Sorry even after losing her powers I can't take it seriously that a warrior like Ursa was disposed off so easily by Lois Lane who is just a random reporter with no fighting background whatsoever. It made sense in Zod's case because he was manhandled by Superman but Ursa being beaten so easily by Lois? Please, it lacks credibility.
shareUrsa was unaccustomed to feeling pain unlike Lois, so Lois naturally had a big advantage. It's the same reason why Clark was easily defeated by Rocky.
shareThat makes some sense.
shareI don't think pain was a factor, Ursa just stands there and takes a punch she can obviously see coming from Lois after she manages to break free from Ursa's hold.
shareUrsa just didn't stand there. She was incapacitated because Lois was squeezing her wrist and didn't know how to deal with the new sensation of pain.
shareThere was no pain involved watch the scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3gJGuQQPnw
Ursa just stands there even as Lois turns around and says something to her before the punch.
not seen that for years.
Superman really trolled Zod with the dejected walk , the harumphing , the kneeling lol
Eh I don't think the scene is that deep, early in the film Lois punches Ursa but it does nothing to her and Lois screams in pain after hurting her hand. It didn't work so later they decided to pick up on that and have Lois punch Ursa again after she lost her powers which gives a very satisfying moment.
shareDoesn't stops the scene from feeling awkward and like Ursa is just stnaidn there and does nothing.
shareYeah maybe but it still works and has the intended effect.
shareIt's been a long time since I've seen this, but Ursa is used to being invincible. So it does make some sense that she just stands there. As Evoken mentioned, it's consistent with earlier in the film when Louis hurts her hand by attempting to hit her.
shareExactly Ursa had no reason to think anything was different and even with her powers when Lois tries to punch her earlier in the movie she doesn't moves, so it is the same in this scene. It was a very satisfying moment.
shareThink like you are holding a small kid like that and then magically, you notice, that the kid can easily move your arm. Wouldn't you not also super surprised and would not react, just because of the shock? I buy the scene.
shareShe was unaware that she lost all her powers
shareIt wasn't much the punch, but the fall that actually hurt
shareI just watched this film at a local theater last week, and I watched the scene you mention on YouTube just now, and I have to disagree. The scene makes perfect sense. Ursa sees Zod and Non defeated, and seems to be in shock. She can't process what's happened to them/her. Lois turns and punches her. It all flows well, and doesn't seem at all contrived.
shareWhat theater is showing this movie from 1980 now?
shareLocal theater, different movie every night. Tonight I'm seeing The Sting. Tomorrow it's a double-bill of Bride of Frankenstein and Dracula's Daughter.
shareWe don't have anything like that in Fort Lauderdale.
shareThat's a tragedy. I'm not joking. Every city should have at least one theater that shows older films.
shareI never heard of any city with a theater showing old movies. Doesn't it suck watching an action movie with no CGI? Also, who wants to see a b/w movie on a big screen?
shareEver the jokester. But jokes aside, I hope you have someplace around you that shows older fare.
shareWe have streaming sites as well as DVD's to watch older movies
shareOf course, but even the best home setup gives maybe 10% of the experience of seeing a film in a theater.
shareTrue, but will movies like Bride of Frankenstein and Draculas Daughter look that much better on a big screen?
shareIn my opinion, immeasurably better. Seeing Karloff's monster looming down on me from a massive screen is something I can't duplicate at home, despite having a projector and screen in a room dedicated to showing films. Combine that with the reaction of an audience-- the theater will no doubt be packed-- in a theater built in 1915, and I don't even know how to quantify the experience.
To think of it a different way: I'm taking one of my young sons to see this tonight. I know if I put Bride of Frankenstein on at home, he'd watch, but probably wouldn't get much out of it. He might even get bored and stop watching midway through the film. I predict that his reaction will be far different when he sees it in that theater, and is a part of that crowd reacting to the massive image in front of him.
I predict your son will be very bored when Draculas Daughter comes on.
shareI'll let you know how your prediction plays out.
shareAnd how old is your son? The plot of Draculas Daughter is of an adult theme. Young kids will have a hard time following the story
shareAs expected, he enjoyed Bride of Frankenstein more than Dracula's Daughter, but neither bored him. He's 7, and I'm pretty sure he was only aware of the overarching story in each film. Frankenstein is alive and wants a girlfriend and Dracula's daughter is sucking blood.
We'll see how he does tonight at the opera...
I don't have a local theater that plays old movies. Which is a shame.
shareAre you near a large city?
shareNo. 2 and a half hours to the nearest big city. Plus I can't drive.
shareI reccommed getting a projector and an okay sounds system. You can watch movies like they were in the professional theater.
I did that. My original projector was $100 and the screen was $60.
My brothers did a similar thing but with a bedsheet or a white wall.
That's what I do to approximate the experience at home, but it's a far, far cry from seeing a film in a theater.
A movie screen is usually between 20'x60' to 30'x90', or larger. Even in a very small theater it will be 10'x30'.
Comparatively, a 100" TV is approximately 4' x 7'.
The sound is going to be far better in a vast cinema, where its installed and optimized to the vast concert hall room. Most home viewers fool themselves by installing a sound system that plays at a very high volume, or has room-shaking bass, but no one at home is going to come close to mimicking what's in a theater.
And then comes what simply can't be duplicated at home: 300+ strangers coming together as one to create an audience. Humans are social creatures, and we evolved to participate in rituals. From the shamans of old to the screen idols of today, we have always come together in groups and lost ourselves in a collective whole for a couple hours of worship or revelry.
So yes, I agree that the best one can do at home is a projector and screen. I have a room in my house with exactly that, dedicated to watching movies, but I accept that I'm getting at best 10% of the cinema experience when I do so.
That's rough for a film fan. I feel a little isolated here in Austin, Texas, so I can't imagine what it must be like to have no local film scene.
We have 5 Alamo Drafthouse theaters that consistently program revival fare, the venerable Paramount that shows classics all summer long, and a handful of other places that occasionally show older fare. Even Cinemark here hosts occasional classics: I saw North by Northwest a few weeks back. Even with all that, it feels like the film scene here is somewhat lacking, at least in comparison to places I've lived previously.
The big dumb guy was defeated pretty easily too
share