News flash!

Rowsdower! said:
To each his own, but if there was one superhero movie I found boring, it was SR. Not only because the plot was a partially dull rehash of Superman '78 but because Superman himself was so lifeless. I'd honestly watch GL a hundred times before I'd sit through SR again.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I found both of them fairly boring, just with SR I liked that it tried to do something a little bit different. GL felt a little too by-the-numbers and very "safe" for me. I assume that was due to the execs and whatever changes they made.
 
I love both of them. I'd hang a portrait of the three of us over my fireplace if I had one.
 
Lencho01 said:
Fair enough. I found both of them fairly boring, just with SR I liked that it tried to do something a little bit different. GL felt a little too by-the-numbers and very "safe" for me. I assume that was due to the execs and whatever changes they made.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from there. I just think it's hard to avoid the "by the numbers" thing when you're making an origin film. Iron Man was great, but it was by the numbers. Batman Begins was too, to some extent. Thor wasn't exactly, but that's a bit of a different scenario altogether.

But above all else, I think GL was the better film because, whether you liked him or not, Reynolds' Hal Jordan actually had a personality. People say that Routh's Superman was just a Reeve copy, but I disagree, because Reeve's Superman was a whole character. Routh's version just stood there with a blank look on his face for most of the movie, except for the times when he needed to lift something. He hardly had any lines, and those he did have were pretty meaningless.
 
SuperDaniel said:
I think it made that kind of money just because it was Superman. Once people saw it wasnt a good movie or even a good representation of the characters, the movie didnt make profit to warrant a sequel. Also, the huge budget didnt help.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this. You don't make 400 million just off of the name as well as do good in the DVD/Blu-Ray sells. The movie was well received it just didn't establish Superman the way the WB felt it should. I mean it did have a good story to it. The main issue with Superman Returns was though it left the Superman fan base split and the general public more or less liked the movie but I think the reaction they were (WB) going for was for them to love the movie. Yes it was lacking in the action department but I feel had the movie been released maybe 2 to 3 weeks before Pirates instead of one we would have seen a bigger box office and see a sequel to the movie. And Jason IMO could have been fixed if you didn't want to kill him off you could have given him the Mon-El treatment and use him and rebuild him for the ground bases of a Legion movie. I just think the WB isn't looking at Superman Returns box office number so lightly now with how their other comic movies have failed. I mean GL should have done Iron Man or Thor numbers for as he is in the same boat as them the problem is whoever while the movie is fun it is very forgettable. Superman Returns even though coming out in 2006 has still been a hot topic because of the now released RTK scene and how fans want an extended edition showcasing the subplot with Lex that moves him away from the Donner version, more of the Smallville scenes and the whole theme of the movie that was lost upon first release with Superman questioning if he should return and if the world really does need a Superman. See those things that some fans are still waiting to see is what keeps Superman Returns still in the minds of people. GL on the other hand the only scene some would like to see (if filmed) is the ring going by the Daily Planet. To be honest even Daredevil DC is a better movie than what GL was. The DC version of Daredevil really stayed true to the source and was a great movie much like The Punisher DC was.
 
Rowsdower! said:
I see where you're coming from there. I just think it's hard to avoid the "by the numbers" thing when you're making an origin film. Iron Man was great, but it was by the numbers. Batman Begins was too, to some extent. Thor wasn't exactly, but that's a bit of a different scenario altogether.

But above all else, I think GL was the better film because, whether you liked him or not, Reynolds' Hal Jordan actually had a personality. People say that Routh's Superman was just a Reeve copy, but I disagree, because Reeve's Superman was a whole character. Routh's version just stood there with a blank look on his face for most of the movie, except for the times when he needed to lift something. He hardly had any lines, and those he did have were pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...

I agree about Routh's portrayal. Totally flat. I blame a lot of that on poor directing by Singer. But I also feel Routh didn't have a strong natural presence which is absolutely required of a Superman actor.

Fortunately Henry does. I think his more rugged look helps a lot and though I love Reeve's look too I could see myself coming to prefer Cavill's a bit more. We'll see on that.
 
Rowsdower! said:
I see where you're coming from there. I just think it's hard to avoid the "by the numbers" thing when you're making an origin film. Iron Man was great, but it was by the numbers. Batman Begins was too, to some extent. Thor wasn't exactly, but that's a bit of a different scenario altogether.

But above all else, I think GL was the better film because, whether you liked him or not, Reynolds' Hal Jordan actually had a personality. People say that Routh's Superman was just a Reeve copy, but I disagree, because Reeve's Superman was a whole character. Routh's version just stood there with a blank look on his face for most of the movie, except for the times when he needed to lift something. He hardly had any lines, and those he did have were pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yeah, origin stories usually are all laid out the same with some changes here and there. Just depends on how it's executed and what can be done to make it feel different.

I agree with you about their characters. Routh did feel that he was told to copy Reeve, but only if Reeve's take was a really, really boring guy and not interesting enough to even want to watch. I didn't care for Reynold's Hal, but he was surely more interesting to watch. Felt sorry for Routh.

Going back to the origins, if they are indeed using parts of Birthright, I think what was shown before he became Superman would be great to see. I don't think they'll be having him an Lex be friends, though. To my shock, I enjoyed the pre-Superman stuff a lot more that the Superman parts of that story. So, having a guy discovering his heritage and where he's from is an interesting spin on the superhero origin. With GL, I loved the idea that they aren't born with their powers or stumble upon them somehow, but are worthy to be superheroes. I felt that was missing with that film.
 
Last edited:
I'd prefer TDK route. Little to no forced comedy. Just witty dialogue.
 
I think TDK is serious to the point of being kind of uptight, ironic given the Joker's presence and famous line..
 
RouthIsSuperman said:
So you would want an entire movie to be serious the entire time with NO laughs or even a chuckle?
Click to expand...

if it is a chuckle because of a conversation the characters are having, like they are having a conversation about something that happened that is funny, then yes, Tarantino does that plenty in his movies. But if it is a chuckle out of something stupid that happens because a character is over the top, then no thanks. I don't want a laugh.
 
SR wasn't a good movie. Despite this it was considered a critical success and was loved by a decent part of the fans.
The difference between SR and GL is that SR underperformed respect to the high expecations of WB execs, GL is simply a box office bomb.
 
I personally dont want Superman to be like Dark Knight. Treat the character seriously but i dont want a serious Superman movie. That's a totally different thing. I want adventurous and fun.
 
I want a Serious Superman movie with actions and great character development.
 
RouthIsSuperman said:
So you would want an entire movie to be serious the entire time with NO laughs or even a chuckle?
Click to expand...

another type of thing that makes people laugh is something so awesome it makes you laugh.. not cheesy, or campy... for example, these moments make people laugh but not because it looks campy, cheesy or funny, it is just something so awesome and cool it makes you laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uRN7iJ5CqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMrPjl-927Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tag9UmmFfY8


make me see something so amazing it makes me chuckle like that, not because of a corny campy cheesy stupid unrealistic behavior that makes me laugh out of stupidity because it is not believable that a criminal mastermind is as funny and campy acting as gene hackman or ottis
 
Better example: I have a feeling I'll be laughing my ass of, like a giddy school-girl, during the climax of the new Transformers-movie, because of the crazy amount of overwhelming visuals just working to melt my face.

But yeah, a BIG NO! to forced or campy humor, just throwing it in there to keep the movie from getting too serious. I'd almost rather have a flat out comedy then.
 
Last edited:
TheIncredibleSk said:
I'd prefer TDK route. Little to no forced comedy. Just witty dialogue.
Click to expand...

Same.

I don't think Superman naturally lends itself to comedy anyway, other than the clutsy Clark Kent route. Which I hated.

You can have Lois and Clark witty banter that'll lighten the movie, but you don't have to make people laugh. That isn't a neccesity for a comic book movie to be enjoyable.
 
I agree. Witty dialogue is the limit.
Imagine Lex and Zod bickering. What a turn-off.
 
TheLongestDay said:
Green Lantern threw at least 2 punches...argument over.
Click to expand...
wait a minute, so the failure of SR was because Superman didn't throw punches?

He saved Metropolis from an Earthquake
He lifted a city sized rock and pushed away from earth
Saved a plane

What did GL do, didn't do any saves and [blackout]tricked diarrhea Parallax into the Sun[/blackout]

So, i think Superman Returns was a good enough movie, not the best, and it wasn't the best because he didn't throw punches, it's because the movie was slow and boring as ****, Singer ****'ed it up.

GL just didn't know what it wanted to be, was it a comedy, drama, dramedy, action film? It was all over the place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
SFX: Zach Snyder talks Superman movie
3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
16K
sf2
sf2
DocLathropBrown
Comics Help with this artists' name?
Replies
5
Views
2K
DocLathropBrown
DocLathropBrown
B
Comics Am I the only one who thinks this?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Lazlo Panaflex
Lazlo Panaflex
Binker
DC ANNOUNCES UPCOMING TRADES, HCs
Replies
18
Views
2K
yenaled
yenaled
R
The Problem With Superman
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
nocomics
nocomics

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 2,996 (members: 10, guests: 2,986)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,267
Messages
22,076,338
Members
45,875
Latest member
Pducklila

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"