Frankly, it wasn't until Christopher Reeve brought the role to life on the big screen that anyone really started taking the "Clark Kent, Mild-Mannered Report" disguise seriously. The difference between Clark and Superman is as different as night and day, and was made very clear in one scene in the first movie where he's about to reveal himself, and you can literally see the change between the two identities just from the way Reeves changes his posture and tone of voice.

Christopher Reeve was the best, most believable, Superman. Only an actor like him could really pull off that duality, at least no one else has so far. It's to bad the film is so dated with it FX because kids these days will never get that, it's hard to describe, that super feeling you got when Superman did his reveal in that film (Can't find a good clip of this on youtube but the one below shows what DM & I mean about his acting)).

The moment I read the earlier post I wanted to find and post this exact same clip! It's a magnificent little bit of acting. It actually makes the Clark Kent / Superman thing believable! Christoper Reeve was great and I can only appreciate it now as an adult how good he was. (Though I recall enjoying it plenty as a child).

By the way, if you want terrible sequels/prequels to movies, none of the sins that Phantom Menace commits is worse than what Alien 3 and 4 did. Watch them last night as part of my new boxed sets - f'ing terrible (although at least Alien 3 looked nice while the script completely fell apart. . . .)

Alien 2 was a much different kind of film, more of an sifi action film then the sifi horror/slasher film the original was. It was an intentional departure that was, as far as film making and storytelling goes, a much better film then any of the Prequels.

Gah! Alien 2? No - stupid typo. I mean Alien 3 (or Alien cubed or the one where Nute and Hicks died offscreen and Ripley got impregnated by a non-existant face hugger). Alien S is an awesome flick and now I shall go commit sepiku for slandering it's good name.

Gah! Alien 2? No - stupid typo. I mean Alien 3 (or Alien cubed or the one where Nute and Hicks died offscreen and Ripley got impregnated by a non-existant face hugger). Alien S is an awesome flick and now I shall go commit sepiku for slandering it's good name.

Loser

Gah! Alien 2? No - stupid typo. I mean Alien 3 (or Alien cubed or the one where Nute and Hicks died offscreen and Ripley got impregnated by a non-existant face hugger). Alien S is an awesome flick and now I shall go commit sepiku for slandering it's good name.

Sooooo, did you like prometheus?

*runs*

Oh man - so much train wreck! And every single person in the cast was handed their very own idiot ball! Yeah, when you make Alien Resurrection look good, you know you've made a special movie. . . . .

Yeah same here. I can enjoy it now as a bad movie to riff on, but it took me a while. If it realy counts as part of the alien franchise than it's just a goddamn betrayal of the fanbase.

After Aliens things went down hill...

So, back to midi-chlorians?

Prometheus? Everything aside from the plot, dialogue, characterisation and story was stellar. The 'making of' book is awesome and well worth getting. And yet among the 'general public' it's regarded as a great film. It baffles me. Either standards are lower these days or style over substance really is a thing.

Oh yeah. Transformers.

I'll get me coat...

Transformers...

ack!

My childhood!

Noooooooooooooo!!!

While it has been years since I've watched any of the films, I remember enjoying the prequels. If I had the money at the time I would have gone to see Phantom Menace in 3D. When someone I know demanded to know why I would even think about watching that in 3D, I had a two word response:

"Darth Maul."

"Okay, yeah, that would be awesome."

Be glad you didn't. It was just george's his devious trick to get us to pay for sitting trough the jar jar binks show AGAIN!!!

There's only one, ONE! scene with any sort of noticable 3D effects and thats of Anni during the pod race. BAH!

Compare with Jurrasic Park 3D wich was Sooooo much better. (Dat jumping raptor)

I hope they get round to releasing the OT in 3D at some point. People have seen various sections and say it's a really good job.

Imagine the trench run, asteroid field chase, Hoth, speeder bikes, and the battle of Endor. I'm sure it'll come at some point.

I hope they get round to releasing the OT in 3D at some point. People have seen various sections and say it's a really good job.

Imagine the trench run, asteroid field chase, Hoth, speeder bikes, and the battle of Endor. I'm sure it'll come at some point.

I'm sure they have already done plenty of tests and found it looks crappy. Good looking 3D requires that you film with two cameras simultaneously that you adjust for distance or if computer generated that you render with two virtual cameras. If you do this after the fact what you get is a very fake looking 3D.

I hope they get round to releasing the OT in 3D at some point. People have seen various sections and say it's a really good job.

Imagine the trench run, asteroid field chase, Hoth, speeder bikes, and the battle of Endor. I'm sure it'll come at some point.

I'm sure they have already done plenty of tests and found it looks crappy. Good looking 3D requires that you film with two cameras in simultaneously that you adjust for distance or if computer generated that you render with two virtual cameras. If you do this after the fact what you get is a very fake looking 3D.

It should be noted Lucas was looking into that before he Sold SW to Disney. That was part of the whole 6 movie special edition concept years ago.

Blech! Phooey on 3D - the stuff looks dark as hell and gives me a headache for the rest of the day after 2 hours.

Anyway, once you've hit the apex of cinematic achievment , there's nowhere to go but down. . . . .

I tought THIS was the ultimate in cinematic achievment.

I tought THIS was the ultimate in cinematic achievment.

Of that generation of films maybe. Of course, now a days we have the luxury of looking back and seeing just how far we have come.

At least with Castle's movies, ther was a point in going to the movies as he'd cram all sort of gloriously stupid gimmics in the theater. Glowing skeleton flying across the room (House on haunted hill), joybuzzer in the seats (The Tingler) and more of those shenanigans.

I've actually watched the original 13 Ghosts (using an old pair of 3D glassess for the ghost finder) Now you see the ghosts, now you don't. Very fun for a gimmic.

At least with Castle's movies, ther was a point in going to the movies as he'd cram all sort of gloriously stupid gimmics in the theater. Glowing skeleton flying across the room (House on haunted hill), joybuzzer in the seats (The Tingler) and more of those shenanigans.

I've actually watched the original 13 Ghosts (using an old pair of 3D glassess for the ghost finder) Now you see the ghosts, now you don't. Very fun for a gimmic.

To this day that is still talked about when referring to the best 3D Movie Experience. He made it an experience to see something in 3D.

I've heard the 3D in Creature from the black lagoon was also very good. Like having a cube of water suspended in front of you.

I hope they get round to releasing the OT in 3D at some point. People have seen various sections and say it's a really good job.

Imagine the trench run, asteroid field chase, Hoth, speeder bikes, and the battle of Endor. I'm sure it'll come at some point.

I'm sure they have already done plenty of tests and found it looks crappy. Good looking 3D requires that you film with two cameras simultaneously that you adjust for distance or if computer generated that you render with two virtual cameras. If you do this after the fact what you get is a very fake looking 3D.

I understand that, and I know it's generally a way if simply adding to the ticket cost in post, the so-called '3D tax'.

But I recall hearing some talk on a podcast about them (no I can't remember which) that was saying they were done using expensive techniques rather than the cheap way and that they looked really impressive.

Guess we'll only ever be able to judge when/if they ever release them.

But I recall hearing some talk on a podcast about them (no I can't remember which) that was saying they were done using expensive techniques rather than the cheap way and that they looked really impressive.

Guess we'll only ever be able to judge when/if they ever release them.

There is one — and only one — movie that has ever been released that I thought did 3D well. That was Avatar. The only reason it worked well was that it was almost all CG, and they created ground-breaking new techniques to virtually “film” it.

I have never seen a movie that was filmed in 2D, where they “added” 3D to the movie later, and where the result was anything better than … pudu.

I tought THIS was the ultimate in cinematic achievment.

While I have mad love for the awesome schlock of William Castle, I gotta go spacehunter. It even says it right in the trailer: "The ultimate 3D experience!"

Plus, you know, Molly Ringwald - so that makes the argument for me right there.

Scr*w that,