Superman Returns (2006) (1 Viewer)

[Ray H]

I think it was mentioned in the old thread that someone wrote out a massive history of the film in some thread at the IMDB boards. I tried looking through the forum, but it's a mess over there. Anyone have a link?

 

[Rob Gardiner]

OK, perhaps that is a poor example. What I was trying to illustrate is that we KNOW Superman always does the right thing. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how he reacts to a situation where it isn't obvious to him what the "right thing" is? Even if the audience knows what he will ultimately choose (because this story just reinforces the theme that the world does need Superman) Superman himself doesn't know, and he faces a struggle trying to find the answer.

I would find this type of situation more interesting than a crystalline island that threatens North America. Superman doesn't face an interesting choice in this situation -- he simply sees the obstacle and overcomes it.

If the man is invulnerable to every substance except Kryptonite, don't throw Kryptonite at him -- give him an interesting dilemma to resolve or a difficult choice to ponder. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Bryan Ri]

Agree to disagree Paul

I still haven't posted a review for the movie yet. I'll do that tomorrow, and maybe you can get a better idea of where I'm coming from.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Ray,

Wikipedia has an extensive article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Lives

 

[JonZ]

"Luthor's Plan was put to rest with pretty much a whimper"

I absolutely loved when he lifted that thing out of the water and the Williams score kicked in. Now thats the display of power Ive been waiting for.

(We do see superman briefly lift the fault in original, but it such a quick shot)


" Kevin Spacey was fine as Luthor offering a balance between Hackman's Portrayal"

IMHO his best scene was when he was holding the Kyrptonite tube when he asked whos Jasons father was.

 

[yannis]

I haven't seen the movie yet and I'm really exciting watching kevin Spacey playing that villain role.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

john, thanks for the kind words. I'll be seeing it again, probably today. I'll keep a bottle around. Never know when someone wants to hit the nation's capital to complain about their elected officials

Chris, I wouldn't care too much if Singer ignored the earlier films or retold the origin. Superman existed for 40 years before Donner's film, and almost 30 years since. The film might have reached the biggest audience, but it wasn't the best version of the big S by any stretch. Numerous comic (or cartoon) writers did it better. It's OK to let Donner's film be Donner's film, and to let it go.

I think Rob's point is a good one. You could make a whole film without Kryptonite. Again, what drives Superman are his choices. Have him make some hard ones. The actual methodology isn't that important to me.

 

[Phil Florian]

re: lifting of Kryton Isle. I thought it was fairly clear that he was well below the crystal island when he first lifted it. Also, he wasn't immediately effected by the veins of kryptonite when he landed, either. He walked around a while. But anyway, he was lifting well beneath the island (we see him plow into the sea floor first) and as he was lifting it, hunks of earth were falling off of it that eventually exposed the island, as well as the crystals were continuing to grow down through the bottom. It finally reaches him at the last possible moment when he thrusts it into space (as we see the crystals finally growing close enough to effect him). Maybe not completely clear to some but it made sense to me and it was done all visually to me (better than Supes later explaining it).

 

[Richard Kim]

Could it also be because Parker Posey threw the rest of the crystals into the ocean, thus "diluting" the power of the kryptonite?

 

[Doug Schiller]

My worthless 2 cents:

I love the Donner movie but I didn't want to see a Superman based on that.
I wanted Singer to hit the reset button and give us a current generation Superman.
I enjoyed the movie but it felt like a monumental waste to wait this long for a Superman movie only to get the same tired Lex Luthor/Lois Lane stuff that we have been watching for how many years?
Give me a worthy villian, at least Burton was going to use Doomsday.
Instead we get another Miss Tessmaucher with dog to provide comic relief to Luthor.
Lois Lane was horribly miscast. She looks like a waif in a bad wig.
She also didn't even know Clark was alive, I'm not sure that is comic "canon"
Olsen had nothing to do except take a picture of a fax transmission.

Donner's Superman looked like he was flying around Metropolis, Singer's looked like a set.

What I did like... Routh, Masden, Spacey, and most of the CGI.

 

[JonZ]

"Kevin Spacey was fine as Luthor offering a balance between Hackman's Portrayal"

Actually Dave said that not me.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

If somebody said this before earlier in the thread (I apolozie, will read later) all credit to them, but here's my thought: the best idea for Superman I ever saw was an SNL skit with the Rock.

 

[Bryan Ri]

Looks like the estimate is $110 mil in seven days. Not bad, but I'm sure behind closed doors, expectations were higher.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2106&p=.htm

 

[Chris Atkins]

Chuck:

I wouldn't enjoy another 2 hours of Superman's origin when we already have the Donner film. One is surplus. The only reason you retell an origin is if the first time wasn't successful. Sure, there has been better Superman writing in other mediums, but Donner's origin tale is a cinema classic.

Sequels to classic movies are tough to pull off. We've seen two different directors (Lucas, Singer) take two different approaches (Lucas: new direction--with some homages of course; Singer: sticking to the original formula--with some new elements) and both have been criticized here.

 

[Haggai]

I haven't gone through this thread yet, but surely someone has brought up the Kevin Smith theory about Lois bearing the Super-kid being impossible, since his super sperm would tear her insides apart. Was that in Clerks? I don't quite remember.

She also must have gotten hot and heavy with Richard awfully quickly on the rebound, in order to have assumed that it was really his kid!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't think the takes were criticized...I think it was their executions. A better origin could be done today. I believe that. I've worked it over in my head And I could visually do it in 5-10 minutes. Again, the Donner film is a classic. But it's not the alpha or the omega of Superman.

Frankly, why make a sequel to S:TM? The origin is SO WELL KNOWN, they could just make a Superman movie without bothering with it. Without using the same Luthor plans, etc.

As for the only reason retelling an origin. I vehemently disagree. If that origin can illuminate the story you are telling now (and it really could have here), then you do retell it...at least the part of it that applies. I've seen numerous comic writers use the nuances of an origin to make the themes of their story significantly more meaningful.

Off to the movies,
Chuck

 

[Chris Atkins]

Chuck:

I think quite a few here criticized both just for their approach, even apart from execution. I questioned some of the execution in SR in my review, but I stand firm in support of the approach.

I think a new tale (even ignoring the origin altogether) MIGHT have worked. But that's exactly what we'll get in the next movie.

Your last point is well taken, but I'm not sure how such an approach helps SR.

 

[DavidPla]

I agree completely. Another retelling of the origin would be a complete waste of time. I don't think that would have changed its Box Office opening weekend whatsoever. ANY Superman movie would've probably opened to the same amount just because of how diluted Superman has become in the last 20 years with four movies and three live action TV shows. I bet "Smallville" hurt it a bit... they should've taken the show off the air a year or two before the movie hit.

 

[Richard Kim]

It was in Mallrats, actually.

 

[Haggai]

Ah, Mallrats, OK. Thanks!