or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › MAN OF STEEL TRAILER GOES ALL IN ON MALICK, LETS LOOSE THE ACTION
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MAN OF STEEL TRAILER GOES ALL IN ON MALICK, LETS LOOSE THE ACTION - Page 3

post #101 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

Clearly this means there are not enough Superman movies...what the hell was I thinking?

 

 

Well, if you're going to look at it that that way....

 

What's enough by your barometer, if lots of other movies are in fact being made?

post #102 of 150
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood View Post

 

What's enough by your barometer, if lots of other movies are in fact being made?

 

My point seems lost on you.  Forget it.

post #103 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

My point seems lost on you.  Forget it.

 

Oh no, I get your point, I just think it's not as big a deal as you do, considering there are considerably more original science fiction films that have been released in the past half-decade than there have been Superman films in the past three-and-a-half, and at least as many coming out in the next year alone.

 

The batting average on Superman films is so low (has there ever been an out-and-out great one?) that if someone wants to explore a character with a firm place in the popular consciousness and a lot of symbolic potential, I say let them. It's not as if the sci-fi movies you want made aren't being produced because of the burden of all these excess Superman films.

 

It's not that your point is lost on me, it's that I think it's flippant and ill-considered. Or maybe you just really don't like Superman. I mean, that is what you're getting at, yeah?

post #104 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood View Post

 

Oh no, I get your point, I just think it's not as big a deal as you do

 

I don't think it's a big deal.  That's why I only posted about it once and used only two sentences ...you felt the need to respond and here we are.

 

 

Quote:

It's not as if the sci-fi movies you want made aren't being produced because of the burden of all these excess Superman films.

 

Actually that's exactly how it works.  Every time a studio greenlights a $200M film, it means there is some other film, or films, that don't get greenlit.  Studios work with a set bank roll.  They have a limited number of films they can make.

 

My feelings are this...we've had lots of different Superman movies.  I've already seen the perfect Superman movie, so personally I wouldn't lose sleep if another one didn't get made.  If I want to experience more Superman stories, I'll visit the local comic book shop.  And there are alot of interesting medium budgeted original spec scripts that continue to gather dust because studios are more interested in spending hundreds of millions on tried and true brand recognition.  It's the nature of the beast and I accept it, but I don't have to like it.

 

That's all.  You don't agree, fine.  It's not a big deal...as I've tried to put forth already.  My opinions shouldn't threaten your anticipation for this film.

post #105 of 150

They don't threaten my anticipation. I was just curious, and I may have been a little snarkier than I intended. Apologies. I do get how the studio system works, and it bums me out a lot of the time, but a new Superman doesn't bug me nearly as much as most of the stuff that's going on these days.

post #106 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak chase View Post

Regarding how much, if any, of Clark Kent, reporter, we see in this movie, I just stumbled upon this photo, which I hadn't yet seen:

 

1000

 

Interesting pic.  This has me thinking we're going to get a take where he doesn't do the secret identity thing until the very end.  Basically, Clark becomes Superman, who then disguises himself as Clark (with glasses now!).  And I'd also bet Lois is in on it from the get go this time around.

 

Anyways, great trailer.  I don't have a lot of faith in Snyder.  I haven't enjoyed any of his movies, but I'm digging everything I've seen from this so far.

post #107 of 150

Pa Kent's response is that of a conflicted father whose only son wants to sign up for something bigger, and something potentially deadly. Read it as a military enlistment, its really that straightforward. 

post #108 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak chase View Post

Regarding how much, if any, of Clark Kent, reporter, we see in this movie, I just stumbled upon this photo, which I hadn't yet seen:

 

1000

 

That's a manip from a year or so ago. Taken straight from Smallville.

 

post #109 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

 

That's a manip from a year or so ago. Taken straight from Smallville.

 

Jesus, people go through that kind of trouble?! Insanity.

 

Well, sorry for posting a fake.

post #110 of 150
He is forced to adopt the Clark Kent persona towards the end after being sued by Mr. Sansweet for damages incurred during his rescue.
post #111 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak chase View Post

Jesus, people go through that kind of trouble?! Insanity.

 

Well, sorry for posting a fake.

 

You didn't know. No biggie.

post #112 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post

Help me, Chuddites!

 

I'm trying to figure out what the music used in the second half of the trailer is.  The first half is "Elegy" by Lisa Gerrard, but it segues into something else once he takes off.  Can't seem to find any information on it yet.  Anyone out here have any leads?

 

It's Storm, from Elizabeth-The Golden Age. Or so the internet tells me.

post #113 of 150

Hey wow, that looked decent.  And I am forced to remember that Zack Snyder actually might know how to shoot a movie once you get him out of the damn green screen set.

post #114 of 150
This is one of the best blockbuster movie trailers of the last five years.

I state that as if it's a fact. Because it is.
post #115 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Actually that's exactly how it works.  Every time a studio greenlights a $200M film, it means there is some other film, or films, that don't get greenlit.  Studios work with a set bank roll.  They have a limited number of films they can make.

Don't they greenlight these "sure things" like your Supermans and Hobbits and Harry Potters so that they can afford to bet on unsure things like your Cloud Atlases and Gangster Squads and Argos?
post #116 of 150

Well shit, now that I've finally gotten a chance to watch it: that is a bloody good trailer. Dammit Snyder, you've burned me before but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. 

post #117 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

Well shit, now that I've finally gotten a chance to watch it: that is a bloody good trailer. Dammit Snyder, you've burned me before but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. 

 

Snyder's the guy who shoots movies that make amazing trailers. Always has been. It'll take some seriously good reviews to get me excited about this one.

post #118 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

Don't they greenlight these "sure things" like your Supermans and Hobbits and Harry Potters so that they can afford to bet on unsure things like your Cloud Atlases and Gangster Squads and Argos?

The big movies pay for the lttle movies.
post #119 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

 

Yup. Exactly. I love Watchmen. Goofy music and all. I just wish Fassbender was a thing then so he could be Veidt.

 

Why wasn't he Veidt?  It's not like Matthew Goode was famous then or is now.  And Sassy Fassy had already worked with Snyder before on 300.  Blame Snyder!

 

 

As for "CLARK KENT, ALTER EGO", I'm still wondering if he won't factor in until the very end.  Perhaps he decides to go to work there specifically BECAUSE Lois works there?  Kinda makes sense. Best guess at this time:  we get the inner workings of the paper via Louis and Perry, but Clark doesn't move to Metropolis and take a job there until the right before the end credits.  Then awkward report Clark crops up in Justice League and/or Man of Steel 2.

 

 

Also, were there any shots of Supes' other Kryptonian adversary in this, Faora?

post #120 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster Pete View Post

 

Same here. 

 

What do people want Pa Kent to say?  "Congrats Clark, you have demonstrated your true powers to the masses with no secret identity.  Now, hopefully the authorities don't take wind of this and investigate why you can lift a bus by yourself.  Considering we are not your true parents, they will most likely take you away from us, and perform experiments once they discover you are not from this earth."

Enjoy those Krytonite enemas kid!

post #121 of 150

There was some Clark Kent/glasses and some stuff showing him working at the Planet in the Comicon trailer. I think that the lack of Clark Kent, Reporter in the trailer has more to do with selling it as the "Superman epic you've been waiting for!" after the chilly reception that Returns got. So they're leaning on the childhood/Americana stuff and glimpses of action beats for this first full trailer (and maybe all of them). It's most likely in the movie, though.

post #122 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.S. Randlett View Post

There was some Clark Kent/glasses and some stuff showing him working at the Planet in the Comicon trailer. I think that the lack of Clark Kent, Reporter in the trailer has more to do with selling it as the "Superman epic you've been waiting for!" after the chilly reception that Returns got. So they're leaning on the childhood/Americana stuff and glimpses of action beats for this first full trailer (and maybe all of them). It's most likely in the movie, though.

 

Let's hope its kept to a minimum or at least no bumbling Kent nonsense. And please for the love of god let Lois in on it for good before this movie ends. Donnor's cinematic Superman tropes need to stay buried for now.   

post #123 of 150

Well, I for one would like to see a screwball version of Superman one of these days, or at least an incorporation of some of those elements. Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday are a few elements shy from being Superman movies already as it is.

 

But I think they're probably going for a non-bumbling Kent this time out, just having him be a competent but low key dude that no one really notices.

post #124 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

Don't they greenlight these "sure things" like your Supermans and Hobbits and Harry Potters so that they can afford to bet on unsure things like your Cloud Atlases and Gangster Squads and Argos?

 

My original comment was a perfect world scenario.  In a perfect world a studio would take the money they'd spend on Superman and instead spend it on more challenging material...like Looper and The Master, two films that got made with outside funding...big blockbuster grosses didn't end up paying for those movies.  Argo was risky in the way that every movie is risky, but it wasn't really challenging...it was still a sort of feel good crowd pleaser...so there is some kind of security blanket for studios there.  Cloud Atlas is a bit different because the W siblings are top tier filmmakers and they get listened to...alot of challenging spec scripts are from unknown commodities.  For the most part, Superman grosses don't seem to be financing them.

 

Like I said my original comment was just me kind of venting...I realize studios make big films so they can make smaller films like Argo.  I just wish they paid more attention to the really challenging stuff.

post #125 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.S. Randlett View Post

Well, I for one would like to see a screwball version of Superman one of these days, or at least an incorporation of some of those elements. Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday are a few elements shy from being Superman movies already as it is.

 

But I think they're probably going for a non-bumbling Kent this time out, just having him be a competent but low key dude that no one really notices.

 

It would be nice if they manged to get some of that lighheartedness is there, but I wouldn't bank on it with this crew.

 

And as usual, you can always look to the DCAU for how to split the difference. The Clark Kent  of "Superman: TAS" is never presented as anything other than a confident, highly competent reporter. He's just-- what's the phrase?-- "mild-mannered".

 

I went through a period where serious-Slim seriously disliked Reeve's bumbling, non-serious Clark, but I've grown to love it again. It's like two totally different, convincing performances. The tag line for that first movie could have been "You'll Believe a Man Can Disguise Himself With Bad Posture and a Pair of Glasses". 

post #126 of 150

I forget where, but someone had the idea of the Superman / Batman movie being a Philadelphia Story riff with Superman and Batman being dicks to each other to win over Lois Lane. Which sounds wonderful. 

post #127 of 150

Wonderfully awful, if you ask me. Which you didn't.

post #128 of 150

On the one hand, no, we don't strictly *need* a new Superman movie. On the other, there hasn't really been a truly GOOD Superman movie that uses the character to his full potential (the first Donner film comes close--the first half is dead-on--but it goes spiraling off into stupidity and camp in the second half).

 

This movie sort of suggests they might actually be tackling some of the ideas you can tackle with Superman. But it's Snyder, so...I'm skeptical. As has been pointed out, the guy knows how to make trailers, not movies.

post #129 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post

I forget where, but someone had the idea of the Superman / Batman movie being a Philadelphia Story riff with Superman and Batman being dicks to each other to win over Lois Lane. Which sounds wonderful. 

That's kind of been done already. Not in live action, though. Would make a fine blueprint for a live action picture, but I doubt both Luthor and The Joker would be along.

 

 

Also, I already think there's been a great Superman movie, and that's "Superman II". It's hurt by the lame special effects at the end (state-of-the-art for the time, they don't hold up well), but it has an excellent love story between Clark and Lois as he wants to give up being Superman for her ("Spider-Man 2" basically cribbed that arc) and two great villains and villain performances.

post #130 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

Also, I already think there's been a great Superman movie, and that's "Superman II". It's hurt by the lame special effects at the end (state-of-the-art for the time, they don't hold up well), but it has an excellent love story between Clark and Lois as he wants to give up being Superman for her ("Spider-Man 2" basically cribbed that arc) and two great villains and villain performances.

 

Superman II could probably be edited into a better movie than it is - there's some stuff that's very, very good, and some stuff that fundamentally doesn't work. Lester was a TERRIBLE choice for the material, and nearly everything he added to it fails. Arguably the worst of this is the inserts during the "wind attack" scene which work to fundamentally undermine the scene.

post #131 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

 

Superman II could probably be edited into a better movie than it is - there's some stuff that's very, very good, and some stuff that fundamentally doesn't work. Lester was a TERRIBLE choice for the material, and nearly everything he added to it fails. Arguably the worst of this is the inserts during the "wind attack" scene which work to fundamentally undermine the scene.

Christ, that's the worst. There's this great build up to that fight, and then we get a series of pratfalls. It's like a Doors song that builds and builds and builds... and then Baby Elephant Walk.

 

The Donner Cut is really rough, but it shows the skeleton of a much better story.

post #132 of 150

The best version of Superman for me is still the animated one from Superman: The Animated Series and Justice League.

 

This probably won't replace that as my favorite (it'd have to be mind-blowing to do that), but it looks pretty solid nonetheless. And nothing Snyder makes from now on can possibly be as bad as Sucker Punch. NOTHING.

post #133 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

 

 

"This is not a telephone."

post #134 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post

I forget where, but someone had the idea of the Superman / Batman movie being a Philadelphia Story riff with Superman and Batman being dicks to each other to win over Lois Lane. Which sounds wonderful. 

 

Kind of a Bob Hope / Bing Crosby "Road to......" movie?

post #135 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

 

 

Also, I already think there's been a great Superman movie, and that's "Superman II". It's hurt by the lame special effects at the end (state-of-the-art for the time, they don't hold up well), but it has an excellent love story between Clark and Lois as he wants to give up being Superman for her ("Spider-Man 2" basically cribbed that arc) and two great villains and villain performances.

 

There are at least two major problems with Superman II: the way Superman gets his powers back nonsensically after supposedly having them removed forever, and the amnesia kiss. Either one of these by themselves hurt the movie; together, they cripple it. That's not even considering the slapstick, etc., as has already been mentioned.


I REALLY REALLY don't get why we haven't had Brainiac in a Superman movie yet. He seems like an obvious choice for this one in particular, and instead we're getting fucking Zod again. It's especially baffling since, as Superman:TAS showed, you can have Brainiac fill the role of "evil relic of old Krypton returned to dog Superman in the present" much more effectively than Zod. Plus you get the possibility of the Bottle City of Kandor, which is one of those batshit yet awesome concepts that helps make the comics as magical as they are.

post #136 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

 

There are at least two major problems with Superman II: the way Superman gets his powers back nonsensically after supposedly having them removed forever, and the amnesia kiss. Either one of these by themselves hurt the movie; together, they cripple it. That's not even considering the slapstick, etc., as has already been mentioned.

 

 

The first of these was explained in the Donner version - essentially the Fortress sacrificed itself - or at least the Jor-El part of it did - for him to get his powers back. The amnesia kiss wasn't in the Donner version at all, since it had the first movie's ending.

 

In short, all of the problems with Superman II (except the diner scenes, which were satisfying to me as a child but seem sadistic as an adult) are Richard Donner's Richard Lester's fault.


Edited by Ben Grimm - 12/12/12 at 3:09pm
post #137 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

 

The first of these was explained in the Donner version - essentially the Fortress sacrificed itself - or at least the Jor-El part of it did - for him to get his powers back. The amnesia kiss wasn't in the Donner version at all, since it had the first movie's ending.

 

In short, all of the problems with Superman II (except the diner scenes, which were satisfying to me as a child but seem sadistic as an adult) are Richard Donner's fault.

 

Think you mean Lester.

post #138 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

 

Think you mean Lester.

He means Nixon.

post #139 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

 

Think you mean Lester.


You're right. Fixed.

post #140 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

That's kind of been done already. Not in live action, though. Would make a fine blueprint for a live action picture, but I doubt both Luthor and The Joker would be along.

 

 

Also, I already think there's been a great Superman movie, and that's "Superman II". It's hurt by the lame special effects at the end (state-of-the-art for the time, they don't hold up well), but it has an excellent love story between Clark and Lois as he wants to give up being Superman for her ("Spider-Man 2" basically cribbed that arc) and two great villains and villain performances.

 

Wasn't this where Superman basically got shafted in every way (figuratively, of course) by Batman?

I mean, Superman was basically thrown into a table by Batman (without Kryptonite), then slammed against a wall by Batman (with Kryptonite) and was then tricked into giving away his identity (with a Bat-tracer that is apparently invisible AND inaudible to the man with super-vision and super-hearing).

To top it all off and rub it all in, Lois Lane called up Clark Kent to inform him, at night, that she was in Wayne's hotel room and would have BREAKFAST with Wayne the next morning. 

Oh, but it's all cool, because Batman finds out that he and Lois wouldn't work (she was too attached to Metropolis and he to Gotham) and ultimately deigns to allow Superman to date Lane.

... I guess all that sounded a bit vitriolic. It's not... I guess it just got pretty obvious that Timm (and Co) were all Bat-fans.

post #141 of 150
Morose, depressing, moody, boring. Why can't Superman be fun again?
post #142 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

 

There are at least two major problems with Superman II: the way Superman gets his powers back nonsensically after supposedly having them removed forever, and the amnesia kiss. Either one of these by themselves hurt the movie; together, they cripple it. That's not even considering the slapstick, etc., as has already been mentioned.

 

It shocks me that (1) Anyone could give that much of a shit about how these events happen and (2) Exaggerate the significance of how they happen so much, in claiming it has a "major" negative effect on the picture. Usually, I firmly believe in the Roger Ebert "It's not what happens, but how it happens" school of thought, but I make an exception in this case.

 

The important point is the weight of Supeman's choices and how they affect both he and Lois as characters. He gives up his powers so that he can be with her, gets a taste of what his dream life with her might be like, then decides to get back his powers (even though it means giving up that life), because he wants to help the world as a hero THAT much.

 

It's a powerful arc for a hero to go through and has been done many times since (i.e. in both "Spider-Man 2" and "The Dark Knight"). So why do people praise those movies so much and forget this one? Those ones are more sophisticated and polished (which was inevitable since they were made much later), but "Superman II" deserves credit for doing that arc first, and doing it well, if not as eloquently.

 

A (deservedly) much-loved episode of "Angel" also did the arc of a hero giving up his powers to be with the one he loves. Without his powers, he too has a blissful time with the woman he loves, then gets them back at the price of her memory being erased while his is not.

 

This requires him to take on the huge burden of being haunted by the memory of 'what could have been', but the Angel episode hammers that home more by dwelling on it, whereas "Superman II" only implied this burden (since it pretty much ends after the kiss...leaving no time for Superman to reflect/brood on what he lost).

 

Still, the deep thematic ideas are there, if you think about it. Like Angel, Superman realizes that part of what made he and his love so compatible was who the powers made him. Also, he can't be selfish enough to live a normal life with the one he loves, knowing that doing so could lead to death and destruction of innocents by people he could stop (if he had his powers). That's part of what makes him a hero (powers or not).

 

Again, "Superman II" covers all of this. It inspired all these other stories that used the same arc for emotional resonance, deepening characters, and making an important statement about the nature of heroism and why it inevitably gets in the way of love. Why care that the way Superman loses and gets his powers back and erases Lois' memory is lazy, implausible, contrived writing? It doesn't fucking matter. 

 

What matters is what these actions say about the characters and themes. And the comedy in "Superman II" rules, even if it's slapstick. Superhero movies in general could benefit from its brand of humour. Zod and Ursa's exasperation with the puny humans, seething hatred for Superman, bravado, egomania, and arrogance is hilarious. The stuff with their silent partner is less subtle and more annoyingly broad, but it's too insignificant to really hurt the picture. 


Edited by Naisu Baddi - 12/12/12 at 11:58pm
post #143 of 150

It looks good, but Snyder doesn't make ugly films (even when he sort of should, re: Watchmen), and I would again like to stress that I feel that Snyder was put on this project because his first attempt at "auteurism" blew up in his face. This really does feel like a last chance for both Snyder and Superman, and I can't help but be wary of a project that starts off on that premise.   

post #144 of 150

Speaking about the actual topic of this thread, I feel the same way about this trailer as I did about the first one: I get a "Superman Begins" vibe from it. My prediction is we get a cross between "Batman Begins" and "The Amazing Spider-Man" (I say this based on what I've heard about the latter, having not seen it). I expect something that feels like half reboot, half re-tread.

 

I don't know if I'll watch it. I find myself very reluctant to watch a movie featuring a villain that I feel has been portrayed about as excellently as he possibly could in a previous adaptation. I'm not a big fan of Braniac, but I'd be a lot more interested if he was involved because he would at least be something new.

post #145 of 150

Naisu Baddi, Zod was last in a Superman film...32 Years Ago!  So it is not like Zod is overexposed.  In fact I think...Zod is...GENERALly underused!  I definitely will be seeing if The Man Of Steel on the big screen!

post #146 of 150

Yes, but regardless of how much time passes, you can't improve...perfection! cool.gif

post #147 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post

Naisu Baddi, Zod was last in a Superman film...32 Years Ago!  So it is not like Zod is overexposed.  In fact I think...Zod is...GENERALly underused!  I definitely will be seeing if The Man Of Steel on the big screen!

 

Kneel....before fleed.

post #148 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

 

The first of these was explained in the Donner version - essentially the Fortress sacrificed itself - or at least the Jor-El part of it did - for him to get his powers back. The amnesia kiss wasn't in the Donner version at all, since it had the first movie's ending.

 

In short, all of the problems with Superman II (except the diner scenes, which were satisfying to me as a child but seem sadistic as an adult) are Richard Donner's Richard Lester's fault.


Hmmm...now I'm going to have to see the not-whatever version of Superman II I saw, because when he came flying back like nothing was wrong, I felt gipped to the point that reading this right now I'm going, 'There was an amnesia kiss in that movie?' And to the point above, about how we don't question it, in the version that doesn't have the fortress destroying itself, it's violating its own rules completely and totally consequence free. 'Give these up, you can't ever, ever get them back.' 'LOL Nope! I'm flying again suckers!' It's not that the arc isn't there or it isn't good and yes, it's a basis for many similar arcs in nearly every single superhero sequel, but it was just handled so poorly that I can't excuse it lightly in terms of the greater story. It kicks the foundation out entirely. There was a crucial step missing.

 

That being said, if it gets fixed in the other version, I'll definitely say 'Great.' Don't particularly care for the Donner/Lester/whomever Superman films overall, but there are enough elements (well, just the one, Christopher Reeve) to make it worth another shot to me.

post #149 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post


Hmmm...now I'm going to have to see the not-whatever version of Superman II I saw, because when he came flying back like nothing was wrong, I felt gipped to the point that reading this right now I'm going, 'There was an amnesia kiss in that movie?' And to the point above, about how we don't question it, in the version that doesn't have the fortress destroying itself, it's violating its own rules completely and totally consequence free. 'Give these up, you can't ever, ever get them back.' 'LOL Nope! I'm flying again suckers!' It's not that the arc isn't there or it isn't good and yes, it's a basis for many similar arcs in nearly every single superhero sequel, but it was just handled so poorly that I can't excuse it lightly in terms of the greater story. It kicks the foundation out entirely. There was a crucial step missing.

 

That being said, if it gets fixed in the other version, I'll definitely say 'Great.' Don't particularly care for the Donner/Lester/whomever Superman films overall, but there are enough elements (well, just the one, Christopher Reeve) to make it worth another shot to me.

 

It may not be onscreen in the Donner Cut, because I'm not 100% sure they filmed it. I can't remember if I learned that from watching the Donner Cut or reading about the original script.

post #150 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post


Hmmm...now I'm going to have to see the not-whatever version of Superman II I saw, because when he came flying back like nothing was wrong, I felt gipped to the point that reading this right now I'm going, 'There was an amnesia kiss in that movie?' And to the point above, about how we don't question it, in the version that doesn't have the fortress destroying itself, it's violating its own rules completely and totally consequence free. 'Give these up, you can't ever, ever get them back.' 'LOL Nope! I'm flying again suckers!' It's not that the arc isn't there or it isn't good and yes, it's a basis for many similar arcs in nearly every single superhero sequel, but it was just handled so poorly that I can't excuse it lightly in terms of the greater story. It kicks the foundation out entirely. There was a crucial step missing.

 

That being said, if it gets fixed in the other version, I'll definitely say 'Great.' Don't particularly care for the Donner/Lester/whomever Superman films overall, but there are enough elements (well, just the one, Christopher Reeve) to make it worth another shot to me.

 

Pretty much this. It doesn't matter how thematically appropriate and character-based the story is if it's a nonsensical plot. Superman getting his powers back twenty minutes after giving them up, with no apparent consequences, makes the whole thing inutterably lame and inconsequential. Combined with the amnesia kiss and Superman going back in time, its like the movies are daring you to give a shit about anything. Apparently nothing in the Superman movie universe has any kind of consequences.

 

And it's funny you mention that episode of Angel, Naisu, because that's one of my least favourites. The basic idea is a fine one, but execution is EVERYTHING with this kind of story; even the tiniest of minute details can make a huge difference, because we're being teased with the hero getting everything he wants, and for him to give it all up casually can very easily slip into "lazy and infuriating" territory. In this case, you have magic blood deus ex machina something something POOF ANGEL'S ALIVE, which is already fucking lazy and unimaginative (there was a cure for vampirism out there all along and it was never mentioned before? Can it bring anyone back from the dead? Shouldn't the Scoobies be looking into this more than they do?) and then Angel's like WHOOPS NO I GOTTA KEEP FIGHTING EVIL AND I HAVE TO BE A VAMPIRE and WHOOPS IT'S ALL A DREAM. It doesn't matter how dramatically charged it is when everything's happening so arbitrarily--if the writers are just blatantly making shit up as they go along, you don't get engaged because you know they can pull a secret exception to everything out of their ass at any time. The Gem of Amar storyline is even worse--it's basically the characters shrugging and admitting they're hostage to the deus ex machina of the show, rather than evincing any kind of agency or free will, which makes it hard to root for them. Frankly either of these storylines might have worked better if they'd been part of a multi-part storyline where it felt like important things happening--maybe we might have felt like Angels' re-humanization was more significant if it was a once-in-a-lifetime occurance that came bundled with a major bad guy or an apocalypse or something. But to make it a throwaway episode in the middle of the first season? Fuck off.

 

 Superman II is in the same ballpark. "CLARK YOU MUST GIVE UP YOUR POWERS FOREVER" "I will, because I love Lois that much" "Oh wait, changed my mind" "ITS COOL BRO" Gee, what a powerful, dramatic storyline. Doc's description of the plot sounds sooooo much better, because at least there are consequences. Even with the "reverse time" ending of part II there would have been consequences in the form of Superman having to give up his relationship with Lois, Donnie Darko style. This isn't comparable to Spider-man or Batman because those guys were choosing to "retire" rather than eternally give up their powers. Spider-man was clearly being weak by giving up the fight, and his self-confidence was impacted, so he got his act together. Batman was making a tough decision, and he decided not to retire before he gave everything up, so if anything that's the complete opposite of what Superman did. In Superman II Superman makes a rash decision that he's then able to weasel out of because the plot allows him to. Whoot.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › MAN OF STEEL TRAILER GOES ALL IN ON MALICK, LETS LOOSE THE ACTION