Bullets 'n' Babes

Lulz?

thelostdragon wrote:I was about to get pissed in the other thread if it hadn't got locked. (Why, btw?)

I said why.

thelostdragon wrote:Eva, why the hell do we have spoiler tags? In order not to use them? Man. I'm not a big fan of Superman, but I really wanted to see that film. Well done, mate!

Fair point.

grim_tales wrote:When I read that I honestly thought piss was being extracted.

What?

I'm not a big fan of Superman (not like Spiderman or Batman) but still wanted to see it.

Man the Spider-man films are overrated. I prefer the Spider-man comics but the Superman films are much better than the Spider-man films, only Superman 3 is a turkey. Superman 2 is ace!

Yi-Long wrote:If you're gonna lock the other thread, at least go through the trouble of bringing those old posts over to this one. Otherwise, dont lock threads when people are still discussing...

LOL What? Why should I do someone elses job for them. If it bothers you that much paste it over your freakin' self.

I have done that in the past but Mark's recent remark that he shouldn't have to bother searching has changed my mind. It's not possible to merge threads otherwise I would.

If it really bothered you that much you'd have bumped the original.

EvaUnit02 wrote:HAHAH! Yes, that was the effect I was after! Simultaneous worldwide theatrical release dates of blockbusters mean that we get it a day before you guys, thus opportunities to generate lulz.

Is it out in Kiwiland?

A new trailer was on early and it said the 24th of July. Considering Singer is yet to make a turkey I have high hopes for this. I'll have forgotten what Eva said by then but agreed use spoiler tags in future!

bradavon wrote:Is it out in Kiwiland?

Yes, it was out last Thursday (June 29th); my brother was at the midnight screening. I'll be seeing the 3D IMAX version next week.

bradavon wrote:

grim_tales wrote:When I read that I honestly thought piss was being extracted.

What?

He thought that I was taking the piss (aka the mickey).

grim_tales wrote:Lulz?

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Lulz

EvaUnit02 wrote:He thought that I was taking the piss (aka the mickey).

We have that phrase here too. I still don't get your Tardis joke.

'Tard' is an abbr. of retard. 'Tardis' also contains many of the letters from the word 'tard', hence the highlighting in red. Sorry to spell it out so boringly, but really, what's not to get?
Whether or not you think it's funny, is a different matter...

I'm well looking forward to this. I watch smallville religiously so there's a nice build up to the movie.

Smallville went totally downhill with Season 3.

Smallville was always rubbish in my book.

Superman without well Superman that's fun. I also don't like how they mess around with the Superman world (I don't mind that per say just in this case).

It's Buffy under another name IMO. Still at least it has hot chicks.

'Tard' is an abbr. of retard.

I've never heard Tard used to me Retarded before.

bradavon wrote:S
It's Buffy under another name IMO. Still at least it has hot chicks.

Pretty clear to everyone you have no clue what you are talking about, at all shows you havent seen barley any episodes of either.

Thats like saying The Bill is NYPD Blue, under another name classic.

bradavon wrote:I've never heard Tard used to me Retarded before.

It's common over here.

Superman Returns 3.5/5.
Singer has crafted a fine film. Excellent action set pieces and the presentation that channels the Donner films to a tee. Routh is pretty wooden but he gets the job done; he has presence, which is important. Kevin Spacey underplays Luthor, unlike Hackman who relished in a deliciously cheesy performance.

The story is really shitty though. As I've already told you.

bradavon wrote:

Yi-Long wrote:If you're gonna lock the other thread, at least go through the trouble of bringing those old posts over to this one. Otherwise, dont lock threads when people are still discussing...

LOL What? Why should I do someone elses job for them. If it bothers you that much paste it over your freakin' self.

I have done that in the past but Mark's recent remark that he shouldn't have to bother searching has changed my mind. It's not possible to merge threads otherwise I would.

If it really bothered you that much you'd have bumped the original.

Listen bub, I just post a message in a thread. Im not first gonna check if that thread that other guy posted shouldnt be there. You are the one who has nothing to do one afternoon so you go around locking threads.
If you're feeling that active, you might as well copy-paste the original discussion which was still going on, into the existing thread, OR you can just NOT close a thread where people are still discussing.

A mod should be around to make sure racist stuff and spamming and all that shit doesnt happen (which doesnt happen here), but it's not like the board would explode if we have 2 superman threads instead of one. This is not a forum where each and every day 100 new threads are created or something, or that yesterdays threads are suddenly dissapeared of the first page...

EvaUnit02 wrote:Excellent action set pieces and the presentation that channels the Donner films to a tee.

Anyone else think the original Superman films were a big bore?

Markgway wrote:

EvaUnit02 wrote:Excellent action set pieces and the presentation that channels the Donner films to a tee.

Anyone else think the original Superman films were a big bore?

Yeah. They were just crap. Nowhere near as good as any of the Byrne comics. Totally got Superman all wrong, including ridiculous powers.

Ain't this out in Europe yet? Strange.

Opens in the UK on July 14th. Cert 12A for violence.

Does that mean Superman will be snapping backs and heabutting goons?

The trailer on TV said the 26th of July.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Superman Returns 3.5/4

What a weird rating system. Why not one out of 2 ?

Yi-Long wrote:Listen bub, I just post a message in a thread. Im not first gonna check if that thread that other guy posted shouldnt be there.

That's your prerogative.

Markgway wrote:Anyone else think the original Superman films were a big bore?

Superman 2 definitely not, Superman 4 was fun, Superman 3 was woeful and Superman had it's moments.

Only Superman 2 is a keeper IMO.

Yi-Long wrote:Nowhere near as good as any of the Byrne comics.

Like books comics aren't the same medium as film.

bradavon wrote:

Yi-Long wrote:Nowhere near as good as any of the Byrne comics.

Like books comics aren't the same medium as film.

Really now!?

That doesnt mean the movies should give the hero completely different powers, or that the stories should be absolute crap, does it?

If/when you make a movie about a comic/book/whatever, you should take the best parts of the comics and translate those to the movie...

Fair enough no but I disagree Superman and Superman 2 had very good stories. I thought the execution in Part 1 was poor.

What powers did he have in the comics? He could never look through walls, have laser eyes, fly etc . . . in the comics?

brad wrote: What a weird rating system. Why not one out of 2 ?

That's a typo, I meant out of 5.

I thought the first two Superman films were pish. Not seen 3 and 4... don't want to.

Superman Returns on the other hand I thought was decent and thoroughly enjoyable.

I, along with a group of friends, thought Superman Returns was utter tosh. There is no story, and no reason for Superman's "Return", so therefore it is a pointless film.

Utter rubbish. The teaser trailer for Spider-Man 3 had me more excited than the whole duration of Superman Returns.

IronMonkey wrote:There is no story, and no reason for Superman's "Return", so therefore it is a pointless film.

Utter rubbish. Of course there's a point for Superman Returning, it ties the film up to the previous films. Agreed it's a ropey in places but overall works well.

As for no story were you paying attention? The twist in the final act even if pretty obvious was well done. I'll shut up as I've commented properly here:

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... start=2514

Singer on the sequel:-

source wrote:During the panel discussion, Singer addressed what the rough game plan is for a sequel to Superman Returns. Industry buzz has suggested that Warner Bros. might not okay a sequel to the movie unless and until it passes $200 million at the domestic box office. The film's domestic total stands at so far; it ranked No. 8 at the box office this past weekend.

"I plan to get all 'Wrath of Khan' on it," Singer said -- a reference to 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan," which is generally considered as having breathed life into the "Star Trek" franchise after 1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" suffered critical barbs. "We haven't concluded a deal. That's always iffy," Singer added. "The intention is to do it for 2009."

I seriously doubt I'll be seeing this movie. It just looks so shite. Casting is all wrong, story seems to be utter tosh, and it just doesnt seem like the Superman that I'd like to see...

Why even the 'return' shit, and suddenly giving Lois a baby and all that crap? Whats that all about?