In The Godfather, Puzo spent like a hundred pages talking about Lucy Mancini's huge vagina and how it was wrecked by Sonny's huge Sicilian cock and she needed surgery in order to enjoy sex again, let's not put the man on a pedestal.
How do the Christopher Reeves "Superman" movies hold up to more modern comic book movies?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
In The Godfather, Puzo spent like a hundred pages talking about Lucy Mancini's huge vagina and how it was wrecked by Sonny's huge Sicilian cock and she needed surgery in order to enjoy sex again, let's not put the man on a pedestal.
Bosworth was about as interesting as watching paint dry; her :Lois lacked fire and heart-spending most of her time either wondering where Superman was, or stumbling her way into the plot. Routh was the only standout of the film.
Then Bosworth--with the unusually spaced apart eyes and landing strip forehead--missed that mark.
Mark of a great theme is if you hear it and know what it's from even if you've only seen the film once or a couple of times.
But Williamshas compossed some of the most iconic themes over the last few decades.
I would say Routh only did half a job he was an ok Supermand not sold on his Clark Kent.
The problem with Brandon Routh's Clark Kent was that there were times when it seemed he was copying Reeve's bumbling Kent. And to me that was a mistake. Mind you, Routh's Kent/Superman wasn't that verbose as Reeve. However, I had no problems with that. I was very impressed with Routh's performance only when he forgot to copy Reeve's bumbling Kent persona.
Years ago, the 1978 "Superman" used to be among my top ten favorite comic book movies. Not anymore. I feel that a great number of comic book movies in the past 15 years have surpassed it.
Years ago, the 1978 "Superman" used to be among my top ten favorite comic book movies. Not anymore. I feel that a great number of comic book movies in the past 15 years have surpassed it.
That's because most of what we hear today is pretty forgettable, unlike John Williams' score.
Agreed.
Superman II suffers from the editing issue, and to me, it doesn't matter if you are talking about the theatrical cut, or the Donner cut. For example, the theatrical cut has a huge plot hole with how Supes gets his powers back which the Donner cut solves, at the cost of deleting decent scenes of the theatrical cut, along with ending basically the same way as Superman 1. I would like to see the best scenes of each version, along with the deleted scenes that were included in the televised cut from the 80s, spliced into a new and more complete version.
Doesn't he get his powers back from that green crystal? I'm assuming that as that thing single handedly built the Fortress of Solitude, superman simply used it to power everything back up again and jumped into the chamber to re-instate his powers.
I figure if I want the real world, I would go outside. I don't care how things would be if Superman existed in our cynical world. I care about the character being a positive inspiration. Captain America worked with the modern audience a lot better than MOS, and that character is also a positive inspiration. The second the studio gets away from the core of the character, they lose it, and the result were two very poorly received movies.
While that does make some sense, Kal-El also had a lifetime adapting to Earth, and that much extra time under a yellow sun should have had the opposite effect.
In fairness, Donner was fired from the production before Superman II was complete. Superman: The Movie was rushed a little. The two movies were being filmed simultaneously. Had Donner not been fired, that Donner cut ending would not have happened. I agree that by today's standards, the combat is lacking, but I do prefer this style to the extremely close, jittery camera technique that was used in Man of Steel.
And Superman showed a lot more passion in the Donner/Lester movies than he did in the Snyder movies, where he only showed passion when Zod threatened his mom. He did protect people, but I didn't feel his desperation to do so.
I think the big prejudice on Kidder is that while she was attractive, she's not as attractive as other versions. But watching her performance, I see why she got the role. She was good. The subsequent Lois' were good too, with the exception of Bosworth, who was poorly cast. Adams is a great actress, but doesn't have the look of Lois.
The theme is part of what makes these movies great, and the lack of it in the Snyder films also is why they are off the mark. The theme, like the character, is so uplifting. It's brilliant, and it should be in every incarnation of Superman, and one of the problems with the Snyder movies is that it didn't really fit because Superman was such a downer. If the script can't suit that theme, then clearly, there's a problem with the script, and they aren't writing for Superman.
Totally agreed. It was the best part of a bad movie.
Of course not. There was more to it than that. But the decision not to use the theme was symbolic of how Snyder just doesn't get it. If not that theme, then a theme that is equally uplifting. The problem was that the script itself didn't really lend itself toward the theme, because it was such a downer.
This version of Superman is not a symbol of truth, justice and the American way. He does not represent hope, or inspire anyone. Even when he saves a life, he looks like it's a burden, not his calling. Snyder got pretty much nothing right.
Nobody talks about this but one thing I think makes the Donner movie's better is the fact that the special effects are kind of simple and primitive. It sort adds into the whole nostigic aspect of Superman the character. I like watching Superman flying and actually seeing the actor as oposed to some CGI blur that you can't really make out. I want to see the magic in the idea of watching a guy fly as oposed to trying to be realistic to what that might actually be like.
Jason
Jason
I disagree MOS Superman represents the American way pretty well. The past versions represents American way that was a fantasy.
Well, if you don't understand the American way, you can make that argument, but I'm guessing the moderators of this board wouldn't want this to turn into an America bashing topic. Maybe we should stick to Superman.
And I get the point of the effects. A lot of times, the CGI does take things away.
And I get the point of the effects. A lot of times, the CGI does take things away.
Your right in that they represent a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that and would argue that is the whole point of the Superman character. Superman is someone we are supose to aspire to be, where as Batman is our revenge fantasy character and so forth. If you do a Superman movie you should actually embrace the things that people love about the character.
Jason
Actually I have come to really enjoy the third reeves movie over the years. It was the first one truly filmed in the 80s and for the most part was a campy and interesting installment. Pryor was great and it was the last one to feature excellent special effects. Sure a little of the comedy such as the battling traffic signals was silly but other than that really bad joke the movie was pretty solid.
I saw Superman, The Movie first run in 1978. The flying effects were incredible for the time, and Reeve (no "s") was said to have performed like he was born to it.
Sure, some of the blue screen stuff was primitive, but there wasn't much else for comparison. The tagline "You will believe a man can fly" was pretty much on the nose.
People who look back on it from a present day perspective can't really understand what it was like at the time. I was there, and it was pretty cool.
Sure, some of the blue screen stuff was primitive, but there wasn't much else for comparison. The tagline "You will believe a man can fly" was pretty much on the nose.
People who look back on it from a present day perspective can't really understand what it was like at the time. I was there, and it was pretty cool.
