I quite like the idea that time travel is just Superman's go-to problem solver
How do the Christopher Reeves "Superman" movies hold up to more modern comic book movies?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
As far as I'm concerned it's still the best super hero/comic book film ever made. But that doesn't necessarily mean it "holds up" relatively speaking. It's definitely dated and does come off a bit silly in parts.
But as a cinematic achievement, none of the modern films come close, not even the NolanBats.
But as a cinematic achievement, none of the modern films come close, not even the NolanBats.
I'm pretty sure that was the original ending of the second movie anyway, when they originally started filming I and II back to back, but then with all the problems they decided to stop, release I with what they had, and then go back and sort II afterwards.
Absolutely. It's worth remembering this movie was the most expensive ever made at the time with a $55 million budget, which isn't exactly chump change in 2017, let alone 1978. The scale and ambition of this movie really was unrivalled at the time, and it still shines through now, with the Krypton scenes, the stunning sweeping cinematography of Smallville, through to the massive fortress of solitude set and the movies big set pieces later on. Yeah the effects look dated, but you'd expect that given the movies age.
The fact that Reeve gives a unique, yet fantastic performance as the lead is just the icing on the cake. When you see the glut of big budget superhero movies everywhere now, you realise just how much of a forebear this film was. It's the grandaddy of them all.
A
Amaris
Guest
For me, the first two Superman films hold up very well, primarily because Christopher Reeve has exactly the charisma, optimism, and boyish charm Superman needed in a major film portrayal. The 3rd and 4th films in the Reeves franchise were middling to poor. I like bits and pieces of the newer films, but they always seem to miss the point when it comes to Superman: he's good. He's incorruptibly good. He is optimistic, he's kind, compassionate, and believes in honesty, loyalty, and mercy. Most of all, Superman smiles. He smiles, dammit! Quit fucking brooding, superguys, and leave that shit to Batman, who is much better at it. Superman smiles.
Yeah this is where the Snyder films fall down for me. I can see that he was trying to do his own thing and distance the movies from the previous ones, but it ended up spoiling the character somewhat. They are great looking films if nothing else though.
Correct.
I didn't care for Man of Steel. I think Henry Cavill is a fine actor, and definitely has the look Superman needs, but the way Snyder portrays Superman is a step backward. I like Superman humanized. As one of us, but embodies the best qualities of us. Just like Reeves's Superman does.
Oh, and one other thing: In Superman II, when it becomes clear Superman can't defeat Zod, Ursa, and Non without tearing Metropolis apart, he draws them away from Metropolis. He doesn't want people killed. Snyder's Superman kills Zod, but not until after half of Metropolis is leveled. With heroes like that, who needs Lex Luthor! (OK that's a bit of hyperbole, but still)
Correct, and is a problem with the movie, but...
Yay, another Man of Steel bashing thread, I was really missing one of those...
Despite this, I like Man of Steel, and think it's a very entertaining, if a little cold blockbuster. I like it much more than it's sequel.
Preferring one over the other and stating why... is bashing? Did I miss something?Yay, another Man of Steel bashing thread, I was really missing one of those...
I actually liked Afflek's version of Batman, but other than that, I liked the sequel even less than MOS. I would have preferred a straight up live adaption of The Dark Knight Returns.
Yay, another Man of Steel bashing thread, I was really missing one of those...
MoS isn't a terrible film, they could have dropped thre last act however where Supermand and Zod fight and it would have worked just as well (for me at least).
^^^^
That wouldn't have worked for WB/Dc's long term franchise strategy DKR is set after all their adventures in the JL - and further would have required a 'history' between Batman, Superman, etc. that doesn't exist yet. What surprised me about the BvS ending is going to "The Death Of Superman" arc so quickly as given the events of the film, and the that World's attitude toward Superman; I don't really see that World 'mourning his loss' as was depicted.
Plus, (IMO) having a JL kickoff film without Superman is just anti-climactic. If anything perhaps they should have gone with the "Death of Superman" storyline at the end of a JL film.
Improves things no end. No superman film should be without this music. It's as iconic as movie music gets.
Absolutely not. Williams' Superman March is completely tonally at odds with what's going on in Man of Steel and how the content is delivered.
Which is exactly the point. It lifts the bleak, depressing tone of the movie, which is one the main things I disliked about the snyder superman films.
