RodeoSchro said:

namepeace said:

But in terms of the FILMS . . . it started with the 1978 film. It continued in Superman Returns and now with Man of Steel. Some of the storylines have taken on a messianic angle that as you say wasn't implied or intended in the comics.

Nah, Reeve did four Superman films (although no one liked IV). So the cool Superman character was already cast, developed and established.

I haven't seen "Superman Returns" but haven't heard anything good about it.

Anyway, I haven't read any Superman comics in around 35 years, so like I said - Superman may be completely different than he was the first 40 years of his existence. But that is the Superman I like, and I'm not going to be interested in a dark, brooding, non-cool Superman.

So I'm passing on this movie.

If you ever did see it, you would be aghast at what Superman does in this film. It's definitely not for anyone who reveres the Superman of yesteryear.

sexton said:

RodeoSchro said:

Nah, Reeve did four Superman films (although no one liked IV). So the cool Superman character was already cast, developed and established.

I haven't seen "Superman Returns" but haven't heard anything good about it.

Anyway, I haven't read any Superman comics in around 35 years, so like I said - Superman may be completely different than he was the first 40 years of his existence. But that is the Superman I like, and I'm not going to be interested in a dark, brooding, non-cool Superman.

So I'm passing on this movie.

If you ever did see it, you would be aghast at what Superman does in this film. It's definitely not for anyone who reveres the Superman of yesteryear.

I would? Why?

I watched one of the episodes just now ("The Mechanical Monsters"). It was great, and Superman was EXACTLY like I remembered him!

So, what are you talking about?

Nobody ever mentions this one:

Was it that bad?

It's my first impression of Superman.

RodeoSchro said:

sexton said:

If you ever did see it, you would be aghast at what Superman does in this film. It's definitely not for anyone who reveres the Superman of yesteryear.

I would? Why?

I watched one of the episodes just now ("The Mechanical Monsters"). It was great, and Superman was EXACTLY like I remembered him!

So, what are you talking about?

"This film" was referring to the current Man of Steel movie. The frame from the cartoon short at the end of my post was an example of the classic Superman 'like you remembered him'.

sexton said:

RodeoSchro said:

I would? Why?

I watched one of the episodes just now ("The Mechanical Monsters"). It was great, and Superman was EXACTLY like I remembered him!

So, what are you talking about?

"This film" was referring to the current Man of Steel movie. The frame from the cartoon short at the end of my post was an example of the classic Superman 'like you remembered him'.

Ah, thanks.

Based on what I've read, I'll not ever see "Man of Steel". Actually, I think that it says EVERYTHING that the movie title doesn't mention the name "Superman", since the character Henry Cavill plays in that movie really isn't Superman at all.

RodeoSchro said:

sexton said:

"This film" was referring to the current Man of Steel movie. The frame from the cartoon short at the end of my post was an example of the classic Superman 'like you remembered him'.

Ah, thanks.

Based on what I've read, I'll not ever see "Man of Steel". Actually, I think that it says EVERYTHING that the movie title doesn't mention the name "Superman", since the character Henry Cavill plays in that movie really isn't Superman at all.

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

Hm, heard on the news this morning that churches are endorsing the movie because it is a metaphor. I have never heard Superman that way in all my life so this is coming out of left field to me, seems weird, but then again you have a ton of movies that are, for lack of a better word, anti-religious. I'm just surprised. Still lost enthusiasm for it though. I'm just uncomfortable with movies that have a tons of damage, because it's always in the back of my mind thinking of all the people that got killed, it can be nagging.

morningsong said:

Hm, heard on the news this morning that churches are endorsing the movie because it is a metaphor. I have never heard Superman that way in all my life so this is coming out of left field to me, seems weird, but then again you have a ton of movies that are, for lack of a better word, anti-religious. I'm just surprised. Still lost enthusiasm for it though. I'm just uncomfortable with movies that have a tons of damage, because it's always in the back of my mind thinking of all the people that got killed, it can be nagging.

Very fair, especially about the violence.

But Superman's mythology is as old as civilization.


[img:$uid]http://i47.fastpic.ru/big/2013/0503/51/d33b0a0c23daa0bf6c4037c4e8729551.gif[/img:$uid]

morningsong said:

Hm, heard on the news this morning that churches are endorsing the movie because it is a metaphor. I have never heard Superman that way in all my life so this is coming out of left field to me, seems weird, but then again you have a ton of movies that are, for lack of a better word, anti-religious. I'm just surprised. Still lost enthusiasm for it though. I'm just uncomfortable with movies that have a tons of damage, because it's always in the back of my mind thinking of all the people that got killed, it can be nagging.

The producers have actually sent pre-packaged sermons to churches around America, using the Jesus/Superman metaphors from the movie as the basis for the sermon.

Like I said in another thread, I've read pretty much every Superman comic from 1937 through about 1975. I can recall only one instance of Superman invoking any religious terminology, and that was when he told a young boy that "Cleanliness is next to Godliness!" as he flew away.

This just isn't Superman, IMO.

namepeace said:

RodeoSchro said:

Ah, thanks.

Based on what I've read, I'll not ever see "Man of Steel". Actually, I think that it says EVERYTHING that the movie title doesn't mention the name "Superman", since the character Henry Cavill plays in that movie really isn't Superman at all.

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

Very good point; however, Batman was orginally the Dark Knight. He wasn't "lightened up" until the '50's IIRC.

I saw "The Dark Knight" but didn't care for it. I liked the Michael Keaton Batman the best.

RodeoSchro said:

namepeace said:

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

Very good point; however, Batman was orginally the Dark Knight. He wasn't "lightened up" until the '50's IIRC.

I saw "The Dark Knight" but didn't care for it. I liked the Michael Keaton Batman the best.

I hated that Michael Keaton Batman. He was nothing like Bruce Wayne or Batman. I ever prefer the camp 1960s Batman Adam West over Michael Keaton.

Seriously, what did you like about Michael Keaton´s (or rather, Tim Burton´s ) interpretation of Batman?

RodeoSchro said:

namepeace said:

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

Very good point; however, Batman was orginally the Dark Knight. He wasn't "lightened up" until the '50's IIRC.

I saw "The Dark Knight" but didn't care for it. I liked the Michael Keaton Batman the best.

True enough.

KoolEaze said:

RodeoSchro said:

Very good point; however, Batman was orginally the Dark Knight. He wasn't "lightened up" until the '50's IIRC.

I saw "The Dark Knight" but didn't care for it. I liked the Michael Keaton Batman the best.

I hated that Michael Keaton Batman. He was nothing like Bruce Wayne or Batman. I ever prefer the camp 1960s Batman Adam West over Michael Keaton.

Seriously, what did you like about Michael Keaton´s (or rather, Tim Burton´s ) interpretation of Batman?

I don't know, I've never thought about it. I just liked it. The movie seemed to capture the spirit of the Batman comics I liked in the '60's and '70's. Also, it didn't dwell on how Batman was created. That's one thing I don't like about the Superman movies. I already KNOW how he got here. I don't need any explanation about that.

However, I've never seen any of the other Batmans (Clooney, etc.) except for "The Dark Knight".

Were any of the Batman movies between Keaton and Bale any good?

.

[Edited 6/19/13 10:33am]

RodeoSchro said:

KoolEaze said:

I hated that Michael Keaton Batman. He was nothing like Bruce Wayne or Batman. I ever prefer the camp 1960s Batman Adam West over Michael Keaton.

Seriously, what did you like about Michael Keaton´s (or rather, Tim Burton´s ) interpretation of Batman?

I don't know, I've never thought about it. I just liked it. The movie seemed to capture the spirit of the Batman comics I liked in the '60's and '70's. Also, it didn't dwell on how Batman was created. That's one thing I don't like about the Superman movies. I already KNOW how he got here. I don't need any explanation about that.

However, I've never seen any of the other Batmans (Clooney, etc.) except for "The Dark Knight".

Were any of the Batman movies between Keaton and Bale any good?

.

[Edited 6/19/13 10:33am]

There´s a slight typo in my post, "ever" =even.

No, the other Batman actors were even worse than Michael Keaton, at least in my opinion.

First I thought George Clooney might convince me because of his looks and his playboy image at the time, so I thought he could play a credible Bruce Wayne(playboy, charming womanizer, plus he sort of looks like Bruce Wayne used to look in the 1970s comics....... but, boy was I wrong...he´s probably THE worst Batman ever.

Some say that Val Kilmer did a good job, at least as Bruce Wayne , not necessarily as Batman, but I disagree.

My personal favorite so far has been Christian Bale. Bale, Freeman, Caine etc. don´t even remotely resemble the characters from the comics but they definitely managed to capture the spirit of some of the very best Batman comics and characters of all time. I like how Chris Nolan brought back the darker, brooding side of Batman because Batman had become a bit too funny and camp for me. I am a huge fan of the 1970s Neal Adams& O´Neill Batman (The Lazarus Pit , with Ras Al Ghul) or the 90s version of Batman.

Burton´s Batman was visually too dark to be really funny (like the 60s Batman) and too funny to be dark (like Nolan´s version).

I´m very pedantic and serious when it comes to Batman.

RodeoSchro said:

namepeace said:

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

Very good point; however, Batman was orginally the Dark Knight. He wasn't "lightened up" until the '50's IIRC.

I saw "The Dark Knight" but didn't care for it. I liked the Michael Keaton Batman the best.

you are correct.

he was pretty dark in the beginning.

they went pretty campy and light in the 50s and 60s, which nearly killed the batman franchise. sales of the comic went so low they almost killed off the character and the line. the tv show really did a lot to both add to the lifeline of the character, but also did a lot to permanatize the campy/light batman.

they started going back to the dark roots in the 70s, but it didnt really do well untill frank miller (a comic book writing icon) really solidified the dark knight in the 80s.

[Edited 6/19/13 14:08pm]

RodeoSchro said:

KoolEaze said:

I hated that Michael Keaton Batman. He was nothing like Bruce Wayne or Batman. I ever prefer the camp 1960s Batman Adam West over Michael Keaton.

Seriously, what did you like about Michael Keaton´s (or rather, Tim Burton´s ) interpretation of Batman?

I don't know, I've never thought about it. I just liked it. The movie seemed to capture the spirit of the Batman comics I liked in the '60's and '70's. Also, it didn't dwell on how Batman was created. That's one thing I don't like about the Superman movies. I already KNOW how he got here. I don't need any explanation about that.

However, I've never seen any of the other Batmans (Clooney, etc.) except for "The Dark Knight".

Were any of the Batman movies between Keaton and Bale any good?

.

[Edited 6/19/13 10:33am]

no. the schumaker ones are terrible. awful puns, campy, and basically a toy commercial thinly disguised as a movie. they were more like the batman tv series. the second shumaker movie is legendarily terrible, and holds a piss-poor 3.6 rating on imdb.

cborgman said:

RodeoSchro said:

Very good point; however, Batman was orginally the Dark Knight. He wasn't "lightened up" until the '50's IIRC.

I saw "The Dark Knight" but didn't care for it. I liked the Michael Keaton Batman the best.

you are correct.

he was pretty dark in the beginning.

they went pretty campy and light in the 50s and 60s, which nearly killed the batman franchise. sales of the comic went so low they almost killed off the character and the line. the tv show really did a lot to both add to the lifeline of the character, but also did a lot to permanatize the campy/light batman.

they started going back to the dark roots in the 70s, but it didnt really do well untill frank miller (a comic book writing icon) really solidified the dark knight in the 80s.

[Edited 6/19/13 14:08pm]

Really? I thought the Adams/O´Neill stories in the 70s were quite successful, weren´t they?

You´re right about Frank Miller though. His graphic novel and Burton´s movie, despite being totally different in style and feel, really helped to resurrect Batman. But I never liked Frank Miller´s Dark Knight and it took me years to really appreciate it. And by then, I had already found out that Miller is quasi fascist, which ruined his stories for me, or rather, his borderline fascist views kind of reflected in his storytelling in the years after TDK. I don´t really like that guy.

KoolEaze said:

cborgman said:

you are correct.

he was pretty dark in the beginning.

they went pretty campy and light in the 50s and 60s, which nearly killed the batman franchise. sales of the comic went so low they almost killed off the character and the line. the tv show really did a lot to both add to the lifeline of the character, but also did a lot to permanatize the campy/light batman.

they started going back to the dark roots in the 70s, but it didnt really do well untill frank miller (a comic book writing icon) really solidified the dark knight in the 80s.

[Edited 6/19/13 14:08pm]

Really? I thought the Adams/O´Neill stories in the 70s were quite successful, weren´t they?

You´re right about Frank Miller though. His graphic novel and Burton´s movie, despite being totally different in style and feel, really helped to resurrect Batman. But I never liked Frank Miller´s Dark Knight and it took me years to really appreciate it. And by then, I had already found out that Miller is quasi fascist, which ruined his stories for me, or rather, his borderline fascist views kind of reflected in his storytelling in the years after TDK. I don´t really like that guy.

from wiki:

While the work of O'Neil and Adams was popular with fans, the acclaim did little to help declining sales; the same held true with a similarly acclaimed run by writer Steve Englehart and penciler Marshall Rogers in Detective Comics #471–476 (August 1977 – April 1978), which went on to influence the 1989 movie Batman and be adapted for Batman: The Animated Series, which debuted in 1992.^[48] Regardless, circulation continued to drop through the 1970s and 1980s, hitting an all-time low in 1985.^[49]

miller might be a terrible person, but he was a damn good writer.

KoolEaze said:

cborgman said:

you are correct.

he was pretty dark in the beginning.

they went pretty campy and light in the 50s and 60s, which nearly killed the batman franchise. sales of the comic went so low they almost killed off the character and the line. the tv show really did a lot to both add to the lifeline of the character, but also did a lot to permanatize the campy/light batman.

they started going back to the dark roots in the 70s, but it didnt really do well untill frank miller (a comic book writing icon) really solidified the dark knight in the 80s.

[Edited 6/19/13 14:08pm]

Really? I thought the Adams/O´Neill stories in the 70s were quite successful, weren´t they?

You´re right about Frank Miller though. His graphic novel and Burton´s movie, despite being totally different in style and feel, really helped to resurrect Batman. But I never liked Frank Miller´s Dark Knight and it took me years to really appreciate it. And by then, I had already found out that Miller is quasi fascist, which ruined his stories for me, or rather, his borderline fascist views kind of reflected in his storytelling in the years after TDK. I don´t really like that guy.

I remember there was a hoodlum named "Bigger Melvin" back in the old days. I thought "Bigger Melvin" was the coolest name I'd ever heard! Batman said, "You! Bigger Melvin! Come here!" Of course, Bigger Melvin did NOT come.

I just looked it up and "Bigger Melvin" actually appeared in 7 Batman comics in the early 70's.

LOL, check out Bigger Melvin's "powers"!

General Information

namepeace said:

RodeoSchro said:

Ah, thanks.

Based on what I've read, I'll not ever see "Man of Steel". Actually, I think that it says EVERYTHING that the movie title doesn't mention the name "Superman", since the character Henry Cavill plays in that movie really isn't Superman at all.

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

I liked the movie, but knowing which version of Superman Rodeo prefers, you have to admit that the ending of Man of Steel will rub him the wrong way--you know to which scene I'm referring.

sexton said:

namepeace said:

The Dark Knight doesn't contain "Batman" in the title and it is the best Batman movie ever made. I think Nolan and Snyder were aiming for the same thing with MoS.

I actually think you might like it. He is actually called "Superman" in the movie. Lois teases at it (see the trailer) and a minor character says it the first time.

I thought it was a good strategy to refer to him as "Clark" or "Kal." And I think it was also a good strategy to NOT just throw the name "Superman" on him right away. As much as a comic book movie can, MoS was keen on pointing out how we would really react if a godlike alien appeared to us after living among us incognito for nearly 40 years. Naming him wouldn't be our immediate reaction.

I liked the movie, but knowing which version of Superman Rodeo prefers, you have to admit that the ending of Man of Steel will rub him the wrong way--you know to which scene I'm referring.

I can't disagree.

RodeoSchro said:

morningsong said:

Hm, heard on the news this morning that churches are endorsing the movie because it is a metaphor. I have never heard Superman that way in all my life so this is coming out of left field to me, seems weird, but then again you have a ton of movies that are, for lack of a better word, anti-religious. I'm just surprised. Still lost enthusiasm for it though. I'm just uncomfortable with movies that have a tons of damage, because it's always in the back of my mind thinking of all the people that got killed, it can be nagging.

The producers have actually sent pre-packaged sermons to churches around America, using the Jesus/Superman metaphors from the movie as the basis for the sermon.

Like I said in another thread, I've read pretty much every Superman comic from 1937 through about 1975. I can recall only one instance of Superman invoking any religious terminology, and that was when he told a young boy that "Cleanliness is next to Godliness!" as he flew away.

This just isn't Superman, IMO.

Pathetic indeed...
As if the 2 Jews who came up with the character would model him after some guy who they don't believe to have been some kind of Messiah...

My dad (a Superman buff who actually loves "Man of Steel" for a fresh take on a dated character) told me the creators were inspired by John Carter, Hercules and other mythological characters, and no way in hell by Jesus...

Neversin.

KoolEaze said:

RodeoSchro said:

Agreed. They say "The Man of Steel" is a dark movie, concentrating on Superman's relationship with his father(s).

Snore. Couldn't care less about that.

I started reading "Superman" comic books in the 1960's. All he did was kick butt and take names. He fought for "Truth, Justice and The American Way".

And now we have a Brit playing Superman?!? Hmmmmm, doesn't sound right to me.

Why not? Christian Bale is British and did an excellent job as Batman/Bruce Wayne.

By the way, how come there are so many successful British actors (mostly playing American characters) in the USA? I mean, I do respect their craft and talent but I would´ve thought that competition among actors in the USA is very fierce, so how come that so many Brits seem to somehow make it, unlike many aspiring American actors who come and go?

Stage.

They still act like they're acting on a stage sometimes. In the U.S. I guess most actors never hit a stage after high school, if they went to high school (as opposed to tutored or home schooled.)

That's my theory. Stage forces you as an actor deeper into a character because you have to bring that character to life again and again. On a film set, you memorize the lines for that scene, deliver it a few ways to give the director options and kick back until the next scene.

Thank you all for sparing me. I'll probably wait for pay per view to see it.

Don't need a 2.5 hour action sermon.

SUPRMAN said:

Thank you all for sparing me. I'll probably wait for pay per view to see it.

Don't need a 2.5 hour action sermon.

You wouldn't get one. I never thought of religion once watching MOS.

SUPRMAN said:

KoolEaze said:

Why not? Christian Bale is British and did an excellent job as Batman/Bruce Wayne.

By the way, how come there are so many successful British actors (mostly playing American characters) in the USA? I mean, I do respect their craft and talent but I would´ve thought that competition among actors in the USA is very fierce, so how come that so many Brits seem to somehow make it, unlike many aspiring American actors who come and go?

Stage.

They still act like they're acting on a stage sometimes. In the U.S. I guess most actors never hit a stage after high school, if they went to high school (as opposed to tutored or home schooled.)

That's my theory. Stage forces you as an actor deeper into a character because you have to bring that character to life again and again. On a film set, you memorize the lines for that scene, deliver it a few ways to give the director options and kick back until the next scene.

people hate when you point it out, but... stage acting is nuance and depth. film acting is generally not.