CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Superman.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Superman. - Page 2

post #51 of 166
Re: the music.

Soundtrack.net has a podcast interview with Ottman where he mentions the music. He'll be incorporating the 1978 love theme and the Krypton theme, and has written a theme for Luthor. And the opening credits will feature a new arrangement of the original 1978 main title. He mentions that Bryan and he think not including it would be like having a Star Wars movie without the main theme.
post #52 of 166
Awesome!
post #53 of 166
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Re: the music.

Soundtrack.net has a podcast interview with Ottman where he mentions the music. He'll be incorporating the 1978 love theme and the Krypton theme, and has written a theme for Luthor. And the opening credits will feature a new arrangement of the original 1978 main title. He mentions that Bryan and he think not including it would be like having a Star Wars movie without the main theme.
The SW quote i've heard but i'm ultra glad the love theme is included, the villain theme wasn't as memorable as the heroic cues, good to see Ottman reapproach that. Can't wait to sit down June 30th to Ottman's score as the stars soar by.
post #54 of 166
ANCIENT BUMP!

....because I finally bit the bullet and watched SUPERMAN III and IV. Or at least I tried too.

Superman III was an ordeal. Lester comes at you hard and fast with one lame comedy bit that seems to last forever after another. Pryor is embarrassing. I hope he made peace with his role in this movie before he passed on. At a certain point I just skipped to the "Superman's drunk!!" part and turned the movie off.

Superman IV was crap, but I thought it was much more watchable than III. I actually watched the whole thing.

You have stuff like:
-Superman catching nukes in a giant net
-Superman turning into a 90 year old after being scratched by finely painted silver press-on nails
-Superman rebuilding the great wall of china by creating bricks out of thin air
-Christopher Reeve trying to make up for a bad SUPERMAN II take. He does a really grumpy "No don't do it! The People!" after watching the Nuclear Man destroy the city for a while.

And my personal favorite,
-Superman acting like a complete dick. I like how comfortable Superman is with MIND RAPING Lois whenever he feels like it. He's so casual about it.

So he jumps out of a window with Lois and reveals that he's Superman (again) because he needs someone to talk to. But he doesn't talk Lois at all! After another flying montage (where he just drops her for no reason, lol), he brainwashes her again with his patented SUPER KISS.
Such an asshole.

After getting beaten down by these two movies, I had to watch parts of Superman II to lift my spirits.
Ahh, Terence Stamp. Your blasé attitude eases the pain!

"Who is this imbecile?
Where is he?"
_________________
post #55 of 166
It goes without saying that Superman and Superman 2 (original version) are the best superhero movies of all time so nuff said on that! But I also watched Superman III recently! What a coincidence and also what an awful movie, and most of it is Pryor's fault with his stupid retard voice and VROOM VROOM WHEEEE SOOPURRMAN hand motions. He isn't fucking funny at all and I agree he is very embarrassing. I actually liked Vaughn kind of as the villain he was very sleazy as was his disgusting sister who is always calling him "Bubba".

90 percent of the comedy is shit but there are a few actual funny parts, like the leaning tower of Pisa italians at the end of the movie, and the bingo scenes at Daily Planet. I hadn't seen it in 10+ years so seeing Manny Fraker himself, Gavan O'Herlihy, was a pleasant surprise. He plays BRAD the ex-football star who is now pudgy and gets bribed with a suitcase full of alcohol. His character was way funnier than Pryor, who seems like he has more screen time than Reeve. And Giorgio Moroder I love you but your songs in this movie make me want to flick peanuts angrily!

Also agreed that Superman IV is a lot better but not too much! I like Nuclear Man but LENNY LUTHOR is almost worse than Pryor!

"This 'SUPER MAN' is nothing of the kind!"
post #56 of 166
SUPERMAN IV at least has the good sense to not spend a lot of time with LENNY LUTHOR. I like how he's quickly dumped off at BOYS TOWN like the trash he is!

SUPERMAN II didn't completely ease the pain completely, though. It's the most frustrating Superman movie. It could have been great! Instead the Salkinds cheaped out and fucked it up a bit.
post #57 of 166
Yeah right! and Donner fucked it up even more with his stupid version! How about that stupid shot of Supes angrily pointing at Zod towards the end? Ugh (pretty sure it wasn't in the original version, haven't seen it in a while.)! OH WOWWWW now look! Zod is actually shooting people at the White House so dark!
post #58 of 166
I actually like some of the Smallville stuff in Superman III, and how can you not like Supes downing some Johnny Red and doing Dickish things like blowing out the Olympic flame and screwing with the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The good/evil battle is kind of fun too. Ok, it might be guilty pleasure of mine.
post #59 of 166
Somewhere between the regular movie and the Donner cut, there's a truly great Superman II. As they are, they are a cheesy pleasure and a Frankenstein monster, respectively.

And I still have a strange grudging respect for IV. Oh yeah, it's still shitty, but every once in a while, a glimmer of a much better movie shows its head.
post #60 of 166
I will take THE POINT over the hide and seek crap in the fortress of solitude and the ultra retarded CELLOPHANE S toss! And don't forget all of the horrible Gene Hackman impersonator lines!

HEH HEH ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN!
I see your Ugh and raise you an Ughghguggghghghhhhhhh.
I can't really hold the "Donner cut" against Donner because it's basically a FAN CUT that was assembled by some guy on a mac.
post #61 of 166
Man, looking at the old posts there was such a sense of optimism for Singer's flick. I felt that way too. What a let down.

Superman - Great flick that has everything you need for an entertaining two hours of adventure. The time travel bit sucks, but the rest is just fine.

Superman II - Well I have problems with both cuts, but I enjoy them for the most part.

Superman III - Other than the Smallville stuff with Clark and Lana reunited, can't say I care much for the rest.

Superman IV - So terrible, it's amazing to just sit back and see how bad it is. That's all I ever watch it for. I would love to see all of the deleted scenes, I wonder if Netflix finally replaced the old 2001 barebones disc with the newer 2006? I'll find out later.

Superman Returns - Loved it in theaters. After repeated viewings on DVD it really died for me. I think all that's worth is the airplane/shuttle sequence. It just had the wrong tone, drab cinematography and the story wasn't engaging enough. Superman flicks should be bombastic, Americana, really fun. I'd still support Singer for another go at it (he acknowledged these flaws at least), but since that is no longer happening, I hope in the future we get the ultimate Superman flick.
post #62 of 166
I wonder if Superman is just too...old fashioned for current cinema-goers. Today's movies definitley tend towards the post Miller/Moore grim & gritty or Marvel style heroes with problems molds, and Supes has never really adapted himself successfully to either model. I mean, the best recent Superman stories derive their power from being sort of self-conciously innocent and targeted towards a very specific niche of nostalgia-prone comic fans; I don't know if a movie could pull that off and make much of a profit.
post #63 of 166
A 21st century...Superman film, needs alot more action than...Superman Returns. The character is a...Hero, not a...Stalker. If the Superman we saw in Returns was anything like the character in the comics, he would not have been acting like he did in that film. He would have been disappointed in himself, for allowing Lois to fall in love with another. Superman's character is as noble on the inside as it is on the outside. The only good thing about Returns was...Parker Posey as Luthor's gal. She would have been better used as...Lois. The actress playing Lois was too young for the part considering, that Superman, for all his ability is not Street Smart, and that is one of the many charms that Lois has. Superman does not have to be introduced yet again, all that is needed is a good director, to not radically change the character, but make a film worthy of the character. In other words...Superman needs to be...Super again.
post #64 of 166
Duke, those are surprisingly wise words.
post #65 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
A 21st century...Superman film, needs alot more action than...Superman Returns. The character is a...Hero, not a...Stalker. If the Superman we saw in Returns was anything like the character in the comics, he would not have been acting like he did in that film. He would have been disappointed in himself, for allowing Lois to fall in love with another. Superman's character is as noble on the inside as it is on the outside. The only good thing about Returns was...Parker Posey as Luthor's gal. She would have been better used as...Lois. The actress playing Lois was too young for the part considering, that Superman, for all his ability is not Street Smart, and that is one of the many charms that Lois has. Superman does not have to be introduced yet again, all that is needed is a good director, to not radically change the character, but make a film worthy of the character. In other words...Superman needs to be...Super again.
.....wow.



Enjoy it fleed. You earned it.
post #66 of 166
I wonder if PatrickBateman is still waiting for that Wonder Woman announcement.
post #67 of 166
I wonder if anyone's still waiting for a Wonder Woman announcement. Besides the BDSM community, that is.
post #68 of 166
Okay... gonna try to dissect why Superman just can't work now. I'm winging it but it should make some kind of sense.

The list of "modern super men" on film goes like this RAMBO, HULK, JOHN MATRIX, WOLVERINE and LIAM NEESON. Unstoppable super men really work on film but it's almost impossible for Superman to succeed with modern audiences.

The problem lies in the fact that he just doesn't deliver. Sure, he's unstoppable but it's not a part of his character to do the ass kicking that we need from him. Lack of drama in this kind of perfect character usually is made up for with MANY bone breaking victories by our hero along the way. Superman can never deliver anything like this so we will always be left with a boy scout we can't relate to and don't enjoy watching. One that pulls off aerobatics, heavy lifting and saving the damsel in distress. We see his brand of heroics every summer as throw away action sequences in bad movies... he's got nothing else to offer. Its certainly what we got in Returns (which I enjoy).

Usually we have something to connect with; a flaw, a charisma, a similarity or (in the case of super men) the fantasy of "Fuck yeah! That's what I would do if I were him!". Well, Superman doesn't have the capacity to give the viewer any of this and when Singer tried to force the emotional stuff it didn't work for audiences so maybe his time has passed.

Anyone agree? I'm speaking in general terms about what audiences want, not me personally. I actually really enjoy Returns and wish it would get a sequel.
post #69 of 166
So your argument is that Superman isn't violent enough? Jesus christ.
post #70 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
A 21st century...Superman film, needs alot more action than...Superman Returns. The character is a...Hero, not a...Stalker. If the Superman we saw in Returns was anything like the character in the comics, he would not have been acting like he did in that film. He would have been disappointed in himself, for allowing Lois to fall in love with another. Superman's character is as noble on the inside as it is on the outside. The only good thing about Returns was...Parker Posey as Luthor's gal. She would have been better used as...Lois. The actress playing Lois was too young for the part considering, that Superman, for all his ability is not Street Smart, and that is one of the many charms that Lois has. Superman does not have to be introduced yet again, all that is needed is a good director, to not radically change the character, but make a film worthy of the character. In other words...Superman needs to be...Super again.
Fleed...making...a valid point...?

post #71 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
So your argument is that Superman isn't violent enough? Jesus christ.
Sadly, it kind of is... for modern audiences anyway. But not just that, he's also not human enough... goes both ways. He's in the middle. Not violent enough for a "super man" and not human enough for a different kind of hero.

Again, this isn't for me. I don't want Superman to change. I'm just saying modern audiences want something that's very NOT Superman right now.
post #72 of 166
lol "bone breaking victories"
I think we all want to see Superman punch robots and other super powered guys, but no one wants to see him become a SUPER HARDCORE BLOODTHIRSY MANIAC.

And I don't see how you can come out of SUPERMAN RETURNS thinking that the main problem with the movie is that Superman is "too old fashioned". He wasn't "old fashioned" enough! Singer went out of his way to make Superman a modern day pissy stalker douchebag. These assholes have moved on after I disappeared for 5 years?? GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
post #73 of 166
The problem with Superman Returns is that it isn't a good movie at all.
post #74 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadew1 View Post
And I don't see how you can come out of SUPERMAN RETURNS thinking that the main problem with the movie is that Superman is "too old fashioned".
I didn't. I liked the film.
post #75 of 166
Superman's not supposed to be an "unstoppable" force of violence.
post #76 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
Superman's not supposed to be an "unstoppable" force of violence.
Yeah... that's my point.

Anyway, It wasn't really a complicated observation and I wasn't looking to change or question canon. I was just saying that Superman (THE WAY HE WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE... hopefully that was clear) doesn't seem to deliver what modern audiences look for. Not what I look for. Not what you look for... the general public. Its not gospel though. Just a thought. You can counter it all day, just counter the right idea.

EDIT: it said "does seem" which completely blows the point!
post #77 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
The problem with Superman Returns is that it isn't a good movie at all.
Worse than that. It was boring.
post #78 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
I was just saying that Superman (THE WAY HE WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE... hopefully that was clear) does seem to deliver what modern audiences look for. Not what I look for. Not what you look for... the general public.
Someone translate this.
post #79 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadew1 View Post
Someone translate this.
Edited... sorry.
post #80 of 166
There's a great quote that nails the "He's just too old fashioned" debate. Empire Magazine said it in their Superman Returns DVD review. Be kind, I'm paraphrasing - "Superman belongs in a class of pop-culture icons occupied only by Jesus Christ, Elvis Presley and Mickey Mouse as figures who are above the ever-changing fashions of the world."
post #81 of 166
Translation-
wut
post #82 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
There's a great quote that nails the "He's just too old fashioned" debate. Empire Magazine said it in their Superman Returns DVD review. Be kind, I'm paraphrasing - "Superman belongs in a class of pop-culture icons occupied only by Jesus Christ, Elvis Presley and Mickey Mouse as figures who are above the ever-changing fashions of the world."
devil's advocate:

Film going audiences are above (almost) all of it. Elvis, Mickey Mouse and Superman will be around forever but the masses aren't clamoring for to many films about them. Film is just weird like that.

Jesus, has it on lockdown though. Ironic, with all the Jews in Hollywood and all.
post #83 of 166
It's because there are very few Superman stories to tell. Like only two or three, that's it.
1) Origin
2) His choice to do good
3) His death
post #84 of 166
really wish this thread was started by someone with the username "dat ho"
post #85 of 166
I still like that the threat title is punctuated.

Superman.

Period.

End of story.
post #86 of 166
4) His funeral, with special appearence by the Clintons and Batman beating up people selling t-shirts.
post #87 of 166
In an effort to move away from the "Why Superman Returns didn't work" stuff (the answer is pretty simple), I'm going to praise Gene "poisonous snake" Hackman!

I thought he was a lot stronger in SUPERMAN II. I wasn't a big fan of the Luthor/Otis/Ms. Tessmocker comedy troupe. But when Hackman gets away from the retards and interacts with the phantom zone criminals and Superman, he's gold.
DID YOU SEE THE WAY THEY FELL INTO OUR TRAP??
post #88 of 166
When i was a kid I loved Hackman's Luthor more than the boring angry comicbook Luthor. But he's rarely ever evil. His best villainy moment is the shrug he gives when Tessmacher tells him the missle is going to blow up her mom.
post #89 of 166
Well the whole "killing millions to make real estate $$" scheme was pretty evil.
But I can't hate a guy who's nice enough to loan his liberace albums to fellow convicts.
post #90 of 166
Oh sure his schemes are evil. But that's all abstract. I'm talking about Hackman's dialogue and performance. Most times he comes across as Superintendant Chalmers to Otis' Principal Skinner.
post #91 of 166
"Otisburg? Otisburg?!"
post #92 of 166
Something I've always wondered. Can someone give a quick summary of the differences between the "Donner version" and the films we actually got. I mean i have heard all kinds of stories that he was fired and didn't get to finish Superman and that he sorta finished Superman II but that wasn't his original vision. That they were filmed at the same time, what the hell went on!! I think someone should make a 40 minute doc. on what the hell happened with Richard Donner's involevment in the Superman franchise. It all sounds very incredulous to me.
post #93 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
Oh sure his schemes are evil. But that's all abstract. I'm talking about Hackman's dialogue and performance. Most times he comes across as Superintendant Chalmers to Otis' Principal Skinner.
Don't say PSHH when I say PSHH!
I wonder how long Otis lasted in prison before he was stabbed to death.
post #94 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Buff View Post
Can someone give a quick summary of the differences between the "Donner version" and the films we actually got.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Superman+2+Donner+cut
post #95 of 166
Superman Returns is quite a confused film. What is Superman's deal? He feels alone in the universe, even though he grew up as thinking he was human and looks human and acts human? It just doesn't make much sense, psychologically. Why must he be brooding all the time when he can go talk to his father in the freaking Fortress of Solitude?!

What it comes down to is Bryan singer's film is unfocused. It doesn't know what it's trying to be about. It's a bunch of half cooked ideas with a Superman that barely talks, fights, or gets involved in any of the action until the third act. And once he starts, he's stabbed with Kryptonite,

And it's 2 and half grueling hours of a bore I'd rather catch up on sleep to miss.
post #96 of 166
If I had the software, any kind of editing experience and the the time to do it, I could assemble an unimpeachable version of SUPERMAN II from the Lester and Donner cuts. A proper mixture of the two would stand forever as the greatest superhero pic of them all.
post #97 of 166
post #98 of 166
LOLOL I was just reading about some of the changes in the Donner version and was about to go search for that appalling image! I have posted it on many an occasion I believe. One of the worst changes in the Donner version is instead of "General, would you care to step outside?" we get "General, haven't you heard of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS???" Ughugh!
post #99 of 166
I love the SUPER SEIZURE Reeve has after Zombie Marlon Brando touches him. Definitely better than the scenes with Superman and his mom that I can't even remember.

I have no explanation for the lame FREEDOM OF THE PRESS line. I guess they wanted to give us as much alternate footage as they could!
post #100 of 166
And there's that whole scene of Lois and Clark together that they just pulled from screen test footage. Clark has different hair, is thinner and has different glasses even! SEAMLESS!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Superman.