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

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why is this so hard for people to imagine?

Even those of us that love SR don't want to see Jason helping dad to save the day, but a fatherly scene like this would be great.

Exactly, Singer has already said he doesnt want to the kid in a suite, and i think that means he wont be saving people either.

But a few scene's like the one above would be great to see, we could finally see Superman be something he hasnt been on the big screen before, a father.

 

[Visionary]

You've gotta be f---ing kiddin.'

 

[VenomsMom]

Why is this so hard for people to imagine?

Even those of us that love SR don't want to see Jason helping dad to save the day, but a fatherly scene like this would be great.

That could be a touching heartfelt moment.....(sigh)

 

[dark_b]

You've gotta be f---ing kiddin.'

i am not saying that you said that. but you maybe noticed that a lot of people are saying that singer did sometinh un-original. hack i am one of those people. extreme to much homages and to much copyed scenes in SR. but the kid was something new.
so how should this go now? what is new? a new origin with new CGI krypton and then lex luthor and metallo ?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You've gotta be f---ing kiddin.'

NO i'm not, i would much rather see a good character scene than Superman punching someone, him throwing a punch doesnt make a movie for me.

 

[The Guard]

Its lazy filmmaking to rely on a 30 year old movie to establish your characters.

SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't. Anyone who had not seen SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE still could have used SUPERMAN RETURNS to "meet" every single one of those characters and learn what they were about.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't. Anyone who had not seen SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE still could have used SUPERMAN RETURNS to "meet" every single one of those characters and learn what they were about.

Exactly, i hadnt seen STM in about 15 years before watching SR and i thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I guess u guys are easy to please. SR was NOWHERE near the potential of Superman. NOWHERE!

 

[NotFadeAway]

I guess u guys are easy to please. SR was NOWHERE near the potential of Superman. NOWHERE!

EXACTLY THE PROBLEM....

Alot of these folks are just to easy to please. The awesome casting of Christopher Reeve aside, because I do love Reeve and it sucks he never got to portray Post-Crisis Superman, none of the Superman movies have reached the full potential of Superman, for one reason or another.

 

[The Guard]

The fact that SUPERMAN RETURNS served to establish characters on its own has nothing to do with whether or not it ever reached the full potential of Superman.

 

[El Payaso]

The fact that SUPERMAN RETURNS served to establish characters on its own has nothing to do with whether or not it ever reached the full potential of Superman.

When you don't have arguments, you derail brother. :heart:

 

[NotFadeAway]

The fact that SUPERMAN RETURNS served to establish characters on its own has nothing to do with whether or not it ever reached the full potential of Superman.

But Superman Returns DID NOT serve to establish the characters from the mythos. It did a horrible job managing the individual characters, Superman included. The script just tossed the characters on to the screen with no regard at all.......

 

[Nightwing1977]

SR was NOWHERE near the potential of Superman. NOWHERE!

That's fine. Since when did some of us want it to be the same as the first? I didn't. I just wanted to see a Superman film, not if it has the potential of the first one.

And Guard, I thought you hate SR. I mean didn't you post a lot of negative stuff about disliking SR before it came out in theater or probably after? Just asking, since I thought you hate SR. Or it might've been someone else whose name kinda seem similiar to your.

 

[El Payaso]

Superman was the same as in STM and SII. Kind-hearted, heroic but his personal life far from perfect.

In the old movies he just was sincere to Lois and told her he was Clark once Lois unmasked him. Superman knew it was wrong to be with her but he did it anyways leaving humankind alone and when everything went terribly wrong, he went back to beg for forgiveness. And when he broke Lois' heart he simply decided by himself to delete her memories. Not a very ethical decision. Or a loving one, considering if you have a sentimental partner at least you have to tell her you're going to manipulate her mind, at least make it a shared decision. Now, in SR he was unable to say good-bye and didn't handle the Lois-Richard issue too well. Same old guy from old movies.

The same as in SII, when depowered, ordinary people can beat the hell out of him.

The same as in STM and SII, Lois can't see the man behind Superman. She loves Superman but despises Clark.

The thing I liked about Superman in SR is that, instead of reversing time, deleting Lois memories and quit his mission just to be with Lois, Superman now was able to put humankind over her, going to save Metropolis instead of Lois in the yatch.

Opposite to what you say, Singer put a lot of details about the characters' personalities. He continued Superman's imperfections that make him human as well as heroic.

 

[The Guard]

And Guard, I thought you hate SR. I mean didn't you post a lot of negative stuff about disliking SR before it came out in theater or probably after? Just asking, since I thought you hate SR. Or it might've been someone else whose name kinda seem similiar to your.

Nope. There is someone named The_Guard, though. Could it have been that poster?

 

[NotFadeAway]

I played Guard in football. Yes, I was undersized, but I was stronger, faster, and in better condition than the big fatties I went up against. I loved to pull and knock the hell out of some unexpecting walking advertisement for McDonalds double chesseburgers.

I was happier at Left Guard so that I could pull to the right more often than not. I was also utilized as a blocking back in short yardage situations.

One time, a teammate found a comic book in my locker, and I was picked on for weeks. *******s. Here I was, blocking for these guys, and they teased me. WTF!

 

[SuperDaniel]

The fact that SUPERMAN RETURNS served to establish characters on its own has nothing to do with whether or not it ever reached the full potential of Superman.

Superman the movie estabilshed Superman for a new geneartion and it showed not only a great movie but a lot of Superman`s potentioal on screen. They did what they could with 1978 and It had tons of action.

SR,on the other hand....

 

[SuperDaniel]

Superman was the same as in STM and SII. Kind-hearted, heroic but his personal life far from perfect.

In the old movies he just was sincere to Lois and told her he was Clark once Lois unmasked him. Superman knew it was wrong to be with her but he did it anyways leaving humankind alone and when everything went terribly wrong, he went back to beg for forgiveness. And when he broke Lois' heart he simply decided by himself to delete her memories. Not a very ethical decision. Or a loving one, considering if you have a sentimental partner at least you have to tell her you're going to manipulate her mind, at least make it a shared decision. Now, in SR he was unable to say good-bye and didn't handle the Lois-Richard issue too well. Same old guy from old movies.

The same as in SII, when depowered, ordinary people can beat the hell out of him.

The same as in STM and SII, Lois can't see the man behind Superman. She loves Superman but despises Clark.

The thing I liked about Superman in SR is that, instead of reversing time, deleting Lois memories and quit his mission just to be with Lois, Superman now was able to put humankind over her, going to save Metropolis instead of Lois in the yatch.

Opposite to what you say, Singer put a lot of details about the characters' personalities. He continued Superman's imperfections that make him human as well as heroic.

Putting flaws on the old movie doesnt make SR a better one.

 

[SuperDaniel]

That's fine. Since when did some of us want it to be the same as the first? I didn't. I just wanted to see a Superman film, not if it has the potential of the first one.

Why not? I wanted this movie to be a least better than Spider-man 2 and X-men 2. It wasnt. It wasnt even better than S II or the animated series or Lois & Clark.

The story plain sucked.

Not only it didnt show Superman`s potential on screen, but to me, it didnt show Superman at all except for the plane sequence!

Now this is a fact. THe movie bombed, the writers are gone, the sequel is dead and we`re getting Justice League.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Now this is a fact. THe movie bombed, the writers are gone, the sequel is dead and we`re getting Justice League.

No, it's not a fact. You have not given one hard proof, therefore there is no fact around here with saying crap like the sequel is dead & what not. Stop claiming something as an fact when there is none.

And SR may not have been successful as it should have been or in WB's eyes, but it hardly was a bomb.

 

[The Guard]

Superman the movie estabilshed Superman for a new geneartion and it showed not only a great movie but a lot of Superman`s potentioal on screen. They did what they could with 1978 and It had tons of action.

SR,on the other hand....

When you say that SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE put Superman's potential onscreen, what are you referring to?

I mean, with SUPERMAN RETURNS you're talking about a movie that features a fantastic plane-catch sequence, Superman lifting a continent, saving Metropolis via superspeed, superstrength, superbreath, superhearing and heat vision...elements of his Kryptonian heritage, Clark/Lois, the supporting cast...

 

[Angeloz]

When you say that SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE put Superman's potential onscreen, what are you referring to?

I mean, with SUPERMAN RETURNS you're talking about a movie that features a fantastic plane-catch sequence, Superman lifting a continent, saving Metropolis via superspeed, superstrength, superbreath, superhearing and heat vision...elements of his Kryptonian heritage, Clark/Lois, the supporting cast...

I'm liking this post.

By the way who was rumoured director in 2002? Just wondering. 'Cos I'm impressed with your longevity.

Angeloz

 

[El Payaso]

Superman the movie estabilshed Superman for a new geneartion and it showed not only a great movie but a lot of Superman`s potentioal on screen. They did what they could with 1978 and It had tons of action.

SR,on the other hand....

SR on the other hand had more than Superman chasing rockets. STM had no more action and not a different kind of action than SR.

Putting flaws on the old movie doesnt make SR a better one.

It just proves the point that SR followed characters already stablished in previous movies - flawed or not - which was the only point of my post. Good reader, good replier.

 

[NotFadeAway]

When you say that SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE put Superman's potential onscreen, what are you referring to?

I mean, with SUPERMAN RETURNS you're talking about a movie that features a fantastic plane-catch sequence, Superman lifting a continent, saving Metropolis via superspeed, superstrength, superbreath, superhearing and heat vision...elements of his Kryptonian heritage, Clark/Lois, the supporting cast...

It did have all those things.....featured in the most boring, redundant way possible. Thanks to advances in modern technology, the film looks prettier than Superman: The Movie, and a continent replaces two rockets, but lets not kid ourselves, the transition from Superman The Movie to Returns was like VHS to DVD, effects wise.

The script itself was badly written, with the Clark/Lois interplay lacking any and all chemistry. Honestly, about the kid, like another poster said, I'd be perfectly happy with him a few movies down the line, but as the jumping off point of a new series. And yes, this should have been a new series.

The supporting cast....are you joking. Other than Richard, the supporting cast could have been nameless cardboard cutouts and would have came off the same as they did in the movie. And Lex's goons.....why does he have bimbo's and goons? It's not funny, it's not cute, it's not anything but annoying and detracts from the main villian of the story actually being considered a true villian.

Again, the script itself was badly written, and resulted in a movie that tried so damn hard to be epic but came off like it was about a whole lot of nothing.

Yes the elements of the Kryptonian heritage where there, in the same manner in which they were in the Superman the Movie, which results in the Kents getting crapped on, once again. I hate this. The Kents are portrayed as backwood hicks in Donner's film and that seems to have carried over.

Thats right folks.....time for a reboot!

 

[Angeloz]

I think I missed that backwood hick feeling myself...

Angeloz