New Article from NY POST

[VGPOP]

http://www.nypost.com/img/front043006.gif

SUPERMAN'S MR. SOFTY



IN 'SUPERMAN RETURNS,' HOLLYWOOD'S NEWEST VERSION OF THE MAN OF STEEL FIGHTS CRIME - AND HIS FEELINGS


April 30, 2006 -- SURE, he's still faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. But have you noticed that Superman's has seemed different lately?

We think it started when Christopher Reeve's Man of Steel and Margot Kidder's Lois Lane spent time snuggling in satin sheets in 1980's "Superman II." And ever since - through "Lois &Clark" and "Smallville" - Superman's just been getting softer and softer.
But just wait until you see "Superman Returns," which arrives in theaters on June 30.
Nearly 70 years have passed since Superman first appeared on the cover of Action Comics in blue tights and a red cape. Since then, practically everything has changed - and not just sartorially.
The meaning of masculinity itself has been so redefined that the Man of Steel, and even his alter ego Clark Kent, seem positively unrecognizable to most contemporary guys.

Guys these days see themselves better reflected in the characters played by Owen Wilson - a slacker leading man whose most endearing quality is his passion for underachievement - than to earnestly patriotic, straight-arrow Clark Kent, or nearly invincible and never self-interested Superman. Enter Brandon Routh, a practically unknown 25-year-old actor, who'll redefine the superhero for a new century as the star of "Superman Returns," the fifth big-budget installment of the franchise.

Superman may be an icon of masculinity, but he's also a brand - a brand in need of a serious makeover.

This is a fact that has not been lost on Bryan Singer, director of "Superman Returns."
"It's time to address and celebrate, in some way, people's connection to Superman, and how the character has evolved from 1938 to now," says Singer, who acknowledges that it's tough to empathize with a guy who can lift trains over his head and deflect bullets like they were cotton puffs. "But a guy who's having a hard time fitting back in - then everyone can relate," Singer adds. "He's a breath of fresh air."

Singer understands that when you're a superhero, there isn't much in the way of physical obstacles - providing you can steer clear of arch villains bearing Kryptonite - so he created the biggest sort of obstacle any guy can face: an emotional one.
In "Superman Returns," the squeaky-clean hero heads back to Earth after a mysterious six-year absence, only to find things have turned ugly. Worse yet, even his long-simmering romance with Lois Lane (played by "Blue Crush" star Kate Bosworth) has lost all its heat. Lois not only has a new guy - she has a child.
"I wanted to have something serious to confront Superman when he came back," Singer says. "We've seen disasters, we've seen criminals. This is altogether different. This is personal."
For 40 years, Lois never knew that Clark wore a cape under his suit and tie, although she had her suspicions. By "Superman II," in 1978, Lois knew Clark's identity - and fell in love with him.
Afterward, in the television series "Lois and Clark" and "Smallville," the relationship between the two grew deeper (although in "Smallville," Clark actually has a crush on a woman named Lana, not Lois).
More than the '40s comic books or the George Reeves TV show, these are the images that have defined Superman for the past three decades. This gradual shift from a square-jawed stud into a sensitive superhero who actually cuddles with Lois is something the writers took into account.
"Our view is, if you're over 25 years old, then you've seen the [Christopher] Reeve films, and that's Superman to you," says Dan Harris, who co-wrote the script with Michael Dougherty. "If you're under 25, then you watch TV's 'Smallville,' and that's Superman to you."
In "Superman Returns," Lois has moved on. She realizes there's something to be said for loving a guy who's secretly not Superman. After all, if you're dating Superman, you have to compete with the whole world for his attention - and it's a needy world!
With an ordinary guy, at least there's a chance that he'll stop watching ESPN long enough for the two of you to nestle on the couch and get some quality time.
So this time around, Superman's not only got to reverse the darkness that has descended on the world - he has to seek some kind of emotional breakthrough, too. Can he find closure with the love of his life? Warner Brothers is betting nearly $200 million that this is the battle we really want to see.

Superman's interior life isn't the only thing that's changed. You can even see a transformation in his costume.
First, there's his new, tiny "S" on his chest. His logo used to scream superhero. Now it just seems like a modest boast.
His monogram isn't the only thing that's shrunk. What's up with those shorts? Those are the kind of things that Ricky Martin wears while working out on a European beach.
Though his trademark curl remains, Clark's classic pomaded 'do has also been toned down in favor of a matte brush cut.
Finally, what happened to the bold scarlet red that used to adorn his cape, insignia, shorts and boots? Now they're a sedate shade of rust.
As a nation, we're always willing to embrace the familiar one more time, even if merely for old time's sake. We did it for Coca-Cola Classic. We do it every couple years for the Rolling Stones, no matter how much they look like cadavers instead of rockers.
We can do it for Superman, too - but not the one your daddy worshipped.

He needs to be a superhero, sure, but also has to be recognizable to today's guys, dudes with iffy romantic prospects, tough career choices and a worldview that recognizes everything could unravel in a moment. They crave a new Xbox more than X-ray vision.
After all, in a world filled with jihad, culture clashes and environmental catastrophes, being an emotionally remote, straight-arrow Man of Steel would be just as much of a problem as it used to be a solution.
So, Superman, welcome back to Earth, 21st century-style. And before you put on that cape, can we just talk about your childhood for a while?

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/63049.htm

[Mentok]

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH.

Thats a great title on the cover :up:

Pitty the article is crap.

[Nivek]

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH.

Thats a great title on the cover :up:

Pitty the article is crap.

Yeah, thats funny, but it's the NY post man, these guys are like half a notch above the National Enquirer as far as reporting and press reputation. For UK people, it's pretty much like The Sun.

[TheSuperBatFan]

Yeah, thats funny, but it's the NY post man, these guys are like half a notch above the National Enquirer as far as reporting and press reputation. For UK people, it's pretty much like The Sun.

and even better, The New York Post is owned by News Corp, or in other words, Rupert Murdoch. Gotta love it when a newspaper owned by the owner of Fox gives the movie a bad preview.

[nightwing06]

Yeah, thats funny, but it's the NY post man, these guys are like half a notch above the National Enquirer as far as reporting and press reputation. For UK people, it's pretty much like The Sun.

I agree
They write articles about how the paparazzi are going to end up causing a celeb death,but then they purchase,and print all of the pics the paparazzi take.

[Metropolis_Man]

This writers usually slam anything that other people would deem good. Once again its just his own opinion,and he knows nothing about the character more than likely.

[Oldguy]

Are we reading the same article? Seems like they are justifying why Singer went the direction he did, to create an Emo Superman to relate to the average movie goer.

Was it the shorts comments? Just a taste of what average people think of them, not like they have Singer tainted glasses like all of you guys.

I think Peter Parker will make the most relatable Superman ever.

[Metropolis_Man]

Are we reading the same article? Seems like they are justifying why Singer went the direction he did, to create an Emo Superman to relate to the average movie goer.

Was it the shorts comments? Just a taste of what average people think of them, not like they have Singer tainted glasses like all of you guys.

I think Peter Parker will make the most relatable Superman ever.

Probably so. I payed a lot for those glasses and I refuse to take them off.

[Gamma Ray]

We get this at our house on weekends. :o

[Nivek]

I grew up in NY Oldman, so as soon as I read a NY Post headline, I diss it just from that. It's bird cage liner 80% of the time anyway.

[TheSuperBatFan]

I grew up in NY Oldman, so as soon as I read a NY Post headline, I diss it just from that. It's bird cage liner 80% of the time anyway.

:up: exactly. Noone has respect for the paper anymore. the Post is rediculous

[StarvingArtist]

What was so ridiculous about the article...?

[Nivek]

It's a piece from the NY Post, thats what. The article itself isn't all that bad (a bit slanted though), but the cover title is typical crap from a daily tabloid paper trying to grab cheap attention.

[Metropolis_Man]

It's a piece from the NY Post, thats what. The article itself isn't all that bad (a bit slanted though), but the cover title is typical crap from a daily tabloid paper trying to grab cheap attention.

I was thinking that it looked awfully close to a tabloid.

[ultimatefan]

Well, Supes has always maintained a certain essence, while also adjusting for the times... What happened in Superman II was unthinkable years before. Superman being married with Lois was "insanity". The character can adapt, as long as he retains his pure heart and sense of Justice.

[Oldguy]

:up: exactly. Noone has respect for the paper anymore. the Post is rediculous

Be that as it may, the Post is supporting Singer's direction. You guys are blinded by your prejudice towards the Post to see that, which is amusing to say the least.

[Superman \S/]

Thanks for the article.

[Fatboy Roberts]

the Post is supporting Singer's direction.

Not really. The article is more of a backhanded slap at masculinity in the 21st century then it really is a discussion of the new Superman movie. And it's not all that well written, which I think people are picking up on.

But it's not at all overtly negative towards the movie, either. But it's the Post, so you had to know people were gonna wipe their ass with it :)

[FreeRadical]

and even better, The New York Post is owned by News Corp, or in other words, Rupert Murdoch. Gotta love it when a newspaper owned by the owner of Fox gives the movie a bad preview.

The Sun newspaper in the UK is also owned by News Corp :eek: .

[ToddIsDead]

The Sun newspaper in the UK is also owned by News Corp :eek: .
No one beats Rupert Murdoch when it comes to putting out crap.

[Oldguy]

Not really.

Ya really, put aside your preconcieved notions of NY POST and read. The Post writer recognizes that is WB's attempt to make Superman relateable, and he agrees that it's a viable attempt to do so.

Obviously it's a backhanded compliment. The writer isn't pleased to see Superman misrepresented either. But he acknoledges the merit of the direction they took.

Should be interesting to see how accurate his assessment is.

[Nivek]

Knowing the NY Post Oldfudd, the writer wouldn't know Superman from Captain Marvel.

The article was written with an obvious slight smear to it. But as stated by myself and others familier with the tabloid, thats The Post for ya...

[M.O.Steel]

yeah i don't understand why you guys are saying its a bad article. Except some parts, the article was describing how the world has changed and the chracter of superman needed to change to be more relatable to the audience, and that's what singer is delivering. Where's the hate coming from? I've read much worse...

[Fatboy Roberts]

put aside your preconcieved notions of NY POST and read.

LOL. I did. Hence the part where I say It's not altogether negative about the movie itself.

Now--it'd be a little disingenuous of you NOT to admit you might yourself be reading more into the writers intention simply because you find the subtext to the article to be backing up the very same opinion you've been driving into the ground since you got here, right? ;)

[Nivek]

LOL. I did. Hence the part where I say It's not altogether negative about the movie itself.

Now--it'd be a little disingenuous of you NOT to admit you might yourself be reading more into the writers intention simply because you find the subtext to the article to be backing up the very same opinion you've been driving into the ground since you got here, right? ;)


You mean his SuperBOY comments? Why would you say that?

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Ya really, put aside your preconcieved notions....

That's rich coming from you. :rolleyes:

[Still A ThorFan]

But if the Post was raving about how good Superman was going to be you guys would be saying that is the best newspaper ever, you know that is the damn truth.

[BareKnucklez]

LOL THAT artical made Routh's Superman look like a total wimp.

I really don't think I like the idea of a Superman soap... :o

[Fatboy Roberts]

But if the Post was raving about how good Superman was going to be you guys would be saying that is the best newspaper ever, you know that is the damn truth.

No I don't. And the guys who would be saying that--suck.

[Showtime]

I hate the New York Post because it is the New York Post. Damn Yankees.

[MatchesMalone]

The article is going off the quotes from Singer that have been bandied about since last year's Wondercon. The writer takes those quotes and made an interpretation. What's wrong with that?

Regarding his interpretation. It seems accurate. That does not mean it is emo, or what have you. It means that Superman may be treated with emotional maturity. It also means that Superman may be a love story, which is not a bad thing in my mind necessarily. Whether it translates to film well is the question, and I have my doubts. But the action looks good so far, so that might keep it interesting if the story devolves to Peter Parker standards.

And Oldguy, how can any of this be bad news to you? It's as Post-crisis as it gets, if true.

[Showtime]

Nothing is wrong with that in my opinion, but I don't think you were addressing me.

Not sure what to make out of the storyline, but I think the action will definately translate nicely on to film, despite no "supervillian".

[MatchesMalone]

Let's face it, Superman confronted emotional issues at the heart of STM and Superman 2 as well. Lois was at the center of both, and figured pretty heavily in the stories of the films. Those turned out alright (Donner's cut of S2, of course).

However, it's all in the execution. Those emotional plotlines worked in STM because there was no dwelling, no overexertion (ok, the Lois rap was bad). That kind of stuff (a la Spider-man 2) brings it to the realm of bad angst. If Superman goes in that direction, it will only be a detriment.

[Fatboy Roberts]

I don't disagree with any of that--I just thought the article was poorly written. But it's the Post, so hey ;)

"Here's a letter to the New York Post!" -- Chuck D.

[Showtime]

Let's face it, Superman confronted emotional issues at the heart of STM and Superman 2 as well. Lois was at the center of both, and figured pretty heavily in the stories of the films. Those turned out alright (Donner's cut of S2, of course).

However, it's all in the execution. Those emotional plotlines worked in STM because there was no dwelling, no overexertion (ok, the Lois rap was bad). That kind of stuff (a la Spider-man 2) brings it to the realm of bad angst. If Superman goes in that direction, it will only be a detriment.

I like the heart of the idea, Superman returning to a world that no longer needs him. I think Singer is really trying to give Superman a different type of challenge by having Lois move on. The only problem is still that damn kid, isn't it enough that Lois is engaged?

I would have rather seen Superman return to find out that Lex is a high ranking political official and he is running for President, or better yet, he is President. Not only that, the people adore him, and Lex has been brainwashing them the whole time against Superman. So when boy blue does return, the whole country and even the world is against him. What is he going to do now? Lois has moved on and he has returned to a country where Lex is the highest ranking political official in the country and basically the most powerful man in the world. Maybe he uses Star Labs to create Bizzaro, or commisions Metallo to hunt down Superman...

[Nivek]

Originally Posted by Still A ThorFan
But if the Post was raving about how good Superman was going to be you guys would be saying that is the best newspaper ever, you know that is the damn truth.

No I don't. And the guys who would be saying that--suck.

I concour, I doubt that paper would ever rave about it anyway, it sells more papers to crap on it.

Seriously, the paper has a hardcore tabloid reputation, it's like SR getting a write up in Star, The Globe, or the National Enquirer. Dont take it anymore than that. It's funny seeing anyone defending an article written in it, regardless of it's tone being "not that bad".

[DavidTyler]

The article is going off the quotes from Singer that have been bandied about since last year's Wondercon. The writer takes those quotes and made an interpretation. What's wrong with that?

Regarding his interpretation. It seems accurate. That does not mean it is emo, or what have you. It means that Superman may be treated with emotional maturity. It also means that Superman may be a love story, which is not a bad thing in my mind necessarily. Whether it translates to film well is the question, and I have my doubts. But the action looks good so far, so that might keep it interesting if the story devolves to Peter Parker standards.

And Oldguy, how can any of this be bad news to you? It's as Post-crisis as it gets, if true.

Very valid points.

While I'm not a fan of the Kid concept, the Donner rehash, and some of the suit changes, the article is pretty much what Singer has been saying right along and, as much as I'm not crazy about some of the choices made, it's completely viable. It takes Superman into the arena that - not John Byrne - but Ordway, Stern, and Wolfman took him. Self doubts and all.

And I completely agree that you just can't do 'cardboard superhero' and have it interesting and engaging. The 'Peter Parker' standard you mention is pretty much where this character needs to be and has been since Post Crisis. I know you don't like Post Crisis but understand that this is what's at it's roots - humanization of the character.

So, Matches, I find it interesting that on this we agree.

[MatchesMalone]

I think it's funny that we are so very opposite. ;) I'm sold on all the visual stuff, but the story is what concerns me the most. I can't stand to think of Clark Kent in the same way I think of Peter Parker, and if the movie promotes that kind of "why me" attitude I will not enjoy it at all.

Regarding the viability of a hero with flaws - of course that is a totally viable concept, and I have never been against mature storytelling. I think what Post-crisis has done (with a few exceptions) has not been mature storytelling. That's why I prefer Pre-crisis, because if I'm not going to get maturity, I'm at least going to have fun. The best possibility is the combination of mature storytelling and fun. Happens every so often. If Superman Returns manages to do that, I'm in.

[Still A ThorFan]

As a native New Yorker (The Bronx) I'm not a big fan of the post either. But I stand by my opinion that if a positive review was written on Superman a lot of you would not have bashed the post, and you would have agreed with the positive review because you're biased.

See, I hated the first 2 Spiderman films even though they got good reviews all over the place, therefore I am unbiased.

And someone mentioned that since the Post is owned by Murdoch, the poor review was given on purpose because it is a Warner Bros. film. That was stupid and makes no sense at all.

[MatchesMalone]

Most people are stupid on the internet.

And hating something a lot of other people liked does not make you unbiased. Quite the opposite, actually. Not that it's a bad thing, hate what you want. But don't pretend to be objective about an opinion. That's pretty stupid as well.

BOOOOOURNS to Clark Parker!

[SolidSnakeMGS]

And hating something a lot of other people liked does not make you unbiased. Quite the opposite, actually. Not that it's a bad thing, hate what you want. But don't pretend to be objective about an opinion. That's pretty stupid as well.

Agreed. I know people that go out of their way to hate the things that are popular. Then they like things that are obscure or not that popular and get this egotrip over their percieved eliteness.

[Oldguy]

The article is going off the quotes from Singer that have been bandied about since last year's Wondercon. The writer takes those quotes and made an interpretation. What's wrong with that?

Regarding his interpretation. It seems accurate. That does not mean it is emo, or what have you. It means that Superman may be treated with emotional maturity. It also means that Superman may be a love story, which is not a bad thing in my mind necessarily. Whether it translates to film well is the question, and I have my doubts. But the action looks good so far, so that might keep it interesting if the story devolves to Peter Parker standards.

And Oldguy, how can any of this be bad news to you? It's as Post-crisis as it gets, if true.

Matches, I cheered when Batman told Superman that he hadn't inspired anyone since he died. I'm glad Crisis killed the alien messiah, and I'm also glad to see the current development of the character.

I'm sorry, your going to have to look elsewhere to find someone to champion Post-crisis, cause it's dead now. 52 skiddoo baby!!

Now--it'd be a little disingenuous of you NOT to admit you might yourself be reading more into the writers intention simply because you find the subtext to the article to be backing up the very same opinion you've been driving into the ground since you got here, right? ;)

What's to read into here exactly? The writer is obviously unhappy with redefining the character to fit the filmaker's vision, but he goes out of his way to justify why Singer did so, hell he portrays the bastardization as nessecary, he essentially defends Singer.

You think my opinion is some kind of rarity amoungst Superman fans? Or even casual fans? We aren't irrational haters for wanting accurate characterization. From what's been released storywise, there's cause for alarm.

[Fatboy Roberts]

We aren't irrational haters

never said you were, and I don't even LIKE categories like that. "Gusher" "Hater" "Basher" "Lover" all that stuff is CRAP. It's mindless reductionism so that people don't have to pay any attention to the actual arguments, they can just rely on generalities and old, perfected arguments from OTHER threads that half the time don't even apply. They only fit if you can categorize the person you're arguing with as a "Basher" "Gusher" or whatever--and then you can tee off to your hearts content arguing with an abstract instead of having to pay attention to what's being said :)

The writer is obviously unhappy with redefining the character to fit the filmaker's vision,

That's what I'm talking about when I say "You're reading into things" actually ;) You're unhappy with that aspect, so you see the writer being unhappy with it. I see more the writer being unhappy not with the redefinition of the character--he sees that as necessary. he's unhappy with OUR TIME and our conception of masculinity. It's at that point, to me, that the article devolves into another "It was so much better in my day" thread that's very often boring and tainted by raw nostalgia anyway.

But the parts he writes about the movie divorced from that aren't altogether negative, and even the parts he DOES write about in regards to today's version of masculinity aren't totally negative.

No, I don't think your opinion is a rarity. I don't know why you'd even think that, there's nothing in my previous responses that even hints at it. You got a chip on your shoulder on this one, although it's understandable, you've been fighting on this board for so long I can see why you'd start apprehensively entering into discussions looking for the first sign of "basher/gusher" closed-mindedness to pounce on :)

but of course there's cause for alarm. You've read me being alarmed in here. I'm pretty sure you have. The story is still up in the air. A lot of people have forgotten that in the meantime--but there's still plenty unknown about this movie that has question marks popping up all over.

[MatchesMalone]

One thing does give me hope, however: Jimmy Olsen is the one who tells Clark about Lois and the new guy, which is always just comedy anyway; and the scene from the storyboarded ShoWest footage showing Clark busting the picture frame of Lois and the new guy - that's a good kind of reaction for Superman. So, I still have hope that the relationship aspects will have as much finesse as the action ones. But I have to go with Fatboy and Oldguy, there are question marks popping up. But only question marks, no red exclamation points yet.

[MatchesMalone]

Matches, I cheered when Batman told Superman that he hadn't inspired anyone since he died. I'm glad Crisis killed the alien messiah, and I'm also glad to see the current development of the character.

I'm sorry, your going to have to look elsewhere to find someone to champion Post-crisis, cause it's dead now. 52 skiddoo baby!!

Guh? So you were glad that Crisis was a neutering, and now you're glad that they're growing him some more balls? Or are you finally realizing that the current crop of creators want to tell Pre-Crisis stories with a modern-day sophisitication, and this is as awesome as it sounds?

What's to read into here exactly? The writer is obviously unhappy with redefining the character to fit the filmaker's vision, but he goes out of his way to justify why Singer did so, hell he portrays the bastardization as nessecary, he essentially defends Singer.

What bastardization? Did you read For Tomorrow? Or any of the recent comics? Superman's been like the guy in the article described for quite a while now. Whether he will be like that, or more like his 1978 counterpart is my biggest worry. And I can only hope it's the latter. I see you failing to reconcile your contradictory images of Superman, Oldguy. Do you want the pre-crisis machismo, or do you want the post-crisis sensitivity and angsty inner turmoil? You can't have both without a completely conflicted character.

You think my opinion is some kind of rarity amoungst Superman fans? Or even casual fans? We aren't irrational haters for wanting accurate characterization. From what's been released storywise, there's cause for alarm.

And if your concern is over Lois, then stop right there. Thank God they have re-injected some kind of turbulence there, because it's so damn boring for them to be in lovey-dovey love with the marriage and no problems. BOOOOORING! I applaud what Singer has done there, and I don't care about the kid - as long as it doesn't have Kryptonian DNA and telepathy.

[Oldguy]

Guh? So you were glad that Crisis was a neutering...

I don't value your opinion as fact, Matches. I'm glad they made him human after all, as Shuster and Siegel intended. Maybe at times it swung a little too far human, but at least characters grew and developed.

What bastardization?

We'll have to wait and see the full extent of Singer's bastardization. Things like the absence, the kid, the crime gang is what I'm referring to.

... Do you want the pre-crisis machismo, or do you want the post-crisis sensitivity and angsty inner turmoil? You can't have both without a completely conflicted character.

Moderation young man, literature need not reduce characters to 2 dimensional caricatures. Superman is plenty Macho now, never stopped really, but he also has issues in life that he just can't punch his way out of. Villains he can't touch, love interests that have conflicted with his occupational hazards.

One day when you grow up, you'll learn to appreciate the subtle things in life instead of black and white formula characterization.

And if your concern is over Lois, then stop right there. Thank God they have re-injected some kind of turbulence there, because it's so damn boring for them to be in lovey-dovey love with the marriage and no problems,BOOOOORING!

Ah yes that's right, like being married has been nothing but smooth sailing, not like they have addressed what it would be like being married to The Super-hero and the stresses brought on by it.

I applaud what Singer has done there, and I don't care about the kid - as long as it doesn't have Kryptonian DNA and telepathy.

Simpletons rejoice! Drama for drama's sake that totally misrepresents the character. I can give them the benefit of the doubt, as far as Lois moving on, but having a kid out of wedlock at the prime of her career? Not ****ing likely. She would have that nipped in the bud.

But of course she didn't nip it in the bud for the same reason you are going to mow down come June 30.;)

[Oldguy]

...That's what I'm talking about when I say "You're reading into things" actually ;) You're unhappy with that aspect, so you see the writer being unhappy with it. I see more the writer being unhappy not with the redefinition of the character--he sees that as necessary. he's unhappy with OUR TIME and our conception of masculinity. It's at that point, to me, that the article devolves into another "It was so much better in my day" thread that's very often boring and tainted by raw nostalgia anyway.


So let me get this straight, you are evaluating my opinion, how I'm "reading into things" based on how you read into things? No facts, just my opinion is off base because it conflicts with yours?

You think the cart pushes the horse, that the writer is dismayed with modern masculinity and how it reflects in SR. I think the horse pulls the cart, that the writer is disappointed with Singer's vision, a softening to make him relatable to popular metro trends.

Not much difference really, just you splitting hairs cause your fingers are cold I guess. But in the end, your opinion is different from mine, so I must be right, according to your rationale. Thanks Fatboy!

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Funny, when Oldguy appears on a thread, you can certainly guarantee things will get derailed and quick.

He's like the suicidal/homicidal Amtrak always headed towards oncoming trains.

[Oldguy]

Funny, when SolidSnakeMGS appears on a thread, nobody cares.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Funny, when SolidSnakeMGS appears on a thread, nobody cares.

Apparently, you do enough to post. Awww, thanks big guy! :up:

[Fatboy Roberts]

Yeaaaahhhhhhhno, Oldguy. But thanks for more overreaction and histrionics on your end. :)

I'm guessing you think it's endearing somehow.

[MatchesMalone]

I don't value your opinion as fact, Matches. I'm glad they made him human after all, as Shuster and Siegel intended. Maybe at times it swung a little too far human, but at least characters grew and developed.

Ok. Let me finally air out my problems with Post-Crisis, and I will be eating a little crow here and there. I am not above that, and I admit things that are good about things I generally don't care for. You do have beautiful Canadian eyes, Oldguy.

Post-crisis, for me, started with ridiculously over-the-top "scientization", a word I just made up. Things from the birthing matrix to the "aura" were laughably ridiculous. I hated them for the ridiculous complexity they brought to such things as why Superman's shirt never ripped. These are things that didn't have to be explained, and could have been done so much better. It was what I call lazy complexity. They were engineering continuity on the spot, which I tend to hate in favor of the freedom one-off stories and deeper explorations that are not restricted by edicts from on high.

Second - the demonization of Krypton and the sad fates of Jor El and Lara, who never really knew Kal El before they rocketed him off. The tinge of tragedy felt in the deaths of Kal El's parents is in the fact that they had to look their son in the face and say goodbye.

Third - Lois and Clark getting married effectively killed that rather interesting and always entertaining "triangle". Lois turned from a suspicious, always-on-her-toes and rather pioneering female role model into...the bickering, *****ing wife of Superman. I don't want to know about marriage problems. I don't read comics to see real life reflected back at me. I read them to escape from that real life temporarily and let my imagination take over for a while. I see enough depressing things about real-life humans and their relationships every day, I don't need to see it as a plot point in a super-hero comic. I will grant them, they took a bold step in marrying them and maybe, just maybe, if the follow-through had been something innovative it would have been worth it. But it wasn't. It became boring. In Superman 2, the speech Lois gives to Clark at the end (before the s****y kiss) is a far more true-to-character portrayal of any relationship they could have. I am all for exploring their relationship, the complexities of the duality and all of that - but I can't see them ever having a working long-term relationship. And that is the crux of their interaction. They both know it can't work, really, but they are too in love to stop trying and failing. That is interesting.

Finally - Clark being the man, Superman being the crazy night job. I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way and never will. Superman is that farmboy who grew up believing in truth and justice, and learning from his parents the true nature of responsibility, strength, and integrity. Superman is the natural product of that nurturing coupled with the nature of Clark's heritage - his powers. Clark Kent, reporter, is a carefully crafted act that Superman (aka Clark Kent, real person) needs to do what he does.

Now, to what I have liked:

Sophistication - I appreciated the level to which they were willing to go to modernize the world of Superman and the depth which which some of the writers went to give Superman a strong character, a personality. Superman was, as you put it, a two-dimensional figure in much of the 50's and 60's. I do suggest you pick up "The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told", however, and see some rather well-done stories in the 60's.

Right or wrong as said characterizations were, in my eyes, bringing Superman to a place where he can internalize and narrate and have a clear voice was sorely needed, and added depth where there was none. They simply went too far, and I partially blame the late-80's boom of the anti-hero brought about by Miller and his ilk.

So here's my bottom line. When I say Byrne neutered my favorite hero, I speak not of powers or characters or what-not. I speak of the sense of grandeur, fun, excitement, and humor I felt before '86.

We'll have to wait and see the full extent of Singer's bastardization. Things like the absence, the kid, the crime gang is what I'm referring to.

What is a bastardization in your eyes could be a grand ole time in mine. I grant you, the kid worries me most of all, as well as the level of angst I am willing to tolerate. But the overall story is good. It has the capacity to be a very interesting look at the character of Superman, and super-heroes in general. And you know how I feel about old Gene and the gang :) Corporate Lex is not the only interpretation out there, buddy.

Moderation young man, literature need not reduce characters to 2 dimensional caricatures. Superman is plenty Macho now, never stopped really, but he also has issues in life that he just can't punch his way out of. Villains he can't touch, love interests that have conflicted with his occupational hazards.

One day when you grow up, you'll learn to appreciate the subtle things in life instead of black and white formula characterization.

I love how you've described what could potentially be the best parts of Superman Returns right there ;)

Ah yes that's right, like being married has been nothing but smooth sailing, not like they have addressed what it would be like being married to The Super-hero and the stresses brought on by it.

I touched on this above.

Simpletons rejoice! Drama for drama's sake that totally misrepresents the character. I can give them the benefit of the doubt, as far as Lois moving on, but having a kid out of wedlock at the prime of her career? Not ****ing likely. She would have that nipped in the bud.

All fiction is, is drama for drama's sake my ignoble droog. What was that about character growth and new directions? I just don't want to see them married and content, because that is simply boring.

But of course she didn't nip it in the bud for the same reason you are going to mow down come June 30.;)

We shall see. I pray alongside you that it is not true. BlueTights seems to think firmly that it is Richard's child. We'll see.