-
sigpic -
Yes and CRASH THROUGH A FREEKING WALL! Come on that has to be the coolest and easiest thing to do on film........SHOW your muscle!!!
I'd like opening credits where you see Superman in a montage of Super heroics in a throwback style. What does it take to bring out the little boy or girl in all of us and show us the REASON many of us loved Superman in the first place.....Comment
-
^Yes, that is a great idea. One minor gripe about the Reeve Superman films is that in 4 movies (3 big budget ones to boot), he never crashed through a wall, George Reeve style. Supposedly George loved to do that stunt, and it showed. The effects on the 50s series may come off hokey in places, but the walls, the takeoffs and the landings still hold up.
But yes, a montage of super-feats would be VERY welcome. And let's PLEASE skip the origin of Superman. Everyone knows it. It's been done, and done well. Start out with Clark working at the Daily Planet and go from there.
ChrisComment
-
yeah , i could do with an origin story like we saw in superman 2 or spiderman 2 or other sequels where you get a brief synopsis of the origin in the opening credits. i also think they should include classic shots.
maybe the scene from the fleischer cartoon of krypton exploding. a shot from smallville of him donning the glasses, a shot from lois and clark of him getting the job at the planet. the scene from superman one when he first flies in the fortress, a shot of george (in color) busting through a wall and bending steel and bonking guys heads together. a shot of the scene where he takes luthor to jail in the en of one. a scene of zod and superman fighting, throw in clark at the planet pushing his glass up in 1 or 2, a shot of the airplane save in returns, and reeve flying away at the end of his movies.
- or maybe reduce the percentage of reeve scenes to avoid setting it up for a sequel.Comment
-
i was thinking about returns versus superman 3 as to what was a better sequel.
now people hate both and love both for different reasons
returns - action scenes AIRPLANE sequence and more, effects, serious take on the character, spacey
3 - chris reeve, superman fights clark, non lex plot, lana - at the time pryor was a draw
returns - 15 year old playing 30 year old lois, the love child, trying to be chris reeve
3- ridiculous non comic related bad guys, silly story, low budget feel
my kids wanted to watch 3 last month. we did. it was better than i remembered. in the end i find this a more fitting sequel to 1 and 2 than returns is. oddly i found it no more dated than 1 and 2. i (dare I say it) enjoyed watching it.
my verdict: give 3 another watch, i think you'll like it. keep returns around to fast forward to the action scenes - for the WOW factor.
in the end neither was great both had huge problems but each has something to offer.
let's hope the next is it's own film and doesn't need to be part of the discussion of which is the best sequel.Comment
-
Yeah, they cut a great scene from Superman:The Movie(it's in the extras)where Reeve's walks through some Machine Guns, Flame throwers, before he busts down the Door to Luther's Lair. IMO...it shouldn't have been cut.
Last edited by The Bat; Feb 2, '11, 6:18 AM.sigpicComment
-
What about " Did you feed the Babies?'
Luthor , his pets and feeding Ms. Tessbacher to them?
Anything with more of the bad guys is great.Comment
-
If someone can make a SUPERMAN movie that captures so much of what
SUPERMAN as RETURNS did but without the addition of uber-daring
plot direction regarding "super son" and Lois & Clark's twisted relationship,
then it'll be a great accomplishment.
Sandy, you may despise RETURNS (and I find that interesting,
considering your passion for the character), but I believe RETURNS
was an incredible accomplishment in confirming Superman (and his
friends/enemies) personas.
As I said before it was only TOO good, taking relationships to an evolved
place that left many shocked. It confusd people, yet it STILL raked in a
HUGE amount of money.... and had potential for a solid sequel
but WB got yellow.
What the new movie needs is to learn something from RETURNS,
and get the essence of RETURNS and it's solidifying of the
SUPERMAN myth, without the deeper/bolder character development."No. No no no no no no. You done got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna'. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. I think I'll scoot over here right by this winda', let this beautiful carriage rock me to sleep, and dream about how lucky I am." - Chris MannixComment
-
I guess I'm also one of the few that liked RETURNS...but would have liked it a lot more if the had completely left out the "SUPERMAN's Son" plotline.
sigpicComment
-
I've stated many times here that I like Superman Returns. BUT, and it's a big BUT, it was a misfire of a movie to relaunch a franchise. As a one-off story, as a salute to Dick Donner and Chris Reeve, it is fantastic. But it's essentially a remake of half of the first Superman movie, with the Super-Son angle thrown in to further make it less accessible to audiences.
It would have been interesting to know HOW Bryan Singer was going to move that story forward. I bet in a few years (maybe even before this new movie comes out) he'll spill the beans.
ChrisComment
-
I liked Superman Returns, too, but it was definitely disappointing. It was a little to introspective and thoughtful, and it just seems to me that, in an age where movies like The Matrix series are pushing visual effects boundaries with exciting scenes like the lobby shootout, the "burly brawl," and Neo flying around like, well, Superman, Superman Returns should have had a lot more visual action than it did. The airplane scene was the best part by far and that happened early in the movie, which just made the rest seem to drag on. The climax of lifting an entire continent made of Kryptonite out of the ocean was just boring, and Superman's "death" and resurrection served little purpose other than heavy-handed religious allusion.Comment
-
Singer really had too much going on in Superman Returns for it to work.
The Donner homage/remake almost came off as parody to me.
The plot of a biological father not always being the best dad to a child was interesting but really didn't fit Superman.
The Death of Superman seemed crammed in. Plus would a world that had been without Superman long enough to get over him really feel the impact of his apparent death so soon after he returned?
Ma Kent shacking up, yuck.
The Christ imagery was too ham-fisted and not really needed.
The lack of action stunk in a 2 1/2 hour film about an action hero.
The James Marsden character was actually the hero of the movie. It's one thing to have a supporting character outshine the Man of Steel from time to time in a comic, but to do it in a film, wasn't the right choice.
Not really in character for Superman to just disappear on a space quest without telling his girlfriend or his mom.
Using the campy movie Luthor characterization, bad choice.
Having Superman beaten to a pulp for 10 minutes without him having the chance to whip some butt himself, another bad choice.
Have to see the film looked fantastic. Even the scuba super suit sorta worked for me after a while.
I'm hoping Snyder/Nolan will get more things right than Singer did.
But it's going to be hard. Superman means so much to so many people in so many different ways. There are some things about Superman in all his different forms that I don't particularly care for, but to someone else, it is the very thing that makes the character attractive.
I eagerly and anxiously await what they come up with. I hope it'll be great, but they have an uphill climb.Comment
-
That's an awesome scene. I remember seeing that as a kid when the movie was broadcast on TV. I thought it was cool bccause I'd already seen the theatrical cut at the cinema, and suddenly there were a bunch of new scenes in the movie!
Glad they restored it to the special edition DVD.
Stills from that sequence made it in to the Topps card series, too.
Also like the sequence where Superman is talking to Jor-El in the FOS just after his first night of super crime fighting.PUNY HUMANS!Comment
-
Yeah, I liked returns except for the "super son" stuff, too. I think the audience does need to see a happy go lucky supes first before he has to take on emotional issues. Like Brue and others said, it relied too much on the audience knowing what had gone on in Superman II. To compare to a sequel that Singer has said he loves: STII. They make the introduction of Kirk's son in the same style, but the difference is that he is presented as a grown man and the mother of the son knows it is Kirk's and they have a conversation mid-movie about it to resolve it with the audience. We just get to see Superman stalking in through windows at the end of the movie.It's all good!Comment
Tweet
Comment