Supergirl needs to be introduced..
No, Transformers was mediocre. SR while having high production value and beautiful visually, was a HORRIBLE movie about Superman. Perhaps instead of fimmaking I should have left it with storytelling.
And I'll have you know I'm not pathetic, just passionate, and like many on this forum I sometimes get carried away.
What's pathetic is Superman as deadbeat dad. That's pathetic. (getting carried away again.)
What's pathetic is Superman as deadbeat dad. That's pathetic. (getting carried away again.)
That's why I'm so frustrated with the film to begin with. It was a beautiful movie, a gorgeous movie. Many, many people worked their butts off for months to make it look as good as it did. And the storytelling couldn't keep its end of the bargain.
In the end, filmmaking is about storytelling. If you can't tell a story convincingly with your film, then the film has essentially failed. It might as well be a series of pretty images.
I'm also frustrated cause this is the from the same director who brought us Usual Suspects, which is one of my favorite movies. It was built around the actual telling of a story, and it was fantastic. Where did Singer go wrong?
That's true. The enjoyment of a story does depend on what you bring to it. I thought Ang Lee's Hulk was yawn but many people liked it for the characterization that I just couldn't buy.And in mine and many other people's eyes the story in SR was very enjoyable.
The main character was both god-like and relatable, and we got a story and characters than developed naturally and with talking rather than explosions.
CHECK THE SIG!
Your opinions cool, but when it comes to discussing keep it real and talk about what is the truth. Superman didnt know he had a son therefore his absence is excuseable and critics loved it.
EMPIRE called it the finest mainstream entertainment since lord of the rings.
I bet you're wrong.so while you may think it was garbage, dont discuss it like it because it isnt percieved as that by most, and the when studio decides wether or not to go ahead with a sequel, your points will certainly not be on their list of cons.
You may find it excusable, but I bet 80 percent of the audience did not find it excuseable.
That doesn't say much about LoTR then does it? What is EMPIRE?
I bet you're wrong.
Can't get over the fact that I don't like SR can you?Like yours?
I have no idea who I would pick to play Clark/Superman but I've always thought the prototype should be:
Rock Hudson
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Rock could also had all of the personality attributes to play both Clark and Superman.
Also he was 6'4.
Superman like it or not has been portrayed for the longest as a tall man with a well built figure.
The actor playing him doesn't and shouldn't be a body builder but he should have a solid physique just like Christopher Reeves and like Hugh Jackman or Thomas Jane.
But that lacked of good action and had some corny dialogues and one-liners amongst what was supposed to be serious and realistic.
And it did 20 millions less than SR.
Oh, but it costed much less also. So execs did get the money they wanted. Green light.
What does him being gay have to do with anything? If he's a good actor, it won't matter. Unless you're talking about the backlash, blah blah blah. Heath Ledger is still getting heat for his Brokeback Mountain role, and he's straight.Yeah, he had the looks to play Supes (but since he was gay, I'm glad he never played the role, thank God), but if you ask me, Brandon Routh looks a lot like him, IMO. Brandon has this Greek god-like classic look, perfect for Superman.
finest mainstream entertainment since LOTR??............rrrrriiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttt...........
oh, and why does it seem that whenever we SR "haters" espouse our opinions and call the film garbage, there are some ppl here saying that we can't discuss it like that, cuz that's not what the "majority" thinks.
well, quite frankly, I don't give a care what the majority of ppl think. If i think a movie is crap....then I'm going to call it crap or garbage. And I have every right to do that......just like ppl who love the movie can call it masterpiece.............meow.
What does him being gay have to do with anything? If he's a good actor, it won't matter. Unless you're talking about the backlash, blah blah blah. Heath Ledger is still getting heat for his Brokeback Mountain role, and he's straight.![]()
Brandon had the right features, but he still had a bit of a babyface. A bit too pretty. But I think he's pretty damn close to a real-life Superman.

It's a silly idea to use biology in a conversation with me since I am a biologist.The magic of the character would be totally lost, IMO. It's simple Biology 101. But just to be clear, I have nothing against gays, I respect them.![]()
And your argument has nothing to do with biology - it's culture and social training.I've wondered that myself.Right on just because a lot of people like something dose not make me have to like it, and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it. Sometimes I wonder if critics get a little bonus to help push the big movies by the studios.
Right on just because a lot of people like something dose not make me have to like it, and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it.
and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it.
Sometimes I wonder if critics get a little bonus to help push the big movies by the studios.

Exaaaaaaaactly, El Payaso. IMO BB is so overrated by its fans who don't want to see its faults, and I like the film a lot actually, but as a casual movie goer that I was (before SR), I think BB is good but kinda boring at times. It needed some more high points in order to excite me.
And the music was good but generic, I mean I can't remember it.
On the other hand, SR is much more exciting and inspiring for me, even with its faults (which are very minor in my view, so I don't care).