I can't even begin to understand.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Marvel/DC
jerelvis — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 03:26 AM)
I can't even begin to understand.
Is it nostalgic purposes? Or what?? I grew up watching the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. He was one my heroes as a kid. But to say this movie was actually GOOD?? And that MOS sucks?? Apart from a few scenes, this movie was a joke. I love Christopher Reeve as Superman, he WAS Superman. But comparing this to MOS? Ridiculous.
Flooding the board won't convince anyone who has actually watched the movies. -
Hendry_William_French — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 05:45 AM)
Is it nostalgic purposes?
Nope. People just realize in retrospect that this once flawed movie (SIV) now looks like gold compared to the wretched pile of sh!t that is MOS.
You know back before the war broke out I was a saucier in San Antone -
Doom — 10 years ago(April 20, 2015 12:44 PM)
Trying to defend MOS (in jest, as I also thought it sucked), I was going to mention how terrible the intro credits looked in Superman IV - and they really did.
Then I remembered that I can't even make THAT 'comparison' because MOS didn't even
HAVE ANY CREDITS
. No credits in a friggin' Superman movie (because, you know, having NO credits at all is just
such a cool thing to do.
)
Superman IV
all the way, warts and all.
Wait a minute who am I here? -
SpaceMountainMike — 10 years ago(March 25, 2016 12:22 PM)
I don't know what the f-k MOS
My guess is Man Of Steel, but what franchise is that?? TV show? Cartoon?
My iMDB profile
http://www.imdb.com/board/24297325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 -
dreamchildrulesfandorina — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 11:35 PM)
lol.people on this board are trying to be clever and sarcastic.mos is man of steel 2013. re-emagining or the ree-boot of the superman saga.something some people alwas have a problem with.having grown up in the 80s with superman movies and cartoon i still enyoyed seeing the carakter beeing uppgraded.:-)))and for the record i hated all of the fantastic four movies.with i loved as to read as cartoon magasins in my yuth.the one with silver surfer tottaly ruined galactus.and the last one the fantasric four them self.so now you now where i stand with new versions.and yes this final superman movie with christopher reeve sucked too.the previous was ok.
-
NikolaAvramov — 10 years ago(March 27, 2016 08:40 AM)
So it's sin is diverging from the formula?
To me it seemed only updated.
Less flashy but being corny like the original simply doesn't cut it, anymore.
It makes it seem like a parody.
It MIGHT have been more cheerful without losing the audience, perhaps -
wallacesawyer — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 12:52 PM)
I enjoy SUPERMAN IV. And it's not nostalgia talking. I think I was an adult before I saw this one. I've always had a high tolerance for "bad movies", and even SUPERMAN III is starting to grow on me. I even enjoy MAN OF STEEL in fact.
But Christopher Reeve as Superman is one of this film's high points. Nuclear Man, though not perfect, has great potential as a villain, and I honestly want to see this character rebooted into the comic books.
There are parts that disappoint me. Poor special effects, no Lana Lang, overt campiness (though that can be said about all of Reeves' films).
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/ -
SloppyJ30 — 10 years ago(August 19, 2015 06:31 AM)
Really. Honestly, I can't fathom anyone saying or typing the sentence "I enjoy Superman IV." That such a thing is even possible threatens to tear asunder the very fabric of physical reality as I understand it. I'd sooner believe that CHUDs were living in our sewers and pro wrasslin' is real.
I saw TQFP in theaters on opening weekend when I was 15. Even then, with a much less sensitive and uncalibrated suckometer, I was aware I'd seen something truly historic. It was almost an out-of-body experience. It has been, still is, and probably always will be the standard by which all other bad movies are compared. Nuclear Man?? Honest to Dog??
The laughable-on-its-face story, overwhelming cheese, cheap-arse effects, and sub-amateur vibe of the whole catastrophe might have been good for a laugh had I not been so fond of the first two Reeves movies. It was akin to how I now imagine the experience of watching a sequel to Apocalypse Now written by Nick Swardson and directed by Uwe Boll on a $5 mil budget . . but still starring Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando.
Are you sure you are using the word "enjoy" in the commonly accepted and understood way?I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
-
wallacesawyer — 10 years ago(August 19, 2015 12:41 PM)
Really. Honestly, I can't fathom anyone saying or typing the sentence "I enjoy Superman IV." That such a thing is even possible threatens to tear asunder the very fabric of physical reality as I understand it. I'd sooner believe that CHUDs were living in our sewers and pro wrasslin' is real.
I saw TQFP in theaters on opening weekend when I was 15. Even then, with a much less sensitive and uncalibrated suckometer, I was aware I'd seen something truly historic. It was almost an out-of-body experience. It has been, still is, and probably always will be the standard by which all other bad movies are compared. Nuclear Man?? Honest to Dog??
The laughable-on-its-face story, overwhelming cheese, cheap-arse effects, and sub-amateur vibe of the whole catastrophe might have been good for a laugh had I not been so fond of the first two Reeves movies. It was akin to how I now imagine the experience of watching a sequel to Apocalypse Now written by Nick Swardson and directed by Uwe Boll on a $5 mil budget . . but still starring Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando.
Are you sure you are using the word "enjoy" in the commonly accepted and understood way?
If I said I wished Cannon Films had reused their deleted footage for a SUPERMAN 5, would you jump off a cliff, having given up all hope for humanity?
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/ -
SloppyJ30 — 10 years ago(August 19, 2015 01:53 PM)
I'd probably get to the ledge and chicken out. And, to be fair, your theoretical abomination/movie had about a 60% chance of being better than the aborted Tim Burton/Nic Cage version.
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
-
Gustav_Fiers — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 01:35 PM)
I don't get it either. But then I don't get people who think Batman and Robin is better than.well any other Batman movie.
You can at least name some valid merits about Man of Steel. A lot more than you can for Superman 4. Christopher Reeve is the only good thing about this movie. -
Passport-To-Pimlico — 12 years ago(March 15, 2014 01:43 PM)
Neither are especially good movies but
Superman IV
, with its financial issues and limited effects, still did a much, much better job of being a Superman film than
Man Of Steel
.
Snyder's disaster had a huge budget and ten years worth of re-invented comic book book movies but still came out as a massive lake of jizz. There were no excuses for this mess.
Given the choice, I'd much rather watch the optimistic Reeve, Hackman and Kidder, with a John Williams score and limited budget than cynical Cavill, Shannon and Adams with a Zimmer score and huge budget.
If you are a follower of Passport-To-Pimlico and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig. -
-
DonutPower — 12 years ago(March 16, 2014 08:12 PM)
whats not to understand?
Man of Steel was not a good movie. it was boring and lacking in every department.
they deliberately changed things around for the purpose of changing things around. they wanted to be different and that cost them a lot in terms of making a worthwhile Superman film.
Superman and his people now come off very alien instead of a more intelligent race of people. Pa Kent was an unlikeable character and poor father figure. it went against everything that the character symbolized to the origin of Superman.
the villain was a joke. the CGI was kind of cheap looking. the instrumental score was very generic. the flashbacks and pacing tried too hard to be Batman Begins, the lead actor was lacking what made Superman so iconic, etc. etc.
the list just goes on and on.
the issue with Superman IV was that it had little to no money for its production. the storyline itself was entertaining and creative enough at the time. sadly editors went about cutting the film terribly. giving us a very short fast paced film that felt rushed and underdeveloped.
at the end of the day i will continue to give Superman IV repeat viewings.Christopher Reeve's performance alone is what gives it high marks above Man of Steel. the instrumental score is much more anthemic and memorable. the effects look quite bad but again thats due to the budget limitations that the film suffered.
does nostalgia play a part in it? probably. i mean i still enjoy the film in watching it through adult eyes. yes i see all the flaws very clearly, than compared to when i was a young kid with a lot of imagination, but the film is still watchable.
Man of Steel is a movie that i could barely get through on the first watch. had no desire to see it a second time.
Man of Steel doesnt suck. it's just not a good movie. you could change the names of the characters and title the film to something more suitable, and youd have a fairly decent superhero sci fi movie. just like the recent Robocop remake could easily have been titled something else. if they want to screw around with the story for the sake of desperately making something different.then they should just make their own bland movie, instead of using the name recognition to try and make a quick buck.