Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 11450014)

This.

Supes is almost an unwinnable character. He was written as part Boy Scout, part Jesus. If you portray him that way, people hate it. If you give him a darker edge, people hate it. If you show him developing his personality (MoS), people hate it. What the **** do people want, really? Honestly, "MoS" and "Smallville" are the more realistic idea of what it would be like. Think about it: you, yourself, grow up pretty well, and suddenly find out you have the powers of a god. Would it really be that easy to suddenly become a do-gooding hero? Dedicate your life to just helping people? Purge yourself of any thoughts of using your powers for selfishness, greed, lust? Take your anger just a little too far? I think the superhuman "nature vs. nurture" discussion was done pretty well with the unheralded film "Chronicle" that came out a while back. That's all these modern directors are doing: exploring HOW Kent makes his choices and becomes Supes.

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 11450134)

Superman just sucks as a character. He's tragically overpowered to the point of boredom.

Originally Posted by Aries Walker (Post 11450419)

Exactly. He's representative of the basic problem that DC has always had; they tend to produce flat and simplistic characters, then liven them up through powers or gadgets, which doesn't make very interesting stories. You can see this even in one aspect of Batman, easily one of their most intriguing characters; instead of determining what kind of martial arts he studied, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of his abilities, determining how that affects the character and plot, and applying how all of that works on paper and on screen, at some point they just drew a line under "EXPERT IN ALL MARTIAL ARTS", which is not only ridiculous but boring.

This is why, when DC tried to hire Marvel to write their titles in the 80s, Marvel refused on the grounds that the characters are crap.

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 11450060)

Superman's Xray vision is a goddamn farce. There's no ability to perceive color, as color is part of the visual optical spectrum. There's no way that Xrays emitted from Superman's eyes could return back to his eyes. There's no way for the Xrays to distinguish between matter that should be transparently seen through, and matter that should be seen. It's ****ing bullshit! :cuss:

Originally Posted by RobBlake (Post 11450461)

yeah no. Batman himself is a much more intriguing character than the majority of Marvel characters

Originally Posted by RobBlake (Post 11450461)

yeah no. Batman himself is a much more intriguing character than the majority of Marvel characters

Originally Posted by RobBlake (Post 11450461)

yeah no. Batman himself is a much more intriguing character than the majority of Marvel characters

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 11450068)

I want a Superman movie that doesn't suck. They managed to do it twice before, with Christopher Reeve as Superman. They should be able to do it again. Instead, it looks right now as if they're trying to ruin two major characters in the same movie.

Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 11451303)

Uh... When I was a kid, I loved "Superman" and "Superman II". But have you watched them lately? Through the prism of NOT being a kid any more, and it being 2015? Those movies SUCK. Horrible dialogue, horrible acting, just... awful all around. If they released "Superman" today, it would be laughed at and flop horribly.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 11451810)

I don't normally point to Wikipedia, but I'm not looking up dozens of links on this:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_%281978_film%29

You're pointing to how movies hold up. That's a separate issue.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 11451819)

None of those things have anything to do with dialogue or acting like JD was pointing out. Getting a bunch of awards for SFX doesn't mean the movie overall was good.