Superman Returns Why Don't Some Superman Fans Like Superman Returns?

[Angeloz]

Yeah. It was so fine for the defeat of the main villian, he ran out of gas and was stranded on an island that looked like a pork chop with no coconuts and a little dog. Oh yeah it was pure cinematic gold.

Well it means they avoid the need for him to escape prison again like say in "Superman 2". Or even offscreen with "Superman Returns". Just a thought.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

I thought this thread was supposed to be the place to put Criticisms about the movie, not say, "hey I liked it".
There are plenty of threads for that.

Unless we want to make an official thread labeled "negatives only thread", and "positives only thread".
I figured this thread was to be the former.

When we try to mingle the voices that liked and disliked it, we just get fan war threads clutering the board.

Maybe a MOD will make two Official Threads with rules of "posting only what you liked", and another with rules of "posting only what you did Not like", and make them sticky threads.

This way we don’t have to have hate or like in all of the other threads, and fans arguing over how horrible/great the movie was.

It is a stupid phenomenon here. Whenever there is a threat whose intentions are for those who didn't like it to post negative comments about the movie, the people who like it feel the need to invade it and post their rhetoric. There have been numerous threads like this where they did this. Even when there was a sticky at the top stating "for bad comments only" or "if you like the movie, you are not to be here. Go to your thread" They did little kindegarten tricks like pretending not to know the certain words of the english language that comprised teh stickyes. When the mods stated "only for those who hate the movie" or "hate the suit" they would come in and say "Well I hate the fact that there is a hate thread so I can post in here" No matter how many times the mods repeatedly warned and banned them, they still do it. It is like their lives are ruined by people hating the film, or pieces of it, so they feel compelled to not follow the rules and defend it. Then, when all else failed, they would come in and continue to casuse arguements in the threads purposely knowing that the mods would get sick of the fighting and close the thread down. I acutally IM'ed a guy who did it to one thread and he said "he did it on purpose. He knew if he made a big stink that the mods would shut it down. And he was working in concert with other SR likers who pretended they were inncoent. Just get used to it. They wont follow the rules. You cant reason with them. They wont go away. They don't listen. They don't care. And they are the first ones to whine when you do what they did. Hell some of them came out and stated that this board should be censored and only for those who like SR. That is really how many of them feel. I am sick of it because they don't listen anyway, and just play stupid when you show them what they are doing. I mean they almost literally do the "define sexual relations" or "define it" type of thing. Best thing you can do is just put them on your ignore list so you don't see it. Also, contact Lightning Strikes. He is a mod that I have had a talk with and he is sick of this crap too and he will start handing out temporary bans to those violators. He wants a fair board, and he is sick of this thread hijacking."

The two threads thing didn't work. We stayed out of their thread. The continually violated ours. And then, sick of it, certian posters who didn't like the movie started violating their thread, and then they cried holy murder on us. In fact, those who violated our thread were the loudest to protest the haters violating theirs. They really operate, although they will deny it, on do as I say and not as I do theory.

 

[Super Kal]

besides, I prefer debating why I dislike SR so much... gives me something to do while I wait for the sequel.

 

[buggs0268]

besides, I prefer debating why I dislike SR so much... gives me something to do while I wait for the sequel.

Kakarot, you can confirm what I posted above. Remember trying to keep them out of the "I hate thread" and the BS they did there. Remember them playing stupid. Remember when I confronted the guy who did that crap to get the "hate thread" closed. And then I posted what he said to me in IM.

They are doing this on purpose. And I got in good with a few people who used to be a Singer supporter before the movie came out and hated it after. They let me in on the plans made in IM to hijack threads in order to shut them down and then play stupid about doing it.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Kakarot, you can confirm what I posted above. Remember trying to keep them out of the "I hate thread" and the BS they did there. Remember them playing stupid. Remember when I confronted the guy who did that crap to get the "hate thread" closed. And then I posted what he said to me in IM.

They are doing this on purpose. And I got in good with a few people who used to be a Singer supporter before the movie came out and hated it after. They let me in on the plans made in IM to hijack threads in order to shut them down and then play stupid about doing it.

That is some rotten S***. How very super of them.

Are there any boards where it it safe to discuss what we did not like about the movie without it getting hijacked?

ANother poster mentioned that there are sites devoted to the subject.

Could you PM me some links?

 

[buggs0268]

There are but they have also followed there too. We used to have a guy named venom who had nothing to do all day but hijack threads that were anti anything on SR all over the net. Just stay here and ignore them. Seriously, place them on your ignore list. It is a world of difference.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Well I say canon in "Superman Returns" is the film and you can use the other films particularly the first as background information. But all relevant information is in the film. People like it or not.

Angeloz

Problem for me (obviously not you and this is your taste) is that the vague connection, is used by fans of the movie to defend it from comic fans who say it s***s on the modern source material.

They will say, "when did he have sex with her?" SR fans will say, "duh you IDIOT, in Superman II, when he lost his powers from red-solar chamber."

Or the "campy Lex", response is "well, Hackman’s Lex was like that, and this is a sequel."

So in that instance they use the vague history to defend it by claiming it is more of a direct sequel.

When people say things like, "why is his suit so different?", "or Donners superman would never ditch and not tell anyone for 5 years, that Superman was responsible" etc…, the SR fans then say "it is only vaguely a sequel".

OOOOKAY, I see now, it is a sequel when it is convenient to defense for it, but when it being a sequel is a hindrance because it tacks on the inconsistencies of the Donner films, then it is not convenient excuse for the problems and is less of a Sequel. It is NOT a sequel when that needs to be used as a defense.

So the whole Vagueness of the being or not-being a Sequel, being conveniently placed, so that fans of the movie can make defenses for it, just makes me think; this movie was designed for excuses to be made on its behalf.

All of the defenses that come up, at least to me, look like excuses. Fans can come up with an excuse for everything he does out of character in this movie. I hated far more things about the move than I mentioned in my post, those were just a few that stood out, but the thing is, fans could make a numbered excuse list for everything I did not like about it.

They can make all the numbered lists they want. I will like the movie even less. I am a military guy, I hate excuses, and I see them for what they really are.

If he wanted to make a sequel, then make is clearly so, or make a re-boot all together, because for me making it both is the same as making it neither. SR just becomes its own thing, and does not mesh well with either the Donner films, or the modern Superman/Action comics Comic book, yet has a built in defense mechanism, called the excuse.

There are but they have also followed there too. We used to have a guy named venom who had nothing to do all day but hijack threads that were anti anything on SR all over the net. Just stay here and ignore them. Seriously, place them on your ignore list. It is a world of difference.

I think I will do that.

 

[El Payaso]

should I remind you that he made a promise to Miss Teschmacher to go after the Hackensack one first. In a deleted scene, he caught up to it in front of it and tried to catch it very quickly. The missle had the new "low level guidance" on it. So it just went around Superman. He then had to chase it while it was evading him because of the 'Low level guidance" thing which was constantly sensing him and making banks to evade him. When he got it into space, the second missle hit California.

Oh, a deleted scene. Like those which if removed from the film means that never happened. Interesting tidbit though.

Now, let's say it did happen. Can the missile surround Earth several times per second? Because if it can't, then Superman is still able to catch the missile.

Sorry, even if I accept that happened - even when it didn't - it still doesn't explain it.

Also, when he turned back time, he was in a fit of rage over Lois dying so he was using all he had to go back that fast.

And that's the point. When it is about millions of innocent people, Superman doesn't make his best effort. When it is about his girl... everything is possible for him. Even going against Jor-El.

See where what some people call 'selfishness' (I call it 'human weakness' or 'fallibility' if you like) in Superman came from? It didn't start with SR. And since SR is based in Donner's vision, it matches.

Still doesn't change the fact that it is established through two pieces of dialog delivered by two of the movies main characters that it took him thousands of years to reach earth. Since it is in SR's vague history, then it has to be acknowledged as the films history.

I know, I haven't said it's not a plothole. I say it as happened all throughout the first two movies and didn't ruin anything for anyone. I don't see your posts complaining about the exact same kind of plotholes in the Miscelanous movies board. Consistency.

 

[superbaby]

Problem for me (obviously not you and this is your taste) is that the vague connection, is used by fans of the movie to defend it from comic fans who say it s***s on the modern source material.

They will say, "when did he have sex with her?" SR fans will say, "duh you IDIOT, in Superman II, when he lost his powers from red-solar chamber."

Or the "campy Lex", response is "well, Hackman’s Lex was like that, and this is a sequel."

So in that instance they use the vague history to defend it by claiming it is more of a direct sequel.

When people say things like, "why is his suit so different?", "or Donners superman would never ditch and not tell anyone for 5 years, that Superman was responsible" etc…, the SR fans then say "it is only vaguely a sequel".

OOOOKAY, I see now, it is a sequel when it is convenient to defense for it, but when it being a sequel is a hindrance because it tacks on the inconsistencies of the Donner films, then it is not convenient excuse for the problems and is less of a Sequel. It is NOT a sequel when that needs to be used as a defense.

So the whole Vagueness of the being or not-being a Sequel, being conveniently placed, so that fans of the movie can make defenses for it, just makes me think; this movie was designed for excuses to be made on its behalf.

All of the defenses that come up, at least to me, look like excuses. Fans can come up with an excuse for everything he does out of character in this movie. I hated far more things about the move than I mentioned in my post, those were just a few that stood out, but the thing is, fans could make a numbered excuse list for everything I did not like about it.

They can make all the numbered lists they want. I will like the movie even less. I am a military guy, I hate excuses, and I see them for what they really are.

If he wanted to make a sequel, then make is clearly so, or make a re-boot all together, because for me making it both is the same as making it neither. SR just becomes its own thing, and does not mesh well with either the Donner films, or the modern Superman/Action comics Comic book, yet has a built in defense mechanism, called the excuse.



I think I will do that.

well, that's the application of singer's vague connection. whether you like it or not. fortunately / unfortunately, some superman fans just buy it.

 

[buggs0268]

Oh, a deleted scene. Like those which if removed from the film means that never happened. Interesting tidbit though.

Now, let's say it did happen. Can the missile surround Earth several times per second? Because if it can't, then Superman is still able to catch the missile.

Sorry, even if I accept that happened - even when it didn't - it still doesn't explain it.



And that's the point. When it is about millions of innocent people, Superman doesn't make his best effort. When it is about his girl... everything is possible for him. Even going against Jor-El.

See where what some people call 'selfishness' (I call it 'human weakness' or 'fallibility' if you like) in Superman came from? It didn't start with SR. And since SR is based in Donner's vision, it matches.



I know, I haven't said it's not a plothole. I say it as happened all throughout the first two movies and didn't ruin anything for anyone. I don't see your posts complaining about the exact same kind of plotholes in the Miscelanous movies board. Consistency.

Dude. The fact is that that scene was not only written into the script, but it was filmed and only edited out for time. But the thing is that they did think of it and have it in the thing. Singer either didn't think or didn't care that the 5 year trip there and back violated the theory or relativity, and the trip timeline stated in the movies that it is a sequel too. That is the difference. Shoddy screen writing and execution as opposed to thought out screen writing and execution.

 

[Angeloz]

Dude. The fact is that that scene was not only written into the script, but it was filmed and only edited out for time. But the thing is that they did think of it and have it in the thing. Singer either didn't think or didn't care that the 5 year trip there and back violated the theory or relativity, and the trip timeline stated in the movies that it is a sequel too. That is the difference. Shoddy screen writing and execution as opposed to thought out screen writing and execution.

So I guess Star Wars is crappy too when it comes to space travel and Star Trek too. Plus any film that involves faster-than-light travel. I like how (though you didn't say it) supposedly it's only people that like it use excuses to defend it. When I think those that don't do exactly the same thing when they probably accept it (space travel) in any other film. So have double standards. I liked the film and you didn't - which is fine - but using supposed science as the reason is an excuse as one person put it. 'Cos according to the film it took 6 years to get to and come back from Krypton. That's the rules of that universe. As stated Kryptonians are thousands of years ahead of us and they found a way to do this (in the story). Rejecting it is ridiculous. You either accept faster-than-light travel or not. It's fiction that has a man that flies. I guess that should be rejected too as disobeying the current laws of physics.

Angeloz

 

[Qwerty©]

There are but they have also followed there too. We used to have a guy named venom who had nothing to do all day but hijack threads that were anti anything on SR all over the net. Just stay here and ignore them. Seriously, place them on your ignore list. It is a world of difference.

Yeah, that 'guy' died. Show a little respect please.

 

[El Payaso]

Dude. The fact is that that scene was not only written into the script, but it was filmed and only edited out for time. But the thing is that they did think of it and have it in the thing. Singer either didn't think or didn't care that the 5 year trip there and back violated the theory or relativity, and the trip timeline stated in the movies that it is a sequel too. That is the difference. Shoddy screen writing and execution as opposed to thought out screen writing and execution.

So that was cut out from STM? Then it never happened.

For that matter, maybe Singer thought of an explanation (maybe Superman spaceship being able to break some rules) but then he cut that out. Fact is, those things didn't happen neither in STM or SR.

Then once again, even if that scene would have been in STM, if Superman could surround Earth several times per second, the evasive missile could have been reached faster than it could have escaped.

No matter how you look at it, still a plothole. Or the way you call it 'shoddy screen writing and execution' in STM too.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Problem for me (obviously not you and this is your taste) is that the vague connection, is used by fans of the movie to defend it from comic fans who say it s***s on the modern source material.

They will say, "when did he have sex with her?" SR fans will say, "duh you IDIOT, in Superman II, when he lost his powers from red-solar chamber."

Or the "campy Lex", response is "well, Hackman’s Lex was like that, and this is a sequel."

So in that instance they use the vague history to defend it by claiming it is more of a direct sequel.

When people say things like, "why is his suit so different?", "or Donners superman would never ditch and not tell anyone for 5 years, that Superman was responsible" etc…, the SR fans then say "it is only vaguely a sequel".

OOOOKAY, I see now, it is a sequel when it is convenient to defense for it, but when it being a sequel is a hindrance because it tacks on the inconsistencies of the Donner films, then it is not convenient excuse for the problems and is less of a Sequel. It is NOT a sequel when that needs to be used as a defense.

So the whole Vagueness of the being or not-being a Sequel, being conveniently placed, so that fans of the movie can make defenses for it, just makes me think; this movie was designed for excuses to be made on its behalf.

All of the defenses that come up, at least to me, look like excuses. Fans can come up with an excuse for everything he does out of character in this movie. I hated far more things about the move than I mentioned in my post, those were just a few that stood out, but the thing is, fans could make a numbered excuse list for everything I did not like about it.

They can make all the numbered lists they want. I will like the movie even less. I am a military guy, I hate excuses, and I see them for what they really are.

If he wanted to make a sequel, then make is clearly so, or make a re-boot all together, because for me making it both is the same as making it neither. SR just becomes its own thing, and does not mesh well with either the Donner films, or the modern Superman/Action comics Comic book, yet has a built in defense mechanism, called the excuse.



I think I will do that.

You are correct Mike.

 

[Qwerty©]

^

Like anybody can be correct around here..

 

[buggs0268]

So I guess Star Wars is crappy too when it comes to space travel and Star Trek too. Plus any film that involves faster-than-light travel. I like how (though you didn't say it) supposedly it's only people that like it use excuses to defend it. When I think those that don't do exactly the same thing when they probably accept it (space travel) in any other film. So have double standards. I liked the film and you didn't - which is fine - but using supposed science as the reason is an excuse as one person put it. 'Cos according to the film it took 6 years to get to and come back from Krypton. That's the rules of that universe. As stated Kryptonians are thousands of years ahead of us and they found a way to do this (in the story). Rejecting it is ridiculous. You either accept faster-than-light travel or not. It's fiction that has a man that flies. I guess that should be rejected too as disobeying the current laws of physics.

Angeloz

Okay. Again for those not paying attention. His ship in SR is based on the same technology that the ship his father built to bring him to earth is based on. So you can confidently assume they are going the same speed. Since it took the ship that brought him here thousands of our years (though through the theory of relativity he only aged three years) then the ship he made to go back there and come back here goes the same speed. Same technology. Again, straight from the movie-

Jor-El (in the fortress, to 18 year old Clark): By now you have reached your 18th year, as it is measured on earth. By that reckoning, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years.

So it would have taken him double what it took him to get here as a kid (double the distance=go there and come back here) So it would have taken him double the thousands of years stated by Jor El in the fortress in STM to go there and come here. What is so damn hard for you guys to understand on this. It is stated in the movie it took him thousands of years to get here. It is the laws of physics. If they had lightspeed capability, then his Jor el would have put it in the baby ship to for him to get here faster. I really don't understand what is so hard about this for you guys to understand. Following the established rules set up in the films, it takes him thousdands of years to go there and come back. Now you are just arguing to argue now.

 

[buggs0268]

So that was cut out from STM? Then it never happened.

For that matter, maybe Singer thought of an explanation (maybe Superman spaceship being able to break some rules) but then he cut that out. Fact is, those things didn't happen neither in STM or SR.

Then once again, even if that scene would have been in STM, if Superman could surround Earth several times per second, the evasive missile could have been reached faster than it could have escaped.

No matter how you look at it, still a plothole. Or the way you call it 'shoddy screen writing and execution' in STM too.

No it isn't. The missle had a proximity evading guidance system in it. So it wasn't jsut going in a straightline, but able to evade anything getting in close proximity. So it wasn't just going in a straight line, but moving around to evade him. When he flew back in time, he was pissed and so he used all the power he had, probably the first time he had done it, so obviously he was going faster. god, this is getting rediculous. You guys will argue anything to defend SR.

 

[Qwerty©]

Now you are just arguing to argue now.

t:

 

[Qwerty©]

You guys will argue anything to defend SR.

And you will argue anything to bash it.

 

[buggs0268]

So that was cut out from STM? Then it never happened.

For that matter, maybe Singer thought of an explanation (maybe Superman spaceship being able to break some rules) but then he cut that out. Fact is, those things didn't happen neither in STM or SR.

Then once again, even if that scene would have been in STM, if Superman could surround Earth several times per second, the evasive missile could have been reached faster than it could have escaped.

No matter how you look at it, still a plothole. Or the way you call it 'shoddy screen writing and execution' in STM too.

No it isn't. The missle had a proximity evading guidance system in it called the "b-28 low level detection avoidance system". That is from a line of dialog in the movie. So it wasn't jsut going in a straightline, but able to evade anything getting in close proximity. So it wasn't just going in a straight line, but moving around to evade him. When he flew back in time, he was pissed and so he used all the power he had, probably the first time he had done it, so obviously he was going faster. god, this is getting rediculous. You guys will argue anything to defend SR.

Your arguing about one being him pushing his powers as far as they could go. The other is something that he can't change. He is stuck with the technology he is givien. And if they had light speed capability, then his dad would have put it on his baby ship too. So the ship he made can only go as fast as the one that brought him to earth. And it is established, established via dialog that it took him thousands of years to reach earth. It is called "theory of relativity".

 

[Qwerty©]

You are right, buggs.

The question is how should this affect my enjoyment of SR, at all? And does this really make SR a bad movie if it doesn't follow every aspect of a 30 year old movie?

 

[Super Kal]

no... it just makes the movie more confusing and more riddled with plot holes.

 

[Qwerty©]

no... it just makes the movie more confusing and more riddled with plot holes.

It's a pretty insignificant plot hole, that doesn't really affect my enjoyment.

 

[Super Kal]

it does if you're a sci-fi geek like me...

 

[Qwerty©]

it does if you're a sci-fi geek like me...

I'm a sci-fi geek.

Science Fiction is not exactly a genre I would call free from plot holes..