Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

[MydnightPhoenix]

The non stop back and forth between just 2 people is ruining this thread.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I don't think S:TM had a very plausible plot by Luthor. A missile hitting the San Andreas fault would not cause California to fall into the sea. Even if it would, it would turn Lex's worthless desert land into worthless nuclear fall-out land. Plot wise, S:TM is just as bad as SR. They just avoided needless plot drama.

I think 99.9% of the audience realizes that it wouldn't work in real life. Why does that matter? It's a comic book villain plot and comics are full of unrealistic plots.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I think 99.9% of the audience realizes that it wouldn't work in real life. Why does that matter? It's a comic book villain plot and comics are full of unrealistic plots.

James Bond and his taking-over-the-world villains: not teh realistic???

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think 99.9% of the audience realizes that it wouldn't work in real life. Why does that matter? It's a comic book villain plot and comics are full of unrealistic plots.

The truth is if they wanted just plausible plots, this is kind of the wrong genre. That being said, I wouldn't want anything to "break" the established rules of the internal world. But sense it exists in a world in which a fortress grows out of the ground, I'm okay with that.

 

[Loki882]

Recent Bond films have gone out of their way to give the villains more reasonable and understandable motivations/plots. Superhero films have done the same, so it is the trend.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

The whole missile/fault/California-into-the-sea plot is pretty much science fiction. Think of it like a MacGyverism. It sounds like something that could work to the layperson, but in reality, it's not physically possible.

 

[Loki882]

In actuality, Zod's plot was much more plausible than Lex's in STM.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

That's kind of a stretch considering no insta-terraforming machine exists in the real world.

 

[Loki882]

But Zod had the excuse that it was highly-advanced ALIEN technology (which could at least theoretically exist, given how little that we actually know about the universe and what's in it ). Lex had no such out.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

That's kind of a stretch considering no insta-terraforming machine exists in the real world.

Not are there Superpowered aliens from Krypton.
I honestly never paid attention to Lex in the old movies, people apparently loved Hackman but I just found him annoying and a waste. Kevin's Lex plot was the one I viewed as stupid. Who te heck would want to live on that idiot thing he wa growing? It looked like something hell spit out.

 

[Loki882]

Hackman's plot in STM may not have made much sense, compared to the sheer idiocy of Spacky's Lex in SR, Hackman was David Xanatos.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Recent Bond films have gone out of their way to give the villains more reasonable and understandable motivations/plots. Superhero films have done the same, so it is the trend.

And someone dared to get out of the trend???? That must be severely objected.


(Just in case, STM was made in 1977, so I obviosuly was talking about the old school Bond.)

 

[Loki882]

You missed my point completely, again.

 

[B]

Show me how SR does not match STM.

That and the fact that we're dealing with the same take of the characters: Clark is still the same mumbling clumsy man, Lois can't spell and does everything for an exclusive, Lex is arrogant and campy and a lion etc that you should know if you had either seen the movies or accepted facts.

WB did label the move as that. That's fact. They were saying all over the place that Marlon Brando would be reprising as Jor-el, pictures of Routh looking like Reeve and those virals Singer made talking about SR continuing the story.

It's supposedly a sequel to STM & SII.

I'll just run through a handful of some of the bigger continuity/story problems & not many of the smaller ones, I'm sure there are other people have noticed that have paid more attention than I did.

Let's start with Lex Luthor since he is the catalyst for everything that happens in SR: In STM, he has been caught after his plot to destroy California has been foiled. SII, Lex Luthor has already been convicted of his crimes (in addition to whatever other ones he is wanted for at the start of STM when the police are tailing Otis) & is already serving what you can imagine is life in prison, he then escapes from jail & helps Zod, Ursa & Non, recaptured & put back in jail by Superman. - Then fast forward to Superman Returns even after having been convicted of his first crimes, then escaping prison during his prison sentence (something I imagine would only add more time to your sentence), has still been released no questions asked, by the help of an old lady inside 5 years, with the reason being that Superman didn't appear as a witness? I mean his crimes alone that he was in jail for STM for would dictate he'd be serving a term longer than 5 years.

Why is it 5 years? Well that brings things to Superman's son: Jason would be the result of Lois & Superman's dance with no pants at the Fortress in SII, he has to be 4/5 years old given that Superman had been away from Earth for 5 years. Where Jason & Lois are concerned there are continuity issues as well, Superman was mortal when him & Lois conceived, so he shouldn't possess any powers at all, yet he displays discomfort to Kryptonite & is able to toss a piano across a room like it's a football. Then there's Lois herself who tells Superman that Jason is his son while he is in hospital, she shouldn't be aware that Superman & her have done the nasty given the infamous memory wipe kiss.. unless of course after Superman II & conveniently off camera sometime in the few weeks before Superman left Earth for Kypton he popped in for a quickie.

Then getting back to Lex & his plot with the crystals. In Superman II before Superman is turned mortal, he is warned that doing so would make the fortress go cold & silent, and that he would finally be alone, then after becoming mortal the console is almost completely destroyed. Conveniently for plot reasons in Superman II, one of the few things working was the molecule chamber. Fast forward to Superman Returns, the console is now completely fine, all of the crystals containing the knowledge that were destroyed in Superman II have been completely restored & in full working order. Furthermore Lex in Superman Returns acts as if he has had a brain wave in discovering Jor-El isn't really there, yet in Superman II Lex already knows this & I would assume should know pretty much everything about Superman from his first stint with the crystals.

I mean fair enough, I can accept that sometimes in your average sequel, there are things that get a little mixed up & might not completely align, however not to this same sort of scale. There are smaller things such as one of my favourite lines from Superman II was Superman telling the President he wouldn't let him or the country down again. Then if Superman Returns is to be considered a sequel, he has disappeared inside 9 months of saying that without a word to anybody.

As far as SR is concerned, things are added, ignored & altered from STM & SII & you can't just do things like that, then still expect people to consider the film a sequel or a continuation of the same story.

Now feel free to link me to those reliable/official sources that state SR is not a sequel.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sequel

Here is the only source I need. Sequel's definition is so clear, even you could understand it & since Superman Returns doesn't abide by what sequel is defined as, it can't be a sequel.

Maybe you should contact WB & have them get in contact with whoever is the definitive dictionary to have them alter the definition of the word so it will finally suit your argument & WB's synopsis.

But you said: "Just look at Superman Returns for proof, in my opinion that film was virtually just a more updated telling of that same story/plot & it wasn't even in the same league as STM."

So, you were talking about the plot and now you talk about the villains' goals only?

The plot is Zod coming back to earth once he is freed from Phantom Zone. Sure there are differences in their goals, as there are differences in Luthor's plans.

But yes, Luthor's goal remained the same. You wanna know why? Because SR was a sequel.

Maybe because the plot is the goal maybe? Luthor growing land or destroying California wasn't just for the sake of each other, he planned to do the same/similar thing with the land once he had it.

I wish you repeated more and changed subject less when you're proven wrong.

Says the guy who has been proved wrong several times after confusing himself by trying to reword my posts.

Oh, so you're talking about a real world, praise realism, call alien technology implausible and then you're okay with Superman.

Superman is an alien, in his world alien technology exists and saying that plausibility/realism is better than implausibilities is just going against what Superman and his universe are.

It's ok that you misunderstood, it wouldn't be the first time & won't be the last time.

Just one that could threaten the existence of continents if they do something.

All he needs is a man throwing a piece of crystal into water. Not much of an equipment needed there. Other than the crystals, that is.

That he has to be within 1 mile off in order to fire his harpoon off at to get the ball rolling.

But Zod is not canon to Superman origin.

Before feeling confident with your emoticon-using skills you should stop ignoring facts like this one.

When the Zod character is involved, it's canon for the origin. Seeing as he has been involved in what we were discussing, it's canon.

Well, you jkust can't go on and say Avengers is realistic and then when proven wrong claim that there are archers in real world and that's your evidence of the realism there.

But once again, I didn't say The Avengers was realistic, I quoted the exact post for you buddy, then told you to read it again & you are still trying to make out as if I've said something completely different.

And the helicopter is part of it?

You mean the part were he'd have to judge wind speed, direction & range? Like they wouldn't have to do such things at the Olympics..? Maybe not hanging out of a plane of course.

And I said that none were it.

Anyways, Batman Begins didn't have mutant monsters, gods from a parallel dimension and such. That doesn't sound "as realistic as."

Best keep re-reading the post until you understand it because there's still something I clearly wrote & you are either ignoring or not understanding.

Read again. In MOS he asks not hide information. Not the same thing.

Huh? In MoS he asks not to hide information? So he wants Lois to tell him the information?

Perry doesn't ask Lois for anything regarding Superman in MoS, the only thing that he asks is that she drops the story because he can't print it.. which she completely ignores.

Not talking about how similar/different Luthor is from incarnation to incarnation, but refering to how many different reactions Superman would cause. Please consider context before replying.

And no reaction could be any different from Luthor without completely destroying the character in the process. He must have the reaction to seeing Superman as a problem otherwise the character isn't the character from the comics.

 

[B]

The non stop back and forth between just 2 people is ruining this thread.

As with every forum, there is an ignore feature to make use off if people engaging in a discussion is annoying you so much.

 

[Tyrone Parker]

STM time travel makes no sense at all if you were reading comics during the silver age.

1. person cannot travel to the past and occupy the same time and matter. I remember that when this happened the time traveler would appear as ghost and could not have any affect on the physical plane.

2. If they could exist together then you would have 2 Supermen in this timeline since he never traveled back into the future.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It's supposedly a sequel to STM & SII.

No, it is a sequel. But you have admitted you're not against ignoring facts, so I guess that's why you can't get this one.

Let's start with Lex Luthor since he is the catalyst for everything that happens in SR: In STM, he has been caught after his plot to destroy California has been foiled. SII, Lex Luthor has already been convicted of his crimes (in addition to whatever other ones he is wanted for at the start of STM when the police are tailing Otis) & is already serving what you can imagine is life in prison, he then escapes from jail & helps Zod, Ursa & Non, recaptured & put back in jail by Superman. - Then fast forward to Superman Returns even after having been convicted of his first crimes, then escaping prison during his prison sentence (something I imagine would only add more time to your sentence), has still been released no questions asked, by the help of an old lady inside 5 years, with the reason being that Superman didn't appear as a witness? I mean his crimes alone that he was in jail for STM for would dictate he'd be serving a term longer than 5 years.

Nothing there contradicts what happened in STM/SII.

You may dislike that it's not realistic enough, but the movie covered the way he was released: the old billionaire lady and Superman as the key witness that was unable to attend.

No contradiction there with the old movies.

Why is it 5 years? Well that brings things to Superman's son: Jason would be the result of Lois & Superman's dance with no pants at the Fortress in SII, he has to be 4/5 years old given that Superman had been away from Earth for 5 years. Where Jason & Lois are concerned there are continuity issues as well, Superman was mortal when him & Lois conceived, so he shouldn't possess any powers at all, yet he displays discomfort to Kryptonite & is able to toss a piano across a room like it's a football. Then there's Lois herself who tells Superman that Jason is his son while he is in hospital, she shouldn't be aware that Superman & her have done the nasty given the infamous memory wipe kiss.. unless of course after Superman II & conveniently off camera sometime in the few weeks before Superman left Earth for Kypton he popped in for a quickie.

You're just starting from a personal conjecture, one old bad habit of yours.

Nothing in SR states that Jason was conceived during that night in SII.

Then getting back to Lex & his plot with the crystals. In Superman II before Superman is turned mortal, he is warned that doing so would make the fortress go cold & silent, and that he would finally be alone, then after becoming mortal the console is almost completely destroyed. Conveniently for plot reasons in Superman II, one of the few things working was the molecule chamber. Fast forward to Superman Returns, the console is now completely fine, all of the crystals containing the knowledge that were destroyed in Superman II have been completely restored & in full working order. Furthermore Lex in Superman Returns acts as if he has had a brain wave in discovering Jor-El isn't really there, yet in Superman II Lex already knows this & I would assume should know pretty much everything about Superman from his first stint with the crystals.

Wrong again. There is no scene in SII that says that anything would happen to the Fortress if he quits his powers.

Even I can repair my compouter console. It's not hard to imagine guess Superman can fix his.

Again, nothing contradictory.

I mean fair enough, I can accept that sometimes in your average sequel, there are things that get a little mixed up & might not completely align, however not to this same sort of scale. There are smaller things such as one of my favourite lines from Superman II was Superman telling the President he wouldn't let him or the country down again. Then if Superman Returns is to be considered a sequel, he has disappeared inside 9 months of saying that without a word to anybody.

Nothing that you've mentioned contradicts the previous movies. So "this sort of scale" is close to zero.

As far as SR is concerned, things are added, ignored & altered from STM & SII & you can't just do things like that, then still expect people to consider the film a sequel or a continuation of the same story.

You just name please one thing that was altered other than cosmetic factors: the suit, the way Lois Lane and other character look, the fashion and age in which the action happens (not the 70's but the 2000's).

Other than that you haven't produced one single piece of evidence that's not your personal assumptions and conjectures.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sequel

Here is the only source I need. Sequel's definition is so clear, even you could understand it & since Superman Returns doesn't abide by what sequel is defined as, it can't be a sequel.

Maybe you should contact WB & have them get in contact with whoever is the definitive dictionary to have them alter the definition of the word so it will finally suit your argument & WB's synopsis.

I knew you couldn't produce one single link, as I have produced many.

Time to accept reality, there's nowhere else to hide.

Maybe because the plot is the goal maybe? Luthor growing land or destroying California wasn't just for the sake of each other, he planned to do the same/similar thing with the land once he had it.

No, the goal of a character and the plot are different things, even when one could be part of the other.

Luthor's goal is selling land in both STM and SR. The plot, though, is not Luthor selling land, but what he does to achieve that goal. Clear now?

Says the guy who has been proved wrong several times after confusing himself by trying to reword my posts.

Not even once. Other than void statements, conjectures and admittedly ignoring facts, you haven't done much. Oh yes, covering it with emoticons.

It's ok that you misunderstood, it wouldn't be the first time & won't be the last time.

See? One statement without any back-up.

That he has to be within 1 mile off in order to fire his harpoon off at to get the ball rolling.

What harpoon?

They just have to throw the crystal. I'm starting to doubt if you have ever seen the movie.

When the Zod character is involved, it's canon for the origin. Seeing as he has been involved in what we were discussing, it's canon.

No, it's not.

You can find several versions of the origin and Zod is not involved.

But, much as the S symbol being the family crest, Zod is something MOS brought from STM/SII.

But once again, I didn't say The Avengers was realistic, I quoted the exact post for you buddy, then told you to read it again & you are still trying to make out as if I've said something completely different.

Yes, Avengers is not realistic and you're slowly trying to get out of what you said.

You mean the part were he'd have to judge wind speed, direction & range? Like they wouldn't have to do such things at the Olympics..? Maybe not hanging out of a plane of course.

"Maybe not hanging out of a plane." You finally got it.

Best keep re-reading the post until you understand it because there's still something I clearly wrote & you are either ignoring or not understanding.

What you said orignally: "Spiderman wasn't in the same tone as Batman Begins, however it was a more modern story & made an attempt to give more of a realistic take on the character that had been seen before."

Again, what was realistic about it?

And no reaction could be any different from Luthor without completely destroying the character in the process. He must have the reaction to seeing Superman as a problem otherwise the character isn't the character from the comics.

Again, great you start getting the points properly.

 

[John Lambert]

That's kind of a stretch considering no insta-terraforming machine exists in the real world.

The problem though is that Lex is using earth-based technology in ways that won't work. At least in SR and MOS the bad guys use alien technology, so it is easier to accept that the stuff could do what it does.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

edit

 

[B]

No, it is a sequel. But you have admitted you're not against ignoring facts, so I guess that's why you can't get this one.

Nothing there contradicts what happened in STM/SII.

You may dislike that it's not realistic enough, but the movie covered the way he was released: the old billionaire lady and Superman as the key witness that was unable to attend.

No contradiction there with the old movies.

Nothing? You do know what that word means right?

I only ask because I clearly told you what contradicted Lex's role in the film & you've just glossed over it as if it's ok because it's a story about a flying alien, therefore no logic needs to be in the film at all.

You're just starting from a personal conjecture, one old bad habit of yours.

Nothing in SR states that Jason was conceived during that night in SII.

Well if SR is indeed a sequel to SII as you've said, why wouldn't it have been that night?

Maybe because it's as I said & it contradicts elements of SR for both Lois & the child & would further hurt your argument?

Wrong again. There is no scene in SII that says that anything would happen to the Fortress if he quits his powers.

Even I can repair my compouter console. It's not hard to imagine guess Superman can fix his.

Again, nothing contradictory.

Apologies, I was thinking of a scene from Superman IV I believe in which he told the ship would go cold & silent, however that being said it doesn't deter the fact that the console was destroyed in SII. Although, he is warned there is no return, which would add up with the console destroying itself..

It is quite hard to imagine given all the knowledge crystals were completely destroyed in Superman II, the only 1 remaining being the green one that he uses to access the molecule chamber to restore his powers & then take Zod, Ursa & Non's away using the only part of the console left standing.

It would undermine quite alot of what happens in Superman II, which shouldn't happen between 2 films that are meant to be connected. The plots should compliment each other, not be criss crossing. I always felt that it was sheer luck that the molecule chamber & it's access portion of the console was left standing for him able to regain his powers in SII, however if we go with the theory that Superman can repair it all fairly easily, then after he found out about Zod, he should have had more confidence going back to the fortress if he could so easily repair everything in it. There wouldn't really have been any point in the console destroying itself either to begin with, if it can be repaired so easily.

In the Lester or Donner cut, whichever you feel SR is a sequel to, the fortress was supposed to be made useless to Superman any further hence why it was destroyed during his transformation.

Nothing that you've mentioned contradicts the previous movies. So "this sort of scale" is close to zero.

You just name please one thing that was altered other than cosmetic factors: the suit, the way Lois Lane and other character look, the fashion and age in which the action happens (not the 70's but the 2000's).

Other than that you haven't produced one single piece of evidence that's not your personal assumptions and conjectures.

Honestly I'm going to ask you a straight question, do you genuinely believe that Superman Returns plot aligns with Superman The Movie & Superman II flawlessly?

Even if you don't agree with everything I have a problem with without any questions, surely you can at least respect someone's opinion enough to at least understand where they are coming from with their points.

I knew you couldn't produce one single link, as I have produced many.

Time to accept reality, there's nowhere else to hide.

Oh sorry did you miss the link I did post?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sequel

That there tells you the definition of the word sequel.

WB's synopsis, which is essentially in all the links you posted, has obviously been written by someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word sequel.

Here's another link for you:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/goofs?ref_=tttrv_ql_2

I'll even show you the quote I want you to read:

Inconsistencies with Superman, Superman II, Superman III, and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace are not being counted as goofs. Bryan Singer stated that Superman Returns ignores the latter two film and is a loose sequel to the concepts of the first two, with chronology and other story details adjusted. Therefore IMDB is treating this film as a separate entity.

IMDB treats this film as a separate entity, for the exact same reasons I do.

No, the goal of a character and the plot are different things, even when one could be part of the other.

Luthor's goal is selling land in both STM and SR. The plot, though, is not Luthor selling land, but what he does to achieve that goal. Clear now?

When talking about a film or characters plot, I'm talking about what the character is ultimately looking to do. The reason I brought up the word 'goal', was so that I could simplify my point of view for you so you would be able to understand my perspective as it proved a stumbling block for our discussion from progressing. Understand?

What harpoon?

They just have to throw the crystal. I'm starting to doubt if you have ever seen the movie.

The harpoon gun he used to fire the crystal.

Well he could just throw the crystal however I thought the whole point of him using the harpoon gun in the first place was so that he was far enough away so that he wouldn't kill himself in the process. Even so, if he's just going to throw the crystal by hand it's not like he could threaten anywhere in the world with destruction if they were going launch a few missiles at him.

No, it's not.

You can find several versions of the origin and Zod is not involved.

But, much as the S symbol being the family crest, Zod is something MOS brought from STM/SII.

Yes, but when Zod is involved in Superman's origin, which is what we are discussing, Zod's origin is that he is exiled to the Phantom Zone, which is the only reason he survives Krypton's destruction, he then escapes & fights Superman. Which was what you said originally wasn't it?

Yes, Avengers is not realistic and you're slowly trying to get out of what you said.

"Maybe not hanging out of a plane." You finally got it.

It was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy.

There is exactly what I said, the 3rd time I believe I've quoted it again for you. Explain where I have said The Avengers is a realistic film?

What you said orignally: "Spiderman wasn't in the same tone as Batman Begins, however it was a more modern story & made an attempt to give more of a realistic take on the character that had been seen before."

Again, what was realistic about it?

When taken in context with what I actually said regarding each of The Avenger's origin stories & not what you've mistaken me for saying, what was meant was that in comparison to the previous 1977 Spiderman film things in the 2002 Spiderman were made a little more believable, but again walked a fine line between reality & fantasy, elements that make up the film & characters are potentially believable & others, of course, weren't.

Now, I'm going to say again right now before you misunderstand once more & say I'm calling Spiderman 1 realistic. I'm not, what I'm saying is, it walks a fine line between reality & fantasy.

 

[JOE]

http://d.asset.soup.io/asset/3971/0045_a475_390.gif

If only I knew how to post an actual GIF... This will do for now.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Nothing? You do know what that word means right?

I only ask because I clearly told you what contradicted Lex's role in the film & you've just glossed over it as if it's ok because it's a story about a flying alien, therefore no logic needs to be in the film at all.

No, you didn't say it contradicted the role of Lex (he's still the villain, the same kind of villain with the same goal), you stated that it was illogical to set Lex free after all he did in STM and SII ("I mean his crimes alone that he was in jail for STM for would dictate he'd be serving a term longer than 5 years.").

Contradictory would have been if Lex had never been convicted in SR, or if his crimes were different than in STM/SII. But no, he committed his crimes in those movies, he was sent to jail and in SR he was shown escaping jail. No contradiction there, even if we can question the ways he used to escape jail.

Well if SR is indeed a sequel to SII as you've said, why wouldn't it have been that night?

Maybe because it's as I said & it contradicts elements of SR for both Lois & the child & would further hurt your argument?

No, why would it have been that night? It could have been later. Nothing in the movie states Jason was conceived "that night."

Apologies, I was thinking of a scene from Superman IV I believe in which he told the ship would go cold & silent, however that being said it doesn't deter the fact that the console was destroyed in SII. Although, he is warned there is no return, which would add up with the console destroying itself..

It is quite hard to imagine given all the knowledge crystals were completely destroyed in Superman II, the only 1 remaining being the green one that he uses to access the molecule chamber to restore his powers & then take Zod, Ursa & Non's away using the only part of the console left standing.

It would undermine quite alot of what happens in Superman II, which shouldn't happen between 2 films that are meant to be connected. The plots should compliment each other, not be criss crossing. I always felt that it was sheer luck that the molecule chamber & it's access portion of the console was left standing for him able to regain his powers in SII, however if we go with the theory that Superman can repair it all fairly easily, then after he found out about Zod, he should have had more confidence going back to the fortress if he could so easily repair everything in it. There wouldn't really have been any point in the console destroying itself either to begin with, if it can be repaired so easily.

In the Lester or Donner cut, whichever you feel SR is a sequel to, the fortress was supposed to be made useless to Superman any further hence why it was destroyed during his transformation.

No, the fortress is never supposed to be made useless in SII - only the "Donner's Cut" which is an unofficial version. If anything you could accuse SII of contradicting itself (there's no way back, oh well there actually is).

The Fortress works ok when Zod, Ursa and Non visit it at the end of SII. But as I said, it's not far-fetched to assume the console was repaired. Or else you could go and say Batman Returns is not a sequel to Batman 89 because in the first movie the bat-suit is destroyed and in the sequel it's fine again.

Honestly I'm going to ask you a straight question, do you genuinely believe that Superman Returns plot aligns with Superman The Movie & Superman II flawlessly?

As flawlessly as many sequels, yes.

So far your arguments don't show any contradiction that makes SR a complete different story.

Even if you don't agree with everything I have a problem with without any questions, surely you can at least respect someone's opinion enough to at least understand where they are coming from with their points.

I respect if you want to disagree but that's not enough to back your statements up. If you had set some important contradictions I could at least admit that "such and such wasn't properly addressed."

Oh sorry did you miss the link I did post?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sequel

That there tells you the definition of the word sequel.

WB's synopsis, which is essentially in all the links you posted, has obviously been written by someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word sequel.

Here's another link for you:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/goofs?ref_=tttrv_ql_2

I'll even show you the quote I want you to read:



IMDB treats this film as a separate entity, for the exact same reasons I do.

Well, for starters a definition is not a piece of evidence. I cannot argue that, for example, Superman was an impostor alien in SR because there's a definition of "impostor."

Now you go and tell me you prefer IMDB? That gives you so much credibility.

And even there they admit it was a loose sequel.

When talking about a film or characters plot, I'm talking about what the character is ultimately looking to do. The reason I brought up the word 'goal', was so that I could simplify my point of view for you so you would be able to understand my perspective as it proved a stumbling block for our discussion from progressing. Understand?

Yes, you were NOT talking about the plot when you said you were talking about the goal. Basically you were just trying to create a straw man there. You talk about the plot and when you get that the concept of plot won't serve your argument, you pretend it's only logical to assume that goal is the same.

But yes, if you talk about plots, then MOS follows STM and SII pretty close, even when, as we have both admitted, modernized and updated. That's when you have to do some damage control and replace 'plot' with 'goal.'

The harpoon gun he used to fire the crystal.

Well he could just throw the crystal however I thought the whole point of him using the harpoon gun in the first place was so that he was far enough away so that he wouldn't kill himself in the process. Even so, if he's just going to throw the crystal by hand it's not like he could threaten anywhere in the world with destruction if they were going launch a few missiles at him.

He can't send one of his men to throw a crystal from a plane/helicopter?

Yes, but when Zod is involved in Superman's origin, which is what we are discussing, Zod's origin is that he is exiled to the Phantom Zone, which is the only reason he survives Krypton's destruction, he then escapes & fights Superman. Which was what you said originally wasn't it?

And then again you can find a number of Superman's origin version that doesn't have Zod. They all have Krypton exploding, Jor-el, Lara, Jonathan, Martha, Lois, Daily Planet. But Zod is not in all of them. Why? Because it's not canon.

What I originally said was that MOS follows the same basic plot as in STM/SII. And the inclusion of Zod provesb that.

There is exactly what I said, the 3rd time I believe I've quoted it again for you. Explain where I have said The Avengers is a realistic film?

You started with Spider-man. But as usual, you changed that into Avengers' characters origins when plan A backfired.

When taken in context with what I actually said regarding each of The Avenger's origin stories & not what you've mistaken me for saying, what was meant was that in comparison to the previous 1977 Spiderman film things in the 2002 Spiderman were made a little more believable, but again walked a fine line between reality & fantasy, elements that make up the film & characters are potentially believable & others, of course, weren't.

First it was 'realistic,' now it's 'believable.' Discussion can last a lot when you keep changing your arguments in the middle of it.

Now, I'm going to say again right now before you misunderstand once more & say I'm calling Spiderman 1 realistic. I'm not, what I'm saying is, it walks a fine line between reality & fantasy.

And thus, I am supposed to re-arrange my replies given that you keep re-arranging your statements, right?

 

[spider-neil]

Is there now more MoS box office talk because MoS has made about as much as it's going to make?

 

[B]

No, you didn't say it contradicted the role of Lex (he's still the villain, the same kind of villain with the same goal), you stated that it was illogical to set Lex free after all he did in STM and SII ("I mean his crimes alone that he was in jail for STM for would dictate he'd be serving a term longer than 5 years.").

Contradictory would have been if Lex had never been convicted in SR, or if his crimes were different than in STM/SII. But no, he committed his crimes in those movies, he was sent to jail and in SR he was shown escaping jail. No contradiction there, even if we can question the ways he used to escape jail.

It doesn't contradict the role of Lex it contradicts Lex Luthor's involvement in the film in the first place, one moment he has been convicted of his crimes, in jail then escaping via hot air balloon, the next he has been cleared & released because Superman wasn't at his trial.. even though of course he has already been shown as being convicted & in jail. That's a complete contradiction of what has already been shown.

No, why would it have been that night? It could have been later. Nothing in the movie states Jason was conceived "that night."

You've just thrown the question I asked you right back at me as if I'd have the answers. You're the one that feels that this a sequel, so wouldn't it make more sense for your argument that Jason was conceived during SII's fortress scene? Particularly because afterwords Superman wipes her memory (another issue, but I'll overlook it) after she struggles to cope with his secret. You're essentially implying, he then goes back after all that happened in SII & off camera, has a 1 night stand with Lois when he is super powered then goes off to Krypton for 5 years? All around the same time that Lois is seeing Richard & having relations with him seeing as she believes Jason is Richard's son all along.

From a viewer standpoint, if I was to believe Superman Returns is a sequel to STM & SII, I'd much prefer the child to have been conceived in the Fortress in SII & have holes in that story in SR, because I'm struggling to think of a scenario for how he can be conceived afterwords that doesn't make Superman come across a scumbag.

No, the fortress is never supposed to be made useless in SII - only the "Donner's Cut" which is an unofficial version. If anything you could accuse SII of contradicting itself (there's no way back, oh well there actually is).

The Fortress works ok when Zod, Ursa and Non visit it at the end of SII. But as I said, it's not far-fetched to assume the console was repaired.

Well no because I was actually using Lester's cut as the definitive cut, I only mentioned Donner's in case you'd mentioned Singer's fondness for Donner's take on the character that he may have followed his cuts story.

If the fortress was never intended to be made useless to Superman after his transformation, why would it have been destroyed in such an explosive manner?

It was sheer luck that the crystal that created the Fortress wasn't in the console & it was sheer luck that the only portion of the console left standing was the bit that controlled the molecule chamber.

Regardless of the cut, because of the decisions Kal-El had made in Superman II, it was evident that because of those decisions & the visual destruction of the Fortress's console that he wasn't supposed to be just able to repair everything & more sheer luck that he was able to regain his powers in the first place.

Or else you could go and say Batman Returns is not a sequel to Batman 89 because in the first movie the bat-suit is destroyed and in the sequel it's fine again.

Come on lets try to put the sarcasm & insults to one side, you don't honestly think the 2 are comparable do you?

Not to mention Batman's suit was different from Batman 89 & Batman Returns

As flawlessly as many sequels, yes.

I respect if you want to disagree but that's not enough to back your statements up. If you had set some important contradictions I could at least admit that "such and such wasn't properly addressed."

Shouldn't they all align flawlessly? I mean your comment suggests that if say Michael Bay made several continuity & story errors between the first 2 Transformer films, that then makes it OK for another film/director/writer to have made a similar sized errors in his film because other films have done it.

I appreciate completely that this has been described both as a loose & vague sequel & you are prepared to accept that, however I can't accept it as a sequel simply because STM/SII's & SR's story have too many continuity & inconsistencies within them. Which is to be expected given that SR adds, changes & ignores elements of the previous 2.

Well, for starters a definition is not a piece of evidence. I cannot argue that, for example, Superman was an impostor alien in SR because there's a definition of "impostor."

This is a unique subject because I'm pretty sure you could count the number of films that have been labelled as vague or loose sequels on one hand. But here is the way I am looking at your argument just so you understand why I brought the definition of sequel up:

A man is selling a ring that you want to buy, he tells you it's made of platinum. However it looks like silver & has all the markings of a silver ring. Who do you believe? Do you believe the man because he's telling you it's platinum? Or do you believe what it actually looks like & it's markings?

Platinum & silver are 2 different things, similar yes, but quite different. In that metaphor, you believe the man that it's platinum just because he has said it's platinum, even though it looks & is silver.

Now you go and tell me you prefer IMDB? That gives you so much credibility.

And even there they admit it was a loose sequel.

Now hang on, wasn't 1 of your links a fan made Superman Wikipedia & the regular Wikipedia, how are they any more credible than IMDB?

Exactly, but they themselves treat it as a standalone film, which is exactly what I do for the exactly the same reasons they do.

What exactly is a loose sequel anyway? It means nothing, it's so vague & useless a description, I mean you could in theory describe Batman Begins as a loose prequel to Batman 89 could you not?

Yes, you were NOT talking about the plot when you said you were talking about the goal. Basically you were just trying to create a straw man there. You talk about the plot and when you get that the concept of plot won't serve your argument, you pretend it's only logical to assume that goal is the same.

But yes, if you talk about plots, then MOS follows STM and SII pretty close, even when, as we have both admitted, modernized and updated. That's when you have to do some damage control and replace 'plot' with 'goal.'

No, no, no.. you see the problem is, you misunderstood what I was talking about. You presumed something to the point that now you are trying to tell me, what I meant, by comments that I made. Of the 2 of us who do you think is going to know better what I meant when I made that post?

I clarified exactly what was meant in the last post I made so there should be no further confusion on your part, what was meant, with what word, when I said it & why I said it.

He can't send one of his men to throw a crystal from a plane/helicopter?

Why would any of the big countries allow a helicopter travelling from a country that has a man issuing threats of putting countries under water to get within 100 miles of their or any of their allies coasts?

And then again you can find a number of Superman's origin version that doesn't have Zod. They all have Krypton exploding, Jor-el, Lara, Jonathan, Martha, Lois, Daily Planet. But Zod is not in all of them. Why? Because it's not canon.

What I originally said was that MOS follows the same basic plot as in STM/SII. And the inclusion of Zod provesb that.

Why am I having to repeat myself? When Zod is involved in an origin story though, everything you listed that supposedly made MoS the basically the same as SII was generic default things regarding the characters origin, all of which are canon for the character & couldn't be changed otherwise it isn't Zod.

Zod's origins never change, he is placed in the PZ thus escaping Krypton's demise, then escapes & ensues in a battle with Superman. All of which you seemingly listed as some sort of proof that both films were basically the same.

You started with Spider-man. But as usual, you changed that into Avengers' characters origins when plan A backfired.

As I suspected, you can't point to anywhere in my comment that claimed The Avengers was realistic. I knew you wouldn't have the guts to admit you've been having a phantom argument all this time regarding this issue.

First it was 'realistic,' now it's 'believable.' Discussion can last a lot when you keep changing your arguments in the middle of it.

And thus, I am supposed to re-arrange my replies given that you keep re-arranging your statements, right?

When you are talking about a film & the world realistic, realism or whatever variant of the word you want, you are obviously talking about something that could be within the realms of believability in the real world. You've no argument as I told you because what I said & what you think I said are 2 completely different things & you've resulted to trying to pick through my dialogue for crumbs.

In this discussion & in the context used, the words walk hand in hand.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It doesn't contradict the role of Lex it contradicts Lex Luthor's involvement in the film in the first place, one moment he has been convicted of his crimes, in jail then escaping via hot air balloon, the next he has been cleared & released because Superman wasn't at his trial.. even though of course he has already been shown as being convicted & in jail. That's a complete contradiction of what has already been shown.

Again, that might be unconvincing or too far-fetched, but it doesn't contradict the previous movies as the issue of being convicted for his crimes was addressed.

In Batman Begins Joe Chill is convicted and then released. Sure, in a much better explained way. But that's not a contradiction with the first part pof the movie; you wouldn't say the second part of Batman Begins is not part of the whole movie because Chill was released.

You've just thrown the question I asked you right back at me as if I'd have the answers.

Well, you talk like you had the answer.

You're the one that feels that this a sequel, so wouldn't it make more sense for your argument that Jason was conceived during SII's fortress scene? Particularly because afterwords Superman wipes her memory (another issue, but I'll overlook it) after she struggles to cope with his secret. You're essentially implying, he then goes back after all that happened in SII & off camera, has a 1 night stand with Lois when he is super powered then goes off to Krypton for 5 years? All around the same time that Lois is seeing Richard & having relations with him seeing as she believes Jason is Richard's son all along.

From a viewer standpoint, if I was to believe Superman Returns is a sequel to STM & SII, I'd much prefer the child to have been conceived in the Fortress in SII & have holes in that story in SR, because I'm struggling to think of a scenario for how he can be conceived afterwords that doesn't make Superman come across a scumbag.

It's not like I feel this is a sequel; that is a fact.

And no, Jason being conceived in the Fortress doesn't make any more sense. It could have been after and that doesn't make SR any less of a sequel, as many sequels assume that time goes by in between a movie and the next, and things do happen in that time.

Now, I have always said that the premises of SR needed to be much better explained. But yes, Jason could have been conceived after SII, then Superman flies away leaving a very heartbroken and resentful Lois, who tried to move on as fast as he could, going to Richard's arms. This in a short period of time, thus Lois (and Richard, of course) believe that Jason is Richard's son too.

Well no because I was actually using Lester's cut as the definitive cut, I only mentioned Donner's in case you'd mentioned Singer's fondness for Donner's take on the character that he may have followed his cuts story.

If the fortress was never intended to be made useless to Superman after his transformation, why would it have been destroyed in such an explosive manner?

It was sheer luck that the crystal that created the Fortress wasn't in the console & it was sheer luck that the only portion of the console left standing was the bit that controlled the molecule chamber.

Regardless of the cut, because of the decisions Kal-El had made in Superman II, it was evident that because of those decisions & the visual destruction of the Fortress's console that he wasn't supposed to be just able to repair everything & more sheer luck that he was able to regain his powers in the first place.

Well, as you see, in SII he wasn't supposed to be re-gaining his powers and somehow he did. Next to that, the console reparation is nothing. X-Men's jet has been destroyed and repaired for sequels, Batman's suit too, etc.

Come on lets try to put the sarcasm & insults to one side, you don't honestly think the 2 are comparable do you?

Not to mention Batman's suit was different from Batman 89 & Batman Returns

I'm sorry, what "insults" are you talking about?

That asked, yes, they're comparable in terms of how many superhero's items are severely damaged in one movie and they're repaired for the sequel. That doesn't make the sequels any less of a sequel.

Shouldn't they all align flawlessly? I mean your comment suggests that if say Michael Bay made several continuity & story errors between the first 2 Transformer films, that then makes it OK for another film/director/writer to have made a similar sized errors in his film because other films have done it.

Yes, all movies should be flawless, but no one actually is. Now, if you could produce a serious contradiction and not conjectures or just progression of things (Lex in jail, Lex out of jail), I could even agree.

I appreciate completely that this has been described both as a loose & vague sequel & you are prepared to accept that, however I can't accept it as a sequel simply because STM/SII's & SR's story have too many continuity & inconsistencies within them. Which is to be expected given that SR adds, changes & ignores elements of the previous 2.

Again, you haven't been able to describe one serious inconsistency.

In fact I can produce some myself: how come Superman's suit is different now, how come Lois Lane looks so different, how come it's not the 70's anymore. THAT is actually inconsistent with the previous movies, not those action progression or conjectures you have exposed.

THAT is probably what IMDB had in mind when they said they were going to take this as an independent movie. They make clear that it is only in regards of "chronology and story details" (not serious differences) that they're taking the movie as independent, not because it actually is.

This is a unique subject because I'm pretty sure you could count the number of films that have been labelled as vague or loose sequels on one hand. But here is the way I am looking at your argument just so you understand why I brought the definition of sequel up:

A man is selling a ring that you want to buy, he tells you it's made of platinum. However it looks like silver & has all the markings of a silver ring. Who do you believe? Do you believe the man because he's telling you it's platinum? Or do you believe what it actually looks like & it's markings?

Platinum & silver are 2 different things, similar yes, but quite different. In that metaphor, you believe the man that it's platinum just because he has said it's platinum, even though it looks & is silver.

You are here questioning that this "circular band usually of a precious metal, often set with gems and worn upon the finger as an adornment" is actually a ring.

I'm here to tell you that, even if it's not made of the material they say it is, it's still a ring.

Now hang on, wasn't 1 of your links a fan made Superman Wikipedia & the regular Wikipedia, how are they any more credible than IMDB?

Sure, and the rest were official, unlike your IMDB opinion.

Exactly, but they themselves treat it as a standalone film, which is exactly what I do for the exactly the same reasons they do.

So to protect the film of unfair criticism regarding inconsistencies?

What exactly is a loose sequel anyway? It means nothing, it's so vague & useless a description, I mean you could in theory describe Batman Begins as a loose prequel to Batman 89 could you not?

So you cannot/refuse to grasp the concept and therefore it means nothing?

Now please produce a link where Batman Begins is seriously treated as Batman 89 prequel. I am aware that a few people thought so back in the day but they were wrong, as TDK proved.

No, no, no.. you see the problem is, you misunderstood what I was talking about. You presumed something to the point that now you are trying to tell me, what I meant, by comments that I made. Of the 2 of us who do you think is going to know better what I meant when I made that post?

I clarified exactly what was meant in the last post I made so there should be no further confusion on your part, what was meant, with what word, when I said it & why I said it.

On the contrary, my only "mistake" was to assume you meant "plot" when you wrote "plot." When you came to realize the plots are very similar, you changed it to goal.

Why would any of the big countries allow a helicopter travelling from a country that has a man issuing threats of putting countries under water to get within 100 miles of their or any of their allies coasts?

They don't have to allow it. They don't even have to know Lex is able to grow more continents, so they don't have to know one helicopter is a menace. But hey, last time I checked, for you someone fooling the U.S. Army and hacking manually two nuclear missiles is plausible - because you meant "plausible" when you wrote "plausible," didn't you? - so this would be entirely plausible for you anyways.

Why am I having to repeat myself? When Zod is involved in an origin story though, everything you listed that supposedly made MoS the basically the same as SII was generic default things regarding the characters origin, all of which are canon for the character & couldn't be changed otherwise it isn't Zod.

Zod's origins never change, he is placed in the PZ thus escaping Krypton's demise, then escapes & ensues in a battle with Superman. All of which you seemingly listed as some sort of proof that both films were basically the same.

The key here is "When Zod is involved in an origin story." Why would he be, in the first place?

The rest of your post is talking about MOS as if it were a Zod origin story, which is not, therefore it doesn't have to include him. But it did, re-creating all the basic plot of STM/SII, as I told you.

As I suspected, you can't point to anywhere in my comment that claimed The Avengers was realistic. I knew you wouldn't have the guts to admit you've been having a phantom argument all this time regarding this issue.

You said "It [Spider-man 1] was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy."

1) Spider-man 1 alleged realism has little to do with Avengers origin stories. Radioactive/genetically altered spiders giving you super-powers is as unrealistic as it goes.
2) You said "any Avengers origin stories." "Any"? Thor? Unrealistic. Iron Man? Unrealistic. Hulk? Unrealistic. Captain America? Unrealistic. Care to correct that "any"?

When you are talking about a film & the world realistic, realism or whatever variant of the word you want, you are obviously talking about something that could be within the realms of believability in the real world. You've no argument as I told you because what I said & what you think I said are 2 completely different things & you've resulted to trying to pick through my dialogue for crumbs.

In this discussion & in the context used, the words walk hand in hand.

No matter how you take it, Avengers is unrealistic. Spider-man is too. hawkeye and Black Widow don't change that.