SOOOO much better than Man of Steel!!!!!

"No but its pretty close."

Not at all. Try again.

"Well given every other superhero manages to be MORE heroic while punching someone, yes Superman 1 has no excuse."

Punching someone doesn't make a person heroic, dip$hit. Any moron can throw a fist into someone's face. What you're interested in isn't heroism as it is action.

"Superman was not this much of a goofball in the comics and Gene Hackman is even MORE campy than Jesse Eisenberg. The only one admitted their bias is you."

Some of the camp aspects can be attributed to the Salkinds. "Gene Hackman is even MORE campy than Jesse Eisenberg" - You claim to not be biased.....but yet you are defending Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I rest my case.

"Wow, you are retarded. All that was showing the STAKES. And none of those things were disasters."

Just when I think you couldn't get any dumber, you decide to top yourself! It is one thing to have stakes, but it is another thing to be downright excessive and tastelessly exploitative.

"So you admit the fight scenes in Man of Steel were better."

Nope. The CG maybe good, but the fight scenes are so monotonous, bludgeoning and indistinguishable from each other in "MOS".


"Every single Michael Bay film is better that Superman 1, 2, 3, 4 and Returns."

Better than 3 and 4, perhaps (which isn't saying something". Better than 1, 2 and "Returns"? Hell no.


"Nope, try again and this time without deflecting."

You were the one who's been deflecting, junior.


"Apart from the terrible set designs."

Oh please, there's a clear difference in terms of quality and design. Try again, and this time give a clear, concise explanation as what makes the sets on-par with "Plan 9" outside of "I say so".


"So you claim it doesn't look the same except for when it does. Not a good argument."

And just like that you prove your stupidity! I was talking about how it looked like OLD Krypton from the comics, before John Barry's vision, genius.

"Krypton was supposed to be made of crystal? Well apart from how stupid that looks, it certainly didn't look like crystal to me."

Not even the interior details with all the quartz and crystal? How did you miss those aspects? Then again, you seem to be prone to missing out on such.


"Nope."

Then something is wrong with you.



"Yeah, here's how you're working this out.

Jason Rebourne's opinion contradicts mine,

therefore he lacks comprehension and "disregards" "details", can't be any other reason

therefor he must have a disability, only reason he could contradict me, right?"

Nope. "Jason Rebourne's opinion contradicts mine" - fine. Not indicative of mental disability.
Reasons for saying that "S1" is bad is obtuse to both the time period in which film was made, to the genre that it's a part of and to filmmaking itself. Misreads and disregards whole details, barely dwelling on any potential aspects or meanings within scenes, even going so far as to deny their existence. Has no reflection on what defines a superhero outside of throwing a punch. Has made no refutes with regards to film history.
Possible explanations: 1) mental illness, 2) limited exposure to the filmmaking process with an equally limited understanding of film history, 3) self-indulgence due to being part of generation that grew up on CG with no appreciation for the works of the past and the techniques that were used back then.



"Except those things don't make a good film"

For a Superman movie they do, especially when you consider the film as a whole. There is more to a superhero movie than just "punch man in the face". What you're interested in isn't actually heroism, but action, which the movie has, but not the kind that you want. Punching people doesn't make a good movie, not even for a superhero movie. If you want two people beating on each other, go to a boxing match.

"Plus, the damn film just drags on for so long without anything interesting actually happening."

Interesting like punching someone in the face? Son, you are a pure dumb-a$$.


"So you're saying he should have become Superman straight away. You do realise this is an origin story. Plus, you assume that Clark is a Mary Sue who can hear everything. Sorry, this one isn't a Mary Sue, his powers have limits. Besides if that is your problem, then your Superman is even worst because he pulls powers out his arse and still can't help EVERYONE on the entire planet."

Except he still has the same abilities (able to hear someone from miles away, laser beams, flight, X-RAY vision etc). Even if you could make the argument "but-but, it is an origin story! He hasn't had all of his abilities yet!", that doesn't change the fact that for his entire life he's been taught to be apathetic. What, in all of his life he hasn't flicked on the TV or radio and heard about some of the stuff happening out there, let alone during his travels? He's blind, deaf and dumb to the rest of the world and the various problems within it - the murderers, rapists, dictators, terrorists, wars and so on - but yet it is the arrival of the big mothership that finally makes him say "Alright, now is the time for me to announce my presence"? Because who gives a $hit about the rest of that noise, right? He only emerged out of self-interest, when the mothership threatens to destroy the planet he's living on. At least the Christopher Reeve version actually goes out and tries, and it isn't due to his planet being threatened by a damn flying saucer.


"Why is this a problem? Of course super villains are going to do bad things. Maybe you should stick to watching Teletubies or will that also trigger you?"

Funny, I was thinking Teletubbies was more your thing. It isn't the question whether or not supervillains are going to do bad things (of course they are!), but to have every single scene punctuated with explosions, more explosions and doing so with a dry, monotonous, cavalier tone and offering nothing new in the way of special-effects creativity makes it like any other blockbuster movie, with nothing to distinguish it from them. It doesn't help that it deliberately evokes the imagery and destruction of 9/11 in a tasteless and exploitative manner.


"And the answer is that this is the first Superman to actually get him right."

It hasn't gotten him right. It made him a psychopath like Lobo. It has him completely ignoring the plights of humanity outside of his vicinity, only emerging when the mothership comes and threatens to wreck the planet he's living on unless he appears, causing massive amounts of destruction with no effort made to control or relocate the fight, let alone help civilians during said-crisis, kissing Lois Lane in the middle of a crushed city, directly on top of crushed buildings and people, and then expects us to feel not only feel sorry for Superman for snapping Zod's neck despite all the death and destruction around him, but it expects us to "forgive" him as well. He got the suit on, but that didn't make him "Superman". Even the name was given more out of sarcasm by some soldiers than some deliberate attempt on his part to be a hero.



"The problem is that the film is about Superman and Jor El is just a mentor character so who cares if Jor El lives on through Superman?"

The films were also about fathers and sons, so Jor-El's actions add a whole new dimension to his phrase.



"Way to completely miss the point. Perhaps Teletubies is too advanced for you."

Nah, Teletubbies is more your style. Read the previous response.



"I know what Quake is, its an old first person multiplayer shooting game and really generic. I'm pretty sure they stopped making Quake games a long time ago."

It was one of the fathers of FPS games. It revolutionized the way FPS are done, with more verticality and dimension to its levels and gameplay. Prior to that, FPS games only allowed you to move left or right and didn't allow you to jump.

Not at all. Try again.

Punching someone doesn't make a person heroic, dip$hit. Any moron can throw a fist into someone's face. What you're interested in isn't heroism as it is action.

Some of the camp aspects can be attributed to the Salkinds. "Gene Hackman is even MORE campy than Jesse Eisenberg" - You claim to not be biased.....but yet you are defending Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I rest my case.

Just when I think you couldn't get any dumber, you decide to top yourself! It is one thing to have stakes, but it is another thing to be downright excessive and tastelessly exploitative.

Nope. The CG maybe good, but the fight scenes are so monotonous, bludgeoning and indistinguishable from each other in "MOS".

Better than 3 and 4, perhaps (which isn't saying something". Better than 1, 2 and "Returns"? Hell no.

You were the one who's been deflecting, junior.

Oh please, there's a clear difference in terms of quality and design. Try again, and this time give a clear, concise explanation as what makes the sets on-par with "Plan 9" outside of "I say so".

And just like that you prove your stupidity! I was talking about how it looked like OLD Krypton from the comics, before John Barry's vision, genius.

Not even the interior details with all the quartz and crystal? How did you miss those aspects? Then again, you seem to be prone to missing out on such.

Then something is wrong with you.

Reasons for saying that "S1" is bad is obtuse to both the time period in which film was made, to the genre that it's a part of and to filmmaking itself.

Misreads and disregards whole details, barely dwelling on any potential aspects or meanings within scenes, even going so far as to deny their existence.

Has made no refutes with regards to film history.

Possible explanations: 1) mental illness,

2) limited exposure to the filmmaking process with an equally limited understanding of film history

3) self-indulgence due to being part of generation that grew up on CG with no appreciation for the works of the past and the techniques that were used back then.

For a Superman movie they do, especially when you consider the film as a whole. There is more to a superhero movie than just "punch man in the face". What you're interested in isn't actually heroism, but action, which the movie has, but not the kind that you want. Punching people doesn't make a good movie, not even for a superhero movie. If you want two people beating on each other, go to a boxing match.

Interesting like punching someone in the face? Son, you are a pure dumb-a$$.

Except he still has the same abilities (able to hear someone from miles away, laser beams, flight, X-RAY vision etc). Even if you could make the argument "but-but, it is an origin story! He hasn't had all of his abilities yet!", that doesn't change the fact that for his entire life he's been taught to be apathetic.

What, in all of his life he hasn't flicked on the TV or radio and heard about some of the stuff happening out there, let alone during his travels? He's blind, deaf and dumb to the rest of the world and the various problems within it - the murderers, rapists, dictators, terrorists, wars and so on - but yet it is the arrival of the big mothership that finally makes him say "Alright, now is the time for me to announce my presence"? Because who gives a $hit about the rest of that noise, right? He only emerged out of self-interest, when the mothership threatens to destroy the planet he's living on. At least the Christopher Reeve version actually goes out and tries, and it isn't due to his planet being threatened by a damn flying saucer.

Funny, I was thinking Teletubbies was more your thing. It isn't the question whether or not supervillains are going to do bad things (of course they are!), but to have every single scene punctuated with explosions, more explosions and doing so with a dry, monotonous, cavalier tone and offering nothing new in the way of special-effects creativity makes it like any other blockbuster movie, with nothing to distinguish it from them. It doesn't help that it deliberately evokes the imagery and destruction of 9/11 in a tasteless and exploitative manner.

It hasn't gotten him right. It made him a psychopath like Lobo.

It has him completely ignoring the plights of humanity outside of his vicinity, only emerging when the mothership comes and threatens to wreck the planet he's living on unless he appears,

causing massive amounts of destruction with no effort made to control or relocate the fight,

let alone help civilians during said-crisis

then expects us to feel not only feel sorry for Superman for snapping Zod's neck despite all the death and destruction around him, but it expects us to "forgive" him as well.

The films were also about fathers and sons, so Jor-El's actions add a whole new dimension to his phrase.

Nah, Teletubbies is more your style. Read the previous response.

It was one of the fathers of FPS games. It revolutionized the way FPS are done, with more verticality and dimension to its levels and gameplay. Prior to that, FPS games only allowed you to move left or right and didn't allow you to jump.

"So Superman should have let Zod kill everyone?"

No, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he was just as responsible for the damage as him.

"And your Superman gets millions of people killed to save one woman and also gives up his powers for this one woman, not very heroic."

He didn't get millions of people killed, he reset time to prevent the disaster from happening. That in itself is heroic.


"Well, given that Eisenberg is at least better than Gene Hackman, yeah, its a valid argument."

It isn't. Eisenberg's Lex is just as bizarre, if not more so than Gene Hackman's or Kevin Spacey's versions, filled with all sorts of neurotic ticks, quirks and so on. Not even comic book Lex Luthor had been this nuts.


"Compared to the crappy fight scenes in Superman 2 where he throws his S at people."

For the time period in which it was made, it's impressive. "MOS", on the other hand, is too one-note and bloated in its CG effects.

"And neither does being a goofball, camp, annoying women and not having a villain worthy of your hero so Superman 1 is not a real superhero film."

This was a superhero movie, give it up. Again, this was back in the late 1970s. If you honestly think that all there is to a superhero movie is "punch bad guy", then you're about as thoughtful as a snail.


"More like hell yes. Hell, even 3 and 4 were better than 1."

Judged solely on the fist-fighting. I pity you.

"They were completely generic and instantly forgettable."

Again, lack of detail.


"Because I say things you don't want to hear."

Because your lack of attention to detail and very short attention span.


"Because I say things you don't want to hear."

Because you haven't given any reason to believe that you possessed greater knowledge of either film tradition or history outside of mentioning one or two movies. You never discussed technique, writing structure, etc.


"Actually, I made lots of them. They just fly over your head."

Three films/serials do not count as "lots". You hinted at some tenuous connection, but you have made no effort at all in terms comparison, be it breaking down said-films scene by scene and describing what it is that made "S1" derivative of that, be it through shots, music, plot, etc. The only thing you keep saying is "It's bad", but made no conscious effort to reflect on any of the other similarly budgeted movies and how they had looked in those days, let alone noted the technical achievements of film in that time.


"Like someone who can actually take Superman on."

Physically, no, unless they find Kryptonite. Psychologically and emotionally, though, Clark is vulnerable in those areas. Think about it - a villain who may not be as strong as Superman but is still wickedly intelligent, able to outsmart the Man of Steel and using his own abilities against him. What is so hard about doing a movie around that?


"Not apathetic, careful, he's been taught to be careful."

If he had wanted to be "careful", he could have easily just put on a mask. But no, he hid away until the mothership came to beam him up.


"You do realise he hadn't learned to fly yet, right? Why do you think he was so excited about his flying for the first time?"

So what? He's traveling around the world. Hell, even the Superman in his debut didn't have the ability to fly, but that hadn't stopped him. Same with New 52 Superman, when he lost his abilities.

"1, How many alien films were released in 2013?"

Thirteen altogether. Before that in 2012, ten.

"2, What the *beep* does it have to do with 9/11? You do realise films like Independence Day, Armageddon, Deep Impact, etc, existed before 9/11, right?"

This is different in that it's reflected in the imagery of "MOS". There’s a sequence in which he cycles through a series of street-level closeups, showing the faces of random Metropolis citizens (whom we all read as New Yorkers, obviously) moments before a huge space laser starts destroying skyscrapers. In the montage that follows, Snyder observes as those same characters flee from the clouds of dust and rubble billowing down city streets. From the expressions on the extras’ faces to the ground-level view of such a cataclysm, these images directly reference/rip off the footage captured — and endlessly repeated on-air — by news crews following the collapse of the World Trade Center. It treats the destruction as spectacle, and it's because of that it's exploitative. Look at the destruction of Krypton in "S1" - in that movie it was actually terrifying to watch. With its hellish red lighting, imagery of people falling and the ways shots were done, it was like seeing one of those church frescoes depicting the Apocalypse, Judgement Day, brought to life; it wasn't spectacle. In "MOS", the destruction was overkill. In fact, the whole movie became about destruction. Seeing building after building collapsing eventually became numbing.


"You have a strange definition of psychopath."

You have an even more questionable definition of a hero.


"He appeared to protect humanity."

Only when the mothership called out for him and threatened to destroy the planet. Before that, bollocks.

"Here's the problem, you expect Superman to solve EVERYTHING. But even with those powers its impossible."

No, I didn't expect him to solve "everything", what I expected was to see some effort on his behalf that didn't need some outside alien presence to make his debut as "Superman". Superman is supposed to represent the best within humanity. It's not the punching to the face that defines him, but his goodness and conviction. How could a being who isn't even human can still be so good and kind, even in a world filled with such misery, suffering and hate? An example of this was a comic where a girl suffering from depression tries calling her psychiatrist, only to hear that he can't come due to traffic (or something - it's been a while). She goes to commit suicide, but Superman is there and provides comfort, telling her that her doctor really was held up by traffic and things were never bad as it seemed. No punching, no bad guys, no flying down to snatch her in the midst of her falling to the pavement - just being human. Even if people couldn't literally make themselves into Superman, to be as strong and as powerful as him, let alone as good, then perhaps they could still learn from his ideals to make themselves into better people, if not apply those same principles on a societal - and by extension global - level. THAT is what makes Superman such a great character.


"Yeah, using a compute mind control him and entering possessing his body, nothing creepy about that"

A ghost trapped in crystal form, sacrificing his own life force to help return Superman's powers, thereby killing his own consciousness in the process. Nothing creepy about that.



"Actually Doom, which must have been made even earlier, allowed you to move forwards and backwards."

I said it was one of the fathers of FPS games, not THE father. Prior to that, FPS games didn't allow you to aim your weapon, jump, move around, swim, etc.

No, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he was just as responsible for the damage as him.

He didn't get millions of people killed, he reset time to prevent the disaster from happening. That in itself is heroic.

It isn't. Eisenberg's Lex is just as bizarre, if not more so than Gene Hackman's or Kevin Spacey's versions, filled with all sorts of neurotic ticks, quirks and so on. Not even comic book Lex Luthor had been this nuts.

For the time period in which it was made, it's impressive. "MOS", on the other hand, is too one-note and bloated in its CG effects.

This was a superhero movie, give it up. Again, this was back in the late 1970s. If you honestly think that all there is to a superhero movie is "punch bad guy", then you're about as thoughtful as a snail.

Judged solely on the fist-fighting. I pity you.

Again, lack of detail.

Because your lack of attention to detail and very short attention span.

Because you haven't given any reason to believe that you possessed greater knowledge of either film tradition or history outside of mentioning one or two movies. You never discussed technique, writing structure, etc.

Three films/serials do not count as "lots". You hinted at some tenuous connection, but you have made no effort at all in terms comparison, be it breaking down said-films scene by scene and describing what it is that made "S1" derivative of that, be it through shots, music, plot, etc. The only thing you keep saying is "It's bad", but made no conscious effort to reflect on any of the other similarly budgeted movies and how they had looked in those days, let alone noted the technical achievements of film in that time.

Physically, no, unless they find Kryptonite. Psychologically and emotionally, though, Clark is vulnerable in those areas. Think about it - a villain who may not be as strong as Superman but is still wickedly intelligent, able to outsmart the Man of Steel and using his own abilities against him. What is so hard about doing a movie around that?

If he had wanted to be "careful", he could have easily just put on a mask. But no, he hid away until the mothership came to beam him up.

So what? He's traveling around the world. Hell, even the Superman in his debut didn't have the ability to fly, but that hadn't stopped him. Same with New 52 Superman, when he lost his abilities.

Thirteen altogether. Before that in 2012, ten.

This is different in that it's reflected in the imagery of "MOS". There’s a sequence in which he cycles through a series of street-level closeups, showing the faces of random Metropolis citizens (whom we all read as New Yorkers, obviously) moments before a huge space laser starts destroying skyscrapers. In the montage that follows, Snyder observes as those same characters flee from the clouds of dust and rubble billowing down city streets. From the expressions on the extras’ faces to the ground-level view of such a cataclysm, these images directly reference/rip off the footage captured — and endlessly repeated on-air — by news crews following the collapse of the World Trade Center. It treats the destruction as spectacle, and it's because of that it's exploitative. Look at the destruction of Krypton in "S1" - in that movie it was actually terrifying to watch. With its hellish red lighting, imagery of people falling and the ways shots were done, it was like seeing one of those church frescoes depicting the Apocalypse, Judgement Day, brought to life; it wasn't spectacle. In "MOS", the destruction was overkill. In fact, the whole movie became about destruction. Seeing building after building collapsing eventually became numbing.

You have an even more questionable definition of a hero.

Only when the mothership called out for him and threatened to destroy the planet. Before that, bollocks.

No, I didn't expect him to solve "everything", what I expected was to see some effort on his behalf that didn't need some outside alien presence to make his debut as "Superman". Superman is supposed to represent the best within humanity. It's not the punching to the face that defines him, but his goodness and conviction. How could a being who isn't even human can still be so good and kind, even in a world filled with such misery, suffering and hate? An example of this was a comic where a girl suffering from depression tries calling her psychiatrist, only to hear that he can't come due to traffic (or something - it's been a while). She goes to commit suicide, but Superman is there and provides comfort, telling her that her doctor really was held up by traffic and things were never bad as it seemed. No punching, no bad guys, no flying down to snatch her in the midst of her falling to the pavement - just being human. Even if people couldn't literally make themselves into Superman, to be as strong and as powerful as him, let alone as good, then perhaps they could still learn from his ideals to make themselves into better people, if not apply those same principles on a societal - and by extension global - level. THAT is what makes Superman such a great character.

A ghost trapped in crystal form, sacrificing his own life force to help return Superman's powers, thereby killing his own consciousness in the process. Nothing creepy about that.

I said it was one of the fathers of FPS games, not THE father. Prior to that, FPS games didn't allow you to aim your weapon, jump, move around, swim, etc.

"I don't remember Superman helping Zod kill anybody."

He was smashing Zod through buildings and didn't control the destruction.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyG5axoTtlc

At 1:03 - 1:17, he drove Zod through one of those pillars and into a gas station, causing an explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1SYSiesNjY

O:38 Drove him through steel beams.
1:09 Drove his face into the side of a building.
2:10 Drove him into a museum from orbit, with people still inside. Does nothing to relocate while Zod was stunned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGzoeY0XcGI

At 1:01 onwards he causes Zod's ship to crash into five or six buildings.

"No, he reset time and stopped the OTHER missile but didn't stop the one he otherwise stopped. Thus millions died. All so Superman could shag one annoying woman"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpBfR7GT5zE

During her drive the earthquake was causing rocks and stuff to crumble of cliffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0

Notice how everything is still. No earthquakes. He prevented it from happening.

"Nope, try again. Gene Hackman was way more campy."

And Eisenberg wasn't? Especially with the candy? He's as far a departure as Hackman's. Sure, he's a manipulator and evil master mind just like all the other Luthors, but he's much more mentally disturbed than comic Lex. Several people I've sat with said his tweaking and peculiar habits make him seem more like the Joker.


"There's nothing impressive about someone throwing his S so yeah, Man of Steel was better."

The throwing the s bit was Lester's stuff. The Donner cut removes that along with the other Lester elements. When looking at a film, you have to keep in mind the time period in which it was made and the technical innovations at the time. Prior to this, nothing like this has ever been done or seen before.

"Says the one who thinks campiness, annoying character, bad actors and no climax to be enough."

It had a climax. Forgot about that, I see. The actors weren't bad at all, Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder included. Some of the camp elements detract but their few and overall the picture was solid, even with its problems.


"And good films did exist during the 70s so Superman has no excuse."

I never said that good films hadn't existed at the time. For what is and in terms of how it contributed to the superhero genre and the Superman mythos, it's good.


"Based on be closer to the comics."

Could you sound any more like a dumb petulant child? It is close to the comics. It retains all his powers, origins, Krypton and shows him being a hero, while also adding some elements. Prior to this, no other version, not even the George Reeves Superman, attempted something so ambitious and epic in scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcwEsiC3STg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bb5T-WBRY

You talk of being "closer to the comics" - what about Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns"? They're faithful in parts but they also differed from the comics in a number of areas, including the Joker among other things. Or what about Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies? Were they also $hit just because they weren't "close enough"? Fanboys like you make me want to vomit.

"Yes, I know the Krypton in Superman 1 lacked detail. Good to see you admit it."

I was referring to your previous comment, witless one.

"AKA say things you don't want to hear."

In your imagination, that's what it translates as. In reality, your inability to perceive the smallest of details and very short attention span.


"Actually I did, they just flew over your head. And your best argument is to tell me to name a film and then when I do, you just tell me to name more. You're desperate, mate."

You're the one who's desperate. I asked you to name a film and to go into detail in terms of what made Superman a rip-off of said-film and what made them equivocal in their imagery, the only "answer" you give is "it is complete generic and instantly forgettable".




"If he couldn't fly, how would he be able to be everywhere?"

Even the original Superman went places, and that version just leapt over tall buildings. Also New 52 Superman, who had been rendered flightless.


"He should have been Batman?"

No, but if he was soooo concerned about keeping his identity secret, he could have done a number of things, be it disguises, just used his speed to blur right by, use stealth and his advanced senses to pinpoint his way around without others knowing, etc.


"Well, the techniques and writing structure in Man of Steel was vastly superior to Superman 1."

Not so. It tries aping the narrative of "Batman Beyond", but it's so utterly clumsy and disjointed in comparison that it's a joke. The problem is that the editing and the way the story is unfolded is completely unnatural. The narrative flow to it just bounces haphazardly between past and present with no form of cohesion. The thing about Nolan's execution in relation to "Batman Begins" was that the narrative never faltered, especially when it alternated between a flashback and the present. Transitions were seamless and felt natural. For example, the first five minutes of the movie opened with Bruce as a child stumbling and falling into a dark hole/well. The last we see of him, he's alone, trapped and in the dark. Right after that, we see Bruce Wayne as an adult, dishevelled, bearded and in a prison. Those first five minutes immediately communicated what the story was about, and as more of Bruce's journey unfolded, those transitions between past and present continued to interweave into a fluid whole. These transitions also helped the narrative pass through huge gaps of time in which Bruce was training with the League of Shadows. "MOS" - it starts off on Krypton with a whole series of explosions and Jor-El riding his "Avatar" dragon thing (yet another movie MOS shamelessly takes from!), getting the "Codex" before sending his son off, followed by more explosions, then leaps several years into the future to yet another disaster with explosions in the form of a falling oil rig and then transitions back to Clark's childhood as he looks up at a blue whale in the water.
.....I'm sorry, what?
How do you go from explosions, more explosions and a whale to childhood? What, are we supposed to intuit that Clark's head suffered so much from all the blasts and the impact of the water that he became muddleheaded? Did he like whales? What the hell do whales have to do with anything with his past?


"1, A film about a guy preventing disasters would suck. The best part of the Fantastic Four wasn't saving a bridge but fighting Doctor Doom."

A superhero movie can have more than just fighting the bad guy, dip$hit.


"2, Your definition of Superman is a Mary Sue that not allowed to be realistic."

That has always been the definition of Superman. And don't bring up that dumb "realistic" argument - it doesn't apply, not to Superman. You want to talk "realistic", consider this: 1) Krypton's mass would be so large it would be heavier than the sun itself, 2) Superman having denser mass in actuality would make him too heavy to fly, 3) no logical, believably scientific explanation was ever given for his abilities (heat vision, flight, X-RAY vision, super speed, able to breathe and speak in the vacuum of space, etc). One can still make Superman embody those ideals while at the same time trying to have some "realism" in his environment - it's called good writing, something "MOS" lacks. There were some ideas I liked, such as Clark wandering the earth, but it could have been done so much better. I mean, imagine a story with Superman, this moral absolutist, trying to do good in a world that is filled with gray areas.

"3, Your example is terrible. Superheroes is about fighting bad guys."

It's considered to be one of his best moments in comics. What, his not punching someone makes it terrible? You really are a piece of work. You are nothing but a self-indulged, spoiled fanboy brat with no appreciation whatsoever for good writing, let alone what makes a superhero.

http://comicsalliance.com/all-star-superman-world-suicide-prevention-day/



"Actually I did, they just flew over your head. And your best argument is to tell me to name a film and then when I do, you just tell me to name more. You're desperate, mate."

You're the one who's desperate, mate. I asked you to name films that supposedly shared John Barry's visual design and wanted you to go into detail about what makes his work on par with them, you simply answer "they were completely generic and instantly forgettable". Try again, and this time, go into detail. However, keep in mind the time period in which these movies were made and how special effects and sets looked at that time. Compare the work of the effects and sets of "S1" and "S2" with other works from the period, if not earlier - don't judge based on what we have today. What makes the sets poor or equivocal? Do you see seams in the floors? Is it the lighting? They way they were shot? What exactly about the design is comparable (and don't just say "completely generic and instantly forgettable", elaborate, otherwise it'll only prove you to be a horse's a$$ and an impotent coward)? How did these sets fare with other works within the genre during that time or before?


And apart from the existence of aliens, what do they actually have in common?

The most prominent ones were summer releases.



"Yeah, its to nothing to do with killing millions of people to save one woman or having to be brainwashed by a computer into being a hero in the first place. Nor does it involve giving up your superpowers to bang said woman."

He reset time to prevent the disasters from happening. Therefore, millions weren't killed. Again, not brainwashing - look to the bottom for more explanation. The "giving up the powers to bang some woman" - that was the Lester cut. The Donner cut fixed that. Considering this version actually controlled destruction, or at least attempted to, and actually shows concern for civilians and tries to aid them whenever he could, it's a hell of a lot better in comparison to the "Superman" (cough cough NOT Superman) in "MOS".


"That doesn't a 9/11 make."

In terms of imagery it does. Tastelessly too. Even to the point of overkill.



"Because he wanted to protect humanity."

Only when it served his self-interest. What, he completely forgot about all the warlords, dictators, drug cartels, terrorists, rapists, murderers and so on in the world? They're just too far beneath him to even notice? He didn't crack on a radio or TV and take notice of innocent people being screwed over on the News to even care or take initiative? It's not like this guy is three hundred feet tall.




"Yeah, its just a little harmless brainwashing a guy using a supercomputer and then somehow being a ghost (which which doesn't even fit) and possessing someone's body. I get the impression that this Superman probably took over the world."

1) We're talking about a race of beings whose abilities and technologies seem more along the lines of magic than anything based in the real world.
2) To say that Superman was "brainwashed" is insulting to those that had experienced actual brainwashing. Have you ever heard of MK ULTRA? It was a CIA operation in which they experimented on people, injecting them with massive amounts of LSD in order to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control. People that were part of this program had their brains fried. Jor-El didn't dope Clark on drugs, nor did he commit any acts of violence on his person. Plus, his reasons for helping were pure - he wasn't trying to inspire fear or hate, he wasn't trying to cause harm, he was trying to promote good.
"Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and power are needed. But always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, if they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son."
When Clark went to the Fortress of Solitude, it was just after Pa Kent's funeral. Having learned that he had other abilities that he had "yet discovered", what was he to do, turn away, especially when he's lamenting over the fact that he couldn't save his own father? He had to learn, otherwise he'll potentially repeat what had happened. This was what resulted in him going against Jor-El's wishes near the end. What happened with Clark was a form of social influence known as the educational method. "Brainwashing" implies a much more invasive approach in order to cause changes in someone's way of thinking without that person's consent and often against his/her will. They're usually done in isolated environments, that is true....but it's kind of difficult to apply that to Clark, especially since a) he's not human, b) he's the only surviving member of his species, living on a planet that's not even his, so he was isolated from the get-go, c) he was already aware of his not being human to begin with, if not fully cognisant of the fact that he was different from everyone else around him, and d) he was already living a dual identity, pretending to be human or "normal".

3) He didn't "possess him". He sacrificed his life force and consciousness in order to give back Clark's abilities.



"And this has what to do with Superman? I don't remember him using a gun."

Once again, I'm proven my point about your very low attention span. I was pointing out how the Kryptonian armor looks like it was ripped off from a video game, more specifically "Quake 2", 4 and "Gears of War". You then tried to shift the argument by calling "Quake" generic when you didn't even know that much about it to begin with.

He was smashing Zod through buildings and didn't control the destruction.

During her drive the earthquake was causing rocks and stuff to crumble of cliffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0

Notice how everything is still. No earthquakes. He prevented it from happening.

And Eisenberg wasn't? Especially with the candy? He's as far a departure as Hackman's. Sure, he's a manipulator and evil master mind just like all the other Luthors, but he's much more mentally disturbed than comic Lex. Several people I've sat with said his tweaking and peculiar habits make him seem more like the Joker.

The throwing the s bit was Lester's stuff. The Donner cut removes that along with the other Lester elements. When looking at a film, you have to keep in mind the time period in which it was made and the technical innovations at the time. Prior to this, nothing like this has ever been done or seen before.

It had a climax. Forgot about that, I see. The actors weren't bad at all, Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder included. Some of the camp elements detract but their few and overall the picture was solid, even with its problems.

I never said that good films hadn't existed at the time. For what is and in terms of how it contributed to the superhero genre and the Superman mythos, it's good.

Could you sound any more like a dumb petulant child? It is close to the comics. It retains all his powers, origins, Krypton and shows him being a hero, while also adding some elements. Prior to this, no other version, not even the George Reeves Superman, attempted something so ambitious and epic in scale.

You talk of being "closer to the comics" - what about Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Returns"? They're faithful in parts but they also differed from the comics in a number of areas, including the Joker among other things. Or what about Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies? Were they also $hit just because they weren't "close enough"? Fanboys like you make me want to vomit.

I was referring to your previous comment, witless one.

In your imagination, that's what it translates as. In reality, your inability to perceive the smallest of details and very short attention span.

You're the one who's desperate. I asked you to name a film and to go into detail in terms of what made Superman a rip-off of said-film and what made them equivocal in their imagery, the only "answer" you give is "it is complete generic and

Even the original Superman went places, and that version just leapt over tall buildings. Also New 52 Superman, who had been rendered flightless.

No, but if he was soooo concerned about keeping his identity secret, he could have done a number of things, be it disguises, just used his speed to blur right by, use stealth and his advanced senses to pinpoint his way around without others knowing, etc.

Not so. It tries aping the narrative of "Batman Beyond", but it's so utterly clumsy and disjointed in comparison that it's a joke.

The problem is that the editing and the way the story is unfolded is completely unnatural. The narrative flow to it just bounces haphazardly between past and present with no form of cohesion.

The thing about Nolan's execution in relation to "Batman Begins" was that the narrative never faltered, especially when it alternated between a flashback and the present. Transitions were seamless and felt natural. For example, the first five minutes of the movie opened with Bruce as a child stumbling and falling into a dark hole/well. The last we see of him, he's alone, trapped and in the dark. Right after that, we see Bruce Wayne as an adult, dishevelled, bearded and in a prison. Those first five minutes immediately communicated what the story was about, and as more of Bruce's journey unfolded, those transitions between past and present continued to interweave into a fluid whole. These transitions also helped the narrative pass through huge gaps of time in which Bruce was training with the League of Shadows. "MOS" - it starts off on Krypton with a whole series of explosions and Jor-El riding his "Avatar" dragon thing (yet another movie MOS shamelessly takes from!), getting the "Codex" before sending his son off, followed by more explosions, then leaps several years into the future to yet another disaster with explosions in the form of a falling oil rig and then transitions back to Clark's childhood as he looks up at a blue whale in the water.
.....I'm sorry, what?
How do you go from explosions, more explosions and a whale to childhood? What, are we supposed to intuit that Clark's head suffered so much from all the blasts and the impact of the water that he became muddleheaded? Did he like whales? What the hell do whales have to do with anything with his past?

A superhero movie can have more than just fighting the bad guy, dip$hit.

That has always been the definition of Superman. And don't bring up that dumb "realistic" argument - it doesn't apply, not to Superman. You want to talk "realistic", consider this: 1) Krypton's mass would be so large it would be heavier than the sun itself, 2) Superman having denser mass in actuality would make him too heavy to fly, 3) no logical, believably scientific explanation was ever given for his abilities (heat vision, flight, X-RAY vision, super speed, able to breathe and speak in the vacuum of space, etc).

One can still make Superman embody those ideals while at the same time trying to have some "realism" in his environment

I mean, imagine a story with Superman, this moral absolutist, trying to do good in a world that is filled with gray areas.

It's considered to be one of his best moments in comics. What, his not punching someone makes it terrible? You really are a piece of work. You are nothing but a self-indulged, spoiled fanboy brat with no appreciation whatsoever for good writing, let alone what makes a superhero.

You're the one who's desperate, mate. I asked you to name films that supposedly shared John Barry's visual design and wanted you to go into detail about what makes his work on par with them, you simply answer "they were completely generic and instantly forgettable". Try again, and this time, go into detail. However, keep in mind the time period in which these movies were made and how special effects and sets looked at that time. Compare the work of the effects and sets of "S1" and "S2" with other works from the period, if not earlier - don't judge based on what we have today. What makes the sets poor or equivocal? Do you see seams in the floors? Is it the lighting? They way they were shot? What exactly about the design is comparable (and don't just say "completely generic and instantly forgettable", elaborate, otherwise it'll only prove you to be a horse's a$$ and an impotent coward)? How did these sets fare with other works within the genre during that time or before?

He reset time to prevent the disasters from happening. Therefore, millions weren't killed. Again, not brainwashing - look to the bottom for more explanation. The "giving up the powers to bang some woman" - that was the Lester cut. The Donner cut fixed that. Considering this version actually controlled destruction, or at least attempted to, and actually shows concern for civilians and tries to aid them whenever he could, it's a hell of a lot better in comparison to the "Superman" (cough cough NOT Superman) in "MOS".

In terms of imagery it does. Tastelessly too. Even to the point of overkill.

Only when it served his self-interest. What, he completely forgot about all the warlords, dictators, drug cartels, terrorists, rapists, murderers and so on in the world? They're just too far beneath him to even notice? He didn't crack on a radio or TV and take notice of innocent people being screwed over on the News to even care or take initiative? It's not like this guy is three hundred feet tall.

1) We're talking about a race of beings whose abilities and technologies seem more along the lines of magic than anything based in the real world.

2) To say that Superman was "brainwashed" is insulting to those that had experienced actual brainwashing. Have you ever heard of MK ULTRA? It was a CIA operation in which they experimented on people, injecting them with massive amounts of LSD in order to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control. People that were part of this program had their brains fried. Jor-El didn't dope Clark on drugs, nor did he commit any acts of violence on his person. Plus, his reasons for helping were pure - he wasn't trying to inspire fear or hate, he wasn't trying to cause harm, he was trying to promote good.

3) He didn't "possess him". He sacrificed his life force and consciousness in order to give back Clark's abilities.

Once again, I'm proven my point about your very low attention span. I was pointing out how the Kryptonian armor looks like it was ripped off from a video game, more specifically "Quake 2", 4 and "Gears of War". You then tried to shift the argument by calling "Quake" generic when you didn't even know that much about it to begin with.

"And how was he supposed to control the destruction. You got to remember Zod was also Kryptonian. If Superman held back, MORE people would die."

In Smallville he could have easily taken the fight elsewhere to a more isolated environment, if not remained in the fields away from the bloody town. Metropolis, he could have first taken out the machine there, then the Kryptonian ship, carrying it to someplace where people wouldn't be squashed or have access to it.


"No, he adds a stupid amount of powers like rewinding time, throwing his S and rebuilding the wall of China with laser eyes."

The ability to rewind time was from the comics at that time. The Donner cut got rid of throwing the S.

"And saying its at least its better than George Reeves isn't a good argument."

Considering no superhero film had ever been done on this wide a scale, and the fact that it laid the groundwork for good superhero movies, including Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. In fact, Christopher Nolan's inspiration for his Batman movies came from "S1". Here's a quote:
"One of the great films that I am very influenced by that we haven’t talked about was Dick Donner’s Superman — 1978, that came out. It made a huge impression on me. I can remember the trailers for it, I can remember about Superman the movie, all of that. … You know, you had Superman in 1978, but they never did the sort of 1978 Batman, where you see the origin story, where the world is pretty much the world we live in but there’s this extraordinary figure there, which is what worked so well in Dick Donner’s Superman film. And so I was able to get in the studio and say, 'Well, that’s what I would do with it.'"
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/


"And what did it contribute exactly? Three more crappy films (four if you count Supergirl) and nothing of merit. It wasn't until 1989 that GOOD superhero films started getting made and even that it still didn't really take off (thanks studio behind Batman 3 and 4) until 1998."


Your memory is really poor.
- It helped reshape Lex Luthor from a criminal scientist into a multimillionaire.
- It made the "s" insignia the family crest on his home planet, something never done in the comics at that time.
- The crystalline-based technology of the planet Krypton, featured in later comics and cartoon shows, movies and video games.
- Ursa and Non — characters created specifically for the film — are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod. (Action Comics #845
- A computer-generated simulacrum of Jor-El survives in the Fortress of Solitude to advise his adult son Kal-El. (Action Comics #844
- Clark Kent commences his public superhero career as the adult Superman, rather than the teenage Superboy. (The Man of Steel #1)
- Lois Lane first meets Superman when he rescues her as she falls from a disabled helicopter in Metropolis. (Superman: Secret Origin #3)
- Lois is the one who first names the hero "Superman". (The Man of Steel #2)
- Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, but Martha survives as his widow. (Action Comics #870)
- Although she is an excellent reporter, Lois frequently misspells words (Superman: Secret Origin #3)
In other words, it contributed significantly to the Superman mythos.
In terms of the superhero genre, it was revolutionary. "Superman 1" brought it to the national spotlight, something no other superhero movie had done before. Comic-books had not been that successful on screen before Superman. There were a number of comic-book characters that had been adapted to the screen during the era of the serials – Dick Tracy (1937), Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), Batman (1943), Captain America (1944), the aforementioned Superman serials. However, these were cheap productions, where the fantastique had been compromised by budget and a prosaic dullness in opening up and letting the superheroes be super – the most heroic exploits ever got was the serial Superman swinging on a crane or lifting a truck. (The sole exception in regard to successful comic-book adaptations would be the non-superheroic Flash Gordon serials). A second wave of screen superheroes came in the 1960s after the success of tv’s Batman (1966-8) but the tv Batman defined the mode of the superhero as camp where all the heroic epithets and po-faced seriousness of the comic-book originals was played for maximum silliness. The Salkind-Donner Superman could be measured as the demarcation point where cinematic superheroes started to be taken seriously on screen. A much greater budget allowed Superman to fly with a full flight of fantastic imagination and the results are a simply marvellous incarnation of a comic-book. This, Tim Burton’s two Batman films, Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992), The Crow (1994), X-Men (2000) and The Dark Knight (2008), would have to count as the handful of great comic-book to film adaptations. Yugoslav front projection specialist Zoran Perisic invented a new special effects system – the Zoptic Process – that allowed matte work of a flying Christopher Reeve to be placed in relation to background processes that could be focused in and out on. Sometimes the effects look a little hokey – there is a big wire visible just before the dam blows – but mostly the work is stunning (for the time it was created).


"Except he rewinded time to before he stopped it and did nothing. How did he prevent it from happening?"

It was enough to alter the timeline so that Lois never experienced the aftershock that buried her car.


"It had no climax, just Superman messing about with missiles."

Also acting as a bridge for a collapsed rail line, welding tectonic plates together and going back in time, a feat no other superhero movie, past or present, managed to copy in scale. Not even the George Reeves Superman.



"Actually, Hackman wasn't really a mastermind. He just wanted to do evil stuff with missiles, hanged around Zod not actually doing anything and got involved with Nuclear Man (who should have been Bizarro)."

He wanted to kill millions of people in order to make a piece of real estate more valuable, soo, yeah, that qualifies him as a "mastermind". Not as much as comic book Lex in later years, but still, this was the early days.


"At least Eisenberg was doing actual masterminding by getting Batman to fight Superman and then using Doomsday."

Yes, because Lex was a neurotic crybaby with severe daddy issues who can't bear the thought of a god who is both powerful and good.

"did we even need to see Krypton in Superman 1? They should have just started with the planet exploding and Superman's spaceship being sent to Earth. Everything happening on that planet had nothing to do with Luthor's messing about."


You are focused on the wrong angle. It isn't just about Lex's "messing about", it's about Clark and his journey, from life on Krypton, childhood and adolescence in Smallville, and adulthood in Metropolis and by extension the world. Each of these moments in his life are chapters, each with their own little character arcs that shape Clark into he ultimately becomes. The scenes on Krypton are important for establishing the character of Jor-El and the world he's apart of. Not only do we get a glimpse of his power and authority, but we also see his nobility in his parting words to Kal-El. Those scenes not only established the horror and tragedy of Krypton's end, but they also established the tragic nature of Clark's own situation as well.


"Actually those were close enough"

Only barely. Selena Kyle in "Batman Returns" changed her into a much mousier character at the beginning, her origin implying a vaguely supernatural element. The Penguin in "Returns" much more deformed and introduced a real venomousness and obscene randiness into the part that the comic-book never had. Joker, sure, he fell into a vat of chemicals, but his being a gangster named Jack Napier - not part of the comic. And of course, Batman's relationship with Commissioner Gordon. There are more. You are forgiving of those films and the Nolan movies despite their changes, but when it comes to "Superman 1" and "2" you backpedal and squawk like some spoiled idiot child indignantly "HE DIDN'T PUNCH DAH BAD GUY!". Pathetic.



"So how did he get there without flying?"

He still had his speed.


"Batman Beyond? Really?"

That's on me - I meant "Batman Begins".


"So your problem is you weren't smart enough to follow the plot. It was really very simple."

I understood the "plot" perfectly. A pointless, soulless rehashing of "S1" and 2 with a McGuffin to justify Zod's interest in Clark and plenty of destruction to go around, with elements taken from other much better films, and an incredibly disjointed narrative structure that makes no sense at all.


"You can't come up with an argument, so you try throwing personal insults?"

There have been plenty of arguments, but all you say is "BUT SUPAMAN DIDN'T PUNCH ANYONE! SUPAHHERO MOVIES IS ABOUT PUNCHIN' SOMEONE!" like a moron. Consider "The Avengers" - it had cool action and special effects, true, but the beauty of that film was the writing, the way it had characters play off one another in order to reveal new fascinating aspects about them, with heroes actually being heroes, helping law enforcement and civilians, trying to control the battle and keep it from escalating. There was a fine balance between its action and drama, with both elements not threatening to overwhelm the other. The same cannot be said with regards to "MOS".



"I did go into detail, they just flew over your head again."

You lie - I know for a fact you did no such thing. Let's recap what you said, shall we? You said that the John Barry design was "generic" and "derivative" of other crappy sci-fi movies. I asked which ones. You said the following: Plan 9 From Outer Space, Flight to Mars, Rocky Jones, Space Ranger, etc. I then asked what made "S1" and 2 derivative/similar to those. You said "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable". Since then, you didn't go into any other detail at all, and just left it at that. Not only does this prove you a liar, but a fool as well.




"Dirty Harry, Doctor Who, James Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars, they were all better."

Can't really compare "Superman" with "Dirty Harry" - they're both very different movies of two different genres. On a political level, perhaps. Funny you mentioned "James Bond" - Lex's plot scheme of blowing up the San Andreas Fault with a nuclear device, to flood California and send it into the ocean, was also the premise of the 14th Bond film "A View to a Kill". I suppose one could compare it to an extent with "Doctor Who", "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" given that they are based around sci-fi; in fact, one could draw certain parallels between the latter and "Superman".


"He was trying to do good. I explained that before with the bar and the oil rig."

Only because he happened to be there.


"You were asking about the genericness of Krypton. The fact you are now moving the goalposts shows how desperate you are."

No, just tired of your bull$hit. I had wanted details, you just say one-liners.




"Which Man of Steel did."

It didn't. The whole movie is the character decision of whether he should announce his presence to the world or whether he remain in anonymity. It could have worked.....but it was done poorly. "Superman: Birthright" is actually one of his best stories that does something like this.


"Have you not seen his powers? There is no way he could do that stuff without being noticed."

Sure he could, it's called "planning". That's what people do, normal thinking people, anyway. In the case of disasters like tornadoes, he could have easily done something. If someone happened to see his abilities, people could easily dismiss that person's claims as due to trauma/superstition/drunkenness/hallucinations/drugs, etc. Even if they were to video tape it, so what? It's not like there's a shortage of videos out there on the Internet that deals with supposed discoveries of aliens, Big Foot, Nessie and the like. There are even videos showcasing special effects made by amateur filmmakers. The power of skepticism can be just as powerful a tool.


"Flow over your head again."

You mean "flew". Yes, because it's a badly written movie with no logic in its editing or narration. Again, what possible correlation does Clark looking up at a whale in the middle of the ocean have with suddenly going back to his childhood?


"I wasn't asking for 100% realism, just more than the 0% in Superman 1."

Zero percent is the Superman quota when it comes to "realism". No matter how much you try, the character is always going to be ridiculous. The biggest problem with the character as he is now is that he's an anachronism - he doesn't fit within our social and political climate. A lot of his elements are extremely dated. For example, his being found by the Kents wouldn't result in his being adopted just like that, no. Back in the 30s, children and babies being discovered on the road were an unfortunately common occurrence. Nowadays, not only would there be tons of red tape to go through to get a child adopted, but there would have been a police inquiry, which "MOS" conveniently skips. His being a reporter by the end of "MOS" is eyebrow-raising as well; yes, it's part of his character in the comics, and it might have worked back in 30s, maybe even 70s, but nowadays news agencies aren't just going to accept anyone entering their offices, especially high school graduates (did he even graduate?).


"Donnor has Superman throw a guy into a pinball machine when he no longer assaulted him."

And "MOS" has Clark vandalizing a guy's car after getting alcohol dumped onto his head.


"Also Man of Steel does show concern for civilians, again you missed the oil rig. In fact most of your issues with Man of Steel are stuff that didn't actually happen."


I remember the oil rig. Still doesn't change the fact that between taking on a giant machine that's in the middle of Metropolis, where it's filled with people, and another device that's on the other side of the world, seemingly devoid of people, Clark decided to take the scenic route instead. That doesn't show concern for civilians. If he truly had, he'd have taken out the one in the city and try to help the people there, then go to the other device. And don't give me that "BUT-BUT THE MILITARY WERE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT, SO THAT'S WHY HE HAD TO GO!" argument. He saw firsthand back in Smallville how pitifully ill-equipped and unprepared the military was in its attempts to take on Kryptonian soldiers - what made him think "Hmm, yeah, these guys can take these guys and the device on no problem."? Even back when he was held by the Army in the interrogation room, he knew they could do nothing to him. THOSE scenes did happen, by the way.


"Don't be retarded."

Please, quit projecting your inadequacies onto me. Your embarrassing yourself.

"Something Superman 1 failed to do."

Actually, "Superman 1" succeeded in its aims, especially as a monomyth.




"And that means what?"

That in itself means we can only apply so much of our own understanding about



"What about the warlords, dictators, drug cartels, terrorists, rapists, murderers in Superman 1 and 2? Why he didn't try to stop Vietnam, he wasn't lifting his finger to do anything about them."

At least in those movies he was actually trying to do something and had an excuse, which was being in the Arctic learning and perfecting his powers. The movies weren't clear at all clear about Vietnam, probably intentional on the filmmakers' parts due to the sensitive nature of it.


"No, I've played Quake, it is generic."

It was hardly generic. If you're looking at it for the first time in this time and age where there are plenty of shooters around and comparing it with those, it may come off as "generic"....but you can't look at either a movie or a game that way; you have to take into consideration when it was developed, the budget, other FPS games at the time, etc. Outside of being the first real 3D shooter, it was also the first H.P. Lovecraft game done as an FPS.

"And Man of Steel's armour is way more detailed. Try again. Also Gears of War has nothing to do with it. An alien superhero and steroid abusers shooting each other are completely different things."

Way more detailed? Please. What makes it stand out outside of having a black skull helmet? What differentiate from "Gears of War" armor or other shooter games aping that style?

In Smallville he could have easily taken the fight elsewhere to a more isolated environment, if not remained in the fields away from the bloody town. Metropolis, he could have first taken out the machine there, then the Kryptonian ship, carrying it to someplace where people wouldn't be squashed or have access to it.

The ability to rewind time was from the comics at that time. The Donner cut got rid of throwing the S.

Considering no superhero film had ever been done on this wide a scale, and the fact that it laid the groundwork for good superhero movies, including Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. In fact, Christopher Nolan's inspiration for his Batman movies came from "S1". Here's a quote:
"One of the great films that I am very influenced by that we haven’t talked about was Dick Donner’s Superman — 1978, that came out. It made a huge impression on me. I can remember the trailers for it, I can remember about Superman the movie, all of that. … You know, you had Superman in 1978, but they never did the sort of 1978 Batman, where you see the origin story, where the world is pretty much the world we live in but there’s this extraordinary figure there, which is what worked so well in Dick Donner’s Superman film. And so I was able to get in the studio and say, 'Well, that’s what I would do with it.'"
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/

- It helped reshape Lex Luthor from a criminal scientist into a multimillionaire.

- It made the "s" insignia the family crest on his home planet, something never done in the comics at that time.

- The crystalline-based technology of the planet Krypton, featured in later comics and cartoon shows, movies and video games.

- Ursa and Non — characters created specifically for the film — are imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod. (Action Comics #845

- A computer-generated simulacrum of Jor-El survives in the Fortress of Solitude to advise his adult son Kal-El. (Action Comics #844

- Clark Kent commences his public superhero career as the adult Superman, rather than the teenage Superboy. (The Man of Steel #1)

- Lois Lane first meets Superman when he rescues her as she falls from a disabled helicopter in Metropolis. (Superman: Secret Origin #3)

- Lois is the one who first names the hero "Superman". (The Man of Steel #2)

- Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, but Martha survives as his widow. (Action Comics #870)

- Although she is an excellent reporter, Lois frequently misspells words (Superman: Secret Origin #3)

In other words, it contributed nothing of significance to the Superman mythos.

In terms of the superhero genre, it was revolutionary. "Superman 1" brought it to the national spotlight, something no other superhero movie had done before. Comic-books had not been that successful on screen before Superman. There were a number of comic-book characters that had been adapted to the screen during the era of the serials – Dick Tracy (1937), Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941), Batman (1943), Captain America (1944), the aforementioned Superman serials. However, these were cheap productions, where the fantastique had been compromised by budget and a prosaic dullness in opening up and letting the superheroes be super – the most heroic exploits ever got was the serial Superman swinging on a crane or lifting a truck. (The sole exception in regard to successful comic-book adaptations would be the non-superheroic Flash Gordon serials). A second wave of screen superheroes came in the 1960s after the success of tv’s Batman (1966-8) but the tv Batman defined the mode of the superhero as camp where all the heroic epithets and po-faced seriousness of the comic-book originals was played for maximum silliness. The Salkind-Donner Superman could be measured as the demarcation point where cinematic superheroes started to be taken seriously on screen. A much greater budget allowed Superman to fly with a full flight of fantastic imagination and the results are a simply marvellous incarnation of a comic-book. This, Tim Burton’s two Batman films, Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992), The Crow (1994), X-Men (2000) and The Dark Knight (2008), would have to count as the handful of great comic-book to film adaptations. Yugoslav front projection specialist Zoran Perisic invented a new special effects system – the Zoptic Process – that allowed matte work of a flying Christopher Reeve to be placed in relation to background processes that could be focused in and out on. Sometimes the effects look a little hokey – there is a big wire visible just before the dam blows – but mostly the work is stunning (for the time it was created).

It was enough to alter the timeline so that Lois never experienced the aftershock that buried her car.

Also acting as a bridge for a collapsed rail line, welding tectonic plates together and going back in time, a feat no other superhero movie, past or present, managed to copy in scale. Not even the George Reeves Superman.

He wanted to kill millions of people in order to make a piece of real estate more valuable, soo, yeah, that qualifies him as a "mastermind". Not as much as comic book Lex in later years, but still, this was the early days.

Yes, because Lex was a neurotic crybaby with severe daddy issues who can't bear the thought of a god who is both powerful and good.

You are focused on the wrong angle. It isn't just about Lex's "messing about", it's about Clark and his journey, from life on Krypton, childhood and adolescence in Smallville, and adulthood in Metropolis and by extension the world. Each of these moments in his life are chapters, each with their own little character arcs that shape Clark into he ultimately becomes. The scenes on Krypton are important for establishing the character of Jor-El and the world he's apart of. Not only do we get a glimpse of his power and authority, but we also see his nobility in his parting words to Kal-El. Those scenes not only established the horror and tragedy of Krypton's end, but they also established the tragic nature of Clark's own situation as well.

Only barely. Selena Kyle in "Batman Returns" changed her into a much mousier character at the beginning, her origin implying a vaguely supernatural element. The Penguin in "Returns" much more deformed and introduced a real venomousness and obscene randiness into the part that the comic-book never had. Joker, sure, he fell into a vat of chemicals, but his being a gangster named Jack Napier - not part of the comic. And of course, Batman's relationship with Commissioner Gordon. There are more. You are forgiving of those films and the Nolan movies despite their changes, but when it comes to "Superman 1" and "2" you backpedal and squawk like some spoiled idiot child indignantly "HE DIDN'T PUNCH DAH BAD GUY!". Pathetic.

He still had his speed.

That's on me - I meant "Batman Begins".

I understood the "plot" perfectly. A pointless, soulless rehashing of "S1" and 2 with a McGuffin to justify Zod's interest in Clark and plenty of destruction to go around, with elements taken from other much better films, and an incredibly disjointed narrative structure that makes no sense at all.

Consider "The Avengers" - it had cool action and special effects, true, but the beauty of that film was the writing, the way it had characters play off one another in order to reveal new fascinating aspects about them, with heroes actually being heroes, helping law enforcement and civilians, trying to control the battle and keep it from escalating. There was a fine balance between its action and drama, with both elements not threatening to overwhelm the other. The same cannot be said with regards to "MOS".

You lie - I know for a fact you did no such thing. Let's recap what you said, shall we? You said that the John Barry design was "generic" and "derivative" of other crappy sci-fi movies. I asked which ones. You said the following: Plan 9 From Outer Space, Flight to Mars, Rocky Jones, Space Ranger, etc. I then asked what made "S1" and 2 derivative/similar to those. You said "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable". Since then, you didn't go into any other detail at all, and just left it at that. Not only does this prove you a liar, but a fool as well.

Can't really compare "Superman" with "Dirty Harry" - they're both very different movies of two different genres. On a political level, perhaps. Funny you mentioned "James Bond" - Lex's plot scheme of blowing up the San Andreas Fault with a nuclear device, to flood California and send it into the ocean, was also the premise of the 14th Bond film "A View to a Kill". I suppose one could compare it to an extent with "Doctor Who", "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" given that they are based around sci-fi; in fact, one could draw certain parallels between the latter and "Superman".

Only because he happened to be there.

No, just tired of your bull$hit. I had wanted details, you just say one-liners.

It didn't. The whole movie is the character decision of whether he should announce his presence to the world or whether he remain in anonymity. It could have worked.....but it was done poorly. "Superman: Birthright" is actually one of his best stories that does something like this.

Sure he could, it's called "planning". That's what people do, normal thinking people, anyway. In the case of disasters like tornadoes, he could have easily done something. If someone happened to see his abilities, people could easily dismiss that person's claims as due to trauma/superstition/drunkenness/hallucinations/drugs, etc. Even if they were to video tape it, so what? It's not like there's a shortage of videos out there on the Internet that deals with supposed discoveries of aliens, Big Foot, Nessie and the like. There are even videos showcasing special effects made by amateur filmmakers. The power of skepticism can be just as powerful a tool.

You mean "flew". Yes, because it's a badly written movie with no logic in its editing or narration. Again, what possible correlation does Clark looking up at a whale in the middle of the ocean have with suddenly going back to his childhood?

Zero percent is the Superman quota when it comes to "realism". No matter how much you try, the character is always going to be ridiculous. The biggest problem with the character as he is now is that he's an anachronism - he doesn't fit within our social and political climate. A lot of his elements are extremely dated. For example, his being found by the Kents wouldn't result in his being adopted just like that, no. Back in the 30s, children and babies being discovered on the road were an unfortunately common occurrence. Nowadays, not only would there be tons of red tape to go through to get a child adopted, but there would have been a police inquiry, which "MOS" conveniently skips. His being a reporter by the end of "MOS" is eyebrow-raising as well; yes, it's part of his character in the comics, and it might have worked back in 30s, maybe even 70s, but nowadays news agencies aren't just going to accept anyone entering their offices, especially high school graduates (did he even graduate?).

And "MOS" has Clark vandalizing a guy's car after getting alcohol dumped onto his head.

I remember the oil rig. Still doesn't change the fact that between taking on a giant machine that's in the middle of Metropolis, where it's filled with people, and another device that's on the other side of the world, seemingly devoid of people, Clark decided to take the scenic route instead. That doesn't show concern for civilians. If he truly had, he'd have taken out the one in the city and try to help the people there, then go to the other device. And don't give me that "BUT-BUT THE MILITARY WERE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT, SO THAT'S WHY HE HAD TO GO!" argument. He saw firsthand back in Smallville how pitifully ill-equipped and unprepared the military was in its attempts to take on Kryptonian soldiers - what made him think "Hmm, yeah, these guys can take these guys and the device on no problem."? Even back when he was held by the Army in the interrogation room, he knew they could do nothing to him. THOSE scenes did happen, by the way.

Please, quit projecting your inadequacies onto me. Your embarrassing yourself.

Actually, "Superman 1" succeeded in its aims, especially as a monomyth.

That in itself means we can only apply so much of our own understanding about

At least in those movies he was actually trying to do something and had an excuse, which was being in the Arctic learning and perfecting his powers. The movies weren't clear at all clear about Vietnam, probably intentional on the filmmakers' parts due to the sensitive nature of it.

It was hardly generic. If you're looking at it for the first time in this time and age where there are plenty of shooters around and comparing it with those, it may come off as "generic"....but you can't look at either a movie or a game that way; you have to take into consideration when it was developed, the budget, other FPS games at the time, etc. Outside of being the first real 3D shooter, it was also the first H.P. Lovecraft game done as an FPS.

Way more detailed? Please. What makes it stand out outside of having a black skull helmet? What differentiate from "Gears of War" armor or other shooter games aping that style?

"Superman's priority at that point was to save Martha. And he tried to take the fight elsewhere several times but the and guy wouldn't else that happen."

Again, your butchery of the English language. Saving Martha is one thing, but where is the common sense of driving Zod into a pillar and a gas station?
Let's look at when he "tried" to take the fight elsewhere, shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWmIL4cBFyA
2:52 Not here. Could have taken the opportunity to lure the Kryptonians (and by extension the soldiers in planes and helicopters) away from the town by flying away so that no one would get caught in the crossfire, but didn't. Instead, he's waltzing down the street to square off with them like gunfighters in a Western.
4:30-4:32 - Tackles Faora into an IHOP restaurant. Not here.
4:45 After being attacked he divea forward to strike back. Definitely not at 4:53 either, where he continues striking back at Faora in the middle of the restaurant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsqAJKFc59w

1:52 - Tackles Faora into a truck, then flings her through the other side of the building, and just right after tries smashing right into her while she was on the ground. Not here.
2:08 - Continues his attempts at attacking Faora before being grabbed from behind by Namek. Not here.
2:42 - Oh, would you look at that! Clark tries to retreat, but that has more to do with avoid getting his a$$ beaten on than to move the fight.
2:47-2:50 - Grabs Faora and slams her against Namek, then tries to fly off with her. One might suppose it's here we finally see him attempting to take the fight else, but by the same token it looks like he intends to slam her down someplace before being caught by Namek.
3:33-38 - Nice to see something vaguely resembling heroism and concern!(though his moving so fast would have killed the guy, practically crushing every bone in his body.) Still didn't try moving the fight away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqlaXylsMwQ

The full fight.
3:09 - Clark punches Namek into a train, causing it to explode. Not here.
3:27 - Saves another soldier by tackling into Faora.
3:29-53 - Hit by train. Definitely not here.

Three to four minutes of fighting, and not once did we see him make an effort to draw them away.



"Also people are always saying they got "inspiration" from things when they didn't. South Park's creators claim Monty Python somehow influenced their work despite the two having literally nothing in common. They say this to pull in audiences from those films/TV shows."

Your attempts at defusing is downright laughable. Gaining inspiration from something isn't the same as borrowing wholesale from an existing work. Going to "Monty Python" and "South Park", the humor is somewhat similar in its being schoolboyish and at times scatological, even to the point where the bounds of good taste are exceeded. They're both satires. In terms of Christopher Nolan's gaining inspiration from "Superman", one can see certain elements in "Batman Begins", especially with regards to scope and its being a little more based in the real world (not entirely, but just enough).



"About what? You gotta finish your sentence."

Oh dear, it seems my answer hadn't been properly saved. To repeat what I was trying to say, given the extraterrestrial nature of the characters and their society, we can only apply so much of our own understandings and rationale to theirs, even if certain parts are somewhat recognizably human.



"Yeah, the bad comics."

Like modern Superman comics are any better, especially with him going up like a solar flare, his gaining new abilities from Kryptonite in one series, etc.


"But he was a baby on Krypton so if it was about his journey, we didn't need those scenes."

As an introductory chapter those scenes worked, especially in relation to setting up its themes.


"In fact, he didn't need all those "chapters"."

He did, because each of those chapters highlighted how he develops into the person that he ultimately becomes.





"This was another with Fantastic Four."

I don't follow. What does "Superman" have to do with "Fantastic Four"?





"And Jor El was really just a mad scientist mind controlling people with computers."

Again, not a mad scientist, and not really a computer. You can't argue that he's "mind controlling" Clark given that Clark himself is fully cognizant of the fact that he's not human and already living a dual identity.


"So it was "revolutionary" by being less *beep* than the ones before it"

Not by being "less $hit than the ones before it" - but by being great (at least, in the time period in which it was released)! Prior to this, no superhero movie ever had a budget or the sense of epic scale as featured in "Superman 1", nor did they have the effects to adequately depict a man flying. Everyone associated the superhero with the campy antics of the 1960s Adam West "Batman". Plus, none of the other "Superman" films before it had such an aching lost childhood sense of purebred red, white and blue American innocence. It also revolutionized special effects - nothing like this had ever been done before.


"No, I forgive the changes in Batman and Batman Returns because they are good films especially when you take into account how bad the 60s version was. Superman 1 and 2 were bad films."


The truth isn't that they're "bad" films, the truth is that you are a petty, spoiled fanboy brat who doesn't want to admit to their significance and contributions.


"Still no climax."


You don't know what "climax" means, do you? In that case, here's the definition to help your feeble brain:


Climax :the most intense, exciting, or important point of something; a culmination or apex.
"the climax of her speech"

synonyms: peak, pinnacle, height, high(est) point, top; More
acme, zenith;
culmination, crowning point, crown, crest; highlight, high spot, high-water mark

"the climax of his career"

antonyms: nadir

•an orgasm.

•Ecology
the final stage in a succession in a given environment, at which a plant community reaches a state of equilibrium.
"a mixed hardwood climax forest"

•Rhetoric
a sequence of propositions or ideas in order of increasing importance, force, or effectiveness of expression.



verb: climax; 3rd person present: climaxes; past tense: climaxed; past participle: climaxed; gerund or present participle: climaxing

culminate in an exciting or impressive event; reach a climax.
"the day climaxed with a gala concert"


synonyms: culminate, peak, reach a pinnacle, come to a crescendo, come to a head
"the event will climax with a concert"


•bring (something) to a climax.
"the sentencing climaxed a seven-month trial"


•have an orgasm.


"No that was the comics."

After "Superman 1", in DC's post-Crisis Universe.


"She's obviously not a very reporter then."

A "very" reporter? Man, your writing keeps getting worse.


"Sure it did"

Also featured in various comics, TV shows, cartoons, and so on, later taken by Snyder.


"Even though it didn't look anything what you're saying."

Keep denying. Never mind the various comics, cartoons, video games and animated movies featuring it, but if you keep denying, you just may end up believing it.



"Still closer to the comics than Hackman."

Not really.



"I admit, it did lay the groundwork for superhero movies."

There, fixed it for you. No need to thank me. ;)



"Again, it all flew over your head. It was just another crappy alien world."
"I gave you details but you keep pretending I didn't."

You never gave any details, you lying weasel. You pointed out three movies and a serial and all you uttered out was "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable" when I asked you to elaborate. You showed nothing in terms of how visuals and sets were comparable in their design or quality, let alone considered what the standard was for that time. I gave you chance after chance to talk about it, to go into detail and elaborate, but all you did was mutter the same damn thing, and then you try to backpedal your way out by insisting "It flew over your head". Give it up, you've been caught.






"That's the Flash."

Superman is often described as being able to match the Flash in speed.



"AKA you weren't smart. Go back to watching teletubies."

Says the guy who keeps making spelling and punctuation errors. I believe Teletubbies are more your forte.



"Except Man of Steel was like that. Try again."

It wasn't. "The Avengers" also had the benefit of having a sense of humanity and humor as well, rounding the film out quite nicely.



"Yet still than every other Superman film ever."

Slightly better than "3" and "4", but not "S1" "2" or "Returns".



"Its very difficult to save people when you're not there or even know what's happening"

Given that Clark has these amazing senses, one would think he'd be able to pick up something.


"Again, it all flew over your head. It was just another crappy alien world."

You lie. I know for a fact that what you say is bull$hit. You say "it's just another crappy alien world" and make mention of three movies and a serial, and then you just left it at that without elaborating.




"Planning? I'm pretty sure he couldn't see into the future. Christopher Reeve Superman probably had that power given the number of powers he already had but we're not talking about the Mary Sue one here."

Definitely not one of the abilities in the Christoper Reeve film. In terms of "MOS" Clark, he didn't need to see into the future, just use his brain. What, he's too dumb to do that?





"Because Superman was the only one who could fly there in time. If Superman focused on the one in the city and the military went to the other one, everyone would have died."

You don't even know that. There are military bases in that part of the world that could have dealt with it while Clark handled the one in Metropolis.


"So they should have had scenes where the Kents go through all this paperwork, Clark's graduation and a job interview."


Given that the first time we see Clark as an adult he's doing manual labor at an oil rig, and from there on have been given no further evidence of his education outside of flashbacks as a child in a class room or on a school bus, it makes his appearance at the end as a reporter working at the Daily Planet incredibly forced, even downright laughable. It implies that he's a high school dropout, not the kind of person news stations are looking for in their reporters. You talk of applying "realism" to Superman, and yet completely overlook this detail. The movie is filled with stuff like that. "S1" had the excuse of being part of a very different time period.




"It doesn't need a connection. If you couldn't tell it was the past, you are a retard."

The issue isn't being unable to recognize past from present, dumba$$, it's the logic of the narrative. Of course it needs a connection! Especially if you want to tell a cohesive story! The thing with "Batman Begins" in its juxtaposition of both past and present was that the narrative never faltered - the past and present intermingled beautifully, seamlessly, even poetically in its depiction of Bruce Wayne and his journey.




"Man of Steel and the exact same excuse. It trying to perfect his powers is an excuse for Mary Sueperman, its and excuse for realistic Superman."

Once again, you do not disappoint in your butchery of the English language.

"MOS" doesn't have the exact same excuse. He's been wandering around for years and in control of all of his abilities except for flight. In "S1", he had inadvertently killed Pa Kent and spent all that time training, learning in order to prevent something like that from happening again.



"No, I played it ten years ago. It was okay, but nothing special."

Playing it for the first time in 2006, with all the other shooter games available would make one say that.



"1, The fact Man of Steel armour had any details at all."

So you admit the "MOS" armor was generic.


"2, The difference between them and Gears of War was that the Kryptonians weren't steroid abusers."

As far as we know, especially since they were genetically bred and trained as soldiers, though the armor has the same bulky look Gears wear.

Again, your butchery of the English language. Saving Martha is one thing, but where is the common sense of driving Zod into a pillar and a gas station?

Your attempts at defusing is downright laughable. Gaining inspiration from something isn't the same as borrowing wholesale from an existing work. Going to "Monty Python" and "South Park", the humor is somewhat similar in its being schoolboyish and at times scatological, even to the point where the bounds of good taste are exceeded. They're both satires. In terms of Christopher Nolan's gaining inspiration from "Superman", one can see certain elements in "Batman Begins", especially with regards to scope and its being a little more based in the real world (not entirely, but just enough).

Oh dear, it seems my answer hadn't been properly saved. To repeat what I was trying to say, given the extraterrestrial nature of the characters and their society, we can only apply so much of our own understandings and rationale to theirs, even if certain parts are somewhat recognizably human.

Like modern Superman comics are any better, especially with him going up like a solar flare, his gaining new abilities from Kryptonite in one series, etc.

As an introductory chapter those scenes worked, especially in relation to setting up its themes.

He did, because each of those chapters highlighted how he develops into the person that he ultimately becomes.

I don't follow. What does "Superman" have to do with "Fantastic Four"?

Again, not a mad scientist, and not really a computer. You can't argue that he's "mind controlling" Clark given that Clark himself is fully cognizant of the fact that he's not human and already living a dual identity.

Not by being "less $hit than the ones before it" - better! Prior to this, no superhero movie ever had a budget or the sense of epic scale as featured in "Superman 1", nor did they have the effects to adequately depict a man flying. Everyone associated the superhero with the campy antics of the 1960s Adam West "Batman". Plus, none of the other "Superman" films before it had such an aching lost childhood sense of purebred red, white and blue American innocence. It also revolutionized special effects - nothing like this had ever been done before.

The truth isn't that they're "bad" films, the truth is that you are a petty, spoiled fanboy brat who doesn't want to admit to their significance and contributions.

You don't know what "climax" means, do you?

After "Superman 1", in DC's post-Crisis Universe.

A "very" reporter? Man, your writing keeps getting worse.

Also featured in various comics, TV shows, cartoons, and so on, later taken by Snyder.

Keep denying. Never mind the various comics, cartoons, video games and animated movies featuring it, but if you keep denying, you just may end up believing it.

Not really.

There, fixed it for you. No need to thank me. ;)

In other words, it contributed nothing of significance to the Superman mythos.

You never gave any details, you lying weasel. You pointed out three movies and serial, and all you stuttered out was "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable" when I asked you to elaborate. You showed nothing in terms of how visuals and sets were comparable in their design or quality, let alone considered what the standard was for that time. I gave you chance after chance to talk about it, to go into detail and elaborate, but all you did was mutter the same damn thing, and then you try to backpedal your way out by insisting "It flew over your head". Give it up, you've been caught.

Superman is often described as being able to match the Flash in speed.

Says the guy who keeps making spelling and punctuation errors. I believe Teletubbies are more your forte.

It wasn't. "The Avengers" also had the benefit of having a sense of humanity and humor as well, rounding the film out quite nicely.

Slightly better than "3" and "4", but not "S1" "2" or "Returns".

Given that Clark has these amazing senses, one would think he'd be able to pick up something.

You

Definitely not one of the abilities in the Christoper Reeve film. In terms of "MOS" Clark, he didn't need to see into the future, just use his brain. What, he's too dumb to do that?

You don't even know that. There are military bases in that part of the world that could have dealt with it while Clark handled the one in Metropolis.

Given that the first time we see Clark as an adult he's doing manual labor at an oil rig, and from there on have been given no further evidence of his education outside of flashbacks as a child in a class room or on a school bus, it makes his appearance at the end as a reporter working at the Daily Planet incredibly forced, even downright laughable. It implies that he's a high school dropout, not the kind of person news stations are looking for in their reporters. You talk of applying "realism" to Superman, and yet completely overlook this detail. The movie is filled with stuff like that. "S1" had the excuse of being part of a very different time period.

The issue isn't being unable to recognize past from present, dumba$$, it's the logic of the narrative. Of course it needs a connection! Especially if you want to tell a cohesive story! The thing with "Batman Begins" in its juxtaposition of both past and present was that the narrative never faltered - the past and present intermingled beautifully, seamlessly, even poetically in its depiction of Bruce Wayne and his journey.

Once again, you do not disappoint in your butchery of the English language.

One again, you do no appoint in you butcher if the English language.

"MOS" doesn't have the exact same excuse. He's been wandering around for years and in control of all of his abilities except for flight. In "S1", he had inadvertently killed Pa Kent and spent all that time training, learning in order to prevent something like that from happening again.

Playing it for the first time in 2006, with all the other shooter games available would make one say that.

So you admit the "MOS" armor was generic.

As far as we know, especially since they were genetically bred and trained as soldiers, though the armor has the same bulky look Gears wear.

"Where was he supposed to drive him? This was Clark's first fight with real villains, mistakes were going to happen, especially since he was fighting people with way more experience than him. There was no taking the fight away."

Anywhere other than towards the bloody town, thereby endangering civilians.


"Superman 1 wasn't based on the real world."

"Real" world in the sense of scale and it looking like an actual city rather than, say, Gotham City in the Tim Burton films, which was a more isolated, grimy, retro-1940s futurist netherworld with gothic elements.


"And that excuses rewinding time how?"

Different time periods, where Cold War fears were prominent in those days and the threat of annihilation loomed over the heads of everyone. Superman provided a source of comfort and stability in his representation. Superman was essentially an All-American hero – a Boy Scout in a cape, his heroics were the heroics that American cinema has traded in since time immemorial. "I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way."



"Both films involved chapters they didn't need whether it be the Zod scenes in Superman or the childhood scenes in Fantastic Four."

I never saw "Fantastic Four", so I can't comment on it. I'm assuming your talking about the more recent effort?


"Except he brainwashes him into becoming Superman."

Again, not so. Clark was already Superman (Kal El) - his human identity was just a mask for him to fit in. You can't brainwash someone to become someone else when they're already that person to begin with.





"AKA at least it was better than the even worse 60s Batman. Under that logic Batman and Robin must have been brilliant because 60s Batman was worse."

LOL What? Where did you get that from? Then again, you have a tendency of pulling things out from your a$$. Don't know how you arrived to that conclusion, junior, but no, "Batman and Robin" is just as bad, if not worse than the 60s Batman.


"The person he becomes is a mind control slave controlled by a computer. Its literally, he shows up to the Fortress, Jor El mind controls him for over a decade."


That is not how it went and you know it. Clark received a psychic call from the Fortress. Having learned who he actually was, where he's from and the fact that he had other powers that had yet to be tapped, what would you have him do, just take off and say "Sorry, not interested"? Pa Kent died because of Clark's own limitations, and he was grief-stricken because of that. Plus he already knew from the get-go he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. Staying at the Fortress allowed him to not only learn and control his powers, but it also allowed him to be who he actually was without fear of hiding it. Consider Clark's talk with Jon before he died:
"Young Clark Kent: [going over to Jonathan] Um... I didn't mean to show off, Pop. It's just that, guys like that Brad, I just want to tear him apart.

Jonathan Kent: Yeah, I know, I know.

Young Clark Kent: And I know I shouldn't...

Jonathan Kent: Yeah, I know, you can do all these amazing things and sometimes you feel like you will just go bust unless you can tell people about them.

Young Clark Kent: Yeah. I mean every time I kick the football I can make a touchdown. Every time! I mean, is it showing off if somebody's doing the things he's capable of doing? Is a bird showing off when it flies?"

When we see Clark flying as Superman, it is a majestic and poetic moment that goes back to what he and Pa Kent were discussing - he's now in his home element, able to do precisely what he hadn't been allowed to do when he was living with humans.


"The reason I'm denying it is because it isn't true."

Ohh really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EveTC9ndksQ

1:20-1:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0di__79bIw

:28


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODpI5ixws8

39:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_3COe4pMo

22:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Hv7bjX7cw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le3qgBqKaJs

Seems you need to get your eyes checked, laddy. I could go on and on pointing things out.



"Nope, the truth is they're bad films. You are a petty, spoiled fanboy who doesn't want to admit they're insignificance and lack of contribution. Try again."

Oh how cute, you're trying to turn my own words against me! The problem, though, is that that particular description doesn't apply to me. I admitted that they're dated when looked at today, but I'm reflexive enough to know when to view things according to current standards and when not to, to look at a work in terms of how it contributed to a genre and to view it from that era. I'm not the one denying its importance and contributions because of something inane such as "he didn't punch someone". "Superman" featured pioneering special effects, a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special. It won Academy Awards. It was the first of its kind, and no matter how much you try to deny, there's no changing that fact.


"Its a basic storytelling concept and Superman 1 lacked this."

Since you have a miniscule understanding of storytelling, here's something to help you:

http://writeshop.com/5-stages-of-storytelling/

You might want to read up on how to write stories for film.



"And it worked just as well in Man of Steel, problem solved."

Not so. It haphazardly hops between past and present with no reason outside of trying to ape "Batman Begins".


"I already told you, I didn't care if it wasn't 100%, it was still more realistic than Superman 1, 2, 3, 4 and Returns."

Bull$hit, and you know it. You talk of having "realism", and when confronted with the fact that "MOS" is guilty of the same crimes as the previous Superman films, you back-track and stutter "But-but I didn't mean 100% realism!". A high school dropout would more likely be hired as a janitor at a news station than as a reporter. And that's not even talking about the issue of his adoption/being raised by the Kents. I could spend a looooong time discussing the various ways where "MOS" departs from reality/breaks it entirely (despite your claims of a "realistic" tone).


"Except that wasn't even what I said. I can do it too. Here, watch this"

"but the and guy wouldn't else that happen." Your exact words. I didn't write your forum post that way, you did. Keep lying.


"You might want to try reading the entire sentence."

"She's obviously not a very reporter then." Your words.


"Your overestimating his senses."

You've completely forgotten about what he said to Zod in the Smallville battle, I see, along with "BvS".


"Nope, try again."
In the 1986 limited series The Man of Steel, John Byrne redesigned Lex Luthor from scratch, intending to make him a villain that the 1980s would recognize: an evil corporate executive. Initially brutish and overweight, the character later evolved into a sleeker, more athletic version of his old self. Prior to that, he was a brilliant criminal scientist. Fact.




"Well, there is nothing to say about the visuals. They all look exactly the same."

There is a very clear difference in terms of quality and aesthetic. Try again, and this time actually try proving your points by breaking them down piece by piece.


"Except that YOU don't even know that. Superman was going on the information he DID have."

Still doesn't change the fact that between going some place where it's practically devoid of people and a city that was in need of help, he took the scenic route.

"Nope, better than ALL of them."

Definitely not, not even "Returns", and that had ret-conned his time travelling abilities.


1", Man of Steel did have humanity."

It didn't. It was too busy focused on destruction that it forgot to bring in any humanity to its scenes.


"2, Not every superhero film needs humour. MCU and DCEU are both different but good ways of handling a franchise."

No, not every suphero film needs humor, but by the same token, not every superhero film has to be a dark, dour humorless experience.


"Oh, I thought you said he had a heart attack, now he's murdering his pa."

Pa Kent had died of a heart attack, but Clark was also partly responsible through his not being able to consider human limitations. Any action, or in this case lack of action, on his part could potentially kill someone.

"Also, how would Clark save everyone. He simply wasn't at that point at the start of the film."

The film could have shown him at least trying.



"Actually, I hadn't played a lot of shooters at that time, just a few Bond games, Halo 2, etc."

What about the 90s?



"No, I just said it had DETAILS to it. The opposite of generic."

You said "the fact that the armor had "any details at all". Such as?


"No, Gears of War armour was way bulkier. Reminds me more of the Expendables than Man of Steel."

They look about the same in mass.

Anywhere other than towards the bloody town, thereby endangering civilians.

"Real" world in the sense of scale and it looking like an actual city rather than, say, Gotham City in the Tim Burton films, which was a more isolated, grimy, retro-1940s futurist netherworld with gothic elements.

Different time periods, where Cold War fears were prominent in those days and the threat of annihilation loomed over the heads of everyone. Superman provided a source of comfort and stability in his representation. Superman was essentially an All-American hero – a Boy Scout in a cape, his heroics were the heroics that American cinema has traded in since time immemorial. "I'm here to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way."

I never saw "Fantastic Four", so I can't comment on it. I'm assuming your talking about the more recent effort?

Again, not so. Clark was already Superman (Kal El) - his human identity was just a mask for him to fit in. You can't brainwash someone to become someone else when they're already that person to begin with.

LOL What? Where did you get that from? Then again, you have a tendency of pulling things out from your a$$. Don't know how you arrived to that conclusion, junior, but no, "Batman and Robin" is just as bad, if not worse than the 60s Batman.

That is not how it went and you know it. Clark received a psychic call from the Fortress. Having learned who he actually was, where he's from and the fact that he had other powers that had yet to be tapped, what would you have him do, just take off and say "Sorry, not interested"? Pa Kent died because of Clark's own limitations, and he was grief-stricken because of that. Plus he already knew from the get-go he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. Staying at the Fortress allowed him to not only learn and control his powers, but it also allowed him to be who he actually was without fear of hiding it.

Seems you need to get your eyes checked, laddy. I could go on and on pointing things out.

The problem, though, is that that particular description doesn't apply to me.

I'm not the one denying its importance and contributions because of something inane such as "he didn't punch someone".

"Superman" featured pioneering special effects, a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special.

It won Academy Awards.

It was the first of its kind, and no matter how much you try to deny, there's no changing that fact.

Since you have a miniscule understanding of storytelling, here's something to help you:

http://writeshop.com/5-stages-of-storytelling/

You might want to read up on how to write stories for film.

Not so. It haphazardly hops between past and present with no reason outside of trying to ape "Batman Begins".

Bull$hit, and you know it. You talk of having "realism", and when confronted with the fact that "MOS" is guilty of the same crimes as the previous Superman films, you back-track and stutter "But-but I didn't mean 100% realism!". A high school dropout would more likely be hired as a janitor at a news station than as a reporter. And that's not even talking about the issue of his adoption/being raised by the Kents. I could spend a looooong time discussing the various ways where "MOS" departs from reality/breaks it entirely (despite your claims of a "realistic" tone).

"but the and guy wouldn't else that happen." Not your exact words. I wrote your forum post that way. Keep telling the truth.

"She's obviously not a very reporter then." Not your words either.

You've completely forgotten about what he said to Zod in the Smallville battle, I see, along with "BvS".

In the 1986 limited series The Man of Steel, John Byrne redesigned Lex Luthor from scratch, intending to make him a villain that the 1980s would recognize: an evil corporate executive. Initially brutish and overweight, the character later evolved into a sleeker, more athletic version of his old self. Prior to that, he was a brilliant criminal scientist. Fact.

There is a very clear difference in terms of quality and aesthetic. Try again, and this time actually try proving your points by breaking them down piece by piece.

Still doesn't change the fact that between going some place where it's practically devoid of people and a city that was in need of help, he took the scenic route.

Definitely not, not even "Returns", and that had ret-conned his time travelling abilities.

It didn't. It was too busy focused on destruction that it forgot to bring in any humanity to its scenes.

No, not every suphero film needs humor, but by the same token, not every superhero film has to be a dark, dour humorless experience.

Pa Kent had died of a heart attack, but Clark was also partly responsible through his not being able to consider human limitations. Any action, or in this case lack of action, on his part could potentially kill someone.

The film could have shown him at least trying.

What about the 90s?

You said "the fact that the armor had "any details at all". Such as?

They look about the same in mass.

"Oh, sorry, he was a little busy focusing on the immediate threat."

He tackled into Zod and was beating him repeatedly while sliding through a field. At any time, he could have kept what he was doing away from the town. "Focused on the threat" is one thing, but what happened in Smallville was bloody careless and apathetic.


"Didn't you just say it was 0% unrealistic that he was an alien? Yet, you're now trying to make claim realism?"

I was speaking of cities and how they look like real places, dip$hit, not character.

"Oh god, that crap."

No matter how much you refute, it still doesn't change those facts.


"More recent effort, it suffers from similar problems to Superman 1."

Can't say much about "Fantastic Four", but with you as a source, I doubt its problems are similar.



"No, you're doing it because he DID punch someone."

My issue isn't that "he punched someone", my issues with the movie stems from the fact that
a) it's derivative of much better movies including "The Avengers", "Superman 1" and "2" and does nothing to distinguish itself from said-films,
b) because of Clark's utter disregard for the collateral damage around him, where he saved four people but let hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions die. I'm not saying he should have stopped just to catch a kitten falling from a tree, but even Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns" thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate falling debris after a sonic boom.
c) The narrative was completely disjointed with no logic in its structuring.
And finally,
d) The result was a generic, mediocre mess.


"No, he wasn't. Also, he was raised on Earth as Clark Kent. Kal El is just some name he found out was his. You said Superman was just a name Lois came up with. I'm trying not to laugh. Your argument makes no sense."

Of course he was - he knew that he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. It was reflected in his discussion with Pa Kent - don't be stupid. In terms of "Superman" being a name that Lois came up with, I wasn't talking about how he gained the title, you dumb $hit, I was talking about the person. Big difference.


"Nope, its exactly what I said was going on."

The crystals are clearly present in all those scenes. But no matter, you'll continue denying because you are an impotent, petty fanboy coward that doesn't want to acknowledge them for fear of being proved wrong. Guess what, though - it's too late. You've been caught, and no matter how many times you write "try again", the fact will remain that you've lost.



"Actually, it does, try again."

Ah yes, the same deflective answer one can rely upon you to give when you're backed into a corner, with no arguments to back yourself up and to hide your impotency. You've lost.


"Oh please, its nothing the early Bond film didn't do."

Such as?


"I already explained the money thing to you."

There is a very clear difference between trying to market a film in order to apply for the Academy Awards and bribery. Also, if every film that had received an Academy Award was the result of bribery rather than, say, innovation and technical achievement, then I suppose classics such as "Alien" should be dismissed entirely, right? Because everyone knows that people like Stan Winston don't deserve it.

"So you admit Superman 1 was lacking it."

It had a climax, give it up already.


"Come on, it was very easy to follow. I don't know why you're so confused about this."

Because as a narrative it doesn't make sense and isn't cohesive. At least in "Batman Begins" the intercuts between past and present had level of cohesion and narrative sense. In "MOS", not so much. What is the correlation between Clark staring up at a whale and a flashback to him as a child?


"I never back-pedalled. You simply didn't have a strong enough argument so you try to fact mine. It failed. When people talk of realism, nobody means literally 100%. I thought you would be smart enough to understand that. Guess, I was wrong."

I try to "fact yours"? Oh I love this. Your attempts at weaseling your way out are sure-signs of your desperation. There is a very clear difference between being "realistic" and "verisimilitude", and "MOS" achieves neither. Keep trying to backpedal, you've already lost.




"Are you done acting like a 5 year old? Can we get back to the topic at hand?"

Considering that those quotes are still on the post that you had written, that continues proving you to be a liar. Keep trying, you lying weasel.

"Another non-answer, I see."

You want the exact quote, here it is:

"General Zod: What have you done to me?

Superman: My parents taught me to hone my senses, Zod. Focus on just what I wanted to see. Without your helmet, you're getting everything.

General Zod: Unh!

Superman: And it hurts, doesn't it?"

Caught again.

"So you admit the Hackman portrayal had nothing to do with it."

Actually, Byrne's inspiration for "Man of Steel" came directly from "Superman 1", including the redesign of Luthor.



"If you don't have to, why should I?"

Oh but I have. Plus, I wasn't the chicken$hit who posted three movies and a serial, gave the minimalist answer "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable" with no details as to what make "Superman 1" derivative of those movies with regards to the way they were shot, lighting, scenes, sets, themes, plots, etc and just left it at that.


"Because he had to destroy that machine or EVERYONE would die as I explained before."


And what difference would it have made had he attacked the one in Metropolis first vs taking the scenic route? The World Engines worked in tandem, so destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth.


"I cannot take you seriously when you say silly things like that."

They're far from silly. Between "Superman 1" and "MOS", "S1" curb-stomps the latter easily it, especially considering it paved the foundation for the Superman mythos.


"You do realise that destruction doesn't even happen until the last act of the film, right? Did you walk in very late to the film?"

And once again, you've completely forgotten about everything else, especially the beginning on Krypton with the various explosions, Jor-El being attacked on his Avatar dragon-thing, the planet's eventual destruction followed by the destruction on the oil rig. From start to finish, it was explosions, explosions, and more explosions with little bits of plot in between.


"You're exaggerating the brooding."

I'm not, unfortunately. There was no levity at any point the film. It's trying to be "serious", but it comes off as forced.


"No, Batman and Robin only raped some of the characters in the Batman mythos. 60s Batman and his TV series raped the entire mythos. It took an Elseworlds comic book by Frank Miller, a Tim Burton film and a cartoon series to fix it."

Your use of the term "rape" is troubling. Don't do it.




"And yet, without this scene, the story would not have changed at all."

Not so, for it is this scene that leads to Superman going against his father's wishes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0

:34-51 We see Jor-El's face in the clouds, evoking the Judeo-Christian image of God, reminding Superman that it's forbidden to turn back time. It also has the replaying Pa Kent's last words to him followed by Clark's mournful words from the funeral, which is what forces him into action.


"The bus, the bar, the oil rig, etc. You're complaining about problems that don't exist."

I didn't "imagine" seeing buildings topple over one after another, with crowds of people fleeing the scene, nor the images of hundreds of people being lifted up and smashed onto the ground by the World Engine. Nor did I mistake scenes of missiles blowing civilians up while on ground level. Not even scenes of Superman and Zod punching each other through buildings.




"I played Doom and Doom II on the PS3. There would also have been arcade shooters like Time Crisis or House of the Dead."


Good games. Pity you had been exposed to it too late.



"It looks much closer to medieval chain mail armour that the generic armour Quake took from the cover of Doom. It also has details such as the tubes round the necks that connect to oxygen masks. It also kinda look like the armour is over wore over another armour. Jor El's has a symbol on it, don't see any Quake armour with that.

What detailed enough for you."

Better, especially in comparison to your previous answers.
In terms of "Quake" taking from the cover of "Doom", that's not really the case at all, especially in terms of "Quake 1". The armor in "Doom" looked pretty much like green football gear with a helmet that had a visor, whereas Ranger's in "Quake 1" looked a little more like what the Marines from "Aliens" wore (not a hundred percent, but close), only with orange pants. The Marine armour in "Quake 2" was even more of a departure, with bulkier chest plates and tubes around the neck like the Kryptonian armour. Same with the armor in "DOOM 3: Resurrection of Evil". In terms of the Medieval chainmail-like aesthetic of costumes in "MOS", tons of video games have that particular look - "Dead Space" (not as bulky-looking, but it vaguely looks knight-like, especially the welder mask/helmet), "Warhammer" (okay, some of them are MUCH bulkier, even compared to "Gears", but still, just wanted to point out the Medieval look), "Halo", ""Vanquished", "Hellgate" (REALLY cool look) etc. That's not even going into armor within the fantasy genre. In terms of movies, "Chronicles of Riddick", "Alien", "Prometheus", "Event Horizon", etc. I mean, as a video game fan, I like the look of the Kryptonian armor, especially with the black skull helmet....but at the same time, comparing it with every sci-fi game with armor like it, it's indistinguishable from them, especially "Gears of War" and "Quake 2/4".

He tackled into Zod and was beating him repeatedly while sliding through a field. At any time, he could have kept what he was doing away from the town. "Focused on the threat" is one thing, but what happened in Smallville was bloody careless and apathetic.

I was speaking of cities and how they look like real places, dip$hit, not character.

No matter how much you refute, it still doesn't change those facts.

Can't say much about "Fantastic Four", but with you as a source, I doubt its problems are similar.

My issue isn't that "he punched someone", my issues with the movie stems from the fact that
a) it's derivative of much better movies including "The Avengers", "Superman 1" and "2" and does nothing to distinguish itself from said-films,

b) because of Clark's utter disregard for the collateral damage around him, where he saved four people but let hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions die. I'm not saying he should have stopped just to catch a kitten falling from a tree, but even Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns" thought to use his heat vision on the fly to disintegrate falling debris after a sonic boom.

c) The narrative was completely disjointed with no logic in its structuring.

And finally,
d) The result was a generic, mediocre mess.

Of course he was - he knew that he wasn't human, that he was different from everyone else. It was reflected in his discussion with Pa Kent - don't be stupid. In terms of "Superman" being a name that Lois came up with, I wasn't talking about how he gained the title, you dumb $hit, I was talking about the person. Big difference.

The crystals are clearly present in all those scenes. But no matter, you'll continue denying because you are an impotent, petty fanboy coward that doesn't want to acknowledge them for fear of being proved wrong. Guess what, though - it's too late. You've been caught, and no matter how many times you write "try again", the fact will remain that you've lost.

Ah yes, the same deflective answer one can rely upon you to give when you're backed into a corner, with no arguments to back yourself up and to hide your impotency. You've lost.

Such as?

There is a very clear difference between trying to market a film in order to apply for the Academy Awards and bribery. Also, if every film that had received an Academy Award was the result of bribery rather than, say, innovation and technical achievement, then I suppose classics such as "Alien" should be dismissed entirely, right? Because everyone knows that people like Stan Winston don't deserve it.

It had a climax, give it up already.

Because as a narrative it doesn't make sense and isn't cohesive. At least in "Batman Begins" the intercuts between past and present had level of cohesion and narrative sense. In "MOS", not so much. What is the correlation between Clark staring up at a whale and a flashback to him as a child?

I try to "fact yours"? Oh I love this. Your attempts at weaseling your way out are sure-signs of your desperation. There is a very clear difference between being "realistic" and "verisimilitude", and "MOS" achieves neither. Keep trying to backpedal, you've already lost.

Considering that those quotes are still on the post that you had written, that continues proving you to be a liar. Keep trying, you lying weasel.

You want the exact quote, here it is:

"General Zod: What have you done to me?

Superman: My parents taught me to hone my senses, Zod. Focus on just what I wanted to see. Without your helmet, you're getting everything.

General Zod: Unh!

Superman: And it hurts, doesn't it?"

Caught again.

Actually, Byrne's inspiration for "Man of Steel" came directly from "Superman 1", including the redesign of Luthor.

Oh but I have. Plus, I wasn't the chicken$hit who posted three movies and a serial, gave the minimalist answer "They were completely generic and instantly forgettable" with no details as to what make "Superman 1" derivative of those movies with regards to the way they were shot, lighting, scenes, sets, themes, plots, etc and just left it at that.

And what difference would it have made had he attacked the one in Metropolis first vs taking the scenic route? The World Engines worked in tandem, so destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth.

They're far from silly. Between "Superman 1" and "MOS", "S1" curb-stomps the latter easily it, especially considering it paved the foundation for the Superman mythos.

And once again, you've completely forgotten about everything else, especially the beginning on Krypton with the various explosions, Jor-El being attacked on his Avatar dragon-thing, the planet's eventual destruction followed by the destruction on the oil rig. From start to finish, it was explosions, explosions, and more explosions with little bits of plot in between.

I'm not, unfortunately. There was no levity at any point the film. It's trying to be "serious", but it comes off as forced.

Your use of the term "rape" is troubling. Don't do it.

Not so, for it is this scene that leads to Superman going against his father's wishes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0

:34-51 We see Jor-El's face in the clouds, evoking the Judeo-Christian image of God, reminding Superman that it's forbidden to turn back time. It also has the replaying Pa Kent's last words to him followed by Clark's mournful words from the funeral, which is what forces him into action.

I didn't "imagine" seeing buildings topple over one after another, with crowds of people fleeing the scene, nor the images of hundreds of people being lifted up and smashed onto the ground by the World Engine. Nor did I mistake scenes of missiles blowing civilians up while on ground level. Not even scenes of Superman and Zod punching each other through buildings.

Good games. Pity you had been exposed to it too late.

The armor in "Doom" looked pretty much like green football gear with a helmet that had a visor, whereas Ranger's in "Quake 1" looked a little more like what the Marines from "Aliens" wore (not a hundred percent, but close), only with orange pants.

The Marine armour in "Quake 2" was even more of a departure, with bulkier chest plates and tubes around the neck like the Kryptonian armour. Same with the armor in "DOOM 3: Resurrection of Evil".

In terms of the Medieval chainmail-like aesthetic of costumes in "MOS", tons of video games have that particular look - "Dead Space" (not as bulky-looking, but it vaguely looks knight-like, especially the welder mask/helmet)

"Warhammer" (okay, some of them are MUCH bulkier, even compared to "Gears", but still, just wanted to point out the Medieval look),

"Halo", ""Vanquished", "Hellgate" (REALLY cool look) etc.

"This was literally the only way. You're being retarded."

You're the one being retarded. This wasn't the only way, and you know it. Of course, you're too stubborn and stupid to even admit it.


"Except that how the cities looked is irrelevant to this argument."

In terms of it looking like it's part of the real world it does.



"The person was Clark Kent. He wasn't disguising himself at all."

He was pretending to be human, hiding his abilities. Of course it was a disguise.






"And your point is."

Your argument has no validity.




"The only one trying to change the facts is you."

Please, I haven't tried denying the impact "S1" and 2 had and then tried to further dismiss them by dismissing the Academy Awards.



"Well, it distinguished itself from Superman 1 and 2 by actually being a good film."

It isn't a good film. It borrows from every other movie better than it, including "S1" and "2", but is completely indistinguishable from the rest.


"The collateral damage was unavoidable."

Collateral damage may have been unavoidable, but the movie could have at least had Clark control some of it, if not showed some indication of his trying but failing (which the movie never did).



"If you can't follow this, you're a retard. So maybe Batman Begins is better, Man of Steel is still better than all the crappy Superman films before it."

Again, there was logic in the narrative behind "Batman Begins" and the intercuts made sense. In the case of "MOS", there was no logic at all for them. That is one things that makes it weaker than not only "Batman Begins", but also "S1" and "2".


"AKA you weren't smart enough to follow the plot and should go back to watching Teletubies."


Again, it's not the question of being able to follow the plot, it's the fact that the jumps between past and present are disjointed and clumsy to the point of hurting narrative cohesion. Your obsession with Teletubbies communicates volumes about your own mentality.



"No, you're thinking of the Superman films before it."

Just "MOS", son.



"The problem with your argument is that Alien is actually a good film and Superman isn't."

Ohhh, so now you admit that not every film that received an Academy Award was the result of bribery, it just happens to be "Superman 1". You pathetic weasel. Prior to this, the Zoptic Process had never been done before, and the Superman films of old never achieved anything like this. Hell, no film achieved anything like this, period.



"Nope, at no point did it look like Superman might fail."

With the first missile moving around it and his trying to catch up it had looked like he was going to fail. Plus, he had missed the second missile, which ended up causing disasters. So, there you go. Still doesn't change the fact there was a climax.




"Even when Lois died, it was pretty obvious Superman would fix it."

You were able to predict even before watching the movie that he would break the boundaries of space and time?





"The military were going after the one in Metropolis. Superman focused on the one they couldn't go after. Plus, both machines were causing destruction around them. You complain about the collateral damage and now say he should have let one of the machines kill everyone."

One machine was causing destruction in the middle of a heavily populated city, the other in a far-off area with no people around at all. Plus, it's completely inconceivable to alert military bases close to the general region to take that machine out, if not launch a nuke to destroy it? Not hard to get, but then again, you have a tendency of forgetting details. And no, I didn't say that Clark "should have let one of the machines kill everyone", I said "take the one out in the middle of the city" to prevent further death and destruction, then the other. Again, if the World Engines worked in tandem and destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth, what difference would it have made had he attacked the one in Metropolis first vs taking the scenic route?


"No, the comic book paved the foundation, you retard. Superman 1 was just a badly made film that only managed to not suck as hard as the ones before it which wasn't really worth bragging around."


It had a slight foundation, but it was the Christopher Reeves movies that had further solidified it, even going so far as to inject elements within the comic mythos that had never been featured up to that point.



"Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majestry's Secret Service, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun and the Spy Who Loved Me."

Which of these featured James Bond flying or first utilized the Zoptic Process? Discuss in detail how these movies created a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special.




"This is what I'm talking about. You can't make your own argument so you try to somehow change my argument, creating a strawman and it just proves how desperate YOU are."


I never "changed" your argument. In fact, I had stayed on topic, and if you had read the whole sentence, you'd have seen what I had written.


"Translation: "Wah! Jason Rebourne is winning this argument! I can't counteract him! I know, I'll just make some *beep* up! That'll show him"


LOL You haven't been winning anything, you pathetic cry-baby. The beauty of those quotes was that I didn't even write them in the first place - they were taken directly from your post. Soo you making a fool out of yourself is entirely your own doing. Believe it or not, I don't alter what people write - never had, - as I prefer having their exact quotes.



"Now you're complaining that Krypton was destroyed. The oil rig, I thought you wanted Superman to stop disasters. Now its a bad thing. And even then, its still no where near the explosion fest you make it out to be."

I wasn't complaining about Krypton being destroyed, dip$hit. I was complaining that from start to finish it was nothing but action, more action, explosions, more explosions followed by even more of the same with not enough plot. It makes even Michael Bay movies seem like there's more going on. There is such a thing as having too much of something, you know. The Metropolis destruction could easily have been cut down shorter by twenty minutes.


"No, you're just the guy who ignored my answer because he couldn't counteract it."


LOL I didn't ignore your answers, you snivelling, lying weasel. You mentioned three movies and a serial, didn't at all focus on details as to what made "Superman 1" derivative of those movies with regards to the way they were shot, framed, lit, written, etc and just left it at that. Your only other answers were "terrible set designs", but didn't bother discussing the quality of other movies during that period, good and bad, big budget and/or low budget, and just left it at that. You gave no answers, period, just three movies and serial, followed by remarks on it being "completely and utterly generic and instantly forgettable".



"Apart from Superman saving the world and promising to be there if the world needs him as a symbol of hope."

He "saved" the world....coincidentally. In terms of his "promising to be there if the world needs him as a symbol of hope", he does no such thing. These were his exact words: "Look. I'm here to help... but it has to be on my own terms. And you have to convince Washington of that."


"Oh, sure it did."

It's a well-known fact. In fact, Byrne really liked "Superman 1".



"AKA, I've got the stronger argument."

No, that is not what it translates to at all, it is exactly as it reads - don't use the term "rape", dude, as it is offensive and trivializes its victims.


"And the result is millions of people die for one stupid woman, proving Jor El right."

Millions aren't dead, smart guy. He still saved them and Lois.




"And now you're complaining that a building fell other. And what were those people might to do? Just stand and be crushed."

Man you are unbelievably stupid. "A building fell other"? "And what were those people might to do"? To correct you, my issue isn't that "a building fell other" (or, more correctly, buildings falling one after another like dominoes), nor was it the reactions of the fleeing crowd. My problem is that Clark did nothing to mitigate or control the collateral damage, nor did he try to help said-fleeing civilians.



"Well Doom armour looked very similar to Aliens armour."

Slightly, in that the Doom Marine is wearing torso armour in the early games.




"Could be the graphics but it looked pretty much the same as the previous Quake."


I think you are confusing "game engine" with "aesthetic".



"I dunno, they look a lot more generic looking with brighter colours. Closer to Power Rangers than Kryptonians."

Definitely not "Power Rangers" - faaaar more bulkier than even those.



"Looks more like an exoskeleton to me."

Looks nothing like an exoskeleton.


"Halo took a lot of elements from Doom and the recent Doom took elements from Halo. I have no idea what Vanquished or Hellgate are."

"Doom" in general inspired a plethora of shooters. In terms of armour, the armour in "Halo" and "Doom" is similar in that they're both green. However, the armour in "Halo" had a more distinctive look than previous "Doom" games such as the gold visor taken from astronaut helmets along with the general motorcycle/dirt bike helmet structure, plus it's far larger; the guy wearing it is highly augmented (anyone who isn't would die a horrifically painful death) and huge, like seven or eight feet. The armour in "Doom 1," "2" and to an extent "3" looked a little bit like football gear, "1" and "2" especially. The Praetor Suit in the new "Doom" looks smaller than the one in "Halo" but a little closer to the original "Doom" games, only with it being a full body suit.

You're the one being retarded. This wasn't the only way, and you know it. Of course, you're too stubborn and stupid to even admit it.

In terms of it looking like it's part of the real world it does.

He was pretending to be human, hiding his abilities. Of course it was a disguise.

Your argument has no validity.

Please, I haven't tried denying the impact "S1" and 2 had and then tried to further dismiss them by dismissing the Academy Awards.

It isn't a good film. It borrows from every other movie better than it, including "S1" and "2", but is completely indistinguishable from the rest.

Collateral damage may have been unavoidable, but the movie could have at least had Clark control some of it, if not showed some indication of his trying but failing (which the movie never did).

Again, there was logic in the narrative behind "Batman Begins" and the intercuts made sense. In the case of "MOS", there was no logic at all for them. That is one things that makes it weaker than not only "Batman Begins", but also "S1" and "2".

Again, it's not the question of being able to follow the plot, it's the fact that the jumps between past and present are disjointed and clumsy to the point of hurting narrative cohesion. Your obsession with Teletubbies communicates volumes about your own mentality.

Just "MOS", son.

Ohhh, so now you admit that not every film that received an Academy Award was the result of bribery, it just happens to be "Superman 1". You pathetic weasel. Prior to this, the Zoptic Process had never been done before, and the Superman films of old never achieved anything like this. Hell, no film achieved anything like this, period.

With the first missile moving around it and his trying to catch up it had looked like he was going to fail. Plus, he had missed the second missile, which ended up causing disasters. So, there you go. Still doesn't change the fact there was a climax.

You were able to predict even before watching the movie that he would break the boundaries of space and time?

One machine was causing destruction in the middle of a heavily populated city, the other in a far-off area with no people around at all. Plus, it's completely inconceivable to alert military bases close to the general region to take that machine out, if not launch a nuke to destroy it?

Not hard to get, but then again, you have a tendency of forgetting details. And no, I didn't say that Clark "should have let one of the machines kill everyone", I said "take the one out in the middle of the city" to prevent further death and destruction, then the other.

Again, if the World Engines worked in tandem and destroying one will stop the terraforming of the Earth, what difference would it have made had he attacked the one in Metropolis first vs taking the scenic route?

It had a slight foundation, but it was the Christopher Reeves movies that had further solidified it, even going so far as to inject elements within the comic mythos that had never been featured up to that point.

Which of these featured James Bond flying or first utilized the Zoptic Process? Discuss in detail how these movies created a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special.

I never "changed" your argument. In fact, I had stayed on topic, and if you had read the whole sentence, you'd have seen what I had written.

LOL You haven't been winning anything, you pathetic cry-baby. The beauty of those quotes was that I didn't even write them in the first place - they were taken directly from your post. Soo you making a fool out of yourself is entirely your own doing. Believe it or not, I don't alter what people write - never had, - as I prefer having their exact quotes.

I wasn't complaining about Krypton being destroyed, dip$hit. I was complaining that from start to finish it was nothing but action, more action, explosions, more explosions followed by even more of the same with not enough plot. It makes even Michael Bay movies seem like there's more going on. There is such a thing as having too much of something, you know. The Metropolis destruction could easily have been cut down shorter by twenty minutes.

LOL I didn't ignore your answers, you snivelling, lying weasel. You mentioned three movies and a serial, didn't at all focus on details as to what made "Superman 1" derivative of those movies with regards to the way they were shot, framed, lit, written, etc and just left it at that. Your only other answers were "terrible set designs", but didn't bother discussing the quality of other movies during that period, good and bad, big budget and/or low budget, and just left it at that. You gave no answers, period, just three movies and serial, followed by remarks on it being "completely and utterly generic and instantly forgettable".

He "saved" the world....coincidentally. In terms of his "promising to be there if the world needs him as a symbol of hope", he does no such thing. These were his exact words: "Look. I'm here to help... but it has to be on my own terms. And you have to convince Washington of that."

It's a well-known fact. In fact, Byrne really liked "Superman 1".

No, that is not what it translates to at all, it is exactly as it reads - don't use the term "rape", dude, as it is offensive and trivializes its victims.

Millions aren't dead, smart guy. He still saved them and Lois.

Man you are unbelievably stupid. "A building fell other"? "And what were those people might to do"? To correct you, my issue isn't that "a building fell other" (or, more correctly, buildings falling one after another like dominoes), nor was it the reactions of the fleeing crowd. My problem is that Clark did nothing to mitigate or control the collateral damage, nor did he try to help said-fleeing civilians.

Definitely not "Power Rangers" - faaaar more bulkier than even those.

Looks nothing like an exoskeleton.

However, the armour in "Halo" had a more distinctive look than previous "Doom" games such as the gold visor taken from astronaut helmets along with the general motorcycle/dirt bike helmet structure, plus it's far larger; the guy wearing it is highly augmented (anyone who isn't would die a horrifically painful death) and huge, like seven or eight feet. The armour in "Doom 1," "2" and to an extent "3" looked a little bit like football gear, "1" and "2" especially.

"So you think he should have let Zod kill his mum?"

No, but that doesn't mean he should endanger the lives of other people by bringing the fight to the bloody town, smashing into a pillar and a gas station in the process. Since when has thought processing or common sense been an issue?


"I thought we were on about the character of Superman. Why have you changed the subject?"


We were discussing how "S1" inspired Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" - that's what we were talking about. I was talking about how both films tried to incorporate a vast, epic sense of scale and a sense of verisimilitude by having the worlds the characters are apart of seem like real places.


"Even though its completely debunked yours."

You haven't even debunked a single point.



"So you've run out of arguments and are just repeating the same BS now, I see."

Only because you keep trying to ignore them and don't want to face reality. Newsflash, junior - it isn't a good film, not even close.




"No, they did the exact opposite, proving my very point."

Marketing and bribery aren't the same - get that through your thick skull.


"Except he was fighting a *beep* missile."

Again, the story wasn't about punching people in the face. Again, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey


"There was about as much logic as any other film that does this. You're just nitpicking."

Even less so, especially compared to "Batman Begins".


"See above, retard. I was able to follow it perfectly, I don't know why you have so much trouble with it. And my Teletubbies reference refers to your IQ. If it bothers you that much, I could refer you to some other kiddies show that your mentality will prefer."

Again, it wasn't the question of being able to "follow it", you mental midget, it was the question of narrative cohesion. The jumps between past and present are completely abrupt and don't flow well together, unlike the ones done in "Batman Begins". There was nothing natural in going from a scene of Clark staring up at a whale underwater to a flashback of him as a child.




"Well, bribery would have come into it but it is actually a good film. I've also explained that they HAVE to resort to bribery because everyone is doing it. And achieved what, another film about a flying dude?"


Marketing isn't the same as "bribery". If you have a low budget movie that's only playing at one or two movie theaters in the country and there's nothing else to indicate its presence, chances are it will be ignored. Also, if every Academy Award was the result of a bribe, then you cannot say with certainty that "Aliens" was a good film. In terms of what "S1" had achieved, it set the standard for superhero films in terms of having a sense of mythic stature.




"They weren't going to let his love interest stay dead. Hell, the Dark Knight is literally the only superhero film that actually did."

Hollywood didn't want her to stay dead in order to give the movie a happy ending, that's true, but no one could have foreseen Superman breaking the boundaries of time and space in order to do so. At best, one would have expected him to do the whole fairy tale BS kiss of life like in those old Disney movies.


"And what makes you think they work in tandem? They are massive machines that destroy everything around them."

Given that both started unleashing devastating gravity beams at the exact same time might have been a clue. Again, use your eyes.





"Oh, a nuclear missile. Yeah, no way that's not gonna cause even more collateral damage."

If nukes aren't an option, other missiles, battleships, planes and so on could have been sent.



"I already explained to you that the military were taking care of the one in the city and there was nobody to stop the other one. The whole send another military unit there falls apart once you realise that Superman was faster. Try again."

Your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that a) the region where the other machine was placed was isolated, with no f#cker around, and b) the military's being ridiculously, hilariously unprepared and unequipped for taking on Kryptonian soldiers, something that even Clark himself knew and witnessed in person back in Smallville. Clark just leaving them to take on Kryptonian soldiers alone doesn't paint him in a very bright light.


"Oh, you mean later elements that had nothing to do with the film whatsoever. And even if the comics took one of two elements, that doesn't actually mean Superman 1 is any good"

Those elements had plenty to do with the film. If they were so awful, would Byrne and other writers at DC have bothered including them into the Superman mythos? They helped form the comics and characters as we see them today, including Lex Luthor. Without them, Lex would still have been a red-haired criminal scientist.



"That's not a disguise."

Maybe not in the sense of dressing differently or putting on a fake mustache, but it is in the sense of camouflage and trying to fit in with his surroundings.


"If he had done that instead of focusing on the machines, more people would have died."


Not if he took the machine out in Metropolis first and the military focused on the one at the other end. Tell me, how is it that in "Amazing Spiderman" (and the movies before it) we have a character who's able to do these amazing things, is still conscious of his surroundings (including the people in the vicinity), and yet in "MOS" we have a god, a being who's even more powerful in strength, speed and senses, being completely impotent in comparison to Spiderman, old and new?





"The fact you claim Krypton is supposed to be made of crystal (which is pretty stupid in itself) and yet doesn't look anything like what you describe shows serious projection issues you have."


If anyone is "projecting", that would be you. The architecture features halls of white crystal under crystalline arches. The crystalline motif was employed not only in the architecture, but in the landscape and technology as well, suggesting that the entire planet had been adapted and altered by Kryptonian influence. Even Clark's space pod is decorated with crystals. How do you miss something as obvious as that? What else do they look like, bananas?


"Dr No was the first ever GOOD film. That's pretty significant. Also, Superman was already flying in film serials. Hell, Captain Marvel (now called Shazam) did it."

Okay, several problems with this.
1) "Dr. No" being a "good" film has nothing to do with what I was asking; the question was "Which of these featured James Bond flying or first utilized the Zoptic Process? Discuss in detail how these movies created a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special."
2) What do you mean the first ever "good" film? There have been plenty of great films before that particular movie came out - for example, Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", Jacque Tourneur's "The Cat People", "King Kong", etc. The list goes on.
3) The serials used different techniques to varying degrees of success, mostly poor. "Superman" (1948) cut its corners by animating all of the flying scenes, whereas "Captain Marvel" had the film throwing in a series of dynamically directed shots with Tom Tyler diving and forward-rolling into the action that are combined with flying model shots and back-projected footage (most of which are repeated several times over throughout). The latter's definitely better, if not the best of the superhero serials....but that may say something about the impoverished quality and production values under which most serials were made. Crucially though, this Captain Marvel’s superherodom never extends much more than that – in one scene, he rescues several people from a car that has gone off a bridge into the river but mundanely carries them out one at a time, whereas with any modern superhero you would expect him to lift the whole car out; in another scene, he and Louise Currie are tied up on a bombing range and he merely carries her away to shelter behind a rock while the hut blows up behind them instead of flying away to safety with her in his arms as one might imagine. This is the most superheroic that superheroes of the serial era ever got – a few jumps, a couple of back-projected flight scenes and maybe one instance of super-strength – not even the well-remembered The Adventures of Superman (1953-8) tv series rose above this imaginative impoverishment, while the serial incarnation of Superman in Superman (1948) cut its corners by animating all of the flying scenes. Some shots of Captain Marvel flying were filmed with Tom Tyler posed against rear-projected clouds, but show the suspension wires used to hold him up. As with all serials, aspects of the plot are contrived – people deciding to have meetings at mines, Louise Currie racing off to try and trace the serial number of a truck, Billy deciding to fly to a meeting in his own plane – which are there for no other reason than to extend the plot and create cliffhangers. It made for a passably decent serial, although hardly a classic.

"Superman (1978) was different from them, with a budget to allow for more in demonstrating heroic feats and an epic sense of scale. For landings and take-offs, wire flying riggings were devised and used. On location, these were suspended from tower cranes, whereas in the studio elaborate rigs were suspended from the studio ceilings. Some of the wire-flying work was quite audacious considering computer-controlled rigs were not then available — the penultimate shot where Superman flew out of the prison yard for example. Although stuntmen were used, Reeve did much of the work himself, and was suspended as high as 50 ft in the air. Counterweights and pulleys were typically used to achieve flying movement, rather than electronic or motorized devices. The thin wires used to suspend Reeve were typically removed from the film in post-production using rotoscope techniques, although this wasn't necessary in all shots (in certain lighting conditions or when Superman is very distant in the frame, the wires were more or less imperceptible).

For stationary shots where Superman's seen flying toward or away from the camera, blue screen matte techniques were used. Reeve would be photographed suspended against a blue screen. While a special device made his cape flap to give the illusion of movement, the actor himself would remain stationary (save for banking his body). Instead, the camera would use a mixture of long zoom-ins and zoom-outs and dolly in/dolly outs to cause him to become larger or smaller in the frame. The blue background would then be photochemically removed and Reeve's isolated image would be 'inserted' into a matted area of a background plate shot. The zoom-ins or zoom-outs would give the appearance of flying away or toward the contents of the background plate. The disparity in lighting and color between the matted image and the background plate, the occasional presence of black matte lines (where the matte area and the matted image – in this case Superman – do not exactly match up), and the slightly unconvincing impression of movement achieved through the use of zoom lenses is characteristic of these shots.

Where the shot was tracking with Superman as he flew (such as in the Superman and Lois Metropolis flying sequence), front projection was used. This involved photographing the actors suspended in front of a background image dimly projected from the front onto a special screen made by 3M that would reflect light back at many times the original intensity directly into a combined camera/projector. The result was a very clear and intense photographic reproduction of both the actors and the background plate, with far less image deterioration or lighting problems than occur with rear projection.

A technique was developed that combined the front projection effect with specially designed zoom lenses. The illusion of movement was created by zooming in on Reeve while making the front projected image appear to recede. For scenes where Superman interacted with other people or objects while in flight, Reeve and actors were put in a variety of rigging equipment with careful lighting and photography. This also led to the creation of the Zoptic system.




"Except for when it doesn't suit your argument, then you're like screw it, I'll just rewrite what the other person posted."

Not once had I ever rewritten what the other person posted, not even your stuff. I highlighted the exact quote you used in your post, word per word, so if it's anyone's fault for looking like a complete and utter fool, that's entirely your own doing, so your attempts at pinning your failures on me is just a waste of time. Don't believe me, go back to the post that you had written and see for yourself, as it's clear as day the f#ck-up is on your end.


"Well, you've missed the point of superheroes films entirely."

You're the one who's missed the point of superhero films entirely, as there's more to a superhero story than just "punch the bad guy". "Iron Man" (the first one) had great action but that's not what it was all about; it was about a man taking responsibility on an international level for the fallout and mistakes that he had wrought upon the world through his developing weaponry, balanced out with great moments of humour. "Batman" (1989) had action as well, but that wasn't the movie's main focus; Batman was a film that searched deep inside the funny faces, looked into dark, violent psychological recesses and finally painted the characters running about in children’s party costumes not as absurd caricatures like the 1966 tv series, but as driven necessities. Batman was possibly the darkest Hollywood blockbuster ever made up to that point (the eighties). This was the dark side of the Superman alter ego, more Jekyll and Hyde than a faux-pasing comedy of manners like Clark Kent was. In contrast to "Batman" was "Superman", the hero embodying old-fashioned American values and youthful optimism.




"Those exact words prove my point. He is here to help but on his own terms without any government BS. As for saving the world, there was nothing coincidental about it."

Oh but it was coincidental. If it hadn't been for the fact that he was living on the planet and Zod threatened to destroy it had he not revealed his presence, Clark would have remained in hiding.




"Of course he said that, he wants to pull in the easily impressed Superman 1 crowd."


LMAO Oh this is rich! The lengths you go to try and discredit "Superman 1" is nothing short of remarkable. I suppose this "information"/knowledge came from your powers of telepathy?


"No, it doesn't. Try again when you're decided to stop acting like a 5 year old."

Just when one thought you couldn't get any dumber, you went ahead and gone full-blown f#ck-nut retard! Quite an achievement. Read what I wrote again, and very carefully: don't use the term "rape", dude, as it is offensive and trivializes its victims.



"He saved them and then until did so save Lois."

Nothing changed outside of Lois' being saved.
Tom Mankiewicz said the idea was he came back and had enough time to throw both missiles into space, and the shock waves were supposed to cause earthquakes below but not the devastation it caused before. This was also going to tie to their original beginning of "Superman II" with him throwing the second missile to space, which in turn would release Zod, Ursa, and Non. They were changing the ending already (the time travel was originally slated for part II not I) and to completely show this aspect of it was going to require more shooting. However, the lack of time, money and infighting with the Salkind's didn't allow for adequate coverage of this new ending, and caused the confusing ending currently in the film. It is also why the He and Donner didn't return for the sequel and why the new Eifel tower sequence was filmed for the beginning of part II.



"He was a little busy with Kryptonians."

And he had plenty of opportunity to do something, be it moving the battle away, aiding civilians, etc.



"That just further differentiates them from Kryptonian armour."

But not from other games such as "Gears", "Quake 2" and "4", etc.


"Closer than medieval armour."


Try again.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/medieval-armor.html


https://www.medievalarmour.com/p-15771-conquerors-armor.aspx


"I assume you're talking of American football. That gear is way bulkier."

Slightly.

No, but that doesn't mean he should endanger the lives of other people by bringing the fight to the bloody town, smashing into a pillar and a gas station in the process. Since when has thought processing or common sense been an issue?

We were discussing how "S1" inspired Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" - that's what we were talking about. I was talking about how both films tried to incorporate a vast, epic sense of scale and a sense of verisimilitude by having the worlds the characters are apart of seem like real places.

You haven't even debunked a single point.

Only because you keep trying to ignore them and don't want to face reality. Newsflash, junior - it isn't a good film, not even close.

Marketing and bribery aren't the same - get that through your thick skull.

Again, the story wasn't about punching people in the face. Again, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey

Even less so, especially compared to "Batman Begins".

Again, it wasn't the question of being able to "follow it", you mental midget, it was the question of narrative cohesion. The jumps between past and present are completely abrupt and don't flow well together, unlike the ones done in "Batman Begins". There was nothing natural in going from a scene of Clark staring up at a whale underwater to a flashback of him as a child.

Marketing isn't the same as "bribery". If you have a low budget movie that's only playing at one or two movie theaters in the country and there's nothing else to indicate its presence, chances are it will be ignored. Also, if every Academy Award was the result of a bribe, then you cannot say with certainty that "Aliens" was a good film. In terms of what "S1" had achieved, it set the standard for superhero films in terms of having a sense of mythic stature.

Hollywood didn't want her to stay dead in order to give the movie a happy ending, that's true, but no one could have foreseen Superman breaking the boundaries of time and space in order to do so. At best, one would have expected him to do the whole fairy tale BS kiss of life like in those old Disney movies.

Given that both started unleashing devastating gravity beams at the exact same time might have been a clue. Again, use your eyes.

If nukes aren't an option, other missiles, battleships, planes and so on could have been sent.

Your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that a) the region where the other machine was placed was isolated, with no f#cker around,

b) the military's being ridiculously, hilariously unprepared and unequipped for taking on Kryptonian soldiers, something that even Clark himself knew and witnessed in person back in Smallville. Clark just leaving them to take on Kryptonian soldiers alone doesn't paint him in a very bright light.

Those elements had plenty to do with the film. If they were so awful, would Byrne and other writers at DC have bothered including them into the Superman mythos? They helped form the comics and characters as we see them today, including Lex Luthor. Without them, Lex would still have been a red-haired criminal scientist.

Maybe not in the sense of dressing differently or putting on a fake mustache, but it is in the sense of camouflage and trying to fit in with his surroundings.

Not if he took the machine out in Metropolis first and the military focused on the one at the other end. Tell me, how is it that in "Amazing Spiderman" (and the movies before it) we have a character who's able to do these amazing things, is still conscious of his surroundings (including the people in the vicinity), and yet in "MOS" we have a god, a being who's even more powerful in strength, speed and senses, being completely impotent in comparison to Spiderman, old and new?

If anyone is "projecting", that would be you. The architecture features halls of white crystal under crystalline arches. The crystalline motif was employed not only in the architecture, but in the landscape and technology as well, suggesting that the entire planet had been adapted and altered by Kryptonian influence. Even Clark's space pod is decorated with crystals. How do you miss something as obvious as that? What else do they look like, bananas?

1) "Dr. No" being a "good" film has nothing to do with what I was asking; the question was "Which of these featured James Bond flying or first utilized the Zoptic Process? Discuss in detail how these movies created a then-towering sense of scale and mythological relevance, and a sense of verisimilitude that made it look and feel like something special."

2) What do you mean the first ever "good" film? There have been plenty of great films before that particular movie came out - for example, Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", Jacque Tourneur's "The Cat People", "King Kong", etc. The list goes on.

3) The serials used different techniques to varying degrees of success, mostly poor.

Not once had I ever rewritten what the other person posted, not even your stuff. I highlighted the exact quote you used in your post, word per word, so if it's anyone's fault for looking like a complete and utter fool, that's entirely your own doing, so your attempts at pinning your failures on me is just a waste of time. Don't believe me, go back to the post that you had written and see for yourself, as it's clear as day the f#ck-up is on your end.

You're the one who's missed the point of superhero films entirely, as there's more to a superhero story than just "punch the bad guy". "Iron Man" (the first one) had great action but that's not what it was all about; it was about a man taking responsibility on an international level for the fallout and mistakes that he had wrought upon the world through his developing weaponry, balanced out with great moments of humour.

"Batman" (1989) had action as well, but that wasn't the movie's main focus; Batman was a film that searched deep inside the funny faces, looked into dark, violent psychological recesses and finally painted the characters running about in children’s party costumes not as absurd caricatures like the 1966 tv series, but as driven necessities. Batman was possibly the darkest Hollywood blockbuster ever made up to that point (the eighties). This was the dark side of the Superman alter ego, more Jekyll and Hyde than a faux-pasing comedy of manners like Clark Kent was. In contrast to "Batman" was "Superman", the hero embodying old-fashioned American values and youthful optimism.

Oh but it was coincidental. If it hadn't been for the fact that he was living on the planet and Zod threatened to destroy it had he not revealed his presence, Clark would have remained in hiding.

LMAO Oh this is rich! The lengths you go to try and discredit "Superman 1" is nothing short of remarkable. I suppose this "information"/knowledge came from your powers of telepathy?

Just when one thought you couldn't get any dumber, you went ahead and gone full-blown f#ck-nut retard! Quite an achievement. Read what I wrote again, and very carefully: don't use the term "rape", dude, as it is offensive and trivializes its victims.

Nothing changed outside of Lois' being saved.
Tom Mankiewicz said the idea was he came back and had enough time to throw both missiles into space, and the shock waves were supposed to cause earthquakes below but not the devastation it caused before. This was also going to tie to their original beginning of "Superman II" with him throwing the second missile to space, which in turn would release Zod, Ursa, and Non. They were changing the ending already (the time travel was originally slated for part II not I) and to completely show this aspect of it was going to require more shooting. However, the lack of time, money and infighting with the Salkind's didn't allow for adequate coverage of this new ending, and caused the confusing ending currently in the film. It is also why the He and Donner didn't return for the sequel and why the new Eifel tower sequence was filmed for the beginning of part II.

And he had plenty of opportunity to do something, be it moving the battle away, aiding civilians, etc.

But not from other games such as "Gears", "Quake 2" and "4", etc.

Try again.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/medieval-armor.html


https://www.medievalarmour.com/p-15771-conquerors-armor.aspx

"Since someone was trying to kill his mum. This isn't Superman who's been doing it for eighty years, this is Superman just starting out."

So what? How does that excuse the lack of both common sense and rational thought? It doesn't.

"And has what to do with anything?"

You really do have memory problems. I pity you. To remind you once again, we were discussing how Nolan drew inspiration from "Superman 1" for "Batman Begins".

"I've debunked all of them."

You've debunked nothing. The only thing you proved was how much of a f$ck-up and idiot you are.


"What you're talking about it not marketing."

You have no idea what marketing is, do you? Allow me to give you the definition: "mar·ket·ing - noun
the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."

Soo yeah this falls under marketing.



"No, that would be you. Though, it is good to see you admit Superman 1 is a bad film."

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing. Your attention span is pitiful. I said "Man of Steel" was a bad film, not "Superman 1".


"Well, they don't look very crystal to me. Also, why the *beep* was everyone made of "crystal" anyway?"

Not the film's fault you have $hit vision - it's hard to mistake a crystal for anything else.


"It doesn't say anything about being boring, or having to be a mind controlled slave to be a hero, or killing millions of people to save one stupid bitch."

If a movie is boring to someone, that doesn't mean it's a "bad" movie. It depends on what the viewer wants to get out of said-movie. It also depends on what the movie wants to be, and in this case the movie was true to itself - a hero's journey, complete with chapters showcasing the protagonist's development into the character he ultimately becomes. And again, Superman wasn't a mind-controlled slave - you cannot argue "mind control" when someone wasn't even that person to begin with. And again, no, he didn't let millions die.




"Now, you're trying to compare it to a Chris Nolan. Obviously most films are gonna be inferior to something he makes."

Because the movie is aping that style (among other things) but even less successfully.


"Zack Synder might not be as good as Nolan but he's still miles better than Richard "Had No Idea What He Was Doing" Donnor."

Snyder, not "Synder". In terms of Richard Donner's take on "Superman", he knew exactly what he was doing when he worked on the film, and in comparison to "MOS", it's miles better.



"AKA you couldn't follow it."

There was no correlation between these scenes. Let me it say it again for you, only this time slower since you yourself are slow. What. Does. A. Whale. Have. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood? At least with "Batman Begins" there was a correlation between scenes past and present.




"Oh please, breaking the boundaries of time is essentially the same thing as a BS kiss of life."

Not so; if a person were kissed and brought back to life, it would be an isolated event. Turning back time, however, affects history, people, even the universe, with any number of consequences involved.




"And yet Superman is faster and couldn't take as long as the military to get there."
"No, that actually further proves my point that military wouldn't get there in time."

They could have contacted other bases/ships close by while Clark dealt with the one in the city where people were brutally being killed.




"Well, unfortunately, Superman didn't make the power to split himself in two. He had to take care of one of the problems first. Better to focus on the machine nobody is stopping than the one the military are already working on."


Given Clark himself knew how pitifully and woefully outmatched the military were against Kryptonian soldiers, it would have made more sense to deal with the one in the city than to just leave it to them and knowingly send them to their deaths.



"You are just making more of a fool of yourself. Lex wasn't influenced by Hackman at all, otherwise he'd be wearing a wig. Also, Luthor was bald before S1."

Please, it is you who is the fool. Prior to this, Lex was a criminal scientist with red hair. The baldness originally came from a printing error. Then, in "Adventure Comics" #270, a chemical accident made Lex bald. If it hadn't been for the Donner films, Lex would still have been a criminal scientist and not a plutocrat.




"The reality is that both machines were gonna kill everyone. If Superman went for the one in Metropolis, the other one would have killed everyone."

Not if Clark got to the one in Metropolis first, destroyed it then went after the other one.


"Also, none of the Spiderman films involved him having to go to the other end of the Earth and back within a short amount of time."

And yet Spiderman was able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to taking in his surroundings and saving civilians at the same time.

"Who cares about the process? They would have made the perfect CGI for Superman 1 and the plot would have still been bad."


You said that the Zoptic Process had been used in other films before "Superman 1". Also, considering this was made before the era of CG, the effects were pretty good. In terms of plot, there was hardly anything wrong with it.


"Also, you've not explained for Superman 1 did any of those things."


I've been talking about it since we started conversing. Don't you remember? You must have the memory of a guppy. In terms of a sense of scale, you don't recall his flying around the world performing his various feats, out to space, etc? Early serials may have shown heroes flying to varying degrees of success - mostly poor - but none of those have successfully looked real (note: it should be worth mentioning when I say "real" I don't mean "realistic", but in the sense of verisimilitude, of seeming real). In terms of mythological relevance, structurally the story is linear, like a lot of myths of old, the character somewhat supernatural in origin and abilities, like Heracles, Theseus, even Jesus among countless others. The story is that of a starchild placed by his parents on a small rocket and shipped across millions of light-years to earth as the only survivor of a “wonderful race” on the eve the planet Krypton’s destruction. The baby finally lands in a Midwestern corn field. He is found by Jonathan and Martha Kent who raise the child like their own son, but soon find out that Clark is no ordinary being. The first mythical analogy that springs to mind is that of Moses’ early days. He too was saved by his parents from the murderous hands of the Pharaoh who had ordered to kill all the Hebrew newborn males. Moses’ mother put him in a watertight reed basket and set him afloat on the Nile. The child was found by the Pharaoh’s daughter who was bathing in the river nearby. She recognized him as one of the Hebrew children and adopted him. Moses grew up in the royal court and he too shared a double identity: as an Egyptian prince and as the great liberator of the Jewish people.

Superman’s original name on Krypton was Kal-El and his father’s was Jor-El. The suffix of both names has a biblical significance as well. One of the oldest Semitic appellatives of God is “el”. The designation has been widely used in ancient Israel. It can be found in words like Isra-el, Ishma-el, Samu-el, Gabri-el, Micha-el, etc… Michael is also the mythical warrior angel who opposed Satan i.e., the “adversary”. As such he is Superman’s biblical alter ego.
Superman’s most singular trait is that of his split personality. One part relates to his super-natural powers and the other to the profane reality of the everyday world; a yin and yang so to speak. The first symbolizes the ideals of individual freedom and power. A stark contrast to the limits imposed by the reality of everyday life as portrayed by the humble Clark Kent. Such a contrast between the super-natural powers of Superman and the ordinariness of Clark Kent depicts the essence of human spiritual ambiguity. Don’t we all at times live in a fantasy world but soon are awakened from our dreams and have to come down and live on earth like Clark Kent.

Our hero’s duality also represents the full potential inherent in all human beings. This duality depicts the yin and yang of human spirituality: a dynamic present in most world religions. A good illustration of this duality would be Jesus Christ, characterized by the interaction between Christ the Son of God as the sacred, and Jesus the son of Mary as the profane. Such duality is at the core of the Christian religious experience. In the Incarnation he is both God and man, he is ONE God. In other words, both the sacred and the profane blend into ONE reality. For Superman and Clark Kent it is ONE animation as they are different characters yet they are the same person.
I've already noted the Norman Rockwell imagery of Pastoral America as well as how the movie served as a counter to disaster films of the period, with Superman fixing each disaster, framing him as a force of optimism able to handle anything and everything, which resulted in a return of old-fashioned black and white morality, and how this was reflected in the real world with Ronald Reagan entering presidency a year later.



"Different technique, same plot. It just proves Superman 1 had better effects, that doesn't make it a good film."


Not so, as those serials were constrained by budget and techniques and it's because of that they fell flat as superhero films, with no sense of scale or a sense that what you're watching was something mythic.





"Those films were all crap."

LOL What? What are you talking about? Those movies weren't crap; "Kong" and "Metropolis" were pivotal and innovative films within the science fiction genre, and "The Cat People" was an excellent horror thriller. Then again, it goes to show your lack of education and knowledge. I pity you.





"Oh, I've seen it for myself alright, you've just made the entire thing up because you can't defeat my real arguments."

LOL You liar. Of course you would claim that. Never mind the fact you edited your post to say I "changed your argument" instead of I "fact your argument" (your words). The fact you edited your post proves that you recognized the f#ck-up was on your end and your too dumb to even admit it. Guess what? You've been caught. Again.




"Which has nothing to do with Superman 1."

It does in the sense that it was more than "punch bad guy".



"Which again has nothing to do with Superman 1. Superman 1 wasn't about anything other than some prat pissing around."

It had everything to do with "Superman 1", as "Batman" was the flipside of the same coin; whereas the former was about American exceptionalism and optimism, the latter was the opposite of that, revealing the demented psyche behind the mask.




"That's like saying Batman only protects Gotham because he lives in it. I suppose the Avengers are selfless bastards because they only fought Loki and Ultron because they live on Earth. This isn't exactly a good argument.

In regards to "MOS" it is. In terms of "Batman only protecting Gotham because he lives in it", there is some truth to that; in fact, he loves Gotham and wants to protect his parents' legacy. In terms of the Avengers, that's an entirely different matter as they were actually being heroes; the movie showed them aiding civilians and authorities, even trying to control the battle and destruction, unlike Clark in "MOS". The Avengers proved themselves to be "selfless" heroes, while Clark in "MOS" was a "selfish" bastard.


"No, it doesn't. You just need to grow up."

You're the one who needs to grow up, because for your information, using the term "rape" in the context you're using is offensive to those that had been raped. You're just too stupid to even realize it.


"Common sense, actually. Though, the lengths you'll go to vouch for Superman 1 are ridiculous."

Because it is a well-known fact that "Superman 1" paved the way for superhero films and for the Superman mythos. In terms of your intuiting that Byrne's liking "Superman 1" was to get people who liked the movies into his book, that is horse crap and fanboy bile you're spewing, not "common sense" as you claim. What, you possess the powers of telepathy or know John Byrne personally? The fact is, you're a mental midget who can't stand the thought of "Superman 1" and "2" getting so much acclaim.




"Gears are more like Expendables and Quake is way closer to Doom."

"Quake" isn't closer to "Doom", not in terms of aesthetic, gameplay, music, etc. Outside of its being an FPS and one or two weapons, the two have nothing else in common. "Gears" with "The Expendables"....not at all. The characters in the latter are wearing Kevlar and doesn't look at all like what Gears are wearing. Still doesn't change the fact that in terms of armour the ones featured in "MOS" are derivative of video game armour.


"He couldn't move the battle away because the villain weren't having it. The only way he could aid civilians was by fighting the bad guys."

Clark had a number of opportunities to do something, not just by "fighting the bad guys", you dumb $hit.

So what? How does that excuse the lack of both common sense and rational thought? It doesn't.

You really do have memory problems. I pity you. To remind you once again, we were discussing how Nolan drew inspiration from "Superman 1" for "Batman Begins".

You've debunked nothing. The only thing you proved was how much of a f$ck-up and idiot you are.

You have no idea what marketing is, do you? Allow me to give you the definition: "mar·ket·ing - noun
the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising."

Soo yeah this falls under marketing.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing. Your attention span is pitiful. I said "Man of Steel" was a bad film, not "Superman 1".

Not the film's fault you have $hit vision - it's hard to mistake a crystal for anything else.

If a movie is boring to someone, that doesn't mean it's a "bad" movie. It depends on what the viewer wants to get out of said-movie. It also depends on what the movie wants to be, and in this case the movie was true to itself - a hero's journey, complete with chapters showcasing the protagonist's development into the character he ultimately becomes. And again, Superman wasn't a mind-controlled slave - you cannot argue "mind control" when someone wasn't even that person to begin with. And again, no, he didn't let millions die.

Because the movie is aping that style (among other things) but even less successfully.

Snyder, not "Synder". In terms of Richard Donner's take on "Superman", he knew exactly what he was doing when he worked on the film, and in comparison to "MOS", it's miles better.

There was no correlation between these scenes. Let me it say it again for you, only this time slower since you yourself are slow. What. Does. A. Whale. Have. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood? At least with "Batman Begins" there was a correlation between scenes past and present.

Not so; if a person were kissed and brought back to life, it would be an isolated event. Turning back time, however, affects history, people, even the universe, with any number of consequences involved.

They could have contacted other bases/ships close by while Clark dealt with the one in the city where people were brutally being killed.

Given Clark himself knew how pitifully and woefully outmatched the military were against Kryptonian soldiers, it would have made more sense to deal with the one in the city than to just leave it to them and knowingly send them to their deaths.

Please, it is you who is the fool. Prior to this, Lex was a criminal scientist with red hair. The baldness originally came from a printing error. Then, in "Adventure Comics" #270, a chemical accident made Lex bald. If it hadn't been for the Donner films, Lex would still have been a criminal scientist and not a plutocrat.

Not if Clark got to the one in Metropolis first, destroyed it then went after the other one.

And yet Spiderman was able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to taking in his surroundings and saving civilians at the same time.

You said that the Zoptic Process had been used in other films before "Superman 1". Also, considering this was made before the era of CG, the effects were pretty good. In terms of plot, there was hardly anything wrong with it.

I've been talking about it since we started conversing.

Not so, as those serials were constrained by budget and techniques and it's because of that they fell flat as superhero films, with no sense of scale or a sense that what you're watching was something mythic.

LOL What? What are you talking about? Those movies weren't crap; "Kong" and "Metropolis" were pivotal and innovative films within the science fiction genre, and "The Cat People" was an excellent horror thriller. Then again, it goes to show your lack of education and knowledge. I pity you.

LOL You liar. Of course you would claim that. Never mind the fact you edited your post to say I "changed your argument" instead of I "fact your argument" (your words). The fact you edited your post proves that you recognized the f#ck-up was on your end and your too dumb to even admit it. Guess what? You've been caught. Again.

It does in the sense that it was more than "punch bad guy".

It had everything to do with "Superman 1", as "Batman" was the flipside of the same coin; whereas the former was about American exceptionalism and optimism, the latter was the opposite of that, revealing the demented psyche behind the mask.

In regards to "MOS" it is. In terms of "Batman only protecting Gotham because he lives in it", there is some truth to that; in fact, he loves Gotham and wants to protect his parents' legacy. In terms of the Avengers, that's an entirely different matter as they were actually being heroes; the movie showed them aiding civilians and authorities, even trying to control the battle and destruction, unlike Clark in "MOS". The Avengers proved themselves to be "selfless" heroes, while Clark in "MOS" was a "selfish" bastard.

You're the one who needs to grow up, because for your information, using the term "rape" in the context you're using is offensive to those that had been raped. You're just too stupid to even realize it.

Because it is a well-known fact that "Superman 1" paved the way for superhero films and for the Superman mythos. In terms of your intuiting that Byrne's liking "Superman 1" was to get people who liked the movies into his book, that is horse crap and fanboy bile you're spewing, not "common sense" as you claim. What, you possess the powers of telepathy or know John Byrne personally? The fact is, you're a mental midget who can't stand the thought of "Superman 1" and "2" getting so much acclaim.

"Quake" isn't closer to "Doom", not in terms of aesthetic, gameplay, music, etc. Outside of its being an FPS and one or two weapons, the two have nothing else in common. "Gears" with "The Expendables"....not at all. The characters in the latter are wearing Kevlar and doesn't look at all like what Gears are wearing. Still doesn't change the fact that in terms of armour the ones featured in "MOS" are derivative of video game armour.

Clark had a number of opportunities to do something, not just by "fighting the bad guys", you dumb $hit.

"Common sense and rational thought are, "OMG, he's trying to kill my mum! I gotta save her!""

That doesn't excuse the lack of both by taking the fight over to Smallville, thereby endangering the rest of the town. Common sense and rational thought would be "Hey, this is dangerous, better take it someplace else rather than smash into that pillar and gas station!".


"Except that he just said that to draw in the Superman 1 crowd."

Ah, your powers of telepathy are back again, I see. You're pathetic.


"No, that would be you."

Please. You've been lying, exposed multiple times and then you tried to hide that fact but failed.



"Nope, try again."


Keep trying - you're only embarrassing yourself. The fact is, that does classify as marketing.


"Says the guy who can't follow Man of Steel's plotline."

I said I understood the "plotline" of "MOS", it's just the logic (or rather, lack of logic) behind its scene transitions that doesn't make sense.


"No, you've just been making straw man arguments that prove nothing."

They didn't "prove nothing", you're just too much of a dumb-a$$ and a fanboy brat to even listen or acknowledge them, despite their overwhelming evidence.


"Well, normally crystal looks like crystal."

Crystal looks like crystal. Don't be stupid.


"He only had to fight one or two super villains at worst. He wasn't dealing with anything as powerful as Zod."

And yet he was still able to accomplish more than Clark when it came to controlling destruction and being aware of his surroundings.


"Going after the one in Metropolis, he would have had to fight aliens, then destroy the machine, then go after the other machine which would have been destroying the planet at the SAME TIME. I don't know why this is so difficult for you comprehend."


He could have destroyed the machine first, blasted into their ship, which in turn would let Earth's atmosphere in and cause the Kryptonians to collapse/ become weakened since they can't breathe in it, thereby allowing Clark to subdue them, then go down to the other machine. It's so easy to understand.



"And how would it have taken for those military to get there? The machine had to be destroyed right NOW."

Given that it was in the Indian Ocean, I'm pretty sure they could have called in some planes or ships to launch a missile strike. Or hell, bombard the thing with drones. Any number of ways.



"You seriously rather he just left the other machine unattended?"

No, Clark could have left that to the military while he dealt with the one in the city. If the military were unsuccessful, then he'd go and deal with it himself.


"Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull."

Nope. Try again. Glad to see you admitting that "MOS" is derivative.


"Better than what Richard Donnor was trying to pull."

Nope. Even less so, especially compared to the even lesser superhero films.




"Its not someONE that found it boring. Most people agree its a terrible film."


I don't doubt that there would be a couple of people who aren't fans of it, but a couple of people isn't the same as "most". The overwhelming majority actually preferred the Donner films.



"And it wasn't true to Superman at all."


It was very true to him.


"Also, my arguments about him vein under mind control as a "superhero" and killing millions of people stands because that's what happened."

But that wasn't what happened - that's what you want to believe had happened. You can't say he's been "brainwashed" when he was never that person to begin with, and he didn't kill millions of people.



"Actually, Superman 1 was LESS than "punch bad guy""

It was a monomyth showcasing his development into the hero he ultimately becomes. The fact you can't see beyond punching people is a sure-sign of your intelligence. I pity you.


"Let me say it slowly for you. Who. Cares. What. A. Whale. Has. To. Do. With. Clark's. Childhood?"

Let me make it clear to you what's wrong with it - in "Batman Begins", the cuts between past and present made sense because they had dealt with certain themes and issues in those moments (ie Ras' question about Bruce's fear, the beginning with Bruce as a child falling into a hole before transitioning to the present with him as a bearded, dishevelled adult in an Asian prison, etc) thus the transitioning was seamless. I think you don't even know yourself.




"Jerry Siegel altered Luthor's backstory to incorporate his hair loss into his origin in 1960. That was nearly twenty years before Superman 1."


I didn't debate that the hair loss was something Donner brought, I said his change from a criminal scientist to a plutocrat.




"The lack of any real threat."

Lex Luthor and the missiles don't count?


"While I can accept Kong and Metropolis for being good at the time, they doesn't actually make them good films."

They are good films, for they have contributed heavily to the science fiction genre, even founded certain sub-genres. Also, "The Cat People" is a cult classic.


"The problem with that argument is that Superman 1 had no sense of scale or mythic either. It just had better effects."

"Superman 1" had a sense of scale, it's just you've been bombarded with so much CG movies of similar scale in recent years that you've become desensitized to it. Do you even know what "mythic" means? No? Here's the definition for you:
mythic - adjective - of, relating to, or resembling myth.
"we explain spiritual forces in mythic language"

•exaggerated or idealized.
"he was a national hero of mythic proportions"

•fictitious.

His feats of tremendous strength, running faster than a train, his drilling through the ground, invulnerability, his being able to prevent disasters, chasing down missiles through mountainous valleys, etc - these are feats reminiscent of Greek gods and heroes of old.



"Oh, you claim I said something but when you can't prove it, you just say I "edited" it. You are clearly desperate."


Keep trying. Still doesn't change the fact that you had been caught, you lying weasel.



"Except, that's not what happened in Man of Steel."

That is exactly what happened in "MOS" - Clark had plenty of opportunities, but he did nothing but punch at the bad guys, even going so far as to cause some of the destruction. He didn't try to control the damage, nor did he try to minimize casualties.




"So your idea of American exceptionalism and optimism is kill million to save one dumb bitch."

He didn't kill millions, you dumb $hit. He still saved them - he only stopped the aftershock of the earthquake from happening.




"No, raping them is offensive to them. The fact you can't tell the difference between the two shows how childish you are"

You really don't get it, do you? Son, you are stupid - of course rape is offensive and evil, you dumb $hit. I said "using the term "rape" in your context is offensive to those that had been raped, as it trivializes their suffering." Your inability to perceive that makes you the childish one.




"Except that it isn't even true. As for telepathy and knowing John Byrne, I do know the business is ultimately about money and therefore people will say anything to get money."

Yeah, business is always about making money, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are a mental midget in denial of the contributions "Superman 1" brought to the character and comics, and it still doesn't change the fact the Byrne liked it enough to incorporate its features into his "MOS" comics.







"Oh please, Quake armour is identical to Doom armour and how can you say the steroid abusers from Gears of War don't like the steroid abusers in the Expendables?

Man of Steel armour looks nothing like them."


The armour in "Quake" looks nothing like the one in "Doom", "Quake 1" anyway. "Quake 2", even less so. In terms of the "steroid abusers" looking like the "steroid abusers" in "The Expendables", what you're thinking of is machismo, not aesthetics. Aesthetically, the armour in "MOS" looks like a mix of "Gears of War" with "Quake 2" and 4".



"If he kept stopping to mess about with civilians, the bad guys would have killed more people."


Still doesn't change the fact that he had plenty of opportunities to do something to prevent further collateral damage and/or aid the populace.


"Anyway, its been fun watching you make a fool of yourself but I've grown bored of your straw man arguments and trolling."

Translation: "WAAAH, HE COUNTERED ALL MY CRAPPY ARGUMENTS AND PROVED HOW MUCH OF A FRAUD I AM!"

Pathetic.

im on your side but...no matter how old the film is, metropolis, superman 1978, and kong have actual character development and great writing which puts it above average *beep* like most modern films including man of steel...however the mediocrity and awfulness of man of steel and dawn of justice do not excuse the equally but in a different way awful writing of superman returns...its poorly written "characters", wasted ideas(the son of superman is being done better in the comics), its slavish devotion to a abstract irreplicatable feel(the feel of the donner films do not lend itself to new needed directions like brainiac or darkseid), and its poor cast bring it down and no amount of *beep* on other crappy films are gonna change that

"however the mediocrity and awfulness of man of steel and dawn of justice do not excuse the equally but in a different way awful writing of superman returns...its poorly written "characters", wasted ideas(the son of superman is being done better in the comics), its slavish devotion to a abstract irreplicatable feel(the feel of the donner films do not lend itself to new needed directions like brainiac or darkseid), and its poor cast bring it down and no amount of *beep* on other crappy films are gonna change that"

"SR" was hardly awful, let alone mediocre. In terms of its slavish devotion to the Donner films "not lending itself to new directions like Brainiac or Darkseid", that is bull$hit - of course it could have. In fact, a follow-up had been planned with Brainiac, and from what I heard, the son would have been a pivotal part.

lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is *beep* disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess)

lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is *beep* disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess as well as a enraged jason beating the *beep* out of clark as i feel he would *beep* deserve it)

"lets just say that rumor was probably false(jason being possessed and killed is *beep* disgusting and to be honest a bullet dodged) superman becoming a murderer did not work with zod and it would have been worse if not character ruining with his own son(which probably would have lead to a Resurrection storyline to fix the mess as well as a enraged jason beating the *beep* out of clark as i feel he would *beep* deserve it)"

Personally I actually like the idea of Brainiac possessing someone Superman cares about and trying to force him to do something he doesn't want to do, but it doesn't have to end with Supes killing his own son. If done well, it could work.

I doubt the story is even true...but If it was the sigh of relief I made when he left is justified

How would you end it without destroying the character or makin another depressing film?

"How would you end it without destroying the character or makin another depressing film?"

Me personally, I'd try having the confrontation between Superman and Brainiac being more about intellectual prowess than just physical, with the former outsmarting the latter in order to get his consciousness out from his son.

This would lead to Richards death(I feel that he is redundant and useless and superman must accept responsibility for HIS SON)

The sequel would than deal with the son...having learned his his powers and still having brainiacs concious(parts of brainiacs personality still lives) decides to go to space and fight some threat that brainiac was aware of...darkseid

Thoughts on this trilogy idea?

"This would lead to Richards death(I feel that he is redundant and useless and superman must accept responsibility for HIS SON)"

Richard was far from redundant and useless. Plus, by the end of "Returns", Clark made it explicitly clear that he would indeed be there for his son when he needs him, so he was indeed accepting responsibility. I'd imagine the relationship between Lois and Clark to be more akin to a divorced couple.

"The sequel would than deal with the son...having learned his his powers and still having brainiacs concious(parts of brainiacs personality still lives) decides to go to space and fight some threat that brainiac was aware of...darkseid

Thoughts on this trilogy idea?"

Personally, I'm not crazy about this idea, just because a) with the son being a hybrid of Kryptonian and human genes, I doubt he'd be as powerful as Clark, let alone is able to access his abilities (hell, it's even possible that the super strength was just a one-off fluke, brought on by stress/adrenaline), b) a person doesn't go out to antagonize a powerhouse like Darkseid, especially if they're aware of how dangerous he is. That's just picking a fight for the hell of it. In terms of characters that could work as an antagonist, I've always thought Lobo would have been perfect (80s Lobo, not 90s Lobo) just because he's like a darker take on the Man of Steel. I think it would be cool to have a movie featuring both Lobo and Darkseid.

I know...im just basing this off of a superman sequel idea i got...the son would be a cocky prick and a smartass and when darkseid beats him and sends him to earth we are suppose to be like YEAH...supes clean him up so that darkseid can do it again

"I know...im just basing this off of a superman sequel idea i got...the son would be a cocky prick and a smartass and when darkseid beats him and sends him to earth we are suppose to be like YEAH...supes clean him up so that darkseid can do it again"

Still problematic. For one, there are no guarantees that the son, being a hybrid, would be as strong or have the same kind of abilities as the father, let alone any abilities at all. Also, that still brings up the issue of getting Darkseid involved; having the son being a cocky arrogant prick going around planet to planet going "YEAH, SUCK MY #$%#! I'M A BAD-A##!" - that's just kicking a hornet's nest for the sake of it.