Which was better? Superman Returns vs. Batman Begins

[ourchair]

See that's my point dude. Not to insult you or anything but saying your amazed by a film but care nothing about the story only seeing him and fly and stuff. The story should be the key to making the movie.

I agree with you, if we're talking about Hollywood films and other traditional forms of narrative cinema. But film as an art form, is not just story. Sometimes they are about the visual experience. And I don't mean 'special effects' and 'fight scenes', but rather, the visualization and videographing of reality and such.

A more erudite cinema critic than I can probably explain this, but cinema arts are not just about telling stories in the traditional 'ficto-narrative' of climax-denouement, conflict-resolution, but about lots of other things: playing with time and space within the frame of the camera, about using the camera's limitations and strengths in 'recording' real-space to say something meaningful (or unmeaningful) about the world.

Films like say, All About Lily Chou-Chou or say, the works of Maya Deren don't try to tell 'stories' in a straightforward fashion per se, so an comprehensible storyline isn't necessarily the most important aspect of those films --- and therefore to regard those as weaknesses is missing the point.

So yeah, maybe it's silly for VVD to say he enjoyed Superman for visuals and not story and still LOVE it. But it's not exactly coming from a totally retarded place of critique and appreciation, either.

 

[Lynx]

I agree with you, if we're talking about Hollywood films and other traditional forms of narrative cinema. But film as an art form, is not just story. Sometimes they are about the visual experience. And I don't mean 'special effects' and 'fight scenes', but rather, the visualization and videographing of reality and such.

A more erudite cinema critic than I can probably explain this, but cinema arts are not just about telling stories in the traditional 'ficto-narrative' of climax-denouement, conflict-resolution, but about lots of other things: playing with time and space within the frame of the camera, about using the camera's limitations and strengths in 'recording' real-space to say something meaningful (or unmeaningful) about the world.

Films like say, All About Lily Chou-Chou or say, the works of Maya Deren don't try to tell 'stories' in a straightforward fashion per se, so an comprehensible storyline isn't necessarily the most important aspect of those films --- and therefore to regard those as weaknesses is missing the point.

So yeah, maybe it's silly for VVD to say he enjoyed Superman for visuals and not story and still LOVE it. But it's not exactly coming from a totally retarded place of critique and appreciation, either.

I think I understand where you're coming from and I agree: films don't necessarily need to have a solid story if the point of the film is to be enjoyed as a work of art rather than a well-told narrative.

The problem is 'Superman Returns' isn't supposed to be that type of movie. Sure, the movie is pretty, but with a movie like Superman, that should come second and the story should come first.

 

[ourchair]

The problem is 'Superman Returns' isn't supposed to be that type of movie. Sure, the movie is pretty, but with a movie like Superman, that should come second and the story should come first.

Like I said, I agree. I wasn't arguing SSJmole's contention, I was merely pointing out that VVD isn't totally daft.

I agreed with his disagreement with VVD, but I didn't agree with the principle of his justification --- a correct justification that he extended into a generalization about all movies. Like I said, "IF we're talking about narrative cinema and Hollywood films", which I'm sure you and I can agree that Superman Returns clearly IS.

 

[Lynx]

Like I said, I agree. I wasn't arguing SSJmole's contention, I was merely pointing out that VVD isn't totally daft.

I agreed with his disagreement with VVD, but I didn't agree with the principle of his justification --- a correct justification that he extended into a generalization about all movies. Like I said, "IF we're talking about narrative cinema and Hollywood films", which I'm sure you and I can agree that Superman Returns clearly IS.

Ok. Just making sure I'm on the same page as you. :wink:

 

[Random]

Superman is a pathetic stalker who doesn't do much of anything that is super. Not only does he fail to do anything more interesting than hurl big chunks of rock and save falling planes, but he never seems to be given any dilemmas where he has to make A Hard Decision.

Yeah that's my only real beef with SR, the use of Clark Kent was off. They needed to show more about his life than Superman's. Spider-man 2, in my opinion, is the best comic book movie cause it really has everything your typical superhero movie should have. It wasnt just a guy in tights, there was plenty of Peter Parker moments, we see how his life is day to day, what kind of person he is. He struggle dealing with duel identities. Almost none of that in SR. We need to see more of Clark on his off hours, at his home, whatever social life he may have. And maybe see him actually do some work. The whole movie I was thinking "what is he doing around the Daily Planet?". I also didn't like how Lois treated Clark, they should be a lot better freinds than that "Oh your back from a soul searching trip around the world, can I have you stapler?" Clark shouldn't be portrayed as that much of a dork, but just a guy from a small town in the big city who can be a little goofy. The Clark Kent aspect was off.

Another thing I was mad about was I saw footage of Routh's audition, with the scene where he's talking to Lois next to the cab and they had this really great line that Routh delivered perfectly and they cut it out in the final cut. I just dont know why

See you don't care about the story but what you do care about is the effects? CGI DOES NOT MAKE A MOVIE GREAT. Now I've heard some others say superman returns was good and say about the story. I disagree but even if I respond to it At least I respect it.

He wasn't talking about cgi, but cinematography. The way it was all done is what he marveled at, sure the cgi really helped. And story alone does not always make a great movie. The Graduate had a pretty bad story that wasn't well thought out (though I've only seen it once and maybe forgetting a few things), but its in the top twenty greatest films of all time list mainly because of the cinematography

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

Time for me to throw in my opinion. I liked Batman Begins better, but do appreciate Superman Returns as a film. Am I going to claim that SR was as bad as Catwoman, the way Mole did? Hell no. Superman Returns was visually, very interesting and Routh did a fantastic job portraying the dynamic of Superman and Clark Kent as being almost two different people. Where movie mostly struggled, in my opinion, was in Lex Luthor's not so devious evil scheme. He's...replacing land masses with nearly identical land masses that aren't even inhabitable? Yeah. Very scary.

Batman Begins, on the other had, is probably the best Superhero movie I've ever seen. I was worried that they were going to make Bruce Wayne into the stoic, super-crime-fighting-machine that he's become in the comics. Instead he was a very real person, trying to maintain two identities. Add cool villains, a good story and great effects and you have a great Batman movie. My only complaint? Batman is the "World's greatest detective". We saw no sign of this. He was a rich martial artist. Which is great and all, but I was hoping to see a little more detective work.

 

[Random]

Which is great and all, but I was hoping to see a little more detective work.

I would think there will be plenty for the detective aspect to shine with the Joker in the next film

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

I would think there will be plenty for the detective aspect to shine with the Joker in the next film

Hopefully. But I was speaking of Batman Begins as a film, not counting sequels which haven't been made yet. :wink:

 

[Ultimate Quicksilver]

Time for me to throw in my opinion. I liked Batman Begins better, but do appreciate Superman Returns as a film. Am I going to claim that SR was as bad as Catwoman, the way Mole did? Hell no. Superman Returns was visually, very interesting and Routh did a fantastic job portraying the dynamic of Superman and Clark Kent as being almost two different people. Where movie mostly struggled, in my opinion, was in Lex Luthor's not so devious evil scheme. He's...replacing land masses with nearly identical land masses that aren't even inhabitable? Yeah. Very scary.

Batman Begins, on the other had, is probably the best Superhero movie I've ever seen. I was worried that they were going to make Bruce Wayne into the stoic, super-crime-fighting-machine that he's become in the comics. Instead he was a very real person, trying to maintain two identities. Add cool villains, a good story and great effects and you have a great Batman movie. My only complaint? Batman is the "World's greatest detective". We saw no sign of this. He was a rich martial artist. Which is great and all, but I was hoping to see a little more detective work.

Dammit, I was going to post the exact same thing as you did. I agree with everything you've said, but I like Lex Luthor's silly plan to control the world.

 

[Random]

Hopefully. But I was speaking of Batman Begins as a film, not counting sequels which haven't been made yet. :wink:

Yeah I know, but there's only so much they can show in one film. The was dective parts but they werent the main aspect of the film so took a step back. Also you dont get the title "World's greatest detective" on your first day of the job.

Also on the comment of "land masses that aren't even inhabitable" at the fortress he said "Tell me everything startiung with crystals" so it can be assumed he knew how to make it inhabitable, which with himk being the only one who knows how would make him a very powerful man.

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

Yeah I know, but there's only so much they can show in one film. The was dective parts but they werent the main aspect of the film so took a step back. Also you dont get the title "World's greatest detective" on your first day of the job.

Also on the comment of "land masses that aren't even inhabitable" at the fortress he said "Tell me everything startiung with crystals" so it can be assumed he knew how to make it inhabitable, which with himk being the only one who knows how would make him a very powerful man.

I wasn't expecting it to be the main part, or even a major part of the film. I was just hoping Bruce would use his brain more often, instead of just dropping down and using his ninja skills to beat up bad guys.

And you're probably right. But Lex Luthor's plot just seemed...lame...

 

[slimjim]

The film did have its moments. Here's my main problems with superman returns and some with the superman mythos as a whole (I've probally stated before but oh well)

-Superman lifts a continent of kryptonite INTO SPACE.

-This is more with the mythos not the movie. Combing your hair to the side and putting on glasses does not hide your identity! He's the exact same height and build and the second he shows up holy smokes supes is back too. It's not like he's in a fat suit with a fake beard a fake hump and makeup. I dont care if he acts like a complete nerd and dufus with a accent. Someone is going to come in and say hey people in the superman movie world are very naive....**** THAT its a clear flaw lol

but hey that is a lil pet peeve

-Would it kill to have superman punch someone or something.

 

[SSJmole]

Am I going to claim that SR was as bad as Catwoman, the way Mole did?

How many threads are you going say that just for this me to say "NO i said it barely better than catwoman. Still better but not by much"

I wasn't expecting it to be the main part, or even a major part of the film. I was just hoping Bruce would use his brain more often, instead of just dropping down and using his ninja skills to beat up bad guys.

And you're probably right. But Lex Luthor's plot just seemed...lame...

Agreed on both accounts

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Batman Begins is better than Superman Returns. But The Graduate is better than both.

I'll probbaly end up buying Batman Begins and Superman Returns today now, though, after this.

(Superman Returns did LOOK awesome though, as VVD said, it just. . . sucked)

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

How many threads are you going say that just for this me to say "NO i said it barely better than catwoman. Still better but not by much"

You were pretty clear about how much you hated the film. I was just using you as an example. My point was that I didn't like it, but didn't loath it the way you did. Sorry if I took your words out of context or whatever.

 

[SSJmole]

(Superman Returns did LOOK awesome though, as VVD said, it just. . . sucked)

That was point Joey. looking good does not make movie great. Now I understood what ourchair said but Movies are supposed to be the fusion of Stories , Direction and acting.


Looking good does not mean anything. Star wars (before it was re-named episode 4) was ground breaking in effects and visuals but the story is what really made it great.

Look at episode I. great visuals , looks very very impressive but the story is no where near as good and so it is not a great film. It's star wars so I liked it but even I a star wars geek would not call it great. Batman begins is better than Episode 1 now that must say a lot as i'm a big star wars fan and have stated i hate dc comics!

I've used this before but when it comes to movies and visuals with bad story I'm reminded of the quote "you can polish a turd all you want, but all you end up with is shiny piece of ****."


As art , A painting needs no story just looks nice. A movie thou needs the story to be good though. Another example of A movie with cool visuals and a nice story and script = The mask , An example of one with cool visuals and bad story and script = Son of the Mask

Or how about the difference between a good film and a film is Caddyshack= good Caddyshack II = bad very very bad

You were pretty clear about how much you hated the film. I was just using you as an example. My point was that I didn't like it, but didn't loath it the way you did. Sorry if I took your words out of context or whatever.

It's cool mate

 

[Lynx]

That was point Joey. looking good does not make movie great. Now I understood what ourchair said but Movies are supposed to be the fusion of Stories , Direction and acting.


Looking good does not mean anything. Star wars (before it was re-named episode 4) was ground breaking in effects and visuals but the story is what really made it great.

Look at episode I. great visuals , looks very very impressive but the story is no where near as good and so it is not a great film. It's star wars so I liked it but even I a star wars geek would not call it great. Batman begins is better than Episode 1 now that must say a lot as i'm a big star wars fan and have stated i hate dc comics!

I've used this before but when it comes to movies and visuals with bad story I'm reminded of the quote "you can polish a turd all you want, but all you end up with is shiny piece of ****."


As art , A painting needs no story just looks nice. A movie thou needs the story to be good though. Another example of A movie with cool visuals and a nice story and script = The mask , An example of one with cool visuals and bad story and script = Son of the Mask

Or how about the difference between a good film and a film is Caddyshack= good Caddyshack II = bad very very bad

You're missing the point ourchair was trying to make, Mole. He's not talking about visuals. He's talking about cinematography. A movie can have very few visual effects, but yet have beautiful cinematography. Cinematography is the way the lighting and camera work come together to make a scene visually stunning.

Cinematography.

And yes, a movie CAN be very good without a strong story if the cinematography is very well done. A movie like this can be compared to still photogrpahy. The only difference is, in the movie, the picture is moving.

 

[SSJmole]

You're missing the point ourchair was trying to make, Mole. He's not talking about visuals. He's talking about cinematography. A movie can have very few visual effects, but yet have beautiful cinematography. Cinematography is the way the lighting and camera work come together to make a scene visually stunning.

Cinematography.

And yes, a movie CAN be very good without a strong story if the cinematography is very well done. A movie like this can be compared to still photogrpahy. The only difference is, in the movie, the picture is moving.

Yes I know the difference between Cinematography and effects but the point raised was Cinematography then him flying which was just a cgi shot.


but even if a film has great Cinematography if the story and or script suck the film is not great.

 

[slimjim]

but even if a film has great Cinematography if the story and or script suck the film is not great.

Same could be said other way around

 

[SSJmole]

Same could be said other way around

not really.

there has been loads of great films with bad effects and Cinematography (lighting ect...) but I will give you direction you need good script , story , characters , acting and directing for it to be great.

lighting , make up , effects , and all of that are just there to enhance a movie not BE the film.