Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

62 Comments

Filter by:
Pj Perez

"I've said before that there was no character who got screwed over in Crisis on Infinite Earths quite as hard as Jimmy Olsen, who went from headlining a book to barely appearing for 20 years"

This may be true, but within a few years of Crisis, Jimmy was the star of several plot lines in the DC Superman titles, including his becoming Elastic Lad, his quasi-relationship with Cat Grant, and his getting involved with gangs or drugs or something when Richard White came to town.

But, then again, that was when I stopped reading Superman comics - 1990 - so maybe he was downgraded since then.

May 23 2012 at 7:13 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
aaroncolter

For those wondering, the commenter "Kal-El" was banned for being inappropriate, which is why some comments from "Greybeard" have disappeared. The fact that this post about a thirty year old movie and the one about Nickleback being on The Avengers soundtrack are the articles with the most arguing is bizarre in my opinion, but whatever, just keep it civil dudes.

March 29 2012 at 12:44 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Brian Fowler

You are wrong several movies in advance. Superman Returns is a borderline masterpiece, and it's reputation as a horrible movie makes no sense.

March 29 2012 at 9:29 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Brian Fowler's comment
Greybeard

I love you. Unless you're being sarcastic? Then I just appreciate you.

March 29 2012 at 12:35 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Greybeard's comment
Brian Fowler

No, 100% serious. Saw the movie twice in theaters, bought it the day it was released on DVD, bought the big blu-ray boxset it's in, I've watched it probably 6 or 7 times total. I think it's an amazing movie, and one of the most underrated films of all-time.

March 29 2012 at 8:11 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down
KC

For some reason, I am far more irritated by the ridiculous soft-focus closeup shots of Margot Kidder – most of which can be found among the Lester-directed scenes – than anything else in "Superman II". The difference when transitioning to and away from her in the film is quite jarring, almost like being suddenly afflicted with cataracts.

Richard Donner revealed in the commentary to his cut of the film that Kidder was struggling with an eating disorder in the years between shooting his and Lester's scenes; besides losing weight, she also lost several teeth and patches of her hair. I can understand – if not necessarily support – the filmmakers' desire to conceal or compensate for these sorts of things (such as using a rather obvious wig), but I think the diffuse, gauzy effect makes her look even worse because it quite clearly signals that they are in fact trying to hide something and only invites viewers to scrutinize the image more closely.

Well, that, or makes them think they are going blind.

March 28 2012 at 3:25 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Scavenger

The problem with the "He doesn't spin the Earth backwards, he just goes back in time" excuse is that after it goes backwards, we see him start spinning the Earth in the correct direction. So either he's spinning the Earth backwards and then sets it right, or he overshoots the past and needs to move forward a bit, like when you reset the clocks for Daylight savings.

March 27 2012 at 1:42 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Scavenger's comment
Jeff Alme

Because when you're reverse-spinning the Earth to restore a dam & wipe out a nuclear explosion, you need to make sure you're being as realistic as possible.

March 27 2012 at 4:45 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Greybeard

I want to say that him travelling back in time, not reversing the Earth's flow, is a fan convention that was created to ease the pill for more cynical audiences. It does sort've work (he changes direction in order to pinpoint the exact moment and doesn't run into himself because the other guy is stopping the missles and damage, as well as it fitting with the movie attempting to stick to the theory of relativity somewhat in Supes' travels to Earth and Jor-El's 'thousand years' dialogue) but the original intent is that he does reverses time by spinning the Earth backwards. The hows and whys of it are just supposed to be visually exciting and aren't supposed to make sense. It's supposed to look cool, be a huge climatic action, and fit into the allegorical/fantastical narrative of the film.

March 27 2012 at 6:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jeff Alme

I'm surprised that someone who consistently cites the Silver Age as one of their favorite periods of comics ever would crap all over a movie that takes nearly every inspiration...from the Silver Age. From the wacky hijinks of Lois trying to figure out Clark is Superman, his nearly giving away his identity with the car wreck, Luthor & his bumbling assistant, Superman's crazy powers, to the villains themselves who were created in 1961, this movie is an homage to the Silver Age of comics more so than almost any other comic book to film adaption, & if you watch it with the mindset of "This is a movie based on the Silver Age Superman," it's virtually flawless. Geoff Johns cites this as his favorite movie of all time - do you think it's a coincidence he's such a huge Silver Age fan himself?

Maybe Chris just thinks it needs more Fat Lois.

March 27 2012 at 12:17 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Jeff Alme's comment
Thad

Just because a movie is based on influences you like doesn't mean it's going to turn out as something you like.

March 27 2012 at 4:06 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
6 replies to Thad's comment
Big Apple 3AM

Main problem with Superman Returns:

Superman reveals his ID to Lois and they hook up in Superman 2. He then magic erases her knowledge of his ID and their hook-up.

Then in Superman Returns it turns out that she got knocked-up during that encounter. HOW DID SHE NOT FREAK OUT about what she would have to perceive as immaculate conception? And Superman can look into her chest and see that she doesn't have cancer yet in Superman 1, but he can't tell that she is freaking pregnant before he takes off to look for Krypton?

March 27 2012 at 11:16 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Big Apple 3AM's comment
Jeff Alme

The retcon is that she forgets he's Clark, not that they sex. That's why she knows it's his son. He wouldn't know to use his x-ray vision on her if he doesn't know she's pregnant when he leaves. He doesn't just scan everyone with x-ray vision all the time. It really isn't that hard to put together if you think about it.

March 27 2012 at 12:03 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
4 replies to Jeff Alme's comment
Big Apple 3AM

Superman 1 and 2 are as incredible as they are lame. For every element that is terrible and too goofy, there is something else that is unparalleled in superhero movies.

March 27 2012 at 11:10 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Phil Jacke

superman is kind of campy and superman ii is worse, but if you compare them to EVERY OTHER SUPERMAN MOVIE EVER then they're like the godfather i and ii. every other superman movie is like the godfather iii.

March 27 2012 at 10:49 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Phil Jacke's comment
Gregory Haroutunian

Superman: Doomsday was better.

March 27 2012 at 4:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
MattComix

I like Superman II but for me it will always be incomplete. So what I like about boils down to a combination of the better parts of what was filmed and the intent of ideas that never made it all the way through.

Superman II is severely effected by the change in directors that happened after Richard Donner already had 70% of the sequel filmed when the Salkinds fired him. Lester had to reshoot and rework things because the Salkinds wanted Donner's name off of the movie entirely. Also the ending for 1 was supposed to be the ending for II. ..yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about that one either.

I would rec. seeing the Donner Cut of Superman II put together by Michael Thaw just for perspective and getting a feel for what might have been. Even as an incomplete work in many ways is better than Lesters version. They had to use Lester footage in the Donner cut for the fights because that's what Donner never got to film but thankfully Thaw cut out some of the aggressively jokey aspects for the Zoners attack on Metropolis.

Maybe somebody should do an ultimate edit where only the best aspects of Donner's and Lesters footage are put together. Though I'll say there would be more Donner than Lester footage in that deal.

March 27 2012 at 9:05 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply