Naw bro, he hasn't sent anyone used condoms (that I know of).
Really though, if this does turn out out to be the first good one of these, I would Harley be able to contain my glee. It would be totally Waller, dude.
Against my better judgement I am actually starting to hold out hope for Suicide Squad. The Will Smith appeal is very real, and I really like what I've seen of Margot Robbie too.
But I'm still waiting for actual reviews.
-edit-
It also helps that Suicide Squad always had a dark comedic tone so the film being dark isn't a transformation like it is when done with Superman.
You'll believe WB's can make good superhero movies! MovieBob revisits the first Donner/Reeve Superman and talks about why its such an enduring classic.
"Batman getting raped by ninjas is just stupid, Snyder. But what if - now here me out - Batman rapes the ninjas?"
Mark gets pegged with being dark, which was a fair criticism until say...Kick Ass 2 or so, at least to varying degrees. But I would argue that overall his work has had a much lighter tone recently. Still not Adventures of Superman light, but not particularly out of step with anything else being published.
And incidentally, guy loves Superman. He owns one of the original Christopher Reeves costumes. He gets what the tone of a Superman movie should be.
I mean, a couple of his last two comics were Starlight and Huck which are straight up about hope-filled heroes winning the day with a smile over cynical and darker villains. And they're both utterly wonderful.
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
I mean, has anyone actually spun the Earth backwards to see what happens?
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
It may have crazily worked in the movie but I've always hated the uber-powerful Superman Reeves' was. Very few Supermen that strong I've liked, that's why I'm drawn to the toned downed versions like in Superman TAS.
It's not really that good. I tried watching it a few years ago for the first time since I was a kid. It starts out super strong with everything to do with Kansas and Smallville. As soon as it gets to Metropolis it started going downhill for me. Then you get to the flying scene and there's that bonkers spoken-word dream-poetry voiceover from Margot Kidder/Lois, and I just couldn't continue watching. It's got to be one of the most WTF-am-I-even-watching scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor would be like Seth Rogen as Moon Knight, it's awful. The real-estate scheme plot is unworthy of Superman, and the time-travel around the world is silly. It's a very cheesy movie.
I have no doubt it's an unpopular opinion particularly in this thread, but Richard Donner's Superman is ridiculously overrated.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I agree it's overrated. Honestly even the earlier portions--the state of the art has moved on so far, not only in terms of effects and visuals but just the way we tell these stories... It hasn't aged well at all.
But then I think Superman Returns is severely underrated so what do I know. In fact I may be the only person in the world who likes Superman Returns while also liking Donner's Superman a lot less than Superman Returns likes Donner's Superman.
I recently rewatched the original Superman after first having seen it in my early 20s or so. It's a mess of a movie, there's a lot about it that doesn't make any sense, but it's immensely charming, and IMO that charm holds up pretty well.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's not really that good. I tried watching it a few years ago for the first time since I was a kid. It starts out super strong with everything to do with Kansas and Smallville. As soon as it gets to Metropolis it started going downhill for me. Then you get to the flying scene and there's that bonkers spoken-word dream-poetry voiceover from Margot Kidder/Lois, and I just couldn't continue watching. It's got to be one of the most WTF-am-I-even-watching scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor would be like Seth Rogen as Moon Knight, it's awful. The real-estate scheme plot is unworthy of Superman, and the time-travel around the world is silly. It's a very cheesy movie.
I have no doubt it's an unpopular opinion particularly in this thread, but Richard Donner's Superman is ridiculously overrated.
The irony is that Hackman would have been perfect for a Post-Crisis businessman Lex, he's proven it in serious roles. To bad the movie was made before Post-Crisis was a thing.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
I hadn't heard of the time travel explanation until the last year or so (here on these boards!), but that isn't much better. If Superman went back in time, where's his past self?
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
I hadn't heard of the time travel explanation until the last year or so (here on these boards!), but that isn't much better. If Superman went back in time, where's his past self?
Speedforce Supermanforce?
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
As a big fan of Post-Crisis Superman I really don't care for the Superman movies. They get things right like Kansas and Reeves demeanor but Luthor was never a compelling villain and as mentioned above I never liked the ending.
And now we can't have that Superman anymore in movies because he has to be some communist in jeans to relate to millennial idiots I'm glad he died today
And now we can't have that Superman anymore in movies because he has to be some communist in jeans to relate to millennial idiots I'm glad he died today
Anyone around who can translate TexiKen to English?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
And now we can't have that Superman anymore in movies because he has to be some communist in jeans to relate to millennial idiots I'm glad he died today
1. If Captain America can be a hit there's no reason Superman can't, and he was portrayed as more boring (personality wise) than his comic version.
2. We can't have a Superman anymore in movies since they skipped the good version he was between being Super Jesus and Super Asshole. Post-Crisis Superman has yet to be in a movie* and he'd be perfect since he's nice yet is relatable.
The guy I'm talking about?
They skipped him for
* Cavill's has very little in common personality wise with that guy
0
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
And now we can't have that Superman anymore in movies because he has to be some communist in jeans to relate to millennial idiots I'm glad he died today
Anyone around who can translate TexiKen to English?
They changed his costume and characterization a little bit for the early-days Superman in Action Comics.
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
I hadn't heard of the time travel explanation until the last year or so (here on these boards!), but that isn't much better. If Superman went back in time, where's his past self?
Stopping the first missile I guess. He probably saw the other superman save Lois and realized what he did, and then repeated it. Second nuke hit the fault line still.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
TBH, time travel is well within Superman's powers. He creates, essentially, warp bubbles to fly. A powerful enough warp bubble and he could move faster than light, and essentially arrive before he left. This 'breaks causality' but we don't know if causality is a thing.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
speaking of, everyone go read Rebirth #1 today and don't let anyone spoil it for you
1. If Captain America can be a hit there's no reason Superman can't, and he was portrayed as more boring (personality wise) than his comic version.
I've seen you mention this a number of times in this thread. But I don't think the logic is all that sound. Captain America and Superman are similar characters in some respects, but vastly different in others. The main similarity I suppose is that they're both often portrayed as pillars of morality, righteousness, and goodness. They're both leaders that other people, including other heroes, look up to and respect.
But you can't ignore the huge difference between their power levels. One is a nigh-omnipotent god, the other is a man with slightly enhanced strength and athleticism. This is big. The kinds of stories you can do about these characters are very different. When Captain America sticks to his guns to do what's right and makes himself an enemy to his own government, it's a big deal because he's completely outmatched. He's an underdog going against power far greater than his own. If Superman does that, there's no real threat to him. He can do anything he wants and has nothing to fear.
Cap is much more limited in his capabilities, which makes his struggles and conflicts more interesting and relatable. Superman could single-handedly solve just about any problem facing the planet Earth. That's not relatable. It's not to say that Superman can't be an interesting character, but there's a reason he isn't the most popular superhero. The combination of moral perfection and incredible power is just inherently kind of boring, where having only one or the other is not.
So while I give Marvel and Chris Evans a ton of credit for doing such a fantastic job with Captain America, I think the character is significantly easier to build interesting movies around than Superman is.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Superman's power is whatever the writers decide it is. Unfortunately, all the movies have gone with 'god among insects'. The animated stuff toned him down quite a bit, which meant they could throw obstacles at him that weren't either world ending monster threats or powered by kryptonite and still have a good story.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
1. If Captain America can be a hit there's no reason Superman can't, and he was portrayed as more boring (personality wise) than his comic version.
I've seen you mention this a number of times in this thread. But I don't think the logic is all that sound. Captain America and Superman are similar characters in some respects, but vastly different in others. The main similarity I suppose is that they're both often portrayed as pillars of morality, righteousness, and goodness. They're both leaders that other people, including other heroes, look up to and respect.
But you can't ignore the huge difference between their power levels. One is a nigh-omnipotent god, the other is a man with slightly enhanced strength and athleticism. This is big. The kinds of stories you can do about these characters are very different. When Captain America sticks to his guns to do what's right and makes himself an enemy to his own government, it's a big deal because he's completely outmatched. He's an underdog going against power far greater than his own. If Superman does that, there's no real threat to him. He can do anything he wants and has nothing to fear.
Cap is much more limited in his capabilities, which makes his struggles and conflicts more interesting and relatable. Superman could single-handedly solve just about any problem facing the planet Earth. That's not relatable. It's not to say that Superman can't be an interesting character, but there's a reason he isn't the most popular superhero. The combination of moral perfection and incredible power is just inherently kind of boring, where having only one or the other is not.
This is why I prefer a Superman who isn't an invincible god. He really isn't always that powerful, especially in media adaptions. He's always got weaknesses, human frailties and a rogues gallery operating in his weight class. Superman can be outmatched by the government and other entities, who written properly. That's why the Timm-verse version is what I used as as an example. The government there managed to nearly destroy a massive Justice League, Superman included. Luther himself does this all the time, or he wouldn't be a serious threat.
Superman has friends, gets hurt, pays the rent, dates people, works with colleagues (as a super-hero and reporter), makes mistakes, gets outsmarted, fights foes stronger than he is, can die etc. Plenty for writers to make him relatable. Even Smallville did this right.
So while I give Marvel and Chris Evans a ton of credit for doing such a fantastic job with Captain America, I think the character is significantly easier to build interesting movies around than Superman is.
Easier, sure - what I'm saying isn't impossible for Superman. It's already been done in comics and cartoons before.
Superman's best stories are when he feels like he can't help everyone, but still tries because it's the right thing to do. The suicide ones are the biggest tear jerks usually, because he can't rely on his strength to win, but, on his character.
Unfortunately those don't really translate well to movies. Superman sacrificing himself to save humanity is generally how that goes down, but, it can't be hallow or what's the point.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Superman's best stories are when he feels like he can't help everyone, but still tries because it's the right thing to do. The suicide ones are the biggest tear jerks usually, because he can't rely on his strength to win, but, on his character.
Unfortunately those don't really translate well to movies. Superman sacrificing himself to save humanity is generally how that goes down, but, it can't be hallow or what's the point.
Posts
We Will see what reviews are like closer to the release date.
If it's bad, we should drown our rage by listening to some Slipknot.
OK, I'm all out.
Sorry, there has to be a better way to say that.
What are you, some kind of joker?
Really though, if this does turn out out to be the first good one of these, I would Harley be able to contain my glee. It would be totally Waller, dude.
OK, I found a few more. NOW I'm done.
But I'm still waiting for actual reviews.
-edit-
It also helps that Suicide Squad always had a dark comedic tone so the film being dark isn't a transformation like it is when done with Superman.
Okay.... I've gotta ask. Is "Really That Good" really that good?
Nope. It was ok, didn't really say anything useful.
And if it really is really that good you'll figure that out on your own in the course of watching it.
It is really that good.
I mean, a couple of his last two comics were Starlight and Huck which are straight up about hope-filled heroes winning the day with a smile over cynical and darker villains. And they're both utterly wonderful.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I understand it's meant to be Supes going so fast he time travels, and the world turning back is just what he sees... but it sure don't look like that. It looks like he turns back time by spinning the planet backwards...
I mean, has anyone actually spun the Earth backwards to see what happens?
Time rewinding seems reasonable enough.
It may have crazily worked in the movie but I've always hated the uber-powerful Superman Reeves' was. Very few Supermen that strong I've liked, that's why I'm drawn to the toned downed versions like in Superman TAS.
I have no doubt it's an unpopular opinion particularly in this thread, but Richard Donner's Superman is ridiculously overrated.
But then I think Superman Returns is severely underrated so what do I know. In fact I may be the only person in the world who likes Superman Returns while also liking Donner's Superman a lot less than Superman Returns likes Donner's Superman.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The irony is that Hackman would have been perfect for a Post-Crisis businessman Lex, he's proven it in serious roles. To bad the movie was made before Post-Crisis was a thing.
I hadn't heard of the time travel explanation until the last year or so (here on these boards!), but that isn't much better. If Superman went back in time, where's his past self?
Speedforce Supermanforce?
And now we can't have that Superman anymore in movies because he has to be some communist in jeans to relate to millennial idiots I'm glad he died today
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
1. If Captain America can be a hit there's no reason Superman can't, and he was portrayed as more boring (personality wise) than his comic version.
2. We can't have a Superman anymore in movies since they skipped the good version he was between being Super Jesus and Super Asshole. Post-Crisis Superman has yet to be in a movie* and he'd be perfect since he's nice yet is relatable.
The guy I'm talking about?
They skipped him for
* Cavill's has very little in common personality wise with that guy
They changed his costume and characterization a little bit for the early-days Superman in Action Comics.
Stopping the first missile I guess. He probably saw the other superman save Lois and realized what he did, and then repeated it. Second nuke hit the fault line still.
it's ridiculous
hahahahahaha what the fuckkkkkk
Young man, cut your hair and pull up your pants or you're going to your room for a week.
I've seen you mention this a number of times in this thread. But I don't think the logic is all that sound. Captain America and Superman are similar characters in some respects, but vastly different in others. The main similarity I suppose is that they're both often portrayed as pillars of morality, righteousness, and goodness. They're both leaders that other people, including other heroes, look up to and respect.
But you can't ignore the huge difference between their power levels. One is a nigh-omnipotent god, the other is a man with slightly enhanced strength and athleticism. This is big. The kinds of stories you can do about these characters are very different. When Captain America sticks to his guns to do what's right and makes himself an enemy to his own government, it's a big deal because he's completely outmatched. He's an underdog going against power far greater than his own. If Superman does that, there's no real threat to him. He can do anything he wants and has nothing to fear.
Cap is much more limited in his capabilities, which makes his struggles and conflicts more interesting and relatable. Superman could single-handedly solve just about any problem facing the planet Earth. That's not relatable. It's not to say that Superman can't be an interesting character, but there's a reason he isn't the most popular superhero. The combination of moral perfection and incredible power is just inherently kind of boring, where having only one or the other is not.
So while I give Marvel and Chris Evans a ton of credit for doing such a fantastic job with Captain America, I think the character is significantly easier to build interesting movies around than Superman is.
This is why I prefer a Superman who isn't an invincible god. He really isn't always that powerful, especially in media adaptions. He's always got weaknesses, human frailties and a rogues gallery operating in his weight class. Superman can be outmatched by the government and other entities, who written properly. That's why the Timm-verse version is what I used as as an example. The government there managed to nearly destroy a massive Justice League, Superman included. Luther himself does this all the time, or he wouldn't be a serious threat.
Superman has friends, gets hurt, pays the rent, dates people, works with colleagues (as a super-hero and reporter), makes mistakes, gets outsmarted, fights foes stronger than he is, can die etc. Plenty for writers to make him relatable. Even Smallville did this right.
Easier, sure - what I'm saying isn't impossible for Superman. It's already been done in comics and cartoons before.
Unfortunately those don't really translate well to movies. Superman sacrificing himself to save humanity is generally how that goes down, but, it can't be hallow or what's the point.
Which movies have done it?