Superman Returns The lifting of NK = Utterley Heroic?

[Cyrusbales]

What an arrogant and ignorant statement.

Cinema is an escapist tool, my comment was further backed up by my latter posts, which commented on other films using similar devices to push the boundaries of the pysical etc.

I do owe an apology though, as my phrasing in that sentence could easily come off as offensive, sorry for that.

 

[sithgoblin]

Even if it's not dilluted, the notion of it being near him is what damages him, 10 kilo's or 100 wouldn't make much difference in terms of the radiation from the surface area.

There was plenty of it near him as he lifted it.

Also, this is no different from any action film where a guy gets shot a billion times then carries on, like the punisher or any hollywood film from the 80's. Only difference is that this is SUPERMAN, who CAN push the boundaries.

You're comparing it to 80s action movies? A moment ago one of your allies was telling me it was high art!

 

[Cyrusbales]

There was plenty of it near him as he lifted it.


You're comparing it to 80s action movies? A moment ago one of your allies was telling me it was high art!

A hitchcock film can bear similarities to a Uwe Boll film, why? Because they are both the same medium and thus use devices of cinema.

Superman returns is one of the most artistic CB movies out there, to call it high art and place it amongst the likes of Brazil and La Mala Education is a falsehood however.

 

[El Payaso]

Isn't Led the only thing that stops it's radiation?

Apparently not.

 

[sithgoblin]

Cinema is an escapist tool, my comment was further backed up by my latter posts, which commented on other films using similar devices to push the boundaries of the pysical etc.

I do owe an apology though, as my phrasing in that sentence could easily come off as offensive, sorry for that.

Of course it is about escapism, but it also has to hold the concept of 'suspension of disbelief'. The film set its boundries: Superman has Super Powers, but Kryptonite is his weakness and a tiny shard will render him powerless.

Singer went on and on about how he was setting SR in a grounded reality. Having him life a giant chunk of it into space breaks the rules they set.

 

[El Payaso]

Of course it is about escapism, but it also has to hold the concept of 'suspension of disbelief'. The film set its boundries: Superman has Super Powers, but Kryptonite is his weakness and a tiny shard will render him powerless.

Singer went on and on about how he was setting SR in a grounded reality. Having him life a giant chunk of it into space breaks the rules they set.

Crystals dillute the properties of the original materials. When having a strong barrier, Kryptonite's radiation doesn't affect Superman. Rules of the franchise.

 

[sithgoblin]

A hitchcock film can bear similarities to a Uwe Boll film, why? Because they are both the same medium and thus use devices of cinema.

Superman returns is one of the most artistic CB movies out there, to call it high art and place it amongst the likes of Brazil and La Mala Education is a falsehood however.

What do you mean by devices of cinema? Shots? Camera? Sound? Editing That's very vauge.

And you really can't compare Hitchcock to Boll except in the broadest of terms, or in pointing out how the former succeeded where the latter failed.

 

[sithgoblin]

Crystals dillute the properties of the original materials. When having a strong barrier, Kryptonite's radiation doesn't affect Superman. Rules of the franchise.

Too bad they never established that. Why not have Superman pull an anti Kryptonite wand out of his pocket while they're at it?

 

[Angeloz]

I'm curious if anyone here has seen a Uwe Boll film? 'Cos if he's bad why torture yourself?

Angeloz

 

[Cyrusbales]

What do you mean by devices of cinema? Shots? Camera? Sound? Editing That's very vauge.

And you really can't compare Hitchcock to Boll except in the broadest of terms, or in pointing out how the former succeeded where the latter failed.

Narrative and cinematic devices, the dues ex machina technique to reverse ill effects is most apt here. As is the extension of existiing peramteres, like being shot yet continuing etc etc.

 

[LexCorp]

When people are required to come up with explanations to explain inconsistencies after the film, that's poor filmmaking.

Diluted Kryptonite is not something that was though of after the film. I though this during and the film has enough evidence to make this claim.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Of course it is about escapism, but it also has to hold the concept of 'suspension of disbelief'. The film set its boundries: Superman has Super Powers, but Kryptonite is his weakness and a tiny shard will render him powerless.

Singer went on and on about how he was setting SR in a grounded reality. Having him life a giant chunk of it into space breaks the rules they set.

A large chunk in his side crippled him, removing most of it allowed him to resume more power, I'm sure superman works off of similar principles to people, for example is has been docuemtned that small housewives have lifted cars up in times of need to save children etc that were their own, adrenaline etc and emotional response stimulating the pysical. This is surely a similar thing? Considerin ght elimits human bodies can push in real life, superman pushing them in fiction is nothing too unbelievable.

 

[El Payaso]

Too bad they never established that. Why not have Superman pull an anti Kryptonite wand out of his pocket while they're at it?

Luthor clearly stablished the dilluted properties of the material in SR.

In STM you can see how in a box of lead, Kryptonite didn't affect Superman.

Why don't you pull a carrot for your memory while you're at it.

 

[LexCorp]

A large chunk in his side crippled him, removing most of it allowed him to resume more power, I'm sure superman works off of similar principles to people, for example is has been docuemtned that small housewives have lifted cars up in times of need to save children etc that were their own, adrenaline etc and emotional response stimulating the pysical. This is surely a similar thing? Considerin ght elimits human bodies can push in real life, superman pushing them in fiction is nothing too unbelievable.

The bottom line is that there was not enough potent K to stop him doing what he did. It just made it harder.

 

[Cyrusbales]

In comics, K has never killed supes anyway.

 

[El Payaso]

A large chunk in his side crippled him, removing most of it allowed him to resume more power, I'm sure superman works off of similar principles to people, for example is has been docuemtned that small housewives have lifted cars up in times of need to save children etc that were their own, adrenaline etc and emotional response stimulating the pysical. This is surely a similar thing? Considerin ght elimits human bodies can push in real life, superman pushing them in fiction is nothing too unbelievable.

Bottom line being, Hulk has to do with everything man.

 

[Angeloz]

The bottom line is that there was not enough potent K to stop him doing what he did. It just made it harder.

And eventually he lost consciousness as well as flatlined.

By the way has anyone seen a Uwe Boll film? Just curious. I haven't.

Angeloz

 

[LexCorp]

In comics, K has never killed supes anyway.

Can't say I know all the sources for K but I will take your word for that.

 

[LexCorp]

And eventually he lost consciousness as well as flatlined.

Angeloz

And had a hard fall to Earth yes. So it almost kicked his butt....

 

[C. Lee]

I'm curious if anyone here has seen a Uwe Boll film? 'Cos if he's bad why torture yourself?

Angeloz

The only one I have seen is Bloodrayne.....and it WAS pretty bad.

 

[Angeloz]

The only one I have seen is Bloodrayne.....and it WAS pretty bad.

Why did you watch it? Did you hope it was so bad it was good? Or for other reasons? Again curious.

And had a hard fall to Earth yes. So it almost kicked his butt....

Angeloz

 

[C. Lee]

When people are required to come up with explanations to explain inconsistencies after the film, that's poor filmmaking.

Not really.....me and others (without being told or having it explained to us) saw the diluted K concept as a natural answer to what others have questioned. In may movies, there are situations that some people see an answer for that others don't. That doesn't mean one explanation is the right one over the other one....but it should give people something to think about and consider.

 

[C. Lee]

Why did you watch it? Did you hope it was so bad it was good? Or for other reasons? Again curious.

At the time, I didn't even know it was a Uwe Bolle film....my brother brought over a DVD about vampires starring Lokken....I gave it a chance.....it was laughably bad.

 

[LexCorp]

Not really.....me and others (without being told or having it explained to us) saw the diluted K concept as a natural answer to what others have questioned. In may movies, there are situations that some people see an answer for that others don't. That doesn't mean one explanation is the right one over the other one....but it should give people something to think about and consider.

This (diluted K issue) for me was a factor that preceeded a final conclusion in my mind for this film.

 

[El Payaso]

Not really.....me and others (without being told or having it explained to us) saw the diluted K concept as a natural answer to what others have questioned. In may movies, there are situations that some people see an answer for that others don't. That doesn't mean one explanation is the right one over the other one....but it should give people something to think about and consider.

Some of us saw it verbally explained in the movie.