# Superman Returns appreciation thread



## Pauly (Jul 17, 2006)

I saw it tonight, it was awesome. Go and see it if you haven't already, especially those bored with cg-fest's like Pirates of the Carribean 2. Made me feel all kiddy-fied again haha.


----------



## Rick (Jul 18, 2006)

Not bad. I'd probably see it again.


----------



## noodles (Jul 18, 2006)

It was ok. Nice effects, but the story dragged on. And on. And on.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 18, 2006)

I loved the cinematography, the framing, the score, the... well, everything. Next time add a supervillian and some earth-moving fisticuffs and I'm sure more people will be entertained.


----------



## peterchau (Jul 18, 2006)

I thought it was awesome. And I was very happy that they didnt input lame lines like "I dont need to be a telapath to know what your thinking" or something of that sort.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 18, 2006)

I saw it twice. Pretty good movie!

*The Good *
- Brandon Routh. (Give him more dialog already! He was terrific.) 
- Spacey as Luthor (although I would have preferred the Corporate Mastermind Lex, instead of the hokey Hackman-esque Lex ((who was also admittedly good), but that's not Spacey's fault. However, Spacey > Hollywood.
- Cinematography, effects, music.
- Serious, realistic interpretation. I also liked the sense of uncertainty, and I thought it did a good job of dancing around the cliches of the heroic epic.
*
The Bad*
- Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth does an OK job, but she just was cast wrong , I think. LL is supposed to be spunky, and full of piss and vinegar. She's the perfect foil for Superman. Kate is too serious, and a bit too bitter.
- Lack of good fight/good villain to battle. Lex is a great villain, but they didn't really capitalize on his strengths vs. Superman in a way that translates well onto the big screen, I think. His plan was silly, and it was a bit too ho-hum. A legion of killer robots, or some super Kryptonite-powered mech suit, would have been more in keeping. Lex in his corporate ivory tower directing the troops, that sorta thing.

*So-so*
The pace was a bit slow, but I actually liked that. I could see the movie being served better by a bit more action and movement, though. The overall plot was also a bit iffy, although serviceable. Crystals? A new continent? Mmm... I dunno, there.

Overall though, I agree. A great movie at the end of the day. As a long, long time comic-book buff and Superman fan, this movie really _felt_ like Superman, and that more than anything makes it a winner to me.


----------



## Mykie (Jul 18, 2006)

True, I realy didn't like Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane.


----------



## noodles (Jul 18, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> *The Bad*
> - Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth does an OK job, but she just was cast wrong , I think. LL is supposed to be spunky, and full of piss and vinegar. She's the perfect foil for Superman. Kate is too serious, and a bit too bitter.
> - Lack of good fight/good villain to battle. Lex is a great villain, but they didn't really capitalize on his strengths vs. Superman in a way that translates well onto the big screen, I think. His plan was silly, and it was a bit too ho-hum. A legion of killer robots, or some super Kryptonite-powered mech suit, would have been more in keeping. Lex in his corporate ivory tower directing the troops, that sorta thing.



I could never put my finger on it before (Superman is so woven into the fabric of popular culture that I don't think about it), but this is exactly what was wrong with the movie. They gave us a bitter Louis because Supey up and left, and the Lex without the resources. Plus, the way Superman did what he did really makes no sense, and it takes the shine off his halo.

I always liked Superman because he was the ideal for mankind, and just out of reach. I don't like seeing him humanized.

Unfortunately, the ideal Louis Lane is tied up being Mary Jane Watson.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 19, 2006)

Ya, I'll agree Loius was a bit iffy. Then again I wasn't completely sold with Kirsten Dunst as MJ in Spidey in the first film, but by number 2 I'd kinda warmed to her. Hopefully the next film will address the bad points by:

Lane being less bitter.
Superman having fisticuffs with a villian who's physically equal, or even superior to him (Bizarro, Brainiac, Metallo, Doomsday). The obvious classic problem with Supes is (without reverting to a 'Krytonite villian of the week' ala Smallville) is how do you find something that's' gonna be a handful for him?

Btw



Spoiler



Since he lost his crystals at the end as they went off with the rest of New Krypton, I thought it was very likely they'll be used as a plot device for the 2nd film, with someone/thing coming from outer space who's got their hands on them. Supers will get them back though, and everything will be rosy.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 19, 2006)

Hey TDW...I thought the new continent thing was awesome and played right into what he was trying to do in Superman I. While there he was trying to blow up the western seaboard, this time he focused on the eastern with a new way of doing the same thing. Only this time it was more dasterdly. PERFECT! Lois was a bitter lady but it played nicely. She got super-banged and then Supes left the galaxy...I imagine he would be hard to replace. Imagine banging Wonder Woman then having to troll for ladies again. 

Honestly I think the whole Super-Villan mecha robot fight would have been to campy right now. There is a whole generation of kids out there who have never seen a Superman movie. This was the chance to introduce them to the Blue Boy and his arch enemy.


----------



## garcia3441 (Jul 19, 2006)

Trivia:::

Noel Neill; who played Lois Lane from 1953-1958, plays Gertrude Vanderworth.

Jack Larson; who played Jimmy Olsen, plays Bo the Bartender.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 19, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> Hey TDW...I thought the new continent thing was awesome and played right into what he was trying to do in Superman I. While there he was trying to blow up the western seaboard, this time he focused on the eastern with a new way of doing the same thing. Only this time it was more dasterdly. PERFECT! Lois was a bitter lady but it played nicely. She got super-banged and then Supes left the galaxy...I imagine he would be hard to replace. Imagine banging Wonder Woman then having to troll for ladies again.
> 
> Honestly I think the whole Super-Villan mecha robot fight would have been to campy right now. There is a whole generation of kids out there who have never seen a Superman movie. This was the chance to introduce them to the Blue Boy and his arch enemy.



Yeah, that's why I'm glad this movie wasn't an origin movie, or a proper sequel, but something in-between. I hear the sequel will have something to do with other Krpyton people, I just hope it's not General Zod and co. again, since this film was supposed to be the new Superman 3, ignoring the older 3 and 4 films. If you read the prequel comics, some of the events in the original first film are alluded to. There's 4 of them (a Supes, Lex, Louis and Ma Kent) from Marvel, if you're lazy a lot of the Torrent sites have them available to read.



garcia3441 said:


> Trivia:::
> 
> Noel Neill; who played Lois Lane from 1953-1958, plays Gertrude Vanderworth.
> 
> Jack Larson; who played Jimmy Olsen, plays Bo the Bartender.



Cool, I like how they also snuck in people in Spiderman (Stan Lee, Bruce Campbell etc.) so it's good to see Singer doing it as well.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 19, 2006)

pauly-bobs said:


> (a Supes, Lex, Louis and Ma Kent) from Marvel, if you're lazy a lot of the Torrent sites have them available to read.


Who the fuck is Louis?

And Marvel? Dude, Superman is DC. 

Dive Baum, as a guy very familar with the Superman history, I stand by my original assertion. Remember, I liked the movie, but it wasn't a home run by any means. A plot to make a new continent? The way they handled Luthor was really off, by comic standards, even if Spacey did do a brilliant job. And Lois was flat-out wrong, no way around it. A super bang, then bitter? Sorry... Lois would have tore heaven and earth apart looking for him, not write a bitter article about why the world doesn't need Superman.


----------



## noodles (Jul 19, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> A super bang, then bitter? Sorry... Lois would have tore heaven and earth apart looking for him, not write a bitter article about why the world doesn't need Superman.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 20, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Who the fuck is Louis?
> 
> And Marvel? Dude, Superman is DC.
> 
> Dive Baum, as a guy very familar with the Superman history, I stand by my original assertion. Remember, I liked the movie, but it wasn't a home run by any means. A plot to make a new continent? The way they handled Luthor was really off, by comic standards, even if Spacey did do a brilliant job. And Lois was flat-out wrong, no way around it. A super bang, then bitter? Sorry... Lois would have tore heaven and earth apart looking for him, not write a bitter article about why the world doesn't need Superman.



Lol I know it's DC why did I type that, I've been reading too much Marvel lately, Thanos ftw! And yeah, Lois. It was a late night.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 20, 2006)

Thanos.  O, sweet Death, come hither, I must woo thee.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 20, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Thanos.  O, sweet Death, come hither, I must woo thee.



He's become the most powerful being within the Universe x2 and killed 1/2 the universe just to please her, and become God x1 and destroyed the whole universe in a tizzy. Can't really argue with that for a resume. He's less obsessed with the whole Death (and death) thing now and is almost a good guy.. well that still kills a lot of people.


----------



## Vince (Dec 1, 2006)

Rented this and watched it last night.

I have no idea why it got such poor reviews. It's a great Superman movie. Easily as good as the first two. The attention to detail, like the quick fog burst around sonic booms, creaking metal, etc., made the movie for me.

Roush does a fantastic job of delivering the Reeves version of Superman. His tone of voice and demeanor in the film was very much like Christopher Reeves' version back in the 80s. Spooky how close it was even.

I was wondering if they were going to do the corporate mastermind Lex Luthor or the Gene Hackman version, and I was very happy they went with the sleazeball Hackman version.

This is a great addition to the first two films, and I loved the references to them all throughout the movie, especially the scenes with Lex and his significant other. I was waiting for him to yell out "Ms. TESMACHER!!!" 

I dug the length too. It's not too much you get to see a 2 and a half hour movie.

Spoiler, highlight to read:


Spoiler



And the twist of the kid being Superman's child absolutely blew me away. I just about stood up & cheered when the kid threw the piano across the room and killed that guy. Fucking awesome addition to the series.



All in all, a great return, and I seriously thought the movie was going to suck. After hearing Kevin Smith talk about his experience with the franchise, and that aborted idea of having Nick Cage as Superman, I was ready to give up on it. I'm glad to see in the end they made the right choices and came out of it with a classic super-hero film.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 1, 2006)

I saw the movie a while back and was underwhelmed. I must admit my bias in that altough I'm a long time comic book nerd I've never been a big Superman fan. That being said I think Singer blew it. 

The whole Lex Luthor as a villian is played out. He should have used Brainiac or anyone else. Sure Spacey did a decent job but Luthor has been in every decent Superman movie. It's played out let it die and use another villian. 

That damn super-baby. Ugh so let me see if I grasp the concept. Superman forgot to use a condom, knocked up Lois and now she's got a kid that can juggle boulders? Of course Superman had a Dr Phil moment and needed to fly across the galaxy to find himself or some shit. NO NO NO!!! Superman is an ideal. He gets over his bad moods and moments of self doubt pretty damn fast. Singer played him way too human. 

I'm also sick of kyrptonite being the only thing that can slow Supes down. Use another villian that either has the raw power (Bizarro or Doomsday) or the technology (Brainiac) to kick Superman's ass. Leave the green stuff out of a movie please. 

Getting back to my point about Superman being way too human in the movie, if Singer wanted human emotions he should always remember that what's the supporting cast is there for. Superman is there to fly in and kick bad guy ass. Let Lois and Jimmy share their feelings over a cup of coffee. Or if you want insecure hero movies wait for Spider-Man 3.


----------



## Naren (Dec 1, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> A super bang, then bitter? Sorry... Lois would have tore heaven and earth apart looking for him, not write a bitter article about why the world doesn't need Superman.



As a huge comic fan, a former collector of Superman comics, and a comic translator (new part-time job in addition to my video game translation full-time job. Yeah, I really sound like a geek), I have to completely agree with you here.  I thought that Kate Bosworth wasn't really a Lois Lane-type actress and I thought the way she acted in the movie was completely out of character from the comics.

But, even with all its flaws, I thought it was a very entertaining and interesting movie. I preferred it over the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. What I thought was strange was that, even though it was 2 and a half hours, it kind of ended abruptly. Lex finally throws his plan into action and then Superman wins. It was like, "Okay... that's it?" I guess that was due to the movie's slow pace.

Great film. I recommend it to anyone who likes these kinds of movies.



ohio_eric said:


> The whole Lex Luthor as a villian is played out. He should have used Brainiac or anyone else. Sure Spacey did a decent job but Luthor has been in every decent Superman movie. It's played out let it die and use another villian.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I'm also sick of kyrptonite being the only thing that can slow Supes down. Use another villian that either has the raw power (Bizarro or Doomsday) or the technology (Brainiac) to kick Superman's ass. Leave the green stuff out of a movie please.



I have to agree with you on these points. Despite these, I thought it was a good movie, but I would much rather have seen Doomsday (A movie based off of the Death of Superman part of the comics would've been cool), Bizarro, or Brainiac than Lex Luthor AGAIN. Kryptonite does get tiring after a while. 

I've been wanting to see a Spiderman movie on: The Hobgolbin (10x better than the Green Goblin in my opinion), Venom, Carnage, or such. I also wanted to see Gambit in an X-Men movie... but you know how it goes...


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 1, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> The whole Lex Luthor as a villian is played out. He should have used Brainiac or anyone else. Sure Spacey did a decent job but Luthor has been in every decent Superman movie. It's played out let it die and use another villian.


I can agree with this.



ohio_eric said:


> Of course Superman had a Dr Phil moment and needed to fly across the galaxy to find himself or some shit. NO NO NO!!! Superman is an ideal. He gets over his bad moods and moments of self doubt pretty damn fast. Singer played him way too human.
> 
> I'm also sick of kyrptonite being the only thing that can slow Supes down. Use another villian that either has the raw power (Bizarro or Doomsday) or the technology (Brainiac) to kick Superman's ass. Leave the green stuff out of a movie please.
> 
> Getting back to my point about Superman being way too human in the movie, if Singer wanted human emotions he should always remember that what's the supporting cast is there for. Superman is there to fly in and kick bad guy ass. Let Lois and Jimmy share their feelings over a cup of coffee. Or if you want insecure hero movies wait for Spider-Man 3.


This, I COMPLETELY disagree with. It is totally not in keeping with the modern Superman, or even the silver age, historical Superman, who's greatest struggles ALWAYS were within - the duality between his Kryptonian heritage and his Earthly. Not in what villains he's faced. 

I'm a LONG time Superman nerd, and really follow his story. What you said here is not in keeping with the Supes mythos in the least. The movie could have been better, but Singer nailed this aspect. I couldn't get the humanity of Supes or Rousch's portrayal out of my mind for weeks.

Eric, I think we have finally found something we can completely disagree on.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 1, 2006)

I watched the first half last night, and I'm going to watch the rest when I go home. They sure as hell picked someone who looks exactly like Christopher Reeves, it's kind of creepy.


----------



## Pauly (Dec 1, 2006)

Sequel will have t3h r0xx0r action in! In the meantime, DVD out for X-mas soon, woo.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 1, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> This, I COMPLETELY disagree with. It is totally not in keeping with the modern Superman, or even the silver age, historical Superman, who's greatest struggles ALWAYS were within - the duality between his Kryptonian heritage and his Earthly. Not in what villains he's faced.
> 
> I'm a LONG time Superman nerd, and really follow his story. What you said here is not in keeping with the Supes mythos in the least. The movie could have been better, but Singer nailed this aspect. I couldn't get the humanity of Supes or Rousch's portrayal out of my mind for weeks.
> 
> Eric, I think we have finally found something we can completely disagree on.




It's about time you were wrong. 

My problem with the "human" Superman is that it just doesn't work. Someone that powerful shouldn't be sweating all the details. Superman doesn't need insecurity to make him interesting. If anything take him back to the good old days when he was a two-fisted champion for justice not the boy scout he changed into later.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 1, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> It's about time you were wrong.
> 
> My problem with the "human" Superman is that it just doesn't work. Someone that powerful shouldn't be sweating all the details. Superman doesn't need insecurity to make him interesting. If anything take him back to the good old days when he was a two-fisted champion for justice not the boy scout he changed into later.



The problem is, _that_ Superman never _really_ existed. The creators of Superman, two Jews, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, really wanted Supes to be an expression of strength against a hostile world (remember, Supes was created against the backdrop of rising anti-semitism in Europe). But inherent in his beginnings was that dichotomy, that struggle. Like the Jewish people's own struggle. Superman was a mirror for goodness in the face of adversity, and the strength that moral conviction AND humanity lend to a righteous cause. Coupled with great power, came great success. But there always is that element of struggle, weakness, and failure.

Superman played into the struggle betwwn MAN and SUPER MAN from the beginning. He was never the complete, ultra tough, fist-swinging macho badass. Look, even from the beginning, they gave him a secret, yet completely debilitating weakness - kryptonite.

When Superman (eventually, mostly during the later 60's and 70's) became a sort of go-to good guy, rarely showing weakness, he became an anochronism, and readership declined steadily. Contrasted with Marvel's human, flawed, yet very interesting characters (Spider-Man, X-Men), Superman was dull and uninteresting. When John Byrne re-made the Superman character and story in 1985, all of a sudden Supes had new life, and readership went back up. Know how he did it? He made Superman weaker, flawed... Human. 

Interestingly, Wikipedia mirrors what I've just said. (Then again, like I said, I'm a huge Superman nut, and I'm real familiar with his story.)

_During a multimedia career spanning over sixty years, Superman has starred in nearly every imaginable situation, and his powers have increased to the point that he is nearly omnipotent. This poses a challenge for writers: "How does one write about a character who is nearly as powerful as God?" This problem contributed to a decline in Superman's popularity during the latter half of the 1960s and the 1970s, a period during which Marvel Comics brought a new level of character development to mainstream comic books.

By the early 1980s, DC Comics had decided that a major change was needed to make Superman more appealing to current audiences. Writer/artist John Byrne was asked to revamp and revise Superman's continuity with his Man of Steel retelling of his origin. This 1986 reboot brought substantial changes to the character and met huge success at the time, becoming one of the top-selling books. The re-launch of Superman comic books returned the character to the mainstream, again in the forefront of DC's titles._


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 1, 2006)

The macho badass Superman DID exist. In his early appearances, before he could fly or became indestructible, he was a two-fisted champion of justice. He fought war profiteers and wife beaters. The super villian thing came later when he fought the Ultra-Humanite( Oh yes I know the first super villian Superman fought) and then more and more super villains and less everyday villians. He also grew increasingly powerful. He went from leaping an eigth of a mile to flying across the galaxy. He went from being bulletproof to being able to withstand a nuclear warhead. 

Kyrptonite came way after Superman's debut in 1949. Kryptonite, in my estimation, was a writer's way of giving the bad guys a way to kick Superman's ass after they made him way too powerful. 

Remember no one out nerds me. No one. 

Why am I arguing about Superman anyway? I'm not even a big fan.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 1, 2006)

You're right... sorta.

Lets say, that Superman you mention always existed sort of parallel with the human, Clark Kent, boy from Smallville Superman. But again, he's still there. He just struggles with the weight of being a hero and a human. Read 'Kingdom Come', from Mark Waid and Alex Ross, to see what happens when Superman abandons his humanity and discernment about shades of grey for power and righteousness. It's a fascinating departure (and therein, just shows another facet of Superman's humanity).

That's why I say this bad-ass you claim Supes is never existed anyway. Besides, most of Super's early history is non-cannonical now, since Byrne's revision (and even in some degree because of the 'Crisis' stuff.)

But the point stands. As his invincibility increased, his interest _decreased_.


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 1, 2006)

Agree with some of what others said. Bad casting, poor acting, the works. I don't think I've liked any Marvel movie though, so maybe this kind of movie isn't my thing. I like cool action flicks, just something about most of the comic book movies. The only ones I kind of liked were the X-Men ones. Spiderman 2 for example, was one of two movies I ever fell asleep in the theatre watching. The other was Tank Girl 10 years ago or so.

PS: I also think it's funny someone bothered to list spoiler warnings for a Superman Returns thread  I understand why, its cool, but still


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 1, 2006)

Yeah I have the hard cover of _Kingdom Come _, I love it by the way. 



The Dark Wolf said:


> But the point stands. As his invincibility increased, his interest decreased.




I agree totally. Heroes that can only be stoped by a deus ex machina are boring as watching paint dry.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 1, 2006)

Eric, you're fucking swell, dude.  Kingdom Come.  One of the best things EVER. 

Ever read any of 'The Sandman'?


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 1, 2006)

I could never really latch on to Sandman. I dunno it just never really grabbed me.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 1, 2006)

I retract my previous statements, Heretic.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 1, 2006)

Don't go all emo on me. 

For some reson Gaiman's writing has never grabbed me like Alan Moore or Frank Miller. Now give me Sin City or Watchmen to read and I am one happy nerd.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 1, 2006)

See, I like all 3. They're all rather dark, but Gaiman's stuff is a bit more mythical and fantasy-like. 

My favorite writer/artist, though? John Byrne.  I have almost every thing he's done. His run on the Fantastic Four is just brilliant. Comparable to Claremont's work on the X-Men.


----------



## Nick1 (Dec 2, 2006)

I couldnt get into it. I mean fucking Kumar was kicking supermans ass! How lame


----------



## distressed_romeo (Dec 3, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> You're right... sorta.
> 
> Lets say, that Superman you mention always existed sort of parallel with the human, Clark Kent, boy from Smallville Superman. But again, he's still there. He just struggles with the weight of being a hero and a human. Read 'Kingdom Come', from Mark Waid and Alex Ross, to see what happens when Superman abandons his humanity and discernment about shades of grey for power and righteousness. It's a fascinating departure (and therein, just shows another facet of Superman's humanity).
> 
> ...



'Kingdom Come' is easily one of the best graphic novels ever written. I just ordered the sequel, 'The Kingdom' last night (apparently it's not as good, by hey ho...).
Also check out 'Identity Crisis' and the recent 'Infinite Crisis' stuff, as both of those have really developed Superman's character (as well as most of the other DC heroes).



The Dark Wolf said:


> Eric, you're fucking swell, dude.  Kingdom Come.  One of the best things EVER.
> 
> Ever read any of 'The Sandman'?



Sandman is also great! Apparently there's a film of Death's 'High Cost of Living' story in the works, with Neil Gaiman directing!


----------



## Naren (Dec 3, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> Sandman is also great! Apparently there's a film of Death's 'High Cost of Living' story in the works, with Neil Gaiman directing!



 Sandman is one of my favorite American comics (along with X-Men, Batman, etc.).


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 3, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> 'Kingdom Come' is easily one of the best graphic novels ever written. I just ordered the sequel, 'The Kingdom' last night (apparently it's not as good, by hey ho...).
> Also check out 'Identity Crisis' and the recent 'Infinite Crisis' stuff, as both of those have really developed Superman's character (as well as most of the other DC heroes).



The Kingdom is FALSE!!!!!!!!!!  It was awful shit, it totally goes against what happened Kingdom Come. God save us all from hyper-time.  

Also I hated Identity Crisis but that's another thread.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 3, 2006)

I didn't like the Kingdom either. Bleach. But KC is one of my favorite things in comics ever.

I like Crisis on Infinite Earths. Turning point for DC, and made their universe so much better.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Dec 3, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> I didn't like the Kingdom either. Bleach. But KC is one of my favorite things in comics ever.
> 
> I like Crisis on Infinite Earths. Turning point for DC, and made their universe so much better.



Crisis on Infinite Earths is a classic.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 3, 2006)

Crisis on Infinite Earths was good fun. Perez and Wolfman > *


----------



## Naren (Dec 3, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> I didn't like the Kingdom either. Bleach. But KC is one of my favorite things in comics ever.
> 
> I like Crisis on Infinite Earths. Turning point for DC, and made their universe so much better.



Bleach? Dude, Bleach is an awesome comic series. Well, at least, it was up until they left the soul society and went back to Earth. When it got into the next story loop, it got a little boring, but the first 50 or so episodes of the animated series are awesome. Especially around 30-40. 

Never read The Kingdom or Kingdom Come. I have read some of Infinite Crisis, though. Good stuff.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 3, 2006)

BLEE-AACH.  Like, I just tasted something bad.


----------



## Naren (Dec 4, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> BLEE-AACH.  Like, I just tasted something bad.



 Never heard that expression before.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 4, 2006)

Maybe you've seen it spelled "Blech." Imagine a face scowling, scrunching up, after just eating something awful. BLECH!


----------



## Naren (Dec 5, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Maybe you've seen it spelled "Blech." Imagine a face scowling, scrunching up, after just eating something awful. BLECH!



There were go. I thought you were saying "Bleach" - as in, the liquid used to made clothing whiter, as well as the name of the Japanese comic/animation series about death gods.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 5, 2006)

Naren said:


> There were go. I thought you were saying "Bleach" - as in, the liquid used to made clothing whiter, as well as the name of the Japanese comic/animation series about death gods.



Well, you were really close, When I'm really mad I yell "LAUNDRY DETERGENT!"  I find it a great stress reliever.

But saying Bleach as an expletive, well... that would just be damn strange.


----------

