|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jun 19, 2006 18:27:36 GMT -5
Well, for those of you living under a rock, Superman Returns, the fifth movie in the Superman saga, hits theaters June 28th!!
As I was getting excited about the debut of the new movie, I realized something: I haven't seen any of the C. Reeves Superman movies.
At that thought, I removed my glasses, ripped open my shirt, and took off to my local Blockbuster. (not really)
I rented Superman I and II, and once I'm done with those, I plan to rent Superman III and IV.
I know a lot about Superman from the comics and the animated series, but I'm sure Hollywood changed it a bit.
Anyway, hopefully I will have seen all of the films by June 28th, and maybe see Superman Returns on opening day!
What do you guys think? Am I the only person in the universe who hasn't seen these movies? How excited are you for SUPERMAN RETURNS....
|
|
|
|
Post by Romans Empire on Jun 19, 2006 18:48:00 GMT -5
Do yourself a big favor and repeat after me:
"There has been only two Superman movies ever made. There is no Superman III or IV. I will watch and enjoy all the wonders that come with experiencing two of the greatest super hero movies ever made. I will then go to see the THIRD Superman movie when in comes out on June 28th."
Do not ask about these so called other two movies because they do not exist. I am not joking or being sarcastic.
I am looking forward to the new Superman movie more and more every day!!! Hollywood is Hollywood so enjoy the new movie for everything that it is suppose to be. I know I will!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 19, 2006 19:05:41 GMT -5
Do yourself a big favor and repeat after me:
"There has been only two Superman movies ever made. There is no Superman III or IV. I will watch and enjoy all the wonders that come with experiencing two of the greatest super hero movies ever made. I will then go to see the THIRD Superman movie when in comes out on June 28th." Do not ask about these so called other two movies because they do not exist. I am not joking or being sarcastic. I am looking forward to the new Superman movie more and more every day!!! Hollywood is Hollywood so enjoy the new movie for everything that it is suppose to be. I know I will! Ditto. |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 19, 2006 19:07:48 GMT -5
He's right. It's like the Batman movies. First two were good, the third one you weren't sure about, and the last one made your eyes burn and truly made you regret watching it. Then along came the new one and it rocked.
Same with the Superman movies. See the fourth one only if you are entirely determined to see it all, but be forewarned, there are parts that literally don't make any sense. And hopefully the new one with be the coolest movie to hit theaters in a long time. I know I'm excited!
|
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Jun 19, 2006 19:33:07 GMT -5
We have been watching them all again to get revved up for the new movie. Superman one is classic. It is a little slow for today's standards but an excellent movie. SII is the best of the bunch. SIII can best be described by that quote from Billy Madsion, "Every here is dumber for having heard you." or something like that. SIV is not terrible. We watched it shortly after SIII so it compared favorably. It at least has someone for Supes to beat on.
I think Supes Returns will be a great Superman movie with a lousy Superman.
X3 was a great movie, Supes has a tough act to follow. Peter from X3 would have been a real Superman.
|
|
Dr Dread
Staff 
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Jun 19, 2006 19:41:26 GMT -5
Well, for those of you living under a rock, Superman Returns, the fifth movie in the Superman saga, hits theaters June 28th!! As I was getting excited about the debut of the new movie, I realized something: I haven't seen any of the C. Reeves Superman movies. You haven't seen one of the Chris Reeves Superman movies, and you think we live under a rock!  Like the others have said, you can skip parts three and four. Part one and two however, are must viewing. They explain a lot of what has happened in the past before 'Superman Returns'. |
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jun 19, 2006 20:39:10 GMT -5
General Zod was not in Superman 3 and 4, therefore they fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jun 19, 2006 21:08:43 GMT -5
He's right. It's like the Batman movies. First two were good, the third one you weren't sure about, and the last one made your eyes burn and truly made you regret watching it. Then along came the new one and it rocked. Same with the Superman movies. See the fourth one only if you are entirely determined to see it all, but be forewarned, there are parts that literally don't make any sense. And hopefully the new one with be the coolest movie to hit theaters in a long time. I know I'm excited! Yeah, I've heard about how bad IV is, but I really want to say I've seen them all before I see RETURNS. And with the Batman analogy, I know I'm not the only one that think this, but I think that only the first one really did Batman justice. I'll probably watch the first one tomorrow. And yes, I know how weird it is to like comic books and to not have seen any of the Superman movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2006 22:35:05 GMT -5
General Zod was not in Superman 3 and 4, therefore they fail. Yep. This is more or less true. |
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Jun 19, 2006 22:40:48 GMT -5
I'm still hurt Smallville didn't have Terrance Stamp step out of the PZ and command, "Kneel before Zod."
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jun 19, 2006 22:45:23 GMT -5
I thought that Superman 1 was the best of the 2 Superman movies. The scene where he's in Lex's underground pool The scene with Lois in the Earthquake! Superman 2 was great, by golly excellent, but there were a few issues...
Spoilers for those under-rock dwellers...
Bad guy laser finger with lifting power? Plastic wrap 'S' shield? Holograms of Supes I get, it was his fortress, but bad guy holograms too? Kryptonian Laser fingers? Amnesia kiss?
Those were my only bitches about the first 2 movies... Can't wait for the third! Especially if they lost the laser fingers!
|
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Jun 19, 2006 22:49:19 GMT -5
I block those out when I watch.
My kids laugh out loud during Superman 4 when Supes uses "repairovision" on the Great Wall of China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lantern Lad on Jun 19, 2006 22:52:49 GMT -5
I forgot about that...  Boy that pre-crisis Superman could do ANYTHING! Except for the fact that it was after the Crisis... but then again I also deny it's existence, so, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Jun 19, 2006 23:39:50 GMT -5
No, I think they are pretty much pre- 1985/1986 aren't they? I need to walk over and look at my DVD case. Nope too lazy to move from couch.
|
|
|
|
Post by artteach on Jun 19, 2006 23:47:42 GMT -5
Oopps! Supes 4 is 1987, but it was filmed probably without knowledge of the crisis. I still don't know why Supes didn't drop his cape over Nuclear Man, carry him to the darkside of the moon, and just forget about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 20, 2006 0:46:22 GMT -5
General Zod was not in Superman 3 and 4, therefore they fail. that is just a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Jun 20, 2006 3:31:04 GMT -5
Hmm... Well... I liked Superman III! The one with evil Superman? And then The Quest for Peace, first time I saw that-- Terrified. Not a feeling you want with a Superman film! So just follow everyone's advice, Superman I and Superman II are awesome viewing, and General Zod is surely the greatest comic book film villain... Unless you got a problem with that? I sense a poll coming on!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 20, 2006 19:45:37 GMT -5
I block those out when I watch. My kids laugh out loud during Superman 4 when Supes uses "repairovision" on the Great Wall of China. clearly you are not privy to the fact that that film was based on Superman of earth 8675309 who had "rebuilding the greatwall of china vision" |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 20, 2006 21:06:13 GMT -5
It's hard to rationalize the Earth spinning backward in the first movie as just a visually representation of Superman moving back through time instead of his literally spinning the Earth the other way to reverse time when you have all the other crazy powers from the other movies. I always thought the scene in the Fortress was the Kryptonians moving at superspeed and only leaving their images behind (the old Flash trick), appearing where they aren't and in multiple places, but again, it could be me giving too much credit to some of the crazy power ideas the writers had. Plastic S-shield and repairovision are just hopeless. I'm with whoever said they liked the Good Superman/Bad Superman from part 3, but there was too many misses to make up for it. The robo-woman created by the computer at the end was just freaky. There was the rockin' Superman Atari missile game though.
The sad part about Superman 4 was that I read a rumor early on in Starlog (I think, there were a number of these types of magazines then) that Bizarro was supposed to be the villain in the movie. This was just after the Man of Steel relaunch and I was pretty excited on all things Superman. I was looking forward to it and then a number of months later I read something about Nuclear Man. I thought, "okay, two villains, that should still work". So I went to the theater to see it and man was I disappointed. I'm not sure if Bizarro was ditched for budget or in favor of pumping of the anti-nuclear message of the film with a nuclear villain, all I know is that I was really, really, really let down.
Here's hoping Superman Returns puts the big guy back on top!
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jun 21, 2006 2:36:21 GMT -5
Superman Returns better be good or there won't be a sequel where Superman will once again KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 21, 2006 2:47:57 GMT -5
you do realize if zod comes back he wont be terrance stamp right? i mean, hes old. it wont happen. ever.
so don't think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jun 21, 2006 4:04:13 GMT -5
I heard that they wanted Jude Law to play Zod in Superman Returns so if there is a Superman Returns sequel and Zod is in it, Jude Law will probably play him.
|
|
|
|
Post by batarang on Jun 21, 2006 8:04:03 GMT -5
Jude Law is no Terrance Stamp. Not even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 21, 2006 8:10:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Jun 21, 2006 10:10:23 GMT -5
You need someone who can project and work the beard... And the shiny PVC costume... I dunno. Who wants to start the WHO SHOULD PLAY ZOD? thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jun 22, 2006 7:35:00 GMT -5
Well, I saw Superman I and II. They were ...different than I expected. (SPOILERS)
I really like the movie's adaptation of Krypton. This may be my favorite telling of Superman's exit from Krypton as a baby. Everything looked great and there was some really great diologue.
Superman lands on Earth and is found by John and Martha Kent. I thought it was weird how Kal-El was so old when hit hit Earth. It the comics, he was only a very little baby. But in the movie, he was like 2 or 3. His father has a heart attack, and Clark decides to leave for Metropolis. He gets a job at the Daily Planet where he meets Perry White, Jimmy Oleson, and Lois Lane.
IMO, the movie starts downhill once Superman puts on the costume. From that point on, the movie seems like a series of unrelated events, where Superman shows up just in time to save the day. Luthor's master plan was really done half-fast. Superman just kind of discovers that he is going to shoot a missle at California to gain good real estate (is this the same Luthor I know?). It seems like the prop people bought too many props, because for some reason, there just happens to be another missle headed for New Jersey, for reasons I have yet to understand. Than, there is a major earthquake, and Superman goes saving a bunch of random people in a really dragged out section of the movie. For some strange reason, Superman is able to stop the earthquake BY RAISING THE FAULT LINE!! Even if that was possible, it wouldn't do anything! While Superman is busy doing this, Lois Lane's car falls into a crack in the Earth caused by the earthquake and dies. In one of the most rediculous endings I've EVER seen in a movie, Superman decides to make the Earth go back in time, by SPINNING IT COUNTER-CLOCKWISE. This time, he is able to save Lois.Wait--why couldn't Superman just go all the way back to his child hood and stop his faather from dieing too? If he could do something like this, why didn't he when he first heard about Luthor's plan? He could've stopped the plan before it even took effect!
Conclusion: Great first half, poorly done second half.
SUPERMAN II
A terrorist group is holding hostages on the Eiffel Tower. Lois Lane, determined to get the story, sets up on the Eiffel Tower.
Instead of summerizing the movie, I'm going to tell you what I thought was good and bad about the movie.
I thought General Zod was an awsome villain, and they hired a great actor to play him.
Wait--so Superman lost his powers? Why did he have to do this to get into a relationship with Lois? I was mad that the movie never explained how he got his powers back, he just "did".
When the villains were fighting Superman in the air, and Zod's henchwoman goes to hit Superman with a metal pole, he dodges it, and it slams into that big stupid Kryptonian, sending him flying. Wouldn't the pole just break?
I really liked Reeve's Clark Kent in both movies. He kind of played the secret identity more like Batman--he acted completely different when he was in his civilian disguise. Great job! I also liked the relationship between Lois and Clark, I think that was pulled off really well.
Conclusion: Great storyline, but too many points that just didn't make sense.
I know this was the 1970s-80s, and I know this is Pre-Crisis Superman, but I still think the writers would've had two spectacular movies here if they didn't make the first so draggy and check better for inconsistency. But overall, I had fun watching them. And now for Superman III and IV with their rock bottom ratings...
|
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Jun 23, 2006 1:13:03 GMT -5
The plot holes involving Superman losing and regaining his powers were due to a dispute with Marlon Brando which resulted in the removal of all of Brando's scenes. I don't remember why Superman had to lose his powers but he was supposed to regain his powers in a scene where Jor-El explains that he had anticipated Superman would want his powers back so he devised a way to do it but it would drain all the energy from the Kryptonian device used to project Jor-El and Lara's image.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Jun 23, 2006 1:56:03 GMT -5
leave it to big evil head.
or brandon, it was gonna come from one of those two.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jun 23, 2006 8:13:13 GMT -5
One question: I heard that Superman Returns would be a sequal to "The first two Superman movies". What are they going to do, just pretend that III and IV never happened? That leaves us two branches as to what could've happened after the death of Zod. Superman III has some clear connections to the first two movies. WB isn't going to convince anybody to throw Superman III and IV out the window and put a copy of "Superman Returns" in its place, calling that the "official" series, no matter how bad everyone thinks those two movies were. And yet, if you consider "Superman Returns" as "Superman V", you get inconsistencies between "Superman Returns" and the second two Reeves movies, such as the fact that Clark said his mother died in III, yet she is alive in "Returns". Don't you think it would've been better for WB to consider this "Superman V", even if they didn't reference those second two movies?
Well, we could always look at "Returns" as more of an intermission in the Reeves saga. Chronologically, it could be :
Superman I
Superman II
Superman Returns
Superman III
Superman IV
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Jun 23, 2006 12:22:08 GMT -5
IDK why everyone doesn't like III. I watched it last night. It really wasn't that bad.
|
|
Boy that pre-crisis Superman could do ANYTHING! Except for the fact that it was after the Crisis... but then again I also deny it's existence, so, huh?
