Superman-III & IV

Started by batass4880, Thu, 18 Dec 2008, 22:45

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 19 Dec  2008, 04:26S3 never had any potential.  There was never any hope for it, it was always going to suck out loud.

Yeah, III probably wouldn't have been any better even without Richard Pryor. Christopher Reeve is pretty much the only thing that saves the film for me.

Well, let us think. Was Reeve really that good anyway?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 19 Dec  2008, 13:52
Well, let us think. Was Reeve really that good anyway?

Yes, yes he was. Had it not been for him, I wouldn't have become a fan of Superman. The humanity he brought to the character was required. It wasn't until later on in the comic books that Supes stopped being like a cardboard cutout. Frankly, outside of the Reeve movies, Supes tends to be pretty dull and one-dimensional.

I'm sorry you don't like the films, but I don't think their importance can be overlooked. Even 3 and 4 are an example (that WB didn't follow for Batman, unfortunately) of how a franchise can go wrong. 2 even, if you cant stand it's camp (Donner cut aside).

Without the first one, there probably wouldn't have been any comic book films. No Burton Batman, no nothing. The timing was crucial and the world had to be shown that comics weren't fluffy, stupid junk for kids. S:TM opened the world's eyes to the brilliance of comics and their effective silimarlities to mythology.

Any earlier, and S:TM would have been ignored because of the grittiness of the 70s. It needed Star Wars to get the world back in the mood for optimisitic films. Any later, and it would have been less effective in the 80s, in which the modern blockbuster was more commonplace. It needed to be there, right at the beginning of the big budget-blockbuster boom, and right after the first Star Wars film made the world more interested in optimism again.

A lot of people feel that it doesn't matter, that these films will always happen. Nope, totally incorrect. Things happen for a reason. B89 absolutely had to happen for comic book films to progress, and it had to happen right when it did. Like Robert Whul said "the timing was right for BATMAN."
"There's just as much room for the television series and the comic books as there is for my movie. Why wouldn't there be?" - Tim Burton

I liked Singer's film. It gets smashed in the mouth too much. I personally would have like to have seen another installment. The only two things that bugged me was the piece of cardboard that was Kate Bodsworth and Superman lifting a giant Kryptonite island into space with chunks of it flowing through his veins. Kryptonite IS is weakness, right?  In other words, Singer went to far, Lex's plan WAS too perfect..cause Supes should be dead.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 19 Dec  2008, 20:35
I liked Singer's film. It gets smashed in the mouth too much. I personally would have like to have seen another installment. The only two things that bugged me was the piece of cardboard that was Kate Bodsworth and Superman lifting a giant Kryptonite island into space with chunks of it flowing through his veins. Kryptonite IS is weakness, right?  In other words, Singer went to far, Lex's plan WAS too perfect..cause Supes should be dead.
I can definitly agree with you there, and its good to not be the only kid on the block that likes MOST of what Singer did with his Superman film.


I have given a name to my pain, and it is BATMAN.

Speaking as a Superman fan first (Batman is #2 on my list), the Singer movie was a trainwreck.  It was a travesty.  It was an abomination unto the character and The Myth.  It was a waste of my time (2.5 hours), my money and my time again (19 frackin years).

>:( SCREW YOU, SINGER!!! >:(

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 19 Dec  2008, 23:44
Speaking as a Superman fan first (Batman is #2 on my list)
You're a Supes fan first and foremost, colors? Interesting.

Yep, Superman's my numero uno.  I have no illusions as to which is the richer, more interesting character (c'mon, Batman's got it easily; even his costume is better) but I can't believe anybody really WANTS to be Batman.  Bruce Wayne, maybe (MAYBE).  But not Batman.  On the other hand, I think a lot of people would want to be Superman given the chance.

In fact, I see Superman and Batman as being necessary opposites/counterpoints to each other.  Understanding one makes understanding the other easier.  I wish the comics would get it together on this front, but they manage to drop the nachos in their interactions/differences just about every time.  Ticks me off...

Yesss. Singer totally stuffed up SR. All Supes did was lift things. I mean, come on!

they didnt use a villain that he could equally battle, the next film im positive they wont make the same mistake.


I have given a name to my pain, and it is BATMAN.