Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DC Live-Action Movies and Television' started by The Penguin, Jun 28, 2006.
The legs were good after the Pirates drop fiasco.
Thanks. We never get first run movies way out here but this was a particularly long wait for some reason. We only have one single-screen theatre here (albeit a nice one) so we only get one movie at a time, one show a day except weekends. Most movies only run for one week but Cars held over for three weeks for some reason -- I guess it was popular. Then, instead of Superman Returns, we had to sit through some other stuff like Click. At least we don't have to pay nine bucks for a ticket. When I am out of town, it's usually for business so going to the movies is not an option. We will never get movies like Clerks II so I'll either have to travel for that one or just wait for DVD.
Agreed, it's original for Superman but not for movies in general. In fact, the mystery kid of the old flame turning out to belong to the hero is a major movie/television cliche. But since they basically acknowledged it and Superman appeared to come to terms with the whole thing, there is nothing left from the purely dramatic side for a sequel. Again, they are either going to have to let an enemy exploit the kid (corruption, kidnapping, death) or have the kid become Superkid to fight crime. Ignoring the kid in sequels doesn't seem likely. I strongly prefer the exploitation story idea, BTW.
True, most of my ideas really aren't mine, I'm no writer. I'm strongly influenced by DCAU. That's where most of my ideas of Superman come from and I definitely prefer DCAU to Donner's (or Singer's) Superman.
I doubt they will do anything like I suggested. Though reading that Singer wants to make the sequel like Wrath of Khan gives me some hope. Afterall, wasn't that moving about the death of someone close to the hero? If the Superman sequel does take that route, they'd have to kill off someone very close, which leaves out any of the secondary cast, in my opinion. No, only Lois, Ma Kent, or the kid could fit that bill. Killing the love interest doesn't sound like it would work so I think Lois is out. And Ma Kent? Yeah, heart-breaking but she really isn't a central character, either. The kid is the most likely target, in my opinion.
Stated? Never. Shown? Plenty of times. For example, they showed early in the film that a bullet couldn't even penetrate his eyeball. Later, under the effects of kryptonite, Luthor was able to penetrate his skin with the shard and he was vulnerable to blunt objects. He couldn't fly away and didn't have superstrength then. It didn't make sense that he would later, especially since the kryptonite was still in him the entire time. Likewise, in Superman I & II, he was under a far more immediate need to fly away from kryptonite and he was powerless then, too. The crystal island would probably take at least days before anyone was killed; the rockets heading for Jersey would kill in minutes.
More importantly, a lot of the audience that I sat with thought the same thing that I did. He should have been powerless under those conditions. They either needed to come up with a better solution, change the conditions, or explain why he was able to do so anyways. For cryin' out loud, simply have Parker Posey ask Luthor why Superman was still able to fly and have Lex explain it to her. They did this in other movies and it allowed mere mortals like me to understand. They made a point of showing his invulnerability early in the film, his vulnerability later, then didn't show why any of it had changed at the end. If they had not wanted those to be the rules, they should not have set them up that way earlier.
Force of will? Nonsense. Your Sampras and Jordan examples, while impressive feats, are all about not succumbing to pain, not loss of power (skill). A firefighter might be able to ignore the pain from a fire but will still succumb when his body burns away no matter how determined he is, for example.
Luthor, you ain't The greatest criminal mastermind the world has ever seen!
If anything I give you self-glorifed Real Estate guru.
Here's why, based on the Luthor from the Singer/Donner films...
In Superman I, Luthor buys all this cheap desert and plans on turning it into waterfront property by setting off the San Andreas falt line and blowing up the land next to it.
In Superman II, Luthor bargains with General Zod to own Australia - this was in the 80's. Soon afterwards, property prices in Australia, espeically in the surrounding metropolitan areas had a 8X pricing boom.
And in Superman Returns, Luthor wants to re-enter the property market by making land.
Dude! You're not a criminal mastermind - you just want to own property, charge out high rent and destroy your competitors - you're the fat bald guy from Monopoly.
And on the topic of that prime piece of land you made in Returns umm where was your superior alien technology that could defend your land? Oh right they're in those crystals! I guess if you waived them around menacingly enough when America came at you with its full military might, they would surrender. Y'know by that logic, I guess if I wave around plans for a nuclear bomb I saved on a floppy disk (E=mc2) I would be unstoppable! And the greatest Criminal Mastermind the world has ever seen, because I wrote that on the disk too.
I don't the kid will do either of these. I've heard loads of people on imdb boards say it. But honestly, I think both those ideas are kinda.... Bad. They need to handle it in a mature way. My idea is just to do it in the opposite of the first movie. Have Jason save his father, from a henchman. Then after a collosull fight Richard will tell supeman to tell him about his heritage. So it ends with Jor-El speaking to the child. Ok, my ideas aren't quite as dramatic but I think its more plausible. We have a whole three more movies to do some dramatic stuff. Right now I think it should be done slowly.
I think alot of people would of liked a Stas adaption, but stas just isn't the definitive superman. Its an amasing show, but its not the definitve superman.
Strength isn't unique to Superman. Sampras, Jordan, (all of us) have strength. Superman's is obviously at a much higher level (much like a professional body builders strength would be much higher than mine), but it's still something we have.
Sampras and Jordan, in those circumstances I mentioned, would have been struggling with loss of strength. Was it a complete loss? No. And they overcame it with "force of will". I'm saying it's the same with Superman. His strength has taken a hit, but not become non-existent. Same with flying.
What I discussed several pages back was my belief that the circumstances in SR differed significantly from the original movie in that the kryptonite was spread out over the island and is actually not kryptonite at all, but rather crystals that have taken on the properties of kryptonite. The end result is a more "diluted" effect. It's not concentrated, pure kryptonite. It's largely a land mass with a kryptonite type of substance spread throughout. As such, it's effect on him would be more gradual, as opposed to a running-into-a-brick wall effect. That's why he didn't immediately notice the presence of the lethal substance or immediately feel its effects when he landed on the land mass. And that's why he could lift the mass, especially initially. As he flew, of course, and his exposure time increased and the effects were accumulating.
This is in contrast to "Superman: The Movie" in which he's directly presented with a concentrated rock of pure kryptonite and tossed into the pool with it. Or in SR when's stabbed with a pure kryptonite shard (taken from the original stolen kryptonite and not from the modified land-crystal) and tossed into the waters.
The purity of the kryptonite, how it's distributed, the amount, the proximity. All these things matter. The key here in SR is that the land mass "kryptonite" were actually crystals which took on properties of kryptonite and were spread out across the land. When Superman was faced with original, pure kryptonite (the stabbing), the result was exactly like what we saw in the original movie.
I'm suprised so few people got this.
It's especially surprising since so many complaints were based around the movie being connected to the Donner films more than recent Superman continuity, yet the effects of the kryptonite island more closely resembled "modern kryptonite" exposure than "Donner kryptonite."
How is this really different from what I said was a possibility? They have Superkid fighting crime -- or in your case, Superkid uses his powers to save his father; if not from crime, then what? Superman would not be in danger from any natural disaster. Either way, they end up having Superkid using superpowers. I never said anything about donning tights.
I actually didn't mind the kid within the movie. I just thought that making him Superman's son was cliche and not surprising at all. It also says very ill of Lois (see my original post in this thread). I also don't think they should have wrapped up the purely dramatic part of the relationship yet because it leaves few choices where to go. I don't really want to see a kid get hurt in a movie but I don't really care for the Superkid angle, either. I guess that's why I would have preferred that he was never introduced in the first place. They've already allowed Jason to be kidnapped and to kill someone -- where else can they really go with the character except down?
Agreed, but then neither is the movie version. But since Singer decided to take the very boyscout Donner Superman into a more adult situation (having a child out of wedlock), why not put him in some others like revenge or regret?
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said strength was unique to Superman. But if he could fly, why didn't he before? Luthor exposed him to pure kryptonite and it was never fully removed. You keep talking about strength and will. I am talking about power and skill. Put Jordan in pain, weaken him, he can still win a game through force of will. Take away Jordan's hand-eye coordination and he will not win a game. Likewise, Superman was clearly beyond just being weakened -- he could not fly, either. Or do you think that he flies by the strength of his muscles? He certainly doesn't lift the island with muscle; no, it's his ability to fly that allows him to do that.
Clearly, I wasn't the only one that had a problem with this part of the movie. If it was sheer willpower or it was because of dilution, they should have clarified it during the film. I'm no Superman expert but I have seen Superman I & II several times and the events of this film. It was not clear to me and while you have some interesting theories, they were not confirmed by the film, either.
Rebut if you like but as far as I'm concerned, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
One aspect of his power is his super-strength, and that's where we can see the most obvious affect. The closest a human would come to flying is by jumping/leaping (like Jordan sailing through the air for a dunk). That takes strength and I would imagine it to be a large part of what allows Superman to take to the air. Yeah, Superman had to fly to get the land mass into space. But even more than that, he needed the strength to actually lift it.
We don't know how his heat vision was affected, because he never tried to use it in the presence of kryptonite. Same with some of his other abilities. My point was just that it's not all-or-none. There are degrees of loss rather than complete, 100% loss of all powers. And that of course is dependent on how the kryptonite is presented. There are variables, which I don't see as being that hard to understand.
As for the kryptonite not being fully removed, you're right. But most of it was. Like I said, amount matters. Are you really going to tell me that's not intuitive to you? Are you really going to say you can't understand a smaller amount of kryptonite having smaller effect than a larger piece? And please don't misunderstand my tone. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just see it as being simple idea.
Nor were they denied. And I think it was all pretty intuitive. I wasn't sitting in the theater thinking through elaborate explanations. It just made sense to me. It's not complicated.
I see a big difference in Superman being presented with a rock of pure kryptonite at close range and landing on a dense rock island with derived kryptonite spread throughout. As I said before, when Superman was faced with the pure kryptonite knife, the outcome was the same as when dealt the pure kryptonite rock. It was when facing the island kryptonite that the experience was different (a gradual effect rather than direct and immediate) and, intuitively, I think we can all pick up on why the situations were different. It's not the issue many seem to want it to be.
Yeah, I think we all should.
Like I said before. Is that the first mistake Singer made was basing the movie off a movie that is almost 30yrs old. While most young people know of Christopher Reeves. Most also are not familiar with the movie. They know of Superman from "Lois & Clark", "Smallville" and "Superman:Animated Series". So when they see events and characters they don't know about. It gets a bit confusing. For example my 20yr old nephew saw the movie. And while he likes Superman he never saw the Donner version. He was a bit confused about Lois & Supes kid. He then asked me wasn't Lex a business ceo? What I am saying is that since 1986 post-crisis, Superman & his world have changed. And that while Singer made a good sequel to the Donner Superman. The Donner Superman is not what the average moviegoer is familiar with.
I respectively disagree.
Thats cool. This is what makes this forum fun and interesting. You get access to 100's of fellow fans.
I completely agree. As a 25 year old i have never really seen the Donor Supermen movies and only know lex and clark from smallville and Superman tas and i was VERY disapointed in Superman Returns. Singler thought people would only know the old movie version of supes, he was very wrong.
Additionally i thought batman begins kicked a** becuase it was so different from the Burton batman and more serious like BTAS.
Exactly same situation about me. I am 26 and never saw the previous movies before. I loved BB but was VERY dissapointed on SR.
Strength doesn’t have anything to do with it. Besides the fact that it would be physically impossible to lift an object of that size from such a small contact point, Superman has nothing to brace himself on. Superman may use super-strength to bend steel bars but carrying any object while flying has nothing to do with how strong his muscles are.
Furthermore, strength has nothing to do with flying unless you are talking about someone that uses flapping wings. True, the original Superman back in the comics could only leap, not fly, but how does that explain this Superman changing course in mid-flight? Or hovering? Or slowing descending?
Superman’s ability to fly in Superman Returns is one of his super-powers but it’s not super-strength.
Okay, enough. You continue to use hyperbole to suggest that it’s “simple”, it’s “obvious”, it’s “intuitive”, you were “stunned that so many couldn’t understand”, and that anyone that didn’t get it “left their brain at the door”. I appreciate that you don’t want to be a “jerk” so let me clue you in – your comments are very condescending and unappreciated. So…don’t do that.
The fact is, I don’t go to these movies with a ruler in one hand and a scale in the other. So I can’t say, “Wow, Lex hit Superman with 32kg of kryptonite from 3 meters in that scene but it’s only 20kg from 10 meters in that one. No wonder he was able to resist it.” Heck, most people I know say that I’m the one that’s too nitpicky about details in superhero films as it is.
Furthermore, now that I’ve read through the twenty-plus pages in this thread, I see that several well know Toonzone posters asked similar questions. Some didn’t “get it” just like me. Others “got it” but realized that it wasn’t quite so obvious that enough people would “get it”. And that can be a big problem for the film whether you loved it or I merely thought it was worth seeing.
All it really would have taken was a few simple lines by Luthor to explain it all away. Remember the end of Superman II? With one simple line from Luthor (Gene Hackman), they explained away how Superman got the upperhand on Zod with the crystal chamber. Imagine how cruel it would have been to expect the general audience to notice the different lighting in that scene without Luthor’s quick explanation afterwards. “He switched it!” or what-ever. Kitty could have just said, “How come Superman could still fly with all that kryptonite around?” And Luthor, “Don’t you see? It’s not concentrated!” Well, as I’ve said, I’m no writer but massage that idea into quick and clever dialogue and you have a better ending.
I actually saw some people’s ideas that I think worked better than yours, too. In this thread, some suggested that the lower side of the island shielded Superman. Another said he had built up enough momentum prior to contact that it carried him and the island up anyways. I’ve even read about how the seawater’s properties could have…well, I’m no chemistry major so let’s just say it wasn’t what you were talking about and leave it at that.
We keep going around about the same arguments. I apologize for weighing in again but really, I agree to disagree on this subject. I’ll give you the final exchange again, but please, lay off the condescending remarks.
In linking strength to flying, I was thinking in terms of pushing off the ground to get into the air. Good point on the air aspect and lack of anything to brace on.
I used words like "intuitive" or "simple" to imply that I wasn't doing what your suggesting here in the theater (thinking with ruler and scale in hand). That's all. I didn't intend to be condescending, but if I came across that way, then I apologize with no ifs, ands, or buts. I'm sorry.
I didn't feel anything more was needed in SR, because on some level I felt I "got it". Maybe I'm an idiot and I'm "getting" something that wasn't there. But that was/is my perception. That was why I used words like "simple" because that's how it came across to me. I didn't feel that it required a lot of thinking. But if it does, and I'm wrong, fine. If I'm in the minority on "understanding" any of this, then that probably means something, namely that I'm seeing/understanding things that aren't there. All right. If that's the case, then that's the case.
That's along the lines of what I was thinking in terms of the island mass being composed far more of "rock" than the kryptonite crystals. And hence a more "diluted" effect. I know, my word choice was poor and the land mass shielding the effects describes things far better. It's what I was trying to get at in part, but...well, I didn't specifically verbalize that. That captures things well.
And don't apologize for stepping back in. That's what we're here for, right? I wasn't trying to be condescending, but regardless, it had that effect and I apologize. I'm struggling to provide words that capture what I perceive as my "intuitive" understanding/experience of the film's events. Apparently, I'm not doing all that well at it, so maybe I'll just refrain from doing so.
I'm going to go see it again tommorow. Honestly, I find it strange how positive the Batman Begins thread was and how negative this thread is.
I mean, I love Batman Begins but compared Superman Returns its just... Not as epic....
I think your looking at it at too much of a technical standpoint. I mean, how come kryptonians don't look different from us? How could there be a Speedforce, or magic rings.
DC isn't about logic its about legends!
Ha, ha, so you think I'm thinking too hard and DarkAngel thinks I'm not thinking hard enough!
DarkAngel, apology not necessary but accepted. I probably read into your comments something that was not there. My apologies as well.
I probably will see Superman Returns again before it leaves the theatre. Who knows when we'll get another movie in town that I'm interested in (I'm hoping for Zoom sooner than later). Anyways, I'll try to keep everyone's suggestions about the ending in mind when I do see it again.