RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,686
Posts: 5,430,507
Members: 24,830
Currently online: 345
Newest member: Old Man 51


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11 2013, 09:52 AM   #76
DarKush
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Mr Light wrote: View Post
Am I the only one that thought Spacey was terrible as Luthor? I particularly cringed where he gets Lois to say to Superman will save us then he yells WRONG!!!
I think Spacey was the perfect actor but the role was poorly conceived and written for him. While I liked his description of Superman as a god, which also gave some insight into why he probably hated him and when he stabbed Superman, everything else didn't work. I also didn't care for him shouting wrong. It looked good in the trailer-maybe?-but didn't do anything for me in the film.

OT, but Shaka thanks for that link to Cinema Blend. I loved the piece about Sixteen Candles. Damn straight Breakin' spoke to my generation. It was the first movie I went out to see, at the drive-in.

Last edited by DarKush; July 11 2013 at 10:08 AM.
DarKush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 11:19 AM   #77
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Pingfah wrote: View Post
Spacey was excellent as Luther, but was a real estate scam honestly the most dastardly idea they could come up with for him?

Who the fuck would want to live on craggy island anyway? How are you supposed to build a house on that thing? It had 20ft high shards of sharp rock sticking out of the ground everywhere. It was the least attractive bit of real estate i've ever clapped eyes on.
It wasn't that the land itself was desirable to live on (at least not at first, but his plan to divide it into states seemed to imply that he planned on developing it further and possibly covering it with topsoil), it's that as the crystal island continued to grow and displace more water it would rapidly flood the parts of North America, South America, Europe, and Africa facing the Atlantic, thus killing billions in the process. The ultra-rich would probably then be offered the opportunity to take their chances in an even more over-populated (now with billions of refugees) East/South Asia or to live on an exclusive continent of their own.

Yeah, it was real estate related in the long run, but killing billions of people by creating a new continent seems pretty dastardly to me, far more so then even the nuking western California into the sea scheme from Superman or teaming up with Zod in order to get him to give Luthor Australia as a spoil in Superman II.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 11:34 AM   #78
Pingfah
Admiral
 
Pingfah's Avatar
 
Location: Cornwall, UK
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Hmm, well the killing people bit is pretty dastardly yes, but come on, that land mass was completely undevelopable. How the hell would you transport and lay enough top soil to cover that continent sized monstrosity, especially after devastating the global economy, a significant number of its resources, mineral and mechanical, and killing half the planet's population?

I presume he was also hoping to discover the Fountain of Youth, cause he would be about 100 years old before he even made a dent in that.

Really bad plan.
__________________
So it goes.
Pingfah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 12:27 PM   #79
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Yeah, well, shooting a nuke into the San Andreas Fault also won't cause western California to fall into the sea. I'm not saying it was a realistic or well-thought out plan from a real world perspective, I'm just going by what seemed to be implied by the maps Luthor pulled down in the movie and adding a bit of speculation.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 12:49 PM   #80
Pingfah
Admiral
 
Pingfah's Avatar
 
Location: Cornwall, UK
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

No sure, it just seemed to me that they went out of their way to make the new Luthor Continent look completely uninhabitable and pretty much useless for anything, which kind of made the whole plan seem stupid. I'm just explaining why I didn't like the film that much.
__________________
So it goes.
Pingfah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 12:57 PM   #81
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Fair enough. I enjoyed SR and thought Routh was good in the role (Bosworth as Lane performed fine, but was a poor casting choice, IMO), but I fully acknowledge that it has a lot of structural problems and probably would have been better had it tried to forge its own path instead of being tacked on as a continuation to the first two Superman films.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 01:49 PM   #82
Pingfah
Admiral
 
Pingfah's Avatar
 
Location: Cornwall, UK
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Yeah, I agree. Routh was good, he played the part well, and really looked the part, on the basis of it being a continuation.
__________________
So it goes.
Pingfah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 05:01 PM   #83
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Pingfah wrote: View Post
No sure, it just seemed to me that they went out of their way to make the new Luthor Continent look completely uninhabitable and pretty much useless for anything, which kind of made the whole plan seem stupid. I'm just explaining why I didn't like the film that much.
Well to be fair, I'm sure Luthor was probably assuming the island would be this gleaming white crystal palace like the Fortress, and that it would be possible to construct crystal cities and palaces on it like on Krypton.

He obviously didn't realize infusing it with kryptonite would turn it into just a dead, lifeless rock.

Plus I think his plan was less about "real estate" than owning a piece of powerful alien technology. And considering how bitter he was towards Superman, the fact he was turning Supes' own technology against the people of Earth was probably an added bonus.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 05:43 PM   #84
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

M'rk, son of Mogh wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
And he was a more credible villain than Hackman's Luthor ever managed to be.
I don't know.
Almost successfully killing Superman (if not for Tessmacher jumping in to save him) and successfully landing a missile that kills Superman's love interest have to give him SOME credit as a worthy opponent.
He only achieved those things because the script said he did. And I never found it believable that some loser hanging out underneath Grand Central, whose entire organization consists of one idiot and one bimbo, could possibly have the resources to achieve all that he did. That's what I mean -- it's not credible that the individual Luthor was portrayed to be would be capable of achieving as much destruction as the film alleged. I could believe that Ross Webster had the resources and organization to pull off the feats of villainy he performed. I could've believed it of the infinitely resourceful scientist Luthor of the pre-Crisis comics or of the corporate-magnate Luthor of the post-Crisis comics and TV series. But not of the very strange, guy-in-a-basement take on Luthor that the Donner movies came up with. We were told that he was this arch-criminal that the authorities feared and only Superman could get a handle on, but the films just didn't sell it.



Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
I'll agree with you about Donner's Luthor, who could be brought down by Napoleon Solo & Illya Kuryakin, but Singer's Luthor was a combination of Donner's version and the version in the recent comic books/DCAU TV shows, and a much cunning man (swindling a rich old lady of her fortune and using it to accomplish what he did was a masterstroke, as well as keeping his head down and out of sight until she died and he was able to use her fortune to accomplish what happened in the rest of the film, as well as the feint staged to keep Superman from finding out about the robbery of the kryptonite by having Kitty almost crash her car.) That version's just as great as the ones you've mentioned and like.
I don't agree. He was still rooted in the flawed conception of Luthor from the Donner movies, just amplified a little -- he was colder and more ruthless, and for once he actually had more than two assistants, although most of them didn't seem much smarter than Otis and Eve. But he still didn't feel to me like the most successful archcriminal on Earth. I mean, come on, Superman had been off the planet for five years. Most versions of Lex Luthor would've been running the world by that point. This one was sleeping with old ladies to steal their inheritance. He's a petty thug compared to what Lex Luthor should be.

And I'll never get what's supposed to be so impressive about Kevin Spacey here. Maybe it was just that his performance was too betwixt and between -- he was trying to pay homage to Hackman's more comic performance but bring more serious menace to it, and so it just felt like the two cancelled each other out. Really, Hackman's comic flair was the only thing worthwhile about that version of Luthor. Either embrace that fully or wipe the slate clean and start over.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 05:45 PM   #85
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Yeah, well, shooting a nuke into the San Andreas Fault also won't cause western California to fall into the sea. I'm not saying it was a realistic or well-thought out plan from a real world perspective, I'm just going by what seemed to be implied by the maps Luthor pulled down in the movie and adding a bit of speculation.
^^^
Yes, but it's a nod to old school comics books; Inn the same way that Superman after opening the lead box containing the kryptonite, could have just as quickly closed it/hurl it away, and subdue Luthor easily before the radiation fully affected him -- yet due to the nature of old school comics, once the box is opened; the deed is done and Superman is defeated.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 06:40 PM   #86
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Noname Given wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Yeah, well, shooting a nuke into the San Andreas Fault also won't cause western California to fall into the sea. I'm not saying it was a realistic or well-thought out plan from a real world perspective, I'm just going by what seemed to be implied by the maps Luthor pulled down in the movie and adding a bit of speculation.
^^^
Yes, but it's a nod to old school comics books; Inn the same way that Superman after opening the lead box containing the kryptonite, could have just as quickly closed it/hurl it away, and subdue Luthor easily before the radiation fully affected him -- yet due to the nature of old school comics, once the box is opened; the deed is done and Superman is defeated.
Yes, I know. I wasn't arguing for slavish devotion to realism in comic book movies.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 08:50 PM   #87
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

I'm in the, 'both movies had their flaws camp', but overall, I liked SR more than I liked MOS. Singer managed to make a movie that was emotionally touching while presenting a spot on interpretation of who the Superman character was to the people of Metropolis and to the audience. Superman catching the airplane and taking a bullet to the eye were better than any of the "super" moments in MOS. Supes punched a lot in MOS but unfortunately, because he fought Kryptonians, the effects of the punches were negligible. The flying scenes were also better in SR.

SR missed it however on the villain, Luther was a bad idea (as was Kevin Spacey's cliched performance), the "kid" storyline, which made both Lois and Supes look bad. Bosworth as Lois was just fine and even though I believe Amy Adams is the superior actor, she wasn't given much more than Bosworth to work with and consequetely failed to distinguish herself in MOS. MOS failed to convey emotion or humor and took itself way to seriously, and the romance felt tacked on.

I think "the Old Mixer" wrote in the MOS thread sums up my feelings about SR and MOS, between the two, there is a great Superman movie. Get rid of Chris Nolan and make the next one with Singer directing the personal scenes with Clark/Supes and Lois and Martha Kent (maybe), and let Zack Snyder direct the action scenes.
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 09:13 PM   #88
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

I'm afraid I can't consider either SR or MOS successful. There were some things that MOS did better than SR -- it certainly had more originality, and a better cast -- but there were other things it got horribly, aggravatingly wrong.

And I really wanted it to work, because I have never seen a live-action Superman movie that I didn't consider seriously flawed at best. I've recently come to terms with the first three Reeve movies as representing the kind of goofy, fanciful Superman we got in the Silver Age, but they definitely have their flaws, and I've been wanting a more modern take. But the two modern films we've gotten have both been grave disappointments.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 09:23 PM   #89
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

I prefer MOS and thought the action was cool as hell, but I do agree the plane and yacht rescues in SR were pretty special, and never truly matched in MOS.

Although Superman struggling to overcome the energy beam of the World Engine comes awfully close, as it's such a powerful visual and gives me chills every time I watch it.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 09:34 PM   #90
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Why The Hate For Superman Returns?

Christopher wrote: View Post
I'm afraid I can't consider either SR or MOS successful. There were some things that MOS did better than SR -- it certainly had more originality, and a better cast -- but there were other things it got horribly, aggravatingly wrong.

And I really wanted it to work, because I have never seen a live-action Superman movie that I didn't consider seriously flawed at best. I've recently come to terms with the first three Reeve movies as representing the kind of goofy, fanciful Superman we got in the Silver Age, but they definitely have their flaws, and I've been wanting a more modern take. But the two modern films we've gotten have both been grave disappointments.
Sorry you felt that way. Despite both movies' issues, I sat there in complete awe like a little kid through both of them, and thought they both did a fantastic job capturing the magic and wonder of the character (albeit in very different ways).

Of course it could just be that I'm very easy to please when it comes to Superman movies and just love seeing the guy on the big screen.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
superman

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.