Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Alex wrote:

I was going to say the same thing. I totally agree with avatar's post, except for the Game of Thrones part. Good lord I hate that shit. I tried for, like, 5 seasons, and eventually had to admit that it's just The Walking Dead with ice walkers that don't do anything instead of walkers that don't do anything, and the occasional boob/penis.

Fair enough. I didn't just wanna say "All TV is shit" - there are exceptions but, sure, strike GOT from that list. Doesn't leave much though. I like Silicon Valley and some of Better Call Saul, but that's infested with the same thin plot problems (false drama and loads of repetition).

All the sins that writers are told to avoid in movies, are doubled-down upon in today's TV.

And just like that...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

My contribution (it's a doozy):

Ok, I think Christopher Reeve is an awesome Superman (that's not the controversial opinion). But here's the thing: I don't care for the Donner Superman movies. Like, any of them. Old guys, don't tell me I just don't understand because I wasn't alive yet (well, for the first one). Overall, they're fairly goofy movies. Margo Kidder is insane. Gene Hackman plays a goofy, dopey, comic-relief Lex Luthor. Lex is a character who, in the comics, is one of the smartest and most calculating people on the planet. He's also all kinds of evil, and he's more than just a mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash wannabe. Do I think Superman is fine? Sure. Do I respect it as a benchmark of its time? Of course. Same with Superman II. I think the groundwork is there. That's not what bothers me about these movies. What bothers me is that, whenever a new Superman movie comes out, everyone loses their damn minds if it's not like the Christopher Reeve films.

Let's get one thing straight. Superman (as a character) is much, much older than the Richard Donner films, and the majority of his adventures have been on a comic book page, not on screen. The Donner movies are not the be-all end-all baseline of how a Superman movie absolutely HAS to be.

Does that mean I think Man of Steel was good? No. Man of Steel was pretty much shit. At best it was mediocre. But that was for its own reasons. Not because it wasn't like Reeve's Superman. In fact, if anything, the fact that it tried to borrow Superman II's plotline worked against it.

Bryan Singer's Superman Returns suffers from an even worse problem, which is that it couldn't decide if it was a reboot, remake, or a sequel. Chronologically it took place after the events of the last Reeve film. But the crisis point and several dialogue lines were stolen from the first Donner film.

It's like filmmakers keep forgetting that Superman was (and is) a comic book character first and a movie character second.

To quote Forest Gump, "That's all I got to say about that right now."

Please.... be gentle.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

378

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Hmm. Where do I fair in a superman outfit with an inflatable horse costume? Asking for a friend. A friend who thought it was good. Good to dress up circe 2010.

Hurroo

Thumbs up Thumbs down

379

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Yes I'm afull

Hurroo

Thumbs up Thumbs down

380

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

The more today's DC superheroes become dark, brooding, EMOs in the rain, the fresher the Donner Superman becomes. Aw Shucks.
For me, only the dickhead sidekicks of Lex don't hold up. I'm fine with the rest.

If Lex was another badass Joker-type of villain who instantly disembowels everyone who disrespects him... you know, we've seen enough of those.

And just like that...

Thumbs up Thumbs down