I like the movie. I own the movie. It is a terrific piece of popcorn entertainment...but there is not much plot to speak of and it certainly drags for much of the first 70 or 80 minutes until they're all on the Hellicarrier, and even then things like Agent Coulson's death ring a little hollow.

A good movie that has iconic visuals and terrific Whedon dialogue? Sure. "This generation's Star Wars?" Hardly.

2. The Amazing Spider-Man: This is a bad movie. But because it has no elements of camp and Peter Parker makes quips, fans have convinced themselves it is good. 'Nuff said.

5. Captain America: A totally mediocre and forgettable film, yet some love it because it is set in the 1940s. That doesn't make it good when the plot literally stops halfway through and it turns into a 60 minute prologue to The Avengers. If you want a good pulpy comic book film, check out the director's other, superior, variation on the subject: The Rocketeer.

TDK and TDKR are both very overrated. TDK was practically a Joker movie and the only highlight of it. TDKR leeched off the fame TDK had. I don't I need to go into the problems of TDKR, you could probably either find them here or anywhere else on the internet.

Looking at these points specifically

1)When it was last year, it was definately a fine movie and still is a fine movie. Do I see it holding up in the next few years? Probably not, especially when 2015 rolls around and I don't think I need to talk about 2015 here to everyone haha. Don't get me wrong it'll still be beloved but there will be much better stuff coming out. As for it dragging on, I'd call it decent development, it makes the battle scenes at the end(ie everything the fans have been waiting for) worth the price of admission.

I mean for so many years, fans have been clamouring on for comic-book crossover movies/decent ensemble movies where it didn't feel like *insert highest selling character here*+friends(looking at you X-Men!) for so many years to the point where it would never come to reality. Now something like Wolverine giving the middle claw to Iron Man(something I'd love to see) or Hulk trading blows with The Thing or Superman & Batman talking on screen together doesn't seem out of the question. People I know have said that it could never be done and they're crazy for even trying it and boy were they wrong. Now we have a model to work off . Avengers started something good and the legacy it will leave behind, makes me feel honoured that I'm around to see it.

The title of "this generation's Star Wars" most definately fits this, stemming of my last point that Avengers started something. I mean when I think about it, the similarities are uncanny. Star Wars had a simplistic plot of a children's fairy tale set in space with cooky characters each with individual stand-out, rich personalities(which sometimes clash) and interesting stories to tell, and they all came together to save the day from the evil bad guy, who also was a character with a stand-out personality that audiences took note of back then. Fast forward to last year, simplistic plot, check, characters with individual personalities, check, coming together to save the day, check. There are many other similarities but I'm sure people would guess them. Plus don't tell me the moment when Iron Man threw the nuke at the Chitauri Mothership wasn't at all as similar to Luke's Death Star Trench Run.

You know, I bet George Lucas decided to sell Star Wars to Disney after he watched The Avengers and was impressed by the overnight success to the point where he started to reminisce about the Summer of 1977.

2) Peter Parker didn't cry in this movie and he was being a smart-allec spamming one-liners just like in the comics for once. Something I've rarely seen in the Raimi movies, enough said.

5)First can I ask, do you like Captain America, as in the character and the stories he's in? You wouldn't be totally invested in a character if you weren't really that much of a fan of him from the get-go. It's like me with Wolverine, not really a fan of the character, so I found the recent movie boring. This movie was definately Steve Rogers' own movie. The only thing it's guilty of I'd say is known for is not having more fleshed out World War II battle sequences and action, they more or else become quick montages. I would not have minded seeing some of the action and emotion out in the battlefields akin to the likes of Saving Private Ryan in this. When I saw Captain America watching those Black and White reels of him in action in WWII, I was thinking how good would these have been in the previous movie. Regarding the other point of it being an Avengers' prologue, what makes you say that? From what I could see, the only time there were really stuff that tied into The Avengers was whenever the Tesseract was talked about which wasn't that often or whenever Howard Stark was on screen, even then he was a minor character.

[Green Goblin]

Here is my list

1) The Dark Knight Rises
This was the very definition of an overrated movie
While it did a good job of exploring the character of Bruce Wayne this movie was not any good IMO, just an enjoyable one. This was ridiculously over complicated and relied on suspension of belief to the point where Nolan was just insulting the intellect of the audience (Blake's deduction is an example). A batman film with little of him in it and a villain who is difficult to understand.

2) Spider-Man 2
Now I like this movie but "no Spidey movie will ever top SM2" is just wrong. While it has great action, story and a cool moral it is not without some issues. Peter never grows. He stays pre-spiderbite and acts like a pushover. Not enough Spidey quips and a poorly written love interest.
3)Iron Man 3
Mediocre at best. Barly any Stark, acted like it was a buddy cop film and an awful plot twist.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

Here is my list

1) The Dark Knight Rises
This was the very definition of an overrated movie
While it did a good job of exploring the character of Bruce Wayne this movie was not any good IMO, just an enjoyable one. This was ridiculously over complicated and relied on suspension of belief to the point where Nolan was just insulting the intellect of the audience (Blake's deduction is an example). A batman film with little of him in it and a villain who is difficult to understand.

2) Spider-Man 2
Now I like this movie but "no Spidey movie will ever top SM2" is just wrong. While it has great action, story and a cool moral it is not without some issues. Peter never grows. He stays pre-spiderbite and acts like a pushover. Not enough Spidey quips and a poorly written love interest.
3)Iron Man 3
Mediocre at best. Barely any Stark, acted like it was a buddy cop film and an awful plot twist.

Spot on! In TDKR, I was still and still am scratching my head to how Blake knew Bruce was Batman. As for SM 2, yeah it's pretty much that. Yes to everything you said about Regular Man Iron Man 3 haha. That was a poorly written plot twist that there was no need for and reduces Tony's worth as a hero.

[Snow Queen]

1) The Avengers
2) Spider-man 2
3) Batman 89

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by smallville fan

TDK and TDKR are both very overrated. TDK was practically a Joker movie and the only highlight of it.

Maybe for you, but there's plenty more highlights in it for a lot of us than just the Joker.

[Green Goblin]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Maybe for you, but there's plenty more highlights in it for a lot of us than just the Joker.

Add the story, action, performances from the cast, use of political comentary... I could go on.

[BatmanGoesToRio]

TDK, Iron Man, The Avengers and especially TDKR.

The first three movies are at least okay but TDKR was awful.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Maybe for you, but there's plenty more highlights in it for a lot of us than just the Joker.

It is more of a Bruce/Gordon/Dent film. Joker was the best character (not to take anything away from the above trio), but he was still a supporting one.

Batman 89 is the one that was a Joker movie.

[A Necessary Evil]

Pretty much all of the Live-action Batman movies prior to Begins had Batman as a supporting character, lol.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by smallville fan

TDK and TDKR are both very overrated. TDK was practically a Joker movie and the only highlight of it.

The Dark Knight is 152 minutes long. Heath is on screen for 33 minutes.....I guess those other 119 minutes were just filler scenes.

The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent the trilogy)was mentioned in at least 85% of the reviews for summer blockbuster films this year. The film is 5 years old and its still the critical standard for modern blockbusters. You may not like it, but its hardly overrated.

[MrMaooz]

I love how The Dark Knight, in the end has a ton of awesome action.

[MrMaooz]

I didn't like Dredd that much.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by A Necessary Evil

Pretty much all of the Live-action Batman movies prior to Begins had Batman as a supporting character, lol.

Actually, if you measure Batman screen time, as Travesty did in his thread, you get:

Batman '89: 22% of bat screen time

Batman Returns: 19% of Bat screen time

Batman Forever: 21% Bat screen time

Batman and Robin: 16% Bat screen time

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

Batman Begins: 17% of Bat screen time

The Dark Knight: 18% of Bat screen time

The Dark Knight Rises: 13% of Bat screen time.




This is Travesty's post:

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...40&postcount=1

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Actually, if you measure Batman screen time, as Travesty did in his thread, you get:

Batman '89: 22% of bat screen time

Batman Returns: 19% of Bat screen time

Batman Forever: 21% Bat screen time

Batman and Robin: 16% Bat screen time

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

Batman Begins: 17% of Bat screen time

The Dark Knight: 18% of Bat screen time

The Dark Knight Rises: 13% of Bat screen time.




This is Travesty's post:

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...40&postcount=1

Is that taking into account Bruce Wayne screen time, too?

[Shikamaru]

Any time Bruce is on the screen and is not putting on the playboy act should count as Batman screen time.

[jaymes_e06]

^True but there are three sides to him

Orphan Bruce
Bruce/batman
Playboy Bruce

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Is that taking into account Bruce Wayne screen time, too?

No, it's Batman.

Originally Posted by jaymes_e06

^True but there are three sides to him

Orphan Bruce
Bruce/batman
Playboy Bruce

and THEN, Batman.

[Batmannerism]

Okay, this is just IMO, so I'm probably not going to engage in any
big debates about it (although I often say that and then do),

Anyway

1).....okay Marvel fanboys, sharpen your knives.....The Avengers.

Before I launch into it, I have to admit I'm much more of a DC, fan,
as a kid I think I owned 3 issues of Avengers, but otherwise thought they
were a bunch of prats.

Anyway, the film was very enjoyable and I think it deserves an 8/10 for its
sheer fun and spectacle.

But, it is not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, there are a bunch of plot holes in it, and characters who are totally superfluous.
(Hawkeye and Black Widow, for example, let's be honest folks,
how many of you, even you die-hard marvel-fans, went to see the Avengers
because Hawkeye and the Widow were in it.

"oh man, I gotta see Avengers, Hawkeye's in it."
that's an example of what we call "****, no-body says !"

Come on, you all went to see Thor and Iron man fight, and listen to Downey jr make wisecracks, which honestly gets old after awhile -not a lot of character development going on if you're still the same prick after 4 movies.

To be honest, character wise, Iron Man is ten times the film Avengers is
and absolutely deserves its 93%, it is arguably the best superhero movie
(although not my favourite, but I give credit where credit is due).


Scarlett Johansen is cute, but the character is boring, same for Hawkeye, and the outcome of the film would be exactly the same if they weren't there....sadly,just like Indiana Jones ! BTW if you don't know what I'm talking about and you like Indiana Jones, don't ask, you'll be a lot happier.

Arguably Erik Selvig was more important to the outcome than Hawkeye or the Widow, or possibly Captain America (okay, I admit it, I don't like Captain America ) although he did stop Thor and Iron man from killing each other.

The kind of pointless scenes of hanging around on the Helicarrier bugged me, as was the fact that it could be taken out BY A ****ING ARROW !

That and a few lame lines "If we can't defend Earth we'll damn sure Avenge it." really, I bet that looked really cool on paper......until you say it out loud.

"I'm always angry" from the guy who never raises his voice. OFFS ! ....and Norton was a waaayyyyy better Bruce Banner !

No doubt some of you will be getting ready to jump on this, but let's be honest, if you can't accept this movie has a bunch of flaws....well then what does that say about you. Use the top two inches guys.

So, all in all a good movie, a fun movie, and exciting movie - but 92% on Rotten tomatoes, no way, maybe 85%, but this is not Lord of the Rings (the characters are pretty much cut out of cardboard, except Loki, who's about more entertaining than any of them).

2) Amazing Spider-Man.....the opposite of the Avengers.

Andrew Garfield was awful as Peter Parker, and only enjoyable, as Spider Man, when he kept his ****ING MASK ON !
It was neat seeing Spidey move like he does in the comics, and be a wisecracking, annoying ass ( that's his most successful tactic in the comics).
However, that's all courtesy of CGI and stunt doubles, so essentially Garfield was just a voice over for that bit. The guy can act, so I can only put it down to how PP was written.

The best promises are the ones you break...... WTF ? Another line that must have looked ****-hot on paper.

While not as crap as Green Lantern, Jonah Hex or Catwoman, this is not a great film, and possibly not even a good one.


3) Iron Man 3, this was just lame. Iron Man, if you didn't read what I said earlier, is hands down the best super-hero film (still not my fave, but it's pure gold). Iron man 2 covered that gold with ****, and this film, while not as irredeemably crap as IM 2, doesn't return its glorly.

It's as if Shane Black said, Hmmmmmm if there were 2 or 3 Iron Man suits in the first movie, and it was awesome, I'll throw a ****load of suits in, because then it will be even more awesome.

That, and being an ass, although for "character development" 's sake, he's an ass with anxiety issues.

Then we'll get a villain who breathes fire......come on, if you're a dragon that's okay, but otherwise, no.

ON that note, Shane Black must have also thought, "Ah-ha, audiences love a twist so we'll take Iron Man's deadliest enemy (someone fan boys, WOULD actually go to see, hell I wanted to see how the Mandarin was going to play out) and our twist will be that he's.....the world's lamest actor. " Again WTF ? this was not a twist, this was Shane Black crapping on Iron Man's proud history.

In the end he gets saved by his secretary, who's infected by unstable nano-technology that he fixes in a one minute montage that also conveniently resolves his anxiety issues, gives up being Iron Man, and undergoes open heart surgery.....for ****'s sake, that's the stuff the ****ing movie should have been about, not the last 2 minutes.

let's forget a ****load of plot holes, and things that don't make sense
(Killian survives exploding Iron Man suit, but is killed by Pepper ?
Iron Man's suits survived tank shells and heavy impacts in IM, IM 2 and Avengers, but get taken out.....by trucks !


And worst of all, Stark invites a terrorist to attack him at home, then calls his girlfriend over and doesn't set up any defences, even though he has an army of remote controlled iron men in the basement. Tony Stark is an ass, but still a genius, so this is just such a stretch, come on Shane WTF ?



4) The Incredibles.......for ****'s sake, it's an animated film.

yes, it's about family, yes it's about super-heroes and mid-life crises, and
the dangers of hero worship, but come on, it's not ****ing Shakespeare !

It's a good movie, but not a great one. (on that note, I don't understand why the Toy story films are considered masterpieces, they're fun, but that's it, I reckon ****ing Pixar spends a lot of time bribing critics- yet another reason to hate Disney, and distrust Marvel, okay, WB aren't so hot either, there I said it.

In comparison, a truly great animated film is Kung Fu Panda, it's the classic hero's journey, and also deals with obesity, self-doubt, parenting-issues. The scripting is nearly seamless, as the plot is neatly circular (like the Yin Yang Symbol, but there's actually a character arc, that the main character has to learn and grow, in order to survive and be ultimately victorious)....okay, I've said too much.


5) Superman returns: I have been a fan of Superman, since seeing George Reeves in black and white, I loved Superman the Movie, and Man of Steel. However, this film ****s all over the grand myth of Krypton's Last son.

In a plot device, even worse than Tony stark inviting the Mandarin to attack, and not raising any defences, Superman, a being who can see stuff happening on the moon, lands on a continent that's mostly made of the one substance in the universe that can kill him - and then looks surprised when he gets his ASS KICKED !

People who like Superman apparently like this film. Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I love Superman, always have, but after seeing this, I wanted my money back.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

5) Superman returns: I have been a fan of Superman, since seeing George Reeves in black and white, I loved Superman the Movie, and Man of Steel. However, this film ****s all over the grand myth of Krypton's Last son.

In a plot device, even worse than Tony stark inviting the Mandarin to attack, and not raising any defences, Superman, a being who can see stuff happening on the moon, lands on a continent that's mostly made of the one substance in the universe that can kill him - and then looks surprised when he gets his ASS KICKED !

People who like Superman apparently like this film. Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I love Superman, always have, but after seeing this, I wanted my money back.

Well, it was clearly explained in the movie that Superman did not know Lex Luthor had stolen the kryptonite. And then that the crystals absorbed characteristics of the minerals inside them but it is shown that it was a slow process, which i why it's only bafter a long while that Superman starts feeling the effects and it is not until he's lifting the continent into outer space that we see the kryptonite inside the continent coming out.

So yes, Superman didn't know the continent had a kryptonite core. Much like Superman in STM didn't know Luthor had kryptonite in that lead box.

Not the same as Stark and his new suit which for some reason had no weaponry installed (???!!!???)

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Well, it was clearly explained in the movie that Superman did not know Lex Luthor had stolen the kryptonite. And then that the crystals absorbed characteristics of the minerals inside them but it is shown that it was a slow process, which i why it's only bafter a long while that Superman starts feeling the effects and it is not until he's lifting the continent into outer space that we see the kryptonite inside the continent coming out.

So yes, Superman didn't know the continent had a kryptonite core. Much like Superman in STM didn't know Luthor had kryptonite in that lead box.

Not the same as Stark and his new suit which for some reason had no weaponry installed (???!!!???)

Dude, you cannot excuse the godawful crap that was Superman returns.

Please don't take this personally, but come on dude, Luthor's continent/island was made using Kryptonian technology that Luthor stole from Superman himself, it's not opaque to Superman's vision (like the lead box, which should have been a dead giveaway as well, but anyway). And since he lives in a building made with that same technology, don't you think he might recognize it when he saw it. Don't you think that should have been a hint ?

You're saying Superman wouldn't recognize the distinctive crystal technology , which could only have come from one place on Earth ?

Shouldn't Superman, son of the greatest scientist of an advanced civilisation,
think "hmmmmm.....that island is full of crystalline structures that look very familiar. Hmmm...growing crystal structures, that sounds familiar. ****, I'd better do a quick sweep with X-ray vision to make sure there's no kryptonite there."

Or at least "That Luthor is a tricky son of a *****, who's nearly killed me a few times, and the ONLY HUMAN BEING TO EVER USE KRYPTONITE AGAINST ME....., maybe I should be careful."

But no, due to terrible writing, and awful directing, Superman doesn't figure this out

Superman feels the effects moments after arriving. Not only did I hate Routh's portrayal of Superman, but I was incensed with rage that the script required Superman to be a ****ing moron.

As you can see, I have very strong views on this. I am not getting at you personally, but I strongly dispute that it is reasonable for Superman to get trapped in this way.

You are absolutely correct that in Iron Man 3, the suit with no weapons, (the most advanced version of the Iron Man suit, a walking weapon, HAS NO ****ING FUNCTIONING WEAPONS ?????) is equally unforgivable.

It would be like Thor showing up to a fight and forgetting to bring Mjolnir, or Cap forgetting his shield.

It's okay when super-heroes get beat up or make mistakes, but when they are portrayed as complete imbeciles I get annoyed.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Dude, you cannot excuse the godawful crap that was Superman returns.

I am merely explaining you what was shown in the movie.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Please don't take this personally, but come on dude, Luthor's continent/island was made using Kryptonian technology that Luthor stole from Superman himself, it's not opaque to Superman's vision (like the lead box, which should have been a dead giveaway as well, but anyway). And since he lives in a building made with that same technology, don't you think he might recognize it when he saw it. Don't you think that should have been a hint ?

You're saying Superman wouldn't recognize the distinctive crystal technology , which could only have come from one place on Earth ?

And what does any of this have to do with Superman not guessing there was kryptonite involved?

The continent is made with Kryptonian technology. Superman knows this. But he doesn't know there was kryptonite inside, why would he? He doesn't know a rock of kryptonite was stolen from the museum, Luthor made sure Superman was busy rescuing Kitty Kowalski while he was stealing it.

For all Superman know, he hasn't seen Kryptonite since STM. Why would he check if this continent had kryptonite inside?

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Shouldn't Superman, son of the greatest scientist of an advanced civilisation,
think "hmmmmm.....that island is full of crystalline structures that look very familiar. Hmmm...growing crystal structures, that sounds familiar. ****, I'd better do a quick sweep with X-ray vision to make sure there's no kryptonite there."

Lol, why would he think of looking for kryptonite? These are the crystals Luthor stole from his Fortress, why would he assume Luthor also stole kryptonite and used it inside the crystals?

No reason at all.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Or at least "That Luthor is a tricky son of a *****, who's nearly killed me a few times, and the ONLY HUMAN BEING TO EVER USE KRYPTONITE AGAINST ME....., maybe I should be careful."

He probably thought, the only one time he used kryptonite, Miss Teschmacher threw it away into the sewer, and no one else ever has used it against me (remember SR follows STM and SII).

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

But no, due to terrible writing, and awful directing, Superman doesn't figure this out

No, it was properly explained. He has no reason to believe Luthor could be using kryptonite.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Superman feels the effects moments after arriving. Not only did I hate Routh's portrayal of Superman, but I was incensed with rage that the script required Superman to be a ****ing moron.

The kryptonite was inside the continent, slowly finding its way to the surface. Superman does NOT feel the effects after a while... what does any of this have to do with him being a moron?

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

As you can see, I have very strong views on this. I am not getting at you personally, but I strongly dispute that it is reasonable for Superman to get trapped in this way.

As I can see you barely remember the movie and have not sketched one good reason as to why he should have assumed Luthor was in possession of kryptonite.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

You are absolutely correct that in Iron Man 3, the suit with no weapons, (the most advanced version of the Iron Man suit, a walking weapon, HAS NO ****ING FUNCTIONING WEAPONS ?????) is equally unforgivable.

In this case only is unforgivable, because Tony had every reason to assume he was going to be attacked, he asked for it, and yet he elaborated a suit with no weapons. An idiot.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

In this case only is unforgivable, because Tony had every reason to assume he was going to be attacked, he asked for it, and yet he elaborated a suit with no weapons. An idiot.

Well at least we agree on Iron Man 3.

Again, I still disagree with you on Superman returns, if you enjoyed it, then more power to you -because then you didn't have the incredible feeling of being ripped off that I have.

My main dislike for Superman returns is the "kryptonite island" plot device, which essentially relies on Superman being a moron.

I concede that Superman might possibly not suspect Kryptonite being present, based on the Kryptonian technology.

That is a fair criticism, as it is not materially relevant, and a poor argument on my part. I admit it when I am wrong.

However, you have not successfully refuted all of my criticisms about the use of kryptonite in Superman returns. Challenge accepted, allow me to retort.



1) SUPERMAN DIDN'T SEE THE KRYPTONITE BEFORE HE LANDED ON THE ISLAND, BECAUSE HE WASN'T LOOKING FOR IT.

Is it not at least reasonably possible that Superman, possessed of extra-ordinary senses, might do a cursory scan of the Island -yes, arguably not looking for Kryptonite, but perhaps to ascertain how Luthor managed to create a new landmass, out of nothing?

Anyway, while doing a quick scan he neglects to notice the unique structure of the one substance that can kill him.

Given that most of us walk around with our eyes open (and we hope Superman flies with his eyes open) and that his super senses are a natural condition of his being, doesn't it seem reasonable that at some point while flying towards the island he wouldn't utilise them - if he didn't, how did he find Luthor in the first place ? Well we assume by looking, or did he consult GPS ?

So assuming he's flying with his eyes open and looking for Lex Luthor, he happens to miss the unique substance that can kill him, (which, from the clip I just watched on youtube, was visible on the ground, and thus would be visible to someone with telescopic vision that can spot stuff on the moon). Interestingly, in the clip, he recognizes it right away....and if you argue that Superman doesn't know kryptonite when he sees it, and only put two and two together when he feels like crap and Lex says " Krrrrrryptonite !" then any argument
you can raise that Superman is not a moron in this film, is moot.


Does this sound like Superman? Again, son of the greatest scientist of an advanced civilization.

(as to Superman not knowing Luthor stole stuff from the FOS, come on, he doesn't check the burglar alarm ? The reason I hated that aspect of the plot so much is that it's already been done, in Superman II, when Luthor finds the fortress of solitude, the first time, and accesses its technology, at least come up with an original idea FFS.)


2) WHY WOULD SUPERMAN SUSPECT LUTHOR HAD KRYPTONITE AT ALL ?

Okay, so let's assume that Superman hasn't done an X-ray vision sweep of the island, or even a telescopic look at Luthor's location, even for interest's sake.

Your suggestion is that Superman would not suspect Luthor, the one human who knows about and has utilised kryptonite against him, and is a genius (well, one day they'll portray him as one), doesn't believe that if Luthor got some kryptonite once, he can't somehow get some more ?

(This is Lex Luthor, who managed to create an evil clone of Superman, with far less acting talent and extendable nails in a movie that many rate as worse than Superman returns, but in that film Superman is able to deduce and exploit his enemy's weakness, clearly a lot smarter than Routh's Superman).

This is analogous to saying that when going up against the Joker, the Batman would not expect the Joker to have any bullets for his guns -on the basis that he fired them all last time.

(yes, I know Kryptonite is amazingly rare, but come on. You wouldn't suspect your arch enemy might have the one weapon that will be effective against you ?)

The supplementary argument that he doesn't think Luthor will have some as Ms T chucked it down the drain, does not support your main argument.

On what do you base this assumption ?

If anything it suggests that the kryptonite, while possibly lost in the sewers, still exists. Obviously it wasn't destroyed as the original writer of Superman, Mario Puzo, was clever and knew that kryptonite might need to make a reappearance in later films.

Did Superman forget about that chunk of kryptonite, after his calamitous experience with it (if he did, then he is a moron). So would he go and do something about it ? Who knows.


The past is not a good indicator of the future, but its the only one we've got.
To suggest that Superman could not contemplate something as reasonably foreseeable, as Lex Luthor having Kryptonite, defies logic.

Luthor himself says it "Didn't your daddy teach you to look before you leap ?" as he's giving Supes a good kicking. He's actually telling us that Superman is a ****ing moron, for not at least having a look first.

WTF would Luthor be out in the open, knowing Superman would inevitably come looking for him ? Because it's a trap, and Superman isn't going to suspect that ? Sorry, but that makes him a moron.

3) THE GENERAL USE OF KRYPTONITE (not an argument of yours, but a rather significant inconsistency within the film)

Furthermore, the gradual effect of the kryptonite is completely inconsistent with the earlier depiction of Kryptonite in SMTM, which weakened him immediately.

You're telling me that Superman didn't notice that he was weakening, due to the unique radiation of that particular substance, and didn't think - wow, I feel crap, almost like I've been exposed to kryptonite, better fly away.

And, if the effects were gradual, then why didn't he still possess enough strength to crush Luthor's goons (and Luthor as well) ? So does Kryptonite work right away, or doesn't it ?
How does it work without him noticing it ?

Is it a question of proximity ? The reason we have these questions is because the effect of kryptonite is inconsistent within the movie itself.

After being depowered and beaten, Superman gets away (despite being stabbed by a krypto-shank), recovers a bit, and then is strong enough to chuck the island into space.

If anything he should have been just about dead, given he got krypto-shanked, as well as being exposed to kryptonite. Yet he's able to pull of a feat of strength that's pretty impressive, even for Superman -just not earlier, when the story required him to get his ass kicked. It's only after he's thrown the island that he succumbs to the effects.

Given your criticism of my recall of the film, I have just been to youtube. and watched the "lifting the island" scene and there are protruding rocks of kryptonite nearby, nearly as close as when he was getting his ass kicked.....so why does he have the strength to fly and lift the continent, yet before he didn't have the strength to fight off some thugs?


Such inconsistencies, are the result of bad writing. Or was that clearly explained? I cannot recall Luthor cackling away about how the Kryptonite would depower Superman without him noticing.

I agree with Kevin Smith that Luthor creating an Island with built in Kryptonite is clever, as he's creating a place that Superman literally cannot go.

However,

I do not agree that Superman, and that's any version, comic book, Chris Reeve, or Cav-El (even Routh) would walk into such a trap, so stupidly. Even some sort of simple plot device, such as a piece of technology that interferes with Superman's senses, which would make him unable to detect the Kryptonite until it was too late, would have resolved this issue.


You are correct that I have not watched the film for a while, and have tried to purge it from my mind. However, I recall Superman landing, and then getting his ass kicked a few minutes later. Just watched the clip, actually, it's about 2 minutes.


Please do not feel you must defend the honour of Superman returns, as you cannot convince me it was a good Superman film. If my arguments lack logic, feel free to refute them, and I concede my kryptonian tech argument was weak .

Logic aside, my firm opinion is that this was not a good Superman film.

Equally, my opinion that a scenario where Superman lands on an island that's made up (at least in significant part) of the one substance in the universe that can kill him, is not a reasonable one, and makes Superman a ****ing idiot, is likely to stand.

I have no problem seeing Superman make mistakes, get beaten up, or poisoned by Kryptonite, but the way in which Superman returns played out made Superman something that he is not, a moron.

[Spider-Aziz]

Spider-Man 2
That movie is not the greatest Spider-Man movie, I get where some stuff are done better in this one than they are in other Spider-Man films (Raimi more than Webb), but it still has problems

[BoredGuy]

I'm gunna throw this out cuz I haven't seen it and I may be the only one who hates it, but:

X-Men: First Class

Poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly cast (outside of Fassbender and McAvoy) Particularly horrible performances from Lawrence, Jones, Bacon, Hoult, and whatever Havok's actor's real name is.
The villains were hokey and/or pointless, the X-characters chosen to be in the film were the lamest of the d-list, and not even accurate to their comic counterparts, they bastardized the comic stories (I know the x-films had already done this, but earlier movies felt like they were genuinely trying to distill the best parts of X-men mythos, whereas First Class just chose people nobody would care about so they could kill them off/write them out before x-men 1)
I also didn't buy into the period setting, it all seemed so artificial, and if I heard "mutant and proud" one more time I was gunna shoot myself.
Oh and, to those who've said "it's totally a reboot, 100%", I'm sorry, it's definitely not, they just ignored certain continuity issues and said "we'll sort it out later". You don't completely recreate the intro from one film to another and say it's a reboot, I'm sorry

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Well at least we agree on Iron Man 3.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Again, I still disagree with you on Superman returns, if you enjoyed it, then more power to you -because then you didn't have the incredible feeling of being ripped off that I have.

My main dislike for Superman returns is the "kryptonite island" plot device, which essentially relies on Superman being a moron.

I concede that Superman might possibly not suspect Kryptonite being present, based on the Kryptonian technology.

That is a fair criticism, as it is not materially relevant, and a poor argument on my part. I admit it when I am wrong.

However, you have not successfully refuted all of my criticisms about the use of kryptonite in Superman returns. Challenge accepted, allow me to retort.

1) SUPERMAN DIDN'T SEE THE KRYPTONITE BEFORE HE LANDED ON THE ISLAND, BECAUSE HE WASN'T LOOKING FOR IT.

Is it not at least reasonably possible that Superman, possessed of extra-ordinary senses, might do a cursory scan of the Island -yes, arguably not looking for Kryptonite, but perhaps to ascertain how Luthor managed to create a new landmass, out of nothing?

Anyway, while doing a quick scan he neglects to notice the unique structure of the one substance that can kill him.

"To ascertain how Luthor managed to create a new landmass, out of nothing"??? Didn't you said that Superman knows exactly how Luthor built that landmass? Then why would he try to ascertain that, if he knows exactly how it was done?

Even more, Superman built his own landmassin STM with crystals when he built the Fortress of Solituide, remember? Why would he try to find out how it was done then?

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Given that most of us walk around with our eyes open (and we hope Superman flies with his eyes open) and that his super senses are a natural condition of his being, doesn't it seem reasonable that at some point while flying towards the island he wouldn't utilise them - if he didn't, how did he find Luthor in the first place ? Well we assume by looking, or did he consult GPS ?

So assuming he's flying with his eyes open and looking for Lex Luthor, he happens to miss the unique substance that can kill him, (which, from the clip I just watched on youtube, was visible on the ground, and thus would be visible to someone with telescopic vision that can spot stuff on the moon). Interestingly, in the clip, he recognizes it right away....and if you argue that Superman doesn't know kryptonite when he sees it, and only put two and two together when he feels like crap and Lex says " Krrrrrryptonite !" then any argument
you can raise that Superman is not a moron in this film, is moot.

Eyes open can't see under the surface of earth. X-ray vision can. And Superman would probably have used it, had he had one reason to.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Does this sound like Superman? Again, son of the greatest scientist of an advanced civilization.

(as to Superman not knowing Luthor stole stuff from the FOS, come on, he doesn't check the burglar alarm ? The reason I hated that aspect of the plot so much is that it's already been done, in Superman II, when Luthor finds the fortress of solitude, the first time, and accesses its technology, at least come up with an original idea FFS.)

No, he didn't check the alarm because, as I told and was properly explained in the movie, Superman was busy. Luthor made sure he was. And then again, nobody really made a big fuss because they had stolen a piece of rock.

And well, true, Luthor again visited the FOS, but this time, unlike in SII, he stole alien technology and built his own continent. I don't recall that happening in SII.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

2) WHY WOULD SUPERMAN SUSPECT LUTHOR HAD KRYPTONITE AT ALL ?

Okay, so let's assume that Superman hasn't done an X-ray vision sweep of the island, or even a telescopic look at Luthor's location, even for interest's sake.

Your suggestion is that Superman would not suspect Luthor, the one human who knows about and has utilised kryptonite against him, and is a genius (well, one day they'll portray him as one), doesn't believe that if Luthor got some kryptonite once, he can't somehow get some more ?

(This is Lex Luthor, who managed to create an evil clone of Superman, with far less acting talent and extendable nails in a movie that many rate as worse than Superman returns, but in that film Superman is able to deduce and exploit his enemy's weakness, clearly a lot smarter than Routh's Superman).

Yes, only one chunk of kryptonite has hit the earth, that was in STM. That chuck was gone, so Superman has no reason whatsoever to think Luthor is in possession of it again. It's not that Superman doesn't know Luthor knows his weakness, it's the fact that the only one chunk of kryptonite made its way through the sewer (and later rescued and taken to the museum).

For all Superman knows, Luthor cannot get kryptonite every time he wants. There's only so much of it that you can find on earth. Which is why he didn't use it in SII.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

This is analogous to saying that when going up against the Joker, the Batman would not expect the Joker to have any bullets for his guns -on the basis that he fired them all last time.

(yes, I know Kryptonite is amazingly rare, but come on. You wouldn't suspect your arch enemy might have the one weapon that will be effective against you ?)

If kryptonite is as common as bullets, that would be a good example.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

The supplementary argument that he doesn't think Luthor will have some as Ms T chucked it down the drain, does not support your main argument.

On what do you base this assumption ?

If anything it suggests that the kryptonite, while possibly lost in the sewers, still exists. Obviously it wasn't destroyed as the original writer of Superman, Mario Puzo, was clever and knew that kryptonite might need to make a reappearance in later films.

Did Superman forget about that chunk of kryptonite, after his calamitous experience with it (if he did, then he is a moron). So would he go and do something about it ? Who knows.

Oh, it does exist. It's in the museum, long forgotten.

Superman doesn't probably even know that the chunk of kryptonite made its way from the sewer to the museum.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

The past is not a good indicator of the future, but its the only one we've got.
To suggest that Superman could not contemplate something as reasonably foreseeable, as Lex Luthor having Kryptonite, defies logic.

Luthor himself says it "Didn't your daddy teach you to look before you leap ?" as he's giving Supes a good kicking. He's actually telling us that Superman is a ****ing moron, for not at least having a look first.

WTF would Luthor be out in the open, knowing Superman would inevitably come looking for him ? Because it's a trap, and Superman isn't going to suspect that ? Sorry, but that makes him a moron.

Luthor is an arrogant dude. Of course he would say that. That doesn't change the fact that Superman had zero reasons to believe he had kryptonite, let alone that the whole island's core was made of it.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

3) THE GENERAL USE OF KRYPTONITE (not an argument of yours, but a rather significant inconsistency within the film)

Furthermore, the gradual effect of the kryptonite is completely inconsistent with the earlier depiction of Kryptonite in SMTM, which weakened him immediately.

You're telling me that Superman didn't notice that he was weakening, due to the unique radiation of that particular substance, and didn't think - wow, I feel crap, almost like I've been exposed to kryptonite, better fly away.

And, if the effects were gradual, then why didn't he still possess enough strength to crush Luthor's goons (and Luthor as well) ? So does Kryptonite work right away, or doesn't it ?
How does it work without him noticing it ?

Is it a question of proximity ? The reason we have these questions is because the effect of kryptonite is inconsistent within the movie itself.

After being depowered and beaten, Superman gets away (despite being stabbed by a krypto-shank), recovers a bit, and then is strong enough to chuck the island into space.

If anything he should have been just about dead, given he got krypto-shanked, as well as being exposed to kryptonite. Yet he's able to pull of a feat of strength that's pretty impressive, even for Superman -just not earlier, when the story required him to get his ass kicked. It's only after he's thrown the island that he succumbs to the effects.

As shown in the movie, the whole island is NOT kryptonite. Only its core. It's also shown that this kryptonite core finds its way to the surface slowly. That's why the island is not green, that's why chunks oif kryptonite appear only when Superman is lifting the island out of earth and that iswhy Superman didn't feel its effects immediately.

It's also shown that Superman flew towards the sun to recover 100% and that's what protected him from the effects, even if for a brief period of time, when he was lifting the island.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Given your criticism of my recall of the film, I have just been to youtube. and watched the "lifting the island" scene and there are protruding rocks of kryptonite nearby, nearly as close as when he was getting his ass kicked.....so why does he have the strength to fly and lift the continent, yet before he didn't have the strength to fight off some thugs?

Did the clip show how he recharged with solar power before doing that?

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Such inconsistencies, are the result of bad writing. Or was that clearly explained? I cannot recall Luthor cackling away about how the Kryptonite would depower Superman without him noticing.

Luthor probably didn't know how it would work.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

I agree with Kevin Smith that Luthor creating an Island with built in Kryptonite is clever, as he's creating a place that Superman literally cannot go.

However,

I do not agree that Superman, and that's any version, comic book, Chris Reeve, or Cav-El (even Routh) would walk into such a trap, so stupidly. Even some sort of simple plot device, such as a piece of technology that interferes with Superman's senses, which would make him unable to detect the Kryptonite until it was too late, would have resolved this issue.


You are correct that I have not watched the film for a while, and have tried to purge it from my mind. However, I recall Superman landing, and then getting his ass kicked a few minutes later. Just watched the clip, actually, it's about 2 minutes.

Superman has fallen in many traps in his life to come and say this. Specially when he didn't know that kryptonite still existed.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Please do not feel you must defend the honour of Superman returns, as you cannot convince me it was a good Superman film. If my arguments lack logic, feel free to refute them, and I concede my kryptonian tech argument was weak .

Logic aside, my firm opinion is that this was not a good Superman film.

Equally, my opinion that a scenario where Superman lands on an island that's made up (at least in significant part) of the one substance in the universe that can kill him, is not a reasonable one, and makes Superman a ****ing idiot, is likely to stand.

I have no problem seeing Superman make mistakes, get beaten up, or poisoned by Kryptonite, but the way in which Superman returns played out made Superman something that he is not, a moron.

Your opinion is not a problem. Your reasoning is, since you leave lots of facts that are shown and/or explained in the movie and move on on the basis of assumptions.