http://gamingtrend.com
October 25, 2014, 02:00:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Superman vs. Superman II  (Read 2551 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« on: June 16, 2005, 08:10:19 PM »

On every level except the "gee whiz" factor -- acting, pacing, writing, direction, tone -- Superman II is inferior to Superman. Richard Lester was a hack. Dropping Donner was a huge mistake -- the only parts of Superman II that really worked (again, aside from the fight on the streets) were the ones he directed.
Logged

Starshifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2183


CINEMAGIC on XM!


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2005, 02:54:30 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
On every level except the "gee whiz" factor -- acting, pacing, writing, direction, tone -- Superman II is inferior to Superman. Richard Lester was a hack. Dropping Donner was a huge mistake -- the only parts of Superman II that really worked (again, aside from the fight on the streets) were the ones he directed.

Wow.  I never seen anyone who didn't think Superman II was great or at least better than the first.  Superman II was so much more action packed than the first one and it enabled Superman himself to actually put his powers to the test.  I also loved how he gave up his powers to be with Lois Lane only to find out later about the three villians from Krypton.  And the scene at Niagara Falls where Lois finds out his true identity was so cool.

I'm actually looking forward to the new Superman movie and I hope they do it justice - and dedicate the film to Christopher Reeve.
Logged

CINEMAGIC - Escape into the Movies!
XM Channel 76
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2005, 03:38:34 PM »

Quote from: "Starshifter"
Wow.  I never seen anyone who didn't think Superman II was great or at least better than the first.  Superman II was so much more action packed than the first one and it enabled Superman himself to actually put his powers to the test.


Well, the first one actually employed Superman's greatest pre-Crisis power -- time travel. But beyond that, being "action packed" does NOT make a movie good. I'm not bashing Superman II here... it's cheap fun. But it's only a superhero movie. Superman is, as of yet, the only real superhero film to ever be produced. It is epic in scope and theme and remarkably true to the source material.

Superman II suffers because of the hack job that was its birth. It was originally supposed to be the third act of the first movie, but it was later broken off. However, between the original shoot and the shooting done to make Superman II into a full story in its own right, the Salkinds fired Richard Donner and brought in Richard Lester.

Everything directed by Lester, with the exception of the reallly cool fight in the streets of Metropolis, was inferior to the material directed by Donner. And I think even that fight scene isn't as good as the finale scene in the Fortress -- most of which was directed by Donner. The easy way to tell who was directing what is that Donner directed all the scenes with Lex Luthor -- Gene Hackman never worked with Lester.

Lester directed the needlessly stupid opening in Paris (in the proper draft, the nuclear missile Superman deflected from New Jersey was what released the supervillains). Lester directed the painful "romance" between Clark and Lois -- which was only painful because it is totally sold out at the end using a power Superman doesn't have (Super-make-her-forget-coffee?).

And then there's the stupid "give up the powers for the girl" meme. Again, a not-bad-idea, but totally whiffed in execution. Kal El gives up his powers and becomes Clark (without ever establishing WHY he would have to do that to be with Lois), and is told he can never get his powers back. And then he does, with no real effort or suffering or cost. He just goes north and finds the green crystal. That's bad storytelling.

Lester was a hack. There are moments that shine in Superman II, but they're all Donner moments. Having studied both films, it is painfully obvious who was directing what: the performances in the Lester material are hammy, the story is inconsistent.

The first Superman flick is one of the best science fiction films ever made, and the standard by which all other superhero films are judged. The second one is just a serviceable action movie. Thematically, artistically and dramatically, they are not even remotely in the same league.

Quote
I'm actually looking forward to the new Superman movie and I hope they do it justice - and dedicate the film to Christopher Reeve.


I want to see the script to the new movie before I get excited. So many of the previous drafts toyed with the character of Superman or Luthor -- Jesus, one even "revealed" that Luthor was also from Krypton -- that I will have no confidence in this production until someone gives me a reason to.
Logged

th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2005, 04:06:50 PM »

Quote
I want to see the script to the new movie before I get excited. So many of the previous drafts toyed with the character of Superman or Luthor -- Jesus, one even "revealed" that Luthor was also from Krypton -- that I will have no confidence in this production until someone gives me a reason to.


I read somewhere that not only was Brian Singer going to loosely adhere to the continuity of the first two films, but that he actually sought after and recieved Richard Donner's blessing for the new one.  I know that he started from scratch and all previous takes on the screenplay were totally scrapped.

Honestly, it couldn't be in better hands at this point.  I'm just sad that X-Men 3 is turning into such a train wreck as a result.  There was such promise....
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
Starshifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2183


CINEMAGIC on XM!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2005, 05:16:36 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Lester directed the needlessly stupid opening in Paris (in the proper draft, the nuclear missile Superman deflected from New Jersey was what released the supervillains).

I rather liked this beginning.  Besides, making the sequal a part of the first movie would have just watered them both down in my opinion.  For me this is an example of getting too much information.  The same thing happened with KOTOR 2.  Until people starting reading about what was cut they really liked the game.  I'm just wondering if you didn't somehow find and read about the proper draft would you have still liked the way the movie opened?

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Lester directed the painful "romance" between Clark and Lois -- which was only painful because it is totally sold out at the end using a power Superman doesn't have (Super-make-her-forget-coffee?).

I thought it was his kiss that had some kind of power to affect the mind and make her forget.  A stretch I know, but anyone who can shoot lasers from their eyes I guess we can't really complain about the power in that kiss.

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
And then there's the stupid "give up the powers for the girl" meme. Again, a not-bad-idea, but totally whiffed in execution. Kal El gives up his powers and becomes Clark (without ever establishing WHY he would have to do that to be with Lois)

I believe he had to give up his powers because he could not have "physical relations" with a human due to his super abilities.  His father or mother (can't remember who) told him this when he was studying one of the crystals.

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
...and is told he can never get his powers back. And then he does, with no real effort or suffering or cost. He just goes north and finds the green crystal. That's bad storytelling.

This is how I saw it.  Did you notice the first time he takes Lois to the Fortress of Solitude he shows her the green crystal, trying to explain to her how it "called to him".  Then she says she is hungry and he says I will be right back.  When he gets back she puts the crystal down on the ice and the camera focuses on it.  That's a clue right there because when he goes back later to try and get his powers back, seeing the main control panel burnt out he realizes all is lost.  Until he notices the green crystal lying on the ice right where she left it.  What luck!  So there is reasoning behind getting his powers back.

And no suffering?  How about the three villians rampaging around destroying everything, taking over the White House, and he himself getting punched out in the diner.  Plus, the fact that he realizes too late that what he did (losing the powers) was wrong and he realizes now why he is here.  Seems like suffering enough to me.

As far as the rest of the stuff concerning the two directors and the details you noted or observed, I'm not that picky when it comes to things like that in movies.  If it was entertaining and I got attached to the characters then it was a great movie.  Plus, I tend to imagine myself in the main role in the movie.  If I can do that easily then I know I will love the film.  I can't, and never have, sat there disecting a movie, analyzing director's styles, and looking for inconsistencies.  I'm the same way with videogames.  If I started analyzing like that I would never enjoy anything.  But, that's just me.  I guess although I'm an adult I still "see" movies and "play" games as if I'm 12 again!
 biggrin

Now I feel like watching both Superman I & II back to back!!!
Logged

CINEMAGIC - Escape into the Movies!
XM Channel 76
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2005, 05:24:02 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
And then there's the stupid "give up the powers for the girl" meme. Again, a not-bad-idea, but totally whiffed in execution. Kal El gives up his powers and becomes Clark (without ever establishing WHY he would have to do that to be with Lois), and is told he can never get his powers back. And then he does, with no real effort or suffering or cost. He just goes north and finds the green crystal. That's bad storytelling.


This never made sense to me either.

Plus, with no powers, how the hell did he get back there?
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2005, 06:16:47 PM »

Quote from: "Starshifter"
I rather liked this beginning.  Besides, making the sequal a part of the first movie would have just watered them both down in my opinion.  For me this is an example of getting too much information.  The same thing happened with KOTOR 2.  Until people starting reading about what was cut they really liked the game.  I'm just wondering if you didn't somehow find and read about the proper draft would you have still liked the way the movie opened?


The movie's opening is bad because it's poorly written and executed. The reason it's poorly written and executed is because it was directed by Richard Lester, not Richard Donner, because the Salkinds screwed with the story and fired Donner when he wouldn't go along.

I don't think Superman and Superman II would have worked as one film. However, creating redundant elements in Superman II (yet ANOTHER nuclear explosion in space) simply because Lester wanted the film to be more "his" separates the film from Superman needlessly, and weakens the story.

Quote
I thought it was his kiss that had some kind of power to affect the mind and make her forget.


Superman doesn't have that power. It is untrue to the character to just up and give it to him.

Quote
A stretch I know, but anyone who can shoot lasers from their eyes I guess we can't really complain about the power in that kiss.


Yes we can. It's not a Superman power. Superman can't do that. Superman has a fairly specific set of powers. Magic superkiss is not one of them.

Quote
I believe he had to give up his powers because he could not have "physical relations" with a human due to his super abilities.  His father or mother (can't remember who) told him this when he was studying one of the crystals.


That is nowhere in the film.

Quote
This is how I saw it.  Did you notice the first time he takes Lois to the Fortress of Solitude he shows her the green crystal, trying to explain to her how it "called to him".  Then she says she is hungry and he says I will be right back.  When he gets back she puts the crystal down on the ice and the camera focuses on it.  That's a clue right there because when he goes back later to try and get his powers back, seeing the main control panel burnt out he realizes all is lost.  Until he notices the green crystal lying on the ice right where she left it.  What luck!  So there is reasoning behind getting his powers back.


That's not reasoning. Reasoning would explain or at least indicate how it is that the green crystal can do that. We all know it was the green crystal that gave Superman back his powers. That's right there on the screen. But it appears that just finding it gave them back -- that's not a journey, that's not an accomplishment -- that's certainly NOT drama. He walks to the Fortress, picks up the green crystal, and from all we know, magically his powers are instantly restored -- which completely contradicts what his mother was saying in the crystal message. That is poor writing. Pathetic writing, even.

Quote
And no suffering?  How about the three villians rampaging around destroying everything, taking over the White House, and he himself getting punched out in the diner.  Plus, the fact that he realizes too late that what he did (losing the powers) was wrong and he realizes now why he is here.  Seems like suffering enough to me.


That's NOT suffering to GET his powers back -- that's suffering BECAUSE his powers are gone. Getting beaten up in the bar was not a step towards what should have been his final acceptance of his destiny as Superman. At that point, he wasn't trying to become Superman again. We never see him try. It just happens. This is so wrong from a screenwriting point of view that its painful to watch.

Quote
As far as the rest of the stuff concerning the two directors and the details you noted or observed, I'm not that picky when it comes to things like that in movies.


But what you're calling "picky" IS what makes a reel of celluloid either a film or just a movie. Superman is a film, Superman II is just a movie. A fun movie, but ultimately meaningless. Cinema would be less than it is were it not for Superman. You could remove Superman II from history, and it wouldn't change a thing.

Quote
If it was entertaining and I got attached to the characters then it was a great movie.


Which characters did you get attached to? Zod? Most of his scenes were Donner. Luthor? All Donner.

Quote
Now I feel like watching both Superman I & II back to back!!!


Just don't watch Superman III afterwards. Yikes.

(Well, Superman III did have one great scene in it: the fight between Superman and Clark Kent that scandalously implied that CLARK is the true, proper personality -- quite controversial at the time).
Logged

whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7849


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2005, 06:25:14 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Plus, with no powers, how the hell did he get back there?


Really inspired sled dogs?
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2005, 06:28:19 PM »

Quote from: "Starshifter"
I believe he had to give up his powers because he could not have "physical relations" with a human due to his super abilities.


Ha, ha, Brodie-man had it right:

"Lois could never have superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle his sperm? I guarantee he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back. What about her womb? You think it's strong enough to carry his child?"

"Sure. Why not?"

"He's an alien, for christ's sake! His kryptonian biological makeup is enhanced by earth's yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan, the kid could kick right through her stomach. Only someone like wonder woman has a strong-enough uterus to carry his kid. Only way he could bang regular chicks is with a kryptonite condom, but that would kill him."

Well said.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2005, 06:32:20 PM »

Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.
Logged

Starshifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2183


CINEMAGIC on XM!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2005, 07:14:29 PM »

Fireball1244 - you sure have it in for Lester don't you? :wink:

If I had a dollar for each time you mentioned Lester vs. Donner...

Anyway, the green crystal thing.  Come on use some imagination here. :wink:   He picked up the green crystal and used it to re-construct the crystal control panel so that he can get back into the chamber and bring his powers back!  Yes, they don't show this on film, but it is implied.  He just didn't "magically hold the crystal" and his powers came back.  Anybody can imagine that.  If the crystal can create the entire Fortress of Solitude then it can certainly rebuild the crystal control panel.

What's wrong with comprehending the powers in that kiss?  Like I said, if he can shoot lasers from his eyes, blow subzero breaths, and disappear/reappear, then we can suspend some disbelief and accept the "forgetfullness" powers of the kiss.  At least I can.

The idea about losing your powers to "be" with a human is also implied and again I used my imagination.  Superman's mother says "to be with a mortal you must be a mortal".  It's not too hard to use your imagination and fill in the gaps - whether it's what the director wanted us to believe or not - it is how I interpreted it.

I really got attached to Lois Lane, Ursa, & Zod.  Terrence Stamp was brilliant as Zod.  Ursa was gorgeous and kick ass.  Lois Lane, well, I always loved Margot Kidder and her raspy voice! :wink:

You are right about Superman III.  Now there was bad casting - Richard Prior???
Logged

CINEMAGIC - Escape into the Movies!
XM Channel 76
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3275



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2005, 07:33:55 PM »

I think it is fair to say that Fireball cares more about Superman 2 than I have ever cared about a movie.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2005, 08:21:08 PM »

Quote from: "Starshifter"
Fireball1244 - you sure have it in for Lester don't you? :wink:

If I had a dollar for each time you mentioned Lester vs. Donner...


That's because the difference in style between Lester and Donner is the entire reason Superman II fails to match the original -- it has no coherent theme, no consistent tone, and lurches from Donner's more serious picture to Lester's hokey nonsense (epitomized by Superman III) from scene to scene.

Quote
Anyway, the green crystal thing.  Come on use some imagination here. :wink:


When the audience has to "use imagination" and come up with rationalizations that contradict the universe as presented on screen in order to make the plot coherent, that's called bad screenwriting.

Quote
He picked up the green crystal and used it to re-construct the crystal control panel so that he can get back into the chamber and bring his powers back!


How? The chamber was contained "red sun" energy -- that energy could NOT be used to restore Superman's powers.

Quote
Yes, they don't show this on film, but it is implied.


Implied major changes for characters -- in this case, half of Kal-el's arc for Superman 2 is being "implied" -- is BAD writing.

Quote
He just didn't "magically hold the crystal" and his powers came back.


From the story presented on screen, that's precisely what happened.

Quote
If the crystal can create the entire Fortress of Solitude then it can certainly rebuild the crystal control panel.


Which, from what we've seen of that panel and the devices in the Fortress, gets Superman NO closer to having his powers restored.

Quote
What's wrong with comprehending the powers in that kiss?


The fact that Superman doesn't have those powers. In any case, it was the coffee, not the kiss. I  checked my copy of the original screenplay.

Quote
Like I said, if he can shoot lasers from his eyes, blow subzero breaths, and disappear/reappear, then we can suspend some disbelief and accept the "forgetfullness" powers of the kiss.  At least I can.


You seem far too willing to suspend disbelief of things that fly completely against the character.

Quote
The idea about losing your powers to "be" with a human is also implied and again I used my imagination.


Everytime you have to "use your imagination" to rationalize away a plot point that doesn't make sense based solely on the film is an indictment of the incompetence of the filmmakers. You're not supposed to "imagine" the character arc.

Quote
I really got attached to Lois Lane, Ursa, & Zod.  Terrence Stamp was brilliant as Zod.  Ursa was gorgeous and kick ass.  Lois Lane, well, I always loved Margot Kidder and her raspy voice! :wink:

You are right about Superman III.  Now there was bad casting - Richard Prior???


It should be pointed out that Donner cast everyone you liked. And Lester cast Richard Pryor in Superman III. smile
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2005, 08:28:16 PM »

Quote from: "farley2k"
I think it is fair to say that Fireball cares more about Superman 2 than I have ever cared about a movie.


It's not Superman 2. I like Superman 2 just fine -- but it's only a silly, meaningless movie. It's Superman 1 that matters. It's a seminal film, one that created a genre, one that still stands up today because it has a powerful, coherent story, despite aged special effects.

I wrote a course paper on Superman as part of my film minor in college.
Logged

Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2005, 09:41:49 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.


Wait, waa? Why would he have to be on earth for 12 years? Superman as a wee child lifted up the Kents' truck moments after landing on Earth.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2005, 10:23:28 PM »

Doesn't anyone except me have a problem with the idea of Lex Luthor being portrayed as some loner wacko hanging around in an abandoned subway station, ranting to himself and his two lackeys and antagonizing Superman for no apparent reason?  I'm no comic book buff, but Gene Hackman's version of Lex Luthor seems pretty radically different from every other version of the character I've seen -- it couldn't have been much campier if they'd cast William Shatner.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2005, 05:01:26 PM »

Quote from: "Dafones"
Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.


Wait, waa? Why would he have to be on earth for 12 years? Superman as a wee child lifted up the Kents' truck moments after landing on Earth.


Brodie's conversation takes place post-Crisis.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2005, 05:02:16 PM »

Quote from: "Autistic Angel"
Doesn't anyone except me have a problem with the idea of Lex Luthor being portrayed as some loner wacko hanging around in an abandoned subway station, ranting to himself and his two lackeys and antagonizing Superman for no apparent reason?  I'm no comic book buff, but Gene Hackman's version of Lex Luthor seems pretty radically different from every other version of the character I've seen -- it couldn't have been much campier if they'd cast William Shatner.


Yeah, Hackman's Luthor was a bit too campy. Of course, pre-Crisis Luthor was a lot campier than post-Crisis Luthor.
Logged

whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7849


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2005, 05:11:09 PM »

Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2005, 07:14:31 PM »

What the hell is Crisis? Am I safe in assuming that, at one point, the character/biology of Superman needed to be on Earth for 12 years before he demonstrated his "super" abilities, because he needed to "charge up" for that long underneath our sun? Because, as I noted before, the superbaby in the original Donner film was quite super right out of the box, lifting the truck and all.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2005, 07:40:21 PM »

In 1985, DC rebooted its continuity. Many characters, including Superman, were completely revamped. Superman's powers were drastically scaled down, the Superman/Clark Kent dominant personality dynamic was inverted, Lex Luthor was changed dramatically, Lois Lane was made a more direct love interest for Clark, not Superman, etc, etc, etc.

Pre-Crisis (a la the Donner film) Superman had powers from the word "goo goo." His parents were dead. He could travel through time. There were all varieties of Kryptonite. Lex Luthor was  mad-man/scientist.

Post-Crisis, Superman's powers developed gradually over time. Green kryptonite is the only "real" form of Kryptonite -- though other varieties can be artificially created. Superman cannot travel through time at will, nor is he anywhere near as strong as he was in 1984. Lex Luthor was an award-winning scientist, a billionaire industrialist, the US President, and now the leader of an international organization of supervillains.

In effect, there are two very different characters which to the public seem like the same character: Superman. Whether one is discussing pre- or post-Crisis Superman makes a large difference in the nature of the character. Things that would have been sacrelige in the pre-Crisis era (such as asserting that Superman was a fake identity for Clark Kent, not vice versa) are part of the basic continuity of the post-Crisis era.

Umm... as an on-topic comment, Batman didn't change much as a result of Crisis.
Logged

AgtFox
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3051


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2005, 03:42:07 AM »

Moved this here simply because it went so far off-topic in the other thread it was in.  I agree with Fireball in this...Superman is far better than Superman II, however Superman II would have been better had Donner ended up doing the whole thing instead of just having bits and pieces.  I also wish Warner Bros. would release the Donner version of Superman II simply because it does exist, it's just never been shown.

As for Starshifter saying he's never met anyone that didn't think Superman II was great or "at least" better than the first...you haven't met most of the population then.  Yes, Superman II had more action in it, but Superman (both before and after restored deleted scenes on the DVD) is a better movie overall even with the stupid time travel crutch.  Superman II was a good film, it just can't compare to the original or to Donner's Superman II.
Logged

Xbox Live: AgtFox
Gwar21
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 210


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2005, 03:51:32 AM »

Superman II was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid, primarily due to the action and presence of "super-powered supervillains" instead of just a regular, boring villain like Luthor.  Looking at them through the eyes of an adult today, though, I have to admit that I now consider Superman I to be the better movie.  Both are pretty good, though.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2005, 04:06:15 AM »

Quote from: "AgtFox"
 I also wish Warner Bros. would release the Donner version of Superman II simply because it does exist, it's just never been shown.



Unfortunately it doesn't exist because Donner never filmed all of the material he wanted and much of it was never followed up by Lester.  There can never be a true Donner version.  The closest we could get would be to have Donner re-edit the film using all of his footage and select Lester footage.  Would likely still be an improvement though.
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2005, 04:50:57 AM »

The all out hottness of Hawkgirl makes this whole arguement moot.

Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Starshifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2183


CINEMAGIC on XM!


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2005, 05:21:55 AM »

I can't compete against Fireballs thesis.

FOR ME - Superman II is better.

It just "meant" more to me than the first.  It had more of an "impact" on me as a child.  It's closer to my heart than the first one.

Case closed.

 smile
Logged

CINEMAGIC - Escape into the Movies!
XM Channel 76
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2005, 01:19:30 PM »

Me thinks that some people care a bit too much about this.

As for my untrained, layman's take:

Superman 1 is better from a story perspective, though I never liked the "turn back time" aspect.  Beyond that, it's a great movie.

Superman II is a good movie, though a bit more disjointed.  I never had a problem with him finding the green crystal and rebuilding the Fortress of Solitude.  The inference is there and easily enough to follow that once rebuilt, the change was reversed.  Though it does go against the "permanent" aspect of the change earlier presented.  Like unbreakable, I also wondered how he got back without freezing to death in just a thin jacket.  I also never liked the "forget-me-kiss" or coffee or whatever.  It was too convenient and I know Supes never had that power.  But it's a decent popcorn flick and I don't expect fine cinema art at a superhero movie.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2005, 01:48:54 PM »

Quote from: "Daehawk"
The all out hottness of Hawkgirl makes this whole arguement moot.



It's images like this that make me wish we had cable...
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
TheGameAh
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 80


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2005, 05:42:13 PM »

What major changes were in the Donner version of SM 2?  I never knew 1 and 2 was originally planned as one movie.  Neat.

I also didn't like Gene Hackman's Luthor.  Almost seemed like he was there for comic relief.  I never got a real good sense of "villian" from him.

Also, Margot Kidder?  Attractive, sexy, intelligent reporter?  WTF?

As a side note, I always got the impression that it was Clark Kent first, Superman second.  Maybe it's just cause they established a bit of his childhood in the first movie.
Logged
Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2005, 08:01:40 PM »

Ehh, watch the end of Kill Bill Vol. 2 to hear Tarantino's opinion on Kal-El's identity.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
Randomayhem
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 57


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2005, 09:34:10 PM »

Long as we're bashing Richard Lester...let me say that while the Musketeers movies were fairly entertaining, I weep at the horrible hack job he performed in bringing Harry Flashman to the screen.  He even had Malcolm McDowell, for crying out loud!  But a lovely, solid story bursting with satire and sarcasm turned into a sad puddle of slapstick anachronisms in his evil hands.
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2005, 11:38:22 PM »

Quote from: "Dafones"
Ehh, watch the end of Kill Bill Vol. 2 to hear Tarantino's opinion on Kal-El's identity.


Actually, the dialogue from Kill Bill v.2 was taken, if not word for word, then certainly thoguht for thought, from Stanley Kauffmann's review of the first Superman movie for the 13 January, 1979, issue of the New Republic.
Logged

Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2005, 12:10:36 AM »

Coo.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
ohbalto
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 16


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2005, 03:48:25 AM »

You know what always pissed me off about Superman II?  During the scene at the end, when Zod, etc. invade the fortress, when Superman "duplicates" himself and then tells Lois, "we used to play this game at school" and then, "he never was very good."

Whaaaaaaaat?

Argue about the coffee/kiss all you want (back in the 70's, I wouldn't put it past them to toss some "Super-Hypnosis" into Superman's arsenal), but he's NEVER been able to duplicate himself.

Oh, and what was with the white ray-beams they were all shooting at each other?  Seriously, people, it's one thing to retcon the characther a little (Bruce Wayne trains with Ra's Al Ghul, f'rinstance), but you DON'T give the man of steel random powers just to have a silly line.

Sheesh!
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2005, 04:28:24 AM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Quote from: "Dafones"
Ehh, watch the end of Kill Bill Vol. 2 to hear Tarantino's opinion on Kal-El's identity.


Actually, the dialogue from Kill Bill v.2 was taken, if not word for word, then certainly thoguht for thought, from Stanley Kauffmann's review of the first Superman movie for the 13 January, 1979, issue of the New Republic.


Can you quote that for those of us that dont remember? Its driving me nuts that I can't pull that line.
Logged
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2005, 03:12:16 PM »

Quote from: "Rage"
Can you quote that for those of us that dont remember? Its driving me nuts that I can't pull that line.


From imdb.com.

Quote
Bill: An essential characteristic of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero, and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When he wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic that Superman stands alone. Superman did not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race. Sort of like Beatrix Kiddo and Mrs. Tommy Plympton.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2005, 03:17:18 PM »

Actually, I dont view Kent as his 'critique' of the human race.  He just has to be un-Superman.

I havent read any Superman in a really long time, but I dont remember Kent being an insecure weenie in the comics, and he wasnt in the cartoon either.  IMO, the DC cartoons are much closer to canon than the movies ever were.
Logged
CrayolaSmoker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3614

Sponge Bath Slut


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2005, 03:29:19 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Actually, I dont view Kent as his 'critique' of the human race.  He just has to be un-Superman.

I havent read any Superman in a really long time, but I dont remember Kent being an insecure weenie in the comics, and he wasnt in the cartoon either.  IMO, the DC cartoons are much closer to canon than the movies ever were.


That's because Bruce Timm and Paul Dini were gods amongst men.  That, or among the rare few who can have the talent to figure out how to translate a highly visual and scripted medium to a... highly visual and scripted medium.
Logged

Wii: 1429 3414 0674 4114 | 360: CrayolaSmokerGT
smokingcrayolas.net | surrogacy blog
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1617


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2005, 04:07:13 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
I havent read any Superman in a really long time, but I dont remember Kent being an insecure weenie in the comics, and he wasnt in the cartoon either.  IMO, the DC cartoons are much closer to canon than the movies ever were.


The cartoons, and likely the comics you've read, were all Post-Crisis. The Post-Crisis Clark Kent is very much not a weenie, is the dominant personality and in the end is the one who gets the girl.

The Pre-Crisis Clark Kent was inconsistent, but was often the meek, bumbling bufoon Quentin Tarantino's Bill talks about.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.029s, 2q)