plasmid303
Super Freak
Superman is like, a quintology (is that a word?). All the movies share continuity.
I'm all for nostalgia but there is absolutely no way Superman is a better film than The Dark Knight.
I'm all for nostalgia but there is absolutely no way Superman is a better film than The Dark Knight. Superman is great, but as a film, it's not even close. None on this list are.
1989 Batman. Still holds up well after almost 20yrs and no other comic book movie has come close to the frenzy it created. It made comic book movie history. TDK is a close second.
I'm all for nostalgia but there is absolutely no way Superman is a better film than The Dark Knight. Superman is great, but as a film, it's not even close. None on this list are.
Super Hero movies:
1. The Dark Knight
2. Superman
2. Batman Begins
4. Iron Man
5. Superman II
Comic Movies:
1. The Dark Knight
2. American Splendor
3. History of Violence
4. Superman
4. Batman Begins
I'm just curious what makes TDK so untouchable in your opinion. I thought it was a very good, well made film, don't get me wrong, but I personally thought it wasn't exactly original, or groundbreaking on any level. Structurally, even TDK and BB owe alot to Superman the Movie, and Superman II.
untouchable in the genre. In my opinion Superman just doesn't hold up well. Watching the movie now is like watching a Sam Raimi camp fest. It's good for what and when it was. I just don't think there is anything close to The Dark Knight in terms of prodction value, from the script, direction, cinematography, acting, and score. I think The Dark Knight will do for movies in this sub genre of film what The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen did for the comic world.
So? Sam Raimi's films are still entertaining. But I would disagree. I find the first Superman to be up there with the original Star Wars, Alien and Raiders of the Lost Ark, in terms of quality and age. It was the first well made comic book film to take the genre seriously. I think it is well-made, well-written, entertaining, and for me, it represents the DEFINITIVE Superman. It also donesn't feel like it is above the genre, and doesn't take the source material TOO seriously, like TDK did. At the end of the day, without Superman, there would be no DK.
So? Sam Raimi's films are still entertaining. But I would disagree. I find the first Superman to be up there with the original Star Wars, Alien and Raiders of the Lost Ark, in terms of quality and age. It was the first well made comic book film to take the genre seriously. I think it is well-made, well-written, entertaining, and for me, it represents the DEFINITIVE Superman. It also donesn't feel like it is above the genre, and doesn't take the source material TOO seriously, like TDK did. At the end of the day, without Superman, there would be no DK.
That's whats wrong with the whole "comic/superhero film" classification. You wouldn't claim a shakespeare or Poe film adaptation as taking the "source material too seriously" but that dubious label is thrown onto TDK like rice at a wedding. What happens when the Watchmen film comes out? I wonder how many people will say it takes the source material too seriously?
That's whats wrong with the whole "comic/superhero film" classification. You wouldn't claim a shakespeare or Poe film adaptation as taking the "source material too seriously" but that dubious label is thrown onto TDK like rice at a wedding.
Because in its quest to be "taken seriously" The Dark Knight loses sight of its source material and becomes something new. It's a great film but a terrible representation of Batman as a comic book superhero.