Downplaying The Romance In Superman

[NotFadeAway]

...because Superman Returns featured the most emotionless emotion Ive ever seen. And I hope the dialouge has more wit and emotion to it, the dialouge was dry and lacked any feeling in Returns, with the best lines being ripped off from Superman: The Movie.

[Lighthouse]

I agree. For all the heart and supposed character development people say this movie had, I had barely any connection to this Superman because I didn't know him at all.

[mego joe]

Count me in, too. WHo was that jerk anyway?

[NotFadeAway]

Count me in, too. WHo was that jerk anyway?


Some Christopher Reeve knockoff.

That Superman's story was done and should be done even now. I want to see the storyof a different Superman, one that connects with the audience through his own story, not through distant memories of a great hero who is no longer with us.

[nocomics]

Some Christopher Reeve knockoff.

That Superman's story was done and should be done even now. I want to see the storyof a different Superman, one that connects with the audience through his own story, not through distant memories of a great hero who is no longer with us.

I had no problem with Brandon Roth. I think most ppl knew they were gonna find someone similar to Christopher reeves. If they would of casted someone totally different than CR ppl would of complained that he dont follow the part..Most or all ppl associate superman w/christopher reeves,so hes better than the rumor of nicolous cage...

Far as the story,ya its just the first superman movie just redone in another way with a few twists added. They spent most of movie on character devolopment,which is good but most ppl want a little more action wth this type of movie..
Me personally I wanted more info on his journey,what he was looking for what he found etc...Little more interaction w/lex. Spent alot of movie developing that relationship with lois,which is big part of supermans life..

Far as sequal...This is gonna be a situation..Do they continue development of Superman or start focousing on his 'son' which is a can of worms they opened up..Maybe if they follow the spider-man formula I think they can pull it off.
Now far as future enemies..This can be done now with him going to krypton and looking for evidence of life..They can explain away any enemies they want as they can say' On superman's journies to krypton he encountered (insert enemie of choosing),and they had a brief encounter,and now they want revenge for whatever reason..blah blah blah

[Gnome Twill]

Yep, you guys have hit the nail on the head. I couldn't care less about Superman when Lex was stabbing him with the kryptonite weapon - now there has to be something wrong with that. I should have been on the edge of my seat.

Flat, bland, unengaging performances from Routh and Bosworth. Spacey was OK I guess, but he kind of went through the motions I thought. No real emotional hook to grab you and keep you there - it's never a good sign when you're sitting wondering how much more of this you have to sit through, it's Superman, you know? So disappointing....

[DorkyFresh]

though i loved the movie and i actually felt a connection with Clark/Supes, i agree that there needs to be more dramatic/emotional scenes. after watching Casino Royale and hearing the witty, charming dialogue coming from Daniel Craig...i want Supes to say some cool things too.

i don't feel it's Routh's fault...it's the writers'.

[matthooper]

i don't feel it's Routh's fault...it's the writers'.

True. It's sad because I thought Routh actually was a suitable replacement for Reeve. He had some moments of actually being Superman. It's too bad that no real solid connection was made with the audience. No empathy and no emotion. That blame lies with the writers and Singer and not Routh. They just assumed we'd care because he's a character we all know, love and respect.

Obviously that worked with some people. Some people could overlook it simply because he was Superman and wore the suit. To me, they never gave me a reason to care about anything.

[M.O.Steel]

i disagree, if anything, there was too much emotion and not enough story. The story wasn't very good, they kinda just threw a monkey wrench in the plot and see how peopel react to it. So if anything, the emotion was fine, if not too much, but without a good story, it just looks like a bunch of people crying.

[lordofthenerds]

Superman Returns definently had enough emotion imo. I actually felt kind of bad for Superman when he he was flying up in space after hearing that Lois didn't love him and when he was in the hospital. If anything was lacking it was the action which I hear will be put in the sequal.

[NotFadeAway]

i don't feel it's Routh's fault...it's the writers'.

I know I bash the hell outta Superman Returns, but I agree with this statement....Routh was only reading the lines he was given. Now, could he give an engaging performance with better material, I don't know, but Im willing to give him a chance. I still feel Henry Cavill was the better choice, but that is a pointless arguement now.

Kate Bosworth on the other hand.....lets just say Im all for a re-cast. Bryan Singer decided to defy my genius cast of Henry Cavill(Supes), Rachel McAdams(Lois), and Jaquin Phoenix(Lex) and go with his own ideas.

[Lighthouse]

I've never thought it was Routh's fault either. People always ask me if I thought he was a good Superman in the movie, and I always tell them "I don't know. He barely said a word." He could be a great Superman if he's actually given some dialogue. I recently just got done watching the Donner cut, and the scenes between Reeve and Jor-El have more emotion, and more heart than anything I saw in SR.

[JayKay]

Like I said before, this movie just goes over some peoples heads...

Sorry if Superman didn't say "I'M SAD" or "I'M HAPPY" to express his emotions. There is this thing called subtlety.

And the thematic similarities to S:tM were to connect the origin and the return. Again, this is too subtle for some to comprehend.

And this thread is useless, it is basically another chance to bash the movie and complain about things already complained about. You don't see me making another suit thread do you?

[Darkest Knight]

So agree with the thread's creator. Film is chalked full of awkwardness, fake emotion, bland / stiff acting. Very little felt believable in this film.

[Maze]

Perception , perception..

i feel the contrary of the thread creator.

i was very moved by the movie and i hope that i will be as moved with the sequel.

[matthooper]

Like I said before, this movie just goes over some peoples heads...



Funniest quote ever.

So that's why we didn't like it. It went over our heads. It wasn't the bland and unimaginative story, the melodramatic themes, the lack of action, the lack of good direction, no chemistry between Lois and Supes, Spacey sleepwalking through the movie, a super kid, and a complete missed opportunity for a grand film.

...It was the fact it went over our heads. Thank you for clearing that up.

[Maze]

Funniest quote ever.

So that's why we didn't like it. It went over our heads. It wasn't the bland and unimaginative story, the melodramatic themes, the lack of action, the lack of good direction, no chemistry between Lois and Supes, Spacey sleepwalking through the movie, a super kid, and a complete missed opportunity for a grand film.

...It was the fact it went over our heads. Thank you for clearing that up.
Yes yes ,in fact Matt people can like SR but they should admit that's it's a mediocre film anyway ,i know.;)

it makes me laugh too you know ,sometimes .. at other time i find that downright insulting ..Yes, what makes you think you know more about cinema than some? :cwink:

maybe , just maybe i know a lot more about it than you , you know ..:o

Maybe you just couldn't "understand" the movie . ;)

You see ,it's pointless.

let's agree to disagree, it's better :)

[GreenKToo]

well,i'm just glad it wasnt some cartoony film,like alot are these days...I am the first to admit it wasnt perfect,but i'll take it over ALOT of other recent C.B. films.

[matthooper]

Yes yes ,in fact Matt people can like SR but it's a mediocre film anyway ,i know.;)

it makes me laugh too you know ,sometimes .. at other time i find that downright insulting ..Yes, what makes you think you know more about cinema than some? :cwink:

maybe , just maybe i know a lot more about it than you , you know ..:o

Maybe you just couldn't "understand" the movie . ;)

You see ,it's pointless.

let's agree to disagree, it's better :)

You can't argue about other people's perceptions. It's a black and white issue. Either you like it or you don't. It's just a movie. It's not a college thesis. There's no hidden agenda to understand or not understand. I understand your sarcasm, but where there is smoke there is usually fire, and you and the like actually believe that we just don't get it, and that's the reason we don't like it.

It's achems razor. The simplest explanation is usually the answer. We don't like it simply because we don't feel it's good.

[Maze]

You can't argue about other people's perceptions.

Exactly , that was the point of my message . ;)

[Darkest Knight]

i don't feel it's Routh's fault...it's the writers'.
C'mon now. I know you're going to stick up for your guy and all, but that just isn't necessarily true. Yes, the writers were bad. But there is a reason many of Routh's scenes were cut. He couldn't carry the scenes. And the ones he was in, were extremely dry, with little emotion or resonance. Did you see the scene where he describes what he saw on Krypton to his mother? Horrible. It was like a cardboard cut out, or plastic toy reading memorized lines. There is a big reason why Routh was an unkown, and why he was kicked off soap operas of all things. He isn't a very good actor. He was just eye candy, that luckily somewhat looked like Christopher Reeve. Beyond that, kid wasn't that great. Mediocre AT BEST. Not all the writers' fault. I'm sure they couldn't write or include some scenes, or dialogue, because they knew how bad of an actor Routh is. The strength of the movie didn't lie with Routh. But to be honest, I don't know what the strength of the movie was. I don't think it really had any, or even one. Spacey mailed in a performance. Nothing reached out and grabbed you. Bosworth was horrible. The character of Richard was "meh" at best. Nothing stood out. The film was an extremely average film. Not good, not bad, but just an empty shell of a film. Dissapointing.

[matthooper]

C'mon now. I know you're going to stick up for your guy and all, but that just isn't necessarily true. Yes, the writers were bad. But there is a reason many of Routh's scenes were cut. He couldn't carry the scenes. And the ones he was in, were extremely dry, with little emotion or resonance. Did you see the scene where he describes what he saw on Krypton to his mother? Horrible. It was like a cardboard cut out, or plastic toy reading memorized lines. There is a big reason why Routh was an unkown, and why he was kicked off soap operas of all things. He isn't a very good actor. He was just eye candy, that luckily somewhat looked like Christopher Reeve. Beyond that, kid wasn't that great. Mediocre AT BEST. Not all the writers' fault. I'm sure they couldn't write or include some scenes, or dialogue, because they knew how bad of an actor Routh is. The strength of the movie didn't lie with Routh. But to be honest, I don't know what the strength of the movie was. I don't think it really had any, or even one. Spacey mailed in a performance. Nothing reached out and grabbed you. Bosworth was horrible. The character of Richard was "meh" at best. Nothing stood out. The film was an extremely average film. Not good, not bad, but just an empty shell of a film. Dissapointing.


Havn't you heard? Me, and those of us who didn't like the film just didn't understand it, or so I'm told by many of the defenders. So all your accurate points are lost since we didn't actually think the film was mediocre at best because we didn't like it, but rather because it went over our heads.

[NotFadeAway]

Like I said before, this movie just goes over some peoples heads...

Sorry if Superman didn't say "I'M SAD" or "I'M HAPPY" to express his emotions. There is this thing called subtlety.

And the thematic similarities to S:tM were to connect the origin and the return. Again, this is too subtle for some to comprehend.

And this thread is useless, it is basically another chance to bash the movie and complain about things already complained about. You don't see me making another suit thread do you?

You see, this film was not anywhere near "over my head", it was actaully beneath me as a writer, a movie-goer, and general Superman fan. I GOT the film, and it still sucked. The subtelty was atroscious, and I say this with authority as I myself am a very subtle person, face to face anyway. That personality trait of mine actually contributes to me hating the film.

I also understood the thematic similarity to S:TM, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Again, I feel that Superman's story was done, Singer should have created his own Superman story, although I don't know how well that would have turned out considering Singer can't even copy and paste well.

[Brainiac 2009]

Brandon confirmed that Singer is doing is own story for the sequel. My only concern is fans will now complain that it will be too far of a departure from Donner.

And then people will complain there was too much action, not enough story (since the reps said this sequel will have more action than any DC film ever made).

Blah. Most of the complainers are douchebags anyway.


But at the very least, if Singer does in fact make these improvements to the sequel, I would commend him for listening to critisism and adjusting accordingly.

95% of directors wouldnt do that. It's fortunate Singer and Brandon are such major fans of Superman.

[Darkest Knight]

Singer is a fan of Richard Donner. Nothing more, nothing less. He handed in a rip off, re-telling of a story that came out in 1978. They needed an imaginative re-invention, and re-integration of the character and mythos ala Batman Begins. Batman Begins is a restart and the last movie came out in 1997. It has been even longer since a Superman movie came out, let alone a Richard Donner one, and Singer wanted to make a sequel to that. Does that make any sense, what so ever?

[Maze]

Did you see the scene where he describes what he saw on Krypton to his mother? Horrible
Yup he was not very good in that scene , i agree . and in one or two other scene too.

but all around i felt he conveyed a lot of emotion ..lot of dignity,and paradoxically lot of sadness .. imo all around he was very graceful (although Singer surely helped him through with his directing ) very moving imo...i loved his "the father becomes the son" speech..that said i found him especially good in the silent scenes. . And even if the delivery is important and hard to pull off, convey emotion in silent scenes is a hard task for an actor..that's the basic .. and that's why i believe in Routh ( at least for that kind of roles.. ) now you didn't feel it , i understand and i respect it, i did.

[Brainiac 2009]

.
Yup he was not very good in that scene , i agree . and in one or two other scene too.

but all around i felt he conveyed a lot of emotion ..especially in the silent scenes . and even if the delivery is important and hard to pull off, that is a hard task as an actor..that's the basic .. and that's why i believe in Routh ( at least for that kind of roles.. )

His deleted scenes in Smallville were better. Especially "Are you two dating" scene, he conveyed alot there about wishing he could turn back these 5 years like spinning a baseball.

I wish they left all the other Smallville scenes in with Routh, they were great.

The "Family Photos" one was quite touching with Routh looking at pictures of Glenn Ford.

[kevinpenni]

i agree

[Dark Knight]

i want to see heavy emotion.....intense fight and action sequences...drama....and a better more emotionally driven score. Bring back John Williams!

[superdupersuper]

yes bring back john williams
i dont think ottman was very good,
he didn't even use the most stirring theme of all, the krypton theme when clark finds the crystals in donners movies,

the haunting music is legendary, nothing can beat it,
after watching donner cut of superman 2, its simply amazing, the scenes between reeve and brando, truly legendary,
reeve displays more emotion in those scenes than the entire cast of superman returns did in their whole movie.

[blind_fury]

It's fortunate Singer and Brandon are such major fans of Superman.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!




















HAHAHAHAHAA! *wipes tear*

thanks for the laugh dude. :up:

[charl_huntress]

Yeah, it was pretty emotionless. The actors didn't seem to connect on any real level, and BR was sort of stiff in some scenes. I still like him though because there are some shots where he looks so much like a powerful, masculine Superman that I forget what I'm watching. Then stiff, bland, skinny Lois comes on the scene and I'm reminded that this is "Singerman Returns".

This is the first and probably only time I will watch SR on DVD in its entirety. The movie is just entirely too depressing to go for a second viewing, and the lack of emotion means I can watch the thing on mute and not feel as though I'm missing much.

I'll stick to STM, SII, JL/JLU, LnC, and STAS Those are the real-deal Superman fixes.

edit:

Ya know...you really can watch this movie on mute. I think it's a little better that way.

[Brainiac 2009]

Lois and Clark.... oh gosh.

[Brainiac 2009]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!




















HAHAHAHAHAA! *wipes tear*

thanks for the laugh dude. :up:

Recent interviews prove that Brandon knows what fans want. Thats more than any other Superman actor has been aware of.

Chris Reeve's idea of what he wanted for a Superman film was Superman IV........nuff said.


Bryan Singer... watch the DVD special. I can't see any other director expressing such fanboyism about all the details of Superman. Hes also probably the only director that will actually make some changes in the sequel to satisfy certain comic book fans. His decision to based the sequel on 'contemporary comics' (as he said) and make the sequel his own film (not donner) proves that.


This project could have been in alot worse hands....like every director that came before him.

[charl_huntress]

Lois and Clark.... oh gosh.

Hmmm...seems like you feel the same way about LnC that I do about SR. It's good to know we have some common ground on bad Superman representations because I will take LnC any day over Singerman Returns:woot:

[superbaby]

well, i think i'm not wrong to say that singer trying to make superman more human by creating all these melodrama and troubles he must face. unfortunately, it didn't make a strong connection with the audience and they seemingly didn't give a damn to this superman, which resulted the disappointed BO record.

to make superman sell, and be the top BO record, the connection is very essential. there's where the good WOM comes from.
so, my question is how to create a strong connection with the audience for the next superman movie?

[El Payaso]

I think the only thing they need is to manage the buidget better.

SR's BO was 20 millions higher than Batman begins and BB is getting a sequel. SR made a good enough connection.

[SatEL]

well, i think i'm not wrong to say that singer trying to make superman more human by creating all these melodrama and troubles he must face. unfortunately, it didn't make a strong connection with the audience and they seemingly didn't give a damn to this superman, which resulted the disappointed BO record.

to make superman sell, and be the top BO record, the connection is very essential. there's where the good WOM comes from.
so, my question is how to create a strong connection with the audience for the next superman movie?


I am sorry to say as I dont have a problem with him but we need a likeable and charismatic actor playing Superman, someone whose charms radiate on screen. I am sure Routh is a nice guy but seriously thats about all you can really say about him, IMO Superman needs to radiate a certain presense you need to feel in awe in his presense. And if your lost on what I am saying a few actors with great charisma are Will Smith and Brad Pitt these guys ooze a certain something. The actor and there I say it script needs to provide a Superman we care for one whose likeable and at the same time admirable, oh and Singer needs to go I personally dont feel he can provide the needed connection thats been lost for 20+ years.

[superbaby]

I think the only thing they need is to manage the buidget better.

SR's BO was 20 millions higher than Batman begins and BB is getting a sequel. SR made a good enough connection.
the big budget isn't a problem if SR could make as much as ironman. :o

and do you think that's the best superman can perform? therefore, he only deserved smaller budget???

[GreenKToo]

EDIT by me.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

With SR Superman made a connection with many people, including me, so i dont see that as a problem for the sequel.

[superbaby]

With SR Superman made a connection with many people, including me, so i dont see that as a problem for the sequel.
if SR has made the connection with so many people, the sequel would have been greenlit and in production now.
and btw, if you have no comment/idea, pls don't make a post.

most importantly, bring your SR praises elsewhere. this isn't about SR.

this thread is for the superman fans to give their own opinions on how to make strong connection with the audiences for the new superman movie.

[El Payaso]

the big budget isn't a problem if SR could make as much as ironman. :o

and do you think that's the best superman can perform? therefore, he only deserved smaller budget???

I say Batman Begins had a smaller bidget so it didn't have to worry for gigantic numbers to get a sequel soon and bigger. :cwink:


if SR has made the connection with so many people, the sequel would have been greenlit and in production now.

It made more money than B Begins, so the connection was there. Once again, problem is that for what SR budget was, they were expecting even more.

and btw, if you have no comment/idea, pls don't make a post.

More action, smaller budget. And by smaller I say normal.

[Nixon]

the big budget isn't a problem if SR could make as much as ironman. :o

and do you think that's the best superman can perform? therefore, he only deserved smaller budget???


Well, let's look at a movie like Batman Begins, something that has the "fanbase" (which has to my experience often been used merely to describe the 30 or so people who regularly post on whatever board the word fanbase is being used on) united behind it and is considered by most to be relatively problem free.

Why did that movie only make $371 million dollars at the box office? Is that all you think Batman is capable of?

Why is a success for Batman Begins a stick to beat Superman Returns with when, by most any measure, the characters share a similar level of popularity and longevity?

Why are we making guys like Iron Man and Spider-Man - these runaway successes - the rules and not the exceptions?


and i know it's wrong to name calling but you are really a singer ass kisser, becauss youhave never acknowleged the problems of sr (why it split the fanbase into half) and you have no opinion at all on how to improve the situation. you are just waiting to kiss more of his ass regardless of whatever *****s he gonna throw at you.


Wow, this is bad. Not the name-calling, I mean that's some pretty bargain basement stuff that I'm sure will role off El Payso's back like water, but the fact that you're so insecure in your position and your ability to articulate it that you're going in for such a cheap shot.

[El Payaso]

Wow, this is bad. Not the name-calling, I mean that's some pretty bargain basement stuff that I'm sure will role off El Payso's back like water, but the fact that you're so insecure in your position and your ability to articulate it that you're going in for such a cheap shot.

Mh. Too good this coward's post was edited.

But it's the second time this week he goes the same way. I'd say something else is needed to be done.

[superbaby]

can all the sr likers pls just throw away all your hyper-sensitive self defend system?
we don't want another round of agrument on sr performance. bring stop all the ***** about the sr huge budget and how it's done better than bb.

if you think sr is perfect and need no improvement. fine. pls stop posting there and don't make this thread into another sr argument!!!

go away if you have no opinion!!! clear???!!!

[bunk]

well, i think i'm not wrong to say that singer trying to make superman more human by creating all these melodrama and troubles he must face. unfortunately, it didn't make a strong connection with the audience and they seemingly didn't give a damn to this superman, which resulted the disappointed BO record.

to make superman sell, and be the top BO record, the connection is very essential. there's where the good WOM comes from.
so, my question is how to create a strong connection with the audience for the next superman movie?

Give Superman more lines. The melodrama isn't what necessarily turning people off, they typically like that. I mean look at Spiderman. He really just needs more of an opportunity to banter with villains, have conversations with world leaders or people of power, and specifically address the people of Earth itself. Of course there's going to be less of a connection with the audience if he's literally only speaking with what, three or four people? He was competing with Jack Sparrow of all people, arguably one of the most charismatic characters in cinema history. So yeah, give him more lines.

[SatEL]

It made more money than B Begins, so the connection was there. Once again, problem is that for what SR budget was, they were expecting even more.





:whatever:I have noticed you state this a lot, *sighs* well I guess when what your defending is quality **** you have to grasp at any and all straws you can get your hands on. If we try and apply a bit of logic into things and take away all fanboyism we can come to a clear conclusion on how an inferior film like SR made more than BB, Ok first lets look at how long it was since we had a superman film prior to SR. The last superman film was titled Superman IV the quest for peace it was made 21yrs ago and in 2006 it would have been 19yrs. Imagine that 19yrs since superman was on the big screen, then we have the last Batman film which was titled Batman and Robin that was released in 1998 7 years in comparasion to Batman Begins. Now if we apply that logic I was talking about you would see that Batman was more fresh in the minds of the audience not only that but after the last disaster of a film( dubbed by many as the worst film ever made)did you think Batman was going to clean up at the box office? Hell no people were going to stay away from it.

As opposed to superman who was out of peoples minds, not to mention what people expected from a Superman film as opposed to a powerless Batman. Besides we all know superman is a bigger draw than Batman , although that seems to be changing.I guarantee you any sequel to that hazardous film will flop, no one will go near that rubbish, thats why WB need to flush out the people involved with SR and wipe the slate clean. We can all wait and see how the IH is received but a restart seems like the most plausible thing to do.

[SatEL]

Give Superman more lines. The melodrama isn't what necessarily turning people off, they typically like that. I mean look at Spiderman. He really just needs more of an opportunity to banter with villains, have conversations with world leaders or people of power, and specifically address the people of Earth itself. Of course there's going to be less of a connection with the audience if he's literally only speaking with what, three or four people? He was competing with Jack Sparrow of all people, arguably one of the most charismatic characters in cinema history. So yeah, give him more lines.

The "melodrama" fits perfectly with Spiderman's character his an angst teenager who lost his uncle blah blah blah we knew Parkers history from spidey1 from loser to hero. He was built up so we would care and cheer for him, with Singers Superman we were thrown in a world where we were meant to understand the history and care for the character. The thing with that was that it failed not only did I not care for this Superman I actually liked Richard White better and thought Lois was better of with him. I am sure that cetainly was not Singers intention but sadly thats how things turnt out.

[El Payaso]

:whatever:I have noticed you state this a lot, *sighs*

The curious thing is that it never ceases to be true.

well I guess when what your defending is quality **** you have to grasp at any and all straws you can get your hands on.

On the contrary, when defending quality you have all the movie to talk about. It’s only when you lack of something solid on the movie when you resort to numbers.

If we try and apply a bit of logic into things and take away all fanboyism we can come to a clear conclusion on how an inferior film like SR made more than BB, Ok first lets look at how long it was since we had a superman film prior to SR. The last superman film was titled Superman IV the quest for peace it was made 21yrs ago and in 2006 it would have been 19yrs. Imagine that 19yrs since superman was on the big screen, then we have the last Batman film which was titled Batman and Robin that was released in 1998 7 years in comparasion to Batman Begins. Now if we apply that logic I was talking about you would see that Batman was more fresh in the minds of the audience not only that but after the last disaster of a film( dubbed by many as the worst film ever made)did you think Batman was going to clean up at the box office? Hell no people were going to stay away from it.

Both Batman and Superman had terrible movies years ago and then they tried to come back. Batman Begins was treated as a prequel to B89 and no one had doubts SR was linked to the Donner franchise. Both got similar BO numbers. Those are – in a Jor-El way to express it - facts of undeniable truth.

Now, a limit of time between people remembering the last movie and not rememering it sounds palusible, but how to be sure?

As opposed to superman who was out of peoples minds, not to mention what people expected from a Superman film as opposed to a powerless Batman. Besides we all know superman is a bigger draw than Batman ,

After B89 I don’t know if Superman is so much a bigger draw than Batman.

I guarantee you any sequel to that hazardous film will flop,

Only one way to find out. ;)

I guarantee you any sequel to that hazardous film will flop, no one will go near that rubbish,

SR’s sequel is rubbish? May I ask, when and where did you see it to judge it?

thats why WB need to flush out the people involved with SR and wipe the slate clean. We can all wait and see how the IH is received but a restart seems like the most plausible thing to do.

It seems quite possible. I understand people putting millions for movies are unhappy when the money they get back is not as much as they were expecting.

[El Payaso]

The thing with that was that it failed not only did I not care for this Superman I actually liked Richard White better and thought Lois was better of with him. I am sure that cetainly was not Singers intention but sadly thats how things turnt out.

Same happened to me. Finally I see a superhero movie where things are not black and white (pun intended, I think). I thought I was going to hate Richard since traditionally on these movies, the “other guy” is often pretentious, unpleasant, greedy etc, so we can feel free to hate him and love our hero even more.

The same you speculate about Singer not wanting that I say the opposite: Singer depicted Richard as a noble man on purpose, so it wasn’t all an easy way to any resolution. We cannot hate Richard and, watching how Superman is always forbid to have a normal life, I felt like Lois had a true possibility with him.

In the end, I felt Jason was Superman’s reason to move on from Lois.

[bunk]

:whatever:I have noticed you state this a lot, *sighs* well I guess when what your defending is quality **** you have to grasp at any and all straws you can get your hands on. If we try and apply a bit of logic into things and take away all fanboyism we can come to a clear conclusion on how an inferior film like SR made more than BB, Ok first lets look at how long it was since we had a superman film prior to SR. The last superman film was titled Superman IV the quest for peace it was made 21yrs ago and in 2006 it would have been 19yrs. Imagine that 19yrs since superman was on the big screen, then we have the last Batman film which was titled Batman and Robin that was released in 1998 7 years in comparasion to Batman Begins. Now if we apply that logic I was talking about you would see that Batman was more fresh in the minds of the audience not only that but after the last disaster of a film( dubbed by many as the worst film ever made)did you think Batman was going to clean up at the box office? Hell no people were going to stay away from it.

As opposed to superman who was out of peoples minds, not to mention what people expected from a Superman film as opposed to a powerless Batman. Besides we all know superman is a bigger draw than Batman , although that seems to be changing.I guarantee you any sequel to that hazardous film will flop, no one will go near that rubbish, thats why WB need to flush out the people involved with SR and wipe the slate clean. We can all wait and see how the IH is received but a restart seems like the most plausible thing to do.


Well, this thread seems destined to be locked.

The problem with your assessment, is that it's way too unprovable. You probably are mostly correct, but it's absolutely impossible to gage how "fresh in the minds" of people B&R was. Or if Superman really is a bigger draw. BO results, budget numbers, and studio expectations are however well documented. That's why people keep citing them. The same logic you apply to Batman can be applied to Superman. I've noticed you haven't mentioned anything about POTC for instance.

The "melodrama" fits perfectly with Spiderman's character his an angst teenager who lost his uncle blah blah blah we knew Parkers history from spidey1 from loser to hero. He was built up so we would care and cheer for him, with Singers Superman we were thrown in a world where we were meant to understand the history and care for the character. The thing with that was that it failed not only did I not care for this Superman I actually liked Richard White better and thought Lois was better of with him. I am sure that cetainly was not Singers intention but sadly thats how things turnt out.

I never said it was more suited for Superman, only that audiences are less likely to be bothered by it than say...you. Clearly Singer did want the audience to like Richard. The cliche would've been to make him a wife beater or run of the mill d***head.

So how do you suggest they give Superman a stronger connection with the audience in the sequel?

[SatEL]

SR’s sequel is rubbish? May I ask, when and where did you see it to judge it?





My apologises that statement was extremly bold, Let me put that clearly. What I meant was that I personally expect more crap and bore from Singer and despite how much action he promises I have had enough of him. His Verse is a mangled car crash with so many displeasing plots. I guess in the end it all boils down to trust and with Singer I dont trust him or his vision.

[SatEL]

I never said it was more suited for Superman, only that audiences are less likely to be bothered by it than say...you. Clearly Singer did want the audience to like Richard. The cliche would've been to make him a wife beater or run of the mill d***head.

So how do you suggest they give Superman a stronger connection with the audience in the sequel?

JJ's son was an all round nice guy who didnt do anything wrong but show MJ love and affection and I was still routing for Peter hmmmmmm and wonders never cease. I am 100% certain Singer did not intend for the audience to like Richard more than Superman the Heroe and all around nice guy, I think you missed my point. I just didnt like Richard but liked him more so than the supposed hero of the film, heck from what we saw of Richard he was Morally more noble than Superman.:wow:

[bunk]

JJ's son was an all round nice guy who didnt do anything wrong but show MJ love and affection and I was still routing for Peter hmmmmmm and wonders never cease. I am 100% certain Singer did not intend for the audience to like Richard more than Superman the Heroe and all around nice guy, I think you missed my point. I just didnt like Richard but liked him more so than the supposed hero of the film, heck from what we saw of Richard he was Morally more noble than Superman.:wow:

The characters of John Jameson and Richard White are only really the same in the most general terms though. You can remove John from the equation and it doesn't really make that much of an impact, as you see from the end of SM 2. MJ really suffers no consequences. The same can't be said for Richard. I wasn't really rooting for Peter anyway. They made him out to be too much of douchbag in that movie, and of course more so in the third. Peter's not that dense in the comics. But anyway, I didn't miss your point. It's why I asked what you would do in MOS to give Superman a stronger connection to the audience.

[SatEL]

The characters of John Jameson and Richard White are only really the same in the most general terms though. You can remove John from the equation and it doesn't really make that much of an impact, as you see from the end of SM 2. MJ really suffers no consequences. The same can't be said for Richard. I wasn't really rooting for Peter anyway. They made him out to be too much of douchbag in that movie, and of course more so in the third. Peter's not that dense in the comics. But anyway, I didn't miss your point. It's why I asked what you would do in MOS to give Superman a stronger connection to the audience.

You might not have missed my point but you certainly missed my initial post which stated how I believe a connection with the audience can be made. As long with my above statement I think we need a reason to care for Superman and to see why he does what he does, I have seen a comment made by a member on here before stating that in SR Superman did what he did because he felt he had no choice. Superman has to be strong both physically and mentally, he has to have strong Moralls and be willing to sacrifice his needs in order to do the right thing. Obviosuly this been the 21 century it will have to be done in a classy way as opposed to a cheesy boyscout.

[Spiderine]

I think the difference here is that Pete and MJ had never had a past romantic relationship and although they clearly wanted to, Peter wanted to commit to MJ but was more concerned for her safety and well being thinking that being with her would only endanger her. We never really felt that MJ cared for John in the first place and we just waited for Peter and MJ to finally become a couple. Superman and Lois had that relationship at some point and he decided to leave without a word to her. She moved on and five years later she is seen to have a child and is apart of a loving family that has been established. There really is no comparison there.

[SatEL]

I think the difference here is that Pete and MJ had never had a past romantic relationship and although they clearly wanted to, Peter wanted to commit to MJ but was more concerned for her safety and well being thinking that being with her would only endanger her. We never really felt that MJ cared for John in the first place and we just waited for Peter and MJ to finally become a couple. Superman and Lois had that relationship at some point and he decided to leave without a word to her. She moved on and five years later she is seen to have a child and is apart of a loving family that has been established. There really is no comparison there.

`My comparasion wasnt in refrence to how much the two side lovers were cared about by the heroes love interest but more so with the likeability of them. Someone above mentioned Richard wasnt the cliche other guy the love interest of the heroe ended up with, e.g. a drunk abusive boyfriend who treated her like crap. I then went on to point out that John Jameson was also a nice guy and I still liked Peter Parker better.

[Spiderine]

`My comparasion wasnt in refrence to how much the two side lovers were cared about by the heroes love interest but more so with the likeability of them. Someone above mentioned Richard wasnt the cliche other guy the love interest of the heroe ended up with, e.g. a drunk abusive boyfriend who treated her like crap. I then went on to point out that John Jameson was also a nice guy and I still liked Peter Parker better.
OK, I understand. I thought there were comparisons being made to the situations as opposed to the individuals themselves. There are similarities to John and Richard. Both likeable and seem to be strongminded career oriented men who genuinely cared for those women. It was a lot easier for me to root for Peter than to root for Clark.

[Superman-Prime]

can all the sr likers pls just throw away all your hyper-sensitive self defend system?
we don't want another round of agrument on sr performance. bring stop all the ***** about the sr huge budget and how it's done better than bb.

if you think sr is perfect and need no improvement. fine. pls stop posting there and don't make this thread into another sr argument!!!

go away if you have no opinion!!! clear???!!!

The sad thing is that you're banned, not permanently, it is clear that you were looking for some instigate and flame the fan of SR.

Calling someone a singer ass kisser doesn't help you at all, it gets yourself to be banned.

We get it that you hate Superman Returns. Shut your face. We. Get. It.

You should've known better instead of flaming SR lovers.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't know how long this thread will be last. I loved Superman Returns, but I admit that the movie have its own lack of action and Clark/Superman's lines. I agree whoever said that Superman needs more lines. Same with Clark.

[Clark Kent]

in a Jor-El way to express it - matters of undeniable fact.

Fixed.

then we have the last Batman film which was titled Batman and Robin that was released in 1997 8 years in comparasion to Batman Begins.

Fixed.

with Singer I dont trust him or his vision.

Me neither, :(.

[bunk]

You might not have missed my point but you certainly missed my initial post which stated how I believe a connection with the audience can be made. As long with my above statement I think we need a reason to care for Superman and to see why he does what he does, I have seen a comment made by a member on here before stating that in SR Superman did what he did because he felt he had no choice. Superman has to be strong both physically and mentally, he has to have strong Moralls and be willing to sacrifice his needs in order to do the right thing. Obviosuly this been the 21 century it will have to be done in a classy way as opposed to a cheesy boyscout.

So what he does in SR... just more so.

`My compara1sion wasnt in refrence to how much the two side lovers were cared about by the heroes love interest but more so with the likeability of them. Someone above mentioned Richard wasnt the cliche other guy the love interest of the heroe ended up with, e.g. a drunk abusive boyfriend who treated her like crap. I then went on to point out that John Jameson was also a nice guy and I still liked Peter Parker better.

My point being: John Jameson was a very minor role with hardly any development. His sole purpose is to help facilitate Peter losing something. You're supposed to like Peter more, he's the hero and main character.

In SR, Richard is himself a main character who is also meant to be a hero in his own right. It's not given to the viewer as an easy choice about who to "root for". That's what makes it more than just a gimmick.

[wellsy]

Wow, superbaby seems to have done a dummy spit and gone on a thread creating frenzy.

Well, some time to cool his heels is certainly required (I seem to remember a similar thing with buggs a few months ago).

Anyways, as for a strong connection to the audience; that's a tough one. Certainly giving Routh more to work with as both Clark and Superman would help, as well as giving him a more commanding presence.

That said, though, I don't want have to diagnose him with verbal diarrohea (sp?). Though I'm a relatively quiet person myself, so I'm biased.

But I think also playing up the father-son aspect as well between him and Jason; I'm sure we can all see ourselves in some of that (yeah, I know some of you don't like Jason under any circumstances, but I beg your indulgence). We can all relate to being someone's offspring or parent, I'm sure.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

if SR has made the connection with so many people, the sequel would have been greenlit and in production now.
and btw, if you have no comment/idea, pls don't make a post.

most importantly, bring your SR praises elsewhere. this isn't about SR.

I'll go were ever i please thanks, you asked a question of how to make Superman connect with the audience i answered, what is the problem.

this thread is for the superman fans to give their own opinions on how to make strong connection with the audiences for the new superman movie.

I am a Superman fan, i have read 28 Superman graphic novels, NON of which were anything to do with Singer.

[The Guard]

Give Superman more lines.

Not just more lines, but more character interaction. SUPERMAN RETURNS presented him as a bit mysterious a character. MAN OF STEEL needs to have a Superman that people want to know, want to aspire to, etc. Not someone who saves you and just flies off.

[bunk]

Yeah, that's what I said...?

[mojo-x]

The curious thing is that it never ceases to be true.



On the contrary, when defending quality you have all the movie to talk about. It’s only when you lack of something solid on the movie when you resort to numbers.



Both Batman and Superman had terrible movies years ago and then they tried to come back. Batman Begins was treated as a prequel to B89 and no one had doubts SR was linked to the Donner franchise. Both got similar BO numbers. Those are – in a Jor-El way to express it - facts of undeniable truth.

Now, a limit of time between people remembering the last movie and not rememering it sounds palusible, but how to be sure?



.

Batman Begins is not a prequel to the 89 Batman it was a complete reboot.

[Clark Kent]

I don't want have to diagnose him with verbal diarrohea (sp?).

Diarrhoea.

I'm a relatively quiet person myself, so I'm biased.

I'm quiet too, super quiet. In fact, here's about the only place where I talk a lot.

[Clark Kent]

Batman Begins is not a prequel to the 89 Batman it was a complete reboot.

I think he knows that. I think what he might mean is that the audience were confused, and thought that it was a prequel.

[buggs0268]

Wow, superbaby seems to have done a dummy spit and gone on a thread creating frenzy.

Well, some time to cool his heels is certainly required (I seem to remember a similar thing with buggs a few months ago).
Only reason I was banned back then was because I did the same thing a set of other posters had done to me. Only difference is when it was done to me, I didn't go crying to every mod on at the time like they did. That was the only reason I got banned back then

[nintendo nerd]

Only reason I was banned back then was because I did the same thing a set of other posters had done to me. Only difference is when it was done to me, I didn't go crying to every mod on at the time like they did. That was the only reason I got banned back then

Don't forget that you insulted people on private messages. That's what a real man does, right? :cwink:

[Nixon]

Buggs, it's "Those of you who are on my ignore list, don't bother responding to this. I won't see it. You are on my ignore list, so replying to my posts is pointless."

Please stop making your tagline an unintended joke.

[El Payaso]

Batman Begins is not a prequel to the 89 Batman it was a complete reboot.

Nervertheless, TV people around the world talked about it as a prequel. That's what I meant.

[Showtime]

The thread isn't about Buggs, it is about connecting with the audience, keep it on track or this thread goes.

[Excel]

You create a connection with our audience by getting them to CONNECT with their characterss; that imo was the only real thing Singer was able to do with his film. Though a lot of stuff was not what it could have been, most people cared about Superman, Lois, Jason, and Richard. The problem is though, we cared because of who they are were.

Its Superman, he is the main character. We're going to care about him. He cares a bout Lois. Lois has a young child. We will care about what happens to her. Jason is a little kid. We will automatically care about him. Richard is a good guy, we'll care about him. There was not much depth to it though. Had we not know who Superman or Lois were prior to the film, you would not have given a damn about them.

Connecting witt audience should not be that hard. For a reboot (a sequel would have the same connections as the 1st, so no need to talk about it) it depends on the audience.

The kids and teenagers should be connected with in the action. The storyline that they should really like should be the main conflict between Superman and the villain.

Most women or older adults should be there for the more dramatic storylines ala...Superman being burdened by powers or his love for Lois.

[mego joe]

You create a connection with our audience by getting them to CONNECT with their characterss; that imo was the only real thing Singer was able to do with his film. Though a lot of stuff was not what it could have been, most people cared about Superman, Lois, Jason, and Richard. The problem is though, we cared because of who they are were.

Its Superman, he is the main character. We're going to care about him. He cares a bout Lois. Lois has a young child. We will care about what happens to her. Jason is a little kid. We will automatically care about him. Richard is a good guy, we'll care about him. There was not much depth to it though. Had we not know who Superman or Lois were prior to the film, you would not have given a damn about them.

Connecting witt audience should not be that hard. For a reboot (a sequel would have the same connections as the 1st, so no need to talk about it) it depends on the audience.

The kids and teenagers should be connected with in the action. The storyline that they should really like should be the main conflict between Superman and the villain.

Most women or older adults should be there for the more dramatic storylines ala...Superman being burdened by powers or his love for Lois.

You know what though? I didn't care about Superman. At no point did I actually feel for him. I thought his character was written as an insensetive jerk and he never really changed for me. It just got worse, I thought. There was no moment of "Oh, that changes things." He looks bad at the beginning and he still looks bad at the end.

He was overshadowed by Richard, who was the only character I connected with. While it's interesting to make the other guy not a jerk, abusive person, he can't out-do Superman. He can be equal, but since Superman has the jerk moments Richard comes off looking much better.

[SuperDaniel]

Exately. That`s what i felt. A Superman movie cant have a character that is more heroic and noble than Superman and Richard was exactely that.

[mego joe]

Exately. That`s what i felt. A Superman movie cant have a character that is more heroic and noble than Superman and Richard was exactely that.

And it wasn't that Richard shouldn't be a good, heroic person, but that you shouldn't be able to think that Superman is a jerk. That alienates the audience from your main character.

[Angamb]

I think one of the factors could be the action, if they show amazing new action scenes in trailers and spots, and sell the movie like the best superheromovie, maybe it could have a better box-office.... don't know...

but all of us have to agree that Superman isn't Spiderman, at least not in these times, so I doubt a Superman movie can have such success as the Spiderman franchise. but anyway, it don't have to either.

I liked Superman Returns so I hope they make the sequel one day. I'll be there to see it.

[wellsy]

I think you're kind of missing the point Angamb - this is a connection to the characters. Not about how to make more money at the BO.

[buggs0268]

The thread isn't about Buggs, it is about connecting with the audience, keep it on track or this thread goes.
Thank you.

[Nixon]

Still doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the problems in your tagline before you call yourself a "Professional Smart A$$".

[Superark]

I wasn't crazy about Superman having a son but I think it can provide a connection with the audience when Superman is forced to save him from Braniac. They just have to figure out a way to depower him in sequel, which Show has said isn't hard with creative writing.

MOS needs to make sure it has more action and a super-villian fight. I think thats what most people missed the most. I felt SR had the right amount of humor in it. I don't want to see another Spider-Man where half of the movie is comedy.

[Excel]

I dunno bout you guys, but I identified with Supes. Not the whole "ditching a pregnant women" part; more the meeting up with an old chick part. Whats so hard bout that?

[Superark]

I dunno bout you guys, but I identified with Supes. Not the whole "ditching a pregnant women" part; more the meeting up with an old chick part. Whats so hard bout that?

This is an argument I HATE!!!!!

Its obvious when you watch the end of movie Supes didn't know it was his son until Lois told him while he was in his coma.

I wish that argument would die!

[Excel]

Yea, but Superman obviously knew he had sex with Lois, and he obviously didnt use protection, so...

[Superark]

Yea but unprotected sex doesn't always mean pregnancy. I know this all too well, (thankfully no babies)

[SuperDaniel]

How about a good story that is faithfull to the character? That should give more than ENOUGH reasons to connect the audience...

[Superark]

^ (sigh) unfortunantely what's faithful to the character seems to be debatable...

By the way SuperDaniel, Great signature!

[SuperDaniel]

Pick up the best Superman stories ever written...they have something in common...it`s a start...

[afan]

Some rantings..........

Remove all the connections with destiny, god-hood, etc.
People worship gods they don't connect with them.

Take Superman back to his roots. The sole inspiration for his "mission" is his upbringing with The Kents, an upbringing fortified by the rural and ideal Capra-esque setting of Smallville, and not some spiritual destiny driven plan of Jor-el, or any similar device. He is the product of his nurturing, period. Divest the character totally of all the saviour mumbo jumbo. His ethical behaviour is impeccable, exibiting exemplary application of the "Golden Rule", and his mission is un-ashamedly stated to be "The fight for truth, justice, and the American Way".

Reduce his powers from god-like to super-man like. At his present power level he can do virtually anything. There is no drama in any scenario if our hero can lift islands up and into orbit, turn back time, etc.! He must strive to succeed; people don't connect with miracles, people do connect with a hero finding clever methods to overcome adversity, methods that make sense, relatable super-feats.

Presently the only mechanism available to create drama is Green K, and that's quite frankly getting boring. Down grade his abilities and you don't need the dramatic crutch of Green K at all.

Lois and Superman are not romantically involved in a relationship, sure the attraction is there, but it should never reach the point of an intimate romance, that's just boring. People don't connect with boring. Clark and Lois are top notch investigative reporters, and their efforts are crucial in resolving the plot of the film.

Write stories in which humans are able to operate without total dependancy on Superman. Show instances where rescues are successfully accomplished by humans alone and at times by the efforts of man and Superman acting as a team.

[Excel]

Yea but unprotected sex doesn't always mean pregnancy. I know this all too well, (thankfully no babies)

Yeah, but sometimes it does...Superman had unprotected sex with Lois; he obviously knew there was a chance he become a daddy :up:

[Mostpowerful]

Yea, but Superman obviously knew he had sex with Lois, and he obviously didnt use protection, so...

You don't know that. We don't really know 'the details' of their relationship prior his trip to Krypton.

[FlawlessVictory]

You don't know that. We don't really know 'the details' of their relationship prior his trip to Krypton.

This is why SR is so awful. We are discussing whether or not the hero used protection when he had sex with his love interest. A superhero film and this is the kind of stuff we have to deal with!!!

[Mostpowerful]

Speak for yourself. ^^ I never bring that subject up, since I don't really have a problem with it.

[FlawlessVictory]

Didn't say it was by you. But the fact that it gets brought up at all is a sad commentary on SR.

[SuperDaniel]

Some rantings..........

Remove all the connections with destiny, god-hood, etc.
People worship gods they don't connect with them.

Take Superman back to his roots. The sole inspiration for his "mission" is his upbringing with The Kents, an upbringing fortified by the rural and ideal Capra-esque setting of Smallville, and not some spiritual destiny driven plan of Jor-el, or any similar device. He is the product of his nurturing, period. Divest the character totally of all the saviour mumbo jumbo. His ethical behaviour is impeccable, exibiting exemplary application of the "Golden Rule", and his mission is un-ashamedly stated to be "The fight for truth, justice, and the American Way".

Reduce his powers from god-like to super-man like. At his present power level he can do virtually anything. There is no drama in any scenario if our hero can lift islands up and into orbit, turn back time, etc.! He must strive to succeed; people don't connect with miracles, people do connect with a hero finding clever methods to overcome adversity, methods that make sense, relatable super-feats.

Presently the only mechanism available to create drama is Green K, and that's quite frankly getting boring. Down grade his abilities and you don't need the dramatic crutch of Green K at all.

Lois and Superman are not romantically involved in a relationship, sure the attraction is there, but it should never reach the point of an intimate romance, that's just boring. People don't connect with boring. Clark and Lois are top notch investigative reporters, and their efforts are crucial in resolving the plot of the film.

Write stories in which humans are able to operate without total dependancy on Superman. Show instances where rescues are successfully accomplished by humans alone and at times by the efforts of man and Superman acting as a team.
I have a feeling you will enjoy greatly my reboot script...

[I Am The Knight]

Didn't say it was by you. But the fact that it gets brought up at all is a sad commentary on SR.

It's more of a sad commentary on fanboys who obssess too much over details on a movie they don't even like.

[El Payaso]

This is why SR is so awful. We are discussing whether or not the hero used protection when he had sex with his love interest. A superhero film and this is the kind of stuff we have to deal with!!!

No movie should be measured by the degree of futililty of the arguments some fans can come up with. I can start discussing whether Batman wore underwear under the suit or not and that's no sign of any Batman movie being bad.

[SuperDaniel]

Now you`re exageratting, Payaso...

The arguments come for a reason. If SR was everyone`s cup, we wouldn`t be discussing and a sequel would be being made right now.

[El Payaso]

Now you`re exageratting, Payaso...

The arguments come for a reason. If SR was everyone`s cup, we wouldn`t be discussing and a sequel would be being made right now.

Then again no movie, SR included, has be everyone's cup of tea.

[The Guard]

This is why SR is so awful. We are discussing whether or not the hero used protection when he had sex with his love interest. A superhero film and this is the kind of stuff we have to deal with!!!

Only because so many insist on caring about such things. When the smart thing to do would be to just let it go, as that's hardly what's important about the movie or the characters, and focus on the current themes and character interactions that are going on.

[StylishHokie21]

This sequel needs to have the strong connection that Iron Man had with the audience. It needs to be fun and entertaining, which is something SR lacked.

[Superark]

I haven't seen Iron Man yet, been waiting to go see it with my big bro, but I hope MOS doesn't have as much humor in it as IM appears to have. I like the more serious tone.

I think Batman Begins hit the right note as far as humor goes, and MOS should be similar to that

[BMM]

Eh, I think the humor was well done in Iron Man. Granted, I don't think Superman is the kind of character that lends himself to the humor of Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man, but I think they could infuse the franchise with the more lively tone of Iron Man, including a bit more humor.

[mego joe]

Yea but unprotected sex doesn't always mean pregnancy. I know this all too well, (thankfully no babies)

But sex with someone does create an obligation toward that person pregnancy or not, protection or not....

[mego joe]

Some rantings..........

Remove all the connections with destiny, god-hood, etc.
People worship gods they don't connect with them.

Take Superman back to his roots. The sole inspiration for his "mission" is his upbringing with The Kents, an upbringing fortified by the rural and ideal Capra-esque setting of Smallville, and not some spiritual destiny driven plan of Jor-el, or any similar device. He is the product of his nurturing, period. Divest the character totally of all the saviour mumbo jumbo. His ethical behaviour is impeccable, exibiting exemplary application of the "Golden Rule", and his mission is un-ashamedly stated to be "The fight for truth, justice, and the American Way".

Reduce his powers from god-like to super-man like. At his present power level he can do virtually anything. There is no drama in any scenario if our hero can lift islands up and into orbit, turn back time, etc.! He must strive to succeed; people don't connect with miracles, people do connect with a hero finding clever methods to overcome adversity, methods that make sense, relatable super-feats.

Presently the only mechanism available to create drama is Green K, and that's quite frankly getting boring. Down grade his abilities and you don't need the dramatic crutch of Green K at all.

Lois and Superman are not romantically involved in a relationship, sure the attraction is there, but it should never reach the point of an intimate romance, that's just boring. People don't connect with boring. Clark and Lois are top notch investigative reporters, and their efforts are crucial in resolving the plot of the film.

Write stories in which humans are able to operate without total dependancy on Superman. Show instances where rescues are successfully accomplished by humans alone and at times by the efforts of man and Superman acting as a team.

Good suggestions all around- you're really getting to the essence of the characters...

[mego joe]

Didn't say it was by you. But the fact that it gets brought up at all is a sad commentary on SR.

But that's the stupid story Singer chose to tell and the poor execution of the story that even allows room for the discussion.

[mego joe]

No movie should be measured by the degree of futililty of the arguments some fans can come up with. I can start discussing whether Batman wore underwear under the suit or not and that's no sign of any Batman movie being bad.

Whether Batman wears underwear is completely irrelevant-

In SR Lois had SUperman's baby, the details of that sexual encounter are relevant.

[Superark]

But sex with someone does create an obligation toward that person pregnancy or not, protection or not....


So if he had not had sex with Lois do you feel it was still ok for him to go to Krypton?

[mego joe]

Only because so many insist on caring about such things.


Like relevant plot issues?

When the smart thing to do would be to just let it go, as that's hardly what's , and focus on the current themes and character interactions that are going on.

Jason conception is certainly "important about the movie (and) the characters" and is relevant to "the current themes and character interactions that are going on."

[mego joe]

So if he had not had sex with Lois do you feel it was still ok for him to go to Krypton?

It was OK for him to go eventhough he had had sex with Lois. He just needed to be honest with her about what he was doing (going to Krypton)and why he was doing it- before the fact.

To answer the question somewhat more directly it all depends on their relationship. If they were not romantically involved and were just in a celebrity/reporter relationship, then no he didn't need to say goodbye. But if he had any sort of commitment at all, then he should have said goodbye. Period.

[Superark]

I can see why he should have told her, but I can also see why he chose not. Itis difficult to say what he should have done.

I think the important part was that he was sorry about it. I'm curious if in the Return to Krypton scene if Superman had any flashbacks of Lois.

[mego joe]

I can see why he should have told her, but I can also see why he chose not. Itis difficult to say what he should have done.


Why do you think that? Why would it have been right for him not to say goodbye? The results of the situation indicate it was clearly wrong. How does Lois not knowing benefit her, Jason, Richard?

I don't think it's presented as a choice- it's presented as an inability (character flaw) to do the right thing, the good thing, the decent thing.


I think the important part was that he was sorry about it.


That's what Singer wants you to think.

I'm curious if in the Return to Krypton scene if Superman had any flashbacks of Lois.

Don't think so, anyone know more?

[SatEL]

Yea but unprotected sex doesn't always mean pregnancy. I know this all too well, (thankfully no babies)

If you know it all to well you will also know that when a man and a woman have unprotected sex that to end it all of the man ejaculates. So Superman sleeps with Lois ejaculates in her and doesnt think there might be anything wrong with that? I am sure the hardcore SR lovers are probably going to state he probably didnt think an alien could get a human pregnant, well if thats your excuse then his a fool for not taking precautions and very irresponsible and those a things Superman is not.

[wellsy]

Well first they need to cast actors the fans like! Then get a director who knows the characters, and does this as a labor of love for the comics, and not the Donner movies! THEN! They need to make a movie that is worth watching, and worthy of our connection to it... Then, and only THEN! [1]

Will there be a Superman movie that does IRON MAN numbers... BATMAN BEGINS had much more going against it (Batman & Robin, Catwomen) which was the reason why it made only 200million domestically, and now that the whole world saw with caution how great BATMAN BEGINS was I expect the sequel to be twice as big in the boxoffice... Superman had a slightly bigger budget (20+ production and about 60million for marketing), and tho it made slightly less then BATMAN here in the US Batman had so much more to overcome, it ended up making a profit in theaters while SR didn't turn a profit until recently on dvd!!! Because of this reason it's why SR is seen as a failure! It should have made at least no less then 300million domestic![2]

IT'S FRICKEN SUPERMAN PEOPLE!!! This is the big one here! I mean COME ON! If done right Superman is the greatest of all the Superheros!

This is why BATMAN BEGINS got it's sequel, and I expect TDK to be BIG!!! Bigger then IRON MAN!

But that's because BATMAN BEGINS had amazing word of mouth, and it's build up a cult following like no other DC movie has ever! And with Ledgers death the movie has even more hype!!

But Superman Returns has had nothing but negativity from the start attached to it, and it's not a Superman curse!!! It's a Singerman curse![3]
[1] - That's a highly subjective matter, and you should probably treat it as such. It's like proving a mathematical relation is true for one example, and then saying that its true for all examples (without proof).

Sorry, but I am a mathematician (and a physicist).

[2] - I agree. SR should've done better at the American BO. However, that isn't to say it failed (who knows how much the studio got from overseas BO?). And it's obvious that it didn't abjectly fail since Showtime is suggesting that MoS is stirring from its coma.

[3] - Nothing but negativity, eh? Then explain the $200 million at the US BO, and $191 million worldwide? Let's face it, that's still a pretty big number. And to blame it all on Singer is a bit rich, given that WB greenlit the movie, and some people obviously liked it (myself included), despite its flaws.

Really, the reasons for MoS being delayed are simple: Singer wanted to do Valkyrie first, and WB wanted to explore its other options with Superman (as manifested in the now comatose Justice League: Mortal). The money is there for a Superman sequel. If SR has done anything, it has shown how not to make a Superman movie (and thus, serves the analogy to ST:TMP, and MoS' analogy to ST2:TWoK). And while TWoK grossed less than TMP, the former is still regarded today as the best Star Trek movie, and one of the best sci fi movies ever made.

To make the dough, MoS needs humour yes. It needs a slightly lighter tone. But apart from that, I don't want to see too many changes to the world SR showed. They need to tweak it, yes, but not to the point at which the ought to be rebooting it.

[SatEL]

It's more of a sad commentary on fanboys who obssess too much over details on a movie they don't even like.

Cant blame people for wondering how Superman and Lois have sex or how he even gets any sort of pleasure from it as his whole body is well Super.:yay:

[SatEL]

[1] - That's a highly subjective matter, and you should probably treat it as such. It's like proving a mathematical relation is true for one example, and then saying that its true for all examples (without proof).

Sorry, but I am a mathematician (and a physicist).

[2] - I agree. SR should've done better at the American BO. However, that isn't to say it failed (who knows how much the studio got from overseas BO?). And it's obvious that it didn't abjectly fail since Showtime is suggesting that MoS is stirring from its coma.

[3] - Nothing but negativity, eh? Then explain the $200 million at the US BO, and $191 million worldwide? Let's face it, that's still a pretty big number. And to blame it all on Singer is a bit rich, given that WB greenlit the movie, and some people obviously liked it (myself included), despite its flaws.

Really, the reasons for MoS being delayed are simple: Singer wanted to do Valkyrie first, and WB wanted to explore its other options with Superman (as manifested in the now comatose Justice League: Mortal). The money is there for a Superman sequel. If SR has done anything, it has shown how not to make a Superman movie (and thus, serves the analogy to ST:TMP, and MoS' analogy to ST2:TWoK). And while TWoK grossed less than TMP, the former is still regarded today as the best Star Trek movie, and one of the best sci fi movies ever made.

To make the dough, MoS needs humour yes. It needs a slightly lighter tone. But apart from that, I don't want to see too many changes to the world SR showed. They need to tweak it, yes, but not to the point at which the ought to be rebooting it.

Then the film will flop again.

[wellsy]

Why do you think that? Why would it have been right for him not to say goodbye? The results of the situation indicate it was clearly wrong. How does Lois not knowing benefit her, Jason, Richard?

I don't think it's presented as a choice- it's presented as an inability (character flaw) to do the right thing, the good thing, the decent thing.
A 'character flaw' that is corrected by the end of the movie. Or, in my view, a mistake that is rectified by the end of the movie.

Should he have said goodbye before he left for Krypton? Probably. Does that mean that he can't say goodbye? Nope. And does he say goodbye to Lois before he goes back to New Krypton? You bet.

So, I can't exactly see your problem mego. He does end up rectifying the problem, and having the guts to say goodbye, even if he might never see Lois again. And your problem is...

Let me guess - still with the event 5 years ago (according to the movie) that we know very little about.

[afan]

I don't think it's presented as a choice- it's presented as an inability (character flaw) to do the right thing, the good thing, the decent thing.



Exactly.


So, I can't exactly see your problem mego. He does end up rectifying the problem, and having the guts to say goodbye, even if he might never see Lois again.


The problem overall is that this Superman is a classic example of the tragic hero, and yet the story does not reach the proper conclusion for such a tale.

A tragic hero is usually basically a good person who strives to do right, though due to a character flaw(often very "human" in nature) he fails. The hero may rectify the error, but a tragic tale never has a happy ending.

The rectifying frequently costing the hero dearly, sometimes his familial and domestic life is irreperably altered, or more often his error results in his death. Whatever the mechanism the hero must suffer greatly all due to his shortcomings.

In SR we have a Superman who leaves Earth sans any farewell. Clearly the intent of the film is to demonstrate that this(no farewell) is an error in judgement, an egregious error that creates all the conflict of the film. We as posters both pro and con for the film seem to agree on this point.

However the film does not carry thru on the proper ending for a tragedy. We see Superman suffer, the beating, and we see him very close to death; again elements of a tragic hero, but ultimately this hero does not pay for his error. He may regret deeply his error, he may have learned his lesson, but in the case of SR he comes off scott free, and that ending for the telling of tragic hero's tale comes of as hollow and meaningless.

SR was a classic tragic hero's tale, yet the ending was not, and that is IMO where the problem lies.

[Superark]

Why do you think that? Why would it have been right for him not to say goodbye? The results of the situation indicate it was clearly wrong. How does Lois not knowing benefit her, Jason, Richard?

It can be very difficult to explain that you are leaving not only Lois, but mankind for so long. Maybe he felt like if he had this talk with Lois he would have looked at her and not found it within himself to leave.
And by the way, Superman did not know Richard when he left, nor was Jason around so they didn't factor in his decision. But even still I can see why people feel he should have said something to Lois. I'm just saying I can see both sides feel like each are fine.


That's how he made feel, so good for him!


Hopefully we'll get to see the RTK scene someday

[Mostpowerful]

[1] - That's a highly subjective matter, and you should probably treat it as such. It's like proving a mathematical relation is true for one example, and then saying that its true for all examples (without proof).

Sorry, but I am a mathematician (and a physicist).

[2] - I agree. SR should've done better at the American BO. However, that isn't to say it failed (who knows how much the studio got from overseas BO?). And it's obvious that it didn't abjectly fail since Showtime is suggesting that MoS is stirring from its coma.

[3] - Nothing but negativity, eh? Then explain the $200 million at the US BO, and $191 million worldwide? Let's face it, that's still a pretty big number. And to blame it all on Singer is a bit rich, given that WB greenlit the movie, and some people obviously liked it (myself included), despite its flaws.

Really, the reasons for MoS being delayed are simple: Singer wanted to do Valkyrie first, and WB wanted to explore its other options with Superman (as manifested in the now comatose Justice League: Mortal). The money is there for a Superman sequel. If SR has done anything, it has shown how not to make a Superman movie (and thus, serves the analogy to ST:TMP, and MoS' analogy to ST2:TWoK). And while TWoK grossed less than TMP, the former is still regarded today as the best Star Trek movie, and one of the best sci fi movies ever made.

To make the dough, MoS needs humour yes. It needs a slightly lighter tone. But apart from that, I don't want to see too many changes to the world SR showed. They need to tweak it, yes, but not to the point at which the ought to be rebooting it.

Great post.

But I think that if we go by the reviews, most people liked the movie. With a rating of 77% at rotten tomatoes, 7 out of 10 liked the movie. And to say that the film flopped it's ridiculous. It 'underperformed' in WB's view because of the prod. budget and high expectations, but other than that, it is obvious that a lot of people went to see the movie. And by the good dvd sales, I'd say that lots of people enjoyed SR and would see a sequel, especially if the trailers and marketing are more 'dynamic' and action-packed. No doubt.

[The Guard]

Like relevant plot issues?

Whether the man ejaculated or had unprotected sex with Lois Lane is not a relevant plot issue.

I do not understand how you all can reduce Superman and Lois's interactions to the mechanics of what "may have happened" based on what you think you know about their relationship.

Distilling such a beautiful act to "a man ejaculates in a woman and a kid is born" is just absurd.

Jason conception is certainly "important about the movie (and) the characters" and is relevant to "the current themes and character interactions that are going on."

Jason's birth is important. But you all aren't talking about any of the important elements of that, or about how he was born of Lois and Superman's love. You're all just talking about how irresponsible Superman was, and about the mechanics of their sex.

So, I can't exactly see your problem mego. He does end up rectifying the problem, and having the guts to say goodbye, even if he might never see Lois again. And your problem is...

His problem is:
1. Superman had sex
2. Superman had sex out of wedlock, without revealing he was Clark Kent (even though we don't KNOW if he did or not. Who knows what happened?)
3. Superman didn't allow his life to revolve around whether or not he might conceivably have fathered a child
4. Superman is portrayed as flawed.

The problem overall is that this Superman is a classic example of the tragic hero, and yet the story does not reach the proper conclusion for such a tale.

Interesting outlook. I don't completely disagree, but what would you say the proper conclusion for such a tale would have been? And is this really a tragedy?

A tragic hero is usually basically a good person who strives to do right, though due to a character flaw(often very "human" in nature) he fails. The hero may rectify the error, but a tragic tale never has a happy ending.

Then maybe it's not a tragic tale. Maybe it just, as many dramas do, has tragic elements for the hero. I don't think we need to fit every story we see into boxes.

The rectifying frequently costing the hero dearly, sometimes his familial and domestic life is irreperably altered, or more often his error results in his death. Whatever the mechanism the hero must suffer greatly all due to his shortcomings.

Indeed.

In SR we have a Superman who leaves Earth sans any farewell. Clearly the intent of the film is to demonstrate that this(no farewell) is an error in judgement, an egregious error that creates all the conflict of the film. We as posters both pro and con for the film seem to agree on this point.

Yup.

However the film does not carry thru on the proper ending for a tragedy.

Then it's not a tragedy.

We see Superman suffer, the beating, and we see him very close to death; again elements of a tragic hero, but ultimately this hero does not pay for his error.

Sure he does. Lex Luthor is released from prison to wreak havoc, and Superman has essentially lost the love of his life, as well as his most important ties to his Kryptonian heritage. I would argue that this is a tale of tragedy and redemption.

He may regret deeply his error, he may have learned his lesson, but in the case of SR he comes off scott free, and that ending for the telling of tragic hero's tale comes of as hollow and meaningless.

How has he come off scott free? He can no longer be with Lois, and while he now knows he has a son, and cherishes this fact, he can't really be with him either, as his son is being raised by another man.

[afan]

Then maybe it's not a tragic tale. Maybe it just, as many dramas do, has tragic elements for the hero. I don't think we need to fit every story we see into boxes.



But the elements of SR seem to clearly delineate the box to which it belongs.

A tragic tale includes a hero who........

Is of noble birth....check.
Is flawed or exhibits an error in judgement......check.
The flaw or error creates a reversal of fortune for the hero.........check.
A realization by the hero that his error has caused the reversal of fortune.......check.

The boxes are checked, SR is a tragic tale.

That being said................


How has he come off scott free? He can no longer be with Lois, and while he now knows he has a son, and cherishes this fact, he can't really be with him either, as his son is being raised by another man.


In relation to the proper ending for a tragic tale, he's got it pretty good, IMO.

Let's not forget that in SR, there is at least a mock death for our hero. The problem is that the tale did not have the courage to deliver the cour de grace, the death of Superman, which by the way would have nicely wrapped up this "Donner" universe of Superman, clearing the way for a completely new vision or allow for a third film in which the son of Superman is raised by Lois and Richard, that would effectively culminate the Donner-verse in a trilogy. Instead it delivered, for a tragedy, a very out of place, ill fitting, and clumsy happy ending.

[mojo-x]

If you know it all to well you will also know that when a man and a woman have unprotected sex that to end it all of the man ejaculates. So Superman sleeps with Lois ejaculates in her and doesnt think there might be anything wrong with that? I am sure the hardcore SR lovers are probably going to state he probably didnt think an alien could get a human pregnant, well if thats your excuse then his a fool for not taking precautions and very irresponsible and those a things Superman is not.

He should have performed a super-pullout and covered Lois with his super-spunk.

[BMM]

......

[The Guard]

But the elements of SR seem to clearly delineate the box to which it belongs.

A tragic tale includes a hero who........

Is of noble birth....check.
Is flawed or exhibits an error in judgement......check.
The flaw or error creates a reversal of fortune for the hero.........check.
A realization by the hero that his error has caused the reversal of fortune.......check.

The boxes are checked, SR is a tragic tale.

That being said................

SUPERMAN RETURNS features an obvious element of redemption, which to me, prevents it from being seen as a tragic tale.

Although you could argue...the tragic elements he suffered because of his choice to leave still exist at the end of SUPERMAN RETURNS. Superman suffers greatly, Luthor has done great evil, Lois is lost to him, and his son is someone else's son...so you could concievably call it a tragedy.

In relation to the proper ending for a tragic tale, he's got it pretty good, IMO.

Then, once again, it clearly isn't a proper tragedy. And I really could care less. I don't subscribe the "blueprint" style of creativity, where one has to adhere exactly to what came before, point by point. That, to me, displays a distinct lack of creativity, in fact. It should be enough simply to point out that SUPERMAN RETURNS is a story about redemption and love with tragic elements.

[mego joe]

A 'character flaw' that is corrected by the end of the movie.


Part of the problem is that the particular 'character flaw' is incongruent with Superman's character from the beginning. If part of the point of the story is that Superman overcomes a particular character flaw that flaw has to be part of the character to begin with. The problem is that Superman has never had a problem saying goodbye. It doesn't make sense in terms of the essence of Superman's character.


Or, in my view, a mistake that is rectified by the end of the movie.


I think it's incredibly naive to think that the problem has been rectified. Can he say goodbye now? Sure. But there's more to the issue than SUperman being able to say goodbye- his inability to say goodbye have huge impact on the lives of Lois, Richard and Jason.



Should he have said goodbye before he left for Krypton? Probably.


What the film fails to do is make us understand WHY he couldn't say goodbye and make it fit with the character. SInger expects the viewer to simply accept it even though it is diametrically opposed to the essence of the character.

Does that mean that he can't say goodbye? Nope. And does he say goodbye to Lois before he goes back to New Krypton? You bet.


It doesn't matter at that point. The damage has already been done.

So, I can't exactly see your problem mego. He does end up rectifying the problem, and having the guts to say goodbye, even if he might never see Lois again. And your problem is...


It doesn't rectify the problem. He simply has learned how to say goodbye, it doesn't do anything to rectify the problems caused by his initial inability to be honest with Lois and say goodbye.

Why could he not do it the first time ? Answer: Singer doesn't understand the character. That's the problem. If you're going to put a character through a journey, you have to make sure your audience understands where the character is at the beginning and WHY he is at that point. The reasons have to be consistent with the character. We don't know why he couldn't say goodbye- therefore there's no reason to see his 'change' as relevant at all.

Let me guess - still with the event 5 years ago (according to the movie) that we know very little about.

See, you do understand my problem with the film-

[mego joe]

Exactly.



The problem overall is that this Superman is a classic example of the tragic hero, and yet the story does not reach the proper conclusion for such a tale.

A tragic hero is usually basically a good person who strives to do right, though due to a character flaw(often very "human" in nature) he fails. The hero may rectify the error, but a tragic tale never has a happy ending.

The rectifying frequently costing the hero dearly, sometimes his familial and domestic life is irreperably altered, or more often his error results in his death. Whatever the mechanism the hero must suffer greatly all due to his shortcomings.

In SR we have a Superman who leaves Earth sans any farewell. Clearly the intent of the film is to demonstrate that this(no farewell) is an error in judgement, an egregious error that creates all the conflict of the film. We as posters both pro and con for the film seem to agree on this point.

However the film does not carry thru on the proper ending for a tragedy. We see Superman suffer, the beating, and we see him very close to death; again elements of a tragic hero, but ultimately this hero does not pay for his error. He may regret deeply his error, he may have learned his lesson, but in the case of SR he comes off scott free, and that ending for the telling of tragic hero's tale comes of as hollow and meaningless.

SR was a classic tragic hero's tale, yet the ending was not, and that is IMO where the problem lies.

SR is definitely hollow and meaningless.

Don't forget that Superman is not a tragic hero to begin with...

[mego joe]

It can be very difficult to explain that you are leaving not only Lois, but mankind for so long. Maybe he felt like if he had this talk with Lois he would have looked at her and not found it within himself to leave.


Why would he not be able to leave? That's clearly out of character as well. SUperman has left Earth countless times to fulfill his duty as Superman. It would be more out of character for him to stay. To think that he would not be able to leave after having the talk with Lois is a clear misunderstanding of the Superman/ Lois relationship.

And by the way, Superman did not know Richard when he left, nor was Jason around so they didn't factor in his decision. But even still I can see why people feel he should have said something to Lois. I'm just saying I can see both sides feel like each are fine.


THe potential for children is always there with sex. Having Superman not consider this makes him look incredibly naive and irresponsible.


That's how he made feel, so good for him!


He was sorry, sure, but in a story like this the important thing is that being sorry isn't enough. It just doesn't cut it. There are some situation which are not rectified by a simple 'sorry.'


Hopefully we'll get to see the RTK scene someday

I don't know that it matters to me, but it should be available for those who like SR.

[mego joe]

Whether the man ejaculated or had unprotected sex with Lois Lane is not a relevant plot issue.

I do not understand how you all can reduce Superman and Lois's interactions to the mechanics of what "may have happened" based on what you think you know about their relationship.

Distilling such a beautiful act to "a man ejaculates in a woman and a kid is born" is just absurd.


All SR makes important about the relationship though is that 'a man ejaculated into a woman.' That's all we get. We get no context, we get no 'beautiful act.' We get- Superman got Lois pregnant- the details are treated as unimportant? Why? Because all Singer seemed to care about was that 'Superman ejaculated into Lois and got her pregnant.'




Jason's birth is important. But you all aren't talking about any of the important elements of that, or about how he was born of Lois and Superman's love.


How do you know they were in love- we don't know the circumstances of Superman and Lois's relationship?

You're all just talking about how irresponsible Superman was, and about the mechanics of their sex.


That's what's in the film- SUperman's irresponsiblity- we have no context in which to place the mechanics of their sexual encounter b/c SInger didn't find it relavant.

His problem is:
1. Superman had sex
2. Superman had sex out of wedlock, without revealing he was Clark Kent (even though we don't KNOW if he did or not. Who knows what happened?)
3. Superman didn't allow his life to revolve around whether or not he might conceivably have fathered a child
4. Superman is portrayed as flawed.


It's ubelievable how poorly you understand my position.

[mego joe]

SUPERMAN RETURNS features an obvious element of redemption, which to me, prevents it from being seen as a tragic tale.

Although you could argue...the tragic elements he suffered because of his choice to leave still exist at the end of SUPERMAN RETURNS. Superman suffers greatly, Luthor has done great evil, Lois is lost to him, and his son is someone else's son...so you could concievably call it a tragedy.



Then, once again, it clearly isn't a proper tragedy. And I really could care less. I don't subscribe the "blueprint" style of creativity, where one has to adhere exactly to what came before, point by point. That, to me, displays a distinct lack of creativity, in fact. It should be enough simply to point out that SUPERMAN RETURNS is a story about redemption and love with tragic elements.

Which is why the setup is allwrong for the ending or the ending is allwrong for the beginning. One is out of place.

[mego joe]

But the elements of SR seem to clearly delineate the box to which it belongs.

A tragic tale includes a hero who........

Is of noble birth....check.
Is flawed or exhibits an error in judgement......check.
The flaw or error creates a reversal of fortune for the hero.........check.
A realization by the hero that his error has caused the reversal of fortune.......check.

The boxes are checked, SR is a tragic tale.

That being said................



In relation to the proper ending for a tragic tale, he's got it pretty good, IMO.

Let's not forget that in SR, there is at least a mock death for our hero. The problem is that the tale did not have the courage to deliver the cour de grace, the death of Superman, which by the way would have nicely wrapped up this "Donner" universe of Superman, clearing the way for a completely new vision or allow for a third film in which the son of Superman is raised by Lois and Richard, that would effectively culminate the Donner-verse in a trilogy. Instead it delivered, for a tragedy, a very out of place, ill fitting, and clumsy happy ending.

Unbelievablly, I agree with this. SR would have been much better if he had died at the end.

[wellsy]

The problem overall is that this Superman is a classic example of the tragic hero, and yet the story does not reach the proper conclusion for such a tale.

A tragic hero is usually basically a good person who strives to do right, though due to a character flaw(often very "human" in nature) he fails. The hero may rectify the error, but a tragic tale never has a happy ending.

The rectifying frequently costing the hero dearly, sometimes his familial and domestic life is irreperably altered, or more often his error results in his death. Whatever the mechanism the hero must suffer greatly all due to his shortcomings.

In SR we have a Superman who leaves Earth sans any farewell. Clearly the intent of the film is to demonstrate that this(no farewell) is an error in judgement, an egregious error that creates all the conflict of the film. We as posters both pro and con for the film seem to agree on this point.

However the film does not carry thru on the proper ending for a tragedy. We see Superman suffer, the beating, and we see him very close to death; again elements of a tragic hero, but ultimately this hero does not pay for his error. He may regret deeply his error, he may have learned his lesson, but in the case of SR he comes off scott free, and that ending for the telling of tragic hero's tale comes of as hollow and meaningless.

SR was a classic tragic hero's tale, yet the ending was not, and that is IMO where the problem lies.
Perhaps Superman's suffering was more internal than external. He was deeply wounded by Lois writing "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman". He was obviously still in love, and the movie attempted to construct his leaving for Krypton's ruins as one of the hardest things he's ever done, not only for fear of seeing the ruins of his home, but for being away from Lois.

Whether or not it succeeded...

Though I do get your point.

[wellsy]

Part of the problem is that the particular 'character flaw' is incongruent with Superman's character from the beginning. If part of the point of the story is that Superman overcomes a particular character flaw that flaw has to be part of the character to begin with. The problem is that Superman has never had a problem saying goodbye. It doesn't make sense in terms of the essence of Superman's character.



I think it's incredibly naive to think that the problem has been rectified. Can he say goodbye now? Sure. But there's more to the issue than SUperman being able to say goodbye- his inability to say goodbye have huge impact on the lives of Lois, Richard and Jason.




What the film fails to do is make us understand WHY he couldn't say goodbye and make it fit with the character. SInger expects the viewer to simply accept it even though it is diametrically opposed to the essence of the character.[1]


It doesn't matter at that point. The damage has already been done.[2]


It doesn't rectify the problem. He simply has learned how to say goodbye, it doesn't do anything to rectify the problems caused by his initial inability to be honest with Lois and say goodbye.[3]

Why could he not do it the first time ? Answer: Singer doesn't understand the character. That's the problem. If you're going to put a character through a journey, you have to make sure your audience understands where the character is at the beginning and WHY he is at that point. The reasons have to be consistent with the character. We don't know why he couldn't say goodbye- therefore there's no reason to see his 'change' as relevant at all.


See, you do understand my problem with the film-
[1] - Perhaps you're right. It's been a while since I last saw SR. However, I did get the impression that he was hesitating leaving for Krypton's ruins, and that he felt that if he saw Lois, he wouldn't be able to take himself away. Perhaps that should have been explained better on film, but like I said, I've not seen it for a while.

[2] - But even still, isn't the point that it won't happen again there? Yes, the "damage has been done" as you say, but the damage has been stemmed and can be rectified in any sequels. Of course, I'm not sure you think that can happen.

[3] - Isn't that what sequels are for? We're not having any "spin so fast he turns back time" moments here. There are problems, and he has to deal with them. That provides fertile ground for subplots, though whether or not they're weeds or flowers remains to be seen (to keep with the arboreal analogy).

[wellsy]

Unbelievablly, I agree with this. SR would have been much better if he had died at the end.
If only WB hadn't been looking for a cash cow...

Much as I liked SR, that would have been mind-blowing.

[bunk]

Mego, is it your goal to get every thread closed?

[mojo-x]

Unbelievablly, I agree with this. SR would have been much better if he had died at the end.

That’s my favorite part, when Superman gets his ass handed to him. I actually fine myself rooting for Lexs. Its like Superman is finally getting what he deserves.

[The Guard]

If you have no context to place something in, why would you focus so much on that one element in the context of the film? Why the hell wouldn't you focus on the relevant elements of it, in regard to dissecting the story?

Which is why the setup is allwrong for the ending or the ending is allwrong for the beginning. One is out of place.

Whaaat? Does every story or film now have to adhere to strict guidelines set by some story or film before it? Give me a break.

[mego joe]

[1] - Perhaps you're right. It's been a while since I last saw SR. However, I did get the impression that he was hesitating leaving for Krypton's ruins, and that he felt that if he saw Lois, he wouldn't be able to take himself away. Perhaps that should have been explained better on film, but like I said, I've not seen it for a while.


THere needed to be a better motivation than 'it was too difficult.' That's just out of charact. How about a real reason? It makes it about a character flaw instead of circumstances beyond his control- like "I was kidknapped by Aliens."

[2] - But even still, isn't the point that it won't happen again there? Yes, the "damage has been done" as you say, but the damage has been stemmed and can be rectified in any sequels. Of course, I'm not sure you think that can happen.


As a viewer, the damage has been done b/c they're going to have to deal with the Jason issue in some way. Eliminating him from continuity is the only solution that puts Superman back in character. Just b/c he changed and is not 'in character' doesn't fix the problem that Superman is still dealing with the storyline that depicted him as out of character. For me there is zero interest in that storyline.

[3] - Isn't that what sequels are for? We're not having any "spin so fast he turns back time" moments here. There are problems, and he has to deal with them. That provides fertile ground for subplots, though whether or not they're weeds or flowers remains to be seen (to keep with the arboreal analogy).

Really, sequels are for new and separate stories about the characters. I understand what you are saying about the sub-plots, like in the Spider-Man films. The difference is that the SM films utilized sub-plots right from the comics that are part of the essence of the character. SR is introducing something completely foreign to the character which required him acting out of character to produce the sub-plot in the first place. (sorry I lost the botanical analogy/ metaphor.)

No matter how well it is technically done, it will still feel wrong. I just see it as the wrong story material for Superman and who his character is supposed to be and what he's trying to represent.

[mego joe]

Mego, is it your goal to get every thread closed?

No, but I was thinking the same thing.

The problems for me is that my biggest issues with SR are not the suit. Not the cast. Not the goofy Lex (though I was disappointed), it's with the basic story and characterization and the 'change' Superman was supposed to have gone through. A sequel will necessarily deal with the Jason storyline and b/c I find that plot element to be out of place from the very beginning- it doesn't really matter what happens next as long as that element is there to weigh it down and remind me of how bad SR was.

[mego joe]

That’s my favorite part, when Superman gets his ass handed to him. I actually fine myself rooting for Lexs. Its like Superman is finally getting what he deserves.

It is that kind of story isn't it.

[mego joe]

If you have no context to place something in, why would you focus so much on that one element in the context of the film? Why the hell wouldn't you focus on the relevant elements of it, in regard to dissecting the story?


Singer does give us the element he considers relevant.
1. They were in a relationship
2. It was sexual in nature.
3. Lois didn't know Superman was also Clark.
4. Superman left b/c 'it was too difficult' to be honest with her.
5. He had time to tell her b/c he had time to develop the whole 'South American Vacation ' ruse for Clark.

That's all from the film. That's what's relevant to the story. It has nothing coming from other films or the comics that I'm adding. I'm taking the elements of the film.


What else are you referring to that would be relevant to the context of the situation from the film?

As to why I"m focussed on it- this one act of leaving the wrong way is the source of ALL the conflict in the film, from Lois being pissed at Superman to Luthor being free from prison. Everything stems from this. THat's why it's so important.



Whaaat? Does every story or film now have to adhere to strict guidelines set by some story or film before it? Give me a break.

THere are certain types of stories out there: a tragedy is one of them. We as viewers/ readers subconsciously expect certain resolutions. If a story like SR has all the elements of a classic tragedy then there is a subconscious expectation to have end in a manner that satisfies that type of story.

Since Superman isn't a tragic hero something has to change, either he does become the tragic hero in the story (and dies at the end) or something happens to twist the set up so that it's no longer a tragedy but a misdirection story where everything is not what it seems to be.


Nothing has follow certain guidelines. Singer may not have intended it to be a tragedy, but he utilized so many elements that it felt like a tragedy. He then didn't fulfill the tragic ending- he went a different way and left an ending that isn't satisfying to the tragic elements in the film, so something feels off about it as a tragedy and something feels off about it as a Superman fim b/c it uses all the elemetns of the tragedy yet SUperman is not a tragic hero.

IMO, the ending is so weak that it doesn't satisfy much, except, "phew, it's finally over."

[wellsy]

THere needed to be a better motivation than 'it was too difficult.' That's just out of charact. How about a real reason? It makes it about a character flaw instead of circumstances beyond his control- like "I was kidknapped by Aliens."


As a viewer, the damage has been done b/c they're going to have to deal with the Jason issue in some way. Eliminating him from continuity is the only solution that puts Superman back in character. Just b/c he changed and is not 'in character' doesn't fix the problem that Superman is still dealing with the storyline that depicted him as out of character. For me there is zero interest in that storyline.


Really, sequels are for new and separate stories about the characters. I understand what you are saying about the sub-plots, like in the Spider-Man films. The difference is that the SM films utilized sub-plots right from the comics that are part of the essence of the character. SR is introducing something completely foreign to the character which required him acting out of character to produce the sub-plot in the first place. (sorry I lost the botanical analogy/ metaphor.)

No matter how well it is technically done, it will still feel wrong. I just see it as the wrong story material for Superman and who his character is supposed to be and what he's trying to represent.
I guess we're taking different approaches to Superman's character. You're declaring what is and isn't in character to be based off the comics (which, if I'm not mistaken, vary wildly in their characterisation anyway). I work with what's in character for the version in SR, which I consider seperate from the comics.

So with that in mind, I think it best for us to agree to disagree and leave it at that. You want a highly accurate comic book adaptation (nothing wrong with that - I love Hellsing Ultimate and hate the Hellsing animated series, and guess which follows the manga more closely :whatever:). You want Superman's character to be cut-and-pasted (for the most part) from the comics.

SR has a different characterisation to the comic books. Whether you agree or disagree with that characterisation and direction is a matter that concerns you and only you. I have no issue with disagreement. But you've been making these same arguments again and again, and it's getting annoying. I'm satisfied with the characterisation of Superman in SR. You are not.

Can we just leave it at that?

[Mostpowerful]

SR has a different characterisation to the comic books. Whether you agree or disagree with that characterisation and direction is a matter that concerns you and only you. I have no issue with disagreement. But you've been making these same arguments again and again, and it's getting annoying. I'm satisfied with the characterisation of Superman in SR. You are not.

Can we just leave it at that?

Agreed, especially with the bolded part. Actually, it's gotten very annoying already, at least to me. :o

[Superark]

I guess we're taking different approaches to Superman's character. You're declaring what is and isn't in character to be based off the comics (which, if I'm not mistaken, vary wildly in their characterisation anyway). I work with what's in character for the version in SR, which I consider seperate from the comics.

So with that in mind, I think it best for us to agree to disagree and leave it at that. You want a highly accurate comic book adaptation (nothing wrong with that - I love Hellsing Ultimate and hate the Hellsing animated series, and guess which follows the manga more closely :whatever:). You want Superman's character to be cut-and-pasted (for the most part) from the comics.

SR has a different characterisation to the comic books. Whether you agree or disagree with that characterisation and direction is a matter that concerns you and only you. I have no issue with disagreement. But you've been making these same arguments again and again, and it's getting annoying. I'm satisfied with the characterisation of Superman in SR. You are not.

Can we just leave it at that?


AMEN! :super:

[afan]

I work with what's in character for the version in SR,


Ahhhh.............but isn't that the problem; what is in character for Superman in SR?

It's the "vague history" quagmire again.

Is the Superman character in SR, the character in S:TM, or is it an adaptation created solely for SR? If the latter is accepted then the character really isn't fleshed out at all in the film, leaving it up to the audience to judge him against personal preconceptions. Hence the endless debates.

Some, El Payaso being the main proponent, would argue that Superman in SR is identical to S:TM, but that's not a slam dunk conclusion IMO.

[GreenKToo]

Personally, my problems with S.R. wasn't the kid, or richard, or even Supes leaving for 5 yrs without saying goodbye. I wasn't crazy about those things mind you, but I could have lived with them if these things (see below) were right.

My problems were the pacing, tone, not enough action, some of the cast, and the suit.

That said, Singer has promised to fix things in M.O.S., so I want to see what he has in mind.

[Angamb]

I think you're kind of missing the point Angamb - this is a connection to the characters. Not about how to make more money at the BO.

oh, really? :huh: hahahah, I thought it was because the final worldwide box-office....

there are some users that talk about that.... but anyway...

I think what the movie needs is to center more in his feelings, more than in Lois Lane.

I remember thinking that Superman Returns was more about Lois than about Clark, hehe.

[The Guard]

There needed to be a better motivation than 'it was too difficult.' That's just out of charact. How about a real reason?

That IS a real reason. A very human reason, that a lot of people, while not being able to agree with, can probably relate to. And yes, there probably could have been better reasons for Superman not to come back, I won't argue that, but it is what it is.

It makes it about a character flaw instead of circumstances beyond his control- like "I was kidknapped by Aliens."

It's supposed to be a character flaw. That's where relevant, interesting character drama tends to come from.

Singer does give us the element he considers relevant.

1. They were in a relationship
2. It was sexual in nature.
3. Lois didn't know Superman was also Clark.
4. Superman left b/c 'it was too difficult' to be honest with her.
5. He had time to tell her b/c he had time to develop the whole 'South American Vacation ' ruse for Clark.

He gives us a lot more than that, you just want to ignore it.

1. Yes they were in a relationship.
2. It was more than that, and you know it. It's made crystal clear they were infatuated with each other, if not outright in love.
3. You simply don't know that for sure. This is a sequel to the Donner movies, so it's entirely possible there was a SUPERMAN II moment, where she knew, and he made her forget somehow.
4. No, he left to find Krypton. He didn't say goodbye because it was too painful for him.
5. He had time, but what does time have to do with anything, in context?

I's just so obvious that you think about only what you don't morally like about the situation and not ANYTHING else when you make biased comments like "He had time to tell her b/c he had time to develop the whole 'South American Vacation ' ruse for Clark." You've already formed your own conclusions about the morality of his actions, and while yes, they do tend to be logical, they all stem from what you don't like about the situation. You don't take anything else into account except what furthers your argument here.

To hell with them being in love, what that meant to him, and to her, etc, because THEY HAD SEX and that's ALL THAT MATTERS, right?

As to why I"m focussed on it- this one act of leaving the wrong way is the source of ALL the conflict in the film, from Lois being pissed at Superman to Luthor being free from prison. Everything stems from this. THat's why it's so important.

Yes, it is. But you're missing the point in the context of Superman and Lois's relationship. It is not just about the problems his actions caused. It's about what they were before, and may well be again someday.

THere are certain types of stories out there: a tragedy is one of them. We as viewers/ readers subconsciously expect certain resolutions. If a story like SR has all the elements of a classic tragedy then there is a subconscious expectation to have end in a manner that satisfies that type of story.

Well, the ending isn't exactly real, real happy for Superman. You limit yourself when you fall into this "It's this kind of story, so it must end this way" thinking. You limit yourself severely.

Since Superman isn't a tragic hero something has to change, either he does become the tragic hero in the story (and dies at the end) or something happens to twist the set up so that it's no longer a tragedy but a misdirection story where everything is not what it seems to be.

Then it's clearly not a tragedy. Step out of your box where everything is either "tragedy" or "comedy".

Nothing has follow certain guidelines. Singer may not have intended it to be a tragedy, but he utilized so many elements that it felt like a tragedy.

More than anything, it's a story about redemption. It couldn't be made any plainer. It's not a tragedy, and your insistence to call it one is amusing.

According to Aristotle, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind."[3] It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, fate, or society), but if a character’s downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a misadventure and not a tragedy.

Since Superman's actions do tend to point out a moral flaw in his judgement, etc, this would appear not to be a tragedy.

[mojo-x]

That IS a real reason. A very human reason, that a lot of people, while not being able to agree with, can probably relate to. And yes, there probably could have been better reasons for Superman not to come back, I won't argue that, but it is what it is.



It's supposed to be a character flaw. That's where relevant, interesting character drama tends to come from.



He gives us a lot more than that, you just want to ignore it.

1. Yes they were in a relationship.
2. It was more than that, and you know it. It's made crystal clear they were infatuated with each other, if not outright in love.
3. You simply don't know that for sure. This is a sequel to the Donner movies, so it's entirely possible there was a SUPERMAN II moment, where she knew, and he made her forget somehow.
4. No, he left to find Krypton. He didn't say goodbye because it was too painful for him.
5. He had time, but what does time have to do with anything, in context?

I's just so obvious that you think about only what you don't morally like about the situation and not ANYTHING else when you make biased comments like "He had time to tell her b/c he had time to develop the whole 'South American Vacation ' ruse for Clark." You've already formed your own conclusions about the morality of his actions, and while yes, they do tend to be logical, they all stem from what you don't like about the situation. You don't take anything else into account except what furthers your argument here.

To hell with them being in love, what that meant to him, and to her, etc, because THEY HAD SEX and that's ALL THAT MATTERS, right?



Yes, it is. But you're missing the point in the context of Superman and Lois's relationship. It is not just about the problems his actions caused. It's about what they were before, and may well be again someday.



Well, the ending isn't exactly real, real happy for Superman. You limit yourself when you fall into this "It's this kind of story, so it must end this way" thinking. You limit yourself severely.

Since Superman isn't a tragic hero something has to change, either he does become the tragic hero in the story (and dies at the end) or something happens to twist the set up so that it's no longer a tragedy but a misdirection story where everything is not what it seems to be.

Then it's clearly not a tragedy. Step out of your box where everything is either "tragedy" or "comedy".



More than anything, it's a story about redemption. It couldn't be made any plainer. It's not a tragedy, and your insistence to call it one is amusing.

According to Aristotle, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind."[3] It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, fate, or society), but if a character’s downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a misadventure and not a tragedy.

Since Superman's actions do tend to point out a moral flaw in his judgement, etc, this would appear not to be a tragedy.

I say this movie was a tragedy to any one who was expecting a decent Superman movie.

[nintendo nerd]

I say this movie was a tragedy to any one who was expecting a decent Superman movie.

Speak for yourself. I was expecting a great Superman movie and that's what I got.

[El Payaso]

I say this movie was a tragedy to any one who was expecting a decent Superman movie.

BO and polls say otherwise.

[SuperDaniel]

^^^Exactely! SR didnt perform well in the BO and thats why we don`t have a sequel annouced right now.

[El Payaso]

^^^Exactely! SR didnt perform well in the BO and thats why we don`t have a sequel annouced right now.

SR performed better than BB at ther BO. The reason is what execs wanted in their pockets.

[SuperDaniel]

It`s the same stupid argument over and over....

SR performed better in the Bo because its Superman and we didn't have a Superman movie in 20 years...Plus...Batman had Batman & Robin that came out in 1996. People didn't know it was a reboot. Watch how Dark Knight is going to perform...

[Showtime]

Hey there guys. There is a Superman Returns forum.

[wellsy]

SR vs BB?

Can we just not go there this time? PLEASE?!

SR made what it made. BB made what it made. Comparing the two won't make a bit of difference guys (and girls). So can we just leave that argument in the trash, where it belongs.

Simple truth of the matter is that SR did not provide the big financial return WB was hoping for. Singer since took on Valkyrie, which pushed back SR. WB decided to test its options, resulting in JL:M. With the rights of ownership reverting back to the estates of the original creators in 2013, WB can't afford to wait. They'll attempt to strike a deal, but if things go pear-shaped at the negotiation table, then they'll want a Superman movie under their belt that will let it go out with a bang.

[mego joe]

I guess we're taking different approaches to Superman's character. You're declaring what is and isn't in character to be based off the comics (which, if I'm not mistaken, vary wildly in their characterisation anyway).
Not that wildly. Different stories, different conceptual approaches to aspects of the character- but the content of his character is pretty consistent- especially in regards to my issues with his characterization in SR.

I work with what's in character for the version in SR, which I consider seperate from the comics.

I understand that, but there are some things that are essential to his character and not part of ANY version and don't jibe with who he is. Essentially, SR is reworking the character into someone else (the content of his character). That's the problem. SR isn't even congruent with the Donner films.


So with that in mind, I think it best for us to agree to disagree and leave it at that. You want a highly accurate comic book adaptation (nothing wrong with that - I love Hellsing Ultimate and hate the Hellsing animated series, and guess which follows the manga more closely :whatever:). You want Superman's character to be cut-and-pasted (for the most part) from the comics.


Characterization, content of his character yes, stories not. Otherwise create your own superhero instead of bastardizing Superman. That's the whole point of utilizing an established character like Superman.

SR has a different characterisation to the comic books.


...and the DOnner films, and that's been my point all along. That his characterization is different (incorrect). It's been the basis for my gripes for the past two years. Consequently, the stories told in SR and possiblie sequels don't interest me b/c they really aren't about Superman, just an incorrect interpretation of the mythos.

Whether you agree or disagree with that characterisation and direction is a matter that concerns you and only you.


And a number of other posters, I'm not the only one...Flawless, X-Maniac, Spider Daniel...

I have no issue with disagreement. But you've been making these same arguments again and again, and it's getting annoying. I'm satisfied with the characterisation of Superman in SR. You are not.

Can we just leave it at that?

Done.

[mego joe]

,


Ahhhh.............but isn't that the problem; what is in character for Superman in SR?

It's the "vague history" quagmire again.

Is the Superman character in SR, the character in S:TM, or is it an adaptation created solely for SR? If the latter is accepted then the character really isn't fleshed out at all in the film, leaving it up to the audience to judge him against personal preconceptions. Hence the endless debates.

Some, El Payaso being the main proponent, would argue that Superman in SR is identical to S:TM, but that's not a slam dunk conclusion IMO.

It's not. It's clearly not even close to being the exact same.

[mego joe]

]That IS a real reason. A very human reason[/B], that a lot of people, while not being able to agree with, can probably relate to. And yes, there probably could have been better reasons for Superman not to come back, I won't argue that, but it is what it is.



But it's not a good reason for Superman. We're talking about Superman, not some JOe Schmuchatella. It's a very shallow reason as well. "It was too difficult." Not, "it was too difficult b/c...." Very weak and shallow characterization on top of being out of character.

It's supposed to be a character flaw. That's where relevant, interesting character drama tends to come from.


But it's not a relevant interesting character flaw for Superman. For SUperman it is incorrect and confusing. THat's not a character flaw that he has. It's that simple. REad a comic. Watch the Donner films. And sorry SR didn't have interesting relevant chacter drama. It was stupid. "superman doesn't know how to say goodbye?" That's ridiculous. They made him out to be an immature teenager. That isn't Superman's characterization.


He gives us a lot more than that, you just want to ignore it.

1. Yes they were in a relationship.

2. It was more than that, and you know it. It's made crystal clear they were infatuated with each other, if not outright in love.


How was it made crystal clear?

If so it would have been nice to see that aspect dramatized instead of simply using the 'they had sex' as the surprise at the end. They never even talked about their feelings for each other. BTW, infatuation is not a good reason to be having sex.

3. You simply don't know that for sure. This is a sequel to the Donner movies, so it's entirely possible there was a SUPERMAN II moment, where she knew, and he made her forget somehow.


But it's certainly more likely that there wasn't that moment. YOu're adding stuff that isn't inthe film, you're just trying to make an excuse for singer's poor fillmmaking.


4. No, he left to find Krypton. He didn't say goodbye because it was too painful for him.


And that simply isn't in character with Superman from the comics or the DOnner films. And yes it is a moral issue. Sorry, if my morality bothers you, it's important to consider how one's own actions affect others instead of simply focussing on your own feelings. It simply isn't congurent with the essentials of the content of SUperman's character.

5. He had time, but what does time have to do with anything, in context?

I's just so obvious that you think about only what you don't morally like about the situation and not ANYTHING else when you make biased comments like "He had time to tell her b/c he had time to develop the whole 'South American Vacation ' ruse for Clark." You've already formed your own conclusions about the morality of his actions, and while yes, they do tend to be logical, they all stem from what you don't like about the situation. You don't take anything else into account except what furthers your argument here.

To hell with them being in love, what that meant to him, and to her, etc, because THEY HAD SEX and that's ALL THAT MATTERS, right?


Wrong, what matters is that Superman was unable to fulfill his responsiblitities as a man in a sexual relationship with a woman b/c 'it was too difficult.' That's what matters and that's what was portratyed out of character.

Yes, it is. But you're missing the point in the context of Superman and Lois's relationship. It is not just about the problems his actions caused. It's about what they were before, and may well be again someday.



Well, the ending isn't exactly real, real happy for Superman. You limit yourself when you fall into this "It's this kind of story, so it must end this way" thinking. You limit yourself severely.

Since Superman isn't a tragic hero something has to change, either he does become the tragic hero in the story (and dies at the end) or something happens to twist the set up so that it's no longer a tragedy but a misdirection story where everything is not what it seems to be.

Then it's clearly not a tragedy. Step out of your box where everything is either "tragedy" or "comedy".



More than anything, it's a story about redemption. It couldn't be made any plainer. It's not a tragedy, and your insistence to call it one is amusing.

According to Aristotle, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind."[3] It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, fate, or society), but if a character’s downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a misadventure and not a tragedy.

Since Superman's actions do tend to point out a moral flaw in his judgement, etc, this would appear not to be a tragedy.

Superman's character was portrayed incorrectly in SR. Period. It's a separate continuity from anything else. If you like it? Great for you. If you want a Superman film that actually feels like a Superman film? Then, like me, you were disappointed.

[mego joe]

I say this movie was a tragedy to any one who was expecting a decent Superman movie.

Ditto.

[mego joe]

...now of course we're talking about creating a STRONG connection with the audience. The way to do that is to portray Superman IN character and accentuating the essential aspects of his character. Superman is simply NOT an absentee father or unable to communicate truthfully with Lois b/c "it's too difficult." That doesn't connect with the audience in a Superman story.
A sequel must eradicate (no pun intented) these aspects from the franchise with no lingering storylines (Jason and Richard) in order to create that strong connection.

Therefore, a reboot is the best way to go, but a sequel must address these in some fashion even if it's by not addressing them at all (ignoring them) and just worry about a good SUperman story with details that focus on Superman's essentials.

[WeaponXProject]

I think the answer to having a stronger connection with audience is making him less of an alien in the movie, keep him an alien but don't play on that so much. Sure he's different but don't focus his difference on anything more than his powers.

Cast a well known actor as Superman...oops, I guess they are keeping Routh.

Change the villain! Use a different villain who imposes more of a threat to Superman rather than having Lex again!

Don't push it. Don't make Superman pick up continents.

Make sure he has boundries. He can barely stop a plane from crashing but can pick up a giant piece of the world.

Keep John Williams theme and you will always sell a little better.

Lower the budget. Directors try to do too much when they have too much money to spend.

[VenomsMom]

Hey everybody. Is there any news today on a sequel?

[El Payaso]

Some, El Payaso being the main proponent, would argue that Superman in SR is identical to S:TM, but that's not a slam dunk conclusion IMO.

It's more like Superman in SII. But then again, SII Superman is STM Superman having lived new things in his life that modified him. Same with SR, as any non static character, he evolves and is modified by facts, actions and decisions in his life and around him.

[mego joe]

It's more like Superman in SII. But then again, SII Superman is STM Superman having lived new things in his life that modified him. Same with SR, as any non static character, he evolves and is modified by facts, actions and decisions in his life and around him.

But not the same character.

[stryfe]

well, i think i'm not wrong to say that singer trying to make superman more human by creating all these melodrama and troubles he must face. unfortunately, it didn't make a strong connection with the audience and they seemingly didn't give a damn to this superman, which resulted the disappointed BO record.

to make superman sell, and be the top BO record, the connection is very essential. there's where the good WOM comes from.
so, my question is how to create a strong connection with the audience for the next superman movie?

Easy fix. Stop with the love dance! Have them together, they love each other they deal with the fact he is the protector and although it sucks sometimes, they deal with it and move on. Im so tired of them courting each other in every damn movie. Doomsday appears, starts his path of destruction from western US and after the US tries to stop him they broadcast a message asking Superman to leave metropolis and help them stop him.

Show the pain of seperation that people go through when one of them is in mortal danger, thats where your drama will come it will be natural and real instead of forced like what it feels like when there doing this courtship ****.

[The Guard]

But it's not a good reason for Superman. We're talking about Superman, not some JOe Schmuchatella. It's a very shallow reason as well. "It was too difficult." Not, "it was too difficult b/c...." Very weak and shallow characterization on top of being out of character.

Maybe you've never had to say goodbye to someone you might never see again. Maybe you've never had to make a difficult decision, period. To say it is a "shallow" reason is absurd, in the context of human experience. It is a very real motivation not do something. People do it every day. Good people.

But it's not a relevant interesting character flaw for Superman. For SUperman it is incorrect and confusing. THat's not a character flaw that he has. It's that simple. REad a comic. Watch the Donner films. And sorry SR didn't have interesting relevant chacter drama. It was stupid. "superman doesn't know how to say goodbye?" That's ridiculous. They made him out to be an immature teenager. That isn't Superman's characterization.

You are missing the point entirely. It's not about me thinking that him not saying goodbye was in character. It's about realizing why he didn't was.

How was it made crystal clear?

Are you serious?

If so it would have been nice to see that aspect dramatized instead of simply using the 'they had sex' as the surprise at the end. They never even talked about their feelings for each other.

They don't need to talk about it. The first rule of filmmaking is "show, don't tell". Did you miss every single moment that alludes to the fact that they were very much in love/infatuated with each other when he left?

BTW, infatuation is not a good reason to be having sex.

BTW, I'm not going to argue morals with you.

But it's certainly more likely that there wasn't that moment.

Based on what? The fact that you want this to be the case?

You're adding stuff that isn't inthe film

No I'm not. I'm saying "How do you know that this wasn't the case based on what we know about the Superman universe this draws on?" The vague history thing can easily be interpreted to include some semblance of the events of SUPERMAN II. Obviously this is intended to be the Superman from the Donner franchise. Believing that they "got together" as they did in SUPERMAN II is hardly farfetched.

you're just trying to make an excuse for singer's poor fillmmaking.

No I'm not. If you can point out an actual flaw, I will accept it. Want me the list the movie's flaws as I see them? I certainly don't think this is a perfect movie.

You have yet to point out an example of poor filmmaking. You only keep pointing out the inconsistencies by comparing the comic book Superman's characterization and the movie's. Which is really rather irrelevant. You want to go that route, we can rip apart almost any comic book film ever made.

And that simply isn't in character with Superman from the comics or the DOnner films.

You continue not to look at things in context. All you do is go "But he's Superman! Superman wouldn't do that!", as if, in the grand scheme of Superman's existence as a character, you can just make this blanket statement. You do not look at the frailities he has always had as a character, the soft spots, the nature of his humanity, etc.

And yes it is a moral issue. Sorry, if my morality bothers you, it's important to consider how one's own actions affect others instead of simply focussing on your own feelings. It simply isn't congurent with the essentials of the content of Superman's character.

No, it's not consistent with most Superman stories we've seen. But this is the entire point. This is a story about a mistake he made. You don't like it, and a lot of people didn't like it, and I get that. You don't agree with it morally. But regardless of that, you cannot just go "That is out of character", as if you can apply the comic book logic to the movie, or to this version of Superman. It doesn't work that way. Comic book Superman has killed before, my friend, whether it was recently retconned or not. He has gotten angry, and lost control. He has left Earth, he has left this dimension, this multiverse, he has been turned evil, the list goes on and on and on. He can do anything he wants, because he is a fictional character.

Wrong, what matters is that Superman was unable to fulfill his responsiblitities as a man in a sexual relationship with a woman b/c 'it was too difficult.' That's what matters and that's what was portratyed out of character.

I'm not going to argue morality with you.

I agree with one thing about the direction MAN OF STEEL should take. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Superman should not be going after Lois Lane in MAN OF STEEL. They should just realize how much they miss each other.

[Mostpowerful]

You are missing the point entirely. It's not about me thinking that him not saying goodbye was in character. It's about realizing why he didn't was.



They don't need to talk about it. The first rule of filmmaking is "show, don't tell". Did you miss every single moment that alludes to the fact that they were very much in love/infatuated with each other when he left?

.

:up::up:

[SuperDaniel]

Guard, what we`re trying to say is that although he reason for leaving without saying goodbye is obviously human and reasonable (we never denied that) it is also a reason THAT is NOT valid for a character like Superman who is NOT supposed to act like the ordinary human being, but the BEST. Therefore, the whole conflict of the movie doesn't work when you`re working with a character like Superman. It maybe be reasonable for you and me but NEVER for Superman. He is better and more than us.

[SuperDaniel]

You have yet to point out an example of poor filmmaking. You only keep pointing out the inconsistencies by comparing the comic book Superman's characterization and the movie's. Which is really rather irrelevant. You want to go that route, we can rip apart almost any comic book film ever made.


This vague sequel crap is an exemple of poor filmaking. Having an actor mimick another actor is also. Let`s not get into copying an entire movie, including lines and situations....

[bunk]

The "vague sequel" is due to the fact, WB wanted to continue in the Donnerverse. At which point, you can't assume the audience has seen the original movies or remembers them. So there it is.

[El Payaso]

Guard, what we`re trying to say is that although he reason for leaving without saying goodbye is obviously human and reasonable (we never denied that) it is also a reason THAT is NOT valid for a character like Superman who is NOT supposed to act like the ordinary human being, but the BEST. Therefore, the whole conflict of the movie doesn't work when you`re working with a character like Superman. It maybe be reasonable for you and me but NEVER for Superman. He is better and more than us.

The ordinary human being would opt to reverse timer when loved ones died, make people forget about bad things you're involved with and fight a bully back abusing of some advantages. Which Superman has done throughout this franchise. SR depicted Superman with these human behaviour simply because iut's the way it has been since it started.

[FlawlessVictory]

The "vague sequel" is due to the fact, WB wanted to continue in the Donnerverse. At which point, you can't assume the audience has seen the original movies or remembers them. So there it is.

Singer wanted to continue in the Donnerverse. WB could give two craps, they just wanted to get Superman back on the screen.

[Showtime]

I disagree, if WB didn't want to they wouldn't have greenlit the movie. Singer pitched the idea and WB ate it up.

[Excel]

No, they did not. Read Abrams script. That is the kind of universe they wanted. Back at the point, Singer, the director of the highly acclaiemd XMEN films, comes in and says hell do it but his way, they werent about to say no after the years of turmoil...

[Showtime]

So let me get this straight, WB didn't like the idea, but because it was Singer they greenlit an almost 200 Million Dollar Movie? That is what you're saying?

[Excel]

Never said they didn't like it, I just dont think it was their favorite route either.

[Showtime]

Well it was because they actually went with it and it got turned into a movie. You said they didn't eat it up. Go back and read the comments from WB before and during production.

[bgshw44]

Well it was because they actually went with it and it got turned into a movie. You said they didn't eat it up. Go back and read the comments from WB before and during production.


yeah to be honest i believe WB was stunned by the box office results. they thought they had a new standard in superhero movies.

in the end, very good concept but poor execution imo

[SuperDaniel]

In my opinion, what made and eventually killed SR was Singer`s ego and WB desperation for a Superman movie.

Singer`s idea was the best of the ideas WB recieved BUUUUUUT FAR AWAY from Superman`s potential on screen.

[Superark]

In my opinion, what made and eventually killed SR was Singer`s ego and WB desperation for a Superman movie.

Singer`s idea was the best of the ideas WB recieved BUUUUUUT FAR AWAY from Superman`s potential on screen.


I don't understand this post. How was SR killed? Granted it did not perform at the box office as many expected, but it was still successful.

I mean what killed it? It's not like it's a universially hated movie or a bomb

[SuperDaniel]

I hate it and consider it a missed oportunity. In other words, a bomb.

By saying Killed i meant it wasnt sucessfull enough. It split the fan-base in 2. That is to me enough reason to make a reboot or ditch Singer.

A great Superman movie would get the admiration from everyone and still be a smash at the BO. SR wasnt. Simple as that.

[Superark]

I hate it and consider it a missed oportunity. In other words, a bomb.

By saying Killed i meant it wasnt sucessfull enough. It split the fan-base in 2. That is to me enough reason to make a reboot or ditch Singer.

A great Superman movie would get the admiration from everyone and still be a smash at the BO. SR wasnt. Simple as that.


It was a missed opportunity for you, simply put. For me it wasn't and for a lot of other people it wasn't either.

And again, just because Superman Returns didn't please everyone doesnt classify it as a bomb.

[SuperDaniel]

THE STORY IS:

1)WB WAS DESPERATE to make a Superman movie because they see Superman as a valuable franchise that will make a lot of profit. They see every studio making superhero movies but they have no idea on how to make a superhero movie because they dont understand **** about the character or the comics.

2)Singer pitch his idea. WB thinks "Oh, the guy made 2 successful superhero movies. Imagine what he would do to Superman" so they approved it.

RESULTS:

1) X-men and Superman ARE totally different type of movies and neither Singer or WB knows the difference.

2)Singer`s ego changed the mythos of Superman by adding a kid and messing with the story with Lois Lane. Controversial to say the least. Good move? IMO, NO! Not for a first movie.

3)Singer doesnt know the comics and only knows the Donner movies wich are an important part of Superman history but they are filled with mistakes too and only people who a broad knowledge of Superman history can see it.

4)Bad box-office results

And finally and most importantly:

WB is uncertain about making a Superman movie because Singer didn't delivered. Or, as some one said, SR was a flatline. Nor loved or hated. Just so-so.

[mego joe]

Maybe you've never had to say goodbye to someone you might never see again. Maybe you've never had to make a difficult decision, period. To say it is a "shallow" reason is absurd, in the context of human experience. It is a very real motivation not do something. People do it every day. Good people.


I disagree, if you really love someone, you won't do it. Servicemen do it regularly when they are deployed. It's no different than that. If you aren't really in love and you are more concerned with yourself than the person you love you might not say goodbye.

But more importantly, everything possible within the human spectrum is not possible for Superman- he is an individual with a particular experience and as such would act in a certain way. I don't think there's anything to point to that it being 'too difficult' is a valid reason for Superman not saying goodbye. It is incongruent with his characterization both from a general knowledge of the character and from his specific characteization in the previous films.


You are missing the point entirely. It's not about me thinking that him not saying goodbye was in character. It's about realizing why he didn't was.


Then why was it in character in your opinion? Be specific, give examples, please.





Are you serious?


I know they are supposed to be, but the very fact that Lois apparently doesn't know he's also Clark and that he didn't say goodbye indicates that this relationship might NOT have been a committed healthy loving relationship and more about infatuation than love as you already stated. Infatuation and love are two different things.



They don't need to talk about it. The first rule of filmmaking is "show, don't tell". Did you miss every single moment that alludes to the fact that they were very much in love/infatuated with each other when he left?


Infatuated and being in love are two different things. So yes, the viewers needs to be able to distinguish what the story is about- love or infatuation?



BTW, I'm not going to argue morals with you.


Yes, I know, but morals are an important, no ESSENTIAL aspect of Superman's character. They are integral to any meaningful discussion of the character.



Based on what? The fact that you want this to be the case?


That Singer said it wasn't the case. That's a pretty good indicator that it wasn't.


No I'm not. I'm saying "How do you know that this wasn't the case based on what we know about the Superman universe this draws on?" The vague history thing can easily be interpreted to include some semblance of the events of SUPERMAN II. Obviously this is intended to be the Superman from the Donner franchise. Believing that they "got together" as they did in SUPERMAN II is hardly farfetched.


Not sure what you're talking about. It's clear they got together (they have a son together) what's not clear is whether or not there were any memory shenanigans or some such. Everything in the films indicates that Lois doesn't know that Superman is also Clark, but that she does remember having sex with SUperman. So the situation cannot be exactly what happened with the amnesia kiss from SII etc.... Otherwise, she'd wonder how she could possibly have given birth to Superman's child if she doesn't remember having sex with him.

I think what we have is really a 'thematic sequel.' Singer was making a film drawing on the theme of a sexual relationship between Lois and Superman, which was also a theme from SII. But in Singer's version the details are different to the point that the exact details don't really matter to understanding what happened. I think that aspect of the 'vague history' allows the viewer to fill in the gaps with the simplest conclusion, not some complex backstory that works in some OTHER amnesia, forgetfulness storyline. Nothing indicates that anything like that happened in SR, so it's not part of the story.



No I'm not. If you can point out an actual flaw, I will accept it.


Vague history was an actual flaw.

Sequel to 30 year old movie was an actual flaw since it's not supposed to be a DIRECT sequel.

Both the above just confuse viewers who know the earlier films well and they confuse new viewers b/c they feel like they're missing something.

Editting. BIg flaw. Pace is slow and it doesn't flow well. It's over 2 and a half hours and not only does it feel like it, it feels like almost NOTHING happened in the film.

Story itself. A primarily 'romance' story for a Superhero film. Making Superman the bad guy in the romance element of the film. Recycling 'land scheme Lex'- no one wanted to see this Lex again except Singer. It just makes Lex's story boring and pretty uneventful.

The 'subtle' approach to acting. The story deals with HUGE emotional issues, but the characters reactions are too understated and unconvincing. THere's nothing wrong with subtlety, it just doesn't really fit this story or character very well.

On the positive side- visual appearance and art direction/set design. It is a visually beautiful film.

Basic concept, GREAT! Superman returns to a world that's moved on without him. This didn't really happen, the execution of this aspect of the story was extremely poor and under developed. It focuses most of it's time on the underacting between Lois and Superman and Lois moving on- it's not really about the world at large- which is the strongest aspect of the concept.


Want me the list the movie's flaws as I see them? I certainly don't think this is a perfect movie.


That would be great!

You have yet to point out an example of poor filmmaking.


See above.

You only keep pointing out the inconsistencies by comparing the comic book Superman's characterization and the movie's. Which is really rather irrelevant.


Why is it irrelevant? SUperman's been in comics for seventy years, I think his characterization there is the MOST relevant to any discussion of the character.

You want to go that route, we can rip apart almost any comic book film ever made.


Story details? Yes. Supporting characters? Yes. But the integrity of the characterization of the main character and maintaining the spirit of the character as presented in the comics is essential.


You continue not to look at things in context. All you do is go "But he's Superman! Superman wouldn't do that!",


Then what is the context I'm missing? What contextual element am I not seeing that makes it something Superman would do? Please, share.

as if, in the grand scheme of Superman's existence as a character, you can just make this blanket statement. You do not look at the frailities he has always had as a character, the soft spots, the nature of his humanity, etc.


Sure I do. I have tried to point out that this 'soft spot' or 'frailty' as you put it is NOT part of the character in ANY version of Superman. Please give me an example of a story that shows SUperman being cowardly and backing down b/c something is 'too difficult' or that he'd consider his own feelings instead of Lois's feeling when they were in a loving relationhip.



No, it's not consistent with most Superman stories we've seen. But this is the entire point. This is a story about a mistake he made.


We all agree that Superman is not perfect and makes mistakes. I'm saying this mistake is not a mistake he would make. THis particular flaw is not one of the flaws that make up his character. That's why it's inconsistent. And that's my entire point- mistakes are part of a person's character and people are capable of making certain mistakes and not capable of making others.

You don't like it, and a lot of people didn't like it, and I get that. You don't agree with it morally. But regardless of that, you cannot just go "That is out of character", as if you can apply the comic book logic to the movie, or to this version of Superman. It doesn't work that way. Comic book Superman has killed before, my friend, whether it was recently retconned or not. He has gotten angry, and lost control. He has left Earth, he has left this dimension, this multiverse, he has been turned evil, the list goes on and on and on. He can do anything he wants, because he is a fictional character.


No he can't, not without a plausible and believable motivation and explanation, and that's what SR lacks. The 'too difficult' explanation is too simple for the situation.

So a story where Superman becomes a rapist is Ok, if the explanation is that he was just really horny?


I'm not going to argue morality with you.


See above.

I agree with one thing about the direction MAN OF STEEL should take. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Superman should not be going after Lois Lane in MAN OF STEEL. They should just realize how much they miss each other.

Not a bad idea, but Richard and Jason still have to go.

[The Guard]

Guard, what we`re trying to say is that although he reason for leaving without saying goodbye is obviously human and reasonable (we never denied that) it is also a reason THAT is NOT valid for a character like Superman who is NOT supposed to act like the ordinary human being, but the BEST. Therefore, the whole conflict of the movie doesn't work when you`re working with a character like Superman. It maybe be reasonable for you and me but NEVER for Superman. He is better and more than us.

He's not though. He is not remotely the "best" of us. He's a shining example of humanity gone right, and a good person, but he's not the best, nor is he perfect. And he never has been. He is subject to the same kinds of emotions and pulls and needs that humans are.

The ordinary human being would opt to reverse timer when loved ones died, make people forget about bad things you're involved with and fight a bully back abusing of some advantages. Which Superman has done throughout this franchise. SR depicted Superman with these human behaviour simply because iut's the way it has been since it started.

Exactly.

WB was not "desperate" to make a Superman movie. They just wanted to. Bryan Singer, director of two wildly popular X-MEN movies, was a godsend in their eyes, and in most fans' eyes, so they jumped on the opportunity.

[mego joe]

He's not though. He is not remotely the "best" of us.


Then you completely misunderstand the character.

He's a shining example of humanity gone right, and a good person,


Is that not an example of 'the best of us.'

but he's not the best, nor is he perfect. And he never has been. He is subject to the same kinds of emotions and pulls and needs that humans are.


Subject to them, but not succeptible to ALL of them. Those are too different things. He may feel those same emotions, but there are some things he's not going to give in to. To say he's capable of anything is to deny that he (or any other human for that matter) is an individual and not a carbon copy of everyone else.



Exactly.

WB was not "desperate" to make a Superman movie. They just wanted to. Bryan Singer, director of two wildly popular X-MEN movies, was a godsend in their eyes, and in most fans' eyes, so they jumped on the opportunity.

...until it was discovered Singer doesn't really understand the character and has a limited vision of who Superman is.

[Mostpowerful]

It was a missed opportunity for you, simply put. For me it wasn't and for a lot of other people it wasn't either.

And again, just because Superman Returns didn't please everyone doesnt classify it as a bomb.

Well said. SR pleased most people according to the polls, and reviews here and everywhere. In other words: the facts.

But Superdaniel, and others, will never recognize it or understand it. He thinks his opinion is law, apparently.





...until it was discovered Singer doesn't really understand the character and has a limited vision of who Superman is.

He does understand the character. You just don't agree with his vision on him. That's all. I think that you are the one with the limited vision. And you seem to want a robot as Superman. Someone who does the right thing all the time. What's the challenge in that? How is he a role model if he never struggles or make some mistakes in order to learn from them and become an even better man? The character needs some drama and character development besides fighting superbaddies and saving the day, IMO. People nowdays want their heroes more realistic.

[wellsy]

Mego, MP, Guard, let it drop. Please. You've stated and restated these arguments ad infinitum. You're not going anywhere. So please, stop trying to have the last word. Leave it where it is.

SuperDaniel, I think you're oversimplifying the lead-up to production. WB had been trying to get a new Superman made since the early 90s. A brief glance at wikipedia would tell you that. So they weren't reacting to the crowd of SH movies being put out after Spiderman and X-Men; they were actually a bit ahead of the crowd. However, you are right in that they got desperate after over a decade of failed projects, and didn't properly vet the script.

And of course WB was going to judge Singer by his track record. How do you think the Wachowskis were able to make Speed Racer?

As for your "results", most of them are quite subjective with no substantive base to build them on.

Your first point is a rediculous assumption; they "don't get Superman" is such a bloody copout. And you do? Forgive my incredulity...

Your second point is seld-defeating as a definitive "result", since you clearly state that the introduction of Jason was not a good move in your opinion (emphasis mine). And attributing this to "Singer's ego" is a questionable position to take, given that you've nothing to back it up but your personal opinion.

Your third point is just plain elitist, and contrary to evidence, as Singer did work on a documentary about the history of Superman in various media, and some scenes are taken straight out of other Superman works (I believe that the orbital listening station was from a comic book, and the plane and shuttle sequence taken from a previous failed Superman movie project). So the evidence doesn't support you there (though what Singer has affinity for, though, I've no idea. However, you didn't say which version of Superman he preferred, but rather that it was all he knew).

And your fourth point is also not supported. Should it have made more? Yes. But that only makes it a dissapointment. What defines a good and bad BO is entirely subjective, and no matter which way you look at it, $200 million is still a lot of money. The only problem was production costs (which were initially only about $184 million, IIRC, and blew out to $204 million).

The reaction was positive in general from reviewers, and it was generally "liked" (how else does something make that kind of money; forget production costs - they don't factor into how someone liked something). However, I would certainly say it wasn't what was expected at that time, not to mention that plenty probably found it somewhat underwhelming when compared to the action packed blockbusters that were coming out at that time (I'm not speculating what effect other movies had on the BO of SR, but that they were all loud and action packed, and SR was much quieter and more reserved... to anthropomorphise the movies)

[afan]

Another "connection" suggestion...........

Something that is largely missing in SR, but abundant in most other films is the inclusion of interactions between Superman and "people". I'm not talking Lois or Perry or Jimmy, but the person on the street, Joe or Joan Q Public. In many ways they represent "the audience".

There simply is not any one moment in SR that equals the charm of the rescue of Fluffy, the nabbing of the cat-burglar, or the interraction of the Air Force One pilot and the Man of Steel.

[mego joe]

Mego, MP, Guard, let it drop. Please. You've stated and restated these arguments ad infinitum. You're not going anywhere. So please, stop trying to have the last word. Leave it where it is.

SuperDaniel, I think you're oversimplifying the lead-up to production. WB had been trying to get a new Superman made since the early 90s. A brief glance at wikipedia would tell you that. So they weren't reacting to the crowd of SH movies being put out after Spiderman and X-Men; they were actually a bit ahead of the crowd. However, you are right in that they got desperate after over a decade of failed projects, and didn't properly vet the script.

And of course WB was going to judge Singer by his track record. How do you think the Wachowskis were able to make Speed Racer?

As for your "results", most of them are quite subjective with no substantive base to build them on.

Your first point is a rediculous assumption; they "don't get Superman" is such a bloody copout. And you do? Forgive my incredulity...

Your second point is seld-defeating as a definitive "result", since you clearly state that the introduction of Jason was not a good move in your opinion (emphasis mine). And attributing this to "Singer's ego" is a questionable position to take, given that you've nothing to back it up but your personal opinion.

Your third point is just plain elitist, and contrary to evidence, as Singer did work on a documentary about the history of Superman in various media, and some scenes are taken straight out of other Superman works (I believe that the orbital listening station was from a comic book, and the plane and shuttle sequence taken from a previous failed Superman movie project). So the evidence doesn't support you there (though what Singer has affinity for, though, I've no idea. However, you didn't say which version of Superman he preferred, but rather that it was all he knew).

And your fourth point is also not supported. Should it have made more? Yes. But that only makes it a dissapointment. What defines a good and bad BO is entirely subjective, and no matter which way you look at it, $200 million is still a lot of money. The only problem was production costs (which were initially only about $184 million, IIRC, and blew out to $204 million).

The reaction was positive in general from reviewers, and it was generally "liked" (how else does something make that kind of money; forget production costs - they don't factor into how someone liked something). However, I would certainly say it wasn't what was expected at that time, not to mention that plenty probably found it somewhat underwhelming when compared to the action packed blockbusters that were coming out at that time (I'm not speculating what effect other movies had on the BO of SR, but that they were all loud and action packed, and SR was much quieter and more reserved... to anthropomorphise the movies)

Point taken in the right spirit.... :)

[mego joe]

Another "connection" suggestion...........

Something that is largely missing in SR, but abundant in most other films is the inclusion of interactions between Superman and "people". I'm not talking Lois or Perry or Jimmy, but the person on the street, Joe or Joan Q Public. In many ways they represent "the audience".

There simply is not any one moment in SR that equals the charm of the rescue of Fluffy, the nabbing of the cat-burglar, or the interraction of the Air Force One pilot and the Man of Steel.

Good points!

[Mostpowerful]

Mego, MP, Guard, let it drop. Please. You've stated and restated these arguments ad infinitum. You're not going anywhere. So please, stop trying to have the last word. Leave it where it is.

SuperDaniel, I think you're oversimplifying the lead-up to production. WB had been trying to get a new Superman made since the early 90s. A brief glance at wikipedia would tell you that. So they weren't reacting to the crowd of SH movies being put out after Spiderman and X-Men; they were actually a bit ahead of the crowd. However, you are right in that they got desperate after over a decade of failed projects, and didn't properly vet the script.

And of course WB was going to judge Singer by his track record. How do you think the Wachowskis were able to make Speed Racer?

As for your "results", most of them are quite subjective with no substantive base to build them on.

Your first point is a rediculous assumption; they "don't get Superman" is such a bloody copout. And you do? Forgive my incredulity...

Your second point is seld-defeating as a definitive "result", since you clearly state that the introduction of Jason was not a good move in your opinion (emphasis mine). And attributing this to "Singer's ego" is a questionable position to take, given that you've nothing to back it up but your personal opinion.

Your third point is just plain elitist, and contrary to evidence, as Singer did work on a documentary about the history of Superman in various media, and some scenes are taken straight out of other Superman works (I believe that the orbital listening station was from a comic book, and the plane and shuttle sequence taken from a previous failed Superman movie project). So the evidence doesn't support you there (though what Singer has affinity for, though, I've no idea. However, you didn't say which version of Superman he preferred, but rather that it was all he knew).

And your fourth point is also not supported. Should it have made more? Yes. But that only makes it a dissapointment. What defines a good and bad BO is entirely subjective, and no matter which way you look at it, $200 million is still a lot of money. The only problem was production costs (which were initially only about $184 million, IIRC, and blew out to $204 million).

The reaction was positive in general from reviewers, and it was generally "liked" (how else does something make that kind of money; forget production costs - they don't factor into how someone liked something). However, I would certainly say it wasn't what was expected at that time, not to mention that plenty probably found it somewhat underwhelming when compared to the action packed blockbusters that were coming out at that time (I'm not speculating what effect other movies had on the BO of SR, but that they were all loud and action packed, and SR was much quieter and more reserved... to anthropomorphise the movies)

It's not that simple, Wellsy, sometimes you just can't let it go. And believe me, I don't respond as much as I'd like too, because all points, angles and every imaginable detail have been discussed to death, of course I know that. It's not that I want or need to have the 'last word,' really, but sometimes I think this film is trashed, bashed and criticized without real reasons or factual information for the most part. But yeah, you have a point. Great post.

[The Guard]

Then you completely misunderstand the character.

But to say that a man who lies about who he is, who resorts to violence most of the time to solve his problems is the "best" of us is pushing it. Although all the lives and worlds he's saved over the years might earn him that title...

Is that not an example of 'the best of us.'

Not really. It's an example of someone using their abilities appropriately. But he's hardly a perfect moral standard. And certainly not in the movie franchise.

Subject to them, but not succeptible to ALL of them. Those are too different things.

He most certainly is susceptible to them. You're telling me this man can move a planet, but he "can't" leave Earth without saying goodbye? Yeah. Ok.

Maybe he generally wouldn't, or doesn't, do that, but he very well could.

He may feel those same emotions, but there are some things he's not going to give in to.

Where is that written?

To say he's capable of anything is to deny that he (or any other human for that matter) is an individual and not a carbon copy of everyone else.

And to say that he's NOT capable of anything is to deny that he (or any other human for that matter) is an individual.

Mego, MP, Guard, let it drop. Please. You've stated and restated these arguments ad infinitum. You're not going anywhere. So please, stop trying to have the last word. Leave it where it is.

Hey, why discuss anything? What is the point of arguing anything? What's with you making points against SuperDaniel's? It's not like those points haven't been hashed out before.

[mego joe]

But to say that a man who lies about who he is, who resorts to violence most of the time to solve his problems is the "best" of us is pushing it. Although all the lives and worlds he's saved over the years might earn him that title...



Not really. It's an example of someone using their abilities appropriately. But he's hardly a perfect moral standard. And certainly not in the movie franchise.



He most certainly is susceptible to them. You're telling me this man can move a planet, but he "can't" leave Earth without saying goodbye? Yeah. Ok.

Maybe he generally wouldn't, or doesn't, do that, but he very well could.



Where is that written?



And to say that he's NOT capable of anything is to deny that he (or any other human for that matter) is an individual.



Hey, why discuss anything? What is the point of arguing anything? What's with you making points against SuperDaniel's? It's not like those points haven't been hashed out before.

I'm dropping it.

[SuperDaniel]

They dont get Superman, simply put. I`m dropping it too.

[Angamb]

is curious how each superhero has the audience divided, hehe, or at least some superheroes.

I'm sure if a new sequel is done, most people will love it.

Both the studio and Singer will do a good job, I'm sure about it.

[Mostpowerful]

^^Agreed.

[wellsy]

is curious how each superhero has the audience divided, hehe, or at least some superheroes.

I'm sure if a new sequel is done, most people will love it.

Both the studio and Singer will do a good job, I'm sure about it.
Well, I'm not. I won't say what something will or won't be when it hasn't even been made yet.

I'll make up my mind in 2010 when I see it.

[mego joe]

Well, I'm not. I won't say what something will or won't be when it hasn't even been made yet.

I'll make up my mind in 2010 when I see it.

or 2011, or 2012...

[GreenKToo]

We all have a preconceived notion about what we want to see in Superman films. We just can't help it.

Me personally, I go in expecting to be uplifted and blown away by what I see. For me, that means a bright world, with vibrant colors.
I expect to see big blue standing toe to toe with a foe just as powerful as he, and seeing him coming out victorious in the end.
I expect to see Supes take just as much care and time rescuing one person from a mugger as he would saving an entire ship full of people.
I expect to see the classic shirt rip WITH the williams theme, I accept no substitutes.

Anything else, for me at least, is a waste.

[bgshw44]

We all have a preconceived notion about what we want to see in Superman films. We just can't help it.

Me personally, I go in expecting to be uplifted and blown away by what I see. For me, that means a bright world, with vibrant colors.
I expect to see big blue standing toe to toe with a foe just as powerful as he, and seeing him coming out victorious in the end.
I expect to see Supes take just as much care and time rescuing one person from a mugger as he would saving an entire ship full of people.
I expect to see the classic shirt rip WITH the williams theme, I accept no substitutes.

Anything else, for me at least, is a waste.

i like

[Superman-Prime]

Not a bad idea, but Richard and Jason still have to go.

Kill Richard and Jason, then MOS will be the best Superman film ever. :cwink:

Yes, I loved SR. So bite me. :)

Tho, I agree about Richard and Jason. They got to go, yo!

[superbaby]

how to create strong connection with audience.

the ironman saving the village scene is a good example.

the fear by innocent. the thankfulness and joy by innocent when the savior comes, will make that connection.

[SatEL]

how to create strong connection with audience.

the ironman saving the village scene is a good example.

the fear by innocent. the thankfulness and joy by innocent when the savior comes, will make that connection.

Oh yeah Iron Man in that scene was badass and I loved it at the end when he took of and said his all yours. Sadly anything to do with SR and singer cant pull of that quality.

[superbaby]

Oh yeah Iron Man in that scene was badass and I loved it at the end when he took of and said his all yours. Sadly anything to do with SR and singer cant pull of that quality.
beware, the singer ass kissers will not get our points. they will come and comment that superman won't behave like this, he won't take justice on his hands.

[SatEL]

beware, the singer ass kissers will not get our points. they will come and comment that superman won't behave like this, he won't take justice on his hands.

Well I am sure if Singer is still attached to the project they will get more of Superman trying to steal Richards girl and heck if they are lucky this time around Singerman might just break down and cry while he lifts a car.

[superbaby]

Well I am sure if Singer is still attached to the project they will get more of Superman trying to steal Richards girl and heck if they are lucky this time around Singerman might just break down and cry while he lifts a car.
that will really break their heart. it's so touching and romantic!!! :o
to them that is how to make the connection.

[El Payaso]

Well I am sure if Singer is still attached to the project they will get more of Superman trying to steal Richards girl and heck if they are lucky this time around Singerman might just break down and cry while he lifts a car.

Weird. If other type of director would have been attached I'd have thought "Well I am sure they will get more of Superman fighting a villiain" but it was something else.

I'm sure any director attached to the project will be far from that idea of yours.

[VenomsMom]

Well I am sure if Singer is still attached to the project they will get more of Superman trying to steal Richards girl and heck if they are lucky this time around Singerman might just break down and cry while he lifts a car.

that will really break their heart. it's so touching and romantic!!! :o
to them that is how to make the connection.
LOL. And I thought I used to be harsh. You guys are downright brutal.

[superbaby]

brutal??? how come??? that's the most "romantic" film the gay director has filmed per se.
.
.
.

[Superark]

brutal??? how come??? that's the most "romantic" film the gay director has filmed per se.
.
.
.


Ok why even bring up the fact that Singer is gay? What does that have to do with anything.

Your SR bashing is really getting ridiculous!

[superbaby]

Ok why even bring up the fact that Singer is gay? What does that have to do with anything.

Your SR bashing is really getting ridiculous!
just to highlight the possible reason of why some of us don't get his intepretation of "romantic", i.e venomsmom.
don't be too sensitive.

[I Am The Knight]

LOL. And I thought I used to be harsh. You guys are downright brutal.

Most trolls are.

brutal??? how come??? that's the most "romantic" film the gay director has filmed per se.

:huh::huh::huh:

[Superark]

just to highlight the possible reason of why some of us don't get his intepretation of "romantic", i.e venomsmom.
don't be too sensitive.


That really makes no sense! If you don't like SR that's fine but leave the man's sexual orientation out of it and continue bashing SR for it's merits as a movie.

[Superark]

just to highlight the possible reason of why some of us don't get his intepretation of "romantic", i.e venomsmom.
don't be too sensitive.


That really makes no sense! If you don't like SR that's fine but leave the man's sexual orientation out of it and continue bashing SR for it's merits as a movie.

[BMM]

just to highlight the possible reason of why some of us don't get his intepretation of "romantic", i.e venomsmom.
don't be too sensitive.

It’s not a case of needing to be less sensitive. It’s a case of you needing to not sound so idiotic all of the time. :up:

[superbaby]

That really makes no sense! If you don't like SR that's fine but leave the man's sexual orientation out of it and continue bashing SR for it's merits as a movie.
what make no sense?
singer said that SR is the most romantic movie he has made. but some of us didn't find it romantic at all. in fact it is ill and wicked. so i made the assumption it might have to do with his sexual orientation. did i do something wrong?

[GreenKToo]

LOL, and these are the days of our lives.

ANYWAY, back to the subject at hand. It appears that M.O.S. is picking up steam.

[That'ssuper!]

It would be interesting to see a storyline where Lois apparently dies by the failure to be rescued by Superman. Or more people.

[VenomsMom]

It would be interesting to see a storyline where Lois apparently dies by the failure to be rescued by Superman. Or more people.
Didnt we see that in STM. Do we really want to see that again?

[GreenKToo]

We need to see something we havent seen before.
Maybe something like Superman being forced to save either Jason, or the lives of thousands in Metropolis, with NO turning back time option to fix things if he regrets his decision afterwards.

[El Payaso]

We need to see something we havent seen before.
Maybe something like Superman being forced to save either Jason, or the lives of thousands in Metropolis, with NO turning back time option to fix things if he regrets his decision afterwards.

He'd choose Metropolis. He did that in SR. :yay:

[GreenKToo]

He'd choose Metropolis. He did that in SR. :yay:
We kinda did, yeah. I would like it to be more dramatic though in M.O.S.

The earthquake scene we saw in S.R. didnt really feel that threatning to me, ie Not much interaction with the public during it.

If he chose to save jason or whoever first instead of Metropolis, then I would want to see the effect that action has on the people, and vice versa.
I hope that makes sense.

[El Payaso]

We kinda did, yeah. I would like it to be more dramatic though in M.O.S.

The earthquake scene we saw in S.R. didnt really feel that threatning to me, ie Not much interaction with the public during it.

If he chose to save jason or whoever first instead of Metropolis, then I would want to see the effect that action has on the people, and vice versa.
I hope that makes sense.

:huh: what?

What does the interaction have to do with dramatism? When he saved all those people at the San Andreas fault earthquake he didn't interact with anyone (or pounch anyone for that matter ;)). And yet it was a very good sequence.

According to what I saw, many people could have died in the Metropolis earthquake or at least there was a potential of a lartge number of deaths. Before that potential, Supes chose Metropolis before Lois and Jason.

[GreenKToo]

:huh: what?

What does the interaction have to do with dramatism? When he saved all those people at the San Andreas fault earthquake he didn't interact with anyone (or pounch anyone for that matter ;)). And yet it was a very good sequence.

According to what I saw, many people could have died in the Metropolis earthquake or at least there was a potential of a lartge number of deaths. Before that potential, Supes chose Metropolis before Lois and Jason.
What does it have to do with it?. Imagine if he had to make a choice in a split second. Jason or Metropolis. He choses to save Jason first because he thinks he's fast enough to save both but he's not, and we then see the people having to pay for that choice he made, because he wasnt there to save them. They need to show it, not imply it.

As for the Earthquake in S.R., sorry, but it just didnt seem that threatning to me. It did try to be, but it just didnt quite reach that level of danger that it should/could have.

The plane scene was much more satisfing for me than the earthquake scene BECAUSE of the interaction. You saw and felt the danger they were in. Not so with the earthquake, at least for me anyway.

[afan]

:huh: what?

What does the interaction have to do with dramatism? When he saved all those people at the San Andreas fault earthquake he didn't interact with anyone (or pounch anyone for that matter ;)). And yet it was a very good sequence.




:huh: what?

Whenever Superman encounters the "people" in S:TM he interacted with them. On his first night, all of his activities, rescues and crime stopping, involved clever interactions, and when his rescues involving the San Andreas devestation allowed for close contact (the school bus) he also interacted with the "people". This created a connection between Superman and the public in S:TM, that is sorely lacking in SR. It's a crucial connection for the audience to get, otherwise the people of Metropolis are faceless unidentifiable entities.

Just the few minutes involving the rescue of Frisky in S:TM did more to create an elated connection with the audience, give the citizens of Metropolis a personality, and demonstrate a "human" Superman who truly cares, than all of the 2 plus hours of SRs' self indulgent guilt driven gloom.

[El Payaso]

:huh: what?

Whenever Superman encounters the "people" in S:TM he interacted with them. On his first night, all of his activities, rescues and crime stopping, involved clever interactions, and when his rescues involving the San Andreas devestation allowed for close contact (the school bus) he also interacted with the "people".

Besides the 2 seconds long distance interaction between Superman and the school bus people, there's little to nothing in the earthquake sequence. I'd barely call that "interaction" since it was nothing but a hand waving.

And what in the previous first night is what you call "clever" interactions?

This created a connection between Superman and the public in S:TM, that is sorely lacking in SR. It's a crucial connection for the audience to get, otherwise the people of Metropolis are faceless unidentifiable entities.

Now, please elaborate this random connection between "interactions after a rescue" and "crucial connection with the audience." So far it sounds more romantic than sensible.

Just the few minutes involving the rescue of Fluffy in S:TM did more to create an elated connection with the audience, give the citizens of Metropolis a personality, and demonstrate a "human" Superman who truly cares, than all of the 2 plus hours of SRs' self indulgent guilt driven gloom.

Please point out where is guilt what drives Superman to save all those people he saved in SR. Other than your personal assumptions.


After the plane rescue, Superman not only had interaction with the passengers but with the enire stadium. In number of people that only beats STM

[El Payaso]

What does it have to do with it?. Imagine if he had to make a choice in a split second. Jason or Metropolis. He choses to save Jason first because he thinks he's fast enough to save both but he's not, and we then see the people having to pay for that choice he made, because he wasnt there to save them. They need to show it, not imply it.

Thing is, Superman would never choose 1 person over thousands.

If it’s going to happen it should be really justified.

As for the Earthquake in S.R., sorry, but it just didnt seem that threatning to me. It did try to be, but it just didnt quite reach that level of danger that it should/could have.

More people could have died in the earthquake than in the plane. Superman didn’t choose Metropolis for the people who died in there but the people who could have died if he wasn’t there. That fireball alone could ahve killed many people.

The plane scene was much more satisfing for me than the earthquake scene BECAUSE of the interaction. You saw and felt the danger they were in. Not so with the earthquake, at least for me anyway.

After the fireball, the Planet globe and the neon sign fallen, the broken glasses rain and the man falling I certainly perceived some danger going on for Metropolis people.

[afan]

Besides the 2 seconds long distance interaction between Superman and the school bus people, there's little to nothing in the earthquake sequence. I'd barely call that "interaction" since it was nothing but a hand waving.



The nature of the disaster, and the scope of Superman's rescues are on a scale that makes personal interaction with the "people" physically impossible, save for the instance involving the school bus, and then amidst the catastrophic events Superman still takes the time to acknowledge the kids in the bus, with "nothing but a hand wave".

And interraction is a two way street. The boy in the bus scene looking out the window at Superman flying away, and saying "Wow, it's Superman" is equally as important.



And what in the previous first night is what you call "clever" interactions?




"Statistically flying is still the safest way to travel."

"A friend."

"What's the matter something wrong with the elevators?"

"Officer....Moody......they say confession is good for the soul. I'ld listen to this man."

"What's wrong.....bad vibrations"

Now, please elaborate this random connection between "interactions after a rescue" and "crucial connection with the audience." So far it sounds more romantic than sensible.


As stated in my post it accents the admirable human qualities in Superman creating a positive connection. SR accented the less than desirable human traits. The audience does not want Superman to remind us of our shortcomings they want Superman to remind us of our strengths.


Please point out where is guilt what drives Superman to save all those people he saved in SR. Other than your personal assumptions.


Not my intention that guilt drives Superman's rescues in SR.


After the plane rescue, Superman not only had interaction with the passengers but with the enire stadium. In number of people that only beats STM




If he did I didn't get it. He interracted with Lois on the plane. His focus was totally on her, the other passengers were largely nonexistant to him in that scene.

The interraction with the stadium? Did i miss something did he wave, did he smile, did he speak to anyone there?

Apparently we disagree on what constitutes personal interraction.

Thing is, Superman would never choose 1 person over thousands.

100% agreement here, and placing him in such a dilemna can only work if he finds a way to save both the one and the thousands(without messing with time)!!!!!

After the fireball, the Planet globe and the neon sign fallen, the broken glasses rain and the man falling I certainly perceived some danger going on for Metropolis people.


There was danger a plenty, but as I have been saying the lack of interraction thruout SR by Superman with the "people", created for me a lack of concern for their well being. They were just extras. Back ground figures in a video game, void of lives.
That's the genius of the Frisky rescue in S:TM, it identifies every citizen of Metropolis with the little girl.

[El Payaso]

The nature of the disaster, and the scope of Superman's rescues are on a scale that makes personal interaction with the "people" physically impossible, save for the instance involving the school bus, and then amidst the catastrophic events Superman still takes the time to acknowledge the kids in the bus, with "nothing but a hand wave".

And interraction is a two way street. The boy in the bus scene looking out the window at Superman flying away, and saying "Wow, it's Superman" is equally as important.

On the plane sequence, we have Lois identifying Superman before the rescue and after it, he smiles at the crowd in the stadium. After Superman puts out the house’s fire he smiles at the camera before leaving the scene. We have enough examples.

"Statistically flying is still the safest way to travel."

That’s also in SR. And directed to all the plane’s passengers, not only Lois.

"A friend."

Comparable to “I’m always around.”

"Officer....Moody......they say confession is good for the soul. I'ld listen to this man."

They had some exchanges with Perry White too. Too bad they cut it out.

"What's the matter something wrong with the elevators?"
"What's wrong.....bad vibrations"

Are the bad guys supposed to identify us?

As stated in my post it accents the admirable human qualities in Superman creating a positive connection. SR accented the less than desirable human traits. The audience does not want Superman to remind us of our shortcomings they want Superman to remind us of our strengths.

Superman risking his life to save the whole world is more than enough accent on his human admirable qualities.

But when he saved “that girl in the car,” he was nice and said good-bye. So yes, he was the same Superman.

Not my intention that guilt drives Superman's rescues in SR.

Prove your point please.

If he did I didn't get it. He interracted with Lois on the plane. His focus was totally on her, the other passengers were largely nonexistant to him in that scene.

Your selective memory is behaving biased again. He interacted with the passengers after he talked to Lois in the “statistically speaking” quote.

The interraction with the stadium? Did i miss something did he wave, did he smile, did he speak to anyone there?

Body language counts, he smiled at the crowd and acknowledged their gratitude and cheering. Luckily for us Superman is more a man of actions than words.

Apparently we disagree on what constitutes personal interraction.

I don’t think we do. You’re just forgetting Superman’s interaction in SR for some reason.

100% agreement here, and placing him in such a dilemna can only work if he finds a way to save both the one and the thousands(without messing with time)!!!!!

It works correctly if he makes the right decision and live with the consequences of it.

There was danger a plenty, but as I have been saying the lack of interraction thruout SR by Superman with the "people", created for me a lack of concern for their well being. They were just extras. Back ground figures in a video game, void of lives.

The nature of the disaster, and the scope of Superman's rescues are on a scale that makes personal interaction with the "people" physically impossible. ;)

You won’t go as far as saying that it is valid for one earthquake but not for the other, right?

And well, we have the deleted interaction with Perry.

That's the genius of the Fluffy rescue in S:TM, it identifies every citizen of Metropolis with the little girl.

The magic is that Superman didn’t prevent the later slapping from the mother. As tiny as it seems, Superman was responsible for that.

[SatEL]

The nature of the disaster, and the scope of Superman's rescues are on a scale that makes personal interaction with the "people" physically impossible, save for the instance involving the school bus, and then amidst the catastrophic events Superman still takes the time to acknowledge the kids in the bus, with "nothing but a hand wave".

And interraction is a two way street. The boy in the bus scene looking out the window at Superman flying away, and saying "Wow, it's Superman" is equally as important.





"Statistically flying is still the safest way to travel."

"A friend."

"What's the matter something wrong with the elevators?"

"Officer....Moody......they say confession is good for the soul. I'ld listen to this man."

"What's wrong.....bad vibrations"



As stated in my post it accents the admirable human qualities in Superman creating a positive connection. SR accented the less than desirable human traits. The audience does not want Superman to remind us of our shortcomings they want Superman to remind us of our strengths.




Not my intention that guilt drives Superman's rescues in SR.




If he did I didn't get it. He interracted with Lois on the plane. His focus was totally on her, the other passengers were largely nonexistant to him in that scene.

The interraction with the stadium? Did i miss something did he wave, did he smile, did he speak to anyone there?

Apparently we disagree on what constitutes personal interraction.



100% agreement here, and placing him in such a dilemna can only work if he finds a way to save both the one and the thousands(without messing with time)!!!!!




There was danger a plenty, but as I have been saying the lack of interraction thruout SR by Superman with the "people", created for me a lack of concern for their well being. They were just extras. Back ground figures in a video game, void of lives.
That's the genius of the Fluffy rescue in S:TM, it identifies every citizen of Metropolis with the little girl.
Everything you stated is preety much on point, its pointless to argue with El Payso or to even try and point out errors and flaws in his lovely SR. I am sure in his mind the film was Oscar worthy and deserves high praises from all audiences.

[El Payaso]

Everything you stated is preety much on point,

Except the fact that in SR the Superman-people connection was there too.

its pointless to argue with El Payso or to even try and point out errors and flaws in his lovely SR.

Since I myself have a list of flaws (that I have posted many times now) that doesn't include the lack of things the movie didn't lack of.

I am sure in his mind the film was Oscar worthy and deserves high praises from all audiences.

Firstly, I'd never ruin the reputation of any good movie with an Oscar.

Now if we can move on from the personal level discussion to a proper movie analysis...

[Clark Kent]

I'd never ruin the reputation of any good movie with an Oscar.

:hehe:.

[Batman Lives]

Personally I feel the romance aspect of Superman needs to take a major backseat to the action/fighting/superhero stuff. Superman shouldnt be so lovesick.

Bryan Singer already stated he was planning to do this with the sequel and I hope this happens with a sequel or reboot.


Having things like sexual tension between Lois and Clark is a major miss-step IMO

During DC's dark ages (the 90s), with the early success of Lois and Clark, Superman comics turned into romance novels in an attempt to appeal to women (mentioned in Singer's documentary)...big mistake. This aspect of Superman continued to be focused on in Smallville and Superman Returns... it just came off as sappy and lame. It's been over-emphasized so much in the past 10-15 yrs to the point where the net is overloaded with weirdo shipper groups tied to the recent Supes incarnations.

I hate to bring up BB/TDK again but I feel they had the perfect balance of romance with the Bruce/Rachel subplot in the background.

I think Superman needs to be reinvented as an action hero and fighter and not a lover primarily.

No Superman film has truely shown this aspect of him as the main focus and I think it needs to happen in the next film.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Exactly.

Superman and Batman are two very different characters and should be treated differently. Superman's movies should be nothing like Batman's movies, Batman is a darker human character, Superman should be more bright and upbeat. The tone should be like Iron Man or Spider-Man.

[I Am The Knight]

Well, he only mentioned one aspect of BB/TDK...He's wrong though. About Lois and about Rachel.

[nintendo nerd]

TDK is a very overrated movie, IMO. I think people will start realizing its flaws very soon.

[Batman Lives]

The only Batman comparison I made was how the Nolan films downplayed the romance aspects as secondary.

All I'm saying is Superman needs that.

Superman should be a fighter first, not a lover. Otherwise, he just comes off as lame.

Superman envisioned through a romantic comedy (L+C), a teen soap/drama (Smallville), and a Titanic-style romantic-focused film (SR) just seem like such bad approaches to the character for modern audiences.

They have yet to witness Superman as a formidable action hero in live action.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Seriously, is this all people want out of a Superman movie is "slam, bam" blow em up crap? I'm all for more action, but the emotion of Superman and Lois' relationship is what has driven the comics--from the 40s to the present. Like it or not, that is the core of the mythos. The key is to take the relationship and find a way to interweave it with the action, not get rid of it entirely.

[TheComicbookKid]

Well, he only mentioned one aspect of BB/TDK...He's wrong though. About Lois and about Rachel.

What made the Rachel aspect work for me was that it serviced the story. The Lois angle just needs to service the story better. That's the only problem i've ever had with every version of Superman. He only loves Lois because she a feisty woman who works with him and because that's what the audience expects of them.

I also saw the Lois relationship as someone like Superman, working for Truth and Justice, without superpowers but being just as brave.

TDK is a very overrated movie, IMO. I think people will start realizing its flaws very soon.

Don't know about that.

[nintendo nerd]

What made the Rachel aspect work for me was that it serviced the story. The Lois angle just needs to service the story better. That's the only problem i've ever had with every version of Superman. He only loves Lois because she a feisty woman who works with him and because that's what the audience expects of them.

I also saw the Lois relationship as someone like Superman, working for Truth and Justice, without superpowers but being just as brave.



Don't know about that.

Well, maybe its just me. Saw it for a second time and didn't like it. IMO, it can be compared with Spider - man 3. Didn't like the way they handled Two - Face. Ledger and all the cast are great, but I hated the action scenes and I think they oversaturated the movie, there's too much going on.

[Showtime]

How are you allowed to make threads? Get over yourself. NOt every franchise needs to (EDITED FOR CONTENT). It gets tired and lame.

Who said you were allowed to post like that on The Hype? Get over yourself and enjoy the infraction.

[Batman Lives]

^Exactly.

Superman and Batman are two very different characters and should be treated differently. Superman's movies should be nothing like Batman's movies, Batman is a darker human character, Superman should be more bright and upbeat. The tone should be like Iron Man or Spider-Man.

I'm cool with an Ironman tone; hence why I said Superman should have an interesting and witty personality. Ironman still kept things pretty real; which I enjoyed.

You can still be grounded while being upbeat.

Spider-man on the otherhand is way too bright and silly. I can't see a Superman film shot in Spider-man style fitting into the same world as TDK.

PS: your avatar is vomit-inducing! whyyy

[Batman Lives]

What made the Rachel aspect work for me was that it serviced the story. The Lois angle just needs to service the story better. That's the only problem i've ever had with every version of Superman. He only loves Lois because she a feisty woman who works with him and because that's what the audience expects of them.


The dynamic between the two just needs to be deeper.

Why does Superman like Lois?

Why does Lois like Superman?

They need better and more believeable reasons behind this.

And personally I think they should set up their relationship over the course of several films, instead of some type of instant attraction/love as seen in the Donner films without much setup.

But yes, it needs to remain as a secondary plotline that services a primary one.

[I Am The Knight]

TDK is a very overrated movie, IMO. I think people will start realizing its flaws very soon.

It's a tad overrated, I'd say. But it did live up to the hype. For me at least **clears troath** :o I didn't find many flaws. My only gripes were with some of Batman's decisions/actions, but overall it's a solid 9 for me :up:

What made the Rachel aspect work for me was that it serviced the story. The Lois angle just needs to service the story better. That's the only problem i've ever had with every version of Superman. He only loves Lois because she a feisty woman who works with him and because that's what the audience expects of them.

I also saw the Lois relationship as someone like Superman, working for Truth and Justice, without superpowers but being just as brave.

Yup. I never considered Rachel as a love interest per se, which what I was referring to. You're right, she served the story more than your typical leading lady. As for Lois, she has always been a staple of the Superman mythos. She's secondary only to Superman, there's no need to downplay her at all. Superman has always been about his relationship with Lois as much as it has been about fighting supervillains.

[Showtime]

Screenwriting 101: Each script has to consist of an emotional story arc and an action story arc. The emotional story in a Superman Returns sequel doesn't have to make Lois front and center, the emotion could involve Jason, or a number of other plot points.

[TheComicbookKid]

The dynamic between the two just needs to be deeper.

Why does Superman like Lois?

Why does Lois like Superman?

They need better and more believeable reasons behind this.

And personally I think they should set up their relationship over the course of several films, instead of some type of instant attraction/love as seen in the Donner films without much setup.

But yes, it needs to remain as a secondary plotline that services a primary one.

I apologize for my rude statement earlier.

Downplaying and making the romance fit better are two totally different things. Superman's love for Lois is as important as his fight for humanity. It's not something that needs to seen as a liability. That's what I was overreacted about.

Nolan understands what aspects are crucial to Batman. To act like Lois is something to be put secondary to a Superman story is a fundamental misunderstanding imo of what makes Superman a human.