Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brian W.
I don't get the hate for it, either. I thought it was very well-done. As a fan of the original films, I enjoyed it very much.
I disagree about it being the best Superman film, mainly because "Superman Returns" did not have the great character development of the first two.
Example:
I would describe the personality of Margot Kidder's Lois Lane as spunky, cocky, vulnerable, lonely.
Now I'll describe the personality of Lois in "Superman Returns." She's... Well, she's...
Um... I would say she's... Hmm.
I sincerely cannot think of a single word.
|
There are two schools of thought on this:
1. General moviegoers/fans, people who watch the movies and like the movies as movies. If you like or dislike any of these movies, great.
2. Comic book fans, who want a faithful adaptation of the source material.
I fall into the second group.
In terms of being a faithful comic book adaptation, Superman- The Movie is probably the best of all time, bar none. There is very little in it that doesn't work (the Batman tv series-holdover villains are the only real flaw). Details of Superman's basic story may have changed (like his contact with the holographic Jor-El), but the SPIRIT of the story and the characters (particularly--and most importantly--Superman himself, who looks and acts like he stepped right out of the comics) is pitch-perfect.
Lester's Superman II (and the subsequent films) takes a different route, one that many other filmmakers have taken with comic book "adaptations". Being apparently embarrassed by the inherently juvenile material, they don't take it seriously, and think "comic"= funny. These sorts of films MOCK the basic conceits of the characters and the genre, or disregard every character and thematic idea that the comics have perfected, so much so that we're seeing total strangers who just happen to have the same names as the characters from the comics.
People like Sam Raimi come in and say, "Well, *I* wasn't smart enough to build web-shooters at age 15, so neither is Peter Parker".
People like Bryan Singer come in and say, "Well, Superman has been around for a long time now, and so he needs an illegitimate child in order to grow and change and be relevant", and "I'm gay, so let's make the X-Men movies specifically into a homosexuality metaphor, instead of the general 'outcast' metaphor devised by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby".
So, mechanical web-shooters and bright costumes aren't "realistic", but men who fly, crawl on walls, and burst into flame ARE?!?!
Like Donner said, it's all about verisimilitude. Suspension of disbelief.
What these filmmakers (and many current comic writers) fail to realize is that, although published over a long period of time, these characters should not exhibit TRUE growth and change, merely the illusion of it. Certainly, topical references and such will change over time, but the characters and the themes should remain timeless, so each new generation of kids can relate to them. Superman is an American icon, and he should remain forever young, forever accessible, forever battling for Truth, Justice, and the American Way (not "all that stuff").
When ego-driven creators take over, and write for an increasingly older (and progressively smaller) and more "mature" audience, we end up with a 30-year-old, married Spider-Man, a crazy, psycho-ninja Batman, and "Superman, the deadbeat dad".
Should a comic book adaptation be an exact duplication, word by word, of a comic story? No. But, the characterization, themes, and other basic-but-important ideas from the comics should absolutely be retained. The X-Men wear COSTUMES, not leather bondage suits. Peter Parker let that thief run past him because he was wrapped up in his own ego, NOT because he wanted petty revenge on a wrestling promoter. Batman is not "crazy". Dr. Octopus is NOT a kindly scientist under the control of his evil, sentient tentacles.
That is the nature of the source material, and the filmmakers should respect it.
A perfect comparison of right and wrong is between Donner's Superman and Singer's Superman.
Donner's version of the costume is very, very, comic-accurate, both in design and color. The overall look of the movie is bright and cheery and fun, and doesn't take itself too seriously. It has fun without making fun of the material. Superman himself is charming and "square" at the same time.
Singer's version of the costume is dark and brooding, with all sorts of extraneous and "kewl" details, like "watermarked" mini-s-shields on the bodysuit, the redundant S-shield on the belt buckle, and the small, 3-D s-shield on the chest. The overall look of the movie is gritty and dark, more befitting of a Batman film than a Superman film. The story is gritty and deals with "adult" issues of abandonment and loss. Superman himself broods about how it's "hard to be me", and left earth behind for several years to fulfill his own selfish curiosity about Krypton (something the comic Superman would NEVER do, unless such a long trip somehow benefitted the earth).
The differences are like night and day.
