1. We are looking for a volunteer to help out with entering the DC and Marvel comics solicitations. If you are interested, please contact Harley.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Just in time for Halloween, enter for a chance to win a $50 Gift Card from FUN.com! Details here.
    Dismiss Notice

The Official "Superman" Sequel News & Discussion Thread (Possible Spoilers)

Discussion in 'DC Live-Action Movies and Television' started by James Harvey, Oct 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mr.happy

    mr.happy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    The movie was full of mis-characterizations and poor writing, and much of it was shot on indoor stages with CGI backgrounds, which I certainly wouldn't describe as beautiful. The effects weren't really anything to write home about either. There were a few decent scenes, but most of the flying scenes were outright boring, and the CGI Superman was much too obvious and used too often, where a live-action shot would have worked much better. Remember how the video blogs kept going on about the huge flying rig, that could move Superman across 3 football fields in no time and spin him around every axis? What happened to that? I can barely remember a single rig shot in the entire movie.

    But maybe it's a mistake to try and emulate Reeve. He was the definitive Superman, and anyone trying to mimic what he brought to the character, runs the risk of coming off looking like a cheap copy. It also didn't help that the SR Superman was such a moody, downbeat, borderline self-involved character, who often didn't act anything like a Superman.

    Yes, but once the initial euphoria of seeing Superman back on the big screen wears off, the negatives appear to outweigh the positives.

    It seems like Jason has served his primary purpose, and that was to give Superman a sense of closure at the end of the movie, when he had finally "surrendered" Lois to Richard.

    His recent troubles with Valkyrie, not to mention a rumored drug addiction, would probably make Warner Bros want to look elsewhere.

    Actually, it was studio execs and negative test audiences that forced him to cut anywhere between 20 and 30 minutes of the movie, including the entire subplot that made Luthor's plan and Superman's departure in the first place make any sense. That says nothing about vision to me, but rather that Singer was a director who was out of his depth on a project of this scale, dealing with a character neither he or his writers had any real experience with or understanding of.
     
  2. Knight

    Knight Emerald Knight

    Joined:
    May 2, 2001
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    1
    Superman Returns was like the first Hulk movie... a slow paced snooze fest. The only thing I give props for is Routh. He is the only salvageable part of the last movie. I think he could do really good in the part with a better script. The Superman in Returns was wooden and lacked a lot of personality. The comics Superman and animated versions are never portrayed as being this stale.
     
  3. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who was mis-characterized? Clark Kent, Jimmy, Perry, Lex were all spot on...I'll give you Lois but other than her....

    I'll concede that in some of the close up flying shots it was a mistake for Singer to use CGI instead of live action--what pops out at me most is when Superman is doing his evening patrols as the sun is setting right before he X-rays Lois' house...and the X-raying of Lois' house without probable cause..mistake and/or uncharacteristic...lol I can forgive both of these because with the first, there wasn't that many and that mistake can be learned from before the sequel and the 2nd I believe Singer was trying to show that love can sometimes make someone (even Superman) do slightly out-of-character things.

    Boring?? What about the scenes of him catching the huge falling sign or grabbing the man that fell off the crane mid-fall, gently placing him on the ground and zooming back into the air to stop another disaster in less than 3 seconds without loosing his momentum, or shooting straight through the Daily Planet building to catch the Globe before it crushed Perry or him lifting the yacht 100 feet in the air with one hand and holding 3 people with the other and I know, if anything, we all can agree on how great the shuttle/777 save sequence was...

    You don't remember the shot of him speeding out to rescue Lois on the Gertrude? He's flying so fast his wake makes the water buoy ring, transitioning into that spectacular mid-air "power stop" realizing Metropolis was also in trouble? Besides, the fact that you DIDN'T notice the rig shots is a testament to how good the effect was used as opposed to you watching the movie and being able to spot them at will. At least most of the flying technology that made Routh's flying so believable is in place so they don't have to waste valuable time and money in the sequel budget on it. By the way, ANY of the flying in SR looked 20 times better than anything I saw in the last 2 Matrix films (the only movie I can think to compare it to with the same high profile and budget as SR) which relied HEAVILY on CGI shots up close.

    I prefer to think of it more as an homage to Reeve then a ripoff (his Clark was more realistic, not as campy and his Supes noble without being self-righteous) because Routh took that character and made it his own. I don't think people give him enough credit for that because Superman can be a very hard character to portray without coming off as overly cheesy, boring or simply unbelievable and Routh's nuanced performance nailed it. I never from the moment he subtly caught Jimmy's camera in super speed to his last scene didn't buy that he was Clark/Kal-el/Superman.

    Moody and self-involved huh? Yeah he was going through alot in this film and that affected his mood but when there was trouble he NEVER failed to act. Compare that with Peter Parker/Spiderman who when he couldn't be with the woman he loved he unconsciously lost his powers then purposely ignored a mugging right in front of him! THAT'S being moody and self-involved. I'm not saying that as a critique on that film. I loved Spiderman 2. I'm just saying Aunt May was right, he's NO Superman. With every thing that was going on in his private life he never once waivered from his mission to protect the people of Metropolis and the world. That's the essence of Superman...

    For me it was the opposite. The more times I see the film I notice things I missed in the theatrical release that make me appreciate it even more.

    Jason story was far from closed thereby, in my opinion, being the biggest undeniable failure of the film...his abilities weren't explained or elaborated upon, does Richard know Jason isn't his biological son, how can Superman possibly fit in to Jason's life since Jason obviously believes Richard is his father?

    Like he had a choice when it came to Lois? Richard was her fiancee and they were raising a kid? Would you have Superman be a homewrecker now? THAT would be an unforgivable mis-characterization. If anything it was Richard that surrendered when he actually DROVE his fiancee to the hospital knowing that she still really loved the guy. It was his idea too. You see his facial expressions when he dropped them off? He had, "I give up" written all over it. Did you even WATCH the movie? Maybe you should do so again...

    But it was still his choice and concerning the Krypton sequence I think it was the right one. It still took guts to cut a 10 million dollar sequence out of the film no matter what test audiences say. What doesn't make sense about his departure? He wanted to see if his birthplace was still there or if any of his heritage possibly survived. Anybody who's an orphan or been put up for adoption can relate. No matter how good your adopted life is sometimes you just have this need to see where you came from. Bruce Timm did something similar in the STAS ep. "Little Girl Lost". I think Singer understands him better than Burton, Ratner, Abrams, Smith, or any of the other writers or directors that came before him the studio hired to bring Superman back from development hell. I know that's not saying much considering who he's being compared to but I, for one, think if nothing else he did a fantastic job understanding the core of who Superman really is and what makes him an icon. Bottom line he made a good film with a GREAT version of Superman in it (the best in live-action since Reeve and 2nd overall only to the comics) and if you don't at least give him that then maybe it's YOU that doesn't understand Superman. :p

    Watch the 1st and most of the 2nd seasons of JL and try saying that again with a straight face...
     
    #463 Webryder, Jun 16, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2008
  4. mr.happy

    mr.happy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Superman. Apart from the spying and constant sulking, he actually tried to get between Richard and Lois, even though - for all he knew - they had a child together.

    That would make sense, if there was a sense that Superman felt like maybe he was crossing a line in the name of love, but he seemed as oblivious about what he was doing, as Singer and his writers undoubtedly were.

    Yes, it looked terrible.

    Wait, what? Believable flying? Where? Some of STM's flying was superior to much of what SR delivered, and that movie is nearly 30 years old.
    Regardless of what you call it, the problem is that it doesn't compare well.
    That's not really the point, though. The problem is that the audience is left with a downbeat feeling, when Superman's return should be something to celebrate. For the first movie outing in 20-some years, you want Superman to hit all the right notes. It's like going on a first date. We know everybody comes with emotional garbage, but you want to have a little bit of fun first, and you don't let it all hang on until you've sealed the deal at least a few dates down the lines, and SR most certainly didn't seal the deal. Don't call us, we'll call you.

    Except he left for 5 years, which, if you believe the movie is in continuity with SII, seems strange for a guy who had just promised the President that he would never let him down again, and he must have left Earth just days after that.

    Those are minor details. Barely relevant, and certainly not something Warner Bros would want to explore in great detail, should they decide to go ahead with a sequel.

    No, but Singer nearly did.

    Like I said. ;)

    Quite the opposite. Superman let Lois go in the plane, when he finally got around to saying goodbye, and when Richard had proven himself worthy of Lois, by acting as heroically as Superman did. While the feelings between Superman and Lois earlier in the movie were a bit conflicted, by the end of the movie, it's quite clear that they've resolved their issues about where they really are. They still love each other, but it's a different kind of love now. Superman doesn't get the girl, but he does get a son - family - and that was what he went looking for in the first place... if Singer had bothered to explain that properly. Are you seriously telling me you think Richard just stepped aside? With everything that had been established in the movie, with everything Singer has said about wanting to explore the complexities of modern relationships? Richard just stepped aside? I don't mean this as a personal dig at you, but it seems like the people who say they find something new to appreciate with each viewing have a lot more viewings to go, before they really get it, as they seem to argue against the few really smart and well executed aspects of the movie.

    If the test audiences say the movie is front heavy? Seems to me it would have taken guts to leave it in. Not that I particularly wanted it in, but there's no guts in a film-maker with a supposed vision bowing to corporate and test audience pressure. And having a vision means looking ahead. A clear vision would have shown him the Krypton sequence didn't fit. Again, we get the impression of a film-maker who is slightly out of his depth.

    Ignoring the absurd logical flaws of that particular scenario, the original plan was that Luthor was responsible for the fake Krypton "sightings", and had essentially sent Superman into space on a wild goose-chase. Remember the bit where Luthor rants about returning the favor for Superman taking 5 years of his life? It would have made much more sense in the original context.

    I don't think that was the demographic Warner Bros were hoping to appeal to.

    A great Superman would have received a much warmer welcome. This was nothing of the kind.

    But you could also say the best live-action Superman since Dean Cain. Doesn't really mean much. I'm not saying Routh was a bad Superman, the problems were mostly in how he was written, and to some people, probably about how the costume looked. Routh never got a chance to show us, if he could be a great Superman.

    Nobody who really understands Superman's core qualities would say Singer nailed it. He didn't even get the costume right. A lot of people had an emotional response and connection with what this Superman went through in the movie, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's a different matter entirely.
     
  5. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was showed at the end of the meeting on top of the Daily Planet where after he set her down they almost kiss. They stop at the last second and he backs away from her when she explains why they can't proceed. She almost looks at him like she wants to backtrack but he gives her the look like "nope not gonna happen" and says goodnite. He wasn't oblivious at all and realized he almost crossed a line but I give you the point that Superman never should have been written as doing that in the first place-bad characterization

    Compared to what? I'm just trying to figure out what your standards are cause maybe to you Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man looks terrible because he drew the right index finger shorter than the left or that the last scene in SpidermanI & II looked bad because the webs didn't look like they attached to anything.

    YOU were left with a downbeat feeling. Speak for yourself.

    Ok I admitted it wasn't perfect but no matter who they get to direct the sequel no film can be EVERYTHING to EVERYONE...obvious comparison Steven Speilberg and Indiana Jones. Great director (arguably the best in the world) making one of the most well known franchises in the world and people still say the film wasn't perfect. That he should've taken another 6 months or a year to polish the script. Rest my case....

    I don't think that metaphor applies, not concerning movie franchises anyway. If all you're doing with your characters is having fun, with little or no real substance, the audience might not care enough to return for a 2nd or 3rd "date". (Spawn, Ghost Rider, X-men 3, Superman III for god sakes) It's in seeing the emotional "garbarge" and inner turmoil that the main characters go through and ultimately overcome that makes it interesting and the fun comes in watching them go through hell and coming out the other side victorious.

    Minor?? Superman having a kid and the outcome of how that's handled could possibly make or break the character in this continuity or in any sequels that followed. Those issues are VERY relevant because it's Superman. Like I said if the sequel handles the Jason arc with respect and resolve it in an interesting entertaining way that adds to the mythos without it being a copout how much you wanna bet they'll try it in the comics or any other media for years or decades down the line. That kid's story might outlive us all...or not...

    Yeah he was letting her go and saying goodbye cause he knew what he had to do and was sure he was going to die. At least that's the way Routh played it. He wasn't thinking about Richard at all. His mind was on what it should've been on...that massive KRYPTONITE island he was gonna have to lift and throw into space...

    Richard got her to himself a long time ago at the end of the aformentioned Daily Planet rooftop scene but he didn't know that cause Lois was still in denial. Lois is the one that won't let go. She can't or won't decide and tries to have her cake and eat it too and that's something the real Lois wouldn't do--bad characterization for Lois which in turn drags Superman into her basically almost cheating on Richard.


    No it's not resolved. Like I said watch it again. Superman didn't get the girl OR the son, no family, because the kid has bonded with Richard. He called him daddy. So if Superman even tries he would be breaking up a home and emotionally confusing Jason, which Superman WOULD NOT DO, even if Jason is his biological son. That could potentially be great drama for the sequel to cover if done the right way. Like you said, Superman spent 5 years and traveled 28 galaxies only to find out he was the last of his kind and at the end he finds out he has a great kid but he is still the Peter Pan figure looking through the window at a family he can't have. Sure he can save them and watch over them but he can never tell the kid about his heritage, he can't play catch or teach him to ride a bike or tuck him in at nite or introduce him to his Grandmother (which they walked past at the hospital not even knowing who she was) or share in his growing up in a real fatherly way. Look at it from Jason's point of view. You have this great cool dad whose strong, loves you and is always there for you and you always feel protected and safe and he can fly you whereever you want to go in the world....and your other father is SUPERMAN!!! You don't see the potential there for a great subplot to a larger Superman sequel??

    I didn't say he stepped aside. But mentally he gave up subconsciously trying to compete against Superman because he realized he can't win. He didn't leave her or his kid but it was Lois' fault for putting his character in that position in the 1st place.

    If we were debating some smallville shots ok but a 10 MILLION dollar scene that took as long as that scene probably took to complete...yes that took guts...

    Sometimes test audiences can help you bring the finer details of a movie together so it plays like you want it to play....even the best directors use test audience feedback. You can't count that against Singer for something that's a standard practice. I bet he used T.A.'s on X-men and Usual Suspects. That's not exactly a negative or positive but just like any other tool or resource in film making it's all in how it was used.


    A vision is just an overall picture of events doesn't mean you have to have every detail worked out to have a great vision of where you want the story to go but if you find out at a later time that something works better at a certain point than you originally came up with if you DON'T at least consider it then your bowing to the potential wasted 10 mil.

    You mean the logic of Superman leaving earth for 5 years? I agree Superman wouldn't be gone for that long but maybe he didn't know it was going to take so long when he started the trip. Although I doubt it with the "28 known galaxies" he'd have to pass through. Ok I give you that. Bad characterization.

    Maybe those scenes didn't work or dragged where it needed a faster pace who knows...anything you or I say would be no more than speculation until we've seen the scenes.

    I would think they would want to appeal to as many demos as they can to get BO numbers up. Besides who are you to imply how someone else choses to relate to a movie that is different from your view is wrong even if it wasn't as initially intended.

    He did from people who recognize a great version of Superman when they see it despite the flaws. Don't throw away the baby with the bath water...sound familiar?

    It means that Routh's performance was better than Cain's, Wellings, both kids from Superboy, written better than all of STAS, Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, L of S, Batman Beyond, The Batman and on par with Reeve...that means ALOT.

    The costume does look horrible when not on film and when he's just posing in a regular picture but what costume doesn't?? (The Batsuit anyone?) On film with lighting and FX it didn't bother me at all....ok maybe the soles of his shoes but that's it...:p

    I think he did, even with a few bad characterization scenes, that his is, at least, on par with any Superman version that has come before.

    He didn't nail the whole movie and I admit that, over and over I might add. As I said Lois was almost unrecognizable she was characterized and played so badly but Singer nailed Superman and his initial Return. I also admit that I would have tried to talk him out of giving Superman a love child like that but it's new and can possibly elevate the character and mythos if he has a great (non-copout) plan for resolution that will be copied and reimagined and ripped off long after you and I turn to dust. Of course if he was just doing it ONLY for novelty and shock value with no plan or exit strategy he deserves to be kicked out on his ass (him and George W...lol) and never be allowed to even say a word with capital "S" in it again. If that happens I'll be more than happy to eat my words, which in this case would be a helluva meal.
     
    #465 Webryder, Jun 16, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2008
  6. KYO'NYUU IMOUTO

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    51,296
    Likes Received:
    42
    Can we stop posting in this thread until actual news is available?
     
  7. DisneyBoy

    DisneyBoy Searchin' My Soul

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    19,947
    Likes Received:
    0
    Makes sense to me.

    But here's a question - have either Marsden or Singer made any noises about Richard's character having a purpose beyond Superman Returns? I'm not thinking so...
     
  8. mr.happy

    mr.happy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that's not Superman realizing he's crossing a line, that's Lois pulling away from a kiss he was looking for by taking her through a repeat of their first romantic flight, and minutes earlier when Lois said "Richard takes me up all the time", Superman responds with "not like this", trying to upstage Richard.

    Compared to what a flying man should look like. The CGI was much too obvious.

    Depends on your definition of everyone, but it's clear from movies like STM, Spider-Man, The Incredibles, etc, etc, that you can get pretty damn close.

    You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying there shouldn't be substance, but sulking and self-pity isn't substance.

    I'm not saying the kid shouldn't be in another movie, but his main purpose has already played out.

    Watch the movie again. There are several points where Superman looks at Richard, and then the family as a whole. There's a reason Richard is being portrayed as unselfish and heroic, just like there's a reason that piece of the score is called The Family Unit. This is where the penny drop for Superman, and he gets back to the business of doing what Supermen do... which, apparently is ignoring the effects of kryptonite. ;)

    On the rooftop, Lois is mostly angry, and rightfully so. Superman is the one who tries to rekindle the romance, and in the end, she's the one who pulls back.

    That's the whole point of Singer's desire to portray complex family issues. This wasn't mean to be a traditional happy ending where the guy gets the girls. Superman got what he set into space looking for. That's a smart idea, don't drag it down.

    No, taking Lois to the hospital was a sign of his generous, Superman-like nature, and that he had put his own insecurities from earlier in the movie to rest.

    You've misunderstood one of the movie's central themes.

    I don't see your point?

    Conversely, I could argue that those who understand what a great Superman is didn't like this movie. The fact of the matter is that it didn't do anywhere near as well as it should have done at the box office, with fans, with critics, and it seems to me that those who claim this is a great take on Superman have misunderstood several vital aspects of the movie, and what this Superman really is.

    And it sounds like a stretch.

    Not even close. Not only did he have Superman try to split up Richard and Lois, he was much too sulky, seemed to complain about his responsibilities, left Earth for 5 years, didn't say goodbye to Lois, etc, etc, etc, and towards the end, he actually killed Luthor's henchmen. This isn't "nailing" Superman, it's getting it badly wrong.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Singer can't correct his mistakes with a sequel, but hearing how he has gotten himself into yet another mess with Valkyrie, you can't blame Warner Bros for taking a few steps back.

    Unless you really, really hate Singer, you can't seriously believe the guy is clueless enough not to have had plans for Richard beyond SR?
     
  9. Young Justice

    Young Justice Silent Master Apprentice

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    2
    The problem of SR was simply this: Singer tried to do another Donner movie instead of doing his own. The vision of Superman from 30 years ago don't work anymore nowadays. We need a fresh view on the character, at least in the live action universe.

    We need a less powered Superman, a meaner and more evil Luthor and a less clumsy Clark Kent. The key for Superman is that he is not Kryptonian, he is a guy from Kansas who happens to be the most powerful being on Earth. When you write with this perspective Superman is pure gold.
     
  10. James Harvey

    James Harvey The World's Finest
    Staff Member Administrator Moderator Reporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2001
    Messages:
    41,397
    Likes Received:
    578
    Hey everyone,

    If you want to discuss Superman Returns, take the discussion to the talkback thread for the movie - Superman Returns Talkback (Spoilers). Let’s keep this thread on-topic with the discussion of news for the upcoming sequel. Thank you.
     
  11. Freedom_Fighter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    I already agreed the Daily Planet rooftop was bad characterization on BOTH their parts. How many times I gotta say it? I agree with you. All I'm saying is Lois is more wrong because SHE has the son and SHE has the fiancee. He brought her up there to prove a point about the article she wrote not to try and make out with her. They almost...I say ALMOST, kissed EACH OTHER. Lois back off but thats because she was still bitter for no reason. She made the choice to go with him knowing she still loved him and then came back and lied to Richard in front of her kid about what she was doing cause she knew she was in the wrong. Besides it was so obvious she only said that to make Supes jealous not because she was saying what a great guy I got or we shouldn't be doing this. In fact, she never said that or that she loves Richard. She said he's a good man (code for: I'd feel too guilty) and that Supes has been gone a long time. (code for: but I would still kiss you, Richard or not, if I weren't already so bitter) Bad characterization for both....more for her cause she's got the kid. Lois is the failure of this movie NOT Superman. She does things the real Lois would never do.

    Okay you think it was bad, I don't...let's agree to disagree...

    lol ...who are you Bill Clinton now?? There's only one definition of everyone that I know of and all those movies you mentioned aren't liked by EVERYone. I know people on these boards that didn't like any of those films. If any of the people that directed those films directed a Superman movie I'd bet you'd find somthing wrong with that too. No matter how much it made at BO.

    Where did he show sulking and self-pity. All I saw was a man who was strong enough to get over his own personal baggage to save the world. (Quietly inside he might have felt that but he didn't let it keep him from the never-ending battle) Like was he busy sulking when he saved Lois and her whole family from certain death? No....he came through like he always does no matter how he felt. Was he showing self-pity when right after he overheard Lois deny him and lie about the love the entire audience knew she had for Superman, he zoomed off and listened at the "God Spot" to the entire planet scream for a savior and then answered their prayers? Nope...no hesitation.

    You have to know what his main purpose was for and only a sequel will have the answer to that.

    I already conceded that point about the kryptonite why bring it up again?


    Why is it right for her to be angry? He didn't know she had his baby? He left for purely personal reasons that had nothing to do with her? Then he comes back to find she wrote an article basically trashing all the past times he saved her AND the world...he must've felt like Doomsday punched him in the nuts when he read that thing. Like you said she pulled back because she was ANGRY not because it was wrong...why you defending her? He came up there for an interview to answer questions the WORLD might have then she made it personal (losing all professionalism and composure) by pouting, "How could you leave us like that?" In other words, leave HER like that. The world was fine, more than happy to have their hero back, and RIGHTFULLY so. If she really gotten over him like she claimed she did she could've just professionally did the interview said her son and fiancee were waiting for her and he would've flew off.

    Drag it down?? I'm just calling it for what it is. He didn't get a family in this movie. And if he tries he'll be guilty of what you repeated say he does in the movie that's un-Superman-like...break up a home. The kid is his but how can he ever be a real father to him? How can he even tell Jason that he's his son without hurting the boy? What do you think got resolved just because he now knows he has a son?? My description of the conflicts and cliffhangers at the end of the movie are more "complex" family issues then anything you saying. Read what I wrote again. You basically saying the Jason story is done, Supes got a kid, nothing more to explain case closed...I'M saying it's just begining...

    He was insecure because Lois lied to him throughout the entire movie and he could sense that. He should have called her on it, but instead he laid down and accepted it. (Even in the house when he ask her about her 1st article about Superman he was like, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have brought it up...I was like why???...you right, she in the wrong of course bring it up!) So he went ahead and took her to the hospital cause he could also sense that's where she wanted to be anyway. Like I said he gave up competing. Richard is good and generous and Superman-like but he's also enabling Lois to cheat on him by not calling her out for lying.

    You can't even concede one point to me. And don't try to tell me that's because you're right about everything. I think it's because you've already made up your mind about this movie being bad and therefore you're-not-seeing-the-big-picture-here Ms La...er uuh ..Mr. Happy. Why don't you tell me what the theme you think I'm missing is and I'll tell you if you're wrong.

    The point was Superman went back to Krypton because that's what orphans and/or adopted kids dream of doing. I already said it was out of character for him to be gone 5 years so no need to argue that...

    Not "could," you have...to great length...

    Why are you even talking about box office or critics? That has nothing to do with if SR gave us a good or lasting portrayal of Superman or not. I also conceded that Superman did some things in this movie that he wouldn't do, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a well written well acted version of Superman nor does it mean Singer failed at his task of making a good superman movie. Where this movie fails are sizable but can be overlooked because where it succeeds it REALLY succeeds. And that's why I think Singer has it in him to create a sequel that will appeal to most who didn't like this movie and that the sequel, if done right, will elevate and spotlight all the good SR had in it that some fans missed.

    What part? Who do you think did a better job, in either live action or animated form, than Routh, besides Reeve?

    So he didn't say goodbye, why is that such a big deal? When he did finally say it on the plane it didn't look like it made her any happier. Besides he explained to her about that. They weren't boyfriend and girlfriend yet, why does she have the right to be hostile toward him and belittle his existence to the world?? Even with all that I still buy this Superman over most others...everyone makes mistakes, even Superman but unlike Lois he deals with them head on. Not trying to lie his way out of the consequences. Killing Luthors henchmen ok good point there. But I can almost forgive that because Lex told them to vamanos when the island started quaking and to "take nothing" but they were greedy and it cost them the few seconds they needed to clear the giant crystal dropping. Superman also was running out of time, the island was still growing at a exponential rate, soon it would've been too heavy for even him to move. With all the kryptonite weakening him, he barely made it at its present mass....even tho, that is a good point...I still almost wanna forgive it because of what they were trying to do to the world and the fact that it was mostly their own fault they died....

    Don't even bring into the discussion what the WB thinks cause they have no idea what Superman is or what it takes to make a good film about him.

    Warners is taking a few steps back because of money more then Singer. The film made 400 mil, you think Burton or Ratners version would have made anything CLOSE to that much? The film was almost doomed to be a flop from the begining because it came with a 200 mil dollar debt before Singer even signed on. WB know that any sequels that get made half of the profits might end up going to the Siegel family because of the court case they won. That means the WB doesn't have the fire under their A** to make any Superman films period, no matter WHO directs and thats a problem for any Superman fan, whether they liked this version or not.

    Let me ask you this. If the film gave you the best Superman, in your opinion, of all time but it still only made a tidy 400 mill and critics hated it, would you give a crap about Box Office or what WB thought of it? If the answer is, like any true fan would be, no, then why pay attention to that stuff now? It doesn't matter...

    No because most of this thread has been about how bad SR is and I want to challenge some peoples ideas on why they think it's so bad and have no hope for the sequel under Singer's direction. Nobody is standing up for the movie anymore so today I will.
     
  13. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    My fault I thought this was that....

    I remember reading somewhere that the Superman sequel had John Williams signed on to do the soundtrack...can anybody confirm or debunk this? It does sound to good to be true tho...Singer doesn't even have writers lined up yet...
     
  14. mr.happy

    mr.happy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll get back to you on that one. :)

    Lois went up there not expecting to meet Superman. He was the one who snuck up on her.

    Not for no reason. He knocked her up and left for 5 years without even a goodbye. Anyway, the purpose of this scene is obviously to show that they're both unsure where they stand with each other, and that's why we get the pay-off later in the movie, when they both come to terms with their situation, particularly Superman, after he has seemingly given up and lost everything, including nearly his life.

    I didn't have as many problems with her character as I did with Superman's. Lois is not an archetype or iconic character the way Superman is. There are less rules for her.

    But many people use the term quite loosely. If goes without saying you can't please literally everyone, but of you're talking everyone in general demographic terms, then you can.

    We saw it both as Clark and as Superman. If you didn't see it, you're not giving Routh's performance enough credit.

    His main purpose in terms of SR. Of course you could come up with more stuff for the kid, but it's looking more and more like it was a mistake to introduce him in the first place.

    Come on, any woman who is left behind under those circumstances have a right to be angry. If someone you love just gets up and leaves for 5 years, can you imagine how worried and frustrated you would be. It's not a very Superman-like thing to do.

    No, you're looking at this in much too simplistic terms. Superman thought he was literally the last of his kind, and was so desperate for kinship that he would take off into space for 5 years looking for it. He didn't get a wife, a kid and a picket fence, but it was perfectly obvious that he was thrilled to bits with what he got, particularly after all seemed lost, even if the circumstances were a little unusual. Like I said, read Singer's interviews on the subject. The complicated family dynamics is a big deal for him, for better or for worse. I find it disappointing when fans of the movie drone on about how "mature" and "sophisticated" it is, but don't seem to get why.

    I can't even begin to tell you how nuts this sounds. If you're right, Singer is a far worse film maker, and SR is a far worse movie than I could possibly imagine.

    No, I'm actually pointing out an aspect of the movie which was very good, and for some reason you're determined to undermine it, by pretending something far more simplistic was going on.

    :confused: I think I've mentioned it about 3 or 4 times now.

    Then you've missed the point, as I have actually argued in favor of several aspects of the movie. I think much of the movie missed the mark in terms of how to reintroduce Superman after all this time, but that doesn't mean it didn't have certain qualities.

    Sure it does. Superman is the world's most well known superhero, and people have certain expectations when they go to a Superman movie, and SR obviously didn't deliver.

    And that would be...?

    Both STAS and JL(U) delivered a better Superman than what we saw in SR. STAS is universally recognized as quintessential Superman by fans, creators... everyone, really. ;) George Reeves was an excellent Superman for his time as well.

    Where's the smiley. Please tell me you're joking now?

    You don't reintroduce a guy called Superman by getting rid of the Super part and overemphasizing the Man part.

    It's almost unheard of for Superman to put people's lives at risk like this, never mind for them to end up dead, and it goes back to the point about how Singer didn't really understand the character he was dealing with, and missed the mark quite badly in terms of delivering what we expect from a Superman.

    How do you know this?

    But Singer was the one who spent too much money, and whose responsibility it was to deliver a blockbuster. As it is, the movie barely broke even, if it even managed that.

    You need to separate your personal opinion from an objective analysis of the movie. They're two different things. Box office, audience feedback and critical acclaim are all factors in assessing a movie's success or lack thereof, and STM, which is not just seen as the best Superman movie of all time, but also the best superhero movie of all time, got great box office, reviews and audience feedback, because it delivered a Superman "everyone" could get behind.

    The reason people are concerned about Singer is not because he's a bad film maker, but because he just doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of Superman at all. He just made too many fundamental mistakes.
     
  15. KYO'NYUU IMOUTO

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    51,296
    Likes Received:
    42
    So, the sequel...

    I'd assume Richard will tell Lois he wants her to be happy and that Jason should know his real dad after he discovers Superman is Clark. Clark needs to be told that if he can protect the world then he can protect a family and he should be ashamed of being such a wuss.
     
  16. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you remember the begining of the movie where Clark is leaning on the fence looking out at the sunrise in Kansas? The dog comes running up with the ball, Clark takes it and throws it for what seems like the entire length of the farm, further even, till it's out of sight. :eek: The dog initially tries to fetch but thinks again when he realizes the ball is loooong gone. :anime: That scene was so warm and endearing and epic at the same time. That scene simply but EXACTLY shows the pure gold you just said would be the key to Superman...a guy from Kansas who just happens to be the most powerful being on Earth....and his dog...:)

    It's Superman, it's Americana (with the baseball) all mixed together in a nice subtle picture of Clark on the farm....

    *If you want to comment or rebut go to the Superman Returns Talkback ok?*
     
  18. Wonder Woman

    Wonder Woman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    17,820
    Likes Received:
    56
    The last bits of news I could find on the Superman Returns sequel are the following:

    http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=445568&sid=ENT&ssid=1

    http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=53433

     
  19. Webryder

    Webryder Cyclops aint got nothin' on me

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. KYO'NYUU IMOUTO

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    51,296
    Likes Received:
    42
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • Find Toonzone on Facebook

  • Toonzone News

  • Site Updates

    Upcoming Premieres

  • Toonzone Fan Sites


Tac Anti Spam from Surrey Forum