Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Stogieman · Jun 29, 2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

You guys didn't read the comic much, did you?

Frank Miller should stay within his Sin City universe and leave Batman/Superman alone.

I believe Superman gained his flying abilities back in the late 30's. Anyone remember the Fleischer cartoons? I think Channel Frederator posted an episode a few weeks ago. You guys should check it out.

Chuckit · Jun 29, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Well, you tell me - what ARE his established powers? Considering the fact that he didn't fly or have X-Ray vision until the FIFTIES, you explain what his powers are.

Remember, he only LEPT from building to building in the early days. Superman evolves. I figured any REAL fan would have known that.

Yes, the Superman mythos was not established right at the beginning — he wasn't invincible then either. But the story as established in the late '40s and '50s is pretty much the canonical version.

RAILhead · Jun 29, 2006, 02:32 PM

The "argument'" must be qualified:

1. In a bare fist fight, Superman would win, of course because of his strength.
2. Batman is LOADS smarter, more clever, and more efficient at using his resources.

I think Bats would eventually wear down Supes, since Supes is really just a pansy. Bat's brains would beat Supe's strength in the long haul.

Gossamer · Jun 29, 2006, 02:32 PM

I have a VHS tape of some Superman cartoons where he battles the japanese.

starman · Jun 29, 2006, 02:32 PM

If you knew your history, you'd know that JERRY SIEGEL HIMSELF wrote a story about how Superman time traveled.

So there...

ort888 · Jun 29, 2006, 02:37 PM

I thought it was good not great.

The pacing was all fubared up. After the big climax, the movie puttered about for about 45 minutes. Lex Luthor's plot was pretty lame as well. I wasn't a big fan of Spacey's Lex either. I would have liked to see a cold calculating genious Lex, like on the cartoons. Not a wacky, quirky Lex as has already been played by Hack-mon.

I don't know, the movie looked awesome, and the action sequences played out incredibly well... there just wasn't enough of them. The airplane rescue scene is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time... too bad it happened 45 minutes in and was never topped. That's usually a bad sign.

lpkmckenna · Jun 29, 2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Not to go comic-nerd, but that's always been my problem with the Superman books: the villains are so stupid. I've always tried to get into the Supe comics, but I never can. Batman is more "believable," but I think DC falls short when compared to Marvel for villains.

Agreed. Expect for Lex Luthor, who is a great villain.

lpkmckenna · Jun 29, 2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by starman

If you knew your history, you'd know that JERRY SIEGEL HIMSELF wrote a story about how Superman time traveled.

So there...

If that's true: you win. Got a reference?

lpkmckenna · Jun 29, 2006, 02:56 PM

Ok, how about a "Superman and Batman" movie now, with both Routh and Christian Bale?

But who would be the villain? Who could go toe-to-toe with them?

starman · Jun 29, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

If that's true: you win. Got a reference?

http://home.aol.com/mg4273/superman.htm
I actually misremembered the plot, it was Luthor that went back in time. It doesn't matter because...

http://www.daytondailynews.com/life/...esuperman.html
F — FLIGHT: In the original comics, Superman could only jump one-eighth of a mile, but couldn't really fly until the 1940s. By the '50s, he could fly through space at faster-than-light speeds as well as travel through time.

lpkmckenna · Jun 29, 2006, 03:25 PM

It was still preposterous, of course.

starman · Jun 29, 2006, 03:28 PM

Why?

Cody Dawg · Jul 1, 2006, 04:45 AM

HA HA! I am vindicated!

For those of you who LAUGHED at me about Titanic being remade?

Cameron -- who delivered to exhibs their biggest hit of all time in "Titanic" -- has cut together a reel showing off what 11 films would look like in 3-D. Reel includes "Star Wars" and "King Kong" footage, "dimensionalized" as 3-D, along with clips from "Chicken Little" and "Robots."

If Cameron gets his way, his pics "Titanic," "Aliens" and "The Terminator" will come to life as 3-D projects, and he's already begun tests on "Titanic" as a 3-D feature.

Chuckit · Jul 1, 2006, 04:53 AM

That doesn't say anything about a remake…

Cody Dawg · 06:59 AM

What part of "If Cameron gets his way, his pic 'Titanic' will come to life as a 3-D project" don't you understand?

It's in Variety today.

So, those of you saying it would never be remade?

OwlBoy · Jul 1, 2006, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What part of "If Cameron gets his way, his pic 'Titanic' will come to life as a 3-D project" don't you understand?

It's in Variety today.

So, those of you saying it would never be remade?

Remake is different than updating and changing the movie.

I would not call what George Lucas did to the first 3 star wars movies Remakes.

Neither would one call adding 3D effects to old movies Remakes.

-Owl

starman · Jul 1, 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

HA HA! I am vindicated!

For those of you who LAUGHED at me about Titanic being remade?

That's not a remake.

xi_hyperon · Jul 1, 2006, 11:35 AM

Not a remake. Still laughing.

Chuckit · Jul 1, 2006, 12:28 PM

She also calls a sequel a "remake." I think perhaps she just uses the term more liberally than we do.

Eriamjh · Jul 3, 2006, 03:47 PM

Superman is a dick.
I guess he was back then.

I give the movie a 7 out of 10. Too long, too boring at times, not enough real action.

Spacey was good as Lex, but there was something missing. He wasn't "great" like Nicholson was as the Joker in Batman 1.

My theory about the boy is (highlight to read) that he has latent super powers, is immune to Kryptonite, possibly can be injured like a human, and is really just a hybrid of Krptonian and Human.

As long as the movies get better and not lamer, I welcome Superman back.

Chuckit · 04:10 PM

What Spacey was missing was anything cool to do at all. Lex got about as much attention in the plot as your average comic relief sidekick in an action movie. Nicholson in Batman was practically the star of the movie.

hyperb0le · Jul 3, 2006, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

My theory about the boy is (highlight to read) that he has latent super powers, is immune to Kryptonite, possibly can be injured like a human, and is really just a hybrid of Krptonian and Human.

As long as the movies get better and not lamer, I welcome Superman back.

Except: (highlight to read)

We know he's not completely immune to Kryptonite since he acted really uncomfortable when Lex was holding the Kryptonite near him. Maybe it just makes him nauseous or something instead of totally messing him up...

Stogieman · Jul 3, 2006, 06:07 PM

Don't quote the spoilers, you can totally read them.

lpkmckenna · Jul 4, 2006, 06:58 PM

Ok, I just saw Superman Returns again, this time in IMAX 3D at the Paramount Theatre in Toronto.

My advice: DON'T see Superman Returns at the IMAX.

With the exception of ONE SHOT, every scene rendered in 3D is ruined.

Remember those bright-red 3D reel viewers we all had as kids? Imagine that: layers of awkwardly misplaced objects fired at your eyes in varying degrees of focus. That means: the shorter and/or faster the shot, the less likely you find that one object that is in proper focus. Your eyes are literally overworked looking for a clear image.

Bad: the glasses you wear for the 3D parts suck out half the colour. It's like trying to watch a movie while wearing sunglasses.

Worse: all those shots of Lois being flung around the inside of the airplane are transformed into a blurred, unfocused swamp.

Unforgivable: the final shot of Superman smiling into the camera: completely out-of-focus. Grrrr.....

The only good render: Superman holding Lois' family while Lex's yacht drops back into the ocean. Looked awesome. Too bad the rest of the 3D parts look like dog****.

I'm so glad I saw this non-3D first. You should too.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 4, 2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Why?

Because time-travel as a plot device f*cks up any sense a plot might have from the start. You just open up a box of paradoxes and break down any suspension of disbelief required to watch a fantasy / science fiction flick.

All screenwriters / authors know (or at least should know*) that a story set in a fantasy universe has to have an even stricter ruleset than a story set in "the real world" for it to be believable to an audience.

* Here's looking at you JK Rowling.

starman · Jul 4, 2006, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Because time-travel as a plot device f*cks up any sense a plot might have from the start. You just open up a box of paradoxes and break down any suspension of disbelief required to watch a fantasy / science fiction flick.

All screenwriters / authors know (or at least should know*) that a story set in a fantasy universe has to have an even stricter ruleset than a story set in "the real world" for it to be believable to an audience.

* Here's looking at you JK Rowling.

Or....it could show how much he loved her. He broke the cardinal rule.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 4, 2006, 08:23 PM

Was that really a reply to my post? It didn't refer to anything I said at all.

Kevin · Jul 4, 2006, 08:25 PM

I saw it last week.

Meh, not as good as the original 80s Reeve versions.

This superman just came off too young.

And I had problems with some of the more lame plot twists.

Chuckit · Jul 4, 2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Because time-travel as a plot device f*cks up any sense a plot might have from the start. You just open up a box of paradoxes and break down any suspension of disbelief required to watch a fantasy / science fiction flick.

All screenwriters / authors know (or at least should know*) that a story set in a fantasy universe has to have an even stricter ruleset than a story set in "the real world" for it to be believable to an audience.

* Here's looking at you JK Rowling.

What's that about Rowling?

KeyLimePi · Jul 5, 2006, 07:26 AM

Saw it this weekend and you can add me to the list of the underwhelmed.

I've been a Superman fan since before I could read, and followed the comics pretty closely up through his death. This movie didn't seem too true to Superman universe I know.

wowway1 · Jul 5, 2006, 08:39 AM

I dunno folks, I agree with the comments around the fact that the plot was bad, climax was too early, etc...but I still enjoyed the heck out of it. Okay, so the ending 1/2 hour sucked big, and I still don't get how the new land didn't make him weak to the point where he couldn't walk, but I really liked the movie overall. I'd give it a 7-8/10. Hoping the sequel continues to build on all that was good in this one.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 5, 2006, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What's that about Rowling?

Read The Prizoner of Azkaban.

Eug Wanker · Jul 6, 2006, 12:21 AM

B.O.R.I.N.G.

I give it a

It does open up some interesting possibilities for sequels though, and not surprisingly, Routh's contract specifies 2 more movies (according to the movie mag at the theatre), although I'm not sure how binding that is, and what movies they'd be.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · 01:50 AM

My lord that is the biggest disappointment in a looong time. Am I supposed to feel SAD and BORED through-out an entire comic book movie?

Can anyone explain to me how that script was in any way interesting or original?

Put Batman begins on one screen and this superman crap on another and it is like light and day.

P.s. what tropical islands with coconuts are within helicopter distance of NY. I'd like to vacation there.

The Godfather · Jul 7, 2006, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Stogieman

I thought the movie provided plenty of humor. Jimmy Olsen alone had me laughing out loud almost every scene he was in. I loved the response Lois gave to Perry White after he told her to cover the Superman story. "Chief, I've already done Superman." Then boom... a quick shot of Clark & Jimmy trying their hardest to hold in their laughter.

I think this movie puts to rest the conundrum of whether Superman could hump Lois Lane without killing her.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 7, 2006, 08:02 AM

Can someone explain to me why such a dry, unspectacular movie cost $200 mil?

Also, when superman returns to earth in the beginning what is that meteor?

starman · Jul 7, 2006, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Can someone explain to me why such a dry, unspectacular movie cost $200 mil?

Also, when superman returns to earth in the beginning what is that meteor?

Maybe you should try paying attention to the movie next time.

Landos Mustache · Jul 7, 2006, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Maybe you should try paying attention to the movie next time.

Don't get all frigging high and mighty just because you like the movie and I didn't, oh and you know how superman spun the earth to turn back time.

I thought it sucked, I saw nothing in it that would cause a high price tag like that. Hold Batman begins to it which had a very strong look to it in a dark city. With all its sets and set dressings it looked way more expensive than brightly light Manhattan.

If the IMAX 3D is what brought the price up they should have cut it as it didn't look great and sometimes (like the interior of the plane) made things look worse.

I read the obsessive Director actually insisted business cards be printed for the ENTIRE Daily Planet staff be printed to make it authentic. Um ya, to bad we didn't get to see anyones cards but it is good all those people had them.

The movie was bad. The script was horrible. The original Superman was 100x better.

starman · Jul 7, 2006, 09:05 AM

LOL. You can't admit you didn't pay attention, can you?

Landos Mustache · Jul 7, 2006, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by starman

LOL. You can't admit you didn't pay attention, can you?

I don't think I took my eyes off the screen for a second. Well except when I yawned.

So tell me what was the big money pit when I wasn't "paying attention"?

The fact that a movie has to be watched closely to see what makes it so damn expensive says a lot in itself.

starman · Jul 7, 2006, 09:29 AM

The meteor was his spaceship. I thought that was obvious. You know, there was this long shot of it.

Landos Mustache · Jul 7, 2006, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by starman

The meteor was his spaceship. I thought that was obvious. You know, there was this long shot of it.

So you're saying that is what cost 200 mil? you still haven't answered that.

Why does superman need and have a spaceship when he can happily fly around in space?

I thought it was a ship like the one that he arrived in originally but I thought it was too stupid to be true.

Are you saying I am not geeky enough to "get" obvious things like flying around in crystal spaceships. I'll take that as a compliment

"Everything in Superman Returns feels like a retread, a has been, done there, did that. Never once in this film did I feel like I was watching a Superman for the new millennium. With a reported $200 million dollar budget, I wanted to be awed, to see new filmmaking techniques, or at the very least have some decent cinematography.

But then Singer films never had brilliant and vibrant colors, or super duper effects, even my favorite X-Men franchise were kind of dull to look at, where Singer soars is with character, plotting, pacing.

For a $200 million film some of the major action set pieces looked comically bad, when his "continent" is finally grown, it looks like he's sitting on a slab of rock.

There was nothing "technically" advanced about it, if anything he went back to the stone ages - almost literally. If Singer wasn't so insistent on keeping everything as a replica of the first two films, he really could have done something spectacular with the idea of a growing, gleaming new crystal based Kryptonian City rising from the ocean depths, and instead, all we get are lame rocks."

http://eclipsemagazine.com/modules/n...p?storyid=1689

Landos Mustache · Jul 7, 2006, 09:51 AM

"Hard-core DC geeks will be arguing for years over Singer’s dabbling with the Man of Steel’s mythology … like, if Superman can fly between planets, why does he return to Earth in a flaming spaceship?"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/14913837.htm

starman · Jul 7, 2006, 10:07 AM

Uh....would you want to fly around the remains of Krypton, which would render you NORMAL?

Duh.

Stogieman · Jul 7, 2006, 10:17 AM

I thought everyone knew that Superman gets his powers from our yellow sun. Krypton is how far away? The further he is from the sun, the weaker he gets. He wouldn't be able to survive past Pluto if he didn't have a ship to help sustain him.

Landos Mustache · Jul 7, 2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Uh....would you want to fly around the remains of Krypton, which would render you NORMAL?

Duh.

He said he found NOTHING! So why fly home in it. Why tear through the atmosphere with it and burn your moms lawn?

Also makes you wonder how earth astronomers "Found krypton" when there is nothing there.

Duh.

And you STILL (3rd time now) haven't mentioned how it cost 200 mil. It is so obvious why you having such a hard time answering it?

Eug Wanker · Jul 7, 2006, 10:21 AM

Yeah, the ship thing was obvious, especially if you've seen the original Superman movie.

However, most of the rest of the movie was lame.

P.S. My GF fell asleep during the movie.

andi*pandi · Jul 7, 2006, 10:28 AM

we've got tix for an IMAX showing on saturday. Woot!

Landos Mustache · Jul 7, 2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, the ship thing was obvious, especially if you've seen the original Superman movie.

Trust me it was "obvious" to me to. I just couldn't figure out why he needed it flying in space and all.

That laimo answer above doesn't convince me.

starman · Jul 7, 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

He said he found NOTHING! So why fly home in it. Why tear through the atmosphere with it and burn your moms lawn?

Also makes you wonder how earth astronomers "Found krypton" when there is nothing there.

Duh.

And you STILL (3rd time now) haven't mentioned how it cost 200 mil. It is so obvious why you having such a hard time answering it?

How WHAT cost 200 million? The movie? You make a movie like that and come back and tell me how much you think it is to make. $20 and an HD camera maybe? Is that what you're expecting?