If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.

A few reviews
(03-12-2020, 06:08 AM)jrWHAG42 Wrote: We can make logical assumptions, but there's no way to prove for sure that you can't reverse time by flying around the earth unless it's actually tested.

As far as I know if you turn fast like Superman around the earth it is the opposite that should happen: your time will be "slowed down" compared to the earth's time and so when you finally stop it would be "as if" you travelled in the future (sadly no way to get back in the past, since you did not really "travel", you just aged slower than the earth.)
Travel shapes youth, as they say!
"Always in motion is the future"
My instagramMy BLog - All my fanedits at IFDB - Q&A with TMBTM (from 2012) 
[+] 1 user Likes TMBTM's post
Reply
(03-11-2020, 11:45 PM)Gaith Wrote: ^ Could have sworn I heard it from something on the Donner cut of II dvd or online news source, but Googling around reveals only uncertainty. Oh, well. Amounts to the same thing, really. Tongue

Actually, upon reflection, I think I get what you're saying.  But yeah, the visuals don't communicate that very well at all.  I suppose we have to forgive Donner a little for taking an artistic leap in trying to come up with something with visual flair that would communicate the idea, but I'd say he took a big swing and sadly, missed.
 
(03-12-2020, 06:08 AM)jrWHAG42 Wrote: We can make logical assumptions, but there's no way to prove for sure that you can't reverse time by flying around the earth unless it's actually tested.

Ha ha!  Sure there is, bud.  We have multiple branches of science that would all disprove that idea.  You don't have to get all knowledge from trial and error.
Quote:Also, in a movie where a guy can fly, you're worried about realism?

Okay, now I guess this may fall into personal choice.  I've heard something like this argument whenever I criticize bad sci-fi, fantasy, superhero, horror, etc.  It's always like:
-If the cars are coming to life, how do you know simple mechanical tools can't also come to life?! (Maximum Overdrive)
-If they can do impossible flying spin kicks, who's to say they can't learn how to turn into mystical dragons? (Mortal Kombat: Annihilation)
-If a serial killer can invade people's dreams, who's to say the family's pet bird wouldn't turn murderous and then explode? (Nightmare on Elm Street 2)
-If alien metal landed on Earth in only one place and it absorbs kinetic energy, who's to say it doesn't also heal any wound, give people a genius understanding of how to invent new tech, make them incredibly rich despite zero trade or production, and also become sharp enough to pierce any normal metal?  (Black Panther)

So, here's my take on it as an audience member: throw me a bone, writers.  I'm on your side.  I came to the movie to get wrapped up in a story.  I'm with you, just don't lose me.  If the writers/director just lays a little groundwork to build that world and show how X happened, I'm on board.  If they establish the rules of their universe and this is just a variation of that, I'll go along for that ride.  If their premise is about one thing, but suddenly something incredible but unrelated is thrown on top with no explanation?  They lost me.  Especially if it's a deus ex machina resolution to some plot point they've written themselves into a corner on.  Superman's unexplained time-travelling ability falls into that category for me.  Sorry to shit on a beloved franchise!  That's just my take.
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
[+] 1 user Likes mnkykungfu's post
Reply
I was partially joking, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer seriously. Your last explanation is actually really interesting to read, and I think I may agree.
Mega Man is best game.
Reply
(03-12-2020, 05:21 PM)mnkykungfu Wrote: Okay, now I guess this may fall into personal choice.  I've heard something like this argument whenever I criticize bad sci-fi, fantasy, superhero, horror, etc.  It's always like:
-If the cars are coming to life, how do you know simple mechanical tools can't also come to life?! (Maximum Overdrive)
-If they can do impossible flying spin kicks, who's to say they can't learn how to turn into mystical dragons? (Mortal Kombat: Annihilation)
-If a serial killer can invade people's dreams, who's to say the family's pet bird wouldn't turn murderous and then explode? (Nightmare on Elm Street 2)
-If alien metal landed on Earth in only one place and it absorbs kinetic energy, who's to say it doesn't also heal any wound, give people a genius understanding of how to invent new tech, make them incredibly rich despite zero trade or production, and also become sharp enough to pierce any normal metal?  (Black Panther)

So, here's my take on it as an audience member: throw me a bone, writers.  I'm on your side.  I came to the movie to get wrapped up in a story.  I'm with you, just don't lose me.  If the writers/director just lays a little groundwork to build that world and show how X happened, I'm on board.  If they establish the rules of their universe and this is just a variation of that, I'll go along for that ride.  If their premise is about one thing, but suddenly something incredible but unrelated is thrown on top with no explanation?  They lost me.  Especially if it's a deus ex machina resolution to some plot point they've written themselves into a corner on.  Superman's unexplained time-travelling ability falls into that category for me.  Sorry to shit on a beloved franchise!  That's just my take.

I agree with this. Stories should play within the rules they establish. Superman is an extraterrestrial being so he has “powers” but he is living on Earth and all earthly physics seemingly apply with exception of his superpowers. And it does reek of Deus Ex Machina in the same way that Star Wars often solves its issues with “because of the Force.”

But not everyone always agrees (shocker!) on what makes something implausible or a cheat in-universe. My favorite example is the much loved The Prestige. The movie goes along for most of its runtime leading the viewer to believe it exists in a sort of historical fiction world. Suddenly sci fi elements are thrown into the mix to give the story its twist. I liked the movie up to that point but I have a major eye roll once that happens and it ruins the movie for me. But obviously most people don’t see it that way as it’s one of Nolan’s most praised movies.
Reply
^I loved The Prestige, but I haven't seen it since the premiere, so I'll have to re-watch with that in mind.  Maybe the difference is that I was searching for explanations to mysteries during that whole movie?  In Superman, it just reminded me of the Silver Age comics where he got a new power every month to solve whatever problem he was facing.  Like memory-wipe kisses and expanding S-shields in Superman II.
 
(03-12-2020, 05:56 PM)jrWHAG42 Wrote: I was partially joking, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer seriously. Your last explanation is actually really interesting to read, and I think I may agree.

Ah, no worries.  It just made me think of all the times I've legit heard people say "It's just a movie!" to deflect any criticism.

Continuing my mad quest to watch a bunch of Netflix exclusives this month!:
Earthquake Bird (2019)

Okay, so I lived in Japan for 5+ years and probably have a totally different barometer for how to enjoy films set there.  I hate seeing the same false stereotypes and generic depictions, so it's such a joy to watch a film that nails the subtle weird aspects of how people dress, act, think, etc.  Plus, doesn't hurt that it stars Alicia Vikander, even if they somehow miraculously make her average-looking here.  Full review: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/fil...uake-bird/

Wheelman (2017)

I would've assumed this was forgettable if not for a recommendation by Tasha Robinson (Polygon/Next Picture Show).  It's no-frills but does manage to stand apart with real-time immediacy and unique camerawork.  Full review: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/film/wheelman/

Marriage Story (2019)

(When I watch that trailer, a lot of moments of the film seem cloyingly obvious...maybe best to avoid if you want to watch the film fresh.)
It's a catch-22: this film never would've appealed to me if it hadn't gotten so much praise, but because it got so much praise, it's unlikely to live up to it for me.  Full review here: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/fil...tory-2019/
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
Reply
(03-11-2020, 07:09 PM)Gaith Wrote:
(03-11-2020, 02:57 PM)TM2YC Wrote: Superman: The Movie (1978)
I haven't seen this all the way through for ages, this time I went for the Theatrical Cut. Even in that shorter version, wow does this feel slow and dated

I get the nostalgia for this movie, but, oh boy, do I not get the unvarnished veneration. It is dull as dishwater at least half the time. As I first said years and years ago, I'd be interested in seeing a focused fan edit of the movie: no Zod prologue, maybe no pre-destruction Krypton stuff at all, a bare minimum of Lex+Otis hijinks, and maybe even no climactic time reversal? Because I agree that Reeve and the score are great. (Kidder... is also there.)

Gaith, have you seen the musiced921Superman: Up Up and Away Edition? It basically covers everything you described and it's awesome. My problem with it is without the "Turning Back the World" scene there is no real climax and everything's too easy for Supes, though I also agree that climax in the original is awful so it's like a lose-lose situation.

To be honest if they made it so that his selfish actions is what caused Zod and co. to be released from the Phantom Zone (as they originally planned) and they made it apparent that Superman does not turn the world back, but instead his anger and adrenaline allows him to fly so fast he breaks the time barrier (and that he can't do that under normal circumstances or something) it could have worked. Maybe someone (perhaps I) can make an edit like that. As it is though, it's a lazy cop-out at best and complete illogical nonsense at worst.

I love Superman: The Movie but I have to agree that it is often way too slow and the third act pales in comparison to the first two. Now that I think about it Superman II, though it has its problems, is probably the better movie. Yeah it also has random powers, but at least they're not interfering with the storytelling; yes Richard Lester ups the comedy and sets up the terrible Superman III but it keeps things balanced like the Raimi Spider-Man films. In the end I think Superman II is overall better paced, has a better villain, and is just as well told compelling as the first movie (especially the parts shot by Richard Donner), although the first act of Superman: The Movie besides the slow pace is beautiful and will always hold a special place in my heart.

Right now my absolute favorite way to watch those movies is the Jelio / L8wrtrSuperman: Son of Jor-El. I think I saw L8 calling his edit "terrible" somewhere and I have no idea why, it's friggin awesome.
[+] 1 user Likes Masirimso17's post
Reply
(03-13-2020, 11:42 AM)Masirimso17 Wrote: Gaith, have you seen the musiced921Superman: Up Up and Away Edition? It basically covers everything you described and it's awesome.

Nope. I realize it's somewhat arbitrary of me, but I'm not interested in an edit of this movie over 100 minutes long; I just don't care that much for the characters or story. Now, excuse me while I go watch Thor: The Dark World again. Tongue
[+] 1 user Likes Gaith's post
Reply
(03-13-2020, 11:42 AM)Masirimso17 Wrote: To be honest if they made it so that his selfish actions is what caused Zod and co. to be released from the Phantom Zone (as they originally planned) and they made it apparent that Superman does not turn the world back, but instead his anger and adrenaline allows him to fly so fast he breaks the time barrier (and that he can't do that under normal circumstances or something) it could have worked. 

The problem with this is (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) that Superman goes back and saves Lois.  Okay, but now that still leaves a missile flying towards devastation, right?  Now, you may say "No, but there are now 2 Supermans (men?) existing at that same time, and the original already did what he did".  Ugh, okay, so this gets super into the mechanics of time-travel then, but no matter which methodology you use, it's super messy.


Endgame/Source Code theory: this is now an alternate reality.  Real Lois still died.
TimeCrimes/Interstellar theory: everything that will happen has happened already, i.e. we should've never seen Lois die at all.
Back to the Future theory: unfortunately disproven by both general relativity and quantum mechanics, but let's assume that Superman was somehow going back to his own past to make a new one.  In that case, events would unfold exactly as before, meaning there is still a missile for Superman to stop in order to avoid an earthquake, and avoid having to save Jimmy and Lois.  

The only one that possibly works is that Superman actually flew faster than light, resulting in him being in an alternate reality from now on, oh, and in the past?  We see him talk to a very alive and safe Lois and Jimmy.  Jimmy talks about Superman saving him and Lois complains about earthquakes.  So apparently Superman didn't stop the other missile, just the quake wasn't as bad in this reality because there is no crevasse swallowing up Lois' car.

The time-travelling theory just doesn't hold up.  In fact, if you listen to commentary tracks on the dvds, it's implied that Supes is making the world go back in time, not himself.  Which apparently affects the tectonic plates?  Ugh.  It's just a mess of an ending.
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
Reply
(03-13-2020, 07:41 PM)mnkykungfu Wrote:
(03-13-2020, 11:42 AM)Masirimso17 Wrote: To be honest if they made it so that his selfish actions is what caused Zod and co. to be released from the Phantom Zone (as they originally planned) and they made it apparent that Superman does not turn the world back, but instead his anger and adrenaline allows him to fly so fast he breaks the time barrier (and that he can't do that under normal circumstances or something) it could have worked. 

The problem with this is (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) that Superman goes back and saves Lois.  Okay, but now that still leaves a missile flying towards devastation, right?  Now, you may say "No, but there are now 2 Supermans (men?) existing at that same time, and the original already did what he did".  Ugh, okay, so this gets super into the mechanics of time-travel then, but no matter which methodology you use, it's super messy.


Endgame/Source Code theory: this is now an alternate reality.  Real Lois still died.
TimeCrimes/Interstellar theory: everything that will happen has happened already, i.e. we should've never seen Lois die at all.
Back to the Future theory: unfortunately disproven by both general relativity and quantum mechanics, but let's assume that Superman was somehow going back to his own past to make a new one.  In that case, events would unfold exactly as before, meaning there is still a missile for Superman to stop in order to avoid an earthquake, and avoid having to save Jimmy and Lois.  

The only one that possibly works is that Superman actually flew faster than light, resulting in him being in an alternate reality from now on, oh, and in the past?  We see him talk to a very alive and safe Lois and Jimmy.  Jimmy talks about Superman saving him and Lois complains about earthquakes.  So apparently Superman didn't stop the other missile, just the quake wasn't as bad in this reality because there is no crevasse swallowing up Lois' car.

The time-travelling theory just doesn't hold up.  In fact, if you listen to commentary tracks on the dvds, it's implied that Supes is making the world go back in time, not himself.  Which apparently affects the tectonic plates?  Ugh.  It's just a mess of an ending.

I don’t think it’s worth overthinking how it works but they could have easily had him chase the missiles again.
Reply
First Man (2018)

[Image: first-man-ryan-gosling-slice-600x200.jpg]

Space... the final frontier. This is the voyage of the Eagle. Its five-day (ish) mission: to land two blokes on a barren desert for a few hours. To seek out new rocks, and new... other rocks. And also take a few photos. To boldly go where no man has gone before!

"Dude, what if... the first guy to walk on the moon was as mysterious as the moon itself? What if it turns out that raising two young boys is really as tricky and inexact as literal rocket science? What if the farthest journey anyone ever took was really, like, a journey within, you know?"

I kid, I kid! First Man is a beautiful, engrossing movie. Don't really have more to say about it than that. Definitely worth a watch, and the $5 mint blu-ray I scooped up on Amazon. Another win for director Damien Chazelle and Ryan Golsing.

Also: Interestingly, the Chappaquiddick incident involving Senator Ted Kennedy occurred the very same weekend as the Apollo 11 moon landing. Therefore, mashing this and the 2017 film Chappaquiddick together would certainly make for an, uh, interesting fan edit... (Jason Clarke both appears in First Man and portrays Senator Kennedy, but such an edit could easily omit his scenes from the former.) Could doubtless throw a scene or two from Apollo 13 and From the Earth to the Moon in there, also. History!  Tongue
[+] 1 user Likes Gaith's post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)