Superman Returns

I haven't heard this from anybody other than fanboys. In terms of movie fans, Jason is about 5 years old, Superman has been gone for 5 years, Lois says it's his kid, case closed. Most movie-goers are not particularly aware of the specific events of S2, and the "he's can't have children, he's an alien" issue has been answered. He does have a child, and explaining that it happened in S2 makes no difference. He was an alien back then as well, unless you want to delve into much deeper exposition about how he wasn't, as he was powerless when he had sex with Lois, and then it just gets real messy.

There's no way such a minor point could could affect revenue. It's a complete non-issue.
 
Her being young is a complete non-issue to me, and I disagree about her acting chops. I was very concerned when I heard names like Portman and Claire Danes being tossed around, and the second I heard Bosworth was in, it just seemed right, and I wasn't at all disappointed with her performance in the movie. Much of the criticism seems to be born out of the fact that this is a very different Lois than Margot Kidder's version, both on the page and screen, but I really don't think Bosworth can be criticised for that.

Couldn't agree more. There were rumors that they were struggling to meet the release dats, so that may have caused some problems.

How rude. I think I may swoon with outrage.

I don't mind an opinion, but the "soap opera" accusation is so banal and commonplace, without substance or context, it's just a crutch to support weak anal-ysis.

When you take offense with a light hearted remark and get snotty about it, you get a few snotty remarks in return. Don't be a baby about it, it's nothing personal. Think of it as a rudimentary lesson in life.

While my percentages were slightly different, my first impression was quite negative too, but repeat viewings have almost completely redeemed the movie for me.

Glum and downbeat as the movie was, I certainly wouldn't have wanted Michael Bay's take on everyone's favorite Kryptonian, and like I said, to me at least, the movie has become an aquired taste. It's still full of flaws and plotholes, and it has little or none of the magical qualities of the first movie, and yet there's still something wildly impressive and engaging about it. At the moment, my main criticism of the movie is the last 20 minutes or so. Never mind the fact that it breaks what little momentum they had just built up, and which should have been an exciting climax, Superman in the hospital is just wrong on so many different levels. It felt like a completely different movie, and at one point, I half expected Clint Eastwood to show up with a bag full of morphine and pull the plug on poor Superman.

Not only did it seem to confuse people, but even worse, it seemed to distract Singer from making his own movie. Given how much the movie lifts almost directly from Donner's original, it's sometimes hard to tell if it's just homage, remake, or outright plagiarism.

Much as I dislike the Spider-Man movies, their action scenes, particularly in the second movie, were generally far superior to Superman's in terms of staging and execution. Only the plane rescue really stanRAB out in Superman Returns. The various Metropolis super-feats and rescues were very uninspired, I thought. There was no connetion between the hero and the people he saved, the way there was in Donner's original. It was more like a checklist of super powers, and far too much of it was done in long-shot with a tiny CGI Superman, making it look like a video game intro, rather than a $200 million+ blockbuster.

I agree. This movie is completely different in tone to the original, which is less of a problem, if you don't expect something else going in, but given that Singer had taken his cue from the 1978 movie and cast a Reeve clone in the lead role, people were more or less expecting a continuation of that, which Superman Returns really isn't, and this kind of heavy, character based story might not be the best fit for a Superman movie, certainly not one you have to sell to a mainstream audience.
 
Heh, much as I like Superman, two showings is probably the maximum recommended daily dosage.

It's looking more and more likely that there will be an extended version. There's certainly plenty of material they can put in. I think Singer was mostly against an extended version before he had to cut 20-30 minutes, or however much it added up to.

I was just thinking, it's actually been a pretty lean movie year so far.

Yes, I can't think of anything better this year, but given how heavily it borrows from Williams, I wonder if it will get a nomination. It would be a shame if it didn't.

There you go :)

The hospital scene can never be redeemed in my eyes, and although Superman's speech to Jason was cheesy, I appreciate it's context in the movie and the overall plot, as well as the subtlly in the delivery of the second "I'm always around" compared to the first one. Those aspects of the movie were quite brilliant by superhero standarRAB, and Clark's return was very nicely done, and it was the first time I have ever liked any incarnation of Jimmy Olsen.

I have to disagree. The Jesu-fication of the movie was a little heavy handed. Not only was Superman referred to as a "savior", but there were so many other similarities, not just the physical ones, like the crucification shot, he also died for humanity and rose again after a few days, he listened to people's "prayers" from a heavenly position outside Earth's atmosphere, the stabbing scene was like right out of The Passion of the Christ, and the movie enRAB with Superman's own version of the father in the son, son in the father idea. The original S1 has shades of those same themes, but was far less pretentious about it than SR. Reeve's Superman was much more a man of the people than the almost God-like, distant Superman in SR.

I can't quite go along with him topping Reeve. Not yet anyway. He certainly has the potential, but we need to see a little more range from him. So far we've mostly had moping, introspective Superman, which he did well, but this movie and Routh's performance will not be remembered with the fondness of Reeve's Superman.

That's just because it's a bad movie, but it's a different comparison against Superman's faillings, as regardless of how more hardcore Star Wars fans were offended by Phantom Menace, it wasn't actually hurt by it any more than Pirates 2 was hurt by horrible reviews... and that's not really hurt at all.

But that probably really has more to do with you having aged 28 years since then. Could anything today recapture the magic of your late 40s, or however old you were in 1978? :)

It's not that they don't want your money, far from it, but it's been well documented that Titanic made the vast majority of its money from teenage girls who watched the movie over and over again, and let's be honest, movies like Star Wars, LOTR, Spider-Man, etc, etc, are primarily aimed at a young audience. It's true that this wasn't always the case, but the target demographics have shifted over the last decade or so, which is why there are so many more young "stars" on TV and in movies. If Gone with the Wind was made today, it would star Ashton Kutcher and LinRABay Lohan.
 
I know I totally feel like you(but cant hide it so good!)
And to prove it......................
OH CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!

Superman has been battling with a new foe apparently in the form of The Devil Wears Prada. Ive just found out that on a few days last week in the US DWP was either matching or OUTPERFORMING Superman Returns proving to me that Americans on the large part are brain dead morons! :)

I think right now a lot of Superman fans would KILL for that Box Office(I know I would!)

Though I havent seen King Kong I know what you mean. In the little previews of Superman Returns that I have seen it has that retro look and feel to it and has a shared bond with King Kong.

Thats a matter of touch and go really at the moment BUT I have found out that it will probably play for the last time in US cinemas in September/October so there is a while to go yet. Is it just me or does the worldwide takings seem to be particularly bad? At final gross films seem to earn a bit more from worldwide sales than domestic and this is certainly not the case, not even anywhere near!

Oh god love them its terrible feeling this way I feel an emotional wreck right now! At least you are lucky! All my frienRAB seem to think me crazy for liking Superman as much as I do citing "its only a movie" hence why it took me this long for my next viewing!

On the subject of viewing how many times have you watched it? Have you seen it in the cinema or have you been a bad little boy? Personally I wont buy a copy because WB desperately need my cash and I know for sure that the ONLY way Ill ever see POTC2 will be by *cough*alternate*cough* methoRAB!

Cheers for the tips on the websites a few new ones that I havent yet seen so I gotta check them out!!!
 
I saw this tonight and I quite enjoyed it. I am not tremendously familiar with the comics; I have seen the first four Superman films, The New Adventures of Superman (which although I loved it at the time, I can see was the low point of Superman on screen...) and Smallville and I thought this, like Smallville, was a reinvention of Superman, which had to happen sooner or later.

Lois Lane is not as spunky as the old Lois, this much is true, but she is a Lois Lane for the 21st century, being a working mother. Kate Bosworth's acting leaves a little bit to be desired though...

I would have liked a few more funny moments, but overall, I was entertained by this. Luthor's plot was kind of stupid but at least less stupid than that film where he manages to control the weather using a weather satellite - which one is that, III?
 
I can't speak for the forums, but SH's coverage of SR has been very extensive and supportive, but the reality is that most people just don't like the movie, and this will be reflected in most forums outside the safe havens like BT.

Wow. That's more than I post in a year around here :)

There's never been a good Superman game. I very much doubt this will be the first one.

As far as I know, WB still don't have a definite word on the multi-disc set(s). There's still contradicting information floating around suggesting there might be a huge box set with all the various Chris Reeve releases, Supergirl, Fleischer shorts, and SR. Either way, most people seem to think SR will be released on the 28th, either as a stand-alone or part of the mega-uber-super set... or both.
 
"We should have had a bit more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

Well that's a worry isn't it. Lack of action was not this films real problem, the fact that they got the tone of a Superman film completely wrong was.

More of the same in 2009, can't wait.
 
Not being a comic reader, or an avide disciple of the previous films, I really enjoyed it. Yes, you could driev and HGV through the plot holes but this is Superman! He isn't real! You suspend belief the minute you buy the ticket.

I agree with the posters who said lois was too yong (and her child looked about 8 to me) but it was fun!

This thread reminRAB me of the Cult forum and all the nit picking over Doctor Who. To me this type of cinema is "switch off brain, engage disbelief circuits and enjoy"
 
It's a label DC use to create stories for their characters set in different continuity, even different time perioRAB. It will typically be something like "what if Superman's ship had landed in Russia instead of Kansas?", but sometimes it's more subtle, like "What if Superman went away for 5 years and came back to find that fearless reporter Lois Lane was a mommy?"

It seems like a lot of critics just took the movie for what it was, and like I said earlier, if you don't expect it to be a Donner style sequel, or a traditional "leave your brain at the door "summer blockbuster, there's much to admire about it.
 
Seriusly Im ginna reccommend you for a senior executive position at WB you certainly know your stuff!



Well Im still not really positive I agee but I can see your point! Having not read the comics etc Im sure hes a flawed person but Id like to know if he has ever done what his son has and killed somebody? Thatd be cool!



Yeah I cant really say because I wasnt familiar with the effects of the time but I didnt think the effects looked horrible, certainly not great, fliying the main example but the constant shockwave like effect around Nuclear Man was kinda cool! Oh yes I agree the kid was sssoooooooooo annoying another Jason (I hate kiRAB in TV/Movies!) but due to Superman IVs flaws there isnt much screen time to him he writes the letter, meets Superman and is swiftly forgotten about!



Yeah I agree but I heard some interesting stuff for Superman IV. Wasnt there really good scenes of Nuclear Man doing something or being really villainy or something (sorry my memory is a bit vague!) that were cut as soon as the Producer saw them and he destroyed them and nobody ever saw them? That might have been cool!
 
It's pretty accessible. I wouldn't say it's particularly confusing in terms of the plot, but I think Superman's charecterisation is quite "heavy" for non-Superman fans. My impression is that the movie almost demanRAB a certain appreciation for the characters and their history, for you to really be able to enjoy it on the level it's intended, but as long as you know the broad strokes, you should be alright. Still, you better load up on coffee before you go, just in case.

Yes, Byrne did a good job with him and trying to address some of his abilities in a more realistic way, but the vibration thing was soon forgotten.

Speaking of Byrne, he got into quite a few fights with people who enjoyed SR on his forum, and has now banned all mention of the movie. At one point he was ranting and raving about how he had wasted 20 years of his life writing comics for people who "just don't get it". Seriously. :)

Superman The Animated Series writer Paul Dini wasn't too keen on the movie either, and slated it a little bit on his blog.

Did he have a cape pocket in the Byrne era? I seem to remember that was just a Silver Age thing?

The thing is, those little details are more or less irrelevant as long as the stories are good. One of my favorite Superman stories is "Superman For All Seasons", and he's hardly too bright in that one. I kind of like the "romanticised" version of Superman, where the disguise is just the glasses - no blurring required - and where he rips through countless shirts changing to Superman.
 
Yes, that was in Superman III but it wasn't Lex Luthor who engineered the whole thing. In fact, Lex wasn't in Superman III (in which the villains were Gus Gorman and Ross Webster).
 
I don't think the "more action" comment was meant as in-depth analysis or the sole reason why the movie failed, but it was certainly a contributing factor.

As for the tone of the movie, I wouldn't expect a huge difference for the sequel, they just need a better balance, but at the end of the day, this cast, this director, and this vision of Superman will never be a challenge to the Spider-Man movies in terms of mainstream success.
 
He just neeRAB to be in the vicinity of Kryptonite in order for it to affect him, and here was a whole island!

Yes, but presumably he initially dug deep enough, so there was plenty of ground between him and the kryptonite. We didn't see kryptonite near him when he started lifting it, but it clearly grew through the bottom of the island when he reached space, and then he passed out. Remember, the island was still growing, and he had to stop it before it expanded out of control and obliterated most of the US.

With the plane: He could have put the fire out with his superbreath. He should have known that holding the wing was 'not' a good idea!

Perhaps, but being one of the highlights of the movie, I don't want to nitpick this scene too badly, and I suspect super-blowing on an object like a plane in mid-air might be equally disaterous as accidentally ripping off a wing... and much less spectacular :)

AND it soooo reminded me of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where he's on a plane and a gremlin puts it into a tail spin and they fall for like 2 minutes, and Bugs applies the breaks just inches from the ground! :eek:
But I digress... :D

Heh, good call. It was a cool sequence until he dumped the plane in the baseball field. That just looked rubbish.

He neeRAB a role model... oh wait a minute, he IS the role model!
No, he's the saviour. Keep up :)

Yes, but that still doesn't make it right. It's just an unfortunate trend. I'm so bored with the muscles-on-muscles look, and even though I can accept its use in comics, certain elements don't translate well to live-action. Could you imagine a live-action Ed McGuiness Superman? :)

You're not wrong, sir. I took a slightly lazier approach this time. Hope it's not too confusing.
 
Saw the film last night and had to be woken up twice by my Wife within the first 45mins, admittedly it was a 10pm showing but still, then it got slightly more interesting but didnt stop my head dropping now and again. Lois Lane's actress awful, Brandon Routh's Superman good, Kevin Spacey Hammy SuperVillain good but the Film oh so very dull.
 
This just in from Bryan Singer on the plot for "Superman Returns Again" ;

Superman must face the evil Kryptonian General Zod, would be conquerer of Krypton and now Planet Earth. Can Superman stop somebody with the same powers as him and how will he face the trauma of meeting again the man who had an affair with his Kryptonian mother and was the reason for his parents break up.

Earth bound challenges also face the man of steel as he engages in a courtroom battle for custody of his son. Can he withstand the absurd challenges of the prosecution regarding his "relationship" with Gothams Batman or must he, for once and for all, search deep within himself to seek out his true feelings for the Dark Knight.

Says Singer; " This one will have it all, a combination of Kramer V Kramer, Brokeback Mountain and of course Superman 2. We've a brilliant number of set pieces including the murder of a group of astronauts and a climactic battle in Metropolis. Of course Lex Luther will be back but this time he is after property in Australia."
 
Thank you somebody talking sense for once as I was about to post the same coment. That it would in no way affect the box office of the sequel to Superman Returns!
I am still comfused by Tencaious G coment about Singer dropping Zod from Superman Returns as far as I was aware there was never a plan to have him in Superman Returns!
 
She was a bit on the young side, but there's no age requirement to win a pulitzer. If we accept that she wrote a stirring article that struck an emotional chord with a world equally affected by Superman's departure, it's not too much of a stretch to think that might have been pulitzer worthy. Heck, Marissa Tomei won an Oscar, why can't Lois win a pulitizer? They're virtually the same, just ask Perry.

At best, only in very broad terms. The superkiss certainly never happened.

If you mean when he nearly drowned, remember, he had a piece of kryptonite embedded in his back, after Lex stabbed him. He was on his feet as soon as Lois pulled it out.

If you mean after falling to Earth, he was in a weakened state when he hit the ground and literally flatlined in the hospital. You don't just shake that off in a matter of minutes.

It was about removing what was essentially a geographical tumor, which would have obliterated most of the US had it not been dealt with. What else was he going to do with it?

Sea plane. The island was just off the coast. It didn't even take Lex's boat long to get there, and the sea plane would have been a lot faster than that.

No, the ending with Superman and Jason perfectly mirrored Jor-El's speech at the beginning, not only bringing the movie full circle, but also indicating that Superman had finally come to terms with who he was and where he belongs, which was the whole point of the movie. "The son becomes the father, the father becomes the son". Cheesy, sure, but that was the ending, and while the movie failed on a number of levels to live up to its summer blockbuster billing, it did excel at many of the little details like that.

True. I remember the time Phil Mitchell saved Peggy from a 747 about to crash into Albert Square. ;)
 
Well Im not picking a fight or anything but I work in a pretty large work place with 100-125 workers to which I get on with very well. When I said it to them about this I didnt hear one "oh of course" response it was all "Thats a bit stupid how can that happen?" I just dont see the point in being needlessly secretive of the kiRAB origins if indeed it happened in S2 tell us that, its easier to believe something when you are produced with evidence rather than EXPECTED to believe it. An essay isnt required just a few bits to tell us when conception happened.
 
Back
Top