Sequels "Going Wrath Of Khan":The Official MOS Action Thread

[Mr. Socko]

What was there to enjoy?

 

[Super Kal]

Routh, Spacey, Jason, Marsden...

plus the opening credits were to die for... they were the most enjoyable part of the entire movie

 

[Nightwing1977]

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

Maybe we can get that again with MoS by having all the casts return with more & better action along with better story too like ST2 did for the first one. X2 even accomplish that too. And I love X2. Probably one of the top 10 best comic book movie ever made.

I think ST2's biggest thing that led to it's success is that it was written by two writers who were not trek fans and were forced to watch all 79 episodes before they started on the script so they could see from an open view the cast dynamics and also the gravitas that it needed.

Really? I remeber some of you guys who were crying about SR wanted writers that were fans of Superman for SR & now you're saying ST2 was good, 'cause it wasn't written by fans of Star Trek? Some of you accuse Harris & Dougherty of not being Superman fans with thinking that why SR suck. I guess if Harris & Dougherty weren't Superman fans, SR would've been better.

And Singer wasn't a fan of X-Men before he started filming either & it's consider one of the best comic book movies. Not to mention it help brought Marvel back to making some of their films good compare to the decades before. I guess if Singer wasn't a fan of Superman, he would've made it better too beside the 2 writers if they weren't a fan either.

 

[daywalker2007]

i don't think we should worry too much

after all,

blade 1 came out in 1998 and blade 2 came out in 2002,
a full four years later.

if man of steel comes out in 2010, that should be fine

its not the end of the world

 

[X-Maniac]

You don't understand the current "fangasm" for X2 but you understand it for Batman Begins? I can't speak for when it first came out, but now it seems to be a widely liked movie. And if it truly wasn't liked by the 'fanboys' when it first came out, then the fine wine analogy can appropriately be placed here. Much like Star Wars, whose original film received many mixed reviews but is now loved by more than you can imagine. Cyclops may have had a reduced role, Wolverine may have an expanded one, but none of that takes away from it's merit as a film on it's own. You'd be hard-pressed to find a review that says "X2 sucks because Cyclops didn't have enough screen time." Oh and a quick search on Rottentomatoes shows that X2: X-Men United has a higher average and critical score than Batman Begins. But don't get me wrong, I like Begins.

Interesting. So you're saying a film based on a comicbook source must be viewed on its own merits as a movie, rather than on how much it respects the source. Tell that to those who disliked X3 because Cyclops died, Rogue was cured, etc etc!

It's a tough job to balance what works cinematically and what is respectful of the original comicbook stories. Few comicbook movies get it right. It's the fans who are the multiple repeat viewers so they have to be considered.

I find almost as much wrong with X2 as I find right with it. But I like all three X-movies, even though I can appreciate the third was for many the most disappointing: weaker as a movie in its own right and the most disrespectful of the source material (and previous movies). Since the deleted scenes strengthen the movie considerably, I am aghast they weren't included and constantly pleading for an Extended Edition. That woudn't solve the outcry over Cyclops' death but it would make a better movie on its own terms.

Likewise, a special edition of SR with the Krypton sequence and other material added back in might make a good idea.

I think X2 accurately represented the themes and roles better than X1 and X3. X1 had the right mindset, but the execution wasn't as good as it could have been, and it wasn't as big of a superhero picture as it should have been. X3 was just a soul-less bore.

I think X1 was hampered from being any bigger as a superhero picture by the budget. But it's still a classic piece of sci-fi, with a great opening scene and the gradual unfolding of a bizarre and hidden world. The movie reflects its era of dark, moody sci-fi - Minority Report, Matrix, X-Files, Millennium.

X2 was grander, much more modern, less shadowy. It's still astonishing that Fox didn't get moving with a whole series of other X-movies straight after it became such a success. This could have been a long-running franchise though it would have had to phase out or recast characters over time.

 

[X-Maniac]

The funnier thing is, before Spider-Man 3 was released, Avi Arad revealed in an interview that it was him who persuaded Raimi to shove Venom into SM3 "because the fans wanted it". The fans were like "thank God". But as soon as SM3 came out and they didn't like it, all of a sudden it was Rami's fault for succumbing to Arad.

Indeed. That's what fans can do. Especially if key characters are mishandled. Step forward Venom, Galactus, Phoenix.

Venom was badly done in SM3. The convenience of that meteorite landing nex to Parker was terrible. As bad as the convenience of Flint Marko stumbling into an open-air sand-testing pit.

 

[buggs0268]

Don't you see? If the film was brighter, the kid was gone and everything else was basically a copy of S:TAS, then they would like it. But since they didn't get the film tailored specifically for them, everything sucks.

That's how fanboys work.

You sound very familiar. HMMMMMM.

 

[Porygon]

You sound very familiar. HMMMMMM.

You've heard that kind of criticism before?

Although I was generalising quite a bit. I do apoligise.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Maybe we can get that again with MoS by having all the casts return with more & better action along with better story too like ST2 did for the first one. X2 even accomplish that too. And I love X2. Probably one of the top 10 best comic book movie ever made.


Really? I remeber some of you guys who were crying about SR wanted writers that were fans of Superman for SR & now you're saying ST2 was good, 'cause it wasn't written by fans of Star Trek? Some of you accuse Harris & Dougherty of not being Superman fans with thinking that why SR suck. I guess if Harris & Dougherty weren't Superman fans, SR would've been better.

And Singer wasn't a fan of X-Men before he started filming either & it's consider one of the best comic book movies. Not to mention it help brought Marvel back to making some of their films good compare to the decades before. I guess if Singer wasn't a fan of Superman, he would've made it better too beside the 2 writers if they weren't a fan either.

They swtitched Directors, Producers, and writers for WOK.....if that was done, along with the death of Jason ala Kirk's son......I'd be cool with Routh and Spacey coming back!

Anything to get a better story!

 

[NotFadeAway]

Thank you for proving my point. Did you even read all my post?

It stunk!

We are right for wanting a movie to be like S:TAS. It's time for a different take on the character other than the Donnerverse, and TAS is the best. We are in the right to want this and we should recieve our movie. You have yours. We want ours. That damn simple.

And we shouldn't have to have a movie that must work around a stupid storyline such as Superman's son. Sad thing is, I would be cool with a kid....after a new series has been started and it's on it's third f-ing film damnit!

Plus I think the general population would be on our side!

 

[Showtime]

You sound very familiar. HMMMMMM.

Wow. Another one bites the dust.

 

[Nightwing1977]

They swtitched Directors, Producers, and writers for WOK.....if that was done, along with the death of Jason ala Kirk's son......I'd be cool with Routh and Spacey coming back!

Anything to get a better story!

I don't usually like the idea of having a movie killing kid that young in Jason. I prefer we never hear about him ever again instead of killing him off. Honestly, it not hard to not use him again without killing him off.

And I still prefer Singer with better writers & others. Again, just my feeling on this.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

It stunk!

We are right for wanting a movie to be like S:TAS. It's time for a different take on the character other than the Donnerverse, and TAS is the best. We are in the right to want this and we should recieve our movie. You have yours. We want ours. That damn simple.

And we shouldn't have to have a movie that must work around a stupid storyline such as Superman's son. Sad thing is, I would be cool with a kid....after a new series has been started and it's on it's third f-ing film damnit!

Plus I think the general population would be on our side!

TAS is definitely not the best. You're talking about a Saturday morning cartoon that did next to nothing to actually touch on the romance between Lois and Clark and only did glossed over surface versions of some potentially deep characters. Granted, a fair share of the other beats of the show were okay, but in the end the characters were just what they were intended to be: cartoons. This is in no way me saying that SR was perfect, because I honestly haven't seen an adaption in animation, television, or the big screen that I find flawless. However, I'd choose SR's characterizations over the cartoons any day of the week because one was designed for Kids WB and the other surely wasn't. I don't mind a retooling or even a reboot, but a facsimile of TAS on the big screen is damn sure not the way I'd go. The general population? The same people that made Transformers and Pirates runaway hits? Right...

 

[turtlefocker]

^That is a big post

yes, yes it is

 

[turtlefocker]

Very well written and Id have to agree for the most part...

but

I think the guys who wrote Transformers are excellent choices to make the sequel. It'll be fast paced and filled with action.

Keeping Singer on board as director will ensure continuity.

 

[Angeloz]

They swtitched Directors, Producers, and writers for WOK.....if that was done, along with the death of Jason ala Kirk's son......I'd be cool with Routh and Spacey coming back!

Anything to get a better story!

David died in "Star Trek III" not the second film as that was a certain pointy eared character.

Angeloz

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

David died in "Star Trek III" not the second film as that was a certain pointy eared character.

Angeloz

Why do people always confuse the two?

 

[NotFadeAway]

I didn't confuse the two, I know David died in the third film. Those Klingon bastards. I was just using that as a comparison between Jason and David.

The third film is very underrated. It's kinda boring, but if you are a true Trek fan, you like it. Yes, you can tell it's a bridge film, a middle child, but it's good.

 

[manofsteel4life]

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

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

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

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



Let's see how much of a fight you would put up exposed to an entire island that is composed of a radiation that absolutely drains you of all strength, and then being thrown down a flight of stairs and taking a savage beating. He was essentially mortal at that point.

Bravo!!...this is what i mean by people opening there minds to stuff.....i couldnt have said it better myself

 

[manofsteel4life]

I rarely think in those terms. SUPERMAN RETURNS has both good and bad points in my mind. The good mostly outweight the bad (which can be classified mostly as annoyances). Singer's a great visual director, and SUPERMAN RETURNS was no different in that regard than his past films. There are some great shots and sequences. There are some truly great moments in the movie. I mean, we're talking about a movie that features a hell of a credits sequence, the return of "the theme", Superman catching a falling plane, lifting an island, stopping disasters in Metropolis, Lex Luthor beating the hell out of The Man of Steel, a pretty solid romantic sequence, Fortress stuff...there's too much there not to like at least some of it.

I was disappointed when Singer cut the return to Krypton. I think half the emotional weight of the film dropped off right then and there. Brandon Routh's performance on the Kent farm just didn't build that theme enough for it to last throughout the film. Martha Kent was underutilized and essentially wasted. I also thought Singer made a mistake not making Clark Kent more of a "character" and relying on him to be Superman's "mask", and while I liked the idea of a movie exploring whether or not the world needs Superman...it just wasn't explored in a satisfactory manner. The kid wasn't a terrible idea conceptwise, but he was annoying and cliche and not well executed at all until the final scene in his bedroom. Lois was Loisy enough for my taste, and I have few issues with her writing and portrayal, though Bosworth is not my ideal for the character. I loved Richard White, but that might be just because I really like James Marsden.

I thought Kevin Spacey did quite a lot with very little. Lex Luthor, however, as the movie progressed, was fantastically evil. My main beef with Lex in the movie is that his real motivations are never explored beyond "revenge". The thugs and his bimbo are what they are, no real issues there, though there was no need for the "out of control car" sequence, and no real payoff for Kitty/Superman's interactions.

I would prefer to see Olsen and White as more characters and not so much as comic relief/tension builders. Jimmy has never truly been "Superman's pal" onscreen, or even in the TV series, and White has potential that few ever tap into.

I was more or less pleased with the action. It's really a pretty big film when you actually sit back and look at the scale of things going on, and the action was fairly well done.

But if WB/Bryan Singer can find the right concept, I say give him another shot with MAN OF STEEL. I think a sequel has great potential. There were moments in SUPERMAN RETURNS that were awe-inspiring, and a sequel can build on that magic and hopefully bring more of it to the table.

I envision a sequel that utilizes Braniac, Luthor seeking revenge on a larger level, an exploration of Superman's kid, Superman and Lois, even Richard...could be one hell of a movie.

my man!!

 

[Angeloz]

Why do people always confuse the two?

Beats me. Though he claims it didn't as below.

I didn't confuse the two, I know David died in the third film. Those Klingon bastards. I was just using that as a comparison between Jason and David.

The third film is very underrated. It's kinda boring, but if you are a true Trek fan, you like it. Yes, you can tell it's a bridge film, a middle child, but it's good.

Weird fact: I saw the fourth film before the third. 'Cos in 1986 they played the second film on television and I loved it. Then they played the fourth film in the cinemas in January 1987 here. And the third film in February 1987. So I was totally spoiled and it kinda ruined any surprise I would of had. I wasn't happy as I didn't expect it before I saw the fourth film.

my man!!

So tempting to make a comment here...

Angeloz

 

[The Guard]

Something interesting can be done with Jason without killing him.

 

[Superman_]

I agree there is no need for killing off Jason. The only way I would even consider killing him off is if I wanted to do something like S: TAS when Darkseid killed off Dan Turpin and that put in motion the whole Superman/Darkseid feud. Thats the only reason why I would do it.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Something interesting can be done with Jason without killing him.

Bingo. Killing off Jason is a weak cop-out. The whole concept of the kid irritates so many, but I for one enjoyed it because it's the kind of storyline path that the comics would never have the cojones to touch because it interrupts the whole "time standing still" atmosphere of the books. Hell, it took how long for Lois to find out he was actually Superman? I'd rather they did something expansive with Jason. Showing him learning his abilities and stuff along those lines. Not using him as a plot coupon to give Superman instant motivation because someone killed him.

 

[buggs0268]

You've heard that kind of criticism before?

Although I was generalising quite a bit. I do apoligise.

No. Just that you say things exactly like Saph. Oh lookey, you are him. Hmm. Glad I figured out it was you huh? But then again, your banned, so you can't post here anymore-SAPH!