Superman Returns Movie Guide and Superman Book Releases

[ToM]

A production guide, the Superman Returns Movie Guide, is out on shelves now. So, I got to flipping through it, then the flipping slowed, and seconds later it was downright moments of study. The production design, the color palate here, I'm loving the look. It seems a mix of Spider-Man and the Batman film from '89.

Singer really has sourced the Max Fleischer Superman cartoons from the forties. I've always loved those. Singer's Daily Planet is absolutely the building of those cartoons. And his Metropolis, from what I saw in the pages, is sort of the inversion of the Burton Gotham City. It has the 30's style, that art deco look, but glowing, polished, not the "fabulous graveyard" of the Anton Furst designs. It too recalls those cartoons.

If what Singer was trying to do was amalgamate the various Superman incarnations, The Donner films having a place, I could see something seriously strong happening here. But the whole "Baby-Superman plot" and the ripped off Spider-Man 2 soapoperatta kinda sorta sinks that.

Seeing those cartoons come to life, I can't help but wonder how awesome, how stirring it could've been to see a movie featuring a whole string of incidents within the main plot of Superman tackling a dinosaur that escaped from a block of ice, whooshing off to crush a platoon of rocket-robots looting a diamond display, rushing into a burning circus to save everyone, having to vanquish the GIANT GORILLA "KONGU" (or whatever would make a cheesey giant gorilla name) and flying down escaping, speeding cheetahs. Then, if they wanted a Hackmanized Luthor again, I'd be okay. If they had this stuff, and they didn't have "Mommy Lois with the Love-Child"...I'd be good. You know, I could even handle the Pride Float Superman costume in such an instance. Ah, there I go bashing the movie again. Didn't mean to do that.

Anyway, there's obviously good work happening in this movie.

ToM

[The Xenos]

Tom, it's good to see you pointing out the positives, even with the disapointments with the plot.

I gotta say that it sounds like I'm on the same page. The movies LOOKS amazing. You are right that the art design and colors and everything look fantastic and are quite like the old Fleischer Superman toons. I am tempted to go see this movie just for that.

Yet I too am bothered by mommy Lois and Hackman redux Lex.

As for the "Spider-Man 2 soapoperatta", which is why I call him Pouty Emo Superman, I wouldn't cite just Spider-man. Though 'soap opera' does come to mind. I'm thnking more like nighttime soapy shows like The OC, or in particular Smallville. Man, how much of that damn show was Clark looking longing at Lana while some liscened Warner records pop song played in the background. Ugh.

Now there needs to be a romance, but this angst wridden tale with Lois with a kid? What the hell?

Anwyay, back to the postitives, the design for the film does look fantastic. Metropolis looks beautiful, quite art deco like the films sharing that name.

Hell, I'd even say the costume isn't that bad.

It's just the story and odd takes on the characters that are maybe keeping me out of the thearter.

[Zac]

I too agree with ToM on this one. The LOOK of Superman Returns is absolutely beautiful, but the plot still stinks. The 30's styled Metropolis is indeed VERY reminescent of the Flescher cartoons, which is certainly not a bad thing at all.

[The Symbiot]

Look, I like eye-candy, no-doubt, but A good story coupled with great acting is important to me..... and I'm afraid, that's all we going to get is wonderful eye-candy, great acting from Spacey, and that's it. This is the reasoning behind my belief in this movie ability, at the most, in making 175 million domestically.....I've said 80 million opening weekend, but now they have, which they need, two additional day(because of X-men strong showing), I say 105 million....... and that's over a FIVE day weekend.

Hey I like Superman, but the story is going to do this film in.

[Le Pijon]

Don't know if anyone picked up the new issue of WIRED but Singer's got the cover story. One of the interesting things was how Singer did a screen test using both the standard 35 mm film and an 75 mm Panavision film (used on 2001 and Laurence of Arabia). The 75mm produced so much higher clarity and resolution as to make the 35 mm look primitive. Unfortunately, 75 mm cameras would be millions of dollars more expensive so that was an out. Singer did manage to convince the studios to allow him to use a new prototype digital camera called Genesis that employed the old panavision lenses and gives Superman that beautiful look so superior to the standard 35mm.
I agree with ToM that it would seem the rubber cape is used for consistency and CGI matching. I love those Max Fleischer cartoons as much as anyone, in fact I was just watching them again the other day and they still hold up! They set a benchmark for quality animation that still looks good even by modern standards but I'll be looking for more from the film. Empty action still rings hollow to me; I'm looking for some character development.
I'm pretty much in line with Symbiot here in terms of my expectations of what I want to see in the movie but I don't think plot outlines determine how well material is or isn't handled. Look, every good comic fan wants their share of bam, bif, pow action but in truth, what really makes or breaks pretty much any and every movie is the characters. I really never was much of a Superman fan but the fact is Supes is the perfect embodiment of all superheroes, invulnerable even to the worst editors, bad stories and art, he still maintains a certain universal appeal. One of the things that actually IS interesting about the character, which makes him different from so many others is that Clark Kent is the alter ego, that Supes is a godlike alien clumsily attempting to come to grips with human nature and trying to maintain an intense level of control in a fragile paper mache world that he could easily crush by accident. He is a being struggling to cope with mundane day to day life while being drawn away from it to save the world from catastrophes. It looks to me that it's quite probable that Singer's going to explore and exploit those views and that angle could make for an interesting character and movie and I'm good with that.

[ToM]

Yeah Xenos, Lois could be all disenchanted with Superman for bailing WITHOUT having been stuck with a kid. And pretty obviously she didn't wait too long before jumping into the hay stack with White's son, otherwise she'd have no confusion over her pregnancy. So it's not like she didn't "move on" within a few weeks of his splitting.

As for Spider-Man 2? Man, Peter Parker, photog at the paper loses his life long love to the son of his editor, must win her back. It's the exact same story! I know, I know, Singer will handle it differently. And I have a lot of respect for his two scribes here. Still.

Now, as for the costume, in a few shots in the book, from different angles, the costume doesn't look so bad. In others, it looks horrendous, cheap plastic type cape operated (!!!) by men in green screen gear. It ends up recalling those cheap knock off costumes they sold out of comic books in the 70's. How can something as basic as this go all wonky?

Plenty of slick looking films come out every year, look at Chronicles of Riddick! But the story here is just all wrong. Some of these talented people, like Lucas, get all the technology, all the money to spend, and then the characters suffer.

Anyway, while I was looking at this stuff, I could almost forget these things. And Then the concept of a score started to emerge...and I sadly recalled it was one I'd heard before. I mean, the look of this cries out for a new theme. A composite Superman is a good idea, but I just can't get excited about this. Seeing how great it looks just makes Superman Returns all the more dissapointing for me.

ToM

[Le Pijon]

...
As for Spider-Man 2? Man, Peter Parker, photog at the paper loses his life long love to the son of his editor, must win her back. It's the exact same story! I know, I know, Singer will handle it differently. And I have a lot of respect for his two scribes here. Still.

Now, as for the costume, in a few shots in the book, from different angles, the costume doesn't look so bad. In others, it looks horrendous, cheap plastic type cape operated (!!!) by men in green screen gear. It ends up recalling those cheap knock off costumes they sold out of comic books in the 70's. How can something as basic as this go all wonky?...
ToM

Well, I don't think it was a new and innovative plotline that we'd never seen before in films or comics when it appeared in Spiderman 2. Somehow, I was still OK with it there and will be here too IF Singer handles it differently. I'm sorry but I can't defend that cape! :lol: Articles of clothing rarely make or break films for me either though.

[norrinraad]

One of the things that actually IS interesting about the character, which makes him different from so many others is that Clark Kent is the alter ego, that Supes is a godlike alien clumsily attempting to come to grips with human nature and trying to maintain an intense level of control in a fragile paper mache world that he could easily crush by accident. He is a being struggling to cope with mundane day to day life while being drawn away from it to save the world from catastrophes. It looks to me that it's quite probable that Singer's going to explore and exploit those views and that angle could make for an interesting character and movie and I'm good with that.

Great point Le Pijon. And, if any director has the sensitivity and insight to really display this dichotomy, it's Bryan Singer. I have followed the feedback in regards to this film quite closely around the net, and the general consensus seems to be that it is an error in judgement to try and "humanize" Superman, by emphasizing his romance with Lois and by turning him into a father (allegedly). Well, I'm no expert on Superman by any means, but of DC's heroes, he always seemed the most "human" to me, at least in comparison to Batman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, and their ilk. From what I have seen so far, WBs is trying to return Superman to his roots, not bastardize him.

You know what really sold me on this film? There is a simple scene in one of the 20 or so trailers floating around, :P a scene between Superman (in costume I must stress) and Lois. He says to her something ridiculously simple, along the lines of, "I'm sorry I left you Lois". Basic enough, but there is something about the look on Routh's face and the tone of his voice that rang incredibly true to me. From what I saw, it seemed to be one of those perfect, magical moments in film that surprisingly seem to come along so rarely. Oddly enough, it reminded me of both Edward Scissorhands and Mulholland Drive, still to this day two of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. There was just something so "human" in this exchange, a simple plea for forgiveness, but at the same time so full of longing and regret. It has haunted me ever since, similar to when Winona Ryder asks Edward Scissorhands to "hold" her and he says, full of sorrow, "I can't". Still to this day one of the saddest moments ever committed to film. Or, when Betty, in Mulholland drive, whispers to her idealised lover, "I'm in love with you", over and over again. I posted in another thread my belief that the only way to make Superman truly believable is to make him vulnerable. As we all know, nothing makes you as vulnerable, or as human, as loving something or someone, or the realisation that your actions have cost you everything you hold dear.

I realise that this kind of direction may be too sappy, or "emo" for some fans. As a young male myself, I also understand the desire to see Superman kick Doomsday's ass for two hours. However, true fans of Superman know he is not a fighting machine, and hasn't been since Byrne's historic and, some feel, defining run. Superman has always been about finding humanity in the unlikeliest of places. Here is an almost God-like creature, who could do, have, or be anything he chose. He could destroy planets and rule at his slightest whim. Yet, what does he do? He chooses to live here, on Earth, with us, protecting us from harm. What's more, he chooses not just to live among us, but to live as we do, by even adopting such "human" customs as holding a job and getting married. That is the essence of Superman, the Christ parallel if you will. Despite all his power, he choses to live in our image, and actually covets our humanity. That to me is the essence of Superman, and to the credit of all involved, it looks like Superman Returns means to honour that legacy.

As human beings, we are defined as much by our mortality as by our humanity. We are here for such an insignificant amount of time, yet the joys of our mortality are limitless, if we know where to look. It is completely understandable to me why an omnipotent being would envy us our mortality, as it is life's very brevity that is the basis of its appeal. I am reminded of an old comic book where Zeus strips his half human son of his immortality, and then decides to give it back after Hercules proves himself worthy of it. When Zeus asks him why he's refusing it, Hercules says that he wants to live and die as a mortal. Their exchange?

Zeus - "But my son, even a God can die, you know."

Hercules - "Yes father, but only a mortal can truly live."

Amen brother, amen.

[WonderWomanGoddess]

Yeah, Pijon I did get that issue of Wired, it was an interesting article...but very limited. I mean it's the scope of the magazine I guess.


Yeah Xenos, Lois could be all disenchanted with Superman for bailing WITHOUT having been stuck with a kid. And pretty obviously she didn't wait too long before jumping into the hay stack with White's son, otherwise she'd have no confusion over her pregnancy. So it's not like she didn't "move on" within a few weeks of his splitting.



ToM

Damn, that's harsh. First off, pregnancy and gestation is 'generally' nine months but it's give or take quite a bit. It wouldn't have had to be weeks. Second, the kid is five, but in what month? barely five? nearly six? five and six months? there is a lot of, as you say, wiggle room, here. Certianly you can't say it had to have been weeks. Oh if there is some spoilerish response to this, don't tell me! I don't want to know the story until I see it.

And, in her defense, keeping in mind I usually hate Lois in general, if I were her I'd be pissed too! Maybe pissed enough to have one too many and engage in angry revenge sex, and maybe forget the condom. Or, maybe she was so emotionally distraught, he (the guy) went for the rebound shot. Maybe he'd liked her for a very long time, or maybe he's a sleeze. Either way, she was emotionally vulnerable and hurt and rejected, and they slept together. Certianly not the most horrid sin on her part or anything. Or uncommon for that matter. The fact that a child came of it, well what's important is how she handled the birth and raising of that child. Which is something I'll have to watch to find out.

[The Xenos]

Man, that seems overly complex. Also, I think that they just invented Perry's son for this film and has her married or seeing him so suddenly makes it even weirder. I think it just creates such a weird plot and too many questions for what should have been a descently straight forward a Superman movie.

[ToM]

Well WWG, Lois could be pissed enough to get some revenge sex in, that's pretty common really. And you're right, we don't know the exact age of the child, so, there you go. Still, if this plot involves Superman's hopes of breaking up a family? HOOOOBOY that's not going to put on a cape and fly for the Moms and Dads in the audience. And given that the family demographic is so key to pulling this thing out of the swirling vortex of production expenses the nearly criminal mismanagement of this film dragged it into?

Chief Brody: He's chewing his way right through that line!

Bryan Singer: Yeah, and work'in his way...right into ME!

Anyway, Mom and Dad aside, this is the kind of extraneous garbage I don't like to see bloating one of these kinds of films. If needs be, have it in a sequel! But the first time outt'a the gate, I want to see these characters boiled down to their essence so we get the best sense of what these figures are. When I think Lois Lane, I don't think "nurturing mommy." What this junk makes me think of is (choke, I'm okay, I'm not going to be sick) The Mummy Returns. Oh, that precocious mommy and her precocious bouncing boy! How much you wanna bet that's where this is going?

And Xenos, that's what I'm saying here and all along, this needed to be a straight forward plot about Superman. LP thinks I'm saying I just wanted "bang and biff" but I wanted the high fantasy and whimsy that made Superman so much fun for generations. Yes, they could eeal with real emotions....and have a platoon of rocket-robots pop up for a few minutes, a fiery rescue from a burning circus. Instead we get yet another crashing plane (on top of a space shuttle disaster from the fourth film) and another rocket chase (Superman 1 and 3)..oh, and another earthquake (Superman 1). Not only could there be a larger story with these sorts of montages, but at least it would be new!

This whole thing doesn't feel like a trip down memory-lane, it feels like being beaten, bound to the back of the care and dragged mile after countless blood streaked mile.

ToM

[Le Pijon]

Norrin: Yeah, I think I know the clip you mean and it's sense of heartfelt earnestness kinda took me by surprise when I found it rather moving.

WWG: Yeah, I thought the Wired Interview was limited too. Even within the scope of what WIRED covers, I would like to have seen more. If it's gotta be about technojargon, then let's at least hear what some of the behind the scenes CGI geeks have to say.

We could speculate endlessly on why Lois acted as she did. Perhaps she didn't know if Supes were alive or ever coming back. Perhaps she was just looking for a way to avoid her pain and grief. Maybe the movie will tell us, maybe we'll have to draw our own conclusions. One thing's for sure, it's drawing reactions!
I look at Superman as an idealized paternal archetype so a child seems a very natural outgrowth of that theme. Of course, there've been lots of comparisons of Supes to Jesus here (another idealized paternal archetype) and look at the reaction there. There always seems to be outrage at the suggestion of Jesus having a family too. I think perhaps there is such a thing as a stepchild syndrome, a deep rooted reaction in some that perhaps they will be less loved by that idealized father if he has a real child of his own.
The love story between Supes and Lois has been aspect of the Superman legend since the beginning and has had a strong focus since back in Superman I, this theme then followed to Lois and Clark and relationships play a key role in Smallville. This has been an important part of the Superman myth for generations.

Tom: I was by no means singling you out with the bam, biff, pow line, I said all good comic book fans and was including all of us, even myself in that.
Hmmm, that script you'd mentioned in another thread here about how you'd do Superman "Passion of the Christ" style seemed quite thoughtful and perhaps a tad introspective, nothing like the high fantasy and whimsy you say you want now but I guess we're all entitled to change our view as needed to suit our need to be disagreeable. Strangely, when I don't think I'll like a movie, I not only avoid seeing it but also avoid wasting many, many more hours than the actual film complaining about it in forums. Of course, that's just me. I suspect this is more perversely delightful to you than all the joy garnished from all of the best Marvel movies combined. :lol:

[WonderWomanGoddess]

I look at Superman as an idealized paternal archetype so a child seems a very natural outgrowth of that theme. Of course, there've been lots of comparisons of Supes to Jesus here (another idealized paternal archetype) and look at the reaction there. There always seems to be outrage at the suggestion of Jesus having a family too. I think perhaps there is such a thing as a stepchild syndrome, a deep rooted reaction in some that perhaps they will be less loved by that idealized father if he has a real child of his own.


I LOVE the way you think, man. It's always been very interesting to me that it's 'below' savior figures in most cultures to have a family. And in highly ritualized, organized religions, even the clergy and aesthetics are expected to give up that aspect of the human experience. We could really get into some off topic religiousness here, but I think that part of what makes the Jesus story so compelling is that he was this advanced or divine if you will being going through the human experience up to and including death. Yet, the sexual experience was….edited out, or missing, depending on your views. So, with Supes, we have this god like figure and his whole depth comes from (to me) his choosing and then embracing the human experience…heartbreak, love triangles, sex, these things are all part of that. I think it goes back to the very western idea that sex=bad and as a culture, we don’t want our deities tainted with that, or even our emissaries to divinity. So they just have sex with little boys. Sorry! Couldn’t resist. Really, though, since Superman has always been involved romantically (with Lois) and has been in love triangles before (Lana Lang, Wonder Woman herself) what’s the big deal that the love triangle this time is with a man?

I think we got beyond single Moms being a big deal with what….Murphy Brown? Somewhere back there…

Also, why she hasn’t married him in five years is pivotal. Was he shying away or was she? There are so many variables here I don’t know yet, that I can’t make a judgment. In general, I trust Singer, and I’m willing to see where he goes with this. As a long time Lois hater, maybe this will be a strong woman I can identify with…instead of ‘rescue fodder’. Anyways, interesting observation Pijon!

[norrinraad]

Also, why she hasn’t married him in five years is pivotal. Was he shying away or was she? There are so many variables here I don’t know yet, that I can’t make a judgment. In general, I trust Singer, and I’m willing to see where he goes with this. As a long time Lois hater, maybe this will be a strong woman I can identify with…instead of ‘rescue fodder’.

I really like this line of thinking WWG! One complaint I've had with the Spidey franchise is that little effort seems to have been made to turn MJ into the remarkable woman she is in the comics. Her role, for the most part, has been the typical archetype of the helpless female who needs to be "saved", over and over again, by the male hero. The bizarre thing is, the character actually says that in the first film, so everyone involved must have been aware of it. Now, from what little we know so far of SR, it would appear that effort has been made to really turn Lois into a three-dimensional person, rather than just the intrepid, sassy female reporter (which, granted, is still a rather progressive concept, especially for the time in which she was invented).

I'll reserve full judgement until I see the film, but from the looks of it, Lois had some tough choices to make between the second film and this one. Going back to the theme of humanity, it cetainly seems like we're going to be seeing a far more realistic Superman movie than many may have been anticipating.

[ToM]

LP, yeah, I'd still do Superman in a Passion of The Christ style. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't throw in platoons of robots, or battles with over-sized apes and such.

And yes, I've been having fun with this movie on the boards. I waste time between things I do with films I'm excited about, or real white elephants. For me, it's all the same thing.

WWG, The Passion of The Christ is a film that's very much the point of interest you have in the Christ story. It's amazing, they take the icon, give the icon all the iconic trappings, and then you're getting the personal view of Christ on his own life and times by comparisons between the monumental events...and tender or sad little moments, time with his mother, or friends. They take him from being an icon, and take him into being another person like you and me. And they do this with Mary also. This was so bold, because people be like'in their icons iconic. This would've been a great way to manage Superman.

Norrin, I disagree about MJ in the movies. The point is, at the end of the first film she was just at the point where she'd allow Peter to "save" her. Then he turns away. And she did real fine without him, pulled herself up to stardom all on her own, and has him begging at her door like the lost dog he's allowed himself to become. See, she saved herself, but he's so absorbed saving everyone, he needs saving himself. And she even tell him that in the doorway. It's clear he needs her a lot more than she needs him.

ToM

[FireStormTrooper]

How much is the SUPERMAN RETURNS movie guide going for? And is it available at Borders or Waldenbooks? Hardcover?

[ToM]

The book is a pricey little number, around twenty bucks. There's actually two out, this one being the better of them. Yes, Borders doth carrieth them. And, of course, the X3 book will emerge shortly.

ToM

[FireStormTrooper]

Wait. I'm seeing two SUPERMAN RETURNS guides for sale online. One is the SR VISUAL GUIDE and the SR OFFICIAL MOVIE GUIDE. The Official Movie Guide has a blue cover and isn't on sale (so it says) for a few more weeks, while the Visual Guide has a whitish cover and is available now.

Which one were you talking about?

[ToM]

Trooper, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. The guide I'm talking about is the SR Official Guide. If you end up liking this movie, you're going to love this thing. And as it is, if you get a chance to flip through it, take the time. I just wish the story was as great as the look of the film. BTW, There's an X3 book like this out shortly.

ToM

[FireStormTrooper]

I think I saw that movie guide at Borders. It has Brandon Routh posing on the cover and retails for $10.95, right? It was really short, lots of pictures though. The one I was looking for was a hardcover book with just the SUPERMAN RETURNS logo on blue background. That one goes for $20-something. Or the SR visual guide with the SR logo and storyboard background cover? Those two look like keepers.

The Brandon Routh one was interesting but lacked a lot of detail.