Superman Returns Review ** SPOILERS ** (no spoiler tags used)

[DaForce]

Okay, everyone who looked at the threads I created when X3 came out knows the drill. This thread is to discuss and review Superman Returns. I will be seeing this movie in a little less than 11 hours from now, and I will post my review here.

This thread will at times contain SPOILERS!!! Without the benefit of using spoiler tags. Why? Honestly, the spoiler tag is great and all, but when you want to discuss points about the movie, it's very hard to add tag after tag within the post.



Be warned, after this first post spoilers may and can abound in this thread.








If you want to be spoiler free, then don't look any further.
























YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

[DaForce]

*** WARNING SPOILERS CONTAINED WITHIN ***
















Still there? Good. Okay, first impressions of this movie....way too long. About 40 minutes too long to be exact. Also, this movie tries extremely too hard to remind you of the first Superman movie.

How? Simple, they say the exact lines that have been uttered in the first Superman movie at the drop of a hat. My biggest peeve? They actually re-edited Brando's first speech to Kal-El in the newly formed Fortress to make it sound as if it was asking a question. Lame.

Let me get the bad stuff out of the way first, and then I'll cut to the good stuff. Supes is supposed to be a superior intellect, right? Right. So after getting shanked by some kryptonite (where he is rescued and recovers), he decides to go back to an island made of green kryptonite knowing that the radiation will kill him. Um...radiation is stopped by lead shielding. You mean to tell me that a guy that can fly almost as fast as the speed of light can't zip off, grab a rad suit, suit up and then take care of business?

Then there's Luthor's plot. Actually kind of stupid and a throwback to the old 30's and 40's comics. Speaking of Luthor, Spacey does a great job and is menacing at times, but anymore of Luthor in the movie and it would have fallen into camp.

Then there's the emotional wrangling. Singer tries (with some good success) to get an emotional response out of the audience by playing all the angles. Supes to the rescue? Pump up the John Williams music. Cute towheaded kid not only talks in a cute kid voice, but has asthma too. Awwwww. Maybe I'm a cold-hearted bastard (no PMs from the peanut gallery, you know who you are), but I don't like my emotions being manipulated like a bad John G. Avildsen movie.


Now on to the good stuff. The best scene by far is the airplane rescue scene. You've all seen the commercials, so you know what I'm talking about. It's exciting, it's iconic, and it raised my expectations that we were going to see something even better for the finale. But I was wrong. That was the best scene of the movie.

Brandon Routh does a great job as Kent/Supes. He sounds and looks an awful lot like Reeves, but he just doesn't have the acting chops that Reeves had. Yeah, yeah, I know..why compare the two? Because the makers kept shoving lines and situations from the first movie in my face, so the comparison is inevitable.

Kate Bosworth is Lois Lane. No if, ands or buts. Great job. Likewise with Spacey, Posey, and Langella. The twit playing Olsen wouldn't have been my choice, since he's mostly annoying in a grating way. Kal Penn utters one line, fires a missle, and then gets killed off in a stupid way. Why was he in this movie again?

Some of the FX in this movie work, others don't. Honestly, I could have done without a CGI supes flying away from the ballpark after the plane rescue. It would have looked nicer to use the wirework, especially at such a closeup shot of Supes.

All in all, kind of a weak story. Singer didn't own this one and it shows. A lot. The average movie going public are going to love it, because they don't know any better. Kids might actually get bored because it's a lot of dead space between action scenes.


My rating: Bargain matinee. Full price only if you have an IMAX screen to view it at, otherwise I can't see spending the $10 to see it in a regular theater.

.

[DaForce]

So I'm thinking about why I didn't like this movie as much as everyone else in my group did, and a quote from General Zod came suddenly to mind. It's when they get to the Fortress in Superman II and Zod looks around and says, "..it's a monument to a culture long since dead. "

I think that's my biggest problem with Superman Returns. As much as I loved the Donner films, Singer didn't try to put his stamp on this movie. Instead, he tried to ape something that fits in a different era, and he did it poorly (IMO).


Maybe the sequel will be better and have a bit more punch to it. Because as it was, this movie is certainly lacking something.

[kah]

I probably won't see this one in the theaters because I was such a fan of the Christopher Reeve films. Seeing Kevin Spacey (whom I hate with the fire of a thousand suns) as Lex Luthor reminds me of the bit in the beginning of Goldmember where he plays Dr. Evil. I just can't take him seriously. I heard they spent over 300 million dollars making this film. I think they overestimated their audience by spending so much. They'd better hope it doesn't tank.

[Lavoruis]

Couldn't they use Clancey Brown? as Lex Luthor I think he would been perfect,..

[DaForce]

Ebert's review can be found here:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009


It's got some MAJOR SPOILERS, so be warned. Ebert really ripped it a new one, and only gave it two stars.

[TrekSucksHard]

I just walked out of the theatre with a big "so what?" on my face- I expected a lot more and am somewhat dissappointed. X3 is actually a better movie then this.

Every employee of the Daily Planet must be a complete moron- not only does Clark Kent show up at the same time Supes returns- he cracks the picture that Olsen shows him and Olsen doesn't bat an eye? WTF? Not to mention Marsden and Bosworth make a short joke about Clark possibly being Supes and then dismisses it outright as an impossibility. And Lois Lane still doesn't know Clark and Supes are one and the same person (even after his constant hugs, kisses and she even bares his child?)?

Evertime I saw Marsden on screen I half expected him to use his optic blast- like when the time he was trapped behind the stuck door of the sinking yacht. I also figured he learned to fly that seaplane since he got a lot of experience flying the stealth blackbird from the X-Men mansion. Kumar showed up, made a few close-ups and then promptly bit the dust (I half expected Harold to show up as another henchman and they go to Whitecastle).

Spacey as Luthor was passable but why didn't he make sure Supes was dead before throwing him off the cliff?

If Singer really wanted a more realistic potrayal of Supes he should have used Moore's MIRACLEMAN or Straczynski's SUPREME POWER as source material- those two comic books makes Superman's myth an absolutely silly fantasy.

I read from IMDB that Singer wanted Jude Law to be Gen. Zod and when Law turned it down he dropped the character from the story (why didnt he use Chris Eccleston? he would have made a good Zod too). I think the movie would have been a lot better if they had Zod back.

[Bark]

This movie lacks total credibility. I reference noted science fiction author Larry Niven:

MAN OF STEEL, WOMAN OF KLEENEX (http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html)

[Stephen]

I'm going to have to disagree with a majority of you here.

this movie was by far better than the near-terrible X3, which in my eyes killed the x men series several times over.

This gives rebirth to the Superman franchise. and rather than starting it over from scratch, its more of a continuation of the series. which is a good thing.

The use of Brando's voice overs was terrific IMO, along with the original John Williams theme.

The intro to the movie the same as the original was really good.

With paying respects to the original, how do you guys get upset by it. would you rather them shatter Reeve's legacy or would you rather them continue it in the way Singer did.

It's a good movie. Not super great, but good. Sure it could have been more, but just about every movie these days could be more, especially superhero movies.

And the fact that they added in a child of Superman, I'm surprised none of you have talked about that yet. Thats very curious. Im not sure I hate the idea but rather it could be a very bold, genious idea.

[Magell]

I thought the movie was okay but nothing more. As other people have stated I have no idea why the people Clark works with don't realize he's Superman. A pair of glasses doesn't change your appearance that much.

I thought the CGI was really bad in this movie. I can forgive that in a low-budget movie like Ultraviolet but for a summer blockbuster they should get the job done well. Especially since it's not like they are pouring money into the "stars" of the movie except Kevin Spacey.

To restart a franchise, Singer made this movie way too big. How do you top Superman lifting an island out of the ocean and throwing it into space. And then he nearly dies but doesn't. To be honest the idea of Superman near death might have worked in a sequel and I honestly would have thought he was in trouble but in this movie I knew they weren't going to bring the character back and then kill him right away.

I really enjoyed all of the villains in the movie. The henchmen didn't get a lot of time but they all had some character in their small appearances. Kevin Spacey was cool as Lex Luthor and Parker Posey was really cool as her ditzy character.

I didn't really care for Routh as Superman and I thought they should have had the Smallville guy play the part. Everytime I saw James Marsden all I thought was I hate you Cyclops.

I don't think it was as good as X3 but it wasn't as bad as I was expecting.

[KingVoyeur]

Ok, just got back from seeing it, here's my two (or three or four) cents. :D

First off, let me say that I enjoyed it. Seeing those flying titles and hearing that amazing theme at the beginning sent shivers down my spine. I love the Christopher Reeve movies, and this movie is a good continuation. Sure, Singer pays a lot of homage to the originals (hell, he even dedicates the film to Christopher and Dana Reeve in the credits), but he also manages to bridge the gap between those and a new generation of Supes fans. It has a good combination of both, and I'm looking forward to a sequel moving off into its own territory.

Ok, gotta get through the bad stuff before the good. I totally agree with everyone else here that it was a tad too long. It seemed like the writers solved the crisis with Kryptonite Island and wrapped up the action stuff, but then weren't quite sure how how to wrap up the character relationships. It felt like they were trying to start a whole new storyline with Supes' "death" but forgot that they were already at the end of the movie. All of a sudden it was like Superhero ER. Bleh. Also, I felt like the Luthor/Supes bit was unresolved. So Luthor stabs him and he falls in the ocean. Shouldn't they have met face to face again? Should have been some closure there.

Casting-wise, I'm on the fence about Kate Bosworth. Most of the time I liked her as Lois, but there were little moments when she would do or say something that would make me stop and go "well that's not Lois Lane." As for James Marsden, he was ok, but I think he's a total putz for sacrificing one movie for another. He cared more about getting a minor part in Superman than sticking with a major part he'd built up through two films (though at least his lack of interest in playing Cyclops meant X-3 had one less mutant to deal with in an overpacked cast). Doing so prevented him from giving either character the time and respect they deserve.

Superman's son. Interesting. Was unsure about how this storyline was gonna work out, and I can say that for the most part I'm cool with it. It's an interesting direction to take the character. We always see Supes remembering the words of his father, and I think it's a nice growth for the character to be on the other side of that relationship. He's always been Earth's protector, but now he has someone who he's very personally concerned with. I was worried that they were going to dip into the "kid suddenly manifesting powers and saving the day" but they never actually went all the way there, so I'm ok with it. My only question is, if Supes didn't have his powers when he slept with Lois in Supes II, how could he have transferred them to his son?

Ok, now for the good stuff. The action sequences (few and far apart though they be) were fantastic. The entire airplane sequence was amazing and the bullet to the eye and Supes' and the thief's reactions were great. The CGI is sketchy in a few places, but overall it looks pretty good.

Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey were fantastic. I thought they had good chemistry and hope to see them both back for a sequel. I really liked the story, Luthor's plan was definitely evil and creeped me out (though he's really gotta get over this obsession with land!).

Brandon Routh. He's not Christopher Reeve. But he is Clark Kent. He is Superman. I think Singer made an excellent choice. I wasn't sure from the previews that he looked right for the part, but he nailed Clark's goofiness and Supes' goodness. Hope he sticks around.

In a nutshell: Good casting choices, good action sequences, looks beautiful, but a little too long and tries a little too hard at times to connect with the original films. I give it an A-. I'll be interested to see the box-office battle between Superman and Pirates.

[TrekSucksHard]

And the fact that they added in a child of Superman, I'm surprised none of you have talked about that yet. Thats very curious. Im not sure I hate the idea but rather it could be a very bold, genious idea.
Yeah, it seems that the supertoddler's powers kick in when he has an asthma attack- very cute...

[neglet]

Well, I just came back from seeing Superman in IMAX with 3-D. Just FYI, there were four scenes with the 3-D: the memory of jumping around the farm/falling in the barn; the shuttle/airplane rescue; the boat breaking/rescue; and the closing shots of Superman at the end. For the most part the 3-D was well executed, except in a few fuzzy places, and worked effectively (although the last shot was a throwaway).

As for the movie itself: I have to admit I was surprised by how much I loved it. Sure, it was a bit too long and there was no climactic confrontation with Luthor, but it was just so ... romantic. There, I've said it. It was like a friggin' superhero chick flick. Thwarted unspoken love, sexual tension (OMG Routh was so sexy as Superman), a love triangle with two guys (both of whom are both sweet and hot)--what more could a girl want in a movie? Plus, I thought the exploration of why Superman came back, and why he was still needed, really got to the heart of the Superman story. So plot points and kryptonite logic be damned--this just FELT like Superman, the whole way through.

The acting: I thought Routh was excellent as Superman, but his Clark was not quite as amusing as Reeves played it. Routh certainly has the sincerity needed to bring Supes across--making "truth, justice, and all that" sound real and not cheesy. Bosworth was fantastic as Lois Lane. I never cared for Margot Kidder that much--too strident and whiny--and I really liked Bosworth's understated take on the character, and the maternal dimension the script added. Spacey was excellent as well, not hammy at all, and Parker Posey was just right--and I was so glad not to see her character "rescue" Supes, as happened in the first flick.

I thought there were nice nods to the first movies, music included; but then, I'm not so familiar with the originals that I maybe I wouldn't notice as much as someone who's seen them frequently. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie so much that at the end I immediately wanted to see it again. I liked it much much better than X3, which was too short and fast to be satisfying.

[SteelDog]

I got to see the movie last night. I have to say it didn't live up to the hype but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie because it was a good movie. It's just that I was thinking this would be the best hero movie I have seen and it fell short.

I tried to stay away from the boards so I didn't get spoiled. So there were some things that I thought would be in the movie but were not. Now I am sure there were concepts that were never developed that you all knew about but I didn't because I stayed away. However, that impacted my view somewhat. Now add in the other things that bothered me and that's why this movie was not great for me.

First, when production started there was a story that they would explain why Superman looks different. Some regeneration thing. However, that didn't happen. I can live with that and it wasn't needed but I thought it would be in there as a tribute to CR.

Second, there was also the long rumored use of unused footage from MB as Jor El that would be used in Superman Returns. I am sure there was an explanation why Singer changed that plan but I was hoping to see that in the movie and that never happened. It probably had something to do with some of the poor quality facial CGI in the movie and couldn't get it to look right.

Third, I was disappointed in the facial CGI. The CGI version of Superman (especially his face) was really bad. It was clearly not him. Which to me doesn't make sense. Some of those scenes, it was completely unnecessary to use a CGI Superman with green screen technology. It made Superman look incredibly cheesy. It wrecked the illusion when they showed the CGI face.

Fourth, I was also disappointed in the Lex Luther. His plan was sort of lame. I mean he claims to be building his own continent to extort money but yet his little island has no real land with any real resources. It's just crystals. Who is going to pay for that? Most of all though, KS is a great actor and was under used in this movie.

Fifth, the entire Kid thing. This sort of paints the future movies into a corner. Is the kid Super Boy? Will we have to deal with Superman constantly protecting his Super kid? Do we have to go through watching his kid develop his skills? We already have been watching that via Smallville. I really hope they write in future moves that for some reason the kid isn't showing anymore signs of powers. They need to put that to rest. FAST.

Last but not least, Singer has been bragging about how this was supposed to be Superman 3. However, he only does subtle nods to the previous 2 films. Nowhere in dialogue does he really acknowledge events in the first 2 films. It was almost as if Singer couldn't decide whether he wanted this film to be a remake of the original or a true sequel. I think that hurt this film for people who were fans of the original like me. So why bother discounting all the subsequent films if you’re really not going to acknowledge the first 2???

Now the things I did like. I liked Brandon Roth as Superman. His voice inflections were dead on to CR. It was uncanny. I thought he did a good job as Clark to but he seemed to be holding back as Clark for some reason. All in all, I am really happy with the casting of BR.

Kate was also really good as Lois. Also, I think she played Lois really strong while showing a sign of vulnerability when it came to Superman. Most of all, I thought that KB and BR had real chemistry together in all their scenes together.

James Marsden brought in a very intriguing role to the film. How does a regular Joe compete with the likes of Superman? He showed that being human doesn't mean you can't be a hero. His part in this movie showed that he had alot more to offer then he showed in the XMEN films.

I also liked all of the special effects (minus the CGI close-ups of Superman’s face). The effects were much more believable using today's technology. When he is saving the city through various acts, it was very cool.

So I was very conflicted with this movie. At times, I found myself appreciating the story driven aspects. Then I would find myself wishing there was more action. I think that the pacing of the entire movie was just way off. Again, it felt like Singer didn't know which direction to go in.

So again, I thought the movie was good but not great. All in all I think the movie did a good job of relaunching the franchise but I walked away feeling disappointed as well. Maybe it was they hype. I am not sure. So I might be in the minority but I really think Singer does a better job with films that have ensembles versus focusing an entire movie on 1 character. He doesn't seem to be comfortable with that.

Final Grade 3 1/2 stars out of 5.

[Belledame]

Oh, there was romance. It was elegantly handled.

Overall this was a very pleasant film to watch. It has been years upon years since I saw the old films (and why weren't they on television the past few weeks?), so I'm no slave to them. It seemed that the point of this film was mostly to re-establish a sense of Superman. Who he is, what his life is like, how tremendous his abilities are, the constant struggle to choose between catastrophes and still make a difference, the depth of his personal sacrifice and the overwhelming need for him in the world - both as a rescuer and as a leader thru example.

That first night, when everyone goes home and Superman flies over the city (to that magnificent score) what popped into my head was, Now that's the 'lonely vigil.' Everyone lays down their tools and goes home to recover while Superman takes to the watchtower to keep them all safe. It couldn't have been anymore gracefully portrayed. And when he flies Lois off the roof of the Daily Planet and takes her out over the water, what is that but romance?

It seems that much of the disappointment in the tame action of this movie comes from it being released in an age when superhero movies are common and said movies often deal with grimier, sadistic plots. Batman vs. the fetid cesspool of Gotham, Wolverine's feral intensity vs. Mageto's attempts at genocide/Stryker's inhumane experiments, Spiderman living in poverty to save the world from out of control lunatics controlled by machines. Even Harry Potter vs. dragons/werewolves/giant snakes and spiders.

By comparison, Superman is an unstained, classic story. He's saving people from runaway automobiles, falling from buildings and then he does the Atlas thing and lifts a new world on his shoulders and heaves it out of orbit. There's no actual trade of blows, no Wolverine vs. spike-thrower or the many-armed man. Superman barely engages in personal combat, so everything he does in this film feels symbolic, epic.

All of which works for me. Superman Returns re-establishes Superman on a global level. He doesn't operate from an estate in the northeastern US or preside over Gotham. Superman covers the entire world. He's there to save the little guy everywhere. As that last shot shows him flying away from Metropolis at night into the sun on the other side of the world, we are reminded of that.

As for Jason Lane, I was totally surprised by that! But it works wonderfully as one of the large themes of the film. Clark tells his mother that Krypton is a graveyard - he need no longer look for his heritage there. And now here he has a half-human son that ties him to Earth more completely than his love for Lois Lane or his agape love for mankind ever could have. And how interesting that Superman's son is "fragile." He can summon impossible strength from his tiny body, yet he's asthmatic. And he's immune to Kryptonite. Lovely. :smirk: (Superman didn't need to have his powers to transfer them to his son. DNA is DNA. And Kryptonian DNA is enhanced by our yellow sun. That's all the kid needs.

James Marsden got more in this film than in all the X-Men films. It is the third time he's treated as the third leg. In Spider-Man he's the fiancee getting btw Peter and Mary Jane, in X-Men he's treated as the husband (gnat) btw Wolverine and Jean Gray. This time he at least comes out better, getting to his family and coming back to help save Superman. But he is ever the cuckold.

Lex Luthor was not ambitious enough in this film and his plan is cockeyed. I'm sure they'll focus more on building up the villain and the plot next time. This time I loved how they simply allowed us to wallow in the life of Superman and his exhaustive attempts to be all things to all people, pushing himself to the absolute maximum in pretty much every waking moment all for the good of others.

These movies always remind me of that episode of DS9 when Sisko finds out his conception was orchestrated by the Prophets of Bajor, when they told him "the Sisko is necessary." Sisko asks, "But why me? Why did it have to be me?" And the Prophet replies, "It could be no other."

[LeiterCIA]

I had one thought at the end of the movie... 'Can't anyone actually WRITE anymore?'

I really, really, REALLY, wanted to like this movie. And on one hand, I do like certain aspects of it. But, when all was said and done, once you looked past all the flaws, there wasnt much left. The writing was just so bad, the dialogue was flat and boring, and many of the scenes were down-right uncomfortable. I just felt that, at every turn, I was sitting there like... "huh?"

First off, I dont know why they had to go with a whole 'Superman Returns' concept. If they wanted this film to be a part of the Christopher Reeve series, why not just pick up where they left off? I heard they wrote this with Supe 1 and 2 in mind, and ignoring 3 and 4. So you are talking about a 26 year gap since Superman 2. Writing 'Superman's 5-year absence into the film does little to explain the gap away. But, an explanation wasnt really needed anyway.

The Superman story already asks us to ignore the obvious fact that no one in thier right mind wouldnt know that Clark Kent and Superman are one in the same. Why pile on the fact that Clark and Superman leave at exactly the same time, and return to Metropolis at exactly the same time too? Lois doesnt notice that she says "Welcome back, Clark" and "Where ya been, Supe?" in the same afternoon?

Oh, the fact that Luthor has gotten out of prison the same week is also pretty convenient. And what does this criminal mastermind do to rebuild his empire? Bangs an old widow, and inherits her fortune? He should have talked to Anna Nicole Smith before assuming that was a guaranteed way to make instant cash.

I digress... Luthor wants to hatch a real estate plan to put his California earthquake deal to shame. He's so impressed with Superman's Fortress of Solitude that he decides he wants to essentially rebuild Krypton on Earth. (Either that or it's just the fact that crystals work faster and cheaper than your average subcontractors.) Superman gets sent to earth with a green crystal, which is apparently used to build the Fortress of Solitude. Fair enough. Now here I thought that this crystal was specifically designed (or 'programmed') for this purpose... little did I know that these crystals are basically like Gremlins -- Get them wet and these suckers just grow like weeds. Even a tiny crystal the size of a grain of sand will explode into a mammoth, mini-Fortress. Advanced technology, or non-thinking weed? (Metachlorines, anyone?) If it was that easy, why didnt Jor-El just launch a few of those little buggers at a nearby uninhabited planet, and viola, a brand new Krypton! Ok, so Luthor's a little smarter than Jor-El I guess.

And please, would someone either lock the door on the Fortress of Solitude, or put a 4-digit PIN number on that control board already??

Ok, so Luthor wants to create a 1:1 scale model of Krypton which will destroy and occupy most of America. I guess Luthor really prefers the Europeans, cause there wont by any Americans left to buy up his beachfront land. Yes, he did say 'beachfront land'... did anyone else see anything resembling sand on these giant masses of crystal? Living on miles of jagged crystal suddenly makes living on the moon as not such a bad deal.

Well luckily Superman is around to slap the kabosh on this. After 5 years, baby Kal-El crash lands his spaceship in the Kent's cornfield. (Oh wait, it's grown up Superman crash landing in the Kent's corn fields.) ummm...Where did he get the rocketship from?? And why is he even IN a rocketship? Why did it crash? Can't he just land it? And did I see this right? -- Why is he in 'swaddling clothes', and half naked, and in such bad shape? Hello? Writers?? And while you're writing, can you at least camoflage this blatent shortcut with more than a simple "Astromomers thought they found Krypton.... but nah." I payed $9 for this movie, can you give me some interesting side story about what happened? "Look, Superman left, and now he's back. What's the difference where he went and why."

But, Superman returns to Earth, just as Clark Kent returns to the Daily Planet after going on a five-year long African safari. And just in time too, cause Lois Lane is about to get toasted in an airplane when the space shuttle on the back of the plane fails to disengage, and the rockets will blast the plane. I guess they are still setting this movie in the 1970's, cause I havent seen this happen since Moonraker.

So Supe saves the Shuttle, saves the plane from crashing, (and Lois seemed to have fared pretty well for getting thrashed all over the plane for 10 minutes. Ouch!) and quotes himself verbatim from the original film. Sorry...but, duh.

But, despite his unchanging taglines, Superman seems a little different. He hasnt lost his crush on Lois despite the fact that she's in a solid relationship with the man who has born her a child (or so Supes thinks). Doesnt stop him from putting the moves on Lois, which is ironic since he seems to take things a lot slower back when she was single, childless, and practially gagging to show him a super good roll in the hay. When his advances arent returned, he goes to her house, uses his X-ray vision to become a Super-peeping tom, and his super hearing to listen in on her private conversations. Ew. Insert jokes about girls locker rooms.

Nothing makes you forget your women troubles like saving a few lives. Little does he know that the trashy-dressed girl with car troubles is really just a distraction while Luthor steals himself a little meteor from Addis Ababa. Didnt he already steal this one? Or is Addis Ababa the only place kryptonite lands?

Ok anyway, Luthor tricks the crystals into rebuilding Krypton out of kryptonite. Leaving out all the obvious questions about how the crystal makes a little kryptonite grow into a giant island. Maybe he should have thrown a bar of gold in there too, and 'isnt Krypton made of kryptonite anyway?' Whatever... Superman confronts Luthor and walks into the kryptonite trap yet again. Rather than proving 'mind over muscle' -- Spacey's Luthor doesnt show off his witty mind, no great dialogue here... Luthor starts kicking the shit out of Superman, and then actually stabs Superman with a kryptonite shiv. Um... can I have Gene Hackman back?

And after all this, there isnt any satisfaction of seeing Superman march Luthor off to jail. (I guess they didnt want to have to break him out of prison again in the next one.) And I agree with everyone else that it was too long. The whole hospital scene didnt add anything. As someone said, if Supe knew he was going back to throw Krypton Island into space... why not grab a radiation suit or something? And it's a pretty lucky thing he landed in a park in a populated area, and not back down in the ocean where he just came from. Ahem.

Anyway, throw in Super-baby who commits his very first murder-by-piano, and there you have Superman Returns.

Incidentally, the whole concept of the super-baby was confusing as hell too. Would Superman's son, conceived after he lost his super powers, be a super baby? Would super babies have asthma?

I think this movie was crying out for a Mario Puzo to craft a real story. I think the next one has potential, but after this one, I'm not really too anxious for it. If anything, it made me want to watch my original copy of 'Superman: The Movie' on laser disc.

[Rael]

Okay, I just have to say something to everyone giving this movie bad reviews for reason I just don't understand. First, Brandon Routh doesn't look like Reeves at all IMO, so I don't get that. Secodn, I saw someone mention the special effects were bad. Are you blind? I also saw a lot of reviews saying that this movie tries to be too much like the old ones.

What pisses me off is this. If they got someone totally different then Christopher Reeves, you would most likely complain about that, saying he is too different. And if Singer did take the movie into a new direction, you would have compained it strays too far from the orginal. There is just no pleasing you, cause a lot of you wouldn't have liked this movie no matter what they did.

And to the guy who said he should have flown and gotten a led suit to protect him from the kryptonite. You know how dumb it would have been for him to fly away, and make a lead suit at that pivotal moment? It would have taken out all of the climax, plus just been really dumb.

P.S. Ebert is an idiot. He gives thumbs up to the new Fast and Furious movei, and Garfield 2, and then trashes this. I think he had another stroke..

[Rael]

It is funny how everyone complains about Routh not having many lines. I don't remeber Reeves giving any speeches or anything,. He seemd to be a bit of a one liner, both as Clark and Supes.

All of you who complain, what did you want to see in this movie? How were your expecrarions not met?

[Rael]

I will have to agree that they didn't use Routh to his full potential. The few scenes of him bumbling around as Clark were great to me, and they could have done that a bit more.

I also like the plot with Lex. Someone said it seemed like a throwback to the old days of villians, and I agree, and I think that is why I liked it. It was dumb, hair-brained, implausible, and to me, persect.

[DaForce]

Okay, I just have to say something to everyone giving this movie bad reviews for reason I just don't understand. First, Brandon Routh doesn't look like Reeves at all IMO, so I don't get that. Secodn, I saw someone mention the special effects were bad. Are you blind? I also saw a lot of reviews saying that this movie tries to be too much like the old ones.

What pisses me off is this. If they got someone totally different then Christopher Reeves, you would most likely complain about that, saying he is too different. And if Singer did take the movie into a new direction, you would have compained it strays too far from the orginal. There is just no pleasing you, cause a lot of you wouldn't have liked this movie no matter what they did.

And to the guy who said he should have flown and gotten a led suit to protect him from the kryptonite. You know how dumb it would have been for him to fly away, and make a lead suit at that pivotal moment? It would have taken out all of the climax, plus just been really dumb.

P.S. Ebert is an idiot. He gives thumbs up to the new Fast and Furious movei, and Garfield 2, and then trashes this. I think he had another stroke..


*Sigh* Here we go again (for the slow people)....

I'm involved in 3D animation (ie. it's going to be my chosen field of work, so I know what I'm actually talking about) and the CGI was bad in the majority of the movie. Especially for a $250 million movie. What happens with large movies such as this is that CGI sequences (or scenes, if you will) go to different companies to be animated. There can be as many as 20-30 different companies working on one movie.

For example, the bullet hitting the eyeball was done by a San Francisco outfit called The Orphanage. That's why that scene looked so well done. The scene of Supes flying away from the baseball park after rescuing the plane was done by a company I've never heard of before, and the CGI facr they did was probably the worst modeling I've ever seen. So, if you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to CGI, keep your uneducated opinions to yourself.

As for your claim that everyone would have been pissed if the movie had ignored the Donner movies, no, you're wrong. If done by a competent director and writer, the movie could have been really well done without having to resort to following Donner's movie step by step, or reguritating lines from the first movie.

Routh is being compared to Reeves, because he looks very similiar to Reeves. That's why Singer hired him. Nuff said.

As for the lead suit part (which I mentioned), you do realize that we have these things called nuclear reactors, right? The people working near these reactors have suits made of lead shielding to protect them from radiation. It would not at all have been unreasonable to have Supermute fly off, grab a rad suit, and come back with only a few seconds missed. He does it in the comics from time to time. Also it would have added a little drama to the movie (which it sorely needed), to see Supermute fly off supposedly defeated, only to return wearing a rad suit that would help him out.

[Intelligent_Design]

I thought The CGI looked awesome. I thought the plot was terrible. Grade C. Singer can't be blamed .

I like the Smallville Version of Lex better. He would never come up with such a buffoonish plan. He is cooler and more stylish.

[southpaw]

My favorite part was seeing the teaser trailer of Spider-Man 3 on the big screen. It made me lose interest in Supes alittle from the get-go. The movie was alright, it could have been better and it could have been worse. I like Michael Rosenbaum's Luthor better than Spacey's Lex. It was just a tad too campy. Routh did a good job I thought. Kate just didn't seem like Lois to me. Kal Penn was useless in the movie. The final battle was very anti-climatic for me and the hospital stuff did seem to drag on too long. I think the next installments will be more action packed with more badguys in it, or at least I hope so.



Then again what does a member of the average movie going public like me know anyways? :lol:

[ladymurasaki]

It's funny to read the reactions here because I really loved the movie for what it was.

First, my negatives. Contrary to most people, I wasn't enthralled by Lois Lane -- I found her somewhat bland and lacking in any kind of range. She's supposed to be intrepid and intelligent and vulnerable, all things that the skittish Margot Kidder did so well. I wasn't looking for a repeat of that performance, but at least acting that conveyed some depth of character beyond easy beauty, which is what I got from her.

Were it not for Routh, who really surpassed my expectations, it would have been harder for me to buy the love story, which, being a girl, I thought was fantastically handled. I loved his looks of jealousy, or disappointment, of serene calm and sheer pleasure in being able to fly. I thought he did an awful lot with a role that could have easily been stiff and one dimensional.

I loved that Marsden at one point rescues Lois, Lois rescues Superman . . . and Superman still gets to be Superman. This gave the Marsden character a certain amount of sympathy for me, and made Lois something other than a shrieking victim, and I liked that. It all added to their history, and to the tangled romantic situation in which they find themselves.

The darkness in the film was a real tone shift from the earlier incarnations, which makes sense given the mood we are in these days, though I think it was hard to swallow. I found myself cringing in the scenes where Superman is beaten up. I felt as though the movie had changed -- the campy Lex Luthor suddenly turned into some sort of orchestrator of a lynch mob, and this felt strangely personal and not so in keeping with the rest of the movie, or the comical situation in which he finds himself at the end.

I agree about the plane rescue -- fantastic, and more of the kind of overall tone I think we were anticipating.

Here are my questions

1. Is Superman's kid made stronger by kryptonite?

2. What kind of financial return does the film need for a sequel to be made?

[Belledame]

I have some questions, too. Now that his crystals are all gone, how can Superman ever use the Fortress of Solitude again? Why did he bring that piece of Krypton back with him? He buried it on the farm, but why keep it? Where is Clark living? In the end he flew off to the other side of the world. Shouldn't he have gone to see his mom first?

[ladymurasaki]

Yes! I wondered about the crystals too. I'm guessing that -- if we do get a sequel -- the crystals, kryptonite and asthmatic son will all be featured.

I hope the financial aspect of the movie works out well enough for us to have another installation of this story.

[Rael]

*Sigh* Here we go again (for the slow people)....

I'm involved in 3D animation (ie. it's going to be my chosen field of work, so I know what I'm actually talking about) and the CGI was bad in the majority of the movie. Especially for a $250 million movie. What happens with large movies such as this is that CGI sequences (or scenes, if you will) go to different companies to be animated. There can be as many as 20-30 different companies working on one movie.

For example, the bullet hitting the eyeball was done by a San Francisco outfit called The Orphanage. That's why that scene looked so well done. The scene of Supes flying away from the baseball park after rescuing the plane was done by a company I've never heard of before, and the CGI facr they did was probably the worst modeling I've ever seen. So, if you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to CGI, keep your uneducated opinions to yourself.

As for your claim that everyone would have been pissed if the movie had ignored the Donner movies, no, you're wrong. If done by a competent director and writer, the movie could have been really well done without having to resort to following Donner's movie step by step, or reguritating lines from the first movie.

Routh is being compared to Reeves, because he looks very similiar to Reeves. That's why Singer hired him. Nuff said.

As for the lead suit part (which I mentioned), you do realize that we have these things called nuclear reactors, right? The people working near these reactors have suits made of lead shielding to protect them from radiation. It would not at all have been unreasonable to have Supermute fly off, grab a rad suit, and come back with only a few seconds missed. He does it in the comics from time to time. Also it would have added a little drama to the movie (which it sorely needed), to see Supermute fly off supposedly defeated, only to return wearing a rad suit that would help him out.





Well I;m sorry Mr. Expert. but I am not a CGI expert, as you claim to be (by the way, what makes you a CGI expert, did you take classes?). All I know, is pretty much every CGI effect I saw looked practically real, and both times I've seen this movie, I did not notice bad CGI work. I though the whole movie looked great, and in my opinoin, the bullet off the eyes was kind if lame, I don't see why that was done so well, looked a little cheezy compared to some of the other stuff, but then again, I'm not the expert, you are. I have no extra edjucation in the CGI department, so my only judgement of how things look on the screen is by looking at it. Maube if I had your supieror intillect on the matter, I would see the numerous errors and poor execution of the movie that you see.

And no, it would not have been unreasonable for him to fly off in a rad suit, but, in my opinoin (and just my opinoin), it would have taken a lot of the climax out of the movie. I liked him flying through the clouds, oaking up that extra boost of sun, rather than him flying away and coming back in some goofy suit. Just my opinoin. And it is also my opinoin that this is a movie about an alien that looks identical to human who can fly, lift continents, and shoot heat out of his eyes, so if you want to argue the science and logistics of a movie like this, be my guest, but it seems a bit ridiculus.

And I don't think everyone would complain if it was done differnelty, I just think many of the same people who complain about it being the same would also complain about it being different. Sometimes you just can't please someone unless you make the exact movie you want, but that isn't the case.

Also, I don't think Singer chose Routh because he looks like Reeves, it may have helped a bit, but that is it. I think he chose him because he was a unknown actor he believed could fill the role, which many thinks he does very well. I would like to know how many people saud he looked like Reeves before Superman, because I bet you it is none.

[Jakester]

Rael, take a pill. It's a fucking movie. Daffy knows of what he speaks. He's pointed that out. Accept it and move the fuck on. Sometimes, effects (and CG is no exception) are subjective with resepect to their successful execution because it's based at least partly upon how the mind interprets what the eye sees. If it looks good to you, fine. I'm sure Daffy could pull out incidents in certain sequences that didn't work for him, but he's got a higher standard to meet because of how his mind interprets the effects he sees -- he knows it's an effect and his mind is looking for flaws that you wouldn't normally check for. However, just because an effect 'fools' your mind doesn't mean it's a good one. It could mean that you're a moron.

[Rael]

Rael, take a pill. It's a fucking movie. Daffy knows of what he speaks. He's pointed that out. Accept it and move the fuck on. Sometimes, effects (and CG is no exception) are subjective with resepect to their successful execution because it's based at least partly upon how the mind interprets what the eye sees. If it looks good to you, fine. I'm sure Daffy could pull out incidents in certain sequences that didn't work for him, but he's got a higher standard to meet because of how his mind interprets the effects he sees -- he knows it's an effect and his mind is looking for flaws that you wouldn't normally check for. However, just because an effect 'fools' your mind doesn't mean it's a good one. It could mean that you're a moron.

I know it is a movie, that is one of the points I was trying to make. And, I maybe there are reason the effects looked bad to him, I am just wondering why, that is all. He implied I was slow and that I should keep my uneducated ipinoins to my slef. I think it is only fair for him to explain to me why my opinoin are less valid than his, and maybe explain this higher education, so I may understand where he is coming from. That is it. Me take a pill? You're the one getting bent out of shape dude, I'm not here to make enemies.

[Son of Gilbert]

what the fuck is CGI?

[DaForce]

what the fuck is CGI?



Computer Generated Image.

[TrekSucksHard]

And no, it would not have been unreasonable for him to fly off in a rad suit, but, in my opinoin (and just my opinoin), it would have taken a lot of the climax out of the movie.

Then the writers should have come up with a better story then- if the whole scheme of Luthor's insults your intelligence because Superman has to be stupid in order for it to succeed, it makes for a lousy movie and this one turned into such.

[Rael]

I liked the story myself. Many complain his scheme of creating a continent was stupid, and was like a plan out of 50s comic books. That is why I liked it, it was so inplausible, but I don't knwo, I thought it was cool. I can;t argue if you think the story was lousy, I didn;t think it was. I thought it was good.

[DaForce]

I know it is a movie, that is one of the points I was trying to make. And, I maybe there are reason the effects looked bad to him, I am just wondering why, that is all. He implied I was slow and that I should keep my uneducated ipinoins to my slef. I think it is only fair for him to explain to me why my opinoin are less valid than his, and maybe explain this higher education, so I may understand where he is coming from. That is it. Me take a pill? You're the one getting bent out of shape dude, I'm not here to make enemies.


I'm 6 months away from a degree in Media Art and Animation. The emphasis is on 3D modeling and animation. The majority of the effects were badly done. Period. Especially for the money thrown at this movie.

If your effects in a mega-million dollar movie suck ass (as they did in SR), then you're going to throw at least half your audience out of the suspension of disbelief in the movie (which is what is happening if you look at reviews from both critcs and audience). Then there's the matter of having a cohesive storyline that might interest your audience. SR was missing that as well.

Hell, I just watched Superman 3 tonight, and even that flick was better than Supermute Returns. There was a story (even if it was cheesy) and there was some action.

[DaForce]

I liked the story myself. Many complain his scheme of creating a continent was stupid, and was like a plan out of 50s comic books. That is why I liked it, it was so inplausible, but I don't knwo, I thought it was cool. I can;t argue if you think the story was lousy, I didn;t think it was. I thought it was good.


It was a boring plot that didn't fit in a movie that was attempting to restart a franchise. Especially in the 21st century.

Hell, even the henchmen got bored of the plot and started playing poker. You know the plan's stupid when the henchmen have nothing to do.

[Rael]

Superman 3 better? Dude, come on, that movie blows. I'm glad you got your getting a degree, but I still think the effects were great, sorry. The plane scene was amazing to me, it looked real.

Almost all the revies, critics and people, say they like the effects, so I don't know what to tell you. Also, out of over 3000 botes, this movie has a rating of 7.9 on IMDB. So, like me, a few people liked the story also. I just really don't think it was as bad as you make it out to be.

[Rael]

Sorry, it is 7.7 out of 10 with over 12000 votes.

[DaForce]

Sorry, it is 7.7 out of 10 with over 12000 votes.

Sorry, but we all know that people vote on movies before they ever come out.


Rotten Tomatoes has a critic review of 75%.

[Son of Gilbert]

Computer Generated Image.






Yeah I knew that, I was just trying to bring some brevity to the to topic. I mean to you really think that the Average movie goer hasn't heard of CGI. It's not like CGI is cutting edge anymore, nowadays the more CGI that goes into a movie the more the less believable it becomes, and I though that was the whole point was to make it believable.

[Intelligent_Design]

Hell, I just watched Superman 3 tonight, and even that flick was better than Supermute Returns. There was a story (even if it was cheesy) and there was some action.





HAHA!! I have to agree. At least that movie had Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn

[LeiterCIA]

It was a boring plot that didn't fit in a movie that was attempting to restart a franchise. Especially in the 21st century.

Agreed. Just do a side by side comparison with 'Returns' vs. the original 1978 film.

In the original Superman: The Movie, Superman is saved from the Kryptonite by the damsel, Superman is back in action, he rockets off across the country, flies down into the San Andreas fault, down towards the earth's molten core, and lifts the fault into correction, this stopping the major earthquake and stopping Luthor's plot to destroy California. But, that's just the beginning. Superman flies off to perform a series of super-rescues, starting with a school bus teetering off the Golden Gate bridge, saving a speeding train, shutting down a large electrical plant, rescuing Jimmy Olsen just before the Hoover Dam bursts, and rescuing the town below from being washed away. But, that's not all. By a matter of moments, Superman fails to rescue Lois. In a moment of great desperation, Superman flies off, defies the 'primary objective' about interfering with human history, turns the earth backwards, reversing time itself, and saves Lois. The Man of Steel doesnt quite get the girl, but the moment feels right. His work finished, Superman leaves to tie up the last loose end, and marches Lex Luthor off to jail to pay for his crimes. Superman flies off into the sunset with a wink.

In Superman Returns, Superman is saved from the Kryptonite by the damsel, Superman is back in action, he rockets up towards the sun for a boost of strength (does Superman lose his strength at night?), he flies back the the kryptonite island, lifts the island with all his strength, throws it into outer space, then passes out from the kryptonite radiation, falls to earth, is rushed to a hospital where he remains for some time, while concerned people hold a vigil outside. Time goes by, and little happens other than Superman being visited by Lois and her son. Eventually, his hospital bed appears empty, indicating that Superman has dissappeared out the window without so much as a 'Thank You.' Lex Luthor is stuck on an island, but lives to do harm another day. Superman slips into the window of his son, (how did he figure this out again?) and recites the words of his father, and flies off. The Man of Steel doesnt quite get the girl, and the moment feels awkward. I hope Richard wasnt looking out the window. Superman flies off into the sunset with a wink.

By all measure, Superman Returns doesn't hold a candle to the original. And it's a fair comparison, since Singer's Superman movie is constantly trying to remind us that it's a part of the 1978 series. They really needed a writer in there who understood the basics; characters, conflict, and climax.

[ladymurasaki]

Unless the crystals are on the island/thing that Superman threw into space he could find them with his 'super-vision' before the next installment.

I wondered that myself and you could very well be right. BUT, I'm not sure we're getting another installment.

[LeiterCIA]

BUT, I'm not sure we're getting another installment.

Oh, I'm sure there will be another. Even if this movie were to actually LOSE money, which it wont, the powers that be arent going to sit on the sideline with a product like Superman, and watch all the other super-hero franchises rake it in.

Even if they have to completely re-invent, there will be another Superman movie.

[Intelligent_Design]

The hospital thing I don't get either.I remember a Marvel what if comic once that dealt with What if Spiderman’s identity was revealed. I first thing that happened you see Aunt Mae go get mail the whole house blows up. The would happen In this instance also. Superman is out of it in a Hospital and all of his enemies would be there in no time. That would have been an better ending and it would be a better set up for a sequel.

[neglet]

Superman is back in action, he rockets up towards the sun for a boost of strength (does Superman lose his strength at night?)

I would think that on Earth's surface, there's a certain amount of solar radiation available, even at night--but exposing himself to sunlight without the Earth's atmosphere would give him more of that yummy yellow solar radiation than he would get while underneath the ozone layer.

Woooohooo! I just said "Superman exposing himself"!:jump2:

[LeiterCIA]

http://www.cinematical.com/media/2006/06/supes.jpg

Incidentally, one last grumble is that I didnt like Superman's costume this time around.

Lately we keep seeing the costume designers trying to show off with thier little textures and accents in the costumes. The tiny details, like the little 'S's within the S, is distracting. Where was the yellow 'S' on the cape? And the why dark, dingy colors, especially in the reds? Reminded me of the dull, dirty costume that 'evil Superman' wore in Superman 3. And the long torso and small underpants are creepy. He looks like a CK underpants model.

The dark colors sort of reflected the darker, more cynical tone of this movie, where Superman stands for "all that stuff."

http://www.drbecker-phelps.com/Reeve-Routh.jpg

[Intelligent_Design]

[IMG]

The dark colors sort of reflected the darker, more cynical tone of this movie, where Superman stands for "all that stuff."


Thats why Superman my not be the Best super hero to bring back. In the new century we like our Heroes flawed. And Superman by nature is perfect which doesn't hold up well nowadays.

Also did anyone notice a planet in the opening title sequence that could be Apokolips? I thought I saw it.

[southpaw]

I didn't notice that, I DID notice Supertot wearing Aquaman PJs at the end of the movie though. That had to sting just alittle for the big blue boyscout. :smirk:

[Belledame]

The hospital thing I don't get either.I remember a Marvel what if comic once that dealt with What if Spiderman’s identity was revealed. I first thing that happened you see Aunt Mae go get mail the whole house blows up. The would happen In this instance also. Superman is out of it in a Hospital and all of his enemies would be there in no time. That would have been an better ending and it would be a better set up for a sequel.

Well, they seemed to anticipate his enemies might show up what with the police guards outside his room. And frankly, what could Superman's enemies do? Green kryptonite isn't just laying around in cornfields. He's indestructible. They could lob dynomite at him all day and have pretty much no effect. And no one knows who he really is except the kid and Ma Kent.

He looks like a CK underpants model.

There's nothing wrong with that... And brighter colors would have looked cartoonish, downright clowny. It's better this way.

[ladymurasaki]

There's nothing wrong with that... And brighter colors would have looked cartoonish, downright clowny. It's better this way.

I have to agree, here. The old color motif worked well in the early 80s, but it's hard for me to see it working now.

[DaForce]

The screening that I saw this at, near the end when Supes sneaks into the kid's room (just like every good stalker), people started to chuckle. Why? It was freakin' creepy! I almost thought he was there to molest the kid, rather than utter some more recycled lines.

I couldn't quite put my finger on why the scene was so creepy until I saw Superman 3 last night...Routh was doing the same body language that Reeves was doing when the evil Superman was trying to seduce Lana Lang. It was uncomfortable and creepy then, and it was very uncomfortable and creepy in Supermute Returns.


As for the crystals on Kryptonite Island, my friend and I speculated that Singer has the idea to bring Braniac to the sequel. Why? Luthor reitterates like a parrot about three times how crystals can take on the characteristics of things they grow on or near, so following the X-Men scripts..that's Singer's brand of foreshadowing.

The crystals have all of Krypton's knowledge, right? If the crystals come in contact with an alien entity or microbe or something else lame that Singer and company will come up with, then you can have the crystals grow into a super-intelligent being.


Honestly, anything that poses an actual threat to Supermute at this point in time would be a much welcome addition rather than having another stupid real estate plot by Luthor being the main thrust of a sequel.

[Intelligent_Design]

Well, they seemed to anticipate his enemies might show up what with the police guards outside his room. And frankly, what could Superman's enemies do? Green kryptonite isn't just laying around in cornfields. He's indestructible. They could lob dynomite at him all day and have pretty much no effect. And no one knows who he really is except the kid and Ma Kent.



.
Green kryptonite Isn't the only way to hurt Superman. I mean he did get beat to death without Green kryptonite present (Not in this movie but in the comic). Also Magic tends to hurt him quite a bit. There are all sorts of things that could be done to hurt the man of steel that could have been used in the movie.

[LeiterCIA]

...And brighter colors would have looked cartoonish, downright clowny. It's better this way.

I disagree. Do the Christopher Reeve films look cartoonish or clowny?

Thats why Superman my not be the Best super hero to bring back. In the new century we like our Heroes flawed. And Superman by nature is perfect which doesn't hold up well nowadays.

I completely disagree. The 70's were a haven of flawed heroes. movies with cynical heroes, and disaster movies were all audiences got in the 70's. We had Dirty Harry, The Towering Inferno, and Death Race 2000. The reason Donner's Superman was such a hit is because we were SCREAMING for someone to look UP to. I think Donner had it right, (and Sam Raimi, too). Dont mistake cynicism for realism.

And incidentally, Superman is NOT perfect. He has struggles that we can all relate too. But that's different from being flawed. Consider, Superman 2: I think the story very closely resembles the Last Temptation of Christ.

In Last Temptation, the devil, disguised as an angel, shows Jesus (tempts Jesus with) a look at how his life would be if he were to abandon his role as the savior, come down from the cross, live like a regular man, marry the woman he loves, and start a family. After this happens, without a savior, the world descends into chaos and darkness. Jesus turns away from temptation, and assumes his right place, and is crucified, saving the world from damnation.

In Superman 2, we get a look at how his life would be if he were to abandon his role as the savior. He sacrifices his super-powers, lives like a regular man, and chooses to be with the woman he loves. After this happens, without a savior, the world is threatened, and descends into chaos and darkness. Superman makes the choice to abandon life as a mortal, revives his super-powers, and assumes his right place as protector of earth, and vows to the President not to let us down again, saving the world from damnation.

So it's not that we want 'perfect' heroes without flaw... but, cynicism and a dirty costume, isnt what we want either.

[Rael]

For people who all seem to hate this movie, you sure seem to analyze it down to a tee. Heck, I bet you have thought about the more more than me. It is wierd, because everyone in the theater when I saw it seemed to really enjoy it. On Amazon, out of 115 reviews, it has forur stars out of five, and to me, it is a four star movie. Not great, but good, and definatly not the horrible movie all of you make it out to be. How can you honestly think 3 was better? The whole first part is just lame comedic shtick. Superman Returns was a good movie.

[Intelligent_Design]

I disagree. Do the Christopher Reeve films look cartoonish or clowny?



I completely disagree. The 70's were a haven of flawed heroes. movies with cynical heroes, and disaster movies were all audiences got in the 70's. We had Dirty Harry, The Towering Inferno, and Death Race 2000. The reason Donner's Superman was such a hit is because we were SCREAMING for someone to look UP to. I think Donner had it right, (and Sam Raimi, too). Dont mistake cynicism for realism.

And incidentally, Superman is NOT perfect. He has struggles that we can all relate too. But that's different from being flawed. Consider, Superman 2: I think the story very closely resembles the Last Temptation of Christ.

In Last Temptation, the devil, disguised as an angel, shows Jesus (tempts Jesus with) a look at how his life would be if he were to abandon his role as the savior, come down from the cross, live like a regular man, marry the woman he loves, and start a family. After this happens, without a savior, the world descends into chaos and darkness. Jesus turns away from temptation, and assumes his right place, and is crucified, saving the world from damnation.

In Superman 2, we get a look at how his life would be if he were to abandon his role as the savior. He sacrifices his super-powers, lives like a regular man, and chooses to be with the woman he loves. After this happens, without a savior, the world is threatened, and descends into chaos and darkness. Superman makes the choice to abandon life as a mortal, revives his super-powers, and assumes his right place as protector of earth, and vows to the President not to let us down again, saving the world from damnation.

So it's not that we want 'perfect' heroes without flaw... but, cynicism and a dirty costume, isnt what we want either.

You know I never thought about it that way. I makes sense. I just thought about the comic's flawed "anti-hero" seem to be the most popular today. Like Wolverine, Spawn, Blade, Batman, Punisher.... And it seems like the really up standing Heroes like Superman, Capt America, Capt Marvel, Hal Jordan, Cyclops’s type never get any love nowadays. I’d wager a Steak dinner that the Wolverine movie will have Higher final numbers than Superman returns.

[Intelligent_Design]

For people who all seem to hate this movie, you sure seem to analyze it down to a tee. .


What? You think we would claim to dislike a movie without providing indeph reasons? What kind of nerds do you take us for?:lol:

[Belledame]

Green kryptonite Isn't the only way to hurt Superman. I mean he did get beat to death without Green kryptonite present (Not in this movie but in the comic). Also Magic tends to hurt him quite a bit. There are all sorts of things that could be done to hurt the man of steel that could have been used in the movie.

But none of those things were in the movie so why not take the story as it is told? I wasn't worried about him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Belledame
...And brighter colors would have looked cartoonish, downright clowny. It's better this way.

I disagree. Do the Christopher Reeve films look cartoonish or clowny? Yes, I think they do. Especially the 'S' on the cape. Superhero costumes are changed over time. It is not a big deal.

And DaForce, I don't see what was creepy about a man standing over a sleeping child. That scene seemed fairly cliche even. It fit right in with the restrained emotion of the rest of the film.

[Rael]

What you think we would claim to dislike a movie without providing indeph reasons? What kind of nerds do you take us for?:lol:

Touche, lol.

And I also didn't think the scene where he enters his son's bedroom was creepy. I mean it is Superman, he isn't really the molesting type. Now if Batman snuck up in a little kids room in the middle of the night, it might scare the living hell out of the kid.

[ladymurasaki]

I actually thought Superman staring at the sleeping child humanized him in some way -- made him a little bit more complex. It would be annoying if, upon learning he had a son, he didn't try to watch the child secretly. I mean, honestly, if most of us had those kinds of powers, we'd be tempted to listen in on people around us.

Actually, I liked the gradual build up to the "sneaking in" scene -- when he flies to Lois' house and eavesdrops, when he eavesdrops at work, when he confesses that he hears everything all the time. It told me that Singer had given some thought to Superman and his powers and what the implications would be.

[TrekSucksHard]

For people who all seem to hate this movie, you sure seem to analyze it down to a tee. Heck, I bet you have thought about the more more than me.
Thats cause my mind actually works while I watch the movie... http://messageboard.cinescape.com/cinescape/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

To me, the reason why I don't like this movie all comes down to the horribly written script- everyone is stupid (from Supes, Luthor and everyone in the Daily Planet) and the whole plot is devoid of logic (OK, so the kryptonite might have affected Supes when he went after that crystal island but what would Luthor have done if the US military sent in gunships, marines and tanks? Where the hell was the military in that movie?).

[Son of Gilbert]

No just you Eldee.

[padawan66]

I just got through watching this movie, I thought it was an OK movie good for the kids, for those lovers who want an action pack love story.
I was sad for Kumar and yes spacey could of been more evil, routh is just clark kent/superman that is all, for the kid I liked the idea a sequal must be in Singer's mind and I hope he sticks to it.

I just hope the sequal isn't a bust especially if supermans offspring is going to carry on a legacy of Kryptonian heritage, man that kid's adult vacation is going to be filled.

I would give it a 3 1/2

[ladymurasaki]

Oh, I'm sure there will be another. Even if this movie were to actually LOSE money, which it wont, the powers that be arent going to sit on the sideline with a product like Superman, and watch all the other super-hero franchises rake it in.

Even if they have to completely re-invent, there will be another Superman movie.

I wonder, though. They haven't announced a sequel -- the studio has been pretty quiet. I'm guessing that they are waiting to see how the movie does this next week. It may not make enough money to be considered enough of a hit to reinvest in which, to me, would be sad because I really enjoyed what Singer did.

The opening credits had me bawling.

[LeiterCIA]

You know I never thought about it that way. I makes sense. I just thought about the comic's flawed "anti-hero" seem to be the most popular today. Like Wolverine, Spawn, Blade, Batman, Punisher.... And it seems like the really up standing Heroes like Superman, Capt America, Capt Marvel, Hal Jordan, Cyclops’s type never get any love nowadays. I agree with you there. When you talk about comic book movies though, it seems to me that it's always the ones that stay unapologetically faithful to the inspiration that do the best. See: Superman (1977), Spiderman 1, 2, Batman Begins, etc. It's the movies that take a cynical, casual, look at the heroes that fall flat.

Batman Begins is such an amazing triumph for a few reasons. But the biggest reason I think is that you get so into the character's struggle because the movie went for such realism. You got a powerful performance out of Bale, because he isnt 'winking' at the audience!

Superman needs to look you right in the face and say "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way"... and not apoligize for it!

I’d wager a Steak dinner that the Wolverine movie will have Higher final numbers than Superman returns.

There's a LOT that can happen between now and then. The Wolverine movie would be the next 'Batman Begins' or it can be the next 'Elektra'. I'm not taking that bet till we start hearing some buzz.

PS: I would LOVE it if they got Christopher Nolan to direct the Wolverine flick!

[Cncrman]

So I went and saw it this weekend (Twice) and I have to honestly say that I like it. A lot.

I must have some "super" ability to actually enjoy a movie on it's own and not held up against any sort of standard. I guess I see all movies as entertainment and not "Art" or "Official Doctorine". So what if the music sounded this way or that way (I have my gripes with it, but it didn't make me hate the movie) and big deal that I could see the CGI in some areas (I was ok with that). And I'm actually curious to see how they handle the fact that Supes has a kid. Since that hasn't really be covered anywhere in the comics as far as I know.

I love Superman, always have. I know the stories, the multiple realities, the variations on history/powers/etc and it doesn't really bother me too much that they varied from the comics. Hell, Singer did the same thing to the X-men, and they were enjoyable movies.

I'd watch it again actually.

[Cncrman]

Of course there is stuff I don't like.

I guess I just never fully understood why people get all upset over such simple things. Sure there is garbage out there; there are movies I will never watch. But I just can't grasp why people look at a movie (A remake or sequel or franchise "reboot" for example) and get all bent out of shape when it isn't exactly like what they hoped it would be. Take Lord of the Rings for example, people waited YEARS for somone to make a movie of those 3 books. When the finally do, a majority of people really liked it. But there is always this group of people that insist on saying "It's not like the book" (or comic in this case). Nothing will ever live up to their expectations, everything will fall short because it isn't the movie they see inside their own minds. Maybe I don't fully understand, and that's fine. Maybe someone wants to explain it to me. Do they feel cheated out of time or money or do they feel they could have done better with the material/actors/effects?

Like I said, I see almost all movies as entertainment, not art. If I am entrained by the movie, then it accomplished its job. If I am entertained by the movie and it happens to include characters that I have always liked (Superman for example) then I am doubly happy.

[jayce78]

I thought it was a good film myself , Singer's just trying to put the ol' blueboy back on track with the old films .Nobody in his camp is trying to compare it with the magic of the first film . . . .

Respectfully Well done / Intro was breathtaking . . . .


I do wish in retrospect , that Kumar could've been more of an otis type character and not a thug.

John Oltman's score was sort of a mixed bag / but nicely done / hell! least it wasn't a remix like SII & SIII . . . .


http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8950/smr800147sk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


A-

[jayce78]

ladymurasaki - I wonder, though. They haven't announced a sequel -- the studio has been pretty quiet. I'm guessing that they are waiting to see how the movie does this next week. It may not make enough money to be considered enough of a hit to reinvest in which, to me, would be sad because I really enjoyed what Singer did.




I'll see ya a sequel and raise ya another franshice mate!

Singer on Batman vs: Superman

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/5133/smr800190cl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In a recent interview with MTV Superman director Bryan Singer admits that he would like to direct a Batman vs Superman but only after he has established the Superman franchise a bit more -- sequels!

"I don't think we should go toe-to-toe, unless one of us is deranged somehow by some mind-altering drug," he laughed. "We shouldn't be fighting each other; we should be combining forces." Singer said he'd consider directing a "Batman vs. Superman" flick, but only after the Man of Steel establishes his identity a bit more thoroughly.

"I've thought about it for a long time — even a longer time ago, actually," It's been in the back of my mind since I started the project: the director revealed.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/9933/d3kv.png (http://imageshack.us)

"But I don't know who would be the villain. I guess Batman would be the villain, but then he can't be too bad, because he is Batman. So not quite yet. ... I think Superman needs to have his own movies for a little while before that happens." Either way, Singer insisted that "everybody's excited to do more ... and I'm sure we'll do another one."

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3264/d6jp.png (http://imageshack.us)

And Routh had this word of warning for Bale: "I don't think Batman really, really wants to go and mess with Superman."

[jayce78]

Ha , I'm a big fan of SI & II myself mate . . . .

Even III got the nastalgia love from me mate!

Hell! Singer loves the old films , that's why he's doing this.


Not worshiping the film ,or saying there's no way it could be better, just saying it's a good film / stunning visuals / good plot / and leaving it at that!

[Belledame]

Of course there is stuff I don't like.

Take Lord of the Rings for example, people waited YEARS for somone to make a movie of those 3 books.
*cough*Not 3 books*cough* Only one*cough* Not a trilogy*cough cough* One long book bound and sold in sections*cough cough


I really found this Superman to be a contemplative and melancholy character study. It is a very adult take on the character. Instead of the endless pining for Lois, this man has gotten his dream and now fallen down the backside of the slope. He not so much lost it as had to give it up. And now he has to live with all the consequences of having gone there and the grief of having to walk away.

There was a romance novel some years back, old west setting. The young, spinster heroine was saddled with a sickly sister and couldn't see anything of the future but days of lonely toil that would never, ever end. Superman's isolation reminded me strongly of that.

[Cncrman]

*cough*Not 3 books*cough* Only one*cough* Not a trilogy*cough cough* One long book bound and sold in sections*cough cough.

Geez...being specific ain't we? :wink:

[jayce78]

What the hell are we talkin about here mates?

[Belledame]

Geez...being specific ain't we? :wink: What? There was something stuck in my throat. Wouldn't want me to choke on it, would ya? :D

[TrekSucksHard]

And Routh had this word of warning for Bale: "I don't think Batman really, really wants to go and mess with Superman."
Yeah, right- if you read the comics, Batman always beats up that big blue fruit everytime they fight each other- Batman has brains which can overcome even Supe's brawn anytime.

[jayce78]

Although I love Batman , That never seemed very plausible to me , . .

We're talking about a guy who could cut you in half with his laser beams a mile away . . .

[kah]

Untitled Superman Returns Sequel (2009) (http://imdb.com/title/tt0770828/)

:dunno:

[Belledame]

Although I love Batman , That never seemed very plausible to me , . .

We're talking about a guy who could cut you in half with his laser beams a mile away . . .

But he wouldn't and that's his vulnerability.

[jayce78]

True

[jayce78]

Untitled Superman Returns Sequel (2009) (http://imdb.com/title/tt0770828/)

:dunno:



If this Film dooesn't hit 200 mil , then there won't be a sequel or Bat vs: Supy . . .

So go out and see it again fellas!!

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8937/smr800142ms.th.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smr800142ms.jpg)

[DaForce]

If this Film dooesn't hit 200 mil , then there won't be a sequel or Bat vs: Supy . . .

So go out and see it again fellas!!




No thanks. :tongue:


Once was more than enough for me.



The only good thing that came out of it was that I didn't have to pay to see it.

[SinisterPryde]

Just got around to seeing this today.

I enjoyed it and thought it was a good movie. I was even able to overlook most of the flaws and suspend disbelief (it is a super-hero movie after all). There was only one thing that bothered me:

Since this film is considered the sequel to Superman II (loosely, I guess), I would like to know how Lois knows it's Superman's kid without knowing Superman is Clark Kent.

Other than that, I loved it. I still prefer Batman but this movie at least made me smile about Superman again.

[jayce78]

Trust me good mates , . . .


It's better the 2nd go! It a very good film that deserves another look/ That intro & exit still brings a tear to my eye . .

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/6915/srfx003c9an.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[jayce78]

SP - Since this film is considered the sequel to Superman II (loosely, I guess), I would like to know how Lois knows it's Superman's kid without knowing Superman is Clark Kent.


I'm not sure she does / thats uncertain. . .

After he threw the piano at the thug , i'm sure she has some idea now :lol:

Perhaps she's beginning to remember a little , despite Superman mind trick.

[DaForce]

That intro & exit still brings a tear to my eye . .




Well, since Singer "borrowed" both the intro and exit from Superman: The Movie, I guess it should bring a tear everyone's eyes. :smirks:

[DaForce]

Its at 182 million right now according to Box Office Mojo. I am sure that it will break 200 million in the next couple of weeks... Although I don't understand why 200 million is the magic number for whether there will be a sequel. They were talking about making a sequel even before this was released.


The movie cost $260 million to make. Factor in another 30-40 million for marketing and tie-ins, and you have $300 million. You need roughly $600 million to break even (ie. to not piss off your investors who contributed money to the pit in the first place).

By making $200 million, it's a sort of milestone so that investors know that at least they'll probably make their money back, or lose only a little in the process.




.

[Belledame]

Well, since Singer "borrowed" both the intro and exit from Superman: The Movie, I guess it should bring a tear everyone's eyes. :smirks:

Unless you're not still avidly into - or never were - the originals, in which case it might be a whole new feeling.

[DaForce]

Unless you're not still avidly into - or never were - the originals, in which case it might be a whole new feeling.


Nope.

Especially when you steal something shot for shot and then call it an 'homage'.

[ladymurasaki]

Its at 182 million right now according to Box Office Mojo. I am sure that it will break 200 million in the next couple of weeks... Although I don't understand why 200 million is the magic number for whether there will be a sequel. They were talking about making a sequel even before this was released.
I thought they needed 200 million domestically for a sequel -- and that the domestic take is still around 150 million (as though all the foreign money doesn't count).

[SinisterPryde]

I don't trust any of those numbers. What Warner claims it cost to make may be an inflated number due to many false starts, unused contracts, blah, blah, blah. Not to mention, they have ways of padding numbers or slimming them depending on what effect they want to have on the investors.

I hate to point this out, but what does it say when a Brett Ratner film outperforms a Bryan Singer film? Oh the irony...

[jayce78]

Well, since Singer "borrowed" both the intro and exit from Superman: The Movie, I guess it should bring a tear everyone's eyes. :smirks:



Yea , . . .That's the point mate! No need to be a little bitch nippin at the heels. . . .

[jayce78]

SP - I hate to point this out, but what does it say when a Brett Ratner film outperforms a Bryan Singer film?


It says that people's good taste for film is up there ass :lol:

[DaForce]

Yea , . . .That's the point mate! No need to be a little bitch nippin at the heels. . . .


I wouldn't have brought it up if the movie had been good, but since it wasn't...




.

[DaForce]

I don't trust any of those numbers. What Warner claims it cost to make may be an inflated number due to many false starts, unused contracts, blah, blah, blah. Not to mention, they have ways of padding numbers or slimming them depending on what effect they want to have on the investors.

The $260 million quote is the one that I've seen most often, and it does include the false starts, the payouts for the play-or-pay contracts, etc.


I hate to point this out, but what does it say when a Brett Ratner film outperforms a Bryan Singer film? Oh the irony...

That Singer probably spent more time working on X3 so that any director could walk in and take over production, whereas with Stupidmute Returns he had to rush things with parts that were already there from other sources. That, and Singer's indecision to either do an out-an-out remake or a full blown sequel.



.

[sickness]

Well, no matter how much time Singer may have spent on the production of X3 prior to leaving for SR, he obviously made virtually no input on the story as it was one of the most insipid, senseless yarns I've ever seen put to film. Singer clearly had nothing to do with that aspect of the movie.

[SinisterPryde]

I enjoyed both X3 and SR for various reasons, and I found myself groaning at both films for much of the same.

I think the biggest problem with Superman is this: Over on Comicscape Kurt pointed out it was naive to believe that superheroes don't get jealous or sad.

The thing is, this is fantasy escapist entertainment. I really feel that when you see a Superman movie, you should feel like the world is going to be okay (or would be if Superman were here). Part of the character of Superman is that he presents himself as being above all that. a shining becaon of light, if you will. Superman, like Spider-Man should never be portrayed in a dark or cynical light. It's almost a parody of these characters to do that. I think most people, myself included, wanted to see Superman selflesssly save the world from an unimaginable threat and still find some way to win Lois' affections. Instead, we get a somewhat morose tale about how time changes averything and you really can't go home again. Makes me wonder though, why Superman didn't reverse time again to prevent Luthor from getting the crystals to begin with. Singer put everything else in there...

Oh and if there is a sequel (and I hope there is) please don't use the cellophane S-shield... *shudders*

[jayce78]

I wouldn't have brought it up if the movie had been good, but since it wasn't...




.



Please , go watch Aleon Flux & Power rangers ya little childish bastard . .

[DaForce]

Please , go watch Aleon Flux & Power rangers ya little childish bastard . .


Maybe you should go back and re-read the rules and regs of this board before posting stuff like this.




.

[DaForce]

Since we were talking about the magic $200 million mark...


EXCLUSIVE: Super ($200 Million) Man or Else?

Posted Jul 10th 2006 8:13PM by Claude Brodesser-Akner (http://www.tmz.com/bloggers/claude-brodesser-akner)
Filed under: Movies (http://www.tmz.com/category/movies/), The Biz (http://www.tmz.com/category/the-biz/), City Of Industry (http://www.tmz.com/category/city-of-industry/)
From Claude Brodesser-Akner's City of Industry blog (http://tmz.com/bloggers/claude-brodesser-akner/)
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/07/superman_wb_0615_275.jpg (http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1667065)Will Hollywood blockbuster budgets continue to fly "up, up and away?" Not necessarily.

At least, not at Warner Bros. Pictures. After a $225 million "Pirates of the Caribbean" sailed into port, taking the wind out of "Superman Returns'" (http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1667065) $205 million Spandex, Warner Bros. executives are said to be circumspect as to whether the Man of Steel will fly again.

Talent agency insiders with ties to the film tell TMZ that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark domestically. What's more, the studio plans to shave millions - many millions - off any "Superman" sequel's budget. (Amusingly, in the current "Superman Returns," Lois Lane pleads with Lex Luthor, "But millions will die! " It turns out she was right on the money.)

As Variety's box office guru Ben Fritz noted (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946269?categoryid=13&cs=1&query=superman+and+returns&display=superman+returns) last July 4th, "Superman Returns is off to a strong start, albeit not as fast as a speeding bullet. Warner Bros. superhero tent pole grossed a solid $52.5 million on its opening weekend and $74 million over the five-day Fourth of July frame. Since its Wednesday opening, the Bryan Singer-helmed franchise restart has taken in $106 million."
Talent agency insiders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insist that Horn is so concerned about being burned financially by ionospheric "Superman" special effects costs that any sequel's budget would cost far less than Bryan Singer's quarter billion dollar baby: a meager $150 million. That's a whopping $35 million less than its predecessor was green lit at, and roughly $55 million less than "Superman Returns" alleged final negative cost. So much for a getting a raise.

However, no one could blame Horn for being cautious. Despite opening at No. 1 in all its territories, overseas, the Man of Steel is starting to look just a bit rusty. The just-ended World Cup meant that Warner Bros. took a pass on European and Latin American territories, and its second weekend in release overseas, "Superman Returns" dipped (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946490?categoryid=19&cs=1&query=superman+and+returns&display=superman+returns) 55% to take in $9 million from 1,800 prints in 14 markets.

We're bracing to hear how director Bryan Singer will react to this newfound fiscal restraint.

Our guess: Not well.

Says one executive involved in the production and financing of "Superman Returns," "They can try and spin it as 'There are certain economies of scale that come from the making of the first one, blah blah blah. But the reality is, it's harder to play in a smaller sandbox and still push the envelope."

Calls place to Horn were not returned, and a studio spokeswoman declined to comment on the fiscal retrenchment.





.

[Jakester]

Yeah, but you gotta figure that somewhere in the neighborhood of $70mil was chewed up by the 10-year prepoduction costs.

[DaForce]

So that was included in production costs too?

Yup. It was $55 million, and was mentioned here.


That's a whopping $35 million less than its predecessor was green lit at, and roughly $55 million less than "Superman Returns" alleged final negative cost.



Speculation is that it was higher than $55 million, but WB won't cop to anything more than that vague number.



.

[jayce78]

Yea thanks Duckey , I've already read that info.

Pirates was a good/ok film / & lots of fun , but not as good as S.R. I must say . . . .


Like I said it seems peolpe's taste are up there ass theses days.

[southpaw]

it seems peolpe's taste are up there ass theses days.



That CAN'T taste very good.

[tstone]

Superman Returns has just landed in Heidelberg, the on post theater in the area. And I went to see it after a promotional ticket giveaway with my radio show. So far, I've been disappointed with the big money releases.

Da Vinci Code (puffed up, overblown)

X-Men 3 (Character Development? What character development? Three major plots, but no real plot development? And a whole bunch of new characters, starved for real writing? I miss Bryan Singer, but it wasn't just Ratner's fault. A rush release didn't help, either, as did trying to cram two major plots, either could have made a movie on their own, and one being a plot retread from the LAST film.) Suck all around.

Cars (A decent film. But from Pixar, I expect EXCELLENCE. Leave decent to Dreamworks)

And now, Superman Returns. This is the film to attempt to kickstart the Superman film franchise. Did it? Well, it used the first two Christopher Reeve films as the jump off points. And the only problem with that is that Singer got TOO devotional, and a little too cutsey in his nods. But that's really a minor quibble. He brought back the fantasy, sense of wonder and epic quality of the first two Reeve films. He dropped some of the whimsey and goofiness, and added a sense of gravity. With Superman, he added a sense of Kal-el's sense of isolation from the human race. Truly he lived among them, but was not one of them. And the loneliness came through. He has precious few who he is truly close to, and can find solace and share who he is in a personal, intimate way. And to make matters worse, it seems he may no longer have one of those few.

Yet he soldiers on, being a champion for all humanity. Truth and Justice aren't just for Americans, you know? Yes, he grew up as an American, and obviously, he has internalized the finer qualities of our history, heritage and culture. But he isn't just a superhero for America. And, unlike America, he isn't inclined to lose his way and become a modern day wanna be Nero. He never forgets who he is and what he stands for.

He will never allow himself to be compromised, or be a shill for shallow jingoism.

He IS AMERICA, and never loses sight of that, even when it seems that America itself may have, however temporarily.

So those whinging on about Superman losing it's patriotic ties, I say you don't know what you are talking about. Superman remains the ideal representation, not one of these guys angrily threatening to kick the asses of flag burners, getting drunk and looking to beat up on a few towel heads.

He is a representative of truth, justice and the American way, the finest. The American way being a set of ideals that he won't allow himself to compromise, even though those around him seem all to willing to do so.

And yes, this is an all too human Superman. You seem him sad. You see him lonely. You see him hurt. YET, despite all that, he never compromises himself, never turns his back on his principles. I saw some call him a stalker. No, a stalker is a quiet intruder, sometimes no so quiet, into peoples lives. Superman never did that. He surrendered to a human temptation. But once he found out what he needed to know, he was gone. Even if Lois was lost to him forever, he would never hurt her, nor allow her to come to harm. You would never see him in a bar, drunk, going about the "b*tch that done him wrong". He loves her, truly, and will act accordingly.

I like the fact that Richard White isn't an a-hole, either. Not only would it be cliche, but could you really see a strong, independent woman like Lois Lane going for such a clown? No, Richard is smart, kind, loving, decent, AND has a level of heroism himself. He does his best with his human limitations, and that was good to see.

How this will all turn out and how the future of the franchise will come out? I don't know.

But I enjoyed what I saw, very much.

Welcome back, Superman. I for one missed you. Love seeing you on Smallville, but both of us know this is where you belong.

[ladymurasaki]

Loved your post and review and felt the same way about the film. I am trying not to invest so much personal emotion in the future franchise, but it is hard not to, as I love what Singer did with the characters. I guess that for now it is just good to know that others felt the same way about the movie.

[LeiterCIA]

So those whinging on about Superman losing it's patriotic ties, I say you don't know what you are talking about. Superman remains the ideal representation, not one of these guys angrily threatening to kick the asses of flag burners, getting drunk and looking to beat up on a few towel heads.

Sigh... Naturally, this line made me laugh.

So anyone who expresses any dissappointment or objection in the intentional dismissal of 'the American way" must therefore be characterized as "angrily threatening to kick the asses of flag burners, getting drunk and looking to beat up on a few towel heads"?? Lovely.

In terms of patriotism, the phrase "...and the American way" must be one of the most innocuous of any I can think of. Above all, it doesnt have anything to do with party politics. Yet, when anyone would prefer to conserve the original phrase, "Truth, justice, and the American way", leave it to the people who hate to have thier patriotism questioned, to characterized those people as "drunk and looking to beat up on a few towel heads."

Well, you have your version of Superman who doesn't seem to proud of America. Choice is good. Enjoy it.

I'll keep the old version.

Peace.

[tstone]

My version of Superman is just as patriotic as yours, Leiter. It just prefers to walk it, rather than talk it.

Deeds are louder than words, my friend. What, you would call the deeds of the Singer Superman not in line with the American ideals?

Or are you really that hung up on branding?

And yes, I DON'T care for aggressive, in your face "patriotism". Wish I had me some handy quotes from some of the Founding Fathers, because if I'm remembering right, some of them don't care for it, either.

Deeds, not words.

Besides, Leiter, I made no direct reference to your individual posting. It was directed at everyone placing "unpatriotic" charges on the new Superman movie. I find it curious that you are the one who reacted. Specifically to that line.

Curious indeed.

[sickness]

OT completely here but it's a corollary to your post, Trey, so I'll mention it.

One thing I absolutely HATE HATE HATE!!!! is what I like to refer to as Yellow Patriotism (much like Yellow Journalism). Pre-9/11 very few gave a good goddam about patriotism and certainly didn't want to proclaim any love for America. About 9am on 9/11, every Wal-Mart in America was flooded with newly patriotic, slackjawed yokels buying up everything in Red, White & Blue and suddenly Lee Greenwood's song came back into fashion and cars started sporting bumper stickers like "these colors don't run." Now, I'm all for expressing yourself. I'm especially for expressing your patriotism. If the rest of the world can freely and proudly proclaim love for their specific nation why can't -- no, why shouldn't we? But you shouldn't have to have your ass kicked into it by tragedy. Pre-9/11 I was a proud American and had no problem expressing to foreigners what a great place this was (and STILL IS) and why I loved it so much. I'm the same now. Sure, it's not without it's problems and never has been, the same as any other country, and I disagree with much of Bush's foreign policy but that doesn't mean I hate America or what it has "become." It hasn't become anything other than what it always was: a great place to live and have the freedoms to do pretty much whatever you want to do. The curtailing of important freedoms by the Patriot Act is transient. The Republicans will be out of the White House and at least one house of Congress soon enough. If they do manage to regain control in the relatively near future, they will be careful not to repeat the same mistakes and you will see a relaxing and returning of freedoms.

In short, in-your-face patriotism is fleeting and most people tire of it.

[LeiterCIA]

And yes, I DON'T care for aggressive, in your face "patriotism". Wish I had me some handy quotes from some of the Founding Fathers, because if I'm remembering right, some of them don't care for it, either.Was Christopher Reeve's Superman the "aggressive, in your face patriotism" you are talking about? That's the sort I prefered, and would have liked to see again.

Regarding your question, about what Superman himself did that was so un-American?... no one said he did. The criticisms were towards screen-writers who made the choice to dump the last part of the phrase, and said why they did so.... this was clearly stated.

However... I did say in my initial post that the Superman character did a few things that I didnt much like. The whole film had an overall cynical tone which didnt agree with me.

Now that you've seen the movie... check out my review, and I'll be happy to talk about it. But, before you say it... remember, I never said the character did anything un-American or un-patriotic.

Besides, Leiter, I made no direct reference to your individual posting. It was directed at everyone placing "unpatriotic" charges on the new Superman movie. I find it curious that you are the one who reacted. Specifically to that line.

Curious indeed. You addressed your comment to "those whinging on about Superman losing it's patriotic ties"... though you seem to have misundestood my problems with the film, I am one of those people.

[LeiterCIA]

In short, in-your-face patriotism is fleeting and most people tire of it.

Is it really "in your face patriotism" or "Yellow Patriotism" to want to see Superman stand for truth, justice, and the American way??

That is, after all, all we're taking about.

[sickness]

As I said, I was going completely OT and I think my opinion on whether or not Superman should say it is pretty well laid out in the "Swallowing The Kryptonite" thread.

[SinisterPryde]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Oh man. I love this! A so-so summer movie about a super-hero from another planet becomes a debate on patriotism and it's proper expression (if such a thing can be said to exist).

This movie wasn't about Superman's loyalty or ties to this country. I'm not even sure Superman should be seen in that light. It was fine at the time he was created, but given our times, it may be a bit narrow thinking. Superman should be a representative for our whole world and the very best that it can embody. Superman has, since his inception, become a well-known figure through-out the world.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with patriotim. I am proud of my country even when I don't agree with my politicians decisions or actions. That's bound to happen and ther great thing about the US is that I can disagree with those things and still love my country. I just believe that someone like Superman should belong to the world, not just the United States.

Kind of makes you wonder, though, would Jesus be American? :D

[sickness]

I think it's worth noting that Jor-El tells him that he has the potential to help humanity be great. It's also worth noting that this was based on footage cut from Donner's Superman II, a movie which supposedly respects the "truth, justice and the American way" motif allegedly tossed in this one simply because it isn't explicitly stated.

[jayce78]

I remember when he was drowning in the ocean I reconized some new Dialoge for M.B. that I've never heard before about inspiring leadership / etc.


That got me kinda misty eyed . . .

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9863/fdnh0.png (http://imageshack.us)

[jayce78]

It was a poor movie it didn't completely fail though. I don't see the whole romantic angle. Why did Clark/Superman even like this Lois???:dunno:



Because she's freaken HOT!!!!

[jayce78]

The fanboy favorite & greatest Director on earth says:


"Ha,ha!!! I knew you'd fail Singer, you little chump! You think you can outdo me!!!

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6376/sdfgqo8.png (http://imageshack.us)

"Nobody has my way with Story & Dialoge!! Take note" !!!

''Charlie's Angels 3 Baby! Yea" . . . .

[DaForce]

This movie wasn't about Superman's loyalty or ties to this country. I'm not even sure Superman should be seen in that light. It was fine at the time he was created, but given our times, it may be a bit narrow thinking. Superman should be a representative for our whole world and the very best that it can embody. Superman has, since his inception, become a well-known figure through-out the world.


Actually, the slogan "truth, justice, and the American way" was added to the radio broadcast at the end of the 1940's and continued into the tv series of the 1950's (considering that the radio and tv series had the same producers). It never was a part of the comic until the whole "Seduction of the Innocent" trial in the 1950's.

This was where comic books were being looked at by Congress as being subversive and anti-American (this trial also took part during the McCarthy era). It was as a direct result of this trial that the comic book code authority was created and many heroes had quite a bit of tweaking done to their storyline.

Batman and Robin started dating women...

Wonder Woman started dating Trevor...

..and Superman became an uber-patriot that stood for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."


It was a tactic to save the comic book industry, and it eventually became old, outdated, and a bit spoofy in later years.





.

[jayce78]

Wow , . . .

D.F. very nicely done!!! Good to ya , . mate!


http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/2006/vwdiy8.png (http://imageshack.us)

[SinisterPryde]

Thanks DF. I was aware the phrase had been used in the television show in the 50's, but not that it had been created for the radio show of the 40's.

It's rare that a "Summer Block-buster" film starring a guy in tights is the center of so much controversy. It's weird.

I saw this movie a week ago now and something about just keeps nagging at me. It's nothing I can pinpoint. I feel like there was something there and somehow I missed it. (I didn't use the bathroom once for those of you that are literal minded). I enjoyed the film, but there just seems to be something about it that just won't "connect". I wish I could explain better than that.

Oh well.

[tstone]

Ok, you say that Superman has lost his patriotic ties over the presence/absence of a PHRASE?

That's ALL?

As I said, it seems less about actions and more about branding with you, if that's really what you are all wound up about.




Was Christopher Reeve's Superman the "aggressive, in your face patriotism" you are talking about? That's the sort I prefered, and would have liked to see again.

Regarding your question, about what Superman himself did that was so un-American?... no one said he did. The criticisms were towards screen-writers who made the choice to dump the last part of the phrase, and said why they did so.... this was clearly stated.

However... I did say in my initial post that the Superman character did a few things that I didnt much like. The whole film had an overall cynical tone which didnt agree with me.

Now that you've seen the movie... check out my review, and I'll be happy to talk about it. But, before you say it... remember, I never said the character did anything un-American or un-patriotic.

You addressed your comment to "those whinging on about Superman losing it's patriotic ties"... though you seem to have misundestood my problems with the film, I am one of those people.

[LeiterCIA]

I'm not really understanding your point about 'branding vs. action' and 'deeds vs words'. Here's what I think...

A. The movie sucked. Bad writing; lame plot, no action, awkward moments.

B. Superman was a dick. (See above)

C. I like 'Truth, justice, and the American way' and was dissappointed to hear the writers dismiss this as 'outdated jingo-ism.' I'd have preferred it to have been unchanged, or left out altogether.

[tstone]

I'm not really understanding your point about 'branding vs. action' and 'deeds vs words'. Here's what I think...

A. The movie sucked. Bad writing; lame plot, no action, awkward moments.

>>>>You're entitled to your opinion. Not sure how much credence to give to it, considering you raved over X3, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

B. Superman was a dick. (See above)

>>>>Saw it. Both the writer in question and you fail to put any of this in context. Besides, the writer seems to be somewhat tongue in cheek about it. You aren't. But in any case, you both miss the context. One thing to do it for humorous effects. Quite another in "serious" criticism.

C. I like 'Truth, justice, and the American way' and was dissappointed to hear the writers dismiss this as 'outdated jingo-ism.' I'd have preferred it to have been unchanged, or left out altogether.

>>>>Ok. But considering again the context...sorry to hear you so hung up on a catch phrase, that was nicely put into historical perspective by DaForce, btw.

[tstone]

Domestic: $166,017,362 68.3%
+ Foreign: $77,000,000 31.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $243,017,362



Superman just may make the 200m mark. Including foreign sales it already has.

[DaForce]

Domestic: $166,017,362 68.3%
+ Foreign: $77,000,000 31.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $243,017,362



Superman just may make the 200m mark. Including foreign sales it already has.


Yeah, but remember that article I posted a few pages back? They want $200 million domestic.


I really don't see that happening with the lineup of movies coming out on Fri.

Clerks 2
Lady in the Water
Monster House
My Super Ex-Girlfriend


Personally, I don't think Clerks 2 is going to crack the top 3 (or even 5 for that matter) this week, same for Lady, but the other two I think are going to kill at the BO this weekend. Even with POTC2 out.



.

[tstone]

Looking at that lineup, I don't see the end yet for Superman. It could make it. And overseas continue.

Add to that DVD?

Dude, this thing will probably get sequel. And if the X-Men films are anything to go by, even you will probably like it.

[SinisterPryde]

Having seen it again, I am willing to take a few things on faith while others still really nag at me.

The crystal island that everyone keeps claiming is useless: Krypton was an entire planet made of this stuff and they survived and thrived (until the sun exploded), so I can only assume that Luthor had some way of sustaining life.

Superman lifting the island laced with kryptonite: This is one of those things I got to take on faith. His willpower to save the eastern seaboard was what kept him sustained.

Now the things that bugged me were all continuity issues.

Superman's been gone for 5 years. The film never directly states this, but I believed it was almost immediately after Superman II. That being the case, we are missing the part where Richard White was introduced as a possible love interest, who could possibly have fathered Jason at any point in that time frame.

Lois whispers something to Superman (and we're led to believe that she tells Supes that Jason is his son). So she knows that Jason is Superman's son, but doesn't seem to mind that she can't remember how that is possible.

Oh yeah, the other thing. Calrk tells them all he's going on a mission for a few years and says Goodbye but he can't do that as Superman?

Anyway, second viewing and I still really liked this movie. It wasn't great (like it could have been), but good. I'll definately be buying this on DVD.

[Belledame]

The crystal island that everyone keeps claiming is useless: Krypton was an entire planet made of this stuff and they survived and thrived (until the sun exploded), so I can only assume that Luthor had some way of sustaining life.

This is still insupportable. Krypton was another planet, in another solar system in another galaxy. The people there were not human. They evolved in order to be able to live on that craptastic rock of desolate spikes. We don't even know that Kryptonians are carbon-based life forms. Also, they were insanely advanced as a society while humanity - to quote Farscape - can barely escape our own gravity. They could have been importing their food from offworld or whipping it up in replicators a la Star Trek. Heck, maybe those crystals were their food source.

Furthermore, why would any human being want to buy a piece of that crap? Novelty of it being extraterrestrial aside, it's ugly and desolate. There's no grass, no trees. The spikes block out the sun and give a general sense of claustrophobia. And we haven't even addressed whether or not the government would allow that crap to be sold. Obviously the US government would quarantine the hell out of that mess. Right after they shackled Luthor to the special cell in the lowest level of the bowels of Leavenworth with 24 hour lights and video surveillance. They keep putting Lex in prison but he's far too crazy for that. They need to lock Don Quixote down in Arkham.

[SinisterPryde]

As I said, a few things need to be taken on faith. Or total suspension of disbelief.

[ladymurasaki]

Well, it's looking like it is going to get a sequel, which is exciting for me, and the numbers at the box office continue to grow. What a relief.

[LeiterCIA]

I just hope the story is better... I know most of you folks liked this movie so I'll leave it at that. :wink:

But not all. ;)

[DaForce]

Yeah, but remember that article I posted a few pages back? They want $200 million domestic.


I really don't see that happening with the lineup of movies coming out on Fri.

Clerks 2
Lady in the Water
Monster House
My Super Ex-Girlfriend


Personally, I don't think Clerks 2 is going to crack the top 3 (or even 5 for that matter) this week, same for Lady, but the other two I think are going to kill at the BO this weekend. Even with POTC2 out.




Damn I hate being mostly right.



Weekend B.O.

1. Pirates of the... (http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_movies&id=1446) $ 35 Million $ 321.7 Million 2. Monster House $ 23 Million NEW 3. Lady in the Water $ 18.2 Million NEW 4. You, Me and Dupree (http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_movies&id=1448) $ 12.8 Million $ 45.3 Million 5. Little Man $ 11 Million $ 40.6 Million 6. Clerks 2 (http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_movies&id=1430) $ 9.6 Million NEW 7. My Super Ex-Girlfriend $ 8.7 Million NEW 8. Superman Returns (http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_movies&id=1443) $ 7.5 Million $ 178.4 Million 9. The Devil Wears Prada (http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_movies&id=1444) $ 7.4 Million $ 97.6 Million 10. Cars (http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_movies&id=1440) $ 4.9 Million $ 229.4 Million

I screwed up the predictions for Lady and Super Ex, but I was spot on for the other two. Oh well.


Oh, and since Singer is "still in talks" with WB about a possible sequel to Supes (see recent Comic Con articles for details, I suggest joblo.com), my guess is that WB will be announcing a new director for the sequel. Singer has already made it known that he wants the same size (if not bigger) budget for a sequel, but WB execs are looking at putting a spending cap on this disaster.

Sorry, but when a movie that's only been out for three weeks (POTC2) makes roughly double the take of a movie that's been out for four weeks (SR), and the three week movie cost roughly a third to make, you know that there's going to be trouble in getting a sequel greenlit.




Just ask Ang Lee.




And for the record, I liked The Hulk.




.

[tstone]

BUT...it looks like the sequel WILL get greenlit. And it's not analogous to the HULK situation, as the HULK films are getting a restart, like what happened to Batman.

Hell, Supes may reach the 200m mark, too, domestically. I say may. It'll make over 300m with domestic and foreign. And we ain't even counting DVD sales.

So yeah, there WILL be a sequel.

Personally, I would like to see Singer do Logan's Run and have someone else (NOT BRET RATNER) do Supes 2. But if he does, I'm cool. He's already talking the villain for the second (Braniac) and sounds like he want the second film to be the "Wrath of Khan" to the first.

[jayce78]

Da force - And for the record, I liked The Hulk.

Then your a wonderful reasonable / intelegent human being who deserves a f-ing metal!

[tstone]

I'm differing with DaForce on SR, but he's one of the guys who "gets it" with Ang Lee's Hulk movie.

Plus, it pisses Spyder off, that movie. And when you say stuff like "The Incredible Hulk TV show blows".

He gets all crazy.

And it pleases me.

[jayce78]

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2672/tyhbk9.png (http://imageshack.us)

Updated: from today -

Domestic $179,297,795 - 62.0%
Foreign: $110,000,000 - 38.0%

= Worldwide: $289,297,795

[jayce78]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4756/smr80020sd4.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smr80020sd4.jpg)

D+F = $290,245,955

[jayce78]

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6526/sd1070rhr8.th.jpg (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sd1070rhr8.jpg)

$291,118,165

[Jakester]

I finally saw SR. And I mostly enjoyed it. I didn't think the effects sucked, although I recall there being a few sequences...

I just think Singer tried too hard to hit us over the head that this was a sequel to the first two. Still, that doesn't work either -- everyone's too young, or are we supposed to re-imagine those events as happening in the early 90's? I'm prepared to accept this flick as a sequel to II, but don't keep hitting me over the head with that fact, which reminds me that it doesn't really make sense.

And Lex with another land deal...eh.

[jayce78]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh E your sooo:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: witty and:lol: :lol: :lol: Your taste for all thing cinema is:lol:

[jayce78]

Never type when your typsy on Cherry Cola & Currly fries . . . .:lol:



Opinions are fine:wink:

[Jakester]

Kate Bosworth is effing HOT, you MORON!

[jayce78]

What the hell mate? No arguements here!

[jayce78]

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/189/sd257rv2sp0.th.jpg (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sd257rv2sp0.jpg)

$292,006,455

[jayce78]

Then why do you keep posting in a thread about a film you dislike?

[jayce78]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/415/supermanreturnsce2.th.jpg (http://img59.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supermanreturnsce2.jpg)


Superman Returns DVD was NOT officially announced at Comic-Con, however director Bryan Singer was on hand at the Con to offer additional details about the release. It will not be part of the new box set / you'll need to purchase it separately (we expect it to be announced soon, for release around the same time as the set, in DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats).

The DVD release MAY include a gag-reel (which was shown at the Con). It will probally NOT feature an extended edition of the film, but it will include SOME of the deleted scenes from the film separately. It will not include the infamous "Return to Krypton" deleted opening sequence - Singer's saving that for a special theatrical or DVD re-release at a later time!!

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7626/superccmj0.th.jpg (http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=superccmj0.jpg)

Here's some more info that you might not know of .The DVD's producer Robert Meyer Burnett revealed that he's working on a new 3-part, feature-length documentary on the making of the film for the DVD, entitled Requiem for Krypton: Making Superman Returns, which will run some two and a half hours.

It's been shot "fly-on-the-wall" style, a la the excellent The Beginning documentary on the Star Wars: Episode I DVD, so you're right there for every important moment of the production (it's also in anamorphic widescreen from start to finish!). Burnett showed everyone a very cool clip from Requiem for Krypton, specifically authorized and hand-picked to show at our panel by director Bryan Singer, in which we see actor Brandon Routh being prepped by wardrobe and make-up for his official screen test for the film. With Singer supervising, Routh is trying on various possible versions of Clark Kent's glasses and also having his hair cut and styled with Superman's iconic curl.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1369/sd4728cu4.th.jpg (http://img59.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sd4728cu4.jpg)

Singer had called Burnett in to videotape all this, telling him that Routh was THE guy who was going to play the part... except that Routh hadn't yet been told he'd gotten the role (and Singer wanted no one to tell him). It was October 5th, 2004, and it would be two additional weeks before Routh was told. So it's fun to see Routh and the others reacting to one another, with everyone but Routh knowing that he's the guy. It's very cool stuff. The documentary will include Routh's original screen test footage as well, and much, much more. We'll post additional details on the DVD release of Superman Returns as soon as they're available.


http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3152/co2jk3.th.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=co2jk3.jpg)

[ladymurasaki]

Oh, this sounds so cool! I so rarely buy DVDs (bizarre, I know, to post on this board and to admit to having few DVDs), but I can't wait to get my hands on these. Thanks for the info.

[Jakester]

I don't get bored looking at Kate Bosworth and imagining her clothes disappearing.

[jayce78]

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/1592/sd5102ft3.th.jpg (http://img54.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sd5102ft3.jpg)

$295,806,000

[DaForce]

Okay, this just made me laugh...

4:11 WITH BRYAN SINGER
http://www.newsarama.com/movies/Superman/Ryall01.jpgby Daniel Robert Epstein

Bryan Singer received a variety of responses at the San Diego Comic-Con. From fans at panels to journalists asking him questions, everyone seemed to have an opinion they wanted to offer to him personally. I got a chance to talk with Singer for four minutes and 11 seconds.

Newsarama: Superman Returns of course, will make plenty of money. The DVD is going to be monstrous. But it seems it’s not as successful as everyone wanted it to be or as successful as people wanted it to be.

Bryan Singer: Domestically. Internationally it has so far exceeded our expectations. I was personally surprised because it is an American superhero. Compared to my experiences with the X-Men movies I feel disproportioned. The strangest surprise has definitely been the international gross.

NRAMA: What happened in America?

BS: In my personal estimation I felt it was an issue with the marketing. You’ve got a dense summer and you’re resurrecting a character. There’s a different kind of approach you’ve got to take when you bring in something new. Even though he’s Superman and the character is ubiquitous, a Superman movie is a very new thing and it has to be presented in a new way. So a lot of that burden falls on the kind of presentation it is given.

NRAMA: I was really surprised that the plot of Superman Returns mirrored the plot of Donner’s Superman movie so much.

BS: It takes you on the same journey that the original one did but as an adult which was quite intentional. Right down to him sinking in the water. It is not remaking the first one but I wanted to take the audience on the same kind of journey as the first one but with a mature guy who’s going through a dilemma that wasn’t in the first one. It’s in the marketing. I don’t know how to specifically qualify but it has to be understood how to present something that hasn’t been around for a while. The last Superman, Superman IV, in its American release made 15 million dollars. It is still something new and it has to be launched on the flip side of the other movies of its ilk.

NRAMA: After he gave up his powers in Superman II, Lois and Superman slept together. I’m going to assume that that’s when he got her pregnant…

BS: Possibly.

NRAMA: Then he gives her the kiss, which made her forget that they even slept together. Was the pregnancy a mystery for her?

BS: I ignored that part. I just assumed she remembered sleeping with him.



Yeah, Bryan, it was the marketing. The marketing was off for the most recognizable iconic symbol in the world. :lol:


Your sucky story and script had nothing at all to do with it.



:ohwell:

[Kaeos]

So, wait a second Daffy,

Your saying you didn't like the movie???:ohwell:

I gotta go back an bit in this thread again 'cause I totally missed it man.:smirk:

[DaForce]

So, wait a second Daffy,

Your saying you didn't like the movie???:ohwell:

I gotta go back an bit in this thread again 'cause I totally missed it man.:smirk:

Dude, c'mon...Singer's blaming marketing of the movie. Marketing.


You show that 'S' symbol anywhere in the world and it sells itself. No other words are needed. In fact, I think that was their teaser ad campaign if I'm not mistaken.


All I'm saying is that if you can't make an international icon profitable, it definitely ain't about the marketing. Therefore, the fault lies elsewhere.

Frankly, it lies with the lackluster script and plot.


:poke:


(see, that's me poking at the dead script)



.

[jayce78]

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1045/smr71024yh1.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smr71024yh1.jpg)

$318,521,324

[DaForce]

*sigh*

Domestic: $186,921,324 58.7% + Foreign: $131,600,000 41.3% = Worldwide: $318,521,324


Where I'm getting these numbers. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm)



Compare that to a movie that came out ten days after Supes was released, POTC2...


Domestic: $363,838,343 54.7% + Foreign: $301,900,000 45.3% = Worldwide: $665,738,343

Source. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=piratesofthecaribbean2.htm)



If you're going to try to argue with facts, at least try to use the correct facts.




.

[jayce78]

For a movie that you don't like . . .


You and duckey sure as hell are in here a lot!:lol:

[jayce78]

*sigh*




Where I'm getting these numbers. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm)



Compare that to a movie that came out ten days after Supes was released, POTC2...




Source. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=piratesofthecaribbean2.htm)



If you're going to try to argue with facts, at least try to use the correct facts.




.




So does that mean the more money a movie makes the better it is?:wink:


That's Brilliant!!!!:lol:

[jayce78]

POTC2 was a much more entertaining movie to me.... :lol:


Good GOD!!!!

It's all so clear to me now! With your vocabulary skills , you must be a film critic ,thank you for posting!!!!!!!!:lol:

[jayce78]

The End . . . .

[DaForce]

For a movie that you don't like . . .


You and duckey sure as hell are in here a lot!:lol:



Yup, because I actually like the character of Superman.


I don't like Singer's version of Superman.



And apparently neither did a good majority of the world.


As I've said before, Superman is an icon that can sell himself. To make an unsuccessful movie (and by unsuccessful, I mean that it can't even make double the money it cost to produce) featuring Superman, you have to make a fairly crappy movie. In fact, you have to actively try to fail at bringing a good script to the screen.

Singer succeeded at making a crappy Superman movie.





'Nuff said.


.

[jayce78]

You don't like the film, . . .thats fine. I think we get that!:lol:


But was the picture really that bad to go to all this trouble to make this big of a stink about it? No:) in fact it really wasn't a bad picture at all . . .

So please do the board a favor and make an appropiate thread for your ranting, that would be appreciated. . . :lol:

Like the Character of Superman Club:lol: :lol: Or something like that. But the whole Singer screwed up thing is your problem and it's getting pretty tired.:dunno:



Nuff said

[DaForce]

Here's an idea, if it bothers you so much, leave.



As the old saying goes...there's the door, don't let it hit you in the a$$ on your way out.




.

[Belledame]

Just saw a second viewing and still really liked it. Audience clapped at the end. Luthor subplot aside, I really love the unhurried presentation of Clark's place in the world. That whole reconnection with Lois/flying scene was one of the most romantic scenes I have ever seen on film. And it half of it has no dialogue! Brandon Routh may not have had a ton of lines, but he said he a lot with his face. The kind of emoting Keanu Reeves has long been lambasted for being incapable of. Just watching him react to other people's conversations tells us so much about who Clark is.

I can't wait to have the DVD. And rarely buy and never watch videos. ("Alien" Quadrilogy is still in the shrinkwrap, and "Aliens" is my very favorite movie.)

[Belledame]

One curiosity comes to mind: SR the buildings and clothes are styled as late 1940s, post-WWII. The Donner films were styled contemporary for the time - late 1970s. It isn't jarring, but it is a curious choice. The interior of the Daily Planet is vigorously Art Deco(?) while the cars are modern and everyone who isn't involved in the plot or working at the DP (except little Jason) is dressed in modern garb.

[Belledame]

I don't dislike it. It is just confusing why he went for modern and retro in the same film. Kitty's all retro surrounded by a crowd of onlookers in sneakers, hair gel and anoraks snapping cellphones.

[jayce78]

It is a question why he went so art deco 1940's style with a lot of the movie if it was going to be a (loose) sequel to SII ? But that is also one of the elements I like about the film was it's style. . .


As for Kitty , I believe she got her clothes from the old lady that Lex swindled & that passed away at the begging of the film.

[LeiterCIA]

Said it before... I really dont know why they bothered trying to tack this movie on as some sort of sequal to the Reeve movies... You walk away with very little connections and a lot more 'huh?'s.

[jayce78]

So now the whole problem of the movie is the old lady who died in the beginning of the movie??? :wink:



Are you retarded:lol: I'm saying she got all the 1930's & 40's clothes from the old lady who died at the beginning. . .


What is so hard understanding that mate:dunno:

[jayce78]

Said it before... I really dont know why they bothered trying to tack this movie on as some sort of sequal to the Reeve movies... You walk away with very little connections and a lot more 'huh?'s.


I guess the same reason they made a drug movie & called it Miami Vice:lol:

I do get the feeling that Singer has some answers for us in the future films

[LeiterCIA]

I guess the same reason they made a drug movie & called it Miami Vice. Touche'

I do get the feeling that Singer has some answers for us in the future films I have a feeling he wanted it for the John Williams score alone... then painted himself into a corner.

[jayce78]

I feel so ashamed:lol:

[jayce78]

Quote:
I do get the feeling that Singer has some answers for us in the future films

I have a feeling he wanted it for the John Williams score alone... then painted himself into a corner.







I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean CIA?

[jayce78]

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3771/sd639rv2ds8.th.jpg (http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sd639rv2ds8.jpg)

$337,024,000

[LeiterCIA]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean CIA?

I think Singer's primary reason forwanting to call his Superman movie, a sequel to Reeve's series, was to get the rights to use John Williams' score.

[jayce78]

perhaps , . . .


But he doesn't have to do that to get the williams score? Does he?

[jayce78]

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/1310/sd1439rxo5.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sd1439rxo5.jpg)

$337,851,698

[DaForce]

Domestic: $191,351,698 56.6% + Foreign: $146,500,000 43.4% = Worldwide: $337,851,698

[jayce78]

yep:dunno:

[tstone]

So, SR did good.

Might even make the 200m domestic.

Sequel, babies.

[jayce78]

Just what exactly is this and where did you hear it mate?

[jayce78]

Wow . . . .

I'm glad it did well enough for sequel! Sounds good . . .

[jayce78]

That's just the name of the game Big guy . . . .

Loved the Donner bit!

[DarkJedi]

I hope they do make the sequel.

I just watched this movie for the first time two nights ago after buying the dvd.

I'm not sure where all the hateraid is coming from because I see the montages from Donner's version but I don't see an exact copy to copy version of it..There are definite surprises from Superman Returns that I never expected..had no clue about because I stayed out of these threads until now.

I reallly liked SR, loved the depth of what they gave the characters interactions between Superman and Lois and really loved what they did with Luthor's character, especially his theme music as he's beating the shit out of Superman. Wonderful job from Spacey as Luthor. I like this character as more serious and less funny.

Great film. Make more!

[Lavoruis]

My beef with this is ...... as follows
Louis Lane the actress that played her kate Bosworth way too young
her acting a bit stale she should stick with teen age college movies.
I seen better actors on soap opera's
Parker Posey I love her, but not in this.
a rather mindless role she has done way better.
Lex Luthor should been Clancy Brown.
the movie was slow...... nobody had real depth.
and the effects parts were way over.... rated...... for the money thrown into it.

[sickness]

Dude, you are dead on! Clancy Brown would have beein f-ing BRILLIANT as Lex Luthor!

[Jakester]

Spacey was a great Lex, but Brown would've been awesome as well.

The timeline was whacked out from Supes II to SR. I just tried to roll with it

I didn't buy picking up the Kryptonite island. He could maybe pick up parts of it, but it would splinter and fall apart if he tried to pick up the whole thing. But overall, I liked it.

Here's Daffy's Superman Returns DVD review: "Still sucks."

[DaForce]

Here's Daffy's Superman Returns DVD review: "Still sucks."


Yup, you got that right.

I saw it once, and I'll never see it again.

[awakenangel]

:eek: :Tongue: :romy: :romy: nuff said.

[DarkJedi]

I didn't buy picking up the Kryptonite island. He could maybe pick up parts of it, but it would splinter and fall apart if he tried to pick up the whole thing. But overall, I liked it.


Overmatched by all the haters. God bless the internet.

Bah, I liked SR alot. Definitely a good buy and a good addition to the Superman franchise of dvds on my shelf. Nuff said.

[awakenangel]

I done with the putting down of SR. I am unsubscribing this thread now. Have fun discussing this movie.

But it's fun, did it win a rasberry at least?:Tongue: :Laugh: