Right, because all that obvious polystyrene looked exactly like real ice...They have they're silly moments but the atmosphere just seemed more realistic. More real world.
Right, because all that obvious polystyrene looked exactly like real ice...They have they're silly moments but the atmosphere just seemed more realistic. More real world.
They have they're silly moments but the atmosphere just seemed more realistic. More real world. Maybe it's because of the lack of cgi. Maybe because it was shot on film. Film grain tends to have a more palpable look. Also I like the Daily Planet set better. It seemed more like a newspaper office.
It is. It's simplistic, outdated, and assumes that all the highfalutin' accountants employed by mega corporations are just on the payroll to make the offices look less empty.No it's not.
They have they're silly moments but the atmosphere just seemed more realistic. More real world. Maybe it's because of the lack of cgi. Maybe because it was shot on film. Film grain tends to have a more palpable look. Also I like the Daily Planet set better. It seemed more like a newspaper office.
As is Glenn Ford in the first of them. Perhaps a shout-out to Terence Stamp for the second might be warranted.....perhaps even Robert Vau-------no, I won't try that.The Reeve movies are pretty ridiculous. Reeve is good in them.
It is. It's simplistic, outdated, and assumes that all the highfalutin' accountants employed by mega corporations are just on the payroll to make the offices look less empty.
Thank goodness. I was really holding my breath on that because usually when a new regime comes in they like to clean house and start fresh.Fact: Superman '25 proved popular and financially successful enough to get a sequel just two years later, and without putting him up against Batman, either.
Also fact: during the bidding war for WB, both Netflix and Paramount/Skydance explicitly and repeatedly pointed out that James Gunn and Peter Safran would stay on as heads of DC Studios, something they would not do if Superman '25 was not popular with audiences.
Mudd said:It is. It's simplistic, outdated, and assumes that all the highfalutin' accountants employed by mega corporations are just on the payroll to make the offices look less empty.

This is a non sequitur to my post which you're quoting. FYI.Gee, a movie that came out 50 years ago now looks outdated. Who'd a thunk it![]()
Realism is the absolute last thing I want in this kind of a comic book movie, I want it to feel like a comic book, with all of the sci-fi/fantasy over the top craziness.Superman and Lois has great effects but also a much more toned down universe. Gunns superman i know is based off the 1950s and 60s superman comics that were in the more fantastical and silly route but the books tended to do it better. This new movie just seemed shallow. When youre watching real humans up there on the screen you want a bit more realism on the way they talk and act. You want the world to feel more real . Superman and Lois achieves what the movie really didnt. The Reeve movies achieved a more real word feel even with the added silliness.
Better than a thousand monkeys writing revenge social media posts against superman in another universe. Lol
Yeah, I don't know if I'd call Superman & Lois realistic, it did feature the first live action appearance of Bizarro's cube earth.Yeah. I mean, S&L proved that a more “realistic” approach can work in the right creative hands, but there’s no reason it should be the default for live-action funnybook adaptations.
As for the relative realism of the Christopher Reeve films, it’s true they contained fewer overtly fanciful elements, pound for pound, than Gunn’s movie did. OTOH, Clark, Lois, and even Lex are all written and played somewhat closer to actual people in the DCU than in the Donnerverse, so that balances things out pretty nicely.
Its treatment of Lois’ cancer storyline is among the most realistic portrayals I’ve seen (my wife went through breast cancer treatment the year before—I know what of I speak).Realism is the absolute last thing I want in this kind of a comic book movie, I want it to feel like a comic book, with all of the sci-fi/fantasy over the top craziness.
Yeah, I don't know if I'd call Superman & Lois realistic, it did feature the first live action appearance of Bizarro's cube earth.
Which of Lester's films have you seen?In no world is the Donner Cut of Superman II worse then the theatrical. Seriously, Richard Lester was a complete hack and his version of Superman II is an unfunny farce. He was a comedy director who wasn't even very good at comedy put on a film that was never supposed to be a comedy. Superman IV is better then the Lester Cut of Superman II, and less of a joke.
Superman III, which is purely Lester's work, is somehow worse, and shows that without being able to use any of Donner's work Lester isn't even able to put out mediocrity. Not that having to use Richard Pryor as basically the main character of the film helped, I don't think Donner could have made Pryor work any better, but Lester just put out absolute trash.
And a very entertaining version of the Musketeers.Lester did some good, nay, great work.
A Hard Day's Night is the single greatest rock musical ever made, and Help! is a lot of campy fun with an engaging (if slapstick-level ridiculous) story. Lester has his weaknesses but "hack"? Please. The man crafted at least one of the best musicals of the postwar era.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.