"Superman Returns" 5 minute original opening hits web
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
Brandon Routh, has hit the web, and may surprise fans and critics
alike.
While the Warner Bros. film received mixed reviews, director Bryan
Singer’s opening could have added an added explanation to the
conflicted film.
Provided as a deleted scene extra on the Superman Anthology Blu-Ray
release in June, the dark, slow segment has Kal-El (Routh) traveling
back to his home planet of Krypton in a star-shaped ship. Viewers will
notice a significant Superman S carved into his home planet. What
could that mean?
The five-minute sequence was apparently expensive to produce, costing
an estimated $10 million.
The wordless piece, which feels a little bit like Kubrick’s 2001: A
Space Odyssey, could have explained to viewers why Kal-El left Earth
in the first place.
A reboot of the Superman film series directed by Zach Snyder and
starring Henry Cavill as Superman is planned for release in 2013.
Watch it here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-returns-deleted-opening-scene-216110
Ronald O. Christian
<classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A never-before-seen opening for 2006's Superman Returns, starring
>Brandon Routh, has hit the web, and may surprise fans and critics
>alike.
Yeah... what surprised me, was (1) how anachronistic the effects and
models looked, even for the time, and (2) how little it added to the
story. The big S on the side of the planet fragment -- as far as I
can figure, that didn't have anything to do with anything, but was
thrown in solely because it looked cool. Feel free to disagree, but
be prepared to express a reasonable counter-hypothesis.
I think they made the right decision to cut the segment. I wish they
had saved the money and spent it on a better script.
I mean, I understand there are Superman fans participating in these
discussions, and I'm not trying to annoy them. I don't hate the
character (I've watched everything from the old George Reeves TV show
onward), I hate what recent (say the last three) live action movies
have been doing to him. I'd like to recommend that we don't allow our
wish to see more of the big boy scout maneuver us into a position
where we'd just accept any crapola that happened to include him.
Ron
-
2003 FLHTCUI "Noisy Glide"
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.ronaldchristian.com
Captain Infinity
Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>the dark, slow segment has Kal-El (Routh) traveling
>back to his home planet of Krypton in a star-shaped ship.
Is that the same Krypton that, you know, blew up kaboom?
**
Captain Infinity
cloud dreamer
It looked like chunks of Krypton.
..
Ronald O. Christian
I'd argue that the fact that it's not clear to everyone what was
happening was one of the problems with the segment. :-)
Yes, that was supposed to be the ruins of Krypton, although I would
have thought that the pieces would be scattered more widely in the
decades since the explosion. Maybe making a new (necessarily sparsely
populated) asteroid belt around Krypton's star.
But they didn't want celestial mechanics accuracy, they wanted an
excuse to show you the big S on the side of the rock. Or something.
I've seen the segment three times and I'm still not sure what they
were trying to tell us. If anything.
Anim8rFSK
Captain Infinity <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
Yep. How you ask? Singer is an idiot. Why you ask? Singer is an
idiot.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Gheerax IV
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:02:39 -0400, Captain Infinity
> <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>
>>Once Upon A Time,
>>Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>>
>>>the dark, slow segment has Kal-El (Routh) traveling back to his home
>>>planet of Krypton in a star-shaped ship.
>>
>>Is that the same Krypton that, you know, blew up kaboom?
>
> I'd argue that the fact that it's not clear to everyone what was
> happening was one of the problems with the segment. :-)
>
> Yes, that was supposed to be the ruins of Krypton, although I would have
> thought that the pieces would be scattered more widely in the decades
> since the explosion. Maybe making a new (necessarily sparsely
> populated) asteroid belt around Krypton's star.
The star *blew up* in the opening titles, remember? :)
KalElFan
news:gnd137p62pkhhl1mu...@4ax.com...
> I've seen the segment three times and I'm still not sure what
> they were trying to tell us. If anything.
Ostensibly, based on other references to it, Superman didn't
know for sure that his planet blew up. So he left Earth and
Lois for 7 years to check out and confirm that there was
Krypton debris. The significance of the "S" would have been
"Yep, Krypton musta blown up real good." And then he
turned around for the rest of his Seven Year Mission, barely
making it back alive.
It's easy to retcon the movie so that what Superman was
really going back to do was necessary, because of a looming
threat to Earth (probably Brainiac). The S helps a bit, e.g.
that piece marks where something vitally important was,
sufficiently protected that it remained intact. The other
part that would help is that Lois knew at the time, but for
her protection and the protection of the information she
asked for the ol' amnesia superkiss until his return. He
gets back it having taken much longer than expected due
to whatever hitch, and in the 7 years she's taken up with
Perry's nephew.
The whole thing gets fixed, and a Brainiac's Revenge or
Wrath of Khan style sequel works fine. Instead, as it stands,
we got the most idiotic premise in the genre's history, and
romance-crippled, Loner Gay Jesus Superman getting a
metaphorical but nevertheless bloody crucifixion by Lex
Luthor. Change the premise and the Lois knowledge, and
follow it up with Brainiac, and it's actually quite the good
followup to Superman II (III and IV too, but better to not
count those).
Ronald O. Christian
<ghee...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>The star *blew up* in the opening titles, remember? :)
It's been a long time. I don't remember. That being the case, there
should be *nothing* to find.
Ronald O. Christian
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>The whole thing gets fixed, and a Brainiac's Revenge or
>Wrath of Khan style sequel works fine. Instead, as it stands,
>we got the most idiotic premise in the genre's history, and
>romance-crippled, Loner Gay Jesus Superman getting a
>metaphorical but nevertheless bloody crucifixion by Lex
>Luthor. Change the premise and the Lois knowledge, and
>follow it up with Brainiac, and it's actually quite the good
>followup to Superman II (III and IV too, but better to not
>count those).
Except that none of this will happen now.
Joe Pfeiffer
> A never-before-seen opening for 2006's Superman Returns, starring
> Brandon Routh, has hit the web, and may surprise fans and critics
> alike.
>
> While the Warner Bros. film received mixed reviews, director Bryan
> Singer’s opening could have added an added explanation to the
> conflicted film.
Mixed reviews? You mean there was someone, somewhere, who liked it?
Maybe somebody who reviewed it for Oprah?
Without watching, it sounds very unlikely to explain why TPTB felt it
was a good idea to make a Superman movie in which saving the world is
the B plot to a really sappy chick flick.
Ronald O. Christian
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>Without watching, it sounds very unlikely to explain why TPTB felt it
>was a good idea to make a Superman movie in which saving the world is
>the B plot to a really sappy chick flick.
...Probably because they felt that making it a chick flick would bring
in the chicks. Nerds *and* chicks. Double the receipts! Bonus!
Anim8rFSK
Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:52:20 +0000 (UTC), Gheerax IV
> <ghee...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >The star *blew up* in the opening titles, remember? :)
>
> It's been a long time. I don't remember. That being the case, there
> should be *nothing* to find.
>
The dialog said the planet was going ot explode. The other Kryptonians
said that the planet was just shifting it's orbit; no problem. The
visual of the star exploding ... came out of nowhere and wasn't
supported by the narrative at all.
Jim Beaver
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:gnd137p62pkhhl1mu...@4ax.com...
One thing I've hated since the first Christopher Reeve movie (which I pretty
much loved) is this inane attempt to make the S symbol mean something
"Kryptonian" instead of just being the initial of the guy wearing the
costume. Brando's emblem (and the screwy attempts to make it look like
everybody on Krypton wore similarly styled emblems, only theirs didn't
"coincidentally" resemble the Earth letter "s") and now this big S symbol
which just happens to be carved in a single surviving fragment of Krypton?
Fooey. What's next? Batman's bat insignia just coincidentally resembles
the bat he's modeled himself after but actually means something unrelated?
And fooey again.
Jim Beaver
TT
At least that's not a very big problem. :)
Steven L.
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:06:33 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
> <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> >Without watching, it sounds very unlikely to explain why TPTB felt it
> >was a good idea to make a Superman movie in which saving the world is
> >the B plot to a really sappy chick flick.
>
> ...Probably because they felt that making it a chick flick would bring
> in the chicks. Nerds *and* chicks. Double the receipts! Bonus!
That same "logic" is why the ABC-TV series "Defying Gravity" was
canceled after just 13 episodes. It too was aimed at both sci-fi nerds
who love space travel, *and* at chicks who want to see lots of feminist
sex. In the end, it interested neither.
-- Steven L.
Bill Steele
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> One thing I've hated since the first Christopher Reeve movie (which I pretty
> much loved) is this inane attempt to make the S symbol mean something
> "Kryptonian" instead of just being the initial of the guy wearing the
> costume.
It was all devised so that Lois could give him his name. Probably
someone (Mario Puzo?) thought that calling yourself "Superman" was too
egotistical, even if true, and putting the initial on the costume would
be even worse.
Suppose you were Clark Kent, and you looked in the rulebook and it said
that every superhero has to have some sort of symbol on his chest. What
would you choose?
(I'm sitting here trying to think of heroes that don't have chest
symbols (limiting it to those who wear tights). All I can come up with
right away are Aquaman and Spidey. I guess Marvel does it less than DC,
though.
Ronald O. Christian
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>That same "logic" is why the ABC-TV series "Defying Gravity" was
>canceled after just 13 episodes. It too was aimed at both sci-fi nerds
>who love space travel, *and* at chicks who want to see lots of feminist
>sex. In the end, it interested neither.
It's happening a lot Ever since the success of Battlestar Galactica
(on which I gave up after the second season) every new scifi series
has to have soap opera pseudodrama in order to pull in the female
demographic along with the usual nerds. Recent examples include V,
Stargate Universe, Caprica. Are any of these shows still on? Is it
possible that attempts to string out the plot with mindless melodrama
is actually driving away *both* the SF fans *and* the soap opera fans?
Ian J. Ball
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm not sure this is a valid sample set as DG aired in the dead of
summer on a broadcast network - outside of perhaps "Rookie Blue" and
"Flashpoint", *every* other summer series that has aired on a broadcast
net in the last decade has been a ratings bomb whether Skiffy or not.
--
"Am I a bird? No, I'm a bat. I'm Batman. Or am I? Yes, I am Batman."
- Abed as "Batman" on "Halloween", "Community", 10/29/09
Ken Arromdee
Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>It's happening a lot Ever since the success of Battlestar Galactica
>(on which I gave up after the second season) every new scifi series
>has to have soap opera pseudodrama in order to pull in the female
>demographic along with the usual nerds. Recent examples include V,
>Stargate Universe, Caprica. Are any of these shows still on? Is it
>possible that attempts to string out the plot with mindless melodrama
>is actually driving away *both* the SF fans *and* the soap opera fans?
Anyone ever watch recent Kamen Rider series? They get fansubbed fast.
They're all kids' action shows with blatant, *blatant* appeal to the female
demographic to the point where we have corporate executives baking cakes.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Professor Bubba
<arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
> In article <ws21-7F4A63.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Suppose you were Clark Kent, and you looked in the rulebook and it said
> >that every superhero has to have some sort of symbol on his chest. What
> >would you choose?
>
> I'd say "Hmm, let me look at these other superheroes and see what they use".
> Of course most of those others don't use letters.
>
> >(I'm sitting here trying to think of heroes that don't have chest
> >symbols (limiting it to those who wear tights). All I can come up with
> >right away are Aquaman and Spidey. I guess Marvel does it less than DC,
> >though.
>
> Spider-Man has a chest symbol.
So does Power Girl. Heh heh.
Ronald O. Christian
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> Spider-Man has a chest symbol.
>
>So does Power Girl. Heh heh.
Heh heh. But seriously, I read somewhere that the reason for the ...
revealing feature ... of Power Girl's costume is that she could not
decide what symbol to use. A nice explanation and one that I wish
every other female superhero would take seriously. Wait, did I say
that out loud?
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>(I'm sitting here trying to think of heroes that don't have chest
>symbols (limiting it to those who wear tights). All I can come up with
>right away are Aquaman and Spidey. I guess Marvel does it less than DC,
>though.
Technically Spiderman has a symbol on his chest... A spider.
He also has it on his back as well. Aquaman didn't have one on his
chest, though he did have it on his belt depending on which year and
version you were viewing him. Prince Namor/Submariner was
bare-chested and naturally had no symbol.
Help yourself to this small showing of them to see who has it
and who doesn't:
http://daman.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DC-COMICS-da-man.jpg
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:52:16 -0400, Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >(I'm sitting here trying to think of heroes that don't have chest
> >symbols (limiting it to those who wear tights). All I can come up with
> >right away are Aquaman and Spidey. I guess Marvel does it less than DC,
> >though.
>
> Technically Spiderman has a symbol on his chest... A spider.
> He also has it on his back as well. Aquaman didn't have one on his
> chest, though he did have it on his belt depending on which year and
> version you were viewing him. Prince Namor/Submariner was
> bare-chested and naturally had no symbol.
Iron Man (why did they change his light to a Superman shield shape
anyway?), Thor, Hulk, Giant/Ant Man, Wasp (heck, the entire original
Avengers line up), Nick Fury ... I don't think Green Arrow ever did did
he? Or Speedy?
>
> Help yourself to this small showing of them to see who has it
> and who doesn't:
>
> http://daman.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DC-COMICS-da-man.jpg
--
Thanatos
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:52:16 -0400, Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >(I'm sitting here trying to think of heroes that don't have chest
> >symbols (limiting it to those who wear tights). All I can come up with
> >right away are Aquaman and Spidey. I guess Marvel does it less than DC,
> >though.
>
> Technically Spiderman has a symbol on his chest... A spider.
> He also has it on his back as well. Aquaman didn't have one on his
> chest, though he did have it on his belt depending on which year and
> version you were viewing him. Prince Namor/Submariner was
> bare-chested and naturally had no symbol.
>
> Help yourself to this small showing of them to see who has it
> and who doesn't:
>
> http://daman.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DC-COMICS-da-man.jpg
It always cracks me up how incredibly chiseled all those guys are. The
supernatural heroes are one thing, but the normal humans like Batman
would have to spend almost every waking moment in the gym to look like
that, leaving no time at all for crime-fighting or being an alter-ego
like Bruce Wayne.
Professor Bubba
Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:22:01 -0400, Professor Bubba
> <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> >> Spider-Man has a chest symbol.
> >
> >So does Power Girl. Heh heh.
>
> Heh heh. But seriously, I read somewhere that the reason for the ...
> revealing feature ... of Power Girl's costume is that she could not
> decide what symbol to use. A nice explanation and one that I wish
> every other female superhero would take seriously. Wait, did I say
> that out loud?
Some character or other in the Power Girl book suggested that the
cleavage window is there in order to distract her opponents.
And, yes, let there be more such. Tits, justice and the American Way.
Captain Infinity
Professor Bubba wrote:
It's just colored ink on paper, you know. Tits don't really exist.
**
Captain Infinity
Ronald O. Christian
<Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>It's just colored ink on paper, you know. Tits don't really exist.
Let's not go overboard. Tits really do exist. Just not those
particular ones.
Joe Pfeiffer
Shades of Modesty Blaise and her "nailer" technique.
Joe Pfeiffer
Ummm.... you may need to get out more. Just sayin' is all...
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
> Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>> <ghee...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> The star *blew up* in the opening titles, remember? :)
>>
>> It's been a long time. I don't remember. That being the case, there
>> should be *nothing* to find.
>
> The dialog said the planet was going ot explode. The other Kryptonians
> said that the planet was just shifting it's orbit; no problem. The
> visual of the star exploding ... came out of nowhere and wasn't
> supported by the narrative at all.
What narrative is that? These are exactly the words in the movie before
the star explodes in what is clearly a Type II supernova:
On the doomed planet Krypton, a wise scientist placed
his infant son into a spacecraft and launched him to Earth.
Raised by a kind farmer and his wife, the boy grew up
to become our greatest protector... Superman.
But when astronomers discovered the distant remains
of his home world, Superman disappeared.
"You will travel far, my little Kal-El. But we will never leave
you, even in the face of our death. You will make my strength your
own. You will see my life through your eyes, as your life will be
seen through mine. The son becomes the father, and the father the
son."
Kaboom.
No mention of orbits shifting.
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:25:15 -0400, Captain Infinity
> <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>
>> It's just colored ink on paper, you know. Tits don't really exist.
>
> Let's not go overboard. Tits really do exist. Just not those
> particular ones.
Photographs of Laura Vandervoort's chest have recently come to my
attention that seem to disprove the gist of that last statement.
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
> It always cracks me up how incredibly chiseled all those guys are. The
> supernatural heroes are one thing, but the normal humans like Batman
> would have to spend almost every waking moment in the gym to look like
> that, leaving no time at all for crime-fighting or being an alter-ego
> like Bruce Wayne.
Steroids.
Ubiquitous
> Watch it here:
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-returns-deleted-opening-scene-216110
I can see why it was removed -- pointless and stupid.
How did he aquire that space craft?
Why didn't it shield him from Kyrptonite radiation?
Was it there anything left of Krypton after it exploded? Honestly, I preferred John Byrne's
"Return to Krypton" in which Krypton was a slowly-condensing cloud of Kryptonite chunks.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Ubiquitous
> Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>> Gheerax IV <ghee...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> >The star *blew up* in the opening titles, remember? :)
>>
>> It's been a long time. I don't remember. That being the case, there
>> should be *nothing* to find.
>>
>The dialog said the planet was going ot explode. The other Kryptonians
>said that the planet was just shifting it's orbit; no problem. The
>visual of the star exploding ... came out of nowhere and wasn't
>supported by the narrative at all.
Obviously, they were wrong about what was going to explode. :-)
Ubiquitous
ylongandannoyingdomainname.com wrote:
(yes, it is)
About which movie are we talking?
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>>It's just colored ink on paper, you know. Tits don't really exist.
>
>Let's not go overboard. Tits really do exist. Just not those
>particular ones.
I know of someone who attends conventions who would make you believe.
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
> supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@aver
> ylongandannoyingdomainname.com wrote:
>
> (yes, it is)
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Ubiquitous?
>> Kaboom.
>>
>> No mention of orbits shifting.
>
> About which movie are we talking?
Reread the words in quotation marks in the Subject: line, Ubiquitous.
Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Ubiquitous?
Ubiquitous
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@av
er
>> ylongandannoyingdomainname.com wrote:
>>
>> (yes, it is)
>
>What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
>with television, Ubiquitous?
>
>>> Kaboom.
>>>
>>> No mention of orbits shifting.
>>
>> About which movie are we talking?
>
>Reread the words in quotation marks in the Subject: line, Ubiquitous
>Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Ubiquitous?
Hello, Seamus!
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
> supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@av
> erylongandannoyingdomainname.com wrote:
>> On 29/07/2011 5:49 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> About which movie are we talking?
>>
>> Reread the words in quotation marks in the Subject: line, Ubiquitous
>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Ubiquitous?
>
> Hello, Seamus!
Who is "Seamus", Ubiquitous? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>Iron Man (why did they change his light to a Superman shield shape
>anyway?), Thor, Hulk, Giant/Ant Man, Wasp (heck, the entire original
>Avengers line up), Nick Fury ... I don't think Green Arrow ever did did
>he? Or Speedy?
I seem to recall that Green Arrow had some sort of revamp at
some point and they tried to add a symbol of some sort to his outfit.
Then decided against it and removed it rather quickly. Speedy had an
arrow on his tunic originally.
Nick Fury had a shield as part of his gun holster, then they
put it on his outfit... then it was removed. Hell, they can't decide
whether Fury should be white or black -- what makes you think they can
decide on what he'll have as a uniform/outfit?
Seriously, I finally got around to seeing the outtake with the
giant S on what was left of Krypton. Glad they cut that shit out --
it would've detracted from an already sucktastic film.
Professor Bubba
Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:33:12 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Iron Man (why did they change his light to a Superman shield shape
> >anyway?), Thor, Hulk, Giant/Ant Man, Wasp (heck, the entire original
> >Avengers line up), Nick Fury ... I don't think Green Arrow ever did did
> >he? Or Speedy?
>
> I seem to recall that Green Arrow had some sort of revamp at
> some point and they tried to add a symbol of some sort to his outfit.
> Then decided against it and removed it rather quickly. Speedy had an
> arrow on his tunic originally.
Green Arrow recently had a stylized G on his belt buckle.
> Nick Fury had a shield as part of his gun holster, then they
> put it on his outfit... then it was removed. Hell, they can't decide
> whether Fury should be white or black -- what makes you think they can
> decide on what he'll have as a uniform/outfit?
>
> Seriously, I finally got around to seeing the outtake with the
> giant S on what was left of Krypton. Glad they cut that shit out --
> it would've detracted from an already sucktastic film.
My guess it that it was a setup for a sequel, as the imprisonment of
Zod and the other two was in the first Reeve film.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:33:12 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Iron Man (why did they change his light to a Superman shield shape
> >anyway?), Thor, Hulk, Giant/Ant Man, Wasp (heck, the entire original
> >Avengers line up), Nick Fury ... I don't think Green Arrow ever did did
> >he? Or Speedy?
>
> I seem to recall that Green Arrow had some sort of revamp at
> some point and they tried to add a symbol of some sort to his outfit.
> Then decided against it and removed it rather quickly. Speedy had an
> arrow on his tunic originally.
> Nick Fury had a shield as part of his gun holster, then they
> put it on his outfit... then it was removed. Hell, they can't decide
> whether Fury should be white or black -- what makes you think they can
> decide on what he'll have as a uniform/outfit?
>
> Seriously, I finally got around to seeing the outtake with the
> giant S on what was left of Krypton. Glad they cut that shit out --
> it would've detracted from an already sucktastic film.
I think it would have set the tone beautifully. As a bonus, maybe
they'd have cut 5 minutes from somewhere else - anywhere else - which
would only make the film better. Seriously. Any 5 minutes, at random,
chop 'em out, movie is better.
Anim8rFSK
web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
Superman the Movie. The one where they talk about the orbit shifting,
which whoever posted the above conveniently left out.
Interior Krypton council chamber:
Jor-El: This planet will explode within 30 days, if not sooner.
Smug female council member: I tell you Krypton is simply shifting it's
orbit.
tenworld
> In article <jhi3371au2rg5c724h39macht7pioo2...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbalde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:52:16 -0400, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu>
> > wrote:
>
> > >(I'm sitting here trying to think of heroes that don't have chest
> > >symbols (limiting it to those who wear tights). All I can come up with
> > >right away are Aquaman and Spidey. I guess Marvel does it less than DC,
> > >though.
>
> > Technically Spiderman has a symbol on his chest... A spider.
> > He also has it on his back as well. Aquaman didn't have one on his
> > chest, though he did have it on his belt depending on which year and
> > version you were viewing him. Prince Namor/Submariner was
> > bare-chested and naturally had no symbol.
>
> > Help yourself to this small showing of them to see who has it
> > and who doesn't:
>
> >http://daman.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DC-COMICS-da-man.jpg
>
> It always cracks me up how incredibly chiseled all those guys are. The
> supernatural heroes are one thing, but the normal humans like Batman
> would have to spend almost every waking moment in the gym to look like
> that, leaving no time at all for crime-fighting or being an alter-ego
> like Bruce Wayne.
Bruce Wayne invented both kevlar reinforced body armour and a HGH-
steroid blend. His money secretly came from selling the drug to
Canadian doctors and cross-licensing the body armour to NFL suppliers.
Bill Steele
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> Ostensibly, based on other references to it, Superman didn't
> know for sure that his planet blew up. So he left Earth and
> Lois for 7 years to check out and confirm that there was
> Krypton debris. The significance of the "S" would have been
> "Yep, Krypton musta blown up real good." And then he
> turned around for the rest of his Seven Year Mission, barely
> making it back alive.
In the Reeve movie, didn't the trip take four years?
KalElFan
news:ws21-6B6E71.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Jor-El says 12 years will have passed, but he was taking Kal-El
on a tour of many other things, galaxies, etc., as part of his
training. It wasn't a direct trip to Krypton and then back.
The sequence in this case doesn't rule out that a direct route
there and back might be a year return trip. It's just that when
the Routh version encounters the trouble and his ship gets
damaged, the return trip took 12 times as long.
The trouble with the kryptonite at the S-shield location could
easily have been an unexpected Brainiac trap set for Kal-El.
Maybe Kal-El's ship has grabbed or downloaded whatever
is needed, or maybe Kal-El only gets part of what he needs
or nothing at all. A writer choice, as would be how long it
takes Brainiac to track Kal-El down on Earth in the sequel.
It could be only a year or three after Superman Returns
when the sequel is set, even if it were made 7 years later.
They'd have to recast the kid but Routh and Bosworth and
the rest of the cast, who I don't think were to blame for any
of the problems, would still work fine. If they couldn't do
it or wanted too much money, they could recast. Superman
Returns was itself a sequel of sorts to Superman II, but made
25 years later with a different cast. So to respond to Ron's
point, I'd never say never and I think Warners should be
making an SR sequel, as well as a movie based on a new,
rebooted version of Smallville, along with the Nolan movie.
Release one each June based on the new planned release
date, and if they're successful as I think they would be make
a trilogy out of each. One Superman movie a year is not too
much and gives everyone plenty of time to anticipate the
next one. Each incarnation has substantial core bases
and the multiverse heritage/tradition of DC would allow
the movies to set up and have a crossover finale. There's
no need for an origin story in the Routh or Welling series,
just (presumably) Man of Steel, which would lead it off.
Such a plan ought to also make a deal with the estates
more likely, because (i) the cost to Warners/DC is spread
over several movies and (ii) no way the estates could ever
get a better deal elsewhere. The Routh and especially the
Smallville rebooted version could also be kept to a more
reasonable budget, maybe $100 million on average and
not the $250 million I've seen mentioned for Man of
Steel.
Nolan & Co. might wonder why it's in their interests, but
it should be obvious. It unites the base to get out for the
first movie in huge numbers, because its success drives
the off-year movies. Conversely, not doing it gets many
Routh and Smallville fans staying home for the free movie
channel run of Man of Steel. Not to mention the potential
problems if the estates issue can't be resolved.
Professor Bubba
Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
A little less, in subjective time. Kal-El is an infant when he's put
into the spiky rocket; he's about two and a half when the Kents find
him. Jor-El's hologram says Krypton had been destroyed thousands of
years before; Lex says Krypton blew up in 1938. Also, how anybody
could have detected a planet in another galaxy was left unexplained in
any of the films.
In Superman Returns, the round trip in a damaged and really big spiky
rocket takes five years. The new opening sequence shows us that
Superman was at Krypton for only two or three minutes. Now *that's*
planning a vacation.
Jim Beaver
"Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:290720111536455788%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid...
> A little less, in subjective time. Kal-El is an infant when he's put
> into the spiky rocket; he's about two and a half when the Kents find
> him. Jor-El's hologram says Krypton had been destroyed thousands of
> years before; Lex says Krypton blew up in 1938. Also, how anybody
> could have detected a planet in another galaxy was left unexplained in
> any of the films.
As was the precise mechanism by which somebody can fly.
Professor Bubba
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, an audience will accept the impossible but
refuse the implausible.
Flying is impossible -- but we can detect extra-solar planets and have,
indeed, found a couple hundred of them. This hauls the idea of
extra-solar planet-detecting (ugh) out of the realm of the impossible
and onto the sad, dry, hard ground of the known and expectable. All of
a sudden, there are real-world rules about detecting planets. The
audience happily grants the film permission to have Superman fly,
because that's what Superman does -- but the audience has a lot harder
time with things that don't make much sense, such as detecting planets
that are, what, ten or eleven galaxies away?
To put it another way, the audience has no problem accepting that
Kal-El's rocket could cross intergalactic distances in just a few
years, because it's long since come to accept things like warp drive.
What it had trouble accepting was Superman dropping everything and
running off for five years without saying goodbye or explaining himself
or -- well, doing any of the things that you or I would be expected to
do if we suddenly decided to leave everybody and everything we knew and
loved for a period of years, or even forever.
Merrick Baldelli
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>My guess it that it was a setup for a sequel, as the imprisonment of
>Zod and the other two was in the first Reeve film.
How? Although more importantly, Why?
"Superman Returns" is supposed to be happening after General
Zod and his Henchmen of Stupidity were exposed to the red light of
Krypton thereby making them vulnerable. Even if they were to survive
after falling to their icy deaths, I can't see them doing much of
anything that hasn't already been done with them, including
"re-imagining" them back into existence.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>> Seriously, I finally got around to seeing the outtake with the
>> giant S on what was left of Krypton. Glad they cut that shit out --
>> it would've detracted from an already sucktastic film.
>
>I think it would have set the tone beautifully.
Really? Because seeing it even in that out take, it's the
ultimate sledgehammering in product placement. A method of sponsoring
that I find grossly annoying and off-putting.
>As a bonus, maybe they'd have cut 5 minutes from somewhere else -
>anywhere else - which would only make the film better. Seriously.
>Any 5 minutes, at random, chop 'em out, movie is better.
There's no doubt the movie could use for more editing. A lot
more. Like the stalker scene with Superman at Lois Lane's house. I
mean I liked the "feeling dirty" feeling I got watching the
superheroes abusing their abilities like they did in "The Watchmen",
but this scene was just plain creepy and wrong... That and Routh has
all the acting ability and character depth of a mannequin.
Professor Bubba
Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:08:18 -0400, Professor Bubba
> <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> >My guess it that it was a setup for a sequel, as the imprisonment of
> >Zod and the other two was in the first Reeve film.
>
> How? Although more importantly, Why?
>
> "Superman Returns" is supposed to be happening after General
> Zod and his Henchmen of Stupidity were exposed to the red light of
> Krypton thereby making them vulnerable. Even if they were to survive
> after falling to their icy deaths, I can't see them doing much of
> anything that hasn't already been done with them, including
> "re-imagining" them back into existence.
I don't know what the point of the setup was supposed to be, but the
sequence goes absolutely nowhere. Superman gets to Krypton, finds a
bunch of kryptonite and a big mountain or palisade or something with an
\S/ carved into it. Then he's overpowered by the kryptonite but
manages to hit some kind of automatic return thingie, and back to Earth
he goes.
In the first film, the three criminals are sent to the Phantom Zone,
and then we don't see them again until the beginning of the second
film. That open-ended kind of thing is what I meant, not that the
sequence from SR was supposed to have been about Zod. Maybe the \S/
was the doorway to some kind of repository of cool Kryptonian
knowledge, and it would have followed Kal-El back to Earth in time for
the followup to SR. It doesn't matter a bit anymore, of course.
TT
> Watch it here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-returns-deleted-opening-scene-216110
This is rather cool scene. But what do you people think about the movie
itself, was it any good? How does it compare to originals?
I haven't seen it, and liked a lot about 1978 and 1980 films.
Supergirl (1984) sucked big time as a film, but had a super looking girl
in it.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:38:40 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Seriously, I finally got around to seeing the outtake with the
> >> giant S on what was left of Krypton. Glad they cut that shit out --
> >> it would've detracted from an already sucktastic film.
> >
> >I think it would have set the tone beautifully.
>
> Really? Because seeing it even in that out take, it's the
> ultimate sledgehammering in product placement. A method of sponsoring
> that I find grossly annoying and off-putting.
Yes. Setting the tone for the crapfest that follows beautifully.
>
> >As a bonus, maybe they'd have cut 5 minutes from somewhere else -
> >anywhere else - which would only make the film better. Seriously.
> >Any 5 minutes, at random, chop 'em out, movie is better.
>
> There's no doubt the movie could use for more editing. A lot
> more. Like the stalker scene with Superman at Lois Lane's house. I
> mean I liked the "feeling dirty" feeling I got watching the
> superheroes abusing their abilities like they did in "The Watchmen",
> but this scene was just plain creepy and wrong... That and Routh has
> all the acting ability and character depth of a mannequin.
I'd cut all the 'young clark' flashback stuff where he was wearing
glasses, too. Sigh.
Anim8rFSK
TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >
> > Watch it here:
> > http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-returns-deleted-openin
> > g-scene-216110
>
> This is rather cool scene. But what do you people think about the movie
> itself, was it any good? How does it compare to originals?
Superman Returns? It's one of the worst movies ever made.
Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
Superman
Superman 2
Superman 3
Supergirl
Superman 4
Superman Returns
So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
>
> I haven't seen it, and liked a lot about 1978 and 1980 films.
>
> Supergirl (1984) sucked big time as a film, but had a super looking girl
> in it.
--
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <ajJYp.63880$mX5....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Watch it here:
> > > http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-returns-deleted-open
> > > in
> > > g-scene-216110
> >
> > This is rather cool scene. But what do you people think about the movie
> > itself, was it any good? How does it compare to originals?
>
> Superman Returns? It's one of the worst movies ever made.
>
> Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
>
> Superman
> Superman 2
> Superman 3
> Supergirl
> Superman 4
> Superman Returns
Just saw Captain America and they played a trailer for the new Spiderman
and it looks like they're going back to the beginning AGAIN.
Why the hell do studios feel the need to keep telling the same damn
story over and over when it comes to comic book characters? We already
have a movie where the spider bites him and he discovers his powers.
Enough already. It's not like there aren't a million and one *other*
Spiderman stories they could tell.
Same thing with the Superman movies. How many times do we need to see
the whole "falls to earth and grows up in Smallville" bit? There are 73
years worth of other stories to tell. Sheesh.
TT
> In article<ajJYp.63880$mX5....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Watch it here:
>>> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/superman-returns-deleted-openin
>>> g-scene-216110
>>
>> This is rather cool scene. But what do you people think about the movie
>> itself, was it any good? How does it compare to originals?
>
> Superman Returns? It's one of the worst movies ever made.
>
> Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
>
> Superman
> Superman 2
> Superman 3
> Supergirl
> Superman 4
> Superman Returns
>
> So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
Heheh. Ok, I won't watch it...
TT
Yeah. It's like Groundhog's day. Except each new version is always
worse. Guess they do it because (some) people buy that crap. Perhaps
even worse is doing prequels, introducing characters before films that
are already made...aka latest X men with teenage actors. X Men Origins:
Wolverine wasn't that bad though.
Captain America was awful, really really bad. Guess you'd like it if you
were 10 year old and never saw a good movie. Boring action with some
special effects. None of the characters were interesting and the
plot/characters were one-dimensional and the metamorphosis and physics
were not convincing.
Also, I never understood the popularity of new Batman series...but
that's another story...
Thanatos
TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
Silvestri's score is pretty darned good, though. He seems to have
successfully avoided the synth-heavy musical wallpaper style that's been
plaguing film music for about half a decade now. There's actual themes
to be heard... and musical development. Shocking!
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
>
>Superman
>Superman 2
>Superman 3
>Supergirl
>Superman 4
>Superman Returns
>
>So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
Ron
-
2003 FLHTCUI "Noisy Glide"
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.ronaldchristian.com
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
>>>>>> The star *blew up* in the opening titles, remember? :)
>>> No mention of orbits shifting.
>>
>> About which movie are we talking?
>
> Superman the Movie.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Anim8rFSK? The only Superman movie with an exploding
star in the opening titles is Superman Returns, Anim8rFSK. Suffering
from memory problems, Anim8rFSK. And on the topic of television, I seem
to recall the star blowing up also in the opening titles sequence for
the Lois and Clark TV show, back in the day.
dA.b0mB
> Flying is impossible -- but we can detect extra-solar planets and have,
> indeed, found a couple hundred of them. This hauls the idea of
> extra-solar planet-detecting (ugh) out of the realm of the impossible
> and onto the sad, dry, hard ground of the known and expectable. All of
> a sudden, there are real-world rules about detecting planets. The
> audience happily grants the film permission to have Superman fly,
> because that's what Superman does -- but the audience has a lot harder
> time with things that don't make much sense, such as detecting planets
> that are, what, ten or eleven galaxies away?
The star exploded at the start of the movie. Perhaps it was that that
they detected: a supernova. We can easily see *those* ten or eleven
galaxies away. Something about it made Superman suspect it was his home
planet's star; perhaps just which galaxy it was in and the timing.
Galaxies get a supernova about every hundred years, so that's plausibly
enough information to say whether it's the one or not.
> What it had trouble accepting was Superman dropping everything and
> running off for five years without saying goodbye or explaining himself
> or -- well, doing any of the things that you or I would be expected to
> do if we suddenly decided to leave everybody and everything we knew and
> loved for a period of years, or even forever.
Perhaps he didn't intend to be gone as long as he was, or very long at
all. The new footage shows that his ship was damaged. Maybe it was a lot
slower for the return trip because of that damage. He might have
expected to be gone only days.
Henderson
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:08:18 -0400, Professor Bubba
> <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>> My guess it that it was a setup for a sequel, as the imprisonment of
>> Zod and the other two was in the first Reeve film.
>
> How? Although more importantly, Why?
Others have suggested a Brainiac related plot elsewhere in this thread,
Baldelli.
> "Superman Returns" is supposed to be happening after General
> Zod and his Henchmen of Stupidity were exposed to the red light of
> Krypton thereby making them vulnerable.
Irrelevant to the hypothetical SR sequel, Baldelli, which would
undoubtedly have a separate plot from that of Superman II.
> Even if they were to survive after falling to their icy deaths,
Classic contradiction.
> I can't see them doing much of anything that hasn't already
> been done with them, including "re-imagining" them back into
> existence.
Irrelevant to the hypothetical SR sequel, Baldelli, which would
undoubtedly have a separate plot from that of Superman II.
Henderson
> wrote:
>
>>> Seriously, I finally got around to seeing the outtake with the
>>> giant S on what was left of Krypton. Glad they cut that shit out --
>>> it would've detracted from an already sucktastic film.
>>
>> I think it would have set the tone beautifully.
>
> Really? Because seeing it even in that out take, it's the
> ultimate sledgehammering in product placement. A method of sponsoring
> that I find grossly annoying and off-putting.
What product placement was that, Baldelli?
dA.b0mB
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK<ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
>>
>> Superman
>> Superman 2
>> Superman 3
>> Supergirl
>> Superman 4
>> Superman Returns
>>
>> So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
>
> I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
I interpret it as he's flying faster than light, and so back in time.
The earth seems to turn backwards from his perspective.
Professor Bubba
wrote:
> On 29/07/2011 5:59 PM, Professor Bubba wrote:
> > Flying is impossible -- but we can detect extra-solar planets and have,
> > indeed, found a couple hundred of them. This hauls the idea of
> > extra-solar planet-detecting (ugh) out of the realm of the impossible
> > and onto the sad, dry, hard ground of the known and expectable. All of
> > a sudden, there are real-world rules about detecting planets. The
> > audience happily grants the film permission to have Superman fly,
> > because that's what Superman does -- but the audience has a lot harder
> > time with things that don't make much sense, such as detecting planets
> > that are, what, ten or eleven galaxies away?
>
> The star exploded at the start of the movie. Perhaps it was that that
> they detected: a supernova. We can easily see *those* ten or eleven
> galaxies away.
Even granting your point (and I'm not sure we could see a supernova at
that distance), that tenth or eleventh galaxy would be millions of
light-years away. We wouldn't have seen the nova for millions of years
after it occurred. There's no representation that Krypton exploded
millions of years ago.
It doesn't make sense.
> > What it had trouble accepting was Superman dropping everything and
> > running off for five years without saying goodbye or explaining himself
> > or -- well, doing any of the things that you or I would be expected to
> > do if we suddenly decided to leave everybody and everything we knew and
> > loved for a period of years, or even forever.
>
> Perhaps he didn't intend to be gone as long as he was, or very long at
> all. The new footage shows that his ship was damaged. Maybe it was a lot
> slower for the return trip because of that damage. He might have
> expected to be gone only days.
I have suggested this myself more than once here, but it's not in the
film, and it would have been trivially easy for them to have made the
point. I conclude that either they didn't think of it, or they didn't
care about it.
Making up stuff so that the film makes more sense is generous of you,
but your kindness is unwarranted. They screwed this thing up, period.
Professor Bubba
wrote:
Some people prefer to see it that way because it makes more sense, but
it's not so. The intent is that Superman reverses the quakes, etc., by
reversing Earth's rotation, which somehow turns back time and undoes
all? most of? the damage.
If Superman had really traveled through time, he'd have created a
paradox, with another, slightly younger Superman still in existence at
the moment he saves Lois.
FWIW, the title of the music playing under the sequence is "Turning
Back the World."
Ubiquitous
That's what I thought, but I couldn't remember if they showed clips
of Krypton in the opening credits.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Merrick Baldelli
>Why the hell do studios feel the need to keep telling the same damn
>story over and over when it comes to comic book characters? We already
>have a movie where the spider bites him and he discovers his powers.
>Enough already. It's not like there aren't a million and one *other*
>Spiderman stories they could tell.
Oooh, ooh! I know the answer to this.
Because for as long as sheep continue to fork out money for
the crapfest -- to the order of millions -- then Hollywood doesn't
feel the need to be creative at all.
Anim8rFSK
Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> >
> >Superman
> >Superman 2
> >Superman 3
> >Supergirl
> >Superman 4
> >Superman Returns
> >
> >So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
>
> I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
>
Of course, that's the orginal end of 2, just slapped onto 1. :D
But even if you give #2 a 10, Superman Returns is still only a .625!
Anim8rFSK
"dA.b0mB" <dab...@gmai1.c0m> wrote:
The musical cut for that is called 'turning back the world' but maybe
people take the name too literally. :)
I'm more worried about what it is he DOES since ... he doesn't actually
seem to do anything ...
Anim8rFSK
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <j109a8$3b5$4...@speranza.aioe.org>, dA.b0mB <dab...@gmai1.c0m>
> wrote:
>
> > On 30/07/2011 2:22 AM, Ronald O. Christian wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK<ANIM...@cox.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> > >>
> > >> Superman
> > >> Superman 2
> > >> Superman 3
> > >> Supergirl
> > >> Superman 4
> > >> Superman Returns
> > >>
> > >> So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
> > >
> > > I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> > > to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
> >
> > I interpret it as he's flying faster than light, and so back in time.
> > The earth seems to turn backwards from his perspective.
>
>
> Some people prefer to see it that way because it makes more sense, but
> it's not so. The intent is that Superman reverses the quakes, etc., by
> reversing Earth's rotation, which somehow turns back time and undoes
> all? most of? the damage.
It's completely unclear. Jimmy remembers the earthquake, but it's
obvious nothing happened to Lois. It really would have worked better if
he'd saved her car from the crevasse in time on his do over, but then
that begs the question of why he let badness happen to thousands of
others. To that end his best course is to catch the second missile ...
>
> If Superman had really traveled through time, he'd have created a
> paradox, with another, slightly younger Superman still in existence at
> the moment he saves Lois.
>
> FWIW, the title of the music playing under the sequence is "Turning
> Back the World."
--
Professor Bubba
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
It's just too damn dumb to make any sense at all. Maybe the conceit is
that everybody remembers the quake, but all the damage caused by it has
been reversed by the world-turning trick. It looks as if Superman
turned the world back just enough to save Lois -- and there's also
Jimmy, arriving upon the scene as if time had proceeded normally for
him.
I haven't ever bothered to think about this for very long, but what I
think they tried to show us is that Superman reversed all the effects
of the quake by reversing time, but the time-reversal didn't affect the
sequence of events at all.
No, it makes no sense.
TT
Does a guy flying around in a blue bodysuit make sense?
Ian J. Ball
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> >
> >Superman
> >Superman 2
> >Superman 3
> >Supergirl
> >Superman 4
> >Superman Returns
> >
> >So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
>
> I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
You can argue that S2 is *more entertaining* than S1 (I probably fall
into that camp). But it's hard to argue that S2 is actually "better"
than S1. FWIW...
--
"Am I a bird? No, I'm a bat. I'm Batman. Or am I? Yes, I am Batman."
- Abed as "Batman" on "Halloween", "Community", 10/29/09
Ian J. Ball
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <4o8737hqr1pf9upir...@4ax.com>,
> Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > >Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> > >
> > >Superman
> > >Superman 2
> > >Superman 3
> > >Supergirl
> > >Superman 4
> > >Superman Returns
> > >
> > >So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
> >
> > I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> > to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
>
> Of course, that's the orginal end of 2, just slapped onto 1. :D
>
> But even if you give #2 a 10, Superman Returns is still only a .625!
Look on the bright side! - No matter how bad is "Sup. Returns" is, at
least Brandan Routh was better in that than he ever was on "One Life To
Live"!!!1! :D :D :D
;p
Thanatos
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:46:27 -0700, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Why the hell do studios feel the need to keep telling the same damn
> >story over and over when it comes to comic book characters? We already
> >have a movie where the spider bites him and he discovers his powers.
> >Enough already. It's not like there aren't a million and one *other*
> >Spiderman stories they could tell.
>
> Oooh, ooh! I know the answer to this.
>
> Because for as long as sheep continue to fork out money for
> the crapfest -- to the order of millions -- then Hollywood doesn't
> feel the need to be creative at all.
But they don't even have to *be* creative! The stories are already all
right there in the comics. All they have to do is use them.
Thanatos
"dA.b0mB" <dab...@gmai1.c0m> wrote:
> On 29/07/2011 5:59 PM, Professor Bubba wrote:
> > Flying is impossible -- but we can detect extra-solar planets and have,
> > indeed, found a couple hundred of them. This hauls the idea of
> > extra-solar planet-detecting (ugh) out of the realm of the impossible
> > and onto the sad, dry, hard ground of the known and expectable. All of
> > a sudden, there are real-world rules about detecting planets. The
> > audience happily grants the film permission to have Superman fly,
> > because that's what Superman does -- but the audience has a lot harder
> > time with things that don't make much sense, such as detecting planets
> > that are, what, ten or eleven galaxies away?
>
> The star exploded at the start of the movie. Perhaps it was that that
> they detected: a supernova. We can easily see *those* ten or eleven
> galaxies away. Something about it made Superman suspect it was his home
> planet's star; perhaps just which galaxy it was in and the timing.
> Galaxies get a supernova about every hundred years, so that's plausibly
> enough information to say whether it's the one or not.
Of course there's the fact that even the closest galaxy to our own is 2
million light years away, so any supernova we're seeing now actually
exploded when dinosaurs were still stomping around on earth.
Thanatos
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
Yeah, but you can't really say that proves anything one way or the
other. John Williams names the cues as he writes them. Sometimes they're
not exactly accurate.
Arthur Lipscomb
> In article<4o8737hqr1pf9upir...@4ax.com>,
> Ronald O. Christian<ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK<ANIM...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
>>>
>>> Superman
>>> Superman 2
>>> Superman 3
>>> Supergirl
I think Supergirl unfairly gets a bad rep. The first time I saw
Supergirl, it was on VHS and the first few subsequent times I saw it was
also pan and scan on TV. Keep in mind there are multiple versions of
the movie: 124 min (international version), 105 min (theatrical
version), 138 min (director's cut) and there's the edited TV version.
Plus it was filmed in 2.20 : 1 aspect ratio. If I had to watch the
edited pan and scan TV version I wouldn't (and didn't) like it either!
But watching one of the longer versions in the proper aspect ratio is a
totally different experience.
That's not to say a person couldn't have seen it originally in the
theater and still not liked it. But some movies take more than one
viewing to "get" and if the only exposure is the shorter (pan and scan)
version then "bad movie" probably sinks in and if you see it again in
the same inferior format "bad movie" is reinforced.
I would highly recommend anyone who only saw the pan and scan theatrical
or TV version of Supergirl to give the international version a try.
It's not a great movie but it is a very entertaining movie.
>>> Superman 4
>>> Superman Returns
>>>
>>> So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
>>
>> I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
>> to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
>
> You can argue that S2 is *more entertaining* than S1 (I probably fall
> into that camp).
That's a very true observation that the better movie is not always the
more entertaining movie. I often find myself watching and rewatching
movies and TV that aren't as good as other movies and TV shows I refuse
to watch or rewatch.
But it's hard to argue that S2 is actually "better"
> than S1. FWIW...
>
25 years ago, I would have insisted that S2 was hands down
unquestionably the better movie. But over the years, I have come to
truly appreciate and enjoy S1. And at this stage in my life, I'd even
concede that S1 is probably the "better" movie but S2 is still more
entertaining. ;-)
Anim8rFSK
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
Even that doesn't work, because Jimmy remembers the quake, but Lois
doesn't seem to ... she just seems to think she ran out of gas. Even if
she remembers the quake, she certainly doesn't seem to recall being
buried alive.
Can you imagine trying to convict Lex on this? "We all remember it
happening your honor" "Objection! How about some photos of all this
damage he caused??" Luckily Lex already has the death sentence on 12
systems.
>
> I haven't ever bothered to think about this for very long, but what I
> think they tried to show us is that Superman reversed all the effects
> of the quake by reversing time, but the time-reversal didn't affect the
> sequence of events at all.
>
> No, it makes no sense.
I've never understood the originally intended sequence of events either,
when it was one big movie. Apparently Supes tosses the first missile
into space, freeing the Phantom Zoners, and then saves everybody in
California, no Lois dying. Proceed with the SECOND movie (awkwardly)
and then when they get to the end where Lois is unhappy, Supes roofies
her not with the magic THOR kiss, but with the turn back the world
trick, which is ... a really lame reason and Jor-El would be pissed off
royal; heck, Pa Kent wouldn't be any too proud either. And how far did
he turn back the clock THAT time and what did he reset? If he goes back
far enough that Lois doesn't remember Niagra Falls, won't Zod & Friends
still be out there?
>
> > > If Superman had really traveled through time, he'd have created a
> > > paradox, with another, slightly younger Superman still in existence at
> > > the moment he saves Lois.
> > >
> > > FWIW, the title of the music playing under the sequence is "Turning
> > > Back the World."
--
Anim8rFSK
<ijball-NO_SPAM-96C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4o8737hqr1pf9upir...@4ax.com>,
> Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > >Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> > >
> > >Superman
> > >Superman 2
> > >Superman 3
> > >Supergirl
> > >Superman 4
> > >Superman Returns
> > >
> > >So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
> >
> > I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> > to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
>
> You can argue that S2 is *more entertaining* than S1 (I probably fall
> into that camp). But it's hard to argue that S2 is actually "better"
> than S1. FWIW...
The Donner cut of S2 is waaaaaaay better than the Lester version, except
it lacks an ending ...
Anim8rFSK
<ijball-NO_SPAM-730...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-AB504...@news.easynews.com>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <4o8737hqr1pf9upir...@4ax.com>,
> > Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> > > >
> > > >Superman
> > > >Superman 2
> > > >Superman 3
> > > >Supergirl
> > > >Superman 4
> > > >Superman Returns
> > > >
> > > >So even if you give Superman a 10, Superman returns rates a .3125
> > >
> > > I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
> > > to accomplish time travel? Really???) Otherwise agree.
> >
> > Of course, that's the orginal end of 2, just slapped onto 1. :D
> >
> > But even if you give #2 a 10, Superman Returns is still only a .625!
>
> Look on the bright side! - No matter how bad is "Sup. Returns" is, at
> least Brandan Routh was better in that than he ever was on "One Life To
> Live"!!!1! :D :D :D
>
> ;p
Or CHUCK
Ian J. Ball
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
No - his "Chuck" performances were Academy Award-level performances
compared to his OLTL days (where he - and I mean this *literally* -
couldn't get through a single line reading without muffing up the
delivery of the line!!).
Anim8rFSK
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
I've always wondered if when, for instance, you license SUPERMAN to make
a movie, what you get. Obviously you don't get everything just 'cause
it appeared in a Superman comic at some point. Superboy and Supergirl
are licensed separately, for instance. What about Superdog? Is he fair
game? First come first served? Sold separately as an option like
leather seats? Obviously Lois and Lana and Jimmy and Ma and Pa and Lex
and such get shared between different franchises. But could the next
movie just adapt WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW which pretty
much has EVERYBODY in it? Or do you get the characters but not the
plotlines?
Crosspost added to rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe just 'cause somebody
there might know, and I don't post to a DC group.
Anim8rFSK
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
But they are always wonderful.
Arthur Lipscomb
> still be out there?
>
>>
In the Richard Donner cut they are put back in the phantom zone
(although I'm not 100% sure the mirror thing *is* the phantom zone).
This changes history so they never escaped all the damage they did is
undone.
Captain Infinity
Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>I thought 2 was better than 1. (reversing the rotation of the earth
>to accomplish time travel? Really???)
Yes. That's exactly what happens. It's happened EVERY TIME it's been
tried.
**
Captain Infinity
Captain Infinity
Ian J. Ball wrote:
>You can argue that S2 is *more entertaining* than S1 (I probably fall
>into that camp). But it's hard to argue that S2 is actually "better"
>than S1. FWIW...
When is comes to movies, "more entertaining" is pretty much the definition
of "better".
**
Captain Infinity
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
I've been studying some of Williams' original handwritten sketch scores
for "Empire Strikes Back" (possibly the best score of his career) and
some of the notations above the music are pretty funny. You can tell he
was getting the film scenes from the studio out of order based on some
of the text notes he made about what's happening on screen at various
points in the score. At one point, for example, it's obvious that
Williams thought Lando was in league with Boba Fett hunting down Han
Solo.
Ken from Chicago
news:ANIM8Rfsk-61380...@news.easynews.com...
<snip>
> I've always wondered if when, for instance, you license SUPERMAN to make
> a movie, what you get. Obviously you don't get everything just 'cause
> it appeared in a Superman comic at some point. Superboy and Supergirl
> are licensed separately, for instance. What about Superdog? Is he fair
> game? First come first served? Sold separately as an option like
> leather seats? Obviously Lois and Lana and Jimmy and Ma and Pa and Lex
> and such get shared between different franchises. But could the next
> movie just adapt WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW which pretty
> much has EVERYBODY in it? Or do you get the characters but not the
> plotlines?
>
> Crosspost added to rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe just 'cause somebody
> there might know, and I don't post to a DC group.
>
> --
> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
It would be fun if it were a Superman buffet menu:
--Krypton
--Smallville
--Lang family
--Metropolis
--Lane family
--Fortress of Solitude
--Superboy
--Supergirl
--Superpets
--LSH
--Lori Lemuris
--Lex Luthor
--Brainiac
--Bizarro
--Myxtlplyk
--JLA
--JSA
--Multiverse
--etc.
You pick out which elements you want to include or if you're willing to pony
up the license fees for all of them then you get the whole kit and kaboodle.
-- Ken from Chicago
Arthur Lipscomb
I was scanning upcoming movies last night and saw "On The Beach" is
airing soon. "On the Beach" is a very good movie. But it's so
depressing that I'm ambivalent as to whether or not I want to watch it
again. On the other hand I don't have that same level of ambivalence
about rewatching movies like "Predator" or "Airplane!".
While there are some, I'll call "art house" or period movies, that do
actually have a lot of replay value, there are a lot of others that are
well made and entertaining but one or maybe two viewings is more than
enough. That doesn't make the popcorn flick that I enjoy watching again
and again a better" movie just more entertaining.
There are even plenty of bad movies like "The Phantom Menace" which I
will watch over and over again instead of a movie like Amadeus. While
Amadeus is a better movie in every way, it doesn't have a double-bladed
light saber battle at the end. And I'd rather watch *that* over and
over again than F. Murray Abraham giving an Oscar winning performance...
For a lot of movies the entertainment factors derives from them being
bad. See Troll 2 as an example. While I don't personally get any
entertainment value out of Troll 2, a lot of other people do. Just
because a lot of people can go to multiple screenings of Troll 2 and be
entertained, doesn't make it a better movie than one they may decide to
only see once.
Professor Bubba
<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
I'm really, really tired of this kind of thing. The fact that it's a
Superman film does not excuse it from committing acts of rampant
stupidity, or from confusing its audience so much that it has to make
up weird explanations to cover the abject failure of its makers to tell
a story.
Professor Bubba
However, if the name of the piece had been "Superman Turns Back Time,"
we wouldn't be having this part of the conversation.
Anim8rFSK
Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 7/30/2011 8:53 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> > In article<4o8737hqr1pf9upir...@4ax.com>,
> > Ronald O. Christian<ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:38:20 -0700, Anim8rFSK<ANIM...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Each Superman film is half as good as the one before.
> >>>
> >>> Superman
> >>> Superman 2
> >>> Superman 3
> >>> Supergirl
>
>
> I think Supergirl unfairly gets a bad rep. The first time I saw
> Supergirl, it was on VHS and the first few subsequent times I saw it was
> also pan and scan on TV. Keep in mind there are multiple versions of
> the movie: 124 min (international version), 105 min (theatrical
> version), 138 min (director's cut) and there's the edited TV version.
> Plus it was filmed in 2.20 : 1 aspect ratio. If I had to watch the
> edited pan and scan TV version I wouldn't (and didn't) like it either!
> But watching one of the longer versions in the proper aspect ratio is a
> totally different experience.
Yes. It's bizarre, but more Supergirl = better. I have the old Anchor
Bay DVD that has multiple versions, and the international is much more
watchable.
Have you checked out the Donner cut of S2?
Anim8rFSK
<ijball-NO_SPAM-D73...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Yikes.
Okay, good things to say about Routh
Hmmm
Um
er
well
that is
His wife is hot.
Anim8rFSK
Anim8rFSK
Standard license fee gets you 5 items from column A, 3 from column B,
and one each from columns C and D.