Let's Talk About Superman II?

[Paul (ral)]

You mean to say that you think if Donner had been allowed to finish off Superman II back in the late 70s, that he would have re-used the same ending? Richard Donner would not have done that.

If he had returned, I'm sure there would have been a different ending. It's the cynical conspiracy theorist in me that always wondered.

[DocLathropBrown]

:-P

[THE BAT-MAN]

Is it just me?  Or does it feel like Richard Lester and Joel Schuemacher shared a domino effect?

I mean when Richard Lester directed Superman II it was based on the foundation set by Donner, but it still had Lester's sense of (and this may not be the right word) camp and then when he made Superman III we got a true dose of Lester's direction a complete goof fest with a bizarre dark twist.  I don't mean any disrespect for part III because their are some elements that I do enjoy, but the majority of the film was like a Superman comedy

The situation feels the same when Joel Schuemacher directed Batman Forever, although it was the third installment and was trying to reinvent itself in the franchise.  It was still based on the foundation set by Tim Burton, except it still had Schuemachers sense of camp and then when he directed Batman&Robin we got a true dose of schuemachers direction a campy Batman comedy.  Irregardless of the studio enforcing a toyettic batman film,  Schumacher admitted that this was the picture that he wanted to make.

It's like history keeps repeating itself.

[thecolorsblend]

Here's one for you.  The Spider-Man franchise is a damn near perfect mirror of the Reeve franchise.  You've got the formulaic origin in the first film.

In the second outing, the hero temporarily gives up his powers for his girl before having to take them back at the last minute to save her from the villain of the peace.

Third time 'round, the hero goes rogue, pursues a fling with someone other than his g/f and then has to face his inner darkness.  A new villain crops up at the last possible second but the hero wins the day with an unlikely assist from a character previously thought to be one of the bad guys.

Am I the only one who kinda fears what Spider-Man 4 might be like?

[DocLathropBrown]

The difference is that Spider-Man 3 was, actually, you know, good.

Ive never heard any convincing arguments on why the film is bad. I've heard fair points about how there are problems with it, but the "it sucks" mentality just reeks of fanboy brainwashing to me. I thought the film was brilliant, and sure there's a couple things that could have been fixed, but the rep it's gained is rediculous.

Therefore, I look forward to Spider-Man 4.

The general arc you noticed was intentional on the first and second films. The audio commentaries with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire prove this, as they note that they were very inspired by the first two Superman flicks, things like the shirt rip in the alley in #2, etc...

But the Superman series was befelled by idiots being in charge, this does not apply to the Spider-Man series. Venom's forced inclusion is an arguable sign of worry, but Raimi made it work, so Venom was not the disaster everyone made him out to be, and for what it's worth, Raimi greatly improved on the character.

The situations between Superman IV and Spider-Man 4 will be wholly different. To make such a comparison just comes off as a brainwashed fanboy response, and I expected better of you, Colors.

I mean, I know I'm being kind of rude, but the conditioned responses to comic book films like Daredevil, Elektra, Hulk, Spider-Man 3, the Fantastic Fours, the Schumacher Batman flicks, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and even going back to the '80s Captain America and Punisher movies, the responses that seem inherent in all "fanboys" for these movies (all of which I loved) really piss me off and make me roll my eyes.

Sequels rarely are perfect, but I'm so sick of people bashing good movies for no actual valid or good reasons. I can admit that a lot of the movies I listed above have little errors, but people, especially fanboys, need to learn to chill out and enjoy the bigger picture, or get over their own expectations and enjoy a film for what it is. The current culture is entirely too cynical over its "event" movies, and everyone hops on the "hate" wagon whether the film deserves it or not, for reasons I cannot understand.

I really can't think of any movies that I "hate." I could dredge up a few, but they have to really slip up for me to go to flat-out hate. Richard Pryor in a Superman film is one. Stripping all of the qualities of Batman that I love for realism? That's a major irk for me. But other than those, there aren't a whole lot of comic book movies that I can't find something I enjoy out of them.

Again, sorry. Your post just kind of got me going.

[thecolorsblend]

Simmer down, yo.  The 4 to IV comparison was meant for peoples enjoyment.

The reality is that Spider-Man 3 had too much going on.  Too much plot and too many characters.  How many blockbusters really suffer from that problem?  I felt like Harry's story should've had a film to itself.  It plays the way that it is now but I thought their finale would just be bigger than that.

Overall, I find it to be an enjoyable ride, it just doesn't quite measure up to Spider-Man 2.

[The Dark Knight]

Spider-Man 3 was the lesser of the three films, but still miles better than any Superman film. 

[thecolorsblend]

Spider-Man 3 was the lesser of the three films, but still miles better than any Superman film. 

Pass that crack you're smoking this way. 

[The Dark Knight]

No need, I think you're already on it. 

[DocLathropBrown]

The Superman movies, the first one, anyway, is the best comic book film ever made.

Non deniable.