Well- a date has been set for Superman V

[aaharvel]

June 2006. The director is the same guy from The Usual Suspects.

I gotta say that although he's no Christopher Reeve- the new guy does look the part- now all they have to do is re-design the outfit.

If this movie's half as good as 1978's Superman- one of the greatest movies ever- then I will be pleased.

http://countingdown.com/movies/1378

[ohskigod]

does anyone else look at the picture of the new Superman and think "I can almost hear this movie suck!"

[aaharvel]

yeah the suit just doesn't look right. And the guy's still no Chris Reeve, that's for damn sure.

[Micah Cohen]

If this movie's half as good as 1978's Superman- one of the greatest movies ever- then I will be pleased.

Okay, so let's see... If on a scale of one to ten of super hero movies, the Donner SUPERMAN is... 8.5. Nothing's perfect, right?

The SPIDERMAN movies could be a 6, maybe. Any lower and everyone will start howling, I'm sure.

HULK might be a 4 (for Jennifer Connelly and Nick Nolte). Maybe the two XMEN movies are 4s, also.

Everything else recent... DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, HELLBOY, the BATMAN franchise (not including the new one, cause I haven't seen it yet), etc. is 2 to maybe 3.

THE PUNISHER is a 1.

So, the new upcoming Superman movie only really has to be as good as the HULK movie to qualify, huh? That doesn't seem like such a high mark to hit, you know?

GAD this is gonna be stupid. Why are they doing this? They could feed the starving children in a third world country for a year on the budget of a film like this and THIS MOVIE DOES NOT NEED TO BE MADE! Stop the madness!

MC

[MacLeod]

I love the idea of a new Superman movie but Im not sure Im crazy about the idea of picking up where IV left off. Why not start all over like Batman Begins did?

Im also not crazy about the guy playing Superman. He needs to be bigger. The Batman dude bulked up to 215 pounds. Why cant the man of steel be a little bigger? And why another pretty boy?

I have high hopes for this movie. I want it to be good.

.....and the Spiderman movies were at least an 8.5!! :D

[Demiurge]

Well...they finally found an idiot willing to take the part. This role has been turned down by so many actors.

[MacLeod]

I heard they offered it to Nicholas Cage at one point! My Gawd man! Nick Cage as Superman?!?!?

[marker]

I heard they at one point offered it to Keannu Reeves. I'll bet he turned it down too. Afterall, look at what happened to the last two guys to play the role with a last name of Reeve or Reeves.

[aaharvel]

Originally posted by Micah Cohen
Okay, so let's see... If on a scale of one to ten of super hero movies, the Donner SUPERMAN is... 8.5. [SIZE=1]Nothing's perfect, right?

Wrong Micah. Donner's masterpiece was perfect. :D

[Micah Cohen]

It was perfect... For Donner, maybe, but it's not a perfect film by any means.

CHINATOWN is a perfect film. AMADEUS is a perfect film. JAWS is a perfect film. THE THIRD MAN is a perfect film. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is a perfect film. ALIEN is a perfect film. CASABLANCA is a perfect film. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a perfect film.

SUPERMAN is a perfect Richard Donner film. You know? I'm not knocking it, it's the best of the lot when it comes to superhero movies, but it's not a "perfect" film.

MC

[ND13]

Originally posted by Micah Cohen
CASABLANCA is a perfect film. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a perfect film.
MC [/B]

AMEN

My cat's name is Scout for crying out loud.

[Ron-P]

Wow, is this the guy who's Superman? I'm gonna say it...GAY! Superman is no flying homo but this guy sure looks the part.

[AsSiMiLaTeD]

Micah, you're saying that Hulk is better than the original Batman - did I read that correctly???

That's insane

You seem a bit more negative than usual lately, but I guess you've earned that right:D

[aaharvel]

Originally posted by Micah Cohen
SUPERMAN is a perfect Richard Donner film. You know? I'm not knocking it, it's the best of the lot when it comes to superhero movies, but it's not a "perfect" film.

MC

sorry Micah - i meant to say for the Genre it's perfect.
Good post.

[Micah Cohen]

Is HULK better than Burton's BATMAN?

Hmmmmm.

BATMAN has two good things going for it: Michael Keaton was soulful as Bruce Wayne, and in my opinion played it perfectly as a troubled guy who is NOT comfortable with his richness. And The Batman himself, when he was onscreen (all of eight minutes total) was pretty nifty, especially in the first few minutes of the film. That's it, tho. Otherwise, it was a crap movie. Campy garbage. Embarrassing.

HULK... Was ****ty and stupid, yes. But, it also strove to tell the story and stay true to the comic book. It was written well. It was shot well, and the decision to make The Hulk TOTALLY CGI worked (because the majority of the rest of the film was very organic). And it had good performances from great actors, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte and Sam Elliot, you know?

I'd re-watch HULK before I'd re-watch BATMAN.

So, yeah, I guess I have to say that lame as it is, HULK might just be better than Burton's lamer BATMAN. (But, as I said, I like Michael Keaton in the role. I might have to give in and see the new one, eh?)

MC

[aaharvel]

Micah the new Batman is not too bad. I think Liam Neeson is terrific in it. That's how Qui-Gon Jinn should have been in Episode I- but nooooooo Lucas was smoking that crackpipe...

[jet2001]

Sorry Micah, I have to disagree...Jack Nicholson as the Joker is one of my all time favorite 'bad' guys. Jack's performance is the reason why I'd watch Batman again over the Hulk.

While we're all going to miss Chris Reeve in this new Superman movie, I'm also going to miss Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.

The dynamics of the 'bad' guy is what makes a good superhero movie, in my opinion. The Hulk sucked because there really wasn't a bad guy....his father (nick nolte) wasn't evil enough to carry the movie.

X-men has Ian McKellen...solid bad buy.

Daredevil had Collin Farrel and Michael Clark Duncan...both weak bad guys.

Electra's bad guys flat out sucked.

Spiderman has had two pretty darned good 'bad' guys.

Wrong genre, but I believe the reason Star Wars has been so popular is because of dynamic 'bad guys'. Maul, Dooku, a spectacular performance by Sidious/Palpatine, and one of the best bad guys of all time in Darth Vader.

It's easy to write a hero...it's been done a 1000 times. But making a good guy really look good, you need a quality antagonist.

[marker]

Originally posted by jet2001
Sorry Micah, I have to disagree...Jack Nicholson as the Joker is one of my all time favorite 'bad' guys. Jack's performance is the reason why I'd watch Batman again over the Hulk.

While we're all going to miss Chris Reeve in this new Superman movie, I'm also going to miss Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor.

^ What he said.

Originally posted by jet2001
It's easy to write a hero...it's been done a 1000 times. But making a good guy really look good, you need a quality antagonist.

Which is exactly why Ric Flair is still doing what he does at 55 years of age.

[aaharvel]

Who's Ric Flair? ;)

[aaharvel]

WHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[Micah Cohen]

The dynamics of the 'bad' guy is what makes a good superhero movie, in my opinion.

You're right, good point.

I just think Nicholson is a goof in BATMAN, then. Hackman rocks, and maybe that's one of the reasons SUPERMAN is so good. But you're right about the other ones. And HULK didn't have much in the way of bad guys (altho, I think it was Sam Elliot who was supposed to be the bad buy; Nolte played the Hulk's father, right?).

MC

[jet2001]

(altho, I think it was Sam Elliot who was supposed to be the bad buy; Nolte played the Hulk's father, right?).

This point is why the Hulk sucked so much to me. Sam Elliot was the 'father who was never there', but he was just doing his military duty. Did he really do anything 'bad'? Nolte was the crazy scientist who sent dogs after Jennifer Connelly and in the end had that 'godlike' fight with his son.

The Hulk is supposed to be a story about inner struggle (stan lee's version) and they portrayed that pretty well...if they would have left it to the Hulk against himself and the world, it may have been better (the fight scenes with the tanks and helicopters were pretty cool), but they brought in the character of Bruce's father, which kinda ruined the plot for me.

Tim Burton's Batman was the first thing from batman since Adam West and their POW! BAM! era. It was more focused on the comic version...it had a decent plot. Still not Superman.

Off topic:

Why is it that the movies of the 70's were really great, yet when they remake them or bring them into this decade/century they just aren't as good? Star Wars and Superman are two good examples of this. I'm fearing that the Bad News Bears will be another example.

You could say that the writers were better, but then George Lucas wrote Star Wars and the more recent prequels. What are your thoughts?

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by aaharvel
I think Liam Neeson is terrific in it. That's how Qui-Gon Jinn should have been in Episode I- but nooooooo Lucas was smoking that crackpipe...

I differ on this. I loved the way Neeson played the part in Episode 1. When you think of a Jedi you think of a dude totally calm and in control. Thats the way he played it. The Batman Neeson was a little too animated and harsh for a Jedi.

Either way, Im a huge Liam Neeson fan. I was just sad he had to die in Ep 1.

[Micah Cohen]

There were no Jedis in the Batman story. So, I'm confused by Liam Neeson's need to be in the Batman movie. Don't try to explain this to me, I'll see it eventually. And hate it.

Also, don't "fear" that the remake of THE BAD NEWS BEARS will not be good. ACCEPT IT. It will not be good. All you have to do is go to your local Walmart, where the original film's widescreen DVD is in the $5 DVD bin, buy it cheap, feel good about that, and you will see that the original is priceless. No need to remake it. It will SUCK.

Why do remakes suck? Because they have no soul. The soul is in the original, the one made with hunger and meaning and purpose, made by artists who wanted to make something original. Remakes are made purely for money by people who have no original ideas, and thus no soul. They are soul-less. And so they suck.

QUESTION: Do you think that today's filmmakers will leave in Tanner's line about the ethnic types on the team? (You know: "All we got is a blank, blank, blank, blank and a booger eatin moron.") No way. No way that line makes it into the remake. And so, what's the point of the remake? Nothing but money.

MC

[jet2001]

Exactly Micah!

While I do cringe when hearing that line, it plays a part in that movie. Was it ever acceptable to use those terms? No, but you would expect nothing less from that rag-tag group of kids. And don't worry, I already own the original...it is a classic.

Your comments on 'no soul' are very interesting and in my opinion, very accurate. Another question is; How can these actors/directors still claim that they are artists when all they are doing is remaking someone else's work? Should their be plagerism in Hollywood? I realize that you do have to purchase the rights to remake a movie, but why should that be acceptable?

[Micah Cohen]

Well, some of the greatest films ever were "remakes." The Chuck Heston BEN HUR is a remake. FRANKENSTEIN is a remake. DRACULA, for that matter, is a remake. Hey, even Steven "All I Do Is Remakes" Soderberg's SOLARIS is a remake, and I consider that (the remake!) the best sci-fi film since BLADE RUNNER.

The problem comes when the original, whether it's WILLY WONKA or THE BAD NEWS BEARS, is so original (so well done, so full of hungry, real details, etc.) that there's no way to retell the story without changing it into something new and different, and ultimately cheaper and less interesting. THE BAD NEWS BEARS is a good flick because it was risky, made on the sly with no budget and real kids acting (not real actors trying to be kids), not to mention a script that's just beyond the pale. It had the soul of a living breathing thing. A remake, with a big budget and real actors, by its very nature is going to be dumbed down, white bread, boring and soul-less.

Another good example of a plucky, original, HUNGRY story that was dumbed down and made soul-less is the recent remake of THE LONGEST YARD. What was the point?

How can these actors/directors still claim that they are artists when all they are doing is remaking someone else's work?

Because people -- the SHEEPLE out there in the multi-plexes -- keep buying it like mental patients. (No offense to mental patients.) I mean, they line up like SHEEP and pay for tickets and buy it. And that sends a message to Hollywood saying, "We like this, send more! We have no memory, send more remakes! We don't care!"

Don't be a sheeple. Stop buying this crap.

Demand better art.

MC

[aaharvel]

Micah your posts always entertain me.

Fellow Movie buff.

[marker]

I thought the Bad News Bears had already been remade. What was that movie with Keannu Reeves about 4 years ago, Hardball maybe?

[Micah Cohen]

HAHAHAHAHA!

This new remake will -- I predict -- make the Keanu Reeves movie that may have been "loosely based" on THE BAD NEWS BEARS look like a masterpiece!

HAHAHAHAHA!

MC

[marker]

What was the name of that movie, was it Hardball? The replacements maybe?