BruceH

How is Smokestack?

He's got a point. For the last six years I've been wishing that Bush would just go away, and it hasn't worked.

(((Yawn)))

Good news!

As I understand it, this film (while not a direct sequel) is meant to take place after the events of "Superman II" (effectively negating both III and IV, thank God). Following the confrontation with the Kryptonian villians in that film, Superman has (apparently) left earth for several years (nearly a decade, I think). At the same time, the Daily Planet staff obviously believes that Clark Kent has left for greener pastures. This film deals with what happens when Superman returns to earth and Kent returns to Metropolis (hence the film's title, "Superman Returns"). Now, you can tell that this film is meant to be a part of the series begun in "Superman" and "Superman II." First of all, the music from the earlier films is being used in this film. Secondly, in the teaser trailer that has been around for a while now, Marlon Brando's dialogue as Jor-El is used (in addtion, you can see Brando's face among the crystals in the Fortress of Solitude while Luthor is prowling around there). Ma Kent's line (heard in the preview) Clark's father believed that Clark was here "for a reason" echoes a line in the first "Superman" film. Clearly, this is intended to be a part of that cycle. The scenes relating to Clark's childhood will probably be seen in flashback, rather than starting the whole story from scratch. So no, this is not meant to be a rehash of the same story. I'd like to see some more villians from the comic book in the films. Only Luthor and Zod came from the comic (III and IV had "new" villians written for the movies). I'd like to see Brianiac, Metallo, and some of the others in upcoming films. As to what excited me so about this trailer? Well, I was about eight when the first "Superman" film was released, and I saw it in the theater. I loved it, of course. I have a theory that Superman has to be older than you, which means that whichever actor played Superman when you were a kid is the "real" Superman. For my dad, the "real" Superman was George Reeves. He *liked* Christopher Reeve, but he couldn't take the place of the "real" thing in his mind. This is part of the reason that I've never been able to get into "Lois and Clark" or "Smallville." These guys just aren't SUPERMAN to me. But this guy was clearly chosen because he closely resembles (and even sounds like) Christopher Reeve. So he is meant to appeal to people (like me) who were kids when the first films were released, while also becoming the "real" Superman to kids like my daughter. I guess it excites me because it reawakens all of the feelings of wonder I felt when I watched Christopher Reeve flying accross the screen when I was eight. He made this eight year old believe that a man could fly. That's what I felt watching this preview... My "real" Superman is the comic book one. Well, two or three of the versions in the comic... (NOT the lame John Byrne version!) I guess we're at the point were a new cinematic incarnation of both Superman and Batman is trotted out for each generation. Not necessarily a bad thing. I saw this trailer just the other day and it did kick ass. You've got me wondering who would make a good Brainiac. I've been wracking my, um, brains over it and can't come up with a good candidate. Maybe an unknown would be best.

Yikes!

You're crazy! No, seriously, Toth was great. RIP

Thank the dear Lord that this little lady has finally come out of her shell.

Huh?

That's about what I figured.

Happy birthday, Benny!

Sounds wonderful. I wish I could have been there.

I once knew someone who had the same first name.

I held off getting a CD player until 1992. At this late date, I can't really remember which CD was my first...

Big deal.

Well, if we're getting on to the subject of bad textbooks and particularly bad textbook writing this thread could go on forever.

Well, anything prior to 1950 or so would almost have to be comps. They didn't have "albums" back then (at least not in the way you're apparently suggesting). Unless you'd have them replace Pops' "Hot Fives" with "Hello Dolly." True enough. But why only seven? Do they assume the readers of Time are so ADD-ridden that they can't deal with a list of 10 or 20? I think 7 is just an arbitrary number. The editor called the writer or the writer pitched the editor with the piece, and there was only one page available and the writer had to do his thing in 600 words (or whatever it was), and 5 was too few and 10 was too many given the space he had. I think it's as simple (or as foolish) as that. Also, Time isn't an Arts/music/jazz mag, so they ain't gonna devote a lot of space to it and their readers most likely want something concise. All the more reason to not take it seriously at all.

Say what you will, at least she still has that freak in her.

Well, anything prior to 1950 or so would almost have to be comps. They didn't have "albums" back then (at least not in the way you're apparently suggesting). Unless you'd have them replace Pops' "Hot Fives" with "Hello Dolly." True enough. But why only seven? Do they assume the readers of Time are so ADD-ridden that they can't deal with a list of 10 or 20?

Already got it. (Whew!!)

Elvis---Return of the Rocker Before that: Eno---Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy

So five of the seven best jazz CD's are actually compilations (six if you count The Complete Birth of the Cool)...is that kosher? What about albums? Well, lists like this are always unintentionally hilarious.

Must have, must have, must have....

Must have, must have, must have....

Heard about his passing on Glen Erickson's "DVD Savant" site. Can't say I ever liked any of his movies though.