Dusty Ayres wrote:
Sorry, but a fan trailer does not a movie make.
Thanks for making, so effectively, a counter-argument to a point that NOBODY MADE.
High-five for a masterful "straw-man" effort there!
The point was not that "this is an awesome movie." The point was that the folks in this look more like the characters should, to me and to many others, than the last REAL movie's cast did.
In other words, the point wasn't the bogus one you pretend to be arguing against. It was a slam on the "real" movie for having MISSED THE TARGET. If an "internet fan film" can do things better than the "real" moviemakers... is that a claim that the "internet fan films are inherently better... or that the "real" moviemakers did something inherently WRONG?
Superman Returns was somewhat successful at the box office, and was also critically acclaimed, a hell of a lot better factors than fan boy longing to see Superman kick Darkseid's butt all over creation or whatever tha fan boys who make fan films want.
What an incredibly moronic thing to say.
"Somewhat successful" translates to "was less successful than expected but wasn't a money-LOSER."
"Critically-acclaimed?" By WHOM? A few newspaper writers didn't loath it completely? I can't recall a whole lot of "gushing praise" for the film... or a whole lot of media recognition... or much of ANYTHING (except for Frank Rich having apparently gotten into seeing Routh in tights maybe?).
Seriously... let's see some hard evidence of the massive upswelling of "critical acclaim" you mention. I think you're inflating things to attempt to boost your own argument...
But then you descend into sheer idiocy. "Fan boy longing" about "Superman kicking Darkseid's butt?" Well, so far you're the only one who brought up anything of the sort.
You personally liked "Superman Returns." No problem... but at least try to argue HONESTLY here. Stop making up arguments which no one has made and trying to "beat" your own arguments.
Nobody talked about Darkseid... that was you. Nobody talked about "kicking butt all over creation" except you.
You associate "fanboy" with the some people it seems, but only as a perjorative term... if you can call people "bad names" you can "discredit them" without actually having to argue factually, huh? Nope, doesn't work. Professional filmmakers aren't some form of superhuman being, after all... art (of whatever form) isn't only allowed from the "recognized" nor is talent restricted to those in a special class where nobody from outside is allowed to intrude.
The reality is that many of the better filmmakers... the most successful ones, who've gotten the most "Critical acclaim" (just for a couple of examples... Christopher Nolan and Peter Jackson) are unabashed "fanboys."
But it's because of their LOVE OF THE MATERIAL that they were able to make works based upon those materials which the overwhelming majority of audiences loved as well.
So... "fanboy" isn't necessarily the perjorative term you want to use it as... is it?
It was a story about coming home, forgiveness, and what makes a hero, and that is what ultimately people go to see, not a fan wank about Superman teaming up with Batman to take out Lex Luthor and Two-Face. That's what made the movie work, not what you want.
So, you're still convinced that "Superman Returns" WORKED? Why, then, haven't we seen the "inevitable sequel?" Why, then, was it not a massive financial success? Why, then, is EVERYONE talking about trying to FIX what it DID WRONG?
You can throw around dumbass terminology like "fan wank" til you turn blue... it doesn't change the fact that "Superman Returns" was NOT a success. And you can pretend that I said that the "World's Finest" trailer was the film that should've been made instead... except, with the possible exception of "within your fevered imagination" I never said or implied any such thing. Nor did ANYONE IN THIS THREAD. You're only arguing against your own imagination.
I said that the casting in this trailer was well-done, and that I believe it was better than that which was seen in "Superman Returns," no matter how much you may, personally, have loved seeing a 20-ish "Lois Lane" with a ten-ish son... (hmmm.. does that make Superman a child-molester too???).
There was a TON of "fan-wank" in that movie. It was simply "fanwank" from people who wanted to replicate the 1970's movie.
And being protective of Lois after five years is not 'stalking', no matter how you slice it.
Hmmm... so, I sure hope that any ex-girlfriends of yours don't mind YOU sneaking around in the dark, peeking into their homes... I'm sure you, personally, are "just being protective" too, huh?
Sorry, "stalker" behavior isn't defined by "good intentions." It's defined by CROSSING BOUNDARIES. Most "stalkers" are convinced that the ex-girlfriend would be better off with them, after all... they are, ultimately, "just being protective." Until, in a fit of rage, they "accidentally" club the girl to death...
It happens all the time. And it's almost ALWAYS a case of the stalker thinking that "it's what's best for her."
Routh's Superman crossed a line... and that WAS STALKER BEHAVIOR. Don't believe me... go talk to your local police department.
Perhaps your cynicism and love of Iron Man blasting stuff has lead you to become bored with Superman; if so, watch the other movies.
While we're on the subject of Iron Man, if you think that everybody loved it, I've got something to show you.
Who are you talking to re: this? Iron Man? Clearly you're not talking to ME... or you're (once again) making up things which nobody actually said but you think you can use to win an argument.
For the record, I haven't even SEEN "Iron Man" yet. I'm sure I will, on pay-per-view or on DVD. So if you think you're somehow arguing against my "great love of Iron Man" you're... umm... "confused?"