Superman Returns For those of you who didn't like SR, will you watch it again on DVD?

[buggs0268]

I think it was the color, buggs. There are some shots that look so bad because the color palette seems off.

Well if you look at that shot, which I cant believe they have in the TV commercial for it, it just looks like CGI. It is the shader. And it just looks bad in other shots as well to. The shader looks fake. And also when he is flaoting to the door of the plane at the baseball field. That shot just sceams animation. It is the legs or something that makes it just stick out.

 

[buggs0268]

No, I'll probably never see this superboy adventure ever again.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the pretty picturesque cgi shots and the music is pretty good and you'd have to be blind not to see the point of the story, but...

what I judge this on mostly is my belief about art. I am an artist I guess, I've been one since I was 5 and when I started out I traced other artist's work to a get a feel for how it's done. Then after I understood how all these shapes were formed, I started figuring out how to draw them on my own and I worked to be able to do it just as well as those pictures I used to trace. So I don't have to trace anymore.

How do I say this better...

Remember when I told one of you my sister was a genius? She is. You should see her room, she's got so many novels and papers everywhere and she's at law school right now, going on to become a lawyer to "help people" she tells me...

Well I was bored as hell one day and decided to read one of her snooty pooty smarty pants books. It was called The Fountainhead, by some author called Ayn Rand, yeah weird name. Good read, very interesting story.

Now what I found to be really unsettling about Singer's approach to superman was how similar it was to the appraoch one of the characters in the fountainhead had to his work. the book's about architects struggling to make it in the business and there's this guy Enright who's the main antagonist and tries to defeat the main character, some guy named Howard Roark, for whatever reason. It's been a while and I forget easily.

Anyway, Roark is an excellent architect who's extremely dedicated to his work but he flunks architect school and isn't the top of the class like this other guy. This other guy, I forget his name, he's got no talent, skilled though he is. Singer reminds me of this guy. To get to the point the guy with no talent later steals work from Roark and is praised for being such a clever genius. I think he's later revealed to be a fraud but I just want to show you how I think about all this.

I've never seen any filmmaker so clearly copy another unless it was a remake, or direct to video sequel or one of those bad b-movies, but nothing on this scale like this, costing what this did. So even if this weren't a superman movie I don't think a person like me'd want to own it and watch it ever again. That's just me...

Erase the kid foundation. I thought you were for the kid. Now you are against the kid?

 

[bosef982]

No, I'll probably never see this superboy adventure ever again.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the pretty picturesque cgi shots and the music is pretty good and you'd have to be blind not to see the point of the story, but...

what I judge this on mostly is my belief about art. I am an artist I guess, I've been one since I was 5 and when I started out I traced other artist's work to a get a feel for how it's done. Then after I understood how all these shapes were formed, I started figuring out how to draw them on my own and I worked to be able to do it just as well as those pictures I used to trace. So I don't have to trace anymore.

How do I say this better...

Remember when I told one of you my sister was a genius? She is. You should see her room, she's got so many novels and papers everywhere and she's at law school right now, going on to become a lawyer to "help people" she tells me...

Well I was bored as hell one day and decided to read one of her snooty pooty smarty pants books. It was called The Fountainhead, by some author called Ayn Rand, yeah weird name. Good read, very interesting story.

Now what I found to be really unsettling about Singer's approach to superman was how similar it was to the appraoch one of the characters in the fountainhead had to his work. the book's about architects struggling to make it in the business and there's this guy Enright who's the main antagonist and tries to defeat the main character, some guy named Howard Roark, for whatever reason. It's been a while and I forget easily.

Anyway, Roark is an excellent architect who's extremely dedicated to his work but he flunks architect school and isn't the top of the class like this other guy. This other guy, I forget his name, he's got no talent, skilled though he is. Singer reminds me of this guy. To get to the point the guy with no talent later steals work from Roark and is praised for being such a clever genius. I think he's later revealed to be a fraud but I just want to show you how I think about all this.

I've never seen any filmmaker so clearly copy another unless it was a remake, or direct to video sequel or one of those bad b-movies, but nothing on this scale like this, costing what this did. So even if this weren't a superman movie I don't think a person like me'd want to own it and watch it ever again. That's just me...

Before you start making analogies between Ayn Rand novels -- so you too can sound snooty and snobby -- I'd suggest you reexamine the facts.

First of all, Roark is more an destablishment-type, and yes, "the other guy" does steal his work and gets credit for it and eventually though acknowledges the intention behind Roark's individualism in his work and how he adheres to it despite the consequences.

However, this is just simply a pathetic application to Bryan Singer and if you can't remember what you read in a book, it's best to keep your silent about that and any analogies you may stretch to make.

First and foremost, The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil both showed that Singer is capable of developing original movies that are compelling and showcase a wide range of emotion and drama from the actors he's directing. He demonstrated talent and originality, something which is really not at all applicable to "the other guy," PETER KEATING. Keating in the Fountainhead conformed to the predominant artheticterual styles. It wasn't that he had no talent per se, it's that he misdirected his talent continually towards projects that were similar to the contmporary styles -- something that Roark's individualist approach discouraged. Roark wanted more daring and risky adventures in architecture. Also, Roark allowed Keating to take his work and then Keating bastardized the original plans by adding in more traditional archtectural arangements.

It really wasn't a matter of talent, but of conformity.

Now, ignoring X1 and X2 which again showed Singer adapting original works and placing his own unique vision, we'll go ahead and bite that Superman Returns was this "abysmal plagarism" of Donner's work....give me a second, okay, I'll at least bite for now...

Your argument, especially in reference to The Fountainhead, falls when you consider that SR was designed as an homage to the Donner films and that Donner himself was consulted prior to the filming. Work cannot be stolen if it is granted, plain and simple.

Secondly, Superman: The Movie did not contain a love triangle, did not contain Luthor rebuilding an entire contienent using Superman's Fortress of Solitude, did not introduce Superman having a child, and did not have Superman leaving the Earth for five years...did it? I didn't think so. So, to decry Superman Returns as some patent copy of Donner's work is just plain bull****. There is no functional basis for such an extreme, black/white analysis of the film. It's simply false.

Now, what's funny about your Fountainhead argument is that Roark is fighting people who want things to be the same, to adhere to the tried and proven traditions of past architects. Keating conforms to this, conforms to the masses.

One could make the analogy that Singer is more like Roark, breaking the mold and fashion of what people feel is traditionally Superman and creating something new, more mature, and darker. In fact, as Ayn Raynd points out, the reaction of SR naysayers and fanboys on these boards is quite similar to the masses and self-appointed architect snobs in the Fountainhead who feel that they know better then Roark, that they determine what is right and wrong, and that Roark had bastardized the source material of architecture, much like fanboys feel Singer has bastaridzed Superman's source material.

But, if we stick to Ayn Raynd, we learn that the individaul who sticks by his own convictions is the true visionary, and that the main reason others attack him is out of thier own petty insecurities.

It is funny that you bring up the Fountainhead in that fanboys constant references to copying Paul Dini, Donner, Smallville, and other sources are constantly being heard.

Then again, I've seen comments by you and others that state that Singer bastardized and change irrevocably the character of Superman. Yet, you will simultanteously hold that Superman Returns was an utter rehash of Superman: The Movie. This, logically, cannot be true. Something cannot be a utter copy and yet be totally different than said copy. If this is the case, Donner's film's bastardized the characer, not Singer's. That's if we stick to your claim that Singer copied. So you have a choice...

1) Hate Singer for changing and altering Superman to suit his own aesthetic tastes.

2) Hate Richard Donner for bastardizing Superman, a character Bryan Singer simply followed.


Either way, you're argument is pretty bunk.

 

[buggs0268]

Before you start making analogies between Ayn Rand novels -- so you too can sound snooty and snobby -- I'd suggest you reexamine the facts.

First of all, Roark is more an destablishment-type, and yes, "the other guy" does steal his work and gets credit for it and eventually though acknowledges the intention behind Roark's individualism in his work and how he adheres to it despite the consequences.

However, this is just simply a pathetic application to Bryan Singer and if you can't remember what you read in a book, it's best to keep your silent about that and any analogies you may stretch to make.

First and foremost, The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil both showed that Singer is capable of developing original movies that are compelling and showcase a wide range of emotion and drama from the actors he's directing. He demonstrated talent and originality, something which is really not at all applicable to "the other guy," PETER KEATING. Keating in the Fountainhead conformed to the predominant artheticterual styles. It wasn't that he had no talent per se, it's that he misdirected his talent continually towards projects that were similar to the contmporary styles -- something that Roark's individualist approach discouraged. Roark wanted more daring and risky adventures in architecture. Also, Roark allowed Keating to take his work and then Keating bastardized the original plans by adding in more traditional archtectural arangements.

It really wasn't a matter of talent, but of conformity.

Now, ignoring X1 and X2 which again showed Singer adapting original works and placing his own unique vision, we'll go ahead and bite that Superman Returns was this "abysmal plagarism" of Donner's work....give me a second, okay, I'll at least bite for now...

Your argument, especially in reference to The Fountainhead, falls when you consider that SR was designed as an homage to the Donner films and that Donner himself was consulted prior to the filming. Work cannot be stolen if it is granted, plain and simple.

Secondly, Superman: The Movie did not contain a love triangle, did not contain Luthor rebuilding an entire contienent using Superman's Fortress of Solitude, did not introduce Superman having a child, and did not have Superman leaving the Earth for five years...did it? I didn't think so. So, to decry Superman Returns as some patent copy of Donner's work is just plain bull****. There is no functional basis for such an extreme, black/white analysis of the film. It's simply false.

Now, what's funny about your Fountainhead argument is that Roark is fighting people who want things to be the same, to adhere to the tried and proven traditions of past architects. Keating conforms to this, conforms to the masses.

One could make the analogy that Singer is more like Roark, breaking the mold and fashion of what people feel is traditionally Superman and creating something new, more mature, and darker. In fact, as Ayn Raynd points out, the reaction of SR naysayers and fanboys on these boards is quite similar to the masses and self-appointed architect snobs in the Fountainhead who feel that they know better then Roark, that they determine what is right and wrong, and that Roark had bastardized the source material of architecture, much like fanboys feel Singer has bastaridzed Superman's source material.

But, if we stick to Ayn Raynd, we learn that the individaul who sticks by his own convictions is the true visionary, and that the main reason others attack him is out of thier own petty insecurities.

It is funny that you bring up the Fountainhead in that fanboys constant references to copying Paul Dini, Donner, Smallville, and other sources are constantly being heard.

Then again, I've seen comments by you and others that state that Singer bastardized and change irrevocably the character of Superman. Yet, you will simultanteously hold that Superman Returns was an utter rehash of Superman: The Movie. This, logically, cannot be true. Something cannot be a utter copy and yet be totally different than said copy. If this is the case, Donner's film's bastardized the characer, not Singer's. That's if we stick to your claim that Singer copied. So you have a choice...

1) Hate Singer for changing and altering Superman to suit his own aesthetic tastes.

2) Hate Richard Donner for bastardizing Superman, a character Bryan Singer simply followed.


Either way, you're argument is pretty bunk.

I see you are on your way yet again to being lectured by a mod in private again about your attitude to your opinion and your attitude towars others.

Please remember Bosef. This thread is for those who didn't like it to comment. Not for those who did.

 

[bosef982]

I see you are on your way yet again to being lectured by a mod in private again about other peoples opinions as oposed to yours.

Oh yes, because whenever I take issue with someone's interpretation, I'm being an ass.

He misapplied a novel. I corrected him. He stated outright he'd forgotten most of it.

I then took issue with his argument concerning Singer being a total hack.

Is it now wrong to go against those who want to blast the film? Oh yes, that's because when someone comes on here with a strong, well-reasoned argument people start whining and crying and then the MODs come in to punish someone.

But I'll just continue to pretend that the MODs don't have something against me, despite the enormous evidence to the contrary.

You'd be surprised how much I don't care at this point.

And I'd caution you, overall, NOT to speak for the MODs. If I get banned, talked to...whatever, it is more a negative, and un-surprising indictment on their own integrity and fairness and objectivity -- and also the way things have been allowed to so lopsidedly spiral out of control on this forum -- and says very little about myself.

It is patently clear that the "naysayers" have a clear and protected forum on these boards and that those who defend it are shackled by rules that never seem to apply the other way.

Go figure.

 

[buggs0268]

Oh yes, because whenever I take issue with someone's interpretation, I'm being an ass.

He misapplied a novel. I corrected him. He stated outright he'd forgotten most of it.

I then took issue with his argument concerning Singer being a total hack.

Is it now wrong to go against those who want to blast the film? Oh yes, that's because when someone comes on here with a strong, well-reasoned argument people start whining and crying and then the MODs come in to punish someone.

You'd be surprised how much I don't care at this point.

I know you like the film. But this thread is for those who hated it to post on if they would watch it on DVD or not. That is why it is titled:

For those of you who didn't like SR, will you watch it again on DVD?

Since you loved it, this one kind of isn't for you. There are other threads for those who liked the film to post in.

 

[bosef982]

This thread does not expressly say FOR DISLIKE ONLY...it asks a question to people who disliked it and I simply peeked in to see what was said.

Weyseed's "unoriginal, total hack' argument is present here and in many other threads. I simply choose to respond to it here.

 

[charl_huntress]

Is it now wrong to go against those who want to blast the film? Oh yes, that's because when someone comes on here with a strong, well-reasoned argument people start whining and crying and then the MODs come in to punish someone.

I find this to be total crap. Why? Because no one you argue against goes to the mods. Most of you with the so tight well, reasoned argument are going to the mods...and actually your well reasoned arguments aren't that tight to begin with.

You just think your crap sounds better. Don't get it twisted.

 

[SatEL]

I tried. I put it in. I started watching it, and then I found myuself fast forwarding through it and watched the plane scene and then the new krypton rising, and then I stpped it and put the donner cut back in.

Funny thing is i can just see myself doing that, i was going to buy it just to see all the flying scences again but hell i might just skip now anyway its worth a thought.

 

[X-Maniac]

To get back to the question asked in this thread:

Yes, I will watch it again on DVD. I am a superhero movie fan and want to see how well it holds up on further viewings, or whether my initial reaction remains.

Singer has a distinctive approach in adapting superhero material in a dark, moody style with understated emotional turmoils going on, and character moments (like the solo power displays found in X1 and X2 to showcase a character's abilities--- Storm and the tornadoes, Magneto's prison escape etc).

Singer's way of doing superheroes isn't the only way and it isn't a perfect, unbeatable way. On many occasions, he failed to capture the essence of the X-Men mythology completely. There were moments of perfection: the X-mansion/school, Wolverine's origin flashbacks, Magneto's origin and most of his scenes, Nightcrawler, Jean vs the water at the end of X2, Storm at the end of X1. Some things were different from the comics but just as good, if not better, such as Mystique's appearance. Other things - most of Storm, Cyclops for instance - just didn't shine as much as they could and became background figures.

I felt SR was far from perfect. It annoyed me immediately with the opening scene showing a widow talking of 'pleasures beyond her wildest dreams' and the kid screaming when Lex hurls his wig. This, for me, was a massive red flag. Because Singer's opening sequences have always been so gripping and edgy in the X-movies. Although the Lex scene may have set up how Lex got his money, that's not the heart of the movie. Surely the opening scene should hint at a central theme of the film? Magneto's origin at the start of X1 immediately gives motivation to the villain and a grim foreshadowing of the possible future of all mutants; the Nightcrawler scene at the start of X2 immediately indicates the mutant 'threat' - how the public perceive (or can be made to perceive) the threat of mutants, the things that mutants are capable of doing, and the government's role in these things.

X3's opening was fine in establishing the theme of 'power corrupts' but it was a little gentle and would have been better if we'd seen Jean's childhood friend dying in a car crash, Jean's powers manifesting to try to save her but going out of control, then Xavier appearing and telling her parents he can help. It would have been more gripping.

SR's opening didn't feel either relevant or significant or gripping. It made me uneasy very early on in the film.

A better beginning would have been the Krypton sequence with overlayered audio/visual of Superman telling Lois he had to go to see what was left of his home world, then Martha Kent finding Clark at the crash site as the Superman Returns title came up on the screen. Much more dynamic, much more focus on the heart of the movie.

 

[X Knight]

well, as the topic creator, I must come clean about what I did.

Last night......I watched SR again! Yes, even though I have been very critical of the movie, I decided to give it a second chance. After all, I watched X3 again, and liked it slightly better.

So.......did my opinion of SR change after watching it again? Well, I did understand certain aspects better ( namely Luthor's "land scheme" ), but something still felt........off.

As I've said before, the visuals were OUTSTANDING!! In terms of visual beauty and production quality, the film was top notch. Quite frankly, the action was plenty good........that WAS NOT the problem............

Ironically, one of Lex Luthor's lines really captured my feelings of the movie. "It lacks that.........Human.....touch."

Even though I spent over 2 hours with the characters, I never really got to know them. I never really "connected" with them. It's like I was thrust into an ongoing story and expected to understand the characters.

And.....that......KID.....was there. The first time I watched it, the point where they revealed the Kid to be Supes' left a sour taste in my mouth and pretty much deflated what had been a pretty enjoyable movie up until that point.

Now, on my second viewing, since I'm already aware of the Kid plot point, the rest of the movie just seems......."dirty" or scandalous. Something just doesn't feel right.

Yes, I certainly understand the themes that Singer was trying to convey. For instance, Superman left earth to look for his Kryptonian heritage ( others like him ) only to return and find he has a son as well as encounter a dark, twisted version of his home planet ( Lex's New Krypton ).

And, I know that Singer was trying to portray a flawed hero. However, the flaws should fit the hero. The flaws in SR did not fit the hero, as Superman came off, for most of the film, pursuing another man's woman.

I still think this Superman was selfish and irresonsible, that really didn't change. Many of the deleted scenes ( especially the farm scenes ) would have "humanized" Superman more, but they left those out.

As for the whole argument that "Superman went to Krypton to look for/save survivors," that has some truth, except for it wasn't addressed in the actual film. In the documentary feature, they had a series of Newspaper headlines that pretty much outlined the context of the story. The Nasa story about discovering Krypton's remains DID mention "possible signs of life." So, that was most likely what Superman read, so it is certainly feasible that he got that impression. However, that actual factoid was NEVER alluded to or brought up in the actual movie.........

So, even after giving SR a second chance, I still don't really like Singer's vision, as his Superman did not really demonstrate what makes Superman great for me. And it all revolves around that KID........

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

I bought the 14 disc box set and I'll watch it with my dad who happens to be a huge Superman fan but hasn't seen it yet.

 

[buggs0268]

I am attempting to watch it again and I really feel bad for Routh. Boy did he get shafter with a bad script. Same with Spacey. I like the opening titles but hate the 3rd rock from the sun camera pans. Why is the moon a Couple of million miles away from where it should be. It is where Venus should be in the credits. I mean the Earth is damn far away from it. I seen Apollo 13 and real shot of Earth from the moon and it aint that far away. You can actually see the thing from the moon. GAHHHH!!!!!!! Damn ship CGI sucks. Looks like CGI. As bad as the same ship shot Sony Imageworks did for Contact, but that was in 1997. Been 10 years and major inovations in CGI and still the ship sucks. They needed a grand vista shot for the FOS. That stupid whip from one place to the fortress sucks. And why the hell when they have a helicopter do they fly it about 200 yards away from te boat and land it on the edge of the icepack. Why don't they fly it to the fortress instead of walk to the fortress, freezing their asses off and only use it to fly 200 yards. Stupid. I actually do like the look of the inside of the FOS in this. Peta Wilson still looks good. I hate that damn train set. WORST SHIRT RIP EVER! I don't care what the reason is for it. That could have been a reshoot in any damn alleyway in L.A. and take a day to do it. CGI superman sucks. Too much of a rubbery look in some shots. Okay Perry, no one will be taking the plane out of the stadium till the NTSB fully takes it apart piece by piece and catalogues it, then rebuilds it at a warehouse close by. Consider that statium closed for a month. Richard comes off as real. I like the kid. I like Bosworth actually, but wished she could be more driven like Kidder's Lois was. still painfully watching. That take off at the hospital sucked. Heart Palpitations? Oh Gawdddd!!!! Taht is a damn good camera phone that kid has. It can take perfectly lit and composed pics with a crappy images sensor that would not be able to shoot that F-stop at night under regular light to even get anything that looks that good. Posey couldn't sve that one. Balcony scene now. Hate that f'n, stinkin, sucks to the nth degree suit. Singer is wrong about the billboard Sized S. It needs it. cape attachment still sucks. Damn shorts and guci belt. They could have had the yellow S on the cape just fine. Damn boots. Still watching. Supes/Lois flying scene has no magic in it. Just a bland short scene there just as an homage to STM's flying scene. The shorts height make his gut stick out like a beer gut during the flying scenes. God I hate those damn boots. The "I am always around" line is delivered too cheerfully for what just happened seconds before. This storyline could have been better had someone else wrote it. Perry is on Thorazine. Maybe they didn't want to do the standard Perry as it is close to JJ Jameson and people would think they were ripping it off. But hey they are ripping off the girl of the superheroes affection going out with the hero relative of the editor so why not. God I can't believe I haven't complained about that yet. Rip off from Spidey 2. Luthor's plan..stupid. And that map. Isn't he a millionaire. Why doesn't he just have a big screen TV hooked up to that big computer so he can show her the plan on TV that he made on his computer so he wouldnt have to hire a map maker to make that thing and his secret getting out. I kind of like the pionao tossing scene, but they so telegraphed that he was his son buy having lex question who his father is before that happened. stupid. stupid editing. Hey! Let's give away the suprise before the suprise. I remeber in the theater a lot of the audience guess he was his son when Luthor was questioning Lois on who the fahter was. Elevator change scene. Hate the suit. Damn garden boots would never fit into the shoes he has one, which in the movie they clearly state as them doing. Wont anyone notice the hole he busted into the roof. "When will these people every learn to use a door" Now the new Krypton rising destorying metropolis scene. Pretty lame. everything is really small and cant hurt anyone. All the things that do are haning except for teh Globe. Well at least the globe falling he doesn't have to go back and remortar that hole he made in the roof. Short. 1978 movie had more destruction and a longer destructgion scene. Why am I still watching this damn thing? Hitting my head with my remote. Wondering if I can commit harry Karry with a remote control? Perry just tands there when a damn huge globe is falling on him. "great Ceasars ghost" God. STupid line. who cares if he said that in the 50's. Donner and them chose to make fun of the 50's dialogue. God Jimmy has a better story line then supes does and it is resolved. Oh did I say that Kitty is totally pissing me off but she does have some great lines. Posey is doing well with the lines and crap stuff to do she is being given, but then again she is a gifted actress who could read the phone book and make it sound good. How does Richard get across town, during major destruction going on in the city and the roads having 40 foot gas Flames coming out of it, to his plane and fly out to the boat before and reach it before Superman can? Richard come off as more of a hero and why does he have more lines in a Superman movie then Superman does? This is what happend in Superman 3 with Richard Pryor. The whole New Krypton plan still sucks ass. To think of all the money they could have saved by doing something else. Damn CGI Superman Landing when they could have done that with Routh on wires speed up. Lex telling his plan about an apartment on a dead roch thing that seems to always have a rain cloud with thunderstorms above it. They don't have umbrellas. They are going to get rained on a lot. Where the hell is the military? Labeaux actually is good. Any other actor would have made him irritating. I hate the idea of a kid but he actually makes his character likable. Even in the supplementals he just seems really cool. Okay Superman is standin on Kryptonite and he is standing on. He does clearly say "I am still Superman" but why. If I was getting my ass kicked and I was him I would not be saying that. For a beating up scene they sure aren't kicking his ass enough. The big guy is the only guy I believe is a prisoner. When he takes off his jacket that is the only one that looks scary. Why is Kal Pen in this again? And Lex should have really started kicking his ass after they beat him and taken out all of his anger. "Now fly" is good. Again, why didn't they just shoot him with a gun while he was depowered. God this is so ripping off the Bible. Why am I still watching this? Again he is drowning. One more rip off of STM. The plane shot from below looking like it crashed and just making it has been done a million times in movies. Goldeneye Singer. There is that worst CGI double in the world again flying up to the sun. How come Ottman only used one damn superman fanfare from the Williams score when Williams came up with a different one for every scene Supes saved someone. Wow. There they are playing cards again. Kitty is the new Miss Tessmacher. Expecting to hear her mom is from Hackensack. Huge spikes of Kryptonite all around him and he does not pass out. Enough to kill him on site. How come he falls back to earth and yet new K floats out to space. And he is high enough to jsut float out with it and NOT fall back to earth. He is out of the atmosphere. There are a lot of people just standing there staring out at the sky almost perfectly alighned. Stupid second unit director! That is a rather large chunk of K they pulled out of him. The hosptial scene is now wasted. Shuoulda been used with a Dommsday storyline. Now it will just seem repeated. Richard is still cool. Too cool in fact. Shoulda CGI'd in more crowd outside the hospital. Not enough police inside of floor where Supes is. Fed would be there too with agents all over the place. Also missing is line of TV reporters reporting into cameras. Really needed to be in there to show that this is a global thing. Shoudl be at least 50 news cameras and news vans. There are the reporters. Should ahve been before she went into the hospital. God the stupid island. Lex runs out of gas and Kitty is dumber then a fencpost. There is the island shaped like a damn pork chop. That cost a lot of money to do. Why? Why is it in there. Okay ripping off bible again. The tomb is empty. I mean the room is emtpy. Dont mind supes breaking and entering, but god damn why did they have to rip off the lines from STM. Rip Off Artists!!!! How about the line "I will always be around now Lois" Wow, there is the Dailey Planet globe back on the top pf the roof and Superman was in the hospital and last time I saw him with the damn thing he put it on a car (Does he have to go to court to pay for the replacement of that car?), and there it is on the Daily Planet again as if nothing ever happend. In fact where is the damage? Damn Metropolis City and construction work crews are as fast repairing damage as they are in Townsville. There is the bad CGI superman, and the shorts low cut again making him look like he had a beer gut. Stupid. Lets put the dedication to Chris and Dayna, which we made such a big deal about, lodged in between some crap credits. Donner did it right the begining of his cut of Superman 2. Still sucks. I wan't my 2 1/2 hours I just wasted back. I got to take a dump now. That thing gave me the S**ts. And now the various vocal members of the Excuse Crew will try to refute what I just posted and call me a hater. A few will probably post right after each other giving each other congratulatory posts on supposedly dissing me because I don't like the movie. So is life.

 

[SCLJ]

I'm not going to buy it. For one thing it costs $24.00, and plus once you open it, you can't take it back to the store, because of the copy rights law. I don't want to buy somethning I don't like, and be stuck with it.

 

[co2]

I wouldn't classify myself as someone who didn't like it...I just didn't think much of it. I couldn't call it bad, but I did feel it was severly lacking in some areas. I didn't feel that it really added anything to the Superman story and basically re-hashed old ideas. And I had such high hopes for it.
In fact, I ususally give comic films special consideration. I was at Best Buy this week and looked over the two disk set, only to put it back on the shelf. But as fate would have it, someone bought it for me for my birthday last night. I watched it today, and I feel a 2nd viewing didn't really budge my opinion much. It won't be one that I go back to in a while probably.