It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I wish I could say I was in the generation of kids who saw it in the cinema, but I wasn’t born until ‘97.
However, my first time watching the film as a kid will always stick with me. Some TV station (forget which one), was showing the Superman films for the following days after the unfortunate passing of Christopher Reeve. My first time viewing was just pure magic.
I think Superman is pretty much the fold standard for superhero movies and maybe the only true superhero movie ever made. But while it is debatable, I don't think it is very controversial.
Wasn't it the Milton Keynes train station that was used for the UN in Superman 4?
Maybe not controversial, but I think to a modern day audience they’d list something like Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, or Logan instead of the ‘78 Superman. Those films are great, but I don’t think they match the quality of Superman ‘78, if anything Dark Knight comes the closest of the bunch, that’s another 10/10 superhero film for me.
If you want controversial opinions, I like Richard Pryor in Superman 3...
I could be mistaken, but I always understood an industrial park was used for the UN exteriors. I'll have to do a little research.
I liked Richard Pryor as well. I enjoy the 3rd film and think Reeve looked his best.
In this day and age there's so many superhero movies, several could probably be the gold standard. To my heart it's the first Reeve film, but a lot of that is nostalgia.
Superhero films today have come quite a long way and get the respect and honor that didn't really happen for years.
I agree, I think a lot of the reason why Superhero films are so respected today is that they cross into many different genres of film. But at the same time, I feel like some superhero films nowadays (some, not all) tend to put more emphasis on world building and spectacle, more than heart and soul. I think Shazam has been the closest in years that has been able to recreate the magic of the original Superman.
What may have been part of the magic back then was that today epics are released all the time and back then they were fairly new. Star Wars and Close Encounters set the standard the year before and Superman was the next step that kept that style of filmmaking going.
What a terrific observation. A world in which this happens all the time is much less interesting to me than one in which this is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. It's the difference between an intrusion of fantasy into our commonplace reality, and an outright fantasy world.
My favorite superhero film ever and in my top 20 favorite films list overall.
Same here! Along with The Incredibles.
Not many superhero movies managed to make us believe in the premisse, I think. Apart from Superman, Nolan's first two Batman movies and maybe to a lesser extent the first two Raimi's Spider-Man did. I'm watching Spider-Man: Homecoming for the first time right now and while it's enjoyable I find it so... banal. Like nothing in it is out of the ordinary, even though the whole thing is ridiculously over the top.
That’s Marvel Studios for you.
Exactly, nothing really stands out in these movies. Most of them are perfectly watchable, but 'banal' is the right word.
I thought Michael Keaton was great in it as an everyman supervillain, but let's face it, it was one of the lamest turn into the darkside ever put on screen. Seriously, I'm not sure the Vulture would have existed had the government paid compensation for his trouble... or simply made him a subcontractor. And what he said about Stark is kind of true.
And i grew up watching the Reeve films.
universally hailed as a masterpiece, but not for me.
I was expecting more, and came away very disappointed. It doesn't come anyway close to the original, imo.
But I don't recall a ton of discussion or praise from many quarters. It just kinda' seemed to be there and not a great sequel or addition to the genre or anything. Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention or didn't look at certain genre sites.
Of course I then kicked myself when I watched it on blu-ray because it was so much better than the reviews I had read.
And I discovered it wasn’t about whether characters are humans or robots or not, it’s about whether robots and software can become human. In philosophical terms the first film is about essentialism whereas the second film is about constructivism.
But it is sooooooo slow-moving. The original rattles along. And in many ways it’s not as immersive as the original (the dystopian LA in the original feels like it is stuffed with real people, it really is magnificent).
So I can understand why many viewers don’t like it. I like it overall but there are lots of bits that I really don’t like.
I haven't seen it but here's my hypothesis: the score on RT only reflects the overall reviews' score, not that it was a necessary sequel, as good or better or worse as the original, if it was faithful to it or if it's going to be popular. It's a sum of here and now impressions. Someone gives the movie a pass, it's one more fresh review on RT. Someone hails it as a masterpiece, it's also a fresh review.
To your point, I started watching it and really enjoyed the Batista fight, and then immediately fell asleep.
Having said that I do really want to watch it properly at some point.
Also, as far as theatre attendances go, the audience score is usually the one to look at; but in 2049's case it's at 81%, which is still quite high for a film that was a financial disappointment.