Does this still hold up?
>>80606647
Fairly well
No, not really.
>>80606647
It never really did. It was goofy, entertaining cheese then, it's slightly goofier, entertaining cheese now
>>80606647
I still prefer this over MOS but to each their own. You need to give it a lot of slack considering the limitations the movie had to face during those times
I would say so. Sure the effects are weird and Hackman goes a little bit too ham sometimes, but the core plot is still strong.
>>80608734
What limitations cause cellphone projectile logos? Or forget-me-now kisses? Or sudden inexplicable hologramming that was apparently a childhood skill? Or finger rays? Or flying around the world to reverse time? Or the weak plot or stilted dialogue and bad acting?
>>80608866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_II#Original_production
>>80608958
I'm aware of the director swap and the Donner cut. A) That's not a limitation, and B) most of those things remain in the cut.
Are you making the argument that the movie holds up, because you have to understand it faced a limit of the times by changing directors, and that limitation caused Superman to suddenly be able to throw his logo as a projectile, and thus it's still enjoyable?
>>80609157
It ran into production troubles and did best with what it could. I already stated you need to give it a lot of slack
>>80606647
It was the Iron Man 3 of its day
>>80609245
Running in to production troubles doesn't make it a better movie. It can be part of the conversation as to why it is or is not a good movie, but it's irrelevant to the question about the bottom-line product.
Also, you still haven't explained how production troubles create bizarre, unexplained powers. I'll concede production troubles creating the bad writing, plotting, pacing, editing and maybe acting.
>>80609658
The bizarre powers are part of the writing
>>80608734
>>80608958
>>80609245
>You need to give it a lot of slack considering the limitations the movie had to face during those times
That sentence suggests judging a movie through the perspective of how it compared in its era; where it sits compared to film techniques and standards of its day, what technological limitations there were, etc. That would be reasonable.
You then respond to anon about production turmoil and director changes, which has nothing to do with, "those times," it was released in. Frankly, it also has nothing to do with holding up, which was OP's question.
>>80609728
And childhood hologram games are part of the Donner cut. So a director change didn't affect that writing. And Donner's the same person who had backwards time travel flying when he was given a movie to himself for a whole production.
And, for arguments sake, let's say they weren't. You would say that if Lester had the movie the whole time, he wouldn't have had amnesia kiss?
>>80608866
>>80608866
It was the 70s. Amnesia kisses, shooting things from his fingers, projections? Those were all powers Superman demonstrated in the comics.
Especially the amnesia kisses. Superman would mindwipe hordes of girls like some kind of molesty neuralyzer.
>>80609728
And so that makes them hold up? It was bad writing, but we know why it was bad writing, so it's good writing?
>>80609845
[citation needed]
>>80609271
Superman 3 was the Iron Man 3 of its day. This was the Iron Man 2.
>>80608866
>cellphone
>>80606647
Only really notable for making Zod relevant and Clark not a virgin. First one was better.
Also Lester gets too much shit from Donner fans.
>getting annoyed that a Silver Age interpretation of the character doesn’t make any sense
Donner wasn't interested in lore or exposition, he just wanted to tell a very basic Superman story and succeeded.
>>80609864
>it was bad writing
It's old writing. You might as well claim that the old Twilight Zone episodes are bad because they don't logically hold together.
Logic is not the be-all-end-all of art. The TVTropesification of criticism is terrible.
it holds up ok
but superman II is best for giving us the most based zod in history, live-action or comics and ursa
>>80609988
Iron Man 3 had directorial changes similar to Iron Man 3 and you can notice the tone of the movie going haywire in the second half similar to Iron man 3
>>80609755
It was both limitations of the times + production turmoil, it had a lot of things going against it
>>80611112
And that doesn't make it good. It's an explanation for why it's bad, an excuse, but it doesn't improve the final product.
>>80610062
>You might as well claim that the old Twilight Zone episodes are bad because they don't logically hold together.
Confirmed for never having watched The Twilight Zone
>>80609908
Read some comics, maybe?
>>80612012
And yet it still holds up better than Man of Steel did
>>80606647
better than man of murder anyway
The flying around earth superfast thing is a little less silver-age cheese than it appears to be.
Superman isn't reversing the rotation of the earth to turn back time.
Superman is flying faster than light speed to travel back in time, the reversal of earths rotation that can be seen is just a visual indicator of that.
It doesn't make it hard science fiction all of a sudden, but it makes a tiny bit more sense.
>>80606647
MoS is better but it still holds up
Part II yah, not part one
>>80606647
The krypton/smallville bits do but the only part that holds up after that is Reeve's performance (and some of the jokes like the phonebooth and clark seeming old fashioned)
>>80612997
This this this.
The first 40 minutes or so are fucking brilliant to this day. Great performances, emotionally resonant-- great, great shit.
And then Superman goes to the Metropolis and it turns into a fucking cartoon. Chris Reeve saves that movie from itself, honestly.
>>80612055
Right? I can't remember a single Twilight Zone with as much out-of-the-ass nonsense that the original Superman movies have.
>>80612420
Man of Steel is garbage, but so is your post. Every Superman movie has been -- regrettably -- awful, but Man of Steel is the closest they've ever been to being not awful.
>>80612330
Done. You still haven't cited your claim.
>>80613093
>Man of Steel is the closest they've ever been to being not awful
>There are people on /co/ who believe this
>>80606647
Of course. It was tremendous fun then, and it still is now.
>>80609845
>Amnesia kisses, shooting things from his fingers, projections?
None of that was in S:TM.
>>80606647
It defines superhero movies to me.
>>80606647
Same as Adam West Batman. It's enjoyable because it's so cheesy, but you can't really take it seriously.
It's the closest portrayal to golden age Superman without being an outright parody.
Reeve makes you believe the character is a really good and decent guy with an impeccable moral compass.
Of course it's as cheesy as hell but it's kinda sincere, something the studios just wouldn't do today without some sort of angsty angle to screw things up.
>>80609988
>Iron Man 2
>>80611004
Iron Man 3: The Jon Favreau Cut when?
>>80610525
faora>ursa
>>80615172
>movie that has no act structure or story
>patrician
>>80615212
>movie that has no act structure or story
>patrician
I don't know, it kind of sounds like you're unwittingly making a case for it. After all, the more avant-garde filmmakers often make films that conform less to that. The movies that follow the 3-act structure most closely are usually the most plebby lowest-common-denominator guaranteed to sell but not do much else movies.
>>80615237
I was making a joke about the movie being "experimental" because of how poorly-written it is.
> The movies that follow the 3-act structure most closely are usually the most plebby lowest-common-denominator guaranteed to sell but not do much else movies.
Don't give me that. Well-done entertainment is a merit all on its' own, making an "art movie' is not inherently better.
>>80608734
I prefer everything over MoS. MoS is legit one of the most boring Superhero movies I've ever spent money to watch for the first half of it.And the Dragon Ball esque fighting scenes I normally would think were cool but just looked really out of place in this film for some reason.
Everyone can talk shit about Returns all they want but it was perfectly fine. It was much better than that shit fest at least.
>>80606647
Yes
>>80606647
>1978
>>80613093
>Man of Steel is the closest they've ever been to being not awful.
>>80615186
Just cut IM3 right before he meets the kid and theres your Jon Favreau cut
>>80616579
>I normally would think were cool but just looked really out of place in this film for some reason.
I kinda felt the same, I mean I enjoyed it because it finally felt like something was happening in the movie. But I felt it was too late
>>80606647
I don't think that any of them holds up, I even hesitate to call the first two for good movies.
>>80612997
>>80613033
OP meant Superman 2 apparently.
Some parts of Superman 1 aren't muh Supes but that's fine, except I'm bummed by how much Jor-El hogs the spotlight. Pa's like an afterthought. Jor-El is more responsible for Clark becoming Supes than Pa or Clark himself is, and that's bad. MOS did it again, and that's worse.
It's fine, but it sucks that due to nostalgia goggles and the crappy reactions to MoS, these are likely the only kind of Superman movies we're ever going to get after a while. There are people with different tastes out the anons
Snyder here. You're welcome.
>>80616579
I wish this meme of Man of Steel having Dragonball fights would end.
Dragonball fights have the characters getting hurt to retain a sense of tension.
>>80619454
kek
It still holds up fine if you are okay with some Silver Age cheesiness. Like the cellophane S/time travel stuff. It's not bad, just moments that remind you comics are kinda silly at the end of the day.
>>80616579
Superman Returns unironically had the best live action Luthor.
>>80610061
Watch the Donner Cut and tell me again if Lester caught too much shit. Also, the opening credits of Superman 3 is all you need to know about where John Lester took the franchise.
>>80610525
>>80615200
Nope. Ursa's growing collection of authority symbols as trophies is one of the most based character elements of any villain in a super hero movie period.
>>80619619
>Smallville unironically had the best live action Luthor.
fixed
>>80619775
Smallville Luthor was shit.
>>80619794
YOU"RE SHIT MOTHERFUCKER YOU"RE SHIT
>>80611004
Not really the same directoral changes. Superman 1 and 2 were to be filmed concurrently. Money ran out during the filming of scenes for 2 and Donner was forced to release 1 without the promise of finishing 2. Then he was fired and Richard Lester was brough in. Hackman was so pissed that he refused to show up for any of Lester's reshoots. Kidder was so pissed that she only appeared for the 3 minutes she was in 3 as a contract obligation. When you piss off 2 of your 3 leads, you shit the bed. Much different than Iron Man 3.
![superman214-1334528872[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SWxwonw.jpg "superman214-1334528872[1].jpg")
shitmcfartland jokes aside:
what the fuck WAS with that cellophane S supes thew on zod in superman 2?
>>80620011
Richard Lester bullshit
>>80620011
apparently Superman is too underpowered for a dramatic final stand against his equally powered enemies, so the best way to showcase the character's strength is to have him stand around and fling plastic and point.
>>80619760
> Ursa's growing collection of authority symbols as trophies is one of the most based character elements of any villain in a super hero movie period.
totally agree. it's so simple but amazing effective. donner is based as fuck
> when she rips the apollo patch off the astronaut and he flies off into space dead
chills every time
>>80621142
Don't forget, he is flying off into space because she PUNTS him off the moon.
The first movie barely has a plot and the second movie is so cheesy and silly it's impossible to even take the Donner Cut seriously.
MoS had flaws, sure, but a way better Supes movie than any of the others. The only thing the previous movies had going for them were how Reeve looked in the costume (good, admittedly) and the John Williams score.
I mean, FFS, did Mario Puzo ever read a single Superman comic book?
>>80621313
> punted by a kryptonian
he was probably dead from internal damage before he suffocated
