Superman Returns Have your thoughts about the suit changed?

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Or Burton's ode to a 5'10" Batman that probably weighed about 170lbs.

 

[Oldguy]

That's strange considering that StM is probably one of the movies that respected the comics the most.

Well, that's debatable.

It sure is. Lemme go back to '78 and try to remember all the things that stood out to me as "weird"

1) Krypton and everyone on it, how they governed and what they wore. Not to mention that for the first time Laura wants the baby to stay and die with them. Wheres the woman who gave up her seat to make sure Kal-el makes it? Stand by your man, *****!

2) No Superboy. This was a staple of the mythos for some 30 years. That's when Luthor and him meet.

3) Ma Kent lives? WTF!!

4) Vision quest to the north for Krypto-crystal mysticism and a 12 year post secondary education with dear old dead Dad.

5)Luthor, Otis and Teschmacher, oh my. Gone is the hardened ex-con sceintific genius, replaced by an unscrupulous Donald Trump, who's too vain to be bald. That's like a Joker to insecure to show his white make-up. In this continuity, Luthor existed as a criminal all on his own, rather than a by-product of Superboy's wrecklessness.

At the time, Superman was an odd movie to a comic book fan. Not a bad one, but certainly not the most respectful of the source material. I think the most respectful would be SpM, but that's just my opinion.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Neither of which did as good as Burton's ode to Kane.

Nolan's lack of success compared to Burton wasn't because of its adaption.

 

[Oldguy]

Thanks. Another Reeves.

It's weird, eh? Go check out some of his pics, he played Hercules in the 50's and a bunch of spagetti(sp) westerns. Without the beard, he's an uncanny Superman.

Did the Reeves' immigrate here from Krypton or what? (I know it's two different spellings.)

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I heard more whining about organic web-shooters than about all of those things you mentioned put together.

Let's also remember the Multiverse changes of the 60's. People were changing the details long before STM came out.

 

[skruloos]

Nolan's lack of success compared to Burton wasn't because of its adaption.

I never said it did. I merely used it to show that adapting from more contemporary comics does not necessarily mean a more successful movie.

 

[Oldguy]

Neither of which did as good as Burton's ode to Kane.

Oh please, Burton is the biggest hack to come out of hollywood in decades, he has one setting, Beetlejuice. Every ****ing movie he's ever made is Beetlejuice.

Was it Burton's "vision" that made B89 a huge success, or was it the fact that it was the first major Super-hero movie since The Quest for Peace? I'd also argue that it was Nicholson's performance of the Joker that packed the seats rather than any ode to Prin..erhmm..Kane.

I don't guage a work of art by it's popularity, I guage it how well it stands the test of time. There's an awful lot of books, paintings, film and even comic books that have not gained renown until long after release. Historically, most art hasn't been truly appreciated until after the artist's death.

 

[Mr. Thing]

It's weird, eh? Go check out some of his pics, he played Hercules in the 50's and a bunch of spagetti(sp) westerns. Without the beard, he's an uncanny Superman.

Did the Reeves' immigrate here from Krypton or what? (I know it's two different spellings.)

I dunno, he'd make a good pre-crisis superman. But i dunno, there's some pics I'm like "Yeah, it could've worked" and other "Meh". Plus he's a bit too big. Supes gets his strength from the sun not his muscles.

 

[Oldguy]

I dunno, he'd make a good pre-crisis superman. But i dunno, there's some pics I'm like "Yeah, it could've worked" and other "Meh". Plus he's a bit too big. Supes gets his strength from the sun not his muscles.

LMAO, ah yes the sun gives him strength so great that every possible load he could ever lift is painlessly effortless. Right. That makes perfect sense.

You don't think that even super-muscles that are capable of lifting millions of tons, should be at least developed as much as say a 225 lb weightlifter?

That's roughly Steve Reeves build, around 215-225 at 6'1" ish in that beach pic.

 

[Mr. Thing]

LMAO, ah yes the sun gives him strength so great that every possible load he could ever lift is painlessly effortless. Right. That makes perfect sense.

You don't think that even super-muscles that are capable of lifting millions of tons, should be at least developed as much as say a 225 lb weightlifter?

That's roughly Steve Reeves build, around 215-225 at 6'1" ish in that beach pic.

Yeah lol I knew when I finished that sentance you were gonna say that.

But yeah your right I suppose. But he's still a bit big in my view.

 

[skruloos]

Oh please, Burton is the biggest hack to come out of hollywood in decades, he has one setting, Beetlejuice. Every ****ing movie he's ever made is Beetlejuice.

Was it Burton's "vision" that made B89 a huge success, or was it the fact that it was the first major Super-hero movie since The Quest for Peace? I'd also argue that it was Nicholson's performance of the Joker that packed the seats rather than any ode to Prin..erhmm..Kane.

I don't guage a work of art by it's popularity, I guage it how well it stands the test of time. There's an awful lot of books, paintings, film and even comic books that have not gained renown until long after release. Historically, most art hasn't been truly appreciated until after the artist's death.

And how are you gauging Batman Begins and Schumacher's Bat-films? Was it not you who compared how one fared compared to the other? Are you basing it on fan acceptance? On ticket sales?

I'm not a fan of Burton's by any stretch of the imagination. I am of the pack that prefers Batman Begins by a huge margin. However, I will not deny that Batman '89 is still held in high regard even after newer superhero films have come out. Of course, you let your personal opinion blind you to the fact that people did turn out in droves to see the movie. That people still came out in droves to buy the new Special Edition DVDs. You can play it off to whatever factors you want but Batman '89 was a huge success for DC and the WB.

Nolan's film wasn't better received because it was more contemporary. It was because it was a better movie. Burton's first Batman film also did better than Batman and Robin because it was simply a better movie. How contemporary the source material was had nothing to do with it.

 

[Oldguy]

I heard more whining about organic web-shooters than about all of those things you mentioned put together.

Let's also remember the Multiverse changes of the 60's. People were changing the details long before STM came out.

Multiverse changes established multiple earths indeed, and seperated silver from golden age. The silver age Superman had existed untouched until Donner's movie deviated from it.

 

[Oldguy]

And how are you gauging Batman Begins and Schumacher's Bat-films? Was it not you who compared how one fared compared to the other? Are you basing it on fan acceptance? On ticket sales?

On the test of time. Schumacher's movies are such a joke, Clooney still makes fun of it. Reread my post if you don't get it. Why are you always so ****ing defensive?

I'm not a fan of Burton's by any stretch of the imagination. I am of the pack that prefers Batman Begins by a huge margin. However, I will not deny that Batman '89 is still held in high regard even after newer superhero films have come out. Of course, you let your personal opinion blind you to the fact that people did turn out in droves to see the movie. That people still came out in droves to buy the new Special Edition DVDs. You can play it off to whatever factors you want but Batman '89 was a huge success for DC and the WB.

I never said it wasn't a huge success, again in my post I outlined what were the contributing factors, of course your personal disdain for me blinds you to the words I type. Here I'll quote myself again for you:

"Was it Burton's "vision" that made B89 a huge success, or was it the fact that it was the first major Super-hero movie since The Quest for Peace? I'd also argue that it was Nicholson's performance of the Joker that packed the seats rather than any ode to Prin..erhmm..Kane."

Look at me proclaim what a huge success B89 was. Why don't you have a conversation with me, rather than the one you've been precticing in your head for months on end? READ BEFORE YOU RESPOND!

Nolan's film wasn't better received because it was more contemporary. It was because it was a better movie. Burton's first Batman film also did better than Batman and Robin because it was simply a better movie. How contemporary the source material was had nothing to do with it.

Wrong. B89 was very contemporary, sure it was BeetlejuiceMan, but it was still the Dark Knight. Schumacher went for the camp of the 60's and lost the audience, because there is no viable audience for him to relate to. People who watched West's show, aren't going to spend a lot of money to go see a Batman movie in huge droves because they are almost senior citizens, who weren't interested anymore in super-hero movies.

That's why contemporary source material is crucial, it is much more relateable to the target audience. Unless the target audience is 10 year olds, and the goal is to sell lots of merchandise. Then who gives a ****? Roll out the formula, prop up the caricatures, it's time to capture movie pablum for the kiddies.

Thanks for proving my point, skruloos, you always make it so easy.

 

[Oldguy]

Yeah lol I knew when I finished that sentance you were gonna say that.

But yeah your right I suppose. But he's still a bit big in my view.

Fair enough, I agree that an Actor shouldn't be the Rock from that old SNL sketch, comically huge in street clothes with a red cape poking out from his jacket.

The only point I was trying to make is that 225lb guy in street clothes, isn't comically huge.

Specially if one uses a lot of big extras.

 

[skruloos]

Wrong. B89 was very contemporary, sure it was BeetlejuiceMan, but it was still the Dark Knight. Schumacher went for the camp of the 60's and lost the audience, because there is no viable audience for him to relate to. People who watched West's show, aren't going to spend a lot of money to go see a Batman movie in huge droves because they are almost senior citizens, who weren't interested anymore in super-hero movies.

Contemporary? Seems to me that Burton's Batman was much closer in style and character to Kane and Finger's Batman rather than the Batman that was contemporary at the time. He wasn't exactly the O'Neill Detective nor was he the anti-hero of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns which was also a contemporary. The movie, with a Batman that didn't think twice about killing thugs and dealing with mobsters seemed to hold more in common with a 40's era Batman rather than the character that was around in the 70's and 80's.

 

[Oldguy]

Contemporary? Seems to me that Burton's Batman was much closer in style and character to Kane and Finger's Batman rather than the Batman that was contemporary at the time. He wasn't exactly the O'Neill Detective nor was he the anti-hero of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns which was also a contemporary. The movie, with a Batman that didn't think twice about killing thugs and dealing with mobsters seemed to hold more in common with a 40's era Batman rather than the character that was around in the 70's and 80's.

So you think there's a "huge" differnce between 40's Batman and 80's Batman. All I see is a slight change in ethics. I don't think the general audience picks up on the sublte nuances like you do, but you know what they picked up on? Camp from the 60's. I think that stood out like a sore thumb.

 

[ETHAR-N]

Contemporary? Seems to me that Burton's Batman was much closer in style and character to Kane and Finger's Batman rather than the Batman that was contemporary at the time. He wasn't exactly the O'Neill Detective nor was he the anti-hero of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns which was also a contemporary. The movie, with a Batman that didn't think twice about killing thugs and dealing with mobsters seemed to hold more in common with a 40's era Batman rather than the character that was around in the 70's and 80's.

Well, the thing here, i think, is that everybody says Burton´s Batman, when i really think it was Nicholson´s and Furst´s Batman, i think they were the ones who really made that movie outstand, although Burton didnt do a bad job. But thats just my opinion

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

It's like you're implying that STM was the only thing to change Superman...and even then, it was slightly. That simply isn't true.

 

[Oldguy]

It's like you're implying that STM was the only thing to change Superman...and even then, it was slightly. That simply isn't true.

What I was stating is that Donner's movie was the first to deviate from the silver age continuity, and that is true. Donner's movie took many departures from the silver-age, I outlined them already.

 

[Showtime]

It's weird, eh? Go check out some of his pics, he played Hercules in the 50's and a bunch of spagetti(sp) westerns. Without the beard, he's an uncanny Superman.

Did the Reeves' immigrate here from Krypton or what? (I know it's two different spellings.)

I could definately could have seen him in some Superman television shows during that time period or feature length.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

What I was stating is that Donner's movie was the first to deviate from the silver age continuity, and that is true. Donner's movie took many departures from the silver-age, I outlined them already.

Who cares about different ages when my point was that they were changing Superman LONG before the movie.

Heck, even within the Silver Age, they were adding stuff, especially in regards to his powers.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I could definately could have seen him in some Superman television shows during that time period or feature length.

If he was a good actor, yes. But from what I heard, he really wasn't. And besides, we do not need a Superman who looks like a weightlifter. Superman doesn't need huge muscles.

 

[Oldguy]

Who cares about different ages when my point was that they were changing Superman LONG before the movie.

Heck, even within the Silver Age, they were adding stuff, especially in regards to his powers.

Confirm these changes then. Claiming them to be so, doesn't make them true.

When was Krypton not a headband paradise? When was Luthor not Superboy's friend? When did the silver age get rid of Superboy? When was Luthor not an ex-son, mad scientist?

Please elighten me as to when these revisions existed within the silver age?

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Confirm these changes then. Claiming them to be so, doesn't make them true.

When was Krypton not a headband paradise? When was Luthor not Superboy's friend? When did the silver age get rid of Superboy? When was Luthor not an ex-son, mad scientist?

Please elighten me as to when these revisions existed within the silver age?

"These changes, drastic though they may have been, produced a much tighter, more fan oriented, version of the Superman chronicles. The addition of letters pages prompted readers to ask questions and demand logical explanations for things which had been taken for granted for years, such as where did Superman put his Clark Kent clothes when he changed? or Why was Superman's costume indestructible?

Under this tighter scrutiny, a new explanation for Superman's powers began to develop. For the first time, in Action #262 (March 1960) the notion that Superman's powers derive from yellow sun radiation appears. Such an additional source of power appeared to be necessary because Earth's lesser gravity did not seem sufficient to explain how Superman could change direction in mid-air, fly through space, or exceed the speed of light.

In Superman #146 (July 1961) the explanation is amplified. Superman's muscular powers, super strength, speed, and flight, are attributed to gravity. The powers of his super senses: x-ray vision, telescopic vision, etc., are attributed to the yellow sun. Invulnerability is compared to a sort of "super sun tan." Later, this was altered to include a portion of his flying ability as a yellow sun derivation. This was necessary to explain his ability to change direction and even float in mid air. The new explanation provided an unexpected bonus of a new weakness for Superman; he no longer had super powers on a world without a yellow sun. Although he had never visited such worlds in the past, he began to make frequent trips to them throughout the '60s. Later, villains like Luthor would invent weapons powered by "red sun radiation" which would make Kal-El's life more miserable (and conversely, the writer's life became much easier.)"

- from http://theages.superman.ws/History/VersionIII.php

And YET AGAIN, my point is that -- like just about every other damn comic book character in history -- there is always an abundant amount of changing with the character. And these changes can occur at any time in the character's life.

Hell, we all know Superman didn't start off with the ability to fly.

I don't know why it's so hard to get things through your titanium-plated head. The fact that there are 'AGES' is testament to the amount of change characters/places/events in comic book goes through.

 

[Oldguy]

"These changes, drastic though they may have been, produced a much tighter, more fan oriented, version of the Superman chronicles. The addition of letters pages prompted readers to ask questions and demand logical explanations for things which had been taken for granted for years, such as where did Superman put his Clark Kent clothes when he changed? or Why was Superman's costume indestructible?

Under this tighter scrutiny, a new explanation for Superman's powers began to develop. For the first time, in Action #262 (March 1960) the notion that Superman's powers derive from yellow sun radiation appears. Such an additional source of power appeared to be necessary because Earth's lesser gravity did not seem sufficient to explain how Superman could change direction in mid-air, fly through space, or exceed the speed of light.

In Superman #146 (July 1961) the explanation is amplified. Superman's muscular powers, super strength, speed, and flight, are attributed to gravity. The powers of his super senses: x-ray vision, telescopic vision, etc., are attributed to the yellow sun. Invulnerability is compared to a sort of "super sun tan." Later, this was altered to include a portion of his flying ability as a yellow sun derivation. This was necessary to explain his ability to change direction and even float in mid air. The new explanation provided an unexpected bonus of a new weakness for Superman; he no longer had super powers on a world without a yellow sun. Although he had never visited such worlds in the past, he began to make frequent trips to them throughout the '60s. Later, villains like Luthor would invent weapons powered by "red sun radiation" which would make Kal-El's life more miserable (and conversely, the writer's life became much easier.)"

- from http://theages.superman.ws/History/VersionIII.php

And YET AGAIN, my point is that -- like just about every other damn comic book character in history -- there is always an abundant amount of changing with the character. And these changes can occur at any time in the character's life.

Hell, we all know Superman didn't start off with the ability to fly.

I don't know why it's so hard to get things through your titanium-plated head. The fact that there are 'AGES' is testament to the amount of change characters/places/events in comic book goes through.

When was Krypton not a headband paradise? When was Luthor not Superboy's friend? When did the silver age get rid of Superboy? When was Luthor not an ex-son, mad scientist?

Please elighten me as to when these revisions existed within the silver age?

You do realize the specific details of his history and the culture he came from, and the evolution of his powers are totally different subjects, don't you?

If he was a good actor, yes. But from what I heard, he really wasn't. And besides, we do not need a Superman who looks like a weightlifter. Superman doesn't need huge muscles.

So then what's wrong with this picture?

Other than the lack of deodorant.

Here's a great actor, the best to play the role. But something just isn't quite right....