Bio not provided
Fun Fact: Console gamers pirate games too.
4 days, 20 hours ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
@Souless motherfaker @willfenton1981
Actually no one is 'entitled' to an opinion. That's a huge lie that we tell ourselves to justify bad reasoning and is used as a lame excuse to get out of defending your position on a topic.
Claiming that 'everyone is entitled' is not only unhelpful, it's rude. It suggest that further argument would be insulting and that the topic should be dropped because one party doesn't feel like defending their position. It's a lame cop out and rather pathetic excuse meant to do nothing but avoid responsibility for what you said.
If you can't be bothered with defending your position, you shouldn't have dumped your poorly reasoned and ill informed opinion on us in the first place.
Comments and forums exist to engage readers in discussions and further rebut or support the topic in the original article. If you can't hang with that, why did you bother posting in the first place?
You are not entitled to your opinion, you are only entitled to what you can argue for. Stop telling yourself that you're entitled to your opinion or what you believe. It's nothing but an excuse to remain stupid and avoid responsibility for your own words.
3 weeks, 1 day ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
I'm not sure if you're stupid, or just a troll. I'm gonna guess the
former considering you can't seem to figure out how your keyboard works
and your grammar sucks. You're just some jerk who isn't even smart
enough to follow the basic rules of grammar and spelling who's trying to
fool us into thinking his I.Q. is above single digits by trying, and
failing, to repeat some stuff you read once on a forum you visited once a
while back or some article you read once on
Based on the content of your
post you don't know anything about games or hardware. I don't care how
many consoles or computers you'll claim to have sitting around your
house. The content of your post gives away the fact that if you do have
any gaming hardware in your home, you don't use it.
At best you
might play Madden or whine about how people should stop killing you so
much in Call of Duty. Most likely regardless of whether you're playing
single or multiplayer. I seriously doubt any hardware in your home gets
more use than that, if it's even used that much.
before PC surpasses consoles? My PC was three times more powerful than
the PS 4 and Xbox 1 are two years ago and will always be more powerful
than either system is. I don't need to upgrade. My hardware will be
better for as long as the PS 4 and Xbox 1 exist. It doesn't degrade and
become worse, and the consoles are never any better. They are static and
unchanging hardware that cannot be upgraded.
You have been
woefully misinformed. Consoles are historically behind the curve the
vast majority of the time. Consoles have actually surpassed PC graphics
exactly three times in their history and not once did it last more than a
month. When the original Xbox, N 64, and Dreamcast were launched they
all had hardware that was not available on the market in them. That
lasted all of a month for any of them at best and within two months PC
was back on top.
'It's all about games' is an excuse.
Exclusives are rarely the real subject of the discussion. Yeah, there
are some great exclusives, but guess what? It's an emotional and stupid
argument that isn't actually backed by any facts, it's just special
pleading. 99% of the games that are released on the consoles are also
released on PC. Every system has great exclusives and no one has an real
software advantage over another. Exclusives do not really drive the
market and they don't sell a particular console to anyone. The vast
majority of the time it's pricing, availability, and what other people
they know will have. In that order. Exclusive games is just a nice
If 'exclusives' are so great, then why
doesn't everyone have a WiiU? Why is that system doing so poorly? It has
more exclusive games than any system, and a lot of them are stand out
titles and great games. That hasn't sold the hardware has it? It's a
horrible flop despite having easily the largest number of high quality
exclusive games out of any of the consoles being released this year.
It's proof that the 'it's all about the games' line is a complete crock
and has very little actual impact on the market.
able to play a handful of exclusive games, even very good games is
irrelevant to the discussion. Every system has that failing, be it a
console or a computer. The idea that it's a huge important factor is the
great lie of the console wars and is perpetuated by game and hardware
manufacturer's marketing departments. Consumer habits do not support
The success or failure of exclusive games depends on
their quality on some level yes, but far more important is the hardware
install base that is already in place. The software's success is
dependent on the install base of the hardware, not the other way around.
you're going to play the same games no matter which hardware system
you're going to get, and the vast majority of us will do exactly that
most of the time, then why would you not pick the one that's going to
run them at the highest quality possible? Consoles are not the best
hardware, they are not easier to use and haven't been for half a decade,
they are just cheap knock off computers. The PS 4 and Xbox 1 are
especially heinous offenders of this. They are literally made up of mid
grade computer parts and designed with the exact same architecture as
Again, playing from the couch with a controller isn't
really an issue either. I do that with my PC. Every modern PC has an
HDMI output for video and any PC will take a USB Gamepad, be it a
Playstation controller or an Xbox gamepad. I can play my PC games from
my couch just like a console any time I feel like doing so just as
easily. The idea that it's so much easier is simply a lie that's tossed
about by the ignorance of console users who have no experience at all
with using computers for gaming.
3 weeks, 3 days ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
@Blazkowicz It helps if you read the thread before commenting. It prevents you from making asinine and pointless comments based on your ignorance of the subject that have already been thoroughly debunked in the topic already.
3 weeks, 5 days ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
@Blazkowicz None of what you posted is actually true. You do not have to constantly upgrade. My PC is 3x more powerful than the PS4 or Xbox 1, and it will always be 3x more powerful without ever needing an upgrade. If the next console cycle is more powerful, I can just upgrade my PC for less money and beat the next generation's specs for less money than buying the PS 4 or Xbox whatever will cost. Once I do that, I'll have better hardware than either console will have until the PS 6 Xbox whatever next comes around.
Put simply, my PC will last longer than either one of the new consoles and cost me less money.
DRM on consoles is just as restrictive as PC, especially concerning Downloadable games. In fact, the DRM restrictions are even worse. I can use any game I buy from Steam or that is verified by Steam on any computer as long as I log in with my account. Try that with a console.
I can play from my couch on PC using a gamepad if I want, use it on my television or a monitor, game with friends online, play local multiplayer if it's supported by a particular game, and generally do anything a console can do, but better. I have an Xbox 360 controller and a PS 4 controller and both work with my PC.
The great lie is that consoles are easier and simpler to use. That was true in the early days of the PS3 and Xbox 360, but even those consoles have become just as complex to use. They require constant updates, get patches for games, often require installs, and have even clunkier and bloated UIs than Windows.
The truth of the matter is that both the PS4 and the Xbox 1 are nothing but mid grade gaming PCs with specialized operating systems that are just as complex to use as any PC OS. They're nothing but cheap generic gaming PCs. They have mid grade hardware and architecture that is completely copied off of modern gaming PCs. Both Sony and Microsoft have actually said this and have used it for a marketing point to sell the consoles. Though, they didn't call the hardware 'mid grade' that's exactly what it is. They're both using an AMD GPU and a quad core CPU in a basic PC configuration that's squeezed into a console case.
@pdroborgos It's more likely that their consoles don't have functional web browses worth using, they can't type for shit, and they don't like the prospect of defending their weak pathetic hardware and mediocre 'exclusive games' to those they envy for having the patience and intelligence to save up enough to get something better than the cheap outdated console they bought.
Some of us prefer to use superior hardware and software that isn't dumbed down to the level of console games to appeal to the console market A.K.A. 'the impatient idiots who don't like playing stuff that's too hard and can't operate something more complicated than the eject button on a disk tray or handle a control scheme with a more than eight button inteface'.
That seems a lot more likely to me than your theory.
Most console gamers only defend their consoles because it's all they know. They've never played on a PC, think they can't afford one or that it's 'too much work'. As if their own laziness somehow reflects on the quality of a system. They defend what they decided to spend money on and it must be the best based on no other merit beyond it's what they have.
I own all of the above. I've owned every major gaming console since the late 70s. PC has always been the best platform available and that hasn't changed. Console hardware is always behind the curve. The few occasions when it has been better than what was available on the market for PC it's only kept that edge for a month at most and was surpassed by the second month after it's release.
What I am currently typing this message on is easily three times more poweful than the Xbox 1 and PS4. I am posting this while playing Fallout 3 pimped out with mods that add new areas, enemies, weapons, quests, put in more adult content, and improve graphics with 4k textures. All while running at 60fps at 1080p, something neither console can do even with just the basic game. It's paused in the background for a few moments while I have a look at my e-mail and check over a few forums I frequent. All I need to do is expand the window when I'm done here to keep playing. Can't do that on a console either I might add.
I do pull the consoles out and hook them up for the occasional exclusive. I'll be playing GTA V on the PS3 tomorrow, but I'll also be getting it on PC when it's released there in about six months with improved graphics and new features, just like every GTA since GTA III.
I've played enough multiplayer on every platform available to realize that PC has a higher caliber of gamer. They're better at games, tend to be more polite and mature, and honestly are just better people to play games with.
I don't think what you suggested is very likely the reality of the situation regarding comments on this article at all. It's just us calling a misinformed article full of errors that never should have been published in the first place what it is. Freedom of speech works both ways you know. The author of the article had a right to post it, and we have the right to say they're an incorrect misinformed idiot for publishing it.
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
@509dee @JonMatthes Yes, you do need to go on. Most of those titles are sub par. There are only a few titles you listed that are more than mediocre titles at best. There are a couple of stand out titles, but the truth of the matter is that an exclusive console title being a GOTY contender is extremely rare. Metal Gear 4, Uncharted 2, and that's pretty much it. Infamous was a good game, but not GOTY material by a long shot.
If someone spends that much money on a Blu-Ray player they are an idiot. It's a nice extra feature, but the PS3 is less functional as a media center than a decent PC is.
The vast majority of games are multi platform. The PC version is almost always better than any console edition with extremely rare exception.
Metal Gear 4 was boring, long winded, and had decent gameplay. Not all that great a game. Resistance was fun, but doesn't match up to other more prolific shooters, God of War is a joke, it's easy compared to other games of it's type and tailor made to have dumbed down gameplay and pretty visuals, Motorstorm is a low end racer. The only reason a PS gamer would think it looks good is if they've had no experience with PC racing games. It's honestly rather pathetic in comparison. No PC gamer would 'jizz in their pants' over these games. They aren't bad games, but sub par compared to the quality of PC titles of the same genres.
I've played -all- of these games and completed most of them. It's not stuff I've played over at a friends house. I've got a PS3 and an Xbox 360, and I wouldn't use either one over the PC. It's obvious that you're talking down about PC games because you don't have one and for no other reason.
Console exclusives are largely mediocre titles with a very small handful of stand out games. Most anything worth playing shows up on all platforms and the PC editions are more often than not the best version to play.
It's funny how easily the console fanboys forget that the 'next generation' of consoles is actually mid grade hardware that has been available for years to PC gamers. Sony and Microsoft have literally modeled their new consoles on PC hardware. They are literally mid-grade gaming PCs with fewer features.
Your arguments are poor and show a lack of knowledge due to limited exposure. You think console games are better because that's all you've played and for no other reason. You literally don't know what you're talking about and are merely showing your own ignorance due to your inexperience with anything but a gaming console.
@Phaz @Contrabardus A Google search would tell you how to fix that in about ten seconds.
@trans8010 @rosslunney You're way over-inflating Imax ticket prices. Most places Imax tickets are $11-$13 rougly $2 more than a normal theater ticket and maybe $1 or less more than a 3D ticket on a standard screen. That's Imax 3D BTW, not standard Imax.
The truth of the matter is that this film crushed your other examples even with the extra price of tickets.
Plus, the 'fact' that more than half the tickets were Imax is pure BS. There aren't that many Imax screens, even if you include the small fake Imax some theaters have. The statistic you quoted is not even remotely true.
Half the tickets sold were to the 3D screens, most of which are not Imax.
You're just trying to use false data to try and validate the fact that you didn't think it was a good movie. It's a plain and simple generalizing from self fallacy. You hated it, so it's obvious no one else liked it despite the mountains of evidence that suggests otherwise.
3 months ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman
That's entirely not true. The truth of the matter is that if you can afford a console along with the games and peripherals you can afford a PC that will run games better than that same console will.
You might not be able to afford an uber rig with three GPUs and a 4.5ghz CPU but you can afford a decent PC that will run any game the console will and look better doing it.
This 'I can't afford a gaming PC' is entirely mythical and based on misconceptions about the cost of PC gaming.
The only thing you've got to do is save for a bit longer than you would buying a console. Instead of saving up enough to cover the cost of a console and a few games, spend another month or two saving up enough for a decent PC and a few games. The PC will last longer, play more games, and the games are cheaper. You'll actually be saving money by doing things that way even though the up front cost is a bit more.
People go on about the 'upgrade cost' but the truth is that you only have to beat a console once. It's hardware will not get any better until the next generation comes along. Once you have a PC that is better than a PS4 or Xbox 1, it will be better than either console until the next generation comes along, and when that happens you can probably just upgrade the GPU and CPU for that same PC for less money than that new console and still come out on top for the next cycle as well.
The up front cost is slightly higher, but in all honesty it's not a fault of PC gaming. You get what you pay for and what you buy for that slightly higher price lasts much longer, plays more games, and has a lot more uses outside of gaming than a console does.
If you can afford a console you can afford a decent gaming PC. All you've got to do is be a little more patient and save up a bit more than you would for the initial cost. If you can't do that, your impatience is not PC gaming's fault. It's not a flaw of PC, but the impatience of the console gamer that's the issue in that case.
3 months, 1 week ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
I built my own PC. 3 GPUs that a -single one of- far overpowers the GPUs in the Xbox 1 and PS4, 8 core CPU @ 3.9, 16 gb of Ram, stereoscopic 3D for any game running Direct X, 7.1 surround sound, 60 + fps @ 1080p, Oculus Rift [currently dev version, but will upgrade], and it will still run my original copy of Doom and Doom II, it will play Half Life, Half Life 2, Doom 3, and upgrading it will not stop those games or any others from working. Even if an OS change makes them incompatible, there will still be workarounds such as virtual machines, and emulators. In fact, if you know what you're doing you can even emulate consoles and play those games on PC as well.
My computer will always be better than the next generation of consoles. It's already far more powerful than the Xbox1 and PS4. Neither system will ever outperform it.
I may not be able to run every game on super ultra settings released in the next ten years, but it will still be better hardware than the consoles for the entire 'next gen' cycle. I'll certainly be able to run the vast majority of games at their highest settings for that period, and will be able to easily and cheaply upgrade well before the next console launches keeping me ahead of the curve for less money. I'll always be better off than this console gen with my current rig and be able to run games better than either one will ever. Plus, by the time the next consoles roll around, I'll probably already have better hardware.
Plus I generally pay less for the same software if I'm patient enough to not buy it on day one. $5-15 a title as opposed to $29-60 on a console, and that figure may jump with the new console generation. Not to mention the wealth of free and inexpensive indie games available for PC. Yes the consoles have Digital Download titles, but I can usually get even those games cheaper and in some cases free, and I don't mean by way of piracy either. Despite the admittedly higher up front cost of building a rig like that, I actually save money in the long run.
I've had consoles in the past, I'm aware of the cost involved. I have
all of the current gen consoles. I probably won't be getting the next
gen consoles until they've been out for a while, but there will probably
be enough exclusive games that I'll eventually end up getting a PS4,
but probably not an Xbox 1. Most Xbox games end up on PC anyway with
very few remaining true exclusives for very long, certainly not enough
to justify a purchase in my opinion.
I get that some people like consoles more, especially with the older systems. The ease of use and plug and play convenience. The modern consoles have squandered that advantage away and are just as complex to use as any PC. Any advantages the consoles once had is now gone and they've regulated themselves to being mid grade PC knockoffs with specialized OS. It's not really any simpler than running games on PC anymore. In fact, it's almost exactly the same but with worse hardware.
This article is completely based on falsehoods and dated information that isn't true anymore and hasn't been for quite a while.
TL;DR: Your article is based entirely on things that are either outdated misconceptions or outright falsehoods. You don't know what you're talking about and I'm wondering who is paying you to write articles about video games and technology. They are wasting their money.
4 months, 1 week ago on Why the PC is not better than the Console
@trans8010 @Contrabardus @sefy76 @Batmandrew
It doesn't matter which ending I like more. The original theatrical cut is canon. I did see the film in it's varying states, but the extra ending segment is still a deleted scene. It doesn't count. I'm old enough to have seen Superman the Movie in theaters in 1978. The story as presented in the Superman 2 official cut is that Superman kills Zod and is flippant about it. Both cuts were shown on television, but the one that was shown the most was the original cut. The networks usually showed the original cut, and if you saw it on one of the pay cable stations like HBO you saw the original cut there as well.
The fact that it exists doesn't make it canon. If I wrote a fanfiction where Superman kills Zod and Non and then dumps Lois for Ursa, it doesn't become canon because it exists. It's still going to be just a crappy fanfiction, just like that will always be a deleted scene.
Yes. -YOU- knew Cyborg Superman would survive. That's not the same thing as Superman knew. -I- knew that Cyborg Superman was not destroyed. There was no reason to think that Superman knew.
The point was that he -intended- to kill Cyborg Superman for pretty much the exact same reasons he killed Doomsday in an earlier comic, and Zod in MOS. When he did what he did he wasn't concerned with whether Cyborg Superman would survive or not. He had Hal check to make sure in fact. When Jordan could find no trace he expressed relief, not happiness, but relief.
Again, you had access to more information than any character in the comic did. Your projecting what you knew as a reader onto what the characters in the book knew, which was actually a lot less. They didn't have access to the same information as you did. There was no good reason for them to suspect at the time that he survived.
4 months, 1 week ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman
No. I most certainly will not tossing that scene out. Superman killed Zod in Superman 2. That scene you keep bringing up isn't in Superman 2. It's a deleted scene and no reason you can give will make it a part of the film. It's not in the movie, period, and it doesn't matter that networks used it to pad the running time. It does not change the fact that it was a deleted scene and not a part of the film at all. How you remember it is irrelevant. It's not in the movie and does not count. Canon is not what the fans perceive, that's called 'fanon' and it means nothing in relation to the actual official story. It might as well be fanfiction, because it doesn't count and isn't really a part of the movie. There really isn't anything you can say that will change that.
Also, Cyborg Superman is a living being. He's sentient, has emotions, and meets every requirement for such status. Whether the original Hank is dead or not is irrelevant. The being known as Cyborg Superman is alive, and contains Hank's soul. It's been stated that the Cyborg contains his consciousness and/or spirit, so it is Hank even if his flesh and blood body died. It's not that unusual in comics for stuff like that to happen.
It also doesn't matter if Superman though he might have maybe had the capability to come back. He fully intended to destroy him. You're confusing your perspective as a reader with the perspective of the characters in the story. There was no good reason for Superman to think Cyborg Superman survived that. No one knew about his immortality, and they only knew that he could control metal stuff and electronics.
Of course the writers left Cyborg Superman with a way to survive. They wanted to use him as a bad guy again. That doesn't mean anything in relation to this. Superman tried to kill him, he didn't manage it, but there is no good reason to think any different.
You've confused the reader's perspective with the character's perspective. You are also projecting what you want to believe onto what's actually in the issue. They are in fact two different things. You're trying too hard to read between the lines and coming up with something that isn't there. It's a case of you jumping through hoops to try to prove your theory that isn't actually backed by anything in the comic at all. It's just what you want to think happened.
There is no good reason to think that Superman knew he would survive period. None. He might have thought that maybe somehow he might not have died, which is why he had Hal scan for him. It came up with nothing and he said 'it's over' which is a final statement suggesting that he thought he was destroyed. Not 'I'll be ready when he comes back' or 'he's still out there'. Just 'It's over'.
I see no reason to buy into your theories about how Superman 'felt' about it, or that he had any knowledge that Cyborg Superman, Hank or not, survived.
Yes, because we all know that Superman has psychic powers and can see the future.
What? No? It seems that's one of the few super powers he doesn't have. Imagine that.
_IF THAT HAPPENS_ I'll stop you. Implication, I'm trying to kill you, but if you somehow survive I'll be ready to deal with it.
Green Lantern's scan found nothing. Further evidence Henshaw was destroyed.
At the time Henshaw's immortality was unknown.
'It's over' is a final statement. Superman clearly thought he'd destroyed him. He wouldn't say 'I'm glad he's dead' or 'I sure hope he's destroyed for good'. He is Superman after all. Just because he did what he did with intent does not mean he would have been pleased about it.
We knew as readers that Cyborg Superman was not likely actually dead, but the characters, including Superman had no good reason to think he survived.
Superman's intent was to destroy him. He'd just destroyed a city of seven million. He destroyed Doomsday for similar reasons.
You're trying to hard to read between the lines and imagining something that isn't there. I've got a copy of that comic as well and it's pretty clear that Superman intended to destroy Henshaw and hopefully rid the world of him for good.
That didn't work out, but the intent was pretty clear and that's the point. Henshaw would not have stopped, no more than Doomsday would have.
Anyway, the point is that Superman has killed and tried to kill before in the original source material, and for pretty much the same reasons that he kills Zod for in the film. With even less reason in the Superman 2 movie. He's actually flippant about it there. As was said many times before, deleted scenes are not part of the film. As it was presented, he did just that. An extra scene not in the film is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter if there was a 'director's cut' later that put it back in. It doesn't count and it's just an extra tossed in for the home video market and nothing more.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Why Man of Steel is receiving bad reviews and the public loves this Superman
No. It's made pretty clear in the comic that you are wrong.
He thought he was destroying Hank. Hank was not a robot, he was a cyborg. That means living components. Hank was very much a sentient being and would more than qualify as living, evil, but living. In the comics his consciousness or soul inhabited the cyborg body, meaning he was alive.
Saying 'if that is the case..' implies that he knows he may well be killing him. He put his fist through him and vibrated him into little bits of metal shavings and meat. Almost to the point of turning him into dust. Even in the DCU most villains would have a hard time recovering from that. There was no indication that he was not killed by that until he returned later.
Superman killed him because he destroyed Coast City and killed seven million doing so. [Boy, does that sound familiar or what?] There is no good reason to believe he didn't think that Superman did not believe he was killing him, not even Cyborg's 'I'll find a way to survive', if you recall the expression on Hank's face made it pretty clear that he wasn't so sure of that himself.
It was pretty clear that Superman intended to eliminate him and didn't believe he'd really be back. He did come back as it's the comics of course, but Superman had no reason to think that he would return and appeared to nearly vaporized him.
Hank was a living being, the Cyborg had just committed mass murder on the scale of an entire city, Superman had every intention of wiping his existence off the face of the planet by killing him.
He also kills Hank Henshaw the Cyborg willfully, and The Ultimate Man FYI.
What about Doomsday and Mr. Mxzyptlk? Superman killed them both as well. In fact, Mr. Mxzyptlk dies at the hands of Silver Age Superman, whom Reeve's Superman is modeled after.
Doomsday is probably the best example now that I think about it, because the position he put Superman in is very similar to what MOS's Zod did to him in this film. It's not really a different situation and even the level of destruction was very similar.
You really don't know what you're talking about here. You're just running your mouth because the movie isn't the exact same thing as a bunch of goofy campy kids movies from the 80s.
Again, this Superman is more faithful to the source than your childhood obsession. I know because I actually read Superman comics for a number of years on a regular basis. I bought graphic novel anthologies of every incarnation brought to print of the character. I haven't read every single Superman comic that was ever written, but it's pretty clear I have a better understanding of the character than you do.
It's painfully obvious that your only real exposure to Superman is the Reeve's films.
I know what Superman is 'about'. I've actually read the original stories by Shuster and Seigel, I've read Moore, Waid, Hamilton, Maggin, Morrison, Millar, Binder, and Bates.
You know one guy who made a movie and a half in the 80's and little to nothing else.
You've got no ground to stand on here. Donner was not the definitive Superman, he wasn't even a very good representation of the Silver Age Superman. He was just the best we had for about 30 years.
Again, Superman the Movie wasn't bad. It was a fun film and suited to it's target audience. It was not however anywhere near as important as you seem to believe it is. It's not a definitive characterization, it's not the most wondrous lighthearted film of all time, and what he stood for is not what the original character is or was about. Reeve's Superman is two dimensional. He's not the complex creation within the pages of comics. He's never truly threatened, doesn't have to face complex moral choices, and is nothing but a simplistic boyscout character with little to no depth.
That's not really Superman.
It's nice that you didn't like it, but as I said, you're only entitled to what you can argue for, and you've got no grounds for a real argument against the film that isn't 'Baaaaawwww, it's not Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner anymore! Modern special effects suck! Baaaawwww!'
Have your opinion, but I have no good reason to respect it and a personal obligation to point out that I think it's dumb and that you have no real idea what you're talking about.
I'm not being dark or cynical, you've just got a narrow view of a character you've only had limited exposure to. Superman is a far different character than you seem to think he is.
@sefy76 @Contrabardus @trans8010 @jparlee321
You can't even get your posts straight. You also have no idea what you're talking about.
I never said anything about $600m. I did mention the opening weekend box office, but it was to point out that such numbers are pointless and that MOS hasn't been around long enough to bother with comparing the two based on ticket sales. Especially in such different eras.
You've revealed yourself as little more than a hipster here. CGI destroyed everything! Superman isn't always happy! Baaaawwww! You've been left behind by technology and are whining about how nobody likes the classic crap you're desperately clinging to anymore. Everything is horrible now and it all used to be wonderful.
No, it wasn't. I was there, and I remember.
The Donner Superman movies were not really very good films. They were poorly shot, had bad pacing, the special effects were cheap even for the period, he reused and looped shots, and it was a low budget kids film. It was the live action equivalent of a Hanna Barbera cartoon. That's not necessarily horrible, but it's not great either.
Not to mention you conveniently forget about the darker moments in the film. Superman is nearly drowned with Kryptonite, Lois Lane dies, Superman has a couple of rage fits, he gets beat up and abused after losing his powers. They aren't as serious as the new films, but they aren't without their moments of darkness either.
It doesn't matter how well it did back then. This isn't the Eighties. A lot of movies did well back then that wouldn't have made a dime in today's box office. Superman is one of those films.
It did what it was supposed to and appealed to children, and now a hoard of nostalgia ridden idiots are whining across the internet because they made Superman more like the comic books they never read than a couple of low budget kids films from the 1980s, some leftover silver age animations, and a black and white serial show from an era of extreme censorship that were made to appeal to and be appropriate for 8-11 year old boys.
The age of making Richard Donner fanfiction into new Superman movies is over.
There is a fair bit of destruction in Donner's Superman. If he was able, he would have destroyed just as much making his films. It's fairly obvious that the trio of evil Kryptonians would have been much more destructive if the effects of the time would have allowed for it. It was a violent film for it's rating, and quite a bit was destroyed given the limited possibilities of the time.
The 'dark gritty violence' has nothing to do with why this is a better film than Donner's movies. It's not even really all that dark to be honest. It's a bit washed out color wise, and it doesn't get campy or silly, but it's not really a depressing or downer of a film.
Superman is more like he should be from the original source. It fits better with the modern world and isn't nearly as bleak as people profess it is. It just wasn't the goofy bumbling affair that the original movies were. The biggest difference between this film and the Donner movies is that this film takes it's story and characters seriously, and that's exactly what it should have done.
The simple fact is that the 80s films have not aged well. Only those who are nostalgic about them from their childhood care at all.
Younger audiences liked MOS, comic book fans liked MOS, it's nowhere near the failure you cynically hope that it is. The only people who didn't like it are hipster nostalgic Donnerphiles who can't get over their hardons for a mediocre superhero movie from the 1980s. There weren't a lot of superhero movies back then, much less good ones. Superman was the best we had until Burton came along. That's not saying much.
There weren't a whole lot of people who were greatly impressed by the film, but it was well received. Metacritic's critics panned it, but the user score is actually .1 higher than Superman's rating and almost two points higher than Superman II. The audience reviews of Superman and MOS on Rotten Tomatoes is exactly the same and Superman 2 is ten points lower.
In other words, you are in the minority opinion. Most people thing that MOS is at least equal to Superman, and better than Superman 2. That's hard evidence that your suggestion this film that you so desperately hope to fail is well liked by the vast majority of people who see it at least as much as the 80s films if not more. In other words, what you have thus far suggest is not 'fact' at all, but rather you pretending that your pretty unpopular opinion is fact.
Superman sells well when it's screened because of nostalgia. Jurassic Park sells out whenever it's shown as well, and it's not because it's a bright happy movie. It's a dark tale where dinosaurs eat people. It sells out for the same reason Superman does when it's on the big screen because it's not shown that way often and a lot of people remember it from their childhood.
The Bruce Campbell Evil Dead film recently showed where I live at a large multiplex theater. A weeks worth of shows sold out within a day. Again, not exactly a 'feel good' movie. Anywhere that shows is much the same, sold out crowds.
You're blinded by your own nostalgia. The simple fact is that you're being just as cynical as anybody else about technology in film and the new movie. It's obvious you want it to fail and I doubt you'd have been happy no matter how good the film was because it wasn't Reeve's and Donner's Superman anymore. There will never be another Superman film like that, and with good reason.
If you ever got what you wanted, it would no doubt turn out to be the Batman Forever of Superman movies.
Your complaints about the horrible things technology has done is far more cynical than our panning of a couple of kids movies from the eighties that used an already dated concept of Superman and put it on the silver screen.
It's pretty clear that most people don't agree with you on this.
This was a better film, it was better paced, shot better, and got the power scale right.
I'd say that you are entitled to your opinion, but that isn't really true. You are only entitled to what you can argue for, and I don't think you can create a solid argument against MOS or for Superman 1 + 2 being better films.
@sefy76 @trans8010 @jparlee321
Again, not a relevant comparison. The business is far too different from what it was in the late Seventies.
Yeah, you can toss numbers about, but due to technology changes, the home market has drastically affected theaters.
In fact, I expect that it's possible that within our lifetimes they will go the way of Video Arcades.
There's really no way to accurately compare the two until MOS has been out of theaters and released to the home market. Those combined numbers will be far more telling in relation to how successful the film is compared to the Donner films.
It's too soon and those numbers are essentially meaningless. It's apples to oranges.
That's not how box office figures work. Whoever gave you this information is wrong and obviously doesn't know what they are talking about.
Box office figures are directly related to ticket sales, are reported from theaters to independent organizations that then report the tallies.
Merchandising is separate and WB isn't in control of the release of Box Office figures. There is no way they could have 'tacked on' merchandising revenue to the figures. They don't control those figures or their release to the public.