hey is there a site where i can stream that fantastic gour movie? the 94 one. i wanna see how crappy it is.
Its just that in 10 years we are sitting on the sidelines while Marvel is making huge leaps and bounds. I know not every movie they made is good, heck I couldn't sit through Elekra or Daredevil -- 1/2 hour into it and I was done. I just wish DC or Warner (probably warner) needs to really boost up their movies. DC has a wealth of characters that are known, heck Iron Man is not an average name to the general public but people are into super hero movies now. Because Iron Man was a success so far they are really planning on rolling out the movies, I even heard an Ant Man movie. If they can make LOTR then we can see a New Gods film, come dudes we need Darkseid on the screen before Thanos. I know not every Marvel film is great but they hauling them out. Warner doesn't need to haul them out but we need more than a developing script and I heard JLA has been shelved due to the writer strike and now Wonder Woman is going to be animated instead of a live action movie WTFlip??? As a DC fan I am biased, but I do read Marvel (I am reading the Hulk and I LOVE IT) and read more Marvel than DC in the mid 90's until DC got their act together. Maybe this is like with the DC Universe classics, we waited for years and cried at the thought, cool Marvel Legends and no DC counter point, then blam DCUC IS KICKING A$$, maybe this movie thing is coming up for DC, Warner has to be taking notice.
side note: I was affected by fans buying up all the new Joker figures, went to TRU and Wal-Mart Friday and Sunday and the new Joker figures gone while at least 3 cases worth of goons and Batmen on the shelf. Only Joker they had were the smaller versions I was pissed. Then someone came in and bought all the Aquaman figures from TRU. That sucked, came back and the next day they cleared all the Harley figures, after that they cleared all of wave 2 and left a complete wave of 1, PLUS I KNOW FOR A FACT AN OLD FRIEND OF MINE HAS AN INSIDE GUY AT TRU who holds stuff for him and the counter, double fooey!!!
I apoligize to Superpowers for taking what he typed out of context, but he just kinda lumped all those Marvel movies together.
Now on to something I thought about this afternoon. You really have to take marvel and DC as completely different animals when it comes to how they handle things. If your asked JOe blow off the street to name superheroes you'd get Batman, Superman, Spiderman and Hulk almost every time. With the last Hulk movie Marvel basicly took the Hulk off the map as a merchandising figure for five years. I mean outside of comics has there really been anything Hulk releated that got people talking about the character? No not really. Sure there have been comic stories, but everything else has been negatively impacted by the first Hulk movie, Hulk toys didn't sell because stores remembered how they were stuck with HUlk toys from the first movie (I don't anytime they snuck the Hulk into ML or anything like that, I mean something the Hulk name had to carry on it own). DC doesn't want to have Superman or Batman taken off the board as a merchadising cash cow. There's just too much money at stake to not have anything with the Superman or Batman likeness all over the place for fives years. For the last sixteen years batman has been a constint on TV, Movies and toyshelves. While not being nearly as large, Superman has always been an Iconic presence too.
So Warner Bros is very protective of Batman, Superman and most of the DC catalog. They realize what a misstep can do to a character (cough Batman and Robin cough). But let's see how Marvel handle having to change a lead in one of it's established francises or how severalaverage movies do for Marvel Studios. Warner Bros can afford to screw up a Superman or Batman movies that they have sunk 200 million into, Marvel can't.
You know what is funny...Every time I hear someone bash SUPERMAN RETURNS or Bryan Singer, I really have to laugh, simply because if you hated SR then you hated Richard Donner's SUPERMAN THE MOVIE.
Superman the Movie is a HORRIBLE film. What saves it is the performances of Chris Reeve and some of the directing from Richard Donner. The script is horrendously bad, and the villains are written as total jokes, and the ending is just out to lunch.
But that all said, the movie has some wonderful moments which is what makes it memorable.
Superman Returns is a weak film because it bases its premise off an equally weak film: Superman 2.
Again, a poorly written piece, with another flimsy resolution. The only reason the polt device of havine Clark and Lois sleep together was to legitimize the film as an adult piece, and not just kiddie fare.
That was taken and run with to create Superman Returns--creating a precedent for the Superman character that renders him incongruous with his values.
Look, the film sets this up itself: Kal-el takes off to search for Krypton and survivors. That clarifies an obsession with his heritage. Its not just some passing notion, he leaves Earth understanding that relevatistic factors will mean he's away for an extended period of time. He is forsaking is guardianship of Earth for personal reasons.
Then he comes home empty handed, has yet another encounter with Luthor, and in the process........lo and behold, discovers Lois has borne his child.
And now Clark Kal-el will just allow the sickly son of Superman to be raised by Lois and her husband, while Superman is just.........y'know.........."around".
That's an abrogation of the fundemental stated values of the character that the movie itself lays out.
All of a suddent he's got an heir, and he'll just carry on as before?????
Horse hooey. It doesn't jibe at all. The bastard son of Superman was a mistake, something writ only to give the story some cute lines and some contnuity with the previous movie.
I asked myself why did it need that? It forsakes a number of things, one being the element of Superman being the last of his kind.
With the kid now, there's a overriding consideration that he HAS TO revisit time and again, because that's his stated nature. Far beyond his love for Lois, he's now got an HEIR--something that will DEMAND his constant guidance.
Something he cannot supply and remaind true as earth's guardian.
This is why the inclusion of the kid into the story is a major stumbling block. It sets up a precedent that takes the character of Superman far away from what he is.
This isn't a dilution, like Supergirl would be--its a serious deviation.
At least with Supergirl there's a character that has a cognitive persona, they can standalone from the get-go.
The kid..........is baggage. It means that the character of Lois now has to address the fact that she has a superhuman child to raise, crippling that characters use in follow-up films.
I'm all for the evolution of characters in stories, but there's certain thinks that work for certain characters and certain things that don't.
The kid doesn't work.
I wish.........hope........they just chuck out Superman Returns, like Superman 3 & 4 and forget the lil' bastard was ever borne.
I also agree with you @loll@ , . another thing is it's morally questionable for Supes to pursue Louis, because it is unfair to her boyfriend who not only help save supes but is a really nice guy, he's not some controlling, abusive guy and has spent more time with supes's, kid kind of help raising him while the father was absent. I found it kind of creepy when supes was x-raying into Louis's place watching them. I guess I feel for the boyfriend cuz my bro is raising a child thats not genetically his, the birth father took off when my bro's wife was pregnant, and when he occasionally comes to visit it causes all kinds of chaos and the kid (3) is not clear who this guy is.
Wanna talk about bad movies....I just saw the fabled 1994 FANTASTIC FOUR movie today....aw man....Compare any of the movies we are talking about on this thread to that one and Superman Returns looks like Shakespere to that piece of trash....Although, for as crappy as it is, there is a kinda of charm to it...man, I must be losing it!
i seen some of it too....pure crap!
Wanna talk about bad movies....I just saw the fabled 1994 FANTASTIC FOUR movie today....aw man....Compare any of the movies we are talking about on this thread to that one and Superman Returns looks like Shakespere to that piece of trash....
Although, for as crappy as it is, there is a kinda of charm to it...man, I must be losing it!
Alot to read, but I didn't see this explored (?)What about consistency? Of the movies listed, with the exception of the Punisher, the casts for Marvel have remained stable. With DC, you have multiple Supermen and Batmen. I think people get discouraged by that. Look (if you're old enough to remember @loll@ ) at the Christopher Reeve Superman series. While it was stable, people loved it. Up until the 4th, that is. Now, if you put those aside and pretend you never saw them, I could see someone really going nuts for Routh and Co, as that would be the starting point for them. Same with Batman. Remember when Keaton first came out, everyone loved that one too. The only problem is when people see these movies, it makes an impression on them, and if you change what they expect to see, that's when you get the conflict.
For example, what's going to happen when Maguire's contract is up and he decides he doesn't want to play Spider-man anymore? If they find someone else (hahaha - Harry Potter's about the right age and build!) what will you think then?
I think both parties put out excellent movies. You just have to be relative about it. I prefer Reeve as Superman because that's the one I grew up with. Nothing against Brandon, but he will never be able to replace him in my eyes. But that doesn't mean I thought the movie was bad. It was what it was. Could have done without the whole kid thing, but like Highlander 2, maybe they'll just write that out if existance somehow. Amazing special effects too. You couldn't do half that stuff believablly back in the day.
That's my two cents. Take it as you will.
i think that has little to do with it. it sucks when a person youre used to playing a character dosnt play them anymore, but.....look at the facts, spiderman 1&2, ironman, batman begins, they stuck pretty much to the comic stories, with good directing. but look at all the bad movies, daredevil, hulk, blade3, FF 2, ghost rider, spiderman 3(it was ok) elektra, superman returns, x men 1 &3, blade 3, batman & robin, batman forever. all of these movies sucked from poor stories, and stupid twist to things better off left alone.
Alot to read, but I didn't see this explored (?)
What about consistency? Of the movies listed, with the exception of the Punisher, the casts for Marvel have remained stable. With DC, you have multiple Supermen and Batmen. I think people get discouraged by that. Look (if you're old enough to remember @loll@ ) at the Christopher Reeve Superman series. While it was stable, people loved it. Up until the 4th, that is. Now, if you put those aside and pretend you never saw them, I could see someone really going nuts for Routh and Co, as that would be the starting point for them. Same with Batman. Remember when Keaton first came out, everyone loved that one too. The only problem is when people see these movies, it makes an impression on them, and if you change what they expect to see, that's when you get the conflict.
For example, what's going to happen when Maguire's contract is up and he decides he doesn't want to play Spider-man anymore? If they find someone else (hahaha - Harry Potter's about the right age and build!) what will you think then?
I think both parties put out excellent movies. You just have to be relative about it. I prefer Reeve as Superman because that's the one I grew up with. Nothing against Brandon, but he will never be able to replace him in my eyes. But that doesn't mean I thought the movie was bad. It was what it was. Could have done without the whole kid thing, but like Highlander 2, maybe they'll just write that out if existance somehow. Amazing special effects too. You couldn't do half that stuff believablly back in the day.
That's my two cents. Take it as you will.
You know what is funny...Every time I hear someone bash SUPERMAN RETURNS or Bryan Singer, I really have to laugh, simply because if you hated SR then you hated Richard Donner's SUPERMAN THE MOVIE.
Superman the Movie is a HORRIBLE film. What saves it is the performances of Chris Reeve and some of the directing from Richard Donner. The script is horrendously bad, and the villains are written as total jokes, and the ending is just out to lunch.
But that all said, the movie has some wonderful moments which is what makes it memorable.
Superman Returns is a weak film because it bases its premise off an equally weak film: Superman 2.
Again, a poorly written piece, with another flimsy resolution. The only reason the polt device of havine Clark and Lois sleep together was to legitimize the film as an adult piece, and not just kiddie fare.
That was taken and run with to create Superman Returns--creating a precedent for the Superman character that renders him incongruous with his values.
Look, the film sets this up itself: Kal-el takes off to search for Krypton and survivors. That clarifies an obsession with his heritage. Its not just some passing notion, he leaves Earth understanding that relevatistic factors will mean he's away for an extended period of time. He is forsaking is guardianship of Earth for personal reasons.
Then he comes home empty handed, has yet another encounter with Luthor, and in the process........lo and behold, discovers Lois has borne his child.
And now Clark Kal-el will just allow the sickly son of Superman to be raised by Lois and her husband, while Superman is just.........y'know.........."around".
That's an abrogation of the fundemental stated values of the character that the movie itself lays out.
All of a suddent he's got an heir, and he'll just carry on as before?????
Horse hooey. It doesn't jibe at all. The bastard son of Superman was a mistake, something writ only to give the story some cute lines and some contnuity with the previous movie.
I asked myself why did it need that? It forsakes a number of things, one being the element of Superman being the last of his kind.
With the kid now, there's a overriding consideration that he HAS TO revisit time and again, because that's his stated nature. Far beyond his love for Lois, he's now got an HEIR--something that will DEMAND his constant guidance.
Something he cannot supply and remaind true as earth's guardian.
This is why the inclusion of the kid into the story is a major stumbling block. It sets up a precedent that takes the character of Superman far away from what he is.
This isn't a dilution, like Supergirl would be--its a serious deviation.
At least with Supergirl there's a character that has a cognitive persona, they can standalone from the get-go.
The kid..........is baggage. It means that the character of Lois now has to address the fact that she has a superhuman child to raise, crippling that characters use in follow-up films.
I'm all for the evolution of characters in stories, but there's certain thinks that work for certain characters and certain things that don't.
The kid doesn't work.
I wish.........hope........they just chuck out Superman Returns, like Superman 3 & 4 and forget the lil' bastard was ever borne.
dude, theres gonna be a JLAS movie coming out, i just dont know when. I read it on wizrard. anyways, even though they make a good dc mopvie, theres something about the dc universe that cant top the marvel universe. i dont know what it is. ok yeah whatevers.
__scaled_800.jpg)
