Author Topic: Batman v Superman  (Read 22672 times)

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2015, 04:15:58 pm »
When Superman was created, he was a bully who would kill.

Then they changed him to be more kid friendly and the Comic Code Authority locked that in.

It was changed once.

DC is changing it again.   In the ComIcs he is becoming harder.   He is acting at times closer to his original 1940's Version.   What you are seeing is DC had decided they don't want Superman to be the noble, paragon of goodness.   They want him to be darker.   This isn't the movies alone,  it is DC as a whole.   The Superman you are talking about is going away.


which is a sign of poor writing and a bankrupt editorial vision. they can't picture a superhero who isn't dark at their core. as a result, ALL superheroes must have that core.


It's not only simplistic, it's short-sighted and, thus, doomed to fail.

If you feel like it pick up Action Comics by Greg Pak. Superman is not dark at all. He's just a kid who lost his adoptive parents at 17 and since then has to be making things up as life comes. But he is still the big guy who defends the little ones. In my opinion Superman is more super than ever.


I wouldn't know. Until i see what they let David Walker do with Cyborg, DC comics are dead to me. Didio's track record is just too sh*tty.

Man, I'm waiting for Cyborg's comic to drop as well. Hope it is good.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2015, 04:18:46 pm »
Battle: You can talk about a movie you haven't watched. Let's leave it at that.



You've got that right!  :D


This HEF thread has become far too 'dc comics-centric' for me as I despise dc comics and most of the characters to even care to discuss.
I shall bow out gracefully from this.

I meant "Can't" but whatever lol.

How can any human being hate on an universe that gave us John Stewart? But also reduced him to eternal 3rd fiddle. I hope it is truth that they want John as their main Green Lantern for the Cinematic DC universe.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9137
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2015, 04:40:28 pm »
How can any human being hate on an universe that gave us John Stewart?



Because I know more about how dc comics does 'business' than you do...

I know more about the racists that worked at dc comics than you do...

That's why I despise dc comics.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7428
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2015, 04:51:20 pm »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.

In Smallville Clark wasn't a goofball like Donner's Clark Kent. If anything he was angsty, earnest, and at times a bit too somber (when he was the Blur but dressed more like the Punisher). There was some humor in Smallville but I don't remember much of it coming from Clark being overly nerdy like Reeve's Kent. And Clark was a victim of the "no tights, no flight" rule that went on far beyond its expiration date. It had nothing to do with him being a goofball.

I thought Smallville did a pretty good job paying homage to the Donner films while con-temporizing Superman for today's audience. Whereas with Superman Returns I think it was a slavish attempt to latch onto the Donner films without the charm and appeal of the Donner/Reeve's cast. The story also lacked enough action and super feats and the lifting of the kryptonite-island was just too much, the one super feat in the film that actually shouldn't have been done. The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film. 

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2015, 05:03:25 pm »
How can any human being hate on an universe that gave us John Stewart?



Because I know more about how dc comics does 'business' than you do...

I know more about the racists that worked at dc comics than you do...

That's why I despise dc comics.

I'd be more concerned with the racists that work there today. Are there any racists working there today?
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9137
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2015, 05:10:49 pm »
The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.


Actually, next to Gene Hackman, Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor was far superior.  :)

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2015, 05:13:41 pm »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.

In Smallville Clark wasn't a goofball like Donner's Clark Kent. If anything he was angsty, earnest, and at times a bit too somber (when he was the Blur but dressed more like the Punisher). There was some humor in Smallville but I don't remember much of it coming from Clark being overly nerdy like Reeve's Kent. And Clark was a victim of the "no tights, no flight" rule that went on far beyond its expiration date. It had nothing to do with him being a goofball.

I thought Smallville did a pretty good job paying homage to the Donner films while con-temporizing Superman for today's audience. Whereas with Superman Returns I think it was a slavish attempt to latch onto the Donner films without the charm and appeal of the Donner/Reeve's cast. The story also lacked enough action and super feats and the lifting of the kryptonite-island was just too much, the one super feat in the film that actually shouldn't have been done. The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.
I liked Smallville for the first couple of seasons when I thought it was going to last only for 3 or 4 seasons. Then they started to delay the outcome and it got boring and convoluted real fast. Never liked the idea of Clark and Luthor knowing each other in Smallville. By goofball I meant "dense". They made him dumb and indecisive on purpose to elongate the plot. I think the series got hindered by been part of the CW known for their soap operish style aimed at teenage girls. Hated that nonsense of the blur. It was like they were ashamed of Superman. Yeah let's have Clark doing Superman stuff but we won't call him Superman and he will be dressed like The Crow or The Punisher. Also instead of hiring an actor let's hire an underwear model to play the part.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2015, 05:18:46 pm »
The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.


Actually, next to Gene Hackman, Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor was far superior.  :)

Gene Hackman's Luthor sucks donkey balls. Michael Rosenbaum had the benefit of several years playing the character and getting to know him and own it. But at the end of the day Rosembaun's is just a teenage girl wet dream version of Lex Luthor. Spacey had a couple scenes in which he blew them both out of the water. That scene with the kryptonite shard was insane. Spacey is better than Hackman because he plays Luthor straight. No goofing around. He is a shark. Sadly the movie is a bore fest.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9137
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2015, 05:35:36 pm »
The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.


Actually, next to Gene Hackman, Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor was far superior.  :)

Gene Hackman's Luthor sucks donkey balls. Michael Rosenbaum had the benefit of several years playing the character and getting to know him and own it. But at the end of the day Rosembaun's is just a teenage girl wet dream version of Lex Luthor. Spacey had a couple scenes in which he blew them both out of the water. That scene with the kryptonite shard was insane. Spacey is better than Hackman because he plays Luthor straight. No goofing around. He is a shark. Sadly the movie is a bore fest.




To be honest, I don't even know how to respond to something like this because I haven't the slightest idea what you just wrote.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2015, 05:44:02 pm »
The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.


Actually, next to Gene Hackman, Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor was far superior.  :)

Gene Hackman's Luthor sucks donkey balls. Michael Rosenbaum had the benefit of several years playing the character and getting to know him and own it. But at the end of the day Rosembaun's is just a teenage girl wet dream version of Lex Luthor. Spacey had a couple scenes in which he blew them both out of the water. That scene with the kryptonite shard was insane. Spacey is better than Hackman because he plays Luthor straight. No goofing around. He is a shark. Sadly the movie is a bore fest.




To be honest, I don't even know how to respond to something like this because I haven't the slightest idea what you just wrote.
It happens to me a lot. No sweat.
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7428
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2015, 04:26:12 pm »
The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.


Actually, next to Gene Hackman, Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor was far superior.  :)

I think Rosenbaum has been the best live-action Luthor to date. Hackman was great fun and Spacey's potential was never realized. I even thought Sherman Howard from the Adventures of Superboy did a good job as Luthor. I do want to mention John Glover's Lionel Luthor. In a way this is probably the best portrayal of Luthor I've seen, well at least for the first few seasons before he started getting soft.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7428
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2015, 04:35:50 pm »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.

In Smallville Clark wasn't a goofball like Donner's Clark Kent. If anything he was angsty, earnest, and at times a bit too somber (when he was the Blur but dressed more like the Punisher). There was some humor in Smallville but I don't remember much of it coming from Clark being overly nerdy like Reeve's Kent. And Clark was a victim of the "no tights, no flight" rule that went on far beyond its expiration date. It had nothing to do with him being a goofball.

I thought Smallville did a pretty good job paying homage to the Donner films while con-temporizing Superman for today's audience. Whereas with Superman Returns I think it was a slavish attempt to latch onto the Donner films without the charm and appeal of the Donner/Reeve's cast. The story also lacked enough action and super feats and the lifting of the kryptonite-island was just too much, the one super feat in the film that actually shouldn't have been done. The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.
I liked Smallville for the first couple of seasons when I thought it was going to last only for 3 or 4 seasons. Then they started to delay the outcome and it got boring and convoluted real fast. Never liked the idea of Clark and Luthor knowing each other in Smallville. By goofball I meant "dense". They made him dumb and indecisive on purpose to elongate the plot. I think the series got hindered by been part of the CW known for their soap operish style aimed at teenage girls. Hated that nonsense of the blur. It was like they were ashamed of Superman. Yeah let's have Clark doing Superman stuff but we won't call him Superman and he will be dressed like The Crow or The Punisher. Also instead of hiring an actor let's hire an underwear model to play the part.

I do agree that they made Clark a bit too indecisive and they drug things out. I also agree that perhaps it did seem like they were embarrassed to some extent, or maybe reluctant to fully embrace Clark as Superman. Even at the very end he was only Superman for a handful of scenes. I also read that Tom Welling never wore the suit, that it was CGI, but I don't know if that's true or not. I have to say that this reluctance to fully embrace Clark as Superman perhaps was due to a skittish in general in the early 2000s about portraying comic book superheroes. It was territory not traveled down that much in a serious vein. Even Lois and Clark had the angle of the romance between them and I didn't watch that show, but wasn't Superman sort of incidental to that show? To that point there hadn't' been a lot of successful shows featuring a costumed superhero. And I think there might have been a very real fear that a Superman show would only appeal to a limited number and a lot of potential new fans would pass on it. I think that was actually proven correct. I think Smallville got some fans that a Superboy/Superman show wouldn't have gotten.

Now the more it went on I do think they should've dispensed with the reluctance and let him be Superman. I mean they started bringing in other superheroes and villains, adding more of Superman's mythology. I don't get the reluctance. I was okay with the Blur though. That's like him in transition. I do wish he had worn a mask then though and we could see why he would choose not to wear one due to that experience.

I thought Welling was okay as Clark. I thought he had the earnestness down. I thought he did well with some of the angst and longing for Lana in the earlier episodes. Granted he wasn't the greatest actor but he wasn't a terrible actor either.

I would much rather have seen Smallville end in Season 5 and go to the movies than them do Superman Returns.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9137
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2015, 07:01:34 pm »
The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.


Actually, next to Gene Hackman, Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor was far superior.  :)

I think Rosenbaum has been the best live-action Luthor to date. Hackman was great fun and Spacey's potential was never realized. I even thought Sherman Howard from the Adventures of Superboy did a good job as Luthor. I do want to mention John Glover's Lionel Luthor. In a way this is probably the best portrayal of Luthor I've seen, well at least for the first few seasons before he started getting soft.




Yeah... :)


You're right.

Offline Redjack

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • i've never had a hero. i don't worship people.
    • View Profile
    • a dreamnasium
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2015, 08:39:54 am »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.

In Smallville Clark wasn't a goofball like Donner's Clark Kent. If anything he was angsty, earnest, and at times a bit too somber (when he was the Blur but dressed more like the Punisher). There was some humor in Smallville but I don't remember much of it coming from Clark being overly nerdy like Reeve's Kent. And Clark was a victim of the "no tights, no flight" rule that went on far beyond its expiration date. It had nothing to do with him being a goofball.

I thought Smallville did a pretty good job paying homage to the Donner films while con-temporizing Superman for today's audience. Whereas with Superman Returns I think it was a slavish attempt to latch onto the Donner films without the charm and appeal of the Donner/Reeve's cast. The story also lacked enough action and super feats and the lifting of the kryptonite-island was just too much, the one super feat in the film that actually shouldn't have been done. The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.
I liked Smallville for the first couple of seasons when I thought it was going to last only for 3 or 4 seasons. Then they started to delay the outcome and it got boring and convoluted real fast. Never liked the idea of Clark and Luthor knowing each other in Smallville. By goofball I meant "dense". They made him dumb and indecisive on purpose to elongate the plot. I think the series got hindered by been part of the CW known for their soap operish style aimed at teenage girls. Hated that nonsense of the blur. It was like they were ashamed of Superman. Yeah let's have Clark doing Superman stuff but we won't call him Superman and he will be dressed like The Crow or The Punisher. Also instead of hiring an actor let's hire an underwear model to play the part.

I do agree that they made Clark a bit too indecisive and they drug things out. I also agree that perhaps it did seem like they were embarrassed to some extent, or maybe reluctant to fully embrace Clark as Superman. Even at the very end he was only Superman for a handful of scenes. I also read that Tom Welling never wore the suit, that it was CGI, but I don't know if that's true or not. I have to say that this reluctance to fully embrace Clark as Superman perhaps was due to a skittish in general in the early 2000s about portraying comic book superheroes. It was territory not traveled down that much in a serious vein. Even Lois and Clark had the angle of the romance between them and I didn't watch that show, but wasn't Superman sort of incidental to that show? To that point there hadn't' been a lot of successful shows featuring a costumed superhero. And I think there might have been a very real fear that a Superman show would only appeal to a limited number and a lot of potential new fans would pass on it. I think that was actually proven correct. I think Smallville got some fans that a Superboy/Superman show wouldn't have gotten.

Now the more it went on I do think they should've dispensed with the reluctance and let him be Superman. I mean they started bringing in other superheroes and villains, adding more of Superman's mythology. I don't get the reluctance. I was okay with the Blur though. That's like him in transition. I do wish he had worn a mask then though and we could see why he would choose not to wear one due to that experience.

I thought Welling was okay as Clark. I thought he had the earnestness down. I thought he did well with some of the angst and longing for Lana in the earlier episodes. Granted he wasn't the greatest actor but he wasn't a terrible actor either.

I would much rather have seen Smallville end in Season 5 and go to the movies than them do Superman Returns.


The show wasn't about Superman. It was never meant to be about Superman from the jump. The entire point of it was to show Clark, as a person, growing up, learning to be a man so that one day he could be Superman.


They were too successful and the series went on past its intended stop date, moving him into Metropolis and bringing in Lois, etc.  The problems came from trying to keep to the original themes while having to grapple with the whole, he's-a-grown-man-now, we-have-to-show him-being-superman-but-we-can't-use-the-super-suit-thing.


there's a lot more going on making a TV show than just trying to tell a story.



Soon you will come to know. When the bullet hits the bone.

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Batman v Superman
« Reply #44 on: May 04, 2015, 06:59:49 am »
That's not the reason the movie sucked. It was due to Singer infatuation with the Donner's movies. Returns is take by take a remake of Superman the movie. Scenes and dialogues are virtually copy/pasted from film to film. Sheere unoriginality that's what killed SR



This is simply not true.

The television series, 'Smallville' has a lot more in common with the original 'Superman' movie directed by Richard Donner  than 'superman returns'.

'superman returns' was truly awful... as in, god-awful.  :-[
Smallville was crap too. Too trapped in the past. too trapped in the gooffball Clark Kent who couldn't learn to fly even though every other kryptonian appearing in the show flew right away. A pile of nostalgic crap just like Superman returns.

In Smallville Clark wasn't a goofball like Donner's Clark Kent. If anything he was angsty, earnest, and at times a bit too somber (when he was the Blur but dressed more like the Punisher). There was some humor in Smallville but I don't remember much of it coming from Clark being overly nerdy like Reeve's Kent. And Clark was a victim of the "no tights, no flight" rule that went on far beyond its expiration date. It had nothing to do with him being a goofball.

I thought Smallville did a pretty good job paying homage to the Donner films while con-temporizing Superman for today's audience. Whereas with Superman Returns I think it was a slavish attempt to latch onto the Donner films without the charm and appeal of the Donner/Reeve's cast. The story also lacked enough action and super feats and the lifting of the kryptonite-island was just too much, the one super feat in the film that actually shouldn't have been done. The best casting choice, Kevin Spacey as Luthor was wasted on an inferior film.
I liked Smallville for the first couple of seasons when I thought it was going to last only for 3 or 4 seasons. Then they started to delay the outcome and it got boring and convoluted real fast. Never liked the idea of Clark and Luthor knowing each other in Smallville. By goofball I meant "dense". They made him dumb and indecisive on purpose to elongate the plot. I think the series got hindered by been part of the CW known for their soap operish style aimed at teenage girls. Hated that nonsense of the blur. It was like they were ashamed of Superman. Yeah let's have Clark doing Superman stuff but we won't call him Superman and he will be dressed like The Crow or The Punisher. Also instead of hiring an actor let's hire an underwear model to play the part.

I do agree that they made Clark a bit too indecisive and they drug things out. I also agree that perhaps it did seem like they were embarrassed to some extent, or maybe reluctant to fully embrace Clark as Superman. Even at the very end he was only Superman for a handful of scenes. I also read that Tom Welling never wore the suit, that it was CGI, but I don't know if that's true or not. I have to say that this reluctance to fully embrace Clark as Superman perhaps was due to a skittish in general in the early 2000s about portraying comic book superheroes. It was territory not traveled down that much in a serious vein. Even Lois and Clark had the angle of the romance between them and I didn't watch that show, but wasn't Superman sort of incidental to that show? To that point there hadn't' been a lot of successful shows featuring a costumed superhero. And I think there might have been a very real fear that a Superman show would only appeal to a limited number and a lot of potential new fans would pass on it. I think that was actually proven correct. I think Smallville got some fans that a Superboy/Superman show wouldn't have gotten.

Now the more it went on I do think they should've dispensed with the reluctance and let him be Superman. I mean they started bringing in other superheroes and villains, adding more of Superman's mythology. I don't get the reluctance. I was okay with the Blur though. That's like him in transition. I do wish he had worn a mask then though and we could see why he would choose not to wear one due to that experience.

I thought Welling was okay as Clark. I thought he had the earnestness down. I thought he did well with some of the angst and longing for Lana in the earlier episodes. Granted he wasn't the greatest actor but he wasn't a terrible actor either.

I would much rather have seen Smallville end in Season 5 and go to the movies than them do Superman Returns.


The show wasn't about Superman. It was never meant to be about Superman from the jump. The entire point of it was to show Clark, as a person, growing up, learning to be a man so that one day he could be Superman.


They were too successful and the series went on past its intended stop date, moving him into Metropolis and bringing in Lois, etc.  The problems came from trying to keep to the original themes while having to grapple with the whole, he's-a-grown-man-now, we-have-to-show him-being-superman-but-we-can't-use-the-super-suit-thing.


there's a lot more going on making a TV show than just trying to tell a story.

This happen a lot with CW shows. Supernatural by instance was supposed to last 5 seasons and they are about to end its 10th
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.