Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread - Page 5

post #121 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:27pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Regarding his savior quote, he was making a solid point. Earth needs a savior, but that savior is NOT Superman. Superman represents what people can be: giving, concerned, involved. More than anybody, he views his powers as belonging to the world. As if he is simply an avatar of goodwill making a difference. This is why the eavesdropping scene rubbed me the wrong way. Of course he considers it. I can even see him dropping in for a look. But he stayed to listen to an entire conversation, which might make sense if he regretted it later (it's been five years, I understand his curiosity). It's a selfish use of his powers, something he is not prone to (flying with Lois aside). That was the only time in the film he rubbed me the wrong way. The remainder of the depictions were marvelous.

One scene unmentioned so far is when he "saves"/saves Kitty in the car. The crowd's reaction was perfect. Of course they gathered in awe.

Since I've been so negative:
- The opening dialogue by Brando, with the theme and the visual of Krypton, followed by the supernova is the most gorgeous and amazing opening ever. Words can't describe it. Perfect return to Superman.

- The actual credits were also wonderful.

- Clark's scene with his mother finding him and cradling him (La Pieta) was also awesome.

- The entire plane sequence (even with invulnerable Lois and the strongest connecting struts of all time ) was gold. One of the best comic book sequences ever.

- The kid was good, and well-used. Richard's scenes were all gold as well.

- The Superman/Lois reunion through Clark's open mouth (and full) was also excellent.

- Lois running into Lex was quite good.

- Superman saving Metropolis over rushing to Lois is the essence of who he is. Great sequence as well, showing his brain working with his muscles/powers.

- Oh goodness, the music. Still probably the best theme in film history.

There really is a lot to like. I have stated that in almost every post.
Reply
post #122 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:34pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
I now see your problem Chuck. It's old school Superman/Clark vs. new school. The new school (and, obviously Singer's school from his quote) is a la KILL BILL - Clark is a disguise. An symbol of Superman trying to put on foibles to fit in. But, he is not really Superman.

I don't have a problem with this interpretation. In fact, I prefer it. It's much more DKR and KINGDOM COME Superman - and, I like those interpretations.

Quentin,
You and I must have read vastly different Kingdom Come's. The entire thematic point of Kingdom Come is that the MAN in SUPERMAN is just as important as the SUPER. It starts with him telling Batman to NOT call him CLARK. He's detached from humanity. It's only when he realizes that his humanity is what defines him, not his powers, that he is able to really be Superman again. Geez, the thing even ends with Diana giving Clark his glasses to put back on. The whole thematic arc (brilliant, I might add) is that Superman is part of humanity, not above it, not alone. I agree that DKR takes that view...it also paints him as a tool of the machine. Not very valid (though interesting). But there are numerous passages in Kingdom Come that refute your interpretation...give it a look.

And as I mentioned in the Kill Bill thread, of course an elitist sociopathic killer would take that view of Superman. That said more about Bill than it does Superman. Not saying you are any of those things, but Superman does NOT see people the way Bill does.

As for new school, having just finished the Up, Up, and Away storyline (written by Busiek, who REALLY gets the character), I think you are mistaken. Superman is very much Clark. His job helps define him, and he is Superman with and WITHOUT the powers.
Reply
post #123 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:40pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Some genius predicted in the other thread that Chuck would be the first to give this one a 10 and call it the best movie evaaaaaaaaaaaaar, prompting the rest of us mindless HTF drones to fall over ourselves with superlatives as well.

--
H
Reply
post #124 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:45pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
It's old school Superman/Clark vs. new school. The new school (and, obviously Singer's school from his quote) is a la KILL BILL - Clark is a disguise. An symbol of Superman trying to put on foibles to fit in. But, he is not really Superman.

Not to make things confusing, but technically Singer's Superman is old school - it is after all based on an interpretation of the character that's from the late 70s. The speech in Kill Bill is, IIRC, adapted from an old Jules Pfeiffer book. The new school (i.e., post-1986) is that Superman is the mask and Clark is the "true" identity. Or at least that's how it was a couple of years ago. Who knows now
Reply
post #125 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:51pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by todd s
I just can't get past the whole kid storyline. And its not entirely because it screws too much with comic canon....although, that is the big reason. Its that every sequel now will have to deal not only with the Lois-Supes-Richard triangle...But, Supes kid who may have all or some of his powers.
I agree, now we will need to deal with this in all future Superman movies until they do a complete restart in say 2025.

They could always turn Superkid into a pissed off at his Dad villain maybe teaming with Lex or go with a Superboy type spin off.
Reply
post #126 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:52pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I meant the beginning of Kingdom Come, Chuck!

Yes, you are right...he has to re-learn and re-embrace his humanity in that (greatest of all) comic story.

I think that is what Singer wants to do. Superman has to re-embrace humanity. I think he does AT THE END of this film. We should see more of Clark in the next film.
Reply
post #127 of 1500
6/29/06 at 12:53pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Q about TAS: I've been hearing a lot of praises lately... is it really that good?

I used to watch it here and there on Sat morning in the late 90s, especially enjoyed the Batman/Superman hour long special (or was it 90 minutes?). But... how much would an adult who lives for complex story lines and themes enjoy this thing? Eh, I enjoy the occasional light fluff, but for anything to sustain my attention, it needs to have some depth and I just don't see a Sat morning cartoon providing that. But all the praise...

?

--
H
Reply
post #128 of 1500
6/29/06 at 1:08pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
First nitpick...can we please have a scene that at least attempts to explain how no one notices Clark has been gone the same amount of time Supes is gone? It's just too dang obvious a connection.

Didn't we get this scene? Lois' boyfriend compared the height and weight of Clark and Superman before dismissing the connection.
Reply
post #129 of 1500
6/29/06 at 1:20pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Ok, I saw the highly anticipated "Superman Returns" today. I think I set myself up for a disappointment as my expectations were high.

I love the first "Superman" movie and even as I got older, the wonders presented in that film never eroded, became cheesy, etc. It was classic storytelling of one of America's most enduring characters, an icon, a myth. Christopher Reeve brought Superman to life more than any other before him (and after him I believe.) Like any film, it has it's faults but it has endured because it's strength lied in our belief that, in a generic sense, a man could fly but it was more than that really. It was our desire, our need to see someone so true, so virtuous, so heroic be there for us when we needed him. When man, woman or child looked at Reeve, with his charming smile, sparkle in his eye, he fit that mold perfectly. Think of it the same way most humans consider aliens and UFOs look, it's an almost uniform presentation in our collective mind's eye. So it is with our universal ideal of a superhero, it is Superman and Reeve was that image we'd describe to a sketch artist. It's damn hard to follow that and I think Brandon Routh will find that out.

Now, you're probably thinking I hated "Superman Returns" by now. Well, I don't. It's a good film. The special effects are top notch, the direction is even handed and most of all, it's incredibly respectful of the original films. The opening credits mirror those of the original right down to the "whoosh" sound effects when the names fly across the screen. Lines of dialogue from the original are re-used. Hell even Marlon Brando is back from the dead (though not as spectacularly as I had hoped. You barely see him, or more accurately, his head.) The movie is dedicated to Christopher and Dana Reeve.

"Superman Returns" is essentially a kinda-sorta sequel to the first two films and therein lies the problem. Bryan Singer handcuffed himself. He's tied this film so closely to those films that he limited himself to what he could do. It's one thing to pay tribute to your favorites, it's another to try and fill it's shoes. Singer should have done what Christopher Nolan did with "Batman," start from scratch. Nolan stayed close to what made the character so great, Singer tried following the same formula of the "Superman" film franchise.

It seemed that every other actor in "Superman Returns" got to play their character their own way but Brandon Routh played Superman/Clark Kent just as Reeve would have done. That was a mistake. Sure, Routh did a great imitation but I don't want to see a Reeve impersonation. I wanted Superman from a fresh perspective. You cannot top Reeve, you cannot replace him and mimicking his performance will only remind those that he is no longer with us. Routh seems like he has decent acting chops and I wish we could have seen his own unique take on the character.

A lot was said of this "new" Lex Luthor, played by Kevin Spacey and how much "darker" his take on the role is as opposed to Gene Hackman's in the original films. Frankly, I was hard pressed to take note of any major changes. Many of Luthor's scenes were humerous, his lackeys were walking jokes (though I concede Parker Posey was somewhat entertaining.) I never got the sense that Luthor was this true villain. Even when he was talking about billions of lives being lost, I felt nothing from him. Was Spacey *as* comical as Hackman? No, he wasn't but since most of his material seemed to be on the joking side of things, that's not such a good thing.

They keep using Luthor as this rich guy who wants as much real estate as he can get. Whether it was using a nuclear weapon to knock California off the continent or using the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude to create an entirely new landmass, he just wants some property. This is the best they can come up with for him? A land grab? Who is he? Boss Hogg?

I can say I was happy they used the original Superman theme written by John Williams as well as other bits from the original score incorporated with John Ottman's new material. It flowed together quite well and let's face it, not using the theme music is like "Star Wars" or "Jaws" without theirs. It's far too closely associated with the material now to ever be separated.

As I said previously, the special effects were excellent. All the shots of Superman rescuing the regular folk of Metropolis were handled expertly and all of Supes' greatest hits were included (x-ray vision, super cold breath, and so on.) What was missing? Something "Superman II" had in spades, a true, knock down drag out supervillain fight. Yes it's cool seeing Superman do these "super" things and show just how POWERFUL he really is but what we really want to see is the big, blue boy scout thrown down with someone who is on his level of powers. Perhaps the next installment will give us that? I have no doubt "Superman Returns" will be one of the biggest hits of the year and a sequel is a given so my hopes are that maybe we'll see a supervillain introduced on the next go-round. Lex Luthor is great but he has been overused (four films by my count.) Imagine Batman having to face the Joker again and again.

Another problem we face with Superman is, can we ever realistically fear that he will lose or even die? As Superman was stabbed with a shard of kryptonite by Luthor in "Returns," we all knew he'd be ok. The comic book counterpart at least had an opponent like Doomsday who did kill him (at least for a little while, these ARE comic books afterall.) In films like "X-Men," you actually could think that any of them could be killed off at any time. All I'm saying is, put him in greater peril than simply giving him a kryptonite necklace. Geez, even in the shitty "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," Superman got messed up by Nuclear Man (you saw him withering away, losing his hair, becoming fragile....dying.)

"Superman Returns" had a running time of about two and a half hours and boy did it feel like it at times. There were some major lagging moments which should have been tightened up in the editing room.

I can't say the film held any surprises for me. Lois Lane's child was so obviously Superman's son that the big "reveal" scene of the kid throwing a piano at one of Luthor's thugs came as a "What took them so long?" moment for me.

Yes, "Superman Returns" was a dissappointment for me for all the reasons I stated above. Keep in mind that NONE of it makes it a bad film, it makes it a well crafted tribute and if that's what you're looking for then you should love it.

I was originally hyped about "Superman Returns" kinda sorta following in the footsteps of the first two films and now I just think it was a mistake. You just can't pick up where Reeve and director Richard Donner left off. Singer and company should have started the franchise over.

I will have to enjoy "Superman Returns" for the film it is, not what it could have been. That's not too bad I suppose. I'm sure Christopher Reeve is smiling somewhere tonight. I'm also sure that there are those who will leave the theater with warm hearts seeing such an affectionate tribute to a childhood memory they hold dear. I can see it from their point of view and I can't fault them for that.

Finally, with this first film out of the way, I hope that when Singer, Routh and the gang return to the franchise, they will attempt to explore new ground and take the character to places we haven't been to before.

My rating (out of *****): ***
Reply
post #130 of 1500
6/29/06 at 1:23pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
First nitpick...can we please have a scene that at least attempts to explain how no one notices Clark has been gone the same amount of time Supes is gone? It's just too dang obvious a connection.

That's one of those things that you just have to say.....it's a movie!!! Who knows...maybe Clark stuck around a little longer than Superman. Who knows.

All I wanna know is....can someone do there best to explain how he can fly while pushing a entire continent made of kryptinite?? But can hardly stand up when walking on it? I knew I saw those same red Skechers Boots at Walmart....
Reply
post #131 of 1500
6/29/06 at 1:31pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Allred


"Superman Returns" is essentially a kinda-sorta sequel to the first two films and therein lies the problem. Bryan Singer handcuffed himself. He's tied this film so closely to those films that he limited himself to what he could do. It's one thing to pay tribute to your favorites, it's another to try and fill it's shoes. Singer should have done what Christopher Nolan did with "Batman," start from scratch. Nolan stayed close to what made the character so great, Singer tried following the same formula of the "Superman" film franchise.

It seemed that every other actor in "Superman Returns" got to play their character their own way but Brandon Routh played Superman/Clark Kent just as Reeve would have done. That was a mistake. Sure, Routh did a great imitation but I don't want to see a Reeve impersonation. I wanted Superman from a fresh perspective. You cannot top Reeve, you cannot replace him and mimicking his performance will only remind those that he is no longer with us. Routh seems like he has decent acting chops and I wish we could have seen his own unique take on the character.
That was my big worry when Singer announed SR would continue where Supeman 1&2 left off. I knew it would be real hard for anyone to mimic Reeve's Clarke & it would reflect on any actor that tried. I couldn't help but think about Reeve everytime Rouths Clark was on the screen. Reeve nailed that version of Clark so well its just to hard to top.
Reply
post #132 of 1500
6/29/06 at 1:40pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

H,
S:TAS is entertaining. It's not brilliant (like the JLU), but some of the episodes are pretty good. The DCAU team really love these characters, and it shows. You can get the whole 3 seasons for about $18-20 each for a total of 54 episodes (some excellent, some good, most decent, and a few mediocre. It's NOT the end all and be all. It's not usually that complex, but they usually throw a bone at the longtime adult fans. There is some good characterization spread about the 54 episodes.

But it's pretty D good.

Quentin, thanks for the clarification.

Neither Superman NOR Clark are the disguise. Most hack writers make the same mistake (though it's easier to understand) with Batman. That's the deep psychology Anyways, Clark *IS* Kal-El *IS* Superman. Each informs the other. His Kryptonian heritage is as important as his family. The irony for Lois is there is a lot of Superman in Clark...if she'd notice. Sometimes she does.
Reply
post #133 of 1500
6/29/06 at 1:47pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Allred
What was missing? Something "Superman II" had in spades, a true, knock down drag out supervillain fight. Yes it's cool seeing Superman do these "super" things and show just how POWERFUL he really is but what we really want to see is the big, blue boy scout thrown down with someone who is on his level of powers. Perhaps the next installment will give us that? I have no doubt "Superman Returns" will be one of the biggest hits of the year and a sequel is a given so my hopes are that maybe we'll see a supervillain introduced on the next go-round. Lex Luthor is great but he has been overused (four films by my count.) Imagine Batman having to face the Joker again and again.
I have to agree yet again. This stuff had me worried a few years ago as well. Before this was even made, I was more looking forward to Superman 2B/ Superman's Here, than I was for Superman Returns. Even though I do like SR & will be going to see it again.
Reply
post #134 of 1500
6/29/06 at 2:40pm

Re: Superman - Summer 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Okay, took in an IMAX viewing, and the 3D is more hit, and not too much of a miss (when the action gets a little too fast, my eyes were going crossed-eyed at times), and so enjoyable nonetheless, and the final fly-by in 3D right before the credits is worth the price of admission for me. Damn, that was just sweet. I really enjoyed the IMAX presentation both visually and aurally. The sound effects were impressively presented and added to the power and majesty that were the super-feats on display in the film. I encourage anyone who has access to an IMAX theater to see this film on an IMAX screen.

For me, the film was paced better the second time around . I wasn't caught up with the expectations of some massive build-up throughout the film, but sat back and just soaked in all the scenes, and enjoyed the journey.


The crowd applauded loudly at the end of the film. That was gratifying to see and hear in person.

I figured out how IMAX fit 157 minutes of film into IMAX's limitation of 150 minutes runtime: They simply shortened the huge list of credits at the end of the film. I was going to watch the credits to the very end, but it ended within 2-3 minutes of the final shot from the film, while the regular theatrical cut ran the other 7 minutes of credits (and more musical scores).

I didn't realize that Lady Vanderworth was Noel Neill (one of George Reeves' Lois Lanes), but definitely picked out Jack Larsen (Jimmy Olsen) as the bartender. Richard Branson was one of the space shuttle pilots.

The heels of Superman's boot have the "S" symbol molded into them. Geez, Supes is a little obsessed with his family "S"-crest, eh?

One of the big scrabble words was "alienation"

Loved how Ma Kent's words about Clark "being the last of his kind, but he wasn't alone" came full circle when the presence of Jason changes Kal-el's perspective and life immeasurably. The same goes for Jor-el's words at the beginning and Kal-el saying them to Jason at the end.

There's a really great shot of Routh as Superman, it's during the Lois-Superman flight, and Superman is talking about hearing that people do want someone to save them, and the lighting of Routh's face is just amazing. It was like an Alex Ross painting, but better.

Definitely chuckled at the Addis Ababa, Ethiopia reference for the K-rock that Lex stole from the museum.

Loved the quick shot of "The Usual Suspect" lineup shot of Lex and his cronies in the basement of the Vanderworth house. Priceless.

James Marsden can't catch a break, always playing second fiddle (first in X-Men, now SR).

Routh plays Clark by pretty much making weird mouth movements/expressions. Thus, his "Clark" now has these tics incorporated into the performance, which can be a little disconcerting at times when Clark is on-screen, and he can come off more 2D than 3D. I don't think Routh gives Clark that octave-higher voice that Reeve did with his "Clark", which I would have liked, but it might not be in Routh's vocal repetoire. But when Routh speaks in his low voice to Jason in his room, it really sounded soothing and commanding.

If you pay attention to Lois's hairline, you'll see that it's all over the place within the film because it's a wig, and the hair/makeup person sometimes covered up more forehead, and other times exposed a lot of forehead (rivalling Klingon forehead space at times).

The fact that Lois can't even rattle off anything that Clark is passionate about gives you an idea that Clark is still vanilla to just about anyone working at the Daily Planet and lacks a hook for relatability. Sure, Clark is a good reporter, but after hours is where he's pretty much still a black hole, even to co-workers. I would like to see Clark more developed in the next installment.

I'm not all that put off by Superman's "unethical" eavesdropping on Lois and Richard. The man's been away for 5 years, he needs the drop on the 411! Plus, Superman hears so much, it's just a matter of filtering out the noise for the signal.



I am going to disagree with Chuck's characterization of Lois in the film. Go see it again, and really pay attention, it's not bitchiness she's exhibiting on the plane, it's being assertive. Sure, later she's on the scent of the right story (the EMP), but her editor keeps pushing on her the one topic she wants desperately to avoid. She's annoyed, but not a bitch. Clark's been off the radar for Lois for quite a long time, he shows up and Lois is supposed to just slide right into her "comically dismissive" schtick with him? That's unrealistic given her circumstances now. Again, watch the film again, I think you're projecting something that just isn't on the screen.

The simple utterance of the word "relationship" by Clark (after Perry forces Lois to cover Superman while Clark gets the story she wanted by default) is something that caused Clark all sorts of internal turmoil. It's like that scene with Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale in "Batman" where Bruce has such a hard time uttering "I'm Batman, I'm Batman, I'm Batman" to Vicki.

As the return to Metropolis for Clark gets rolling, at the core, the Donner version of Clark has really only wanted to win over Lois by being Clark not Superman, but he's now got Richard to also deal with, and Lois has a right to be a little put off by Clark clumsy attempts to interject himself back in her life, who comes back and expects to pick up where their "work" relationship left off 5 years ago, but things change, other people take priority in the here and now. As it stands, Clark's stuck in a worse place than the Phanton Zone, he's in the "friend-from-a-half-decade-ago" zone. But as the film concludes, I can see Clark backing off of "courting" Lois, knowing that Richard is a good man, and would be a good father for his son, and provides the stability that Superman could not. These are the changes that bridge the Donner films with the Singer films. It's a subtle changing of the guard, and I don't have the problems with couching such a re-launch of the Superman film franchise within the beats of the Donner films. It think it's rather respectful of such good source material and inspiration, while paving new ground for future installments.

As to themes, the title is Superman Returns, but returns to what? He left because earth didn't have what he needed for his own persistent existence. Sure, he could save people 24/7, but altruism only goes so far for so long. Now, with the revelations, Superman has a reason to stay, to continue to retain his link to humanity.

I think Superman almost has to be more iconic, and change has to come from the people around him, who are inspired by him. That he doesn't have a massive character arc in his film missed why Superman has endured for so long in media. Pete-D talks about these changes that take place with Lois in the film, and he's right. Superman is more catalyst for change/inspiration because of his altruistic nature, willing to do for others who can't do for themselves. Note the effort by the hospital staff in doing what they can to nurse the man of steel back to health, and the crowds of well-wishers. Superman has this intangible way of getting people to want to do better and be better people. Superman is here not only to save the day, but help people be better version of themselves.


That's spot on, Patrick, and expresses my own feelings about this film far more than I ever could. Seeing it again with some friends on a regular screen Saturday night, and I'll probably catch it on IMAX sometime next week.
Reply
post #135 of 1500
6/29/06 at 2:44pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory S.
There is one thing I would've cut from the film though and that's the doctors actively trying to revive Superman. I understand what Singer was going for but it's funny when it shouldn't be.

When he pans down to see Superman in the crater, he fades to black. The next scene should've been the Richard and Perry scene, figuring out what headline to use....


It is funny at a time when the film shouldn't be, but I love the scene for one thing: the needle breaking on Clark's skin, taken from the very first Superman story in ACTION COMICS#1.
Reply
post #136 of 1500
6/29/06 at 3:42pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holadem
Some genius predicted in the other thread that Chuck would be the first to give this one a 10 and call it the best movie evaaaaaaaaaaaaar, prompting the rest of us mindless HTF drones to fall over ourselves with superlatives as well.

--
H

Oh crap, I forgot about that! Yeah, Chuck and I were supposed to lead the charge for fellating the movie non-stop...and far as I can tell, I think we BOTH gave the movie a 7.5 out of 10.
Reply
post #137 of 1500
6/29/06 at 3:44pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Saw it again this afternoon...and criticisms aside, I'd still give it a solid 8 out 10. The heart of this film just kills me.

I mean, when Superman gives his father's speech at the end to Jason, it's just one of those moments where a film transcends beyond for me. And Brandon sold the hell out of that moment....
Reply
post #138 of 1500
6/29/06 at 3:51pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I will say this--after a couple days--I find myself wanting to watch it again, a lot more than I did when I immediately left the theater.

Maybe it's just the explosion and the opening credits, I dunno. I scored free tickets to an Omnimax showing here in Portland, so maybe this weekend I'll try and get to one early and score the prime seat up at the top behind the projector.
Reply
post #139 of 1500
6/29/06 at 3:55pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I think somebody's coining of the phrase a "requel" applies to this film. It's a sequel yet at times a remake. Both this an the original have so many similar plot points an dialogue, makes me wonder why Singer didn't either remake the original outright or do something more original. Both have Luthor doing land deals, Superman arriving to earth in a rocket, Lois being saved from air travel, same speech about flying, same quote from Luthor about his dad and land, same rock stolen from Addis Abba, kryptonite again!. I guess I'd like to see some other villains besides Luthor, although Spacey was great.
And ONE MAJOR PROBLEM I have, if this kid was conceived when Lois slept w/ Superman in II, then shouldn't she have no knowledge of who the father is since their being together occurred when she found out who he was and then slept w/ him in the Fortress of Solitude. She shouldn't remember that because Superman wiped her memory at the end of that movie. Also if I remember correctly he slept w/ her AFTER giving up his powers so why would the kid have any?
Reply
post #140 of 1500
6/29/06 at 3:58pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Robert,

Trust me, I think it helps. It helped me alot. I do agree somewhat with the criticisms about there not being enough Clark. But at the same time, its clear in the film that he wants to get close to Lois using Clark and when he meets Richard, you can tell he abandons that plan....hence all the super heroics everywhere.

It all a ploy to get close to Lois...and explain things.
Reply
post #141 of 1500
6/29/06 at 4:35pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Superman saving lives is not a ploy to get Lois. Maybe him showing up to talk is, and even their flight. But he's not saving lives to get Lois to like him. That's just who he is.

Robert, yeah we both were predicted to give the film 10's and gush. I wish I could. But our views sync-ed up, and continue to do so. I definitely am looking forward to a second viewing and soon.

The end scene between Jason and Superman was good, but would have affected me more if they shared a little more screen time. It was still a strong scene.
Reply
post #142 of 1500
6/29/06 at 4:53pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I saw the movie for the first time today, and for the most part, I loved it!

However, for the first hour or so of the movie, I couldn't help but criticize it. I did not enjoy the beginning of the movie. Personally, it just took forever to begin. It's not that nothing happens in the first 20-30 minutes; none of it felt important to me.

The credits were interesting...I enjoyed hearing the music, but I didn't really feel it the title sequence worked too well. It seemed less epic and more cheesy to have a flyover and circling of the planets and stars. I guess it just lacked the epic sweep for me.

I didn't really like most of the early Lex scenes. The death bed scene? Didn't like it.

The Smallville scenes? They weren't bad, but they lacked something and I guess that's been covered in this thread. There's no real weight to the fact that Superman has been gone for five years. And here, it does feel like a throwaway setup for the movie. Can't say I cared much for the flashback either. Was it just me or did the kid playing young Clark bear a rather striking resemblance to Bryan Singer? I guess those supposedly deleted scenes (haven't followed the production too closely) could've added much more feeling here.

The Fortress of Solitude scenes with Lex. I couldn't stop thinking that it looked very different from the other films. It seems bigger, but maybe it's the lighting and maybe it's purposeful considering the context, but it didn't really feel like the Fortress from the previous films to me.

I was wary at first of Routh's Clark/Superman, but I quickly accepted him in the role and the other actors soon fell in place as well, including Bosworth as Lois. It feels like a different Lois, and her disregard of Clark does seem a bit off-putting, but maybe it's because I'm bringing too much Superman II baggage with it? It does take a bit to remember that to her anyways, those moments between them never took place.

To me, the movie really didn't begin until Superman's appearance in full costume. The other scenes from the beginning could fall off the face of the earth for all I care. And the movie basically grabbed me from there.

The Jason plot was fairly interesting. It wasn't even until recently that I discovered that they were going the Superman's kid route. I've never read the Superman comics and only know him from being a fan of the movies, animated series and other shows, so the only other place I've seen this handled was on an episode of Lois & Clark. At first, I didn't like the kid and I trivialized everything he did. After all, he was a sickly looking child with a mother that didn't care enough to give him a haircut. This was Kal El's heir? I had some questions concerning his powers and Clark's mortal state at the time of conception, but these were given satisfactory answers earlier in the thread. Does Lois remember getting it on with Superman? I felt that she did not and will need some answers in Superman Returns Again. Anyway, the kid grew on me after a while. Too bad James Marsden is playing the second string of a love triangle yet again.

Lex Luthor. The film reminded me of how lame the character has been in the movies. A self-proclaimed criminal mastermind who devises preposterous plots and surrounds himself was idiots. This compared with the ruthless and intelligent billionaire I've seen elsewhere. Still, Spacey's portrayal was a step in the right direction as far as ruthlessness was concerned. The violence was pretty intense too. At first, I was worried his Lex would seem to dark, but he eventually lightens up to an acceptable degree.

I think I spent more time thinking of whether Kumar (Kal Pen) playing a henchman would bother me than it actually did. But it begs to question, why cast a recognizable face as a nameless henchman? Parker Posey's character did annoy me at first, but I gradually accepted her as the Miss Teschmacher/Otis of the movie.

As to whether Clark or Superman is disguising himself as either Superman or Clark, the way I see it is that Superman does fuse his Kent upbringing with the years he spent with hologram Dad. But he is ultimately disguising himself as a second Clark Kent (his public persona, notably different from the Clark Kent pre-Superman). This does raise some question regarding Clark's limited portrayal in the film, and I hope that this side of the character is featured more in later films.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the movie and it provided not only an exciting and action packed experience, but a rather emotional one as well.
Reply
post #143 of 1500
6/29/06 at 4:58pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Chuck,

I need to be a bit clearer...sorry. With Richard in the situation now, he has taken the place of Clark in that love triangle. So, that's why I think Singer focused on Superman more than Clark in this film. Had Richard not been in the film, I think we would've had more Clark....

But, Clark does actively try to get Lois alone to talk...but considering the shocking return of Superman, that sends Lois all over the place. She's basically a wreck until she actually speaks to Superman on the roof.
Reply
post #144 of 1500
6/29/06 at 6:02pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory S.
She's basically a wreck until she actually speaks to Superman on the roof.
I'll watch it with that in mind the second time, Cory. I also must have misread your post. I understand that Richard may have pushed Clark to the wayside a bit...I think that was a mistake. Back to that whole balance thing
Reply
post #145 of 1500
6/29/06 at 6:03pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I respect all opinions so here is mine:

Start to finish pure magic. I loved it, and I don't get what all the negative backlash is about. Bryan Singer did something great, he didn't try to reinvent Superman(didn't even put us through the agony of another re-telling of an Supes origin) he got right to the story, which fit perfectly into the Superman movie mythos.

You should all be praying that Tim Burton's version got scrapped in pre production. Nic Cage as Superman, Chris Rock as Jimmy Olson.

I am very greatful this movie was made. I hope it makes a huge profit for the studio or quality storytelling in superhero movies will wither, and die.

Anyone here see X-Men 3? That is exactly the kind of mindless, souless, superhero movies studios want to shove down our throats. We are better than that, and Superman Returns knows this.
Reply
post #146 of 1500
6/29/06 at 6:30pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

With all of my gripes, let me state that this was certainly superior to whatever Burton, McG, Kevin Smith, Jon Peters, and Brett Ratner would have done. Singer has the passion and love...even if he is incorrect about Clark

I think the quality of superhero movies are fine, regardless of how Supes does. Batman Begins and Spidey are also rather admirably setting the bar pretty fricking high.
Reply
post #147 of 1500
6/29/06 at 6:41pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I really enjoyed it, but also felt that I had already seen the film via the advertisements. I mean, the sequences in Smallville or New Krypton were really not much longer than what was glimpsed in the trailers.

One of my favorite moments was the conclusion of the aircraft rescue. When he sets the plane on the field, that is the sort of spectacle I was hoping this film would contain. Epic rescues on a global scale, and with hundreds of onlookers.

Unfortunately, when the big showdown finally occurred, I didn't really get that feeling. (Did Metropolis even realize what was happening out in the middle of the ocean?) I really thought New Krypton would be a much bigger part of the plot. Lex essentially built a kryptonite island, and yet it ultimately posed no greater threat than the necklace did in the first film.

I also thought the film left a lot of interesting areas unexplored. Did Clark feel guilty about crime/tragedies that had happened in his absence? Was Lex ultimately planning to build a world where Superman (literally) couldn't exist? Did Lex not consider combining gold with the crystal as well?

And to be honest, I didn't really believe that Superman would've left without saying goodbye- to Lois or even world officials (in private). I really liked the idea of his 'returning', but felt that there was a better explanation for it somewhere. The animated series covered similar ground (ie. space exploration; return to Krypton) with more imagination.

As for Richard and Jason, I agree with those who are bothered by what this means for the sequels. I really have no interest in seeing the characters again. (Perhaps "Superman Stays Put" will open with a tragic seaplane crash? )

Ultimately, it's a worthy Superman film, and by far better than any of the previous attempts at a Superman V. But I do feel like Singer came close to hitting us over the head with the whole 'emotional Superman' idea. (Even down to Jason constantly playing 'Heart and Soul'.)
Reply
post #148 of 1500
6/29/06 at 9:10pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

I guess it all boils down to what superhero plays best on the big screen. I have always thought that Superman was better as a movie than a comic book. Superman has always been unjustly catagorized as a "boring" superhero(at least by my friends) and I always argue that he can be at worst, but at his best it's the greatest sci-fi/fantasy you can ever have. The first 2 Superman movies, and Superman Returns reinforce my theory.

Spiderman was always my favorite comic book, and until I watched Superman Returns Spiderman 2 was my favorite Superhero movie of all time. But when I say other superhero movies are lackluster, I mean they are good popcorn kill some time movies, but they really have no weight or substance. Movies that fit this bill IMO are: The Hulk, Daredevil, Electra, X-Men 3,and Fantastic Four.

Superman Returns has a lot of heart, and while it may not be a s epic as the original Superman film it captures the spirit, and feel. so for that I am happy.
Reply
post #149 of 1500
6/29/06 at 9:11pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by James@R
Ultimately, it's a worthy Superman film, and by far better than any of the previous attempts at a Superman V.

It's better than the previous attempts at III and IV too.
Reply
post #150 of 1500
6/29/06 at 9:29pm

Re: *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread

Well, to be fair, I think Kevin Smith could have written an excellent script if he hadn't been confined to those ridiculous demands...I recall something about a giant spider and a polar bear?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official SUPERMAN RETURNS Discussion Thread