Yes, Ian. I agree. That's why I'm careful to restrict my comments to my opinions. I wasn't getting on Andrew for how he feels. I'm just explaining my beef with the movie, and discussing the logic (or lack thereof) behind some of their artistic decisions. There are inconsistencies in some of those decisions that I find illogical.

Andrew Hilsmann wrote: That could also have something to do with being resigned to decisions that irritated me in the first movie, too.

heh, heh. isn't resignation wonderful?

Matt Reed wrote: ...John's point stands.

Matt, not to pick, but when someone says "most people" or "everyone" or talk about some automatic majority, they usually are only talking about their own limited frame of reference and points don't usually stand.  Can a reasonable person expect that someone has really gone and read every newspaper review on a film in the late 70s?  Can a reasonable person expect that someone has driven to a majority of the people in the country and conversed on what was better?

People all too casually throw out these "assumed majorities" without anything to back them up.  Now, I do honeslty believe that John would remember more conversations with people who believed that II was better than the original because we are more likely to remember conversations when people disagree with us than we we agree.   Consider the following example...

Man One - Hey, I thought the first Superman was better than the second.

Man Two - Hey, me too.

Man One - Yeah.

Man Two - Yeah.

Man One - So...

Again, sorry to be picky, but when people throw out terms like that, it just bugs me.

Bugs me too. That's why I don't do it.

Spiderman 2 has the best action sequence I have ever scene.  The train sequence is unbelievable.  I watched it in slow motion on DVD and it looks realistic even when slowed down.  It actually looks like how Spiderman would really move.  I have to suspend my disbelief about how Spidey stops the train because I don't think he is that strong.  There are problems with the movie.  I don't know why they needed to alter Spider-History since the actual history would be better than the changes made.  It seems to be vanity on the part of the movie creator to make these changes as there was really no need to do it. 

Still the movie is fantastic, with all it's problems it is still a great, fun exciting movie.

"dangerously close"

I do seem to remember how much people really like Superman II.  I was surprised at how many people talked about Superman II compared to Superman, although I don't remember (first hand) much about how people reacted to the first one.

I didn't know "civilians" could actually see a movie based upon a comic and think that was one better because it was not like a comic book and the other was not so good because it was too much like the comic book, especially since so few people, relatively speaking, read superhero comics.  I guess they could have preconceived notions about what a superhero comic book is or contains.

Still, who gives a flip if "civilians" prefer one style over another, other than the filmmakers and studios?  What it comes down to is that the studios are making movies, and they are not going to make a movie the same way way Marvel or DC make comics.