it is an insult to him because it's his opinion... and just because he doesn't think like you do doesn't give you the right to resort to name calling... and if he's insulted you in the past, report him... don't sink to his level and make yourself look bad in the process.
This sounds like for you it was a big plus for SR that the last two Superman movies (and those 90s Batman flicks) were big pieces of crap. Than SR came along, something you not only waited for for a long time, but also something that was much more serious. Of course, this is all true, but to me, how good or bad other Superman films were, has nothing to do with how good or bad SR was. And you don't need to explain me why you liked SR, cause i didn't say you or every SR fan just liked it because it finally was a new Superman film. But it still appears to me that with a lot of people, this is the case...
If there are points that always get mentioned by so many fans, when the question comes up, what the movie got wrong, i guess it's save to say that the biggest part of the fandom didn't like this stuff and the director should try to handle it differently, if he gets another shot.
Never said that nothing he did was what Superman would do. But that alone dosn't make the portrayal right. There where a lot of things he did in that movie, about which many people thought, the character they know from the comics would never do. Like stalking women or having noncommittal sex with Lois and than just leaving her and the planet, with the possibilty that she could be pregnant. Besides, what i actually meant was that IMO the right portrayal of the supporting cast is just as important for a good Superman movie than the portrayal of the hero himself. And characters like Luthor or Lois were IMO handled even wronger than Superman himself...
This is true. But there are things that Superman, cause of what he stands for, would just never do. I mean, you can find comics where he kills people, but i think we all agree that THE iconic version of Superman, that should be used for a movie, would never do that.
Singer based the way he portrayed the Superman characters and the Superman world on the old Donner movies and than gave it his own edge, but didn't really do anything from the current comics. Seriously, Singer was supposed to do a modern Superman movie, but he just used a movie from 30 years ago, ignored the last 20 years of comi book history and combined that with his own vision. Would you want to see someone do a a somewhat sequel to Batman and Batman Retruns, that's in the style of this movies? I surley wouldn't and i'm a big fan of these movies.
). So why dosn't she think like "why the hell do i have a superkid?"? Questions over questions, thanks to that genious "vague history" idea...And the amnesia kiss was there, or why didn't Lois remeber that Clark is Superman? What's funny about that is that that would mean she also shouldn't remeber that she had sex with Superman (cause Donner showed us that Superman emerges the memory of women after he slept with them
Okay, that's you. And again, i've never said everyone who likes SR just likes it because it was a new Superman movie.
Yeah, but that aren't the things people mention all the time. I'm not saying they should change everything everyone on a message board ever critized, but the things that always come up, when it comes to the mistakes Singer made with SR.
Since he has a kid, the story implies that they've had (unsave) sex, dosn't it? And than he left the planet...
Sure looked like stalking to me.
That film is 30 years old and Luthor was a stupid, clichedriven bad guy there, while they've added a lot of deph to the character in the comics in the last 20 years, which got ignored. Did you really like that? And even through they decided to make the movie a sequel to those old Donner movies they could sill have portrayed the character in a less onedimensional and stupid way, if they would've know anything about his comic book history.
Like her or not, her characterization simpley had nothing to do with the way she is in the comics.
Have i said that?
At least the seventies version of the costume represented the costume of the comics, while the SR one represented... a diving suit maybe?
"Our movie sets in after the events of Superman II, but some events that happend before our movie aren't like they were in Superman II..." yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense.Well that's interpretation. Because it's not 100% known what happened. Of course it drives some people nuts too. 'Cos what if there was something different from "Superman II"? Although I'll admit I like the tragedy of that film even if I disagree with certain aspects of it. Like it being forbidden for him to have both a relationship and his powers. I liked that development in the comics and hope it comes about in the films. Although I prefer him with Batman but not officially as they'd probably screw it up.
I used to look up to SupermanOkay, that's you. And again, i've never said everyone who likes SR just likes it because it was a new Superman movie.
Yeah, but that aren't the things people mention all the time. I'm not saying they should change everything everyone on a message board ever critized, but the things that always come up, when it comes to the mistakes Singer made with SR.
Since he has a kid, the story implies that they've had (unsave) sex, dosn't it? And than he left the planet...
Sure looked like stalking to me.
That film is 30 years old and Luthor was a stupid, clichedriven bad guy there, while they've added a lot of deph to the character in the comics in the last 20 years, which got ignored. Did you really like that? And even through they decided to make the movie a sequel to those old Donner movies they could sill have portrayed the character in a less onedimensional and stupid way, if they would've know anything about his comic book history.
Like her or not, her characterization simpley had nothing to do with the way she is in the comics.
Have i said that?
At least the seventies version of the costume represented the costume of the comics, while the SR one represented... a diving suit maybe?
"Our movie sets in after the events of Superman II, but some events that happend before our movie aren't like they were in Superman II..." yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense.
Btw, why do i feel that i have to justify my points for not liking Superman Returns? This Thread is here that people can state why they didn't like the movie, accept that. Do you see me come to threads where people can say why they liked the movie and ask them to explain their points, cause IMO they're wrong?
I now want unsafe sex.
I used to look up to Superman
But i didnt call him a name, nor did i say anything about his opinion, i said his theory about SR fans not being Superman fans but rather Singer fans was bullcrap, how is that insulting?
Yep that's why I say it's not a remake. Although I don't think I'd call it a direct sequel because of the differences including actors and time gap (plus other things). But you did mention that.
Angeloz
At least the seventies version of the costume represented the costume of the comics, while the SR one represented... a diving suit maybe?
"Our movie sets in after the events of Superman II, but some events that happend before our movie aren't like they were in Superman II..." yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense.
No, i didn't.
Yes, i think so.
I didn't generalise anything, i said from what i read, it a appears to me that that's the case with some or even a lot of people, not all of them. And i wasn't talking about people who liked the movie when they first saw it and than started to dislike it...
Yeah, but why? I was never talking about "universal agreements".
Speculating about the unsafe sex, but the sex still was there, which was the actual question.
I don't really care about what he did or didn't do in other tv-shows, cause that dosn't make his actions more right.
The problem wasn't that he was a criminal or whatever, the problem was how he was portrayed. The businessman can be a chliche, as well as the mad scientist can. But the thing is, both can be a lot more, like the comics showed. Sadly, in this movie it wasn't the case.
That dosn't matter, as long as there's a iconic version of the character and with Lois, this version represents a strong woman, not a skinny, young girly.
No, i didn't. Since you justified Singer's portrayl of the characters with the inconsistence of the comics, i said you could even find comic books were Superman kills, but that still wouldn't justify/make it right if you'd let him do that in a modern movie.
The clothing of the old Superman movies dosn't really represent seventies fashion. It was meant to came off timeless, just like in Superman Returns, which surely dosn't represent current fashing. And to me, the cloth looked really weird on the actors, but that's not something i cared about...
Do we really have to debate about what a bad idea the whole somewhat sequel crap was? I mean, we could, but i'm not really interested in it, cause the overall reacton to it kinda speaks for itself.
Since i never said you or anyone else weren't a Superman fan, i still ask my self why you needed to clear that up, but whatever. My "assumptions" aren't assumptions, it's what i read from people's postings. Neither was i talking about you, nor about every SR fan and if you feel offended or a need to explain yourself, i can't help you. There a alot of real assumptions from SR fans about people who didn't like the movie in their "i love the movie so much" threads, but personally i don't feel any need to go there and justify anything, at least not as long as i see nothing else there as statements, that show me that they just don't undertsand what other people really are trying to say. Can we end this now and let this thread be used for what it's there for, please?
The first two films looked awfully like it had seventies fashion in it? And I do mean awful in both senses. Also what cloth(ing?) and what weirdness? You lost me there.
You want him blond?!?
Seriously I can understand that.
I'll admit to being tired (and don't feel like saying a lot). So I'll just say I didn't like your implications in your post and also was trying to personalise things to how I felt. I'm assuming at least you're willing to acknowledge I'm a Superman fan. But I really don't feel like going round and round on this.
Not in the film.
I'll acknowledge something happened before it.
I never said it did. But I'm saying it isn't stalking. One visit isn't stalking and again they could of done it differently. But instead I guess they showed he wasn't a paragon of perfection that people want him to be. Plus he's done more questionable things over the years. But really they showed he paid for that mistake. Let's just drop it 'cos I don't think we're going to change our perspective.
Luthor Jr?
He wasn't Nuclear Man at least (I'm tired and feeling silly).
She looked alright to me in the film. Now during publicity it might be different. Although Lois has usually been skinny except if they do an issue having her become overweight as a gimmick in the comics (I saw one written in the fifties I believe). But even actresses are human and have issues like other women. Now I like that you like certain characteristics however.
Actually I think we see it differently. You say he killed them. I say he failed to save them. Also that they could of saved themselves like Lex and Kitty did on the same landmass. If you want me to be more clear. I disagree that he killed them.
We don't have to debate it. We could but we don't need to.
Sure. I'm glad you say there is more than one type of Superman fan. And maybe you can see how generalisation isn't a friend of anyone. Either those that like the film nor those that don't. As I've said this started with a simple statement and went from there. Discussions happen on discussion boards (sometimes).
I'm sorry to hear that (sincerely).
But at least you have your sense of humour? Or has that been stolen by an amnesia kiss?
Angeloz
Well, i also don't like a lot of things that people post on this board or elsewhere, it happens.
If it makes you happy, i call it spying on her instead of stalking, which dosn't make it any better, but okay.
It wasn't only the look, she also acted way to soft and youthful for her role.
I'm NOT saying he killed anyboy in that movie, it was an EXAMPLE to show you that you can't use the inconsistence of the comics to justify anything, cause if you could you COULD also justify if he WOULD HAVE killed.
I didn't make any generalisation! I said that what i've read from a lot of peoples postings, makes me think that a big reason why some or a lot of the fans, who liked SR, liked the movie is simply that it was a new Superman flick. I only used other words to say that, cause i didn't know i'd have to choose my words so carefully, so you don't feel offened or tell me stuff about generalisation. IMO, what you do here is just nitpicking. If i'd weigh others words like that, i'd have nothing else to do than telling people, they should be more polite with how they're formulating things.
I used to look up to Superman
because you called his opinion bulls**t, and than in itself is insulting.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with defending your opinion... but you can defend your own opinion without insulting his opinion.
I can perfectly... people wanted to see a completely brand new start for Superman, and all Singer gave them was a vague copy of STM.
