Sequels The Official Kevin Spacey As Lex Luthor Thread

[Showtime]

but i think you are not really understanding him though......he only defends when people just bash it, would out given a reasonable explanation.....its different if he came on here everyday and was saying SR'S ROCKS....its nots praising, its defending, totally different

I am understanding him 110%. What you're not understanding is that he believes it is ok to fight and use namecalling to defend a movie, not that he does that, but that he doesn't call others out who do it. However, he has no problem calling out those who fight and use namecalling as a tool to go against the movie. It's really not that hard to see.

 

[manofsteel4life]

I am understanding him 110%. What you're not understanding is that he believes it is ok to fight and use namecalling to defend a movie, not that he does that, but that he doesn't call others out who do it. However, he has no problem calling out those who fight and use namecalling as a tool to go against the movie. It's really not that hard to see.

yea, i know, its freedom of speech, but it doesnt solve the fact whether or not SR was a great movie...it just makes you look ignorant, you feel what im saying?

 

[Showtime]

yea, i know, its freedom of speech, but it doesnt solve the fact whether or not SR was a great movie...it just makes you look ignorant, you feel what im saying?

It makes you look ignorant on both so called sides. Whether you like the movie or you didn't. It's those types of approaches that create problems on these boards.

 

[GreenKToo]

We need some real freaking news, so when can either look forward to the sequel or to a J.L. film.

 

[Motown Marvel]

anyone who thinks its okay to use namecalling when discussing a movie is a *****e bag.

 

[manofsteel4life]

We need some real freaking news, so when can either look forward to the sequel or to a J.L. film.

i feel ya bud

 

[manofsteel4life]

It makes you look ignorant on both so called sides. Whether you like the movie or you didn't. It's those types of approaches that create problems on these boards.

i understand, but name calling and bashing is wrong either way you look at it....i know that is someone's opinion, but after all this time you cant have anything logical to say?....that's what creates problems....how you say it, not what you say

 

[GreenKToo]

Folks that namecall on the net arent interested in seriously discussing anything. They are fishing, and i'm not biteing.

 

[Showtime]

i understand, but name calling and bashing is wrong either way you look at it....i know that is someone's opinion, but after all this time you cant have anything logical to say?....that's what creates problems....how you say it, not what you say

You can't try to paint one side as worse than the other, it doesn't matter how you look at it. It's hypocritical. You sound so jaded. It's how you say it, not what you say, ON BOTH "SIDES". Not just on the "side" that doesn't like Superman Returns, the side that doesn't agree with you.

 

[manofsteel4life]

You can't try to paint one side as worse than the other, it doesn't matter how you look at it. It's hypocritical. You sound so jaded. It's how you say it, not what you say, ON BOTH "SIDES". Not just on the "side" that doesn't like Superman Returns, the side that doesn't agree with you.

you misunderstanded me, i never said it was ok to bash or call names on either side, that's the whole point of me saying it's how you say it.....for instance if someone says....i love SR..its the greatest movie ever.....that's ignorant..wouldnt you agree?....but if that person came and said..i thought that SR was a great movie in my eyes, because.... you see the diference?

 

[Showtime]

you misunderstanded me, i never said it was ok to bash or call names on either side, that's the whole point of me saying it's how you say it.....for instance if someone says....i love SR..its the greatest movie ever.....that's ignorant..wouldnt you agree?....but if that person came and said..i thought that SR was a great movie in my eyes, because.... you see the diference?

I can see the difference, but some don't see the difference and believe as long as they are praising the movie it is fine. Or on the other side, as long as they are ripping on the movie it is fine. See what I am saying?

 

[Qwerty©]

I didn't say you did, but it's a two way street. See below for what I mean by that. So let's not try and turn this around and act as if I was somehow insulting you.

But I was insulted.

You have just made my point, therein your above post lies the hypocrisy. You are saying you don't praise the movie for a year, but in your retorts to those who dislike the movie that is exactly what you are doing. That isn't where you become a hypocrite though, the question is, do you have a problem with those who choose to praise the movie with the same ferocious attitude as those who dislike it do? You are saying you don't praise it and to check your post history, but if I check that same history I can guarantee you aren't saying anything to those posters who like the movie and are scratching and clawing at every turn.

I have criticised someone for being too positive before, and may I ask who here is that positive? (Other than Naite22, who isn't worth arguing about)

 

[superbaby]

Originally Posted by Justice Bringer View Post
I think all the cutscenes fit. Singer shot it at as a 3 hour film; he was initially told from WB that 3 hours was fine.

It was only last minute where he was forced to cut it down to 2h 30...

he was forced??? where do you get that???
i thought singer had said it clearly that it was his own decision (after getting opinion from his cronies after the viewing) and the theatricality cut is the director cut.

 

[superbaby]

Originally Posted by Justice Bringer View Post
I think all the cutscenes fit. Singer shot it at as a 3 hour film; he was initially told from WB that 3 hours was fine.

It was only last minute where he was forced to cut it down to 2h 30...

he was forced??? where do you get that???
i thought singer had said it clearly that it was his own decision (after getting opinion from his cronies after the viewing) and the theatrical cut is the director cut.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I think all the cutscenes fit. Singer shot it at as a 3 hour film; he was initially told from WB that 3 hours was fine.

It was only last minute where he was forced to cut it down to 2h 30...

Not true! Singer had complete control over this project and he decided what the final length of the movie would be.

Singer: No, not at all. I don't desire to have exceedingly long movies. I've never made exceedingly long movies. The first X-Men was 80 minutes or something like that. What happened was, I had this cut and it was time to now sit with an audience and it's what I call a friends and family screening where a number of people sit there, and as I'm watching it, I looked at certain things in it and felt certain things and one of those was really tough because it was a return-to-Krypton sequence, a whole sequence in space, very expensive, elaborate sequence but in the context of this movie, it just didn't it just wasn't necessary and it wasn't important and afterwards it could live in some other dimension, somewhere we could show it.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/super4.php

 

[Showtime]

But I was insulted.
I have criticised someone for being too positive before, and may I ask who here is that positive? (Other than Naite22, who isn't worth arguing about)

You were insulted because I was telling the truth? That you allow arguing and name calling on one side and only stand up to attack the other? I don't know what to tell you then.

So you critized somebody for being positive before...so one situation. I see. So its definately even and you're not hypocritical. You can ask who is that positive but I shouldn't have to tell you. I don't have to tell you who the people are that you consider negative, why do I have to list the other so called side?

It's not that you do what you do, its obvious to everybody on the boards except you for some reason. It's the fact that you act as if you are somehow even keeled and open to people's opinions.

 

[Showtime]

Not true! Singer had complete control over this project and he decided what the final length of the movie would be.

Singer: No, not at all. I don't desire to have exceedingly long movies. I've never made exceedingly long movies. The first X-Men was 80 minutes or something like that. What happened was, I had this cut and it was time to now sit with an audience and it's what I call a friends and family screening where a number of people sit there, and as I'm watching it, I looked at certain things in it and felt certain things and one of those was really tough because it was a return-to-Krypton sequence, a whole sequence in space, very expensive, elaborate sequence but in the context of this movie, it just didn't it just wasn't necessary and it wasn't important and afterwards it could live in some other dimension, somewhere we could show it.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/super4.php

A director never to rarely has complete control over a project, Singer no way had complete control. Whether the decision to edit the film as he did was his complete call or WB had something to do with it can be debated. Singer isn't going to throw WB under the bus unless he is planning not to work with them again, so the mandate could have come from WB, it wouldn't have been the first time. That being said, he took responsibility, so I blame him 100% for the editing which was completely ridiculous.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

A director never to rarely has complete control over a project, Singer no way had complete control. Whether the decision to edit the film as he did was his complete call or WB had something to do with it can be debated. Singer isn't going to throw WB under the bus unless he is planning not to work with them again, so the mandate could have come from WB, it wouldn't have been the first time. That being said, he took responsibility, so I blame him 100% for the editing which was completely ridiculous.

Ok, that's fair. But you have to admit, WB gave him a hell of a lot of control on this project, probably more than they would typically give a director. And if a director says it was his choice to cut down a film, then that is the story that I will go with.

 

[Showtime]

Ok, that's fair. But you have to admit, WB gave him a hell of a lot of control on this project, probably more than they would typically give a director. And if a director says it was his choice to cut down a film, then that is the story that I will go with.

It depends what you mean by control. If you're saying that WB didn't know what he was up to in regards to spending, plotline, set pieces and so on; then that is far from the truth.

I agree with you that the only thing we can go by is that Singer has said he cut the film and it was his call. We have nothing else to go by and I am not going to create conspiracy theories. Singer botched the editing.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

It depends what you mean by control. If you're saying that WB didn't know what he was up to in regards to spending, plotline, set pieces and so on; then that is far from the truth.

I meant control in terms of not having to insert any giant spiders into the story, that sort of thing. t: But seriously, I'm pretty sure Singer and his two writers were allowed to run with whatever story they had in mind. WB trusted these guys to deliver something huge, especially after the success of X2. They had creative freedom. They had a story approved that gave Superman a son and where didn't he fight one villain for christ's sake!

 

[Showtime]

I meant control in terms of not having to insert any giant spiders into the story, that sort of thing. t: But seriously, I'm pretty sure Singer and his two writers were allowed to run with whatever story they had in mind. WB trusted these guys to deliver something huge, especially after the success of X2. They had creative freedom. They had a story approved that gave Superman a son and where didn't he fight one villain for christ's sake!

Singer pitched a 30 page treatment to WB that was greenlit which included these elements and WB ate it up. He also had them reading the 1st draft and subsequent drafts of the script as well as viewing the cuts of the movie. WB kept signging checks and nodding their heads. All I am saying is that if people want to rip on Singer, just remember who was OKing this entire thing.

 

[dark_b]

Not true! Singer had complete control over this project and he decided what the final length of the movie would be.

Singer: No, not at all. I don't desire to have exceedingly long movies. I've never made exceedingly long movies. The first X-Men was 80 minutes or something like that. What happened was, I had this cut and it was time to now sit with an audience and it's what I call a friends and family screening where a number of people sit there, and as I'm watching it, I looked at certain things in it and felt certain things and one of those was really tough because it was a return-to-Krypton sequence, a whole sequence in space, very expensive, elaborate sequence but in the context of this movie, it just didn't it just wasn't necessary and it wasn't important and afterwards it could live in some other dimension, somewhere we could show it.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/super4.php

you think singer will speak about how WB forced him to delete footage from the movie?

have you ever saw a director bashing the studio ? maybe after some years but not when he is going to do a sequel.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Singer pitched a 30 page treatment to WB that was greenlit which included these elements and WB ate it up. He also had them reading the 1st draft and subsequent drafts of the script as well as viewing the cuts of the movie. WB kept signging checks and nodding their heads. All I am saying is that if people want to rip on Singer, just remember who was OKing this entire thing.

I completely agree with you. I blame both Singer and WB for what I didn't like in SR.

you think singer will speak about how WB forced him to delete footage from the movie?

have you ever saw a director bashing the studio ? maybe after some years but not when he is going to do a sequel.

Ok, so then we are just supposed to believe everytime a director says he decided to cut out a scene for whatever reason, it wasn't his choice but the studio's???

Why can't some things just be as simple as the director himself decided to cut a scene. Showtime said it with this "I agree with you that the only thing we can go by is that Singer has said he cut the film and it was his call. We have nothing else to go by and I am not going to create conspiracy theories. Singer botched the editing.", which I totally agree with.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Those people have no guns against their heads so they're forced to buy it and watch it right?



Now I get it.

But can't you post some specific emoticons so we can differentiate what is your serious criticism and what is a ... ehm... "joke"?



Sure man. Choices are, to use time to keep loving what you love or keep hating what you hate. Is what we dooooo that defines us.

Are you going to ever write anything worthwhile? I know you aren't going to do it but could you do me a favor and stop responding to my post with those pathetic hit and run jabs? Or how about you stop responding to my posts period?

 

[El Payaso]

Are you going to ever write anything worthwhile? I know you aren't going to do it but could you do me a favor and stop responding to my post with those pathetic hit and run jabs? Or how about you stop responding to my posts period?

Mh. For a man of jokes you don't show too much humour.