The Superman Films: Were they ever really great?

[tacticslion]

Okay, yes, I know: Donner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(1978_film))'s film is a classic 'standard' of acting* and film-making... but, uh, really... the story-telling was a bit iffy. With that extra Deus Ex' at the end is... kind of lame.

Let me get this out of the way: I will love these films. LOVE[i] them. (But not physically: 1) ew, gross; 2) the DVDs will likely stop working well.)

Then the sequel, II, was pretty amazing... but Supes was kind of dumb. And the bad guys [i]even more so (making the man in blue look good by default).

The next one - III - was literally nothing but a joke. Pryor's obvious comedic skill aside, it was awful and out of character from top to bottom.

The fourth... well... uh... it tried to do something, I guess. It failed spectacularly, but I remember it fondly nonetheless.

Then come those that I've heard the most complaints about: 'Returns and 'Steel.

'Returns had a single, major and abiding flaw: the cast was attempting to follow the Reeves films. Now, let me be clear - literally just accepting the first two as continuity, and the rest as non-canon, is actually pretty brilliant. And, in terms of story-telling, it makes an awful lot of sense. What bothers me, is the age of the actors and the seemingly out-of-character decisions, both in Clark and Lois.
... thhhhhaaaaaat said, I can't really find any other flaws in it, once those two elements of the premise are accepted - at least, no flaw beyond what the original two films had. It's not a "great" movie... but the film-making, and acting (especially Spacey) is actually pretty solid. The writing is actually tighter and clearer than either of the "prequels" (is that the right term?) it's based on. I wish 'Returns wasn't quite as "dark" (though it's pretty far from "grim"), but again, that's less an error and more of a design choice that's doesn't fully align with my preferences.

And, I'll just say now, Man of Steel wasn't a bad film. In fact, I'd say it was pretty good. I didn't like Pa Kent - he was kind of stupid, I'd say - but it was otherwise enjoyable, and I can see what they were going for with Pa, even if I think he was handled poorly. Again, beyond that, I don't think there was much to genuinely complain about. Much is made of the collateral for Superman's battle - specifically, he's called out as being foolish for fighting within the city. I don't agree - I don't think he had much choice: either he fought Zod and allowed him to kill people, or he worked hard at stopping him... he chose the latter. He didn't have that much choice of where it was going to take place. Heck, as much as I do fault him for taking time to kiss Lois... it actually makes a lot of sense. This is a young guy, learning how to be a hero (against his father's wishes) being genuinely extroverted for what is more or less the first time in his life. He's just got what amounts to his first kiss from a beautiful girl who's probably the first one to "know" him beyond his parents. (Incidentally: killing Zod wasn't just a good idea, it was necessary; arguing about whether or not that one guy could get out of the way is weird - sure, but he has no freaking clue what that effect is or what's going on.)

I dunno. It just seems like the films that were hailed as "amazing" don't quite live up to that standard, while those who are derided aren't as bad as they're made out to be.

What do you guys think?

* Brando, Reeves, Kidder, and the rest. Amazing cast.

[Bum Bill Bee]

I thought the first one was lame, particularily with Lois' poetry attempt going on through her head. Though at least Luthor's fantastic real-estate plot threatened millions of lives.

Loved the Second one!

The third one, yeah it was pretty lame and silly, but I liked some of Gus Gorman's (Pyror) bits. And the Clark Kent vs. Douche Superman was a good idea.

With Superman Returns, I liked how Lex Luthor was less campy and more menacing, but his plan with the huge crystal island didn't make a lick of sense. And, yeah I didn't like anything else really.


I didn't see any of the others. Maybe its for the best?

[Bard The 5th LW]

I didn't like Man of Steel at all. Poor storytelling - a lot of stuff was poorly explained/didn't make much sense, and it was also just boring due to all the time it spent on backstory.

[Flarecobra]

Some are, some aren't. Which is which is up to your interperation.

[tacticslion]

EDIT: By the by: though I disagree within this post, it is not with the intention or purpose of shouting people down - it is simply for the purpose of clarifying and explaining my own view, which, apparently, differs. But that's okay! I'm interested in hearing others' views! :D

I thought the first one was lame, particularily with Lois' poetry attempt going on through her head. Though at least Luthor's fantastic real-estate plot threatened millions of lives.

Yeah... Lois was kind of silly... but so was the whole film. Lois' questions and thoughts did make sense in-character, however, cheesy as they were.

Luthor's plot was... hilariously bad. Awesome, mind you, but hilariously bad.

Loved the Second one!

Can't argue with that - so do I! Supes made terrible decisions, but, you know... that's how it goes in films.

The third one, yeah it was pretty lame and silly, but I liked some of Gus Gorman's (Pyror) bits. And the Clark Kent vs. Douche Superman was a good idea.

Great idea, well-acted, poorly realized, and saddled with a whole bunch of dreck. Dag-gum was that a terrible film plot.

Pryor's comedy is really good - he's great - but... it's in the wrong film. They could've made a great Pryor film, or a great Superman film... instead, we got a terrible film with bits of great acting and lots of wasted potential.

With Superman Returns, I liked how Lex Luthor was less campy and more menacing, but his plan with the huge crystal island didn't make a lick of sense. And, yeah I didn't like anything else really.

Hah! I... actually disagree. I think Lex's plot made a lot of sense... at least just as much as the S1 (and an awful lot more sense than the S3 and S4 plots*).

The "science" behind it is ludicrous... but so is the "science" behind most of Lex's plots, considering the comics they come from.

The vague gist is based in reality, and the ever-expanding water-based super-tech is pretty much exactly what we saw in the first four films. He just weaponized it. I find that entirely reasonable (for a Super Villain). He even took steps to Superman-proof it!

... it just didn't work. Because Superman.

Of particular note, the film was supposed to have a sequel in which the island became a pretty large and important part as a MacGuffin... it just never materialized because Warner was disappointed with their profit margin (despite all signs pointing to that film being a rather large success - apparently they wanted $100 mil. more than they got, internationally). Effectively, their internal debate on whether or not to once again triple their money more or less let the time run out on various contracts, despite several people being rather for the whole thing.

* Only S4 was Lex's, to be fair to "movie him" or whatever.

I didn't see any of the others. Maybe its for the best?

Hah! S4 is one of the best, worst, bad movies you'll see. It's... basically a waste of time. Knowing that, you get to see Gene Hackman back as Lex, Reeves as Supes, and Kidder as Lane, Cooper as White, and all (well, most) of the rest of that amazing cast again. It's heavy-handed, preachy, and has a budget of 22-24 million dollars less than previous film (and made four years later - it was made nine years after the first film, and had a budget of 40 million dollars less!).

Anyway, it sucks. If you really want to see all of Superman, feel free. It's a bad movie with an amazing cast.

Man of Steel is... well, by some it's outright reviled because of the collateral damage Supes does and (spoiler-alert!) when he defeats the bad-guy, he snaps Zod's neck, which is "un-Superman-like" or something. I don't know. Seemed like a totally reasonable action to take when you have a military-trained monster attempting to kill innocent people who has verbally sworn he will not stop (and just tried to kill everyone on the planet just a minute ago).

To me, it was impressive that Supes tried to talk him out of it, first. That was nice of him.

(There's also some folk who are bothered by the product placement. I get that. But for me... I dunno. The fact that there was a massive Sears store, Banks with names that I recognize, and others within the film made it feel more like a real world than distracting product placement. Heck, seeing them shredded the way they were, is kind of fun.)

I would recommend, it, but it's clearly not for everyone. It lacks most of the light-hearted elements of the previous films.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Hah! That "Danger Will Robinson" thing is still neat.
(I put that here, because any title I write will disappear.)

I didn't like Man of Steel at all. Poor storytelling - a lot of stuff was poorly explained/didn't make much sense, and it was also just boring due to all the time it spent on backstory.

... I can see that... again, I just didn't get that vibe from it. I think what it is, more than poor telling, is purposefully disjointed telling. It's a narrative style that just doesn't work for some people. Having watched lots of weird anime and read lots of disjointed-narrative books, it makes a heck'v'a-lot more sense to me than most, I'd imagine.

That said, while I personally disagree, I could see that as a criticism.

Some are, some aren't. Which is which is up to your interperation.

Which ones do you think? I'd be really interested in hearing what your opinions are, whether we agree or not!

[MSperoni]

I've yet to be particularly impressed by any of the Superman films I've seen.

[tacticslion]

I've yet to be particularly impressed by any of the Superman films I've seen.

Did you grow up with any of them, or come to them late in life?

Were you a fan of the comics or character before, or not really?

For myself, I was always a nominal fan. I loved SUPERMAN, but never particularly followed the comics. Those were mostly incidental to my like thereof. I watched some of the old serials, some of the cartoons, the comics, and some of the other tv shows (mostly older).

Before viewing Batman (the late 80s film), Supes was by far my favorite of the two. That switched around, not after the film, but after the cartoon series (which was amazing by the way).

Thereafter, even through the rotten films, Batman was the clear "winner" of my favorites... but in the comics, it was always Marvel comics (despite some of their really weird design decisions), especially X-Men and Spiderman (and I am still a fan of the Clone Saga, despite recognizing how much damage that did to the franchise).

Anyway, I say all of that to explain: while I love and have loved the idea of Superman, I guess I've never been as much of a true fan of "the character" as portrayed in the comics - I guess I've always just had the generally distilled image of who he was through various other media elements. And I genuinely hold a deep-seated affection for that image.

Didn't realize that before this post. Huh.

So anyway, that may affect my views.

[Aerozord]

I've yet to be particularly impressed by any of the Superman films I've seen.

I second this sentiment. The early films were, ok. Not fantastic but I watchable. After that though, I dont think I've ever actually seen one of them all the way through after 2, if I did it was so dull I dont remember.

Incidentally on Man of Steel, the big issue wasn't that collateral damage happened, it was the lack of acknowledgement. You dont see Superman at any point hesitate, or voice concern, or make an attempt to move the fight.

In its defense this seems to be an issue with superhero moves over all

[Bard The 5th LW]

I second this sentiment. The early films were, ok. Not fantastic but I watchable. After that though, I dont think I've ever actually seen one of them all the way through after 2, if I did it was so dull I dont remember.

Incidentally on Man of Steel, the big issue wasn't that collateral damage happened, it was the lack of acknowledgement. You dont see Superman at any point hesitate, or voice concern, or make an attempt to move the fight.

In its defense this seems to be an issue with superhero moves over all

This right here is the major thing. Superman and Zod basically seemed equally disinterested in all the havoc they caused. I honestly felt like Godzilla would make for a more sympathetic hero.

The problem with the flashbacks was that EVERYONE knows Superman's backstory - its a waste to devote as much time to it as they did. There are flashbacks still happening an hour into the movie. It just dragged things out and made me question the film's act structure.

The death of Clark's dad was also an especially pointless scene. Why couldn't Clark have saved the stupid dog? If he just ran up and like, used his super legs or something to stay to the ground, and ran away, no one would've been like "HE'S A FUCKING ALIEN." they would just have been like "That was ridiculously lucky, don't do that ever again!" And even if the residents of Kansas are always on the lookout for extraterrestrials among them, why did ANYONE have to run out to save that dog in a situation that obviously meant death for them?

The flashbacks on the whole didn't make much sense, dragged out the run time, and took away from scenes that could have characterized Clark IN THE PRESENT. Watching that movie, I know that Clark Kent was a scared child and a confused teenager once, but that's about it - I felt like I knew nothing about him in the film's modern day. He was just a blank face who happened to have super strength.

I guess the scene where Zod revealed himself to humanity was pretty neat for what its worth.

[Amake]

As a lifelong fan of the comic book medium and the Superman character, I've always found the movies disappointing. Their foremost distinguishing feature to my mind is showing just how hard it is to make superheroes work in live action movies, and what poor quality movies need to achieve to impress audiences on a scale I can only describe as envious.

Yeah, it's not exactly fair to compare movies to comics, but I just don't see the appeal. Why waste your time on the pre-chewed bacon-flavored gum of Man of Steel when you've got a whole pig called All-Star Superman sitting right there?

[Bum Bill Bee]

Yeah, it's not exactly fair to compare movies to comics, but I just don't see the appeal. Why waste your time on the pre-chewed bacon-flavored gum of Man of Steel when you've got a whole pig called All-Star Superman sitting right there?

I guess some people are too lazy to read even the limited worded comics :crying:

[Krylo]

. I wish 'Returns wasn't quite as "dark" (though it's pretty far from "grim"), but again, that's less an error and more of a design choice that's doesn't fully align with my preferences.

I would suggest that making a Superman film dark IS an error. I mean, yes, it's a design choice but it's an error in design. Because, well, I'll just build off something else:

Man of Steel is... well, by some it's outright reviled because of the collateral damage Supes does and (spoiler-alert!) when he defeats the bad-guy, he snaps Zod's neck, which is "un-Superman-like" or something. I don't know. Seemed like a totally reasonable action to take when you have a military-trained monster attempting to kill innocent people who has verbally sworn he will not stop (and just tried to kill everyone on the planet just a minute ago).

To me, it was impressive that Supes tried to talk him out of it, first. That was nice of him.

And, I'll preface this by saying I've not actually watched Man of Steel, but the thing about this is that, while, yes, killing Zod is reasonable. Killing Lex is ALSO reasonable (hell, it's the only sane thing, to do, arguably). Killing Toyman is reasonable. Killing, literally any Superman (or DC in general) villain is basically reasonable.

None of them will stop. All of them are going to kill innocent people. In Lex's case, they're outright above the law (and, arguably, causing more damage than Zod does, just in a less spectacular manner). Zod may be one of the most threatening, but he's just another villain, who doesn't deserve life or death any more than any of Superman's other villains. Is no more or less containable than any of his other villains.

But what makes Superman Superman is that he has 'perfect' virtues. Superman doesn't kill people because killing people is bad. Reasonable? Sure. Justifiable? Yes, certainly. But is killing someone the morally correct thing to do? Superman has always said no. Superman has always been the white in an otherwise grey world.

And that's his strength and his weakness when he's written well. Sure, kryptonite, red sunlight, blah blah. But those things are just Deus Ex Machina to allow the villains, or, more realistically, the writers, to challenge him physically. But a physical challenge has very rarely, if ever, been what makes Superman good.

It's the moral challenges. It's putting him in a situation where compromising his morals, where doing the 'wrong' thing for the right reasons is the easier way--maybe even the only way to ensure people are safe. And it's about him choosing to do it the hard way. To do it the right way.

Because Superman is supposed to be what humanity CAN be. He's supposed to stand up as a beacon of the greatness that could be achieved if we followed in his footsteps, and when he has killed someone he can never really claim that perfect moral high ground that's necessary for him to do that. It transforms him from a complex character struggling with the difficulty of being 'human' but also being 'perfect' and trying to be a rolemodel for the best that humanity can be into. . . just some guy who's a lot stronger than most other guys. Also laser eyes or something? Who cares. He's now less interesting than Wolverine.

And that's why making a Superman movie dark is ALSO a mistake. You can make everything AROUND him dark if you want, but Superman is never meant to be dark. He's meant to be a beacon and trying to make him dark just misses the point.

And that's why Superman movies are kind of shitty, or, like, okay at best. Movies never seem to quite 'GET' this (the first few with Reeves do and are some of the best, but suffer from the special effects/cinematography of their time), and just write a movie about strong guy punches some stuff and picks up an island. Maybe he punches another strong guy. Maybe he angsts a little bit about his ex-girlfriend. But he's never really dealing with that burden of being 'perfect'.

[Flarecobra]

Which ones do you think? I'd be really interested in hearing what your opinions are, whether we agree or not!

I really have only seen the first Steve Reeves one, and that's it. Was not bad. Not the best either, but an ok weekend time-passer.

[Magus]

Looks like a bunch of losers in here don't believe a man can fly...

[tacticslion]

Looks like a bunch of losers in here don't believe a man can fly...

Of course I do! Jet Blue or United Airlines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXZRxOmaOw)! Duh!

[Tev]

What doesn't make sense to me about Lex's plot in Superman Returns is that it seems to be sort of silly on its face. He wants to essentially create land from nothing because land is where the real power and money lies in a world increasing in population and running out of room to grow natural resources. This part makes sense. But then he chooses to grow this new land using alien space crystals that basically just create a giant solid crystal island that would be useless for resource production (you can't plant farms on crystal) or housing (the resources needed to terraform the island and add building would be astronomical) and on top of all of that, he laced the seed crystal with a radioactive mineral (Kryptonite) in order to keep Superman away, but in reality made his whole new landmass dangerously unlivable for humans as well.

He basically shot himself in both feet for no good reason and also managed to create a serious media backlash against himself when his project went wildly out of control and threatened major coastal population centers. All because he decided to dick around with an alien technology that he didn't really comprehend.

[Bum Bill Bee]

What Tev said :)

[Overcast]

I have a degree of respect for all the films, but await the day when they let Max Landis handle the script/direction of one.

6RWMc-EdDRY

[tacticslion]

See, there are some great points about flaws... but most of the things people bring up are things that were already "wrong" with the films previously.

That said, responding to some awesome posts...

He basically shot himself in both feet for no good reason and also managed to create a serious media backlash against himself when his project went wildly out of control and threatened major coastal population centers. All because he decided to dick around with an alien technology that he didn't really comprehend.

Except, from what I can tell, he kind of already knew exactly how large the landmass would grow. He basically expected it to go "beyond control" (relatively speaking) and wipe out the eastern seaboard: that was, in fact, part of the plan, as described to Lois.

The flaws that I see in the plan are, in fact, present, some of which you pointed out (not to mention the fact that the U.S. military would retaliate with deadly force, and those crystals+helicopter of his could not really do anything if world powers actually, you know, tried to get rid of him)... but they are really no bigger than those posed by his S1 plan.

So... you're just going to sink Cali? Really? And you'll get away with it because... why? Just because Superman is (hypothetically) out of the picture doesn't mean you're going to win... especially if you've got the rest of the continental U.S. hating you for the largest massacre of all time. No one will know about it? Really? You, purchasing all that real-estate, and leaving absolutely no paper trail? No - he clearly had resources and contacts that could be traced to him. Plus he knew, of course, that Superman's great speed couldn't possibly get both missiles because... uh... he just knows that sort of thing, I guess (and the fact that he was "correct" is exceptionally dubious as well, considering how Supes resolves the problem, a little later).

Basically, he was just wrong from start to finish. There may have been aspects of "The Plan" in S1 we weren't given... but then again the same consideration must be made of SR, considering he explicitly states that he's got super-future tech defense systems that he's going to get around installing later. Point in fact, it seems that most of the problems inherent in having a crystal island are solvable by that same tech.

(And as for radioactive, kryptonite is shown - regardless of the "normal" properties of radiation - to be harmless to humans.)

Compare, for a moment, Zod's plan of conquest in S2. "I'm gonna just go use my god-like super-powers to conquer everyone. There's really no reason I couldn't... so, you know, here we go." It's really dumb, arrogant, presumptive... and effective. They weren't threatened by nukes or any other deadly weapon, and they could just do whatever they wanted with no one able to stop them.

It's not a good plan... but it just happens to more or less work. Of course, with Lex Luthor still existing, they will be introduced to kryptonite at some point or another. Bad plan. Easily exploitable flaws. Happens to work. Their relative intelligence (or lack thereof) is shown off in full force in the ending.

The villain plot of S3: let's make a supercomputer, give it free will, turn it on, and expect nothing to go wrong. (Also: poison superman. We'll just make kryptonite ourselves.)

S4: I'mma make a radioactive Supes clone and tell him "kill". (This actually almost works.)

SR: I'mma make new land that displaces the old land and use this hyper-advanced alien tech (which, unlike in the other films, is actually mentioned) to hand-waive all the problems that come with that.

They're all pretty ridiculous, but SR actually has the most believable potential "solutions" inherently built-in to the plot and dialogue.

I want to respond to Krylo's friggin' sweet post, but I'm not coming up with the way to word my thoughts at present, so... not now. :)

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

As a lifelong fan of the comic book medium and the Superman character, I've always found the movies disappointing. Their foremost distinguishing feature to my mind is showing just how hard it is to make superheroes work in live action movies, and what poor quality movies need to achieve to impress audiences on a scale I can only describe as envious.

Yeah, it's not exactly fair to compare movies to comics, but I just don't see the appeal. Why waste your time on the pre-chewed bacon-flavored gum of Man of Steel when you've got a whole pig called All-Star Superman sitting right there?

I guess some people are too lazy to read even the limited worded comics :crying:

I wanted to add: the comics can be great, but are not necessarily so. Though not a super-DC fan (and not an avid "gotta catch'em all" of Supes in printed form) I have read enough ranging from the pretty old to the (no longer, though it was at the time) fairly new. Some could be great, but some could be... really doofy, or outright irritating. (And many's the cover that outright lies to the consumer.

While there is excellent fare, enough people have been burned in the past that I can definitely see an aversion with an entirely reasonable basis.

[Amake]

A comic book might be read by 100 000 people on a good year. Some tremendous classics break that norm; for instance Sandman keeps selling some 10 000 copies a year though it was finished twenty years ago, and it has been estimated as many as 10 million people may have read it.

The original Batman movie sold 63 million tickets. The Dark Knight sold 74 million. If you can find that many people who have ever read a comic book I'd be surprised, but we're talking about the exclusive "Has been disappointed by superhero comic books to such a degree they don't want to give comics the time of the day, but will still invest dozens of dollars and multiple hours in superhero movies" demographic making up the entirety of that gap?

[tacticslion]

A comic book might be read by 100 000 people on a good year. Some tremendous classics break that norm; for instance Sandman keeps selling some 10 000 copies a year though it was finished twenty years ago, and it has been estimated as many as 10 million people may have read it.

The original Batman movie sold 63 million tickets. The Dark Knight sold 74 million. If you can find that many people who have ever read a comic book I'd be surprised, but we're talking about the exclusive "Has been disappointed by superhero comic books to such a degree they don't want to give comics the time of the day, but will still invest dozens of dollars and multiple hours in superhero movies" demographic making up the entirety of that gap?

In the same way that people have read books they don't own, people have read comics they don't own. I know I have - either browsing through comics shops or book stores, perusing a friend's collection, or simply seeing things on the internet (on two notable occasions even in the library, though that was unfortunately rare and never in a location I've lived, hence unable to check them out).

I can easily see folks having very broad exposure to elements that they do not own. Comics, much like gaming books, is a medium that lends itself to, well, lending, at least prior to the so-called collector boom/bust... thing (whatever it was).

Libraries exist because people like sharing stuff*. I know it's happened enough in my own life that I'd not be terribly surprised.

But of course that doesn't make up the entirety of the gap. It couldn't. However, with that admission, comes the caveat that,

I guess some people are too lazy to read even the limited worded comic

... feels^ very much so like a presumption based on a limited data set. How many people are lazy? I dunno. I'd imagine, instead, many of those same people could be just as well-read, or even more so, but simply not have the time or mental energy to engage in another fictional world on the level of comics-collecting (and, make no mistake, it does take time and mental energy).

EDIT: It's an accurate assessment ("some people" instead of "all people"), but purely negative in it's portrayal. Hence, I was giving one semi-positive alternate option.

Similarly,

Why waste your time on the pre-chewed bacon-flavored gum of Man of Steel when you've got a whole pig called All-Star Superman sitting right there?

... gives a very limited, if understandable, view. The fact is, the film does appeal to people - lots of them - who don't see it in the same light. This applies both to fans of the comics (those who've read them and liked them**) and those who've not. Similarly the comics may well appeal to both those who have and have not seen the film.^^

In either case, however, the overlap may be limited (I'm unaware of the statistics)... but it's definitively extant.

Such attitudes remind of my physics professor who looked down on those who read such "nonsense" as Star Wars, and was consistently baffled by the large number of students who passed through that were obsessed with that fluffy piece of nebulously "science" fiction (or my other physics professor who notably and similarly disdained Star Trek - a crime in the anti-'Wars professor's viewpoint).

My added "but then there's this..." was merely one possibility of many for why movies are popular, without resorting to "people are just lazy" and/or "movies are worse than print" arguments (though those definitely have merit, as well***). In other words, I was giving one possible additional explanation instead of entirely repudiating the arguments.

Also, also: daggummit. Why do I not have time anymore. :/

I wanna talk with all you people on NP-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeffffffffffffffffff~! :crying:

* (sometimes)
** This may be a limited sub-set, however, considering my eldest goes to school with a kid who's father claims to be a fan of both, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
*** The merit of any given explanation may be exceptionally limited, but unless I have hard data, we're all basically in the conjecture mode. And hard data, unfortunately, is exceptionally hard to come by when dealing with folks' private lives and motivations.
^ Edited for word-choice.
^^ An example of someone who likes "both" things: I really enjoy the cheesy camp that is the original 'Trek series, as well as the recent remakes in films. I heart myself some original Tron as well as the 'Legacy sequel. The Lord of the Rings films and books (and the Hobbit films and books) were all entirely fabulous. The X-Men films were kind of alright (even while I super-enjoyed them)... up until First Class, in which case they became THE GREATEST; I loved the comics growing up. The Spiderman films and Amazing films each do really awesome things that the other somewhat drops the ball on (most notably Mary Jane/Gwen Stacy weirdness, and the excellent Peter v. excellent Spiderman of Maguire and Garfield, respectively).

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

I would suggest that making a Superman film dark IS an error. I mean, yes, it's a design choice but it's an error in design.

I do want to respond to this, 'cause I can: I would say that the film is dark, Superman himself (despite what others say) is actually rather hopeful.

(His dad is very stupid, if well-meaning, though. I stand by that quite solidly. Stupid, Johnathan, senseless, and idiotic. Technically noble, but extremely moronic and entirely unnecessary, nonetheless.)

EDIT: And "dark" is somewhat misleading, even if it was my own word choice (though I did put quotes around it on purpose, though, upon rereading, that wasn't entirely clear*): it is darker without, truly, being dark, and it entirely lacks any sort of grim** elements to it.

* This is my really poor way of apologizing for that. Sorry.
** See? I did it again. Bah! Poor communication is poor! Stupid English, entirely unable to contain and express my thinky-things at your brain-space sans error! >:( #I'veUnrealisticExpectationsForLanguage (:D)