musiced921 said:
I'm not sure if you watched the movie with 2017 eyes or with 1978 eyes because it does make a world of difference.
I don't find it psychologically possible to watch a movie "with 1978 eyes" (or whatever the film's era happens to be). For those who can, well, they gain more long-term enjoyment from certain films, so more power to 'em! Of course I grasp that STM's effects were cutting-edge at the time; from a historical perspective I can appreciate that. It's just that watching it now for sheer entertainment doesn't do it for me like it did when I was a kid. In the same way, I can appreciate, in its historical context, the cutting-edge effects of 1933's
King Kong. I just can't enjoy it on a suspension-of-disbelief level for sheer entertainment; I can't be psychologically pulled in, cuz the obvious unrealness of it yanks me out of the story.
It simply doesn't compare to Peter Jackson's
King Kong (2005), and it should be self-evident that if we could travel back in time to 1933 but just ahead of the original
Kong's release, and show people Jackson's
Kong - thereafter stop-motion effects wouldn't be sufficient. People would be spoiled. In real time the same thing has happened to me; modern effects have spoiled me for old flicks, although of course there are the rare exceptions that continue to hold up well (e.g., original
Star Wars trilogy - although I appreciated some of the enhancements of the Special Editions). It's not just visual effects, either; I also can't be pulled in by much older films where the actors overacted (their background experience was stage, so it made sense at the time) and the music was way too melodramatic.
The effects we have today are even torn apart by movie fans (I can't believe the bashing I've seen of what people are saying about Thor: Ragnarok's effects).
Not always - but the disappointing exceptions don't negate my point. The technology exists to make the impossible seem real, and I've simply been spoiled by that technology. Sure, some movies have made better use of it than others, but my point stands.
When Superman came out and people got to see a man look like he could actually fly it was magical to those moviegoers.
Me too. Just not anymore.
Sure, they're definitely rough now, but you have to understand that there was a lot of heart behind making this look like he was flying where now there's no heart behind punching in some effects on a computer to make him fly. It's easy(ish)!
Couple things here. First, why do you talk as if I
don't understand that? Of course I do. But it doesn't change my
current experience in watching an outdated, outmoded film. It just doesn't have the power to excite me anymore.
Secondly, you're devaluing the skill and creativity of today's CGI programmers. They still need to be artists in
how they apply the technology; it's
not just a matter of "punching in" the effects. Thought and skill are required, and I appreciate that thought and skill - and of course the results, when they're what they should be.
The whole Lex scheme is very much what a cheesy comic book villain would do.
Yeah, but here it's not about the evolution of technology; it's just about storytelling. Even as a kid I thought Lex's storyline was lame. He just wasn't a strong villain, and instead of being the savvy overlord of a financial and technological empire, he's under the sewers in an opulent lair that has no business existing, and his only partners-in-evildoing are two airheads.
It's not about whether Lex is a psychopath; that's unarguable. But "psychopath" isn't synonymous with "buffoon," "idiot," etc. His storyline was just plain dumb.
It's sad that you didn't find a connection to it like a lot of us have, but it just wasn't your cup of tea.
Here again you're presuming. You say "didn't" and "wasn't," as if you know what my
past experience of those films was. I loved them - for Superman, regardless of what Lex was or wasn't doing. And I accepted the effects readily in that era. My comments in this thread only pertain to how I feel watching those films
now.
Hey, I don't begrudge anyone else's current, ongoing enjoyment of these movies. Just opining about my own lack thereof. And I can still appreciate what was truly good about STM; Reeve's own performance, to mention it a second time, was superlative, and I
do still enjoy that aspect. It's just that when he goes into action, the adrenaline rush isn't there for me anymore.
By comparison - although of course
Batman v. Superman had major problems - speaking of the action specifically, as a Batman fan I can guarantee that the scene in which he rescues Martha will continue to get me stoked for decades to come.