Man of Steel

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Superman IV states that Martha Kent had passed away, while Returns had her still living.


Random useless fact pertaining to Man of Steel: Both performers to appear as Superman's biological and adopted fathers have also played Robin Hood. No profound point, just thought it was funny.

It was Superman III actually. Lana mentions it at the High School Reunion. It's such a loud scene you can barely hear her say it. In IV of course the farm is up for sale and there is a deleted scene (not on the dvd but I've seen the pic) where Clark visits his parents grave at the cemetery from the first film.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.

She's no class act. He is.

What's this about?

Madonna's Truth or Dare 1991 documentary chronicled her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.

Madonna parties with several celebrities, including Dick Tracy co-stars Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin, and Olivia Newton-John.
Kevin Costner "offends" Madonna by calling her show "neat". Madonna pretends to gag after he leaves.

But, it seems Madonna patched things up years later: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=263753

Hahaha read the posts some time back. I tossed this into the conversation we were having about Costner.

On a side note as a fan of the Dick Tracy movie it's interesting that tour documentary to see Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin all featured. Clearly around the time of the film's release. And then there's Warren Beatty himself who has a rather awkward moment here and there. Clearly not enjoying the camera guys being around filming him. Lots of tension.

Poor Costner. Doubt he was being offensive. Just chose a bit of a naff word that might have been a bit too cutesy for the slightly tougher Madonna. Given the nature of that "Like a Virgin" segment I personally would have chosen a more suitably impressive description to sum up my enjoyable astonishment lol

Ironically his language seems very in keeping with the Clark Kent lingo using words like "swell" (to Lois' unease) don't you think? No wonder he got the job playing his dad lol

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Does Returns outright contradict any plot points which happened in III and IV? I felt it was too wishy washy with it's continuity; It leaves too much grey area where the viewer wonders "did the last 2 films happen' and 'what year does it take place'. Should have either taken place in the 21st century with the assumption the last 2 films happened or set in the 80's  as the rebooted 3rd film.

It is a big leap of faith to ignore continuity and pretend half the series didn't happen. I feel if you're going to do that, you better do it right because you're outright implying the second half of the series wasn't worthwhile. Returns is better than the 3rd and 4th films but not by a lot.

Superman IV was pretty atrocious.  I personally enjoy it as a piece of campy fun (although I believe Christopher Reeve genuinely believed he was making a fairly earnest polemic about the nuclear arms race) and there are plenty of incidental pleasures such as the return of Gene Hackman who at least seems to be enjoying himself, Jon Cryer 'break-dancing', the beautiful Mariel Hemingway as Clark's new spoiled rich love interest, the screwball comedy of the 'double-date' scene and a brief comedy cameo from Jim Broadbent along with William Hootkins ('Eckhart' from Batman '89 and of course, 'Porkins' from SW: Episode IV).  However, it was still a pretty bad film and I can entirely understand why Bryan Singer would want to disassociate 'Superman Returns' from it.

It's completely unlikely but how cool would it be if somebody did a belated sequel to the Burton Batman films ignoring 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin'?  Maybe one should be grateful to Singer for at least demonstrating that the concept is feasible.

When Sylvester Stallone made Rocky Balboa he was quite unashamed to emphasize it as a sixth film (although the title didn't do so). There were plenty of references in it to previous movies I loved seeing. The most unpopular (and ultimately irrelevant) film in the series at that point was of course Rocky V, an installment I actually think is underrated as hell. While there wasn't as many references to it inside the new one it was clearly still regarded as part of the series. Rocky still being back in his run down, tough neighbourhood being the obvious example. So it's possible for even the worser parts of a series to still be taken into context as having happened. I wish Superman Returns had been braver to do the same.

I imagine like myself fans have been watching the old Superman movies in historical order to coincide with the new one? Yesterday I actually saw Superman IV and you know what, I actually had fun and enjoyed the dreaded thing! lol I think I've gotten so sick and tired of criticism toward the films (and the old Batman films) that I just wanted to get myself back to a more innocent minded time. As a kid I never gave a twat about the differences in quality or which director did what e.c.t. As long as Chris Reeve was still in the red cape they were all A pictures to my 6 year old self. I think if your prepared to see past the limitations and mistakes you now have as cynical adults you can still have a good time with it as a bit of silly fun. Superman IV also features the best comedic moment from Reeve to me. The scene were after changing into Clark Kent he bumps into Mariel Hemingway and skids across the floor in surprise lol How on earth did he do that??? Bet it took a few takes (and a couple of falls) but it never fails to make me raise a smile.

[Silver Nemesis]

I've never hated Superman Returns. I was disappointed when I first saw it on the cinema. But I gradually grew to appreciate it after repeated viewings of the DVD. It's very flawed, yes. But not to the extent most people make it out to be. Most of the core criticisms have now been exaggerated to the point of hyperbole. Ask someone to explain why they don't like it and chances are they'll regurgitate the usual "boring stalker deadbeat dad" arguments; most of which don't really stand up to analysis, in my opinion. When I sat down to rewatch the Blu-ray last week, I'd almost convinced myself it was as bad as the haters make it out to be. But after rewatching the film, complete with the deleted 'Return to Krypton' opening sequence, I've got to say – it's a pretty decent film. Nowhere near as good as Superman I and II, but certainly not as bad as III and IV. I see it as being to the Superman franchise what Batman Returns is to the Batman franchise; a deeply flawed, but also deeply misunderstood film that has more going for it than its detractors will admit.

With regards to Man of Steel, here's an online game that perfectly encapsulates the heart and soul of the movie:
http://www.qualityjollity.com/MMOSGAME/MassMurdererOfSteel.html

Sadly has there ever been a sequel to a film which had since been rebooted or remade?

It's a rare occurrence, but it has happened once or twice.

Hammer Studios Frankenstein series. Between 1957 and 1969, Hammer made five films starring Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. The producers then decided Cushing was getting too old and they wanted a younger actor to replace him, so they rebooted the franchise with the 1970 film The Horror of Frankenstein. This movie starred Ralph Bates as a younger Frankenstein and disregarded all the previous films, instead reimagining Marry Shelley's novel in a more contemporary light. But it proved unpopular with both fans and critics, so Hammer abandoned the new series and revived the old one, bringing back Cushing to star in Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell (1974). Reboot unrebooted.

Planet of the Apes. There were five Planet of the Apes films produced between 1968 and 1973, then the franchise lay dormant until Tim Burton readapted Boulle's novel in 2001. Then in 2011 they made the surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which ignored the Tim Burton reboot and instead connected with the old series of films. There is some confusion about whether Rise of the Planet of the Apes is actually a prequel or a reboot, and even the filmmakers themselves seem unsure when asked about this. Personally I consider it a reboot of the 1972 film Conquest of the Planet of the Apes – which depicts the ape uprising led by Caesar – and a prequel to the 1968 film. The filmmakers have expressed their intent to make a series of films leading into the events of the original Planet of the Apes, so that would make it a prequel trilogy. And since they're clearly aiming to connect with the 1968 film rather than the 2001 version, then this would be another case of a reboot being unrebooted.

Conan the Barbarian. In the eighties Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in two Conan films loosely adapted from the stories by Robert E. Howard: the fantasy classic Conan the Barbarian (1982) and its awful sequel Conan the Destroyer (1984). For years afterwards there were rumours of a third film, though no such project ever came to fruition. Eventually the franchise got rebooted with the 2011 film Conan the Barbarian starring Jason Momoa. But the reboot was trashed by critics and only recouped around half its budget. So now the latest word is that they're bringing back Arnold to star in The Legend of Conan, a direct sequel to the 1982 film that will depict the adventures of the aging Conan as hinted at in the first film's closing epilogue. Another reboot unrebooted.

[johnnygobbs]

With regards to Man of Steel, here's an online game that perfectly encapsulates the heart and soul of the movie:
http://www.qualityjollity.com/MMOSGAME/MassMurdererOfSteel.html

That's hilarious if slightly disturbing, yet it totally and utterly reflects my biggest gripe with the film.

[riddler]

Actually there's another series I thought of which outright ignores sequels; Universal soldier. There were two direct to video sequels before JCVD made two sequels of his own which were follow ups to the originals.


Yeah I thought rocky balboa did it right; they don't directly reference the fifth film and I believe there's clips from the first 4 films but it is implied that the fifth film did happen; Rocky was rich at the end of IV but poor at the end of V and relatively poor in Balboa.

Back to man of steel, I'm not a heavy supes fan so my comprehensive views would not be nearly as good as the others but heres how I view each actor/character

Henry Cavill as Superman; he did well with the serious tone he was given but I question whether he can carry the load in the future films; maybe he'll prove me wrong but I have a hard time picturing him capturing the bumbling goofy Clark Kent nearly as well as Reeves or even Routh did.

Amy Adams as Lois lane; she played the character the same way as Kate Bosworth only better but that doesn't necessarily make it good. Margot Kidder is still the ideal Lois Lane, I think Adams comes off too serious, I prefer Kidders flirty yet smart Lois.

Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent; the only scene which was somewhat questionable for him was his death scene, he seemed just a tad too happy to be going. But overall he was outstanding in his scenes along with Diane Lane. He did provide a good role model for Clark. Not costners fault but I didn't like the way he was written; the death scene was a little too cheezy as was his motive that Clark can't save people. If god didn't want him saving people, he wouldnt have given him the power to do so. It is a terrible burden he forced on Clark to basically force him to stand by and do nothing and let people die and get hurt.

Michael Shannon as General Zod; I actually was pleasantly surprised by the handling of the villain, he was layered and did have strong motivations and convictions. It wasn't a case of him being evil or selfish like most villains, in his mind he was the hero and Jor El and Kal el were the villains.

Russel Crowe as Jor El: Outstanding, maybe the best performance in the film.

Laurence Fishburn as Perry white: did a good job but underused.

[zDBZ]

This is a film that sees me doing drafts of a full review; it's been almost a week and I'm not done yet. But until I get the long version done, here's a brief summary of my thoughts:

Man of Steel is a visually bleak, tonally heavy and morose re-tread of material that has already been mined in film, TV, and animation, and falls short of its predecessors in every sense despite having (in some cases) more to work with (on paper). Divorced from previous incarnations and taken on its own merits, it's a film that tries to cram too much into one movie, is largely devoid of colour, life, and personality for its leads, and makes some very questionable choices in the ending, considering the character that is being adapted. And having said all that, I was expecting to have a much tougher time sitting through this thing, and I was pleasantly surprised in some respects, mostly in the portrayal of Clark himself.

[Edd Grayson]

It's a perfect 10 for me. It surpassed all my expectations. It was the modern Superman film I always wanted to see.

[The Dark Knight]

I never really got why Madonna did all that pretending to puke kind of thing behind Kevin's back. He'd been nice towards her. It's not like he'd insulted her.

She's no class act. He is.

What's this about?

Madonna's Truth or Dare 1991 documentary chronicled her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.

Madonna parties with several celebrities, including Dick Tracy co-stars Al Pacino and Mandy Patinkin, and Olivia Newton-John.
Kevin Costner "offends" Madonna by calling her show "neat". Madonna pretends to gag after he leaves.

But, it seems Madonna patched things up years later: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=263753

Off topic, but I like Madonna's attitude. She knows how to rile people up and empower herself. Not really caring what other people think, having a particular sense of humour, doing what she wants etc.

[The Laughing Fish]

*SPOILERS - in case there is anybody reading this who still hasn't seen the film yet*

I finally saw this today.

Overall, I thought it was merely okay. It has its fair share of great moments, and moments were things could've been better.

I liked the Krypton scenes the most in the movie; really enjoyed the fight between Jor-El and General Zod. I found it curious to see how in this version people are secretly aware of Clark's powers, and Clark himself tries to earn the military's trust by revealing information about himself; which made the end where he disguises himself by wearing glasses to be very laughable. It had a fair bit of emotion too, i.e. Lara giving birth to her son, the chemistry between Martha Kent and Clark, Jonathan Kent revealing Clark's true origins when he was a teenager.

There were some questionable moments though: why did Zod bring Lois into the spacecraft for? It felt like a contrived excuse to insert the codex into the ship so Superman could regain his powers. Fair enough if Jonathan Kent was afraid of his son's exposure to the rest of the world, but he could've at least do something when Clark was being attacked by that jock scumbag. And yeah, it got a bit ridiculous how Superman was tearing up the city as he was fighting Faora and Zod. But then again, that is one of many reasons I didn't like Nolan's first two Batman movies or Superman II either; those movies were just as guilty of having heroes being reckless.

But I can't understand the complaints about Superman killing Zod. It wasn't like he killed in cold-blood, Superman was caught in a life and death predicament; he was either going to let Zod kill that family or he was going to prevent it from happening. He carried out a necessary evil. And besides, I don't recall people ever having a problem with Superman killing Zod at the end of Superman II. Nor do I see people complaining (never mind acknowledging) that Nolan's Batman goes against his morals by killing people whenever it was convenient to the story (which only made his refusal to kill the Joker even more incomprehensible). I mean, how is Batman killing Two-Face to save Gordon's son any different to what Superman did under the circumstances? And hey, at least Man of Steel doesn't have Superman saying murder is wrong in one moment, then proceeds to kill everybody else in the next i.e. Batman Begins; thus undermining the character's moral standpoint in the first place. Too bad Nolan and Goyer weren't smart enough to avoid writing themselves into a corner when they were doing Batman.

I liked the cast as well. Cavill does fine with Superman despite not giving enough lines to say. Amy Adams is good enough as Lois, as are Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as the Kents. Russell Crowe is good, but Michael Shannon is a little bit over the top - made me laugh a bit when he screamed "I will find him".

Like I said, it was alright, albeit flawed. I think it owes a lot to Superman: Earth One Vol. 1 storywise (which I read recently but I'll go into detail another time) If I had to give it a rating out of ten, it might be six.