View Single Post
Old 04-21-2011, 07:27 AM   #24
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' Didn't Work

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponyboy View Post
I think part of the reason that Superman Returns didn't work was because of the story. That's first part of making an interesting film; and it was the part that Singer failed on. The last time we saw Superman on the big screen before that was 1987. So aside from having Christopher Reeve cemented in our minds as Superman (and rightly so, he is Superman)... the new "Superman Returns" incarnation lept from nowhere. The story supposedly takes place after the events of Donner's Superman 2. I don't think the general movie going public at large was aware of this.

Lois Lane was downright unlikeable in the film. Sure she's better looking than Margot Kidder, but she didn't have that spunk, that pizazz that Kidder had. She certainly had zero chemistry with Brandon Routh. I can go on and on about how Routh was wrong for the part... and how the Superman costume was lame and that it didn't need to changed... about how Kevin Spacey's plot to sell newly created land from the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude (how would have the right to sell this "land"?) was thinner than his hair... Not to mention the fact that Superman and Lois had shagged (in Superman 2) and now Lois was toting around their love child... I feel in some way the film almost made Superman unlikeable... he wasn't larger than life... and he wasn't fighting for truth, justice, and the American way... and all amidst a gloomy backdrop of a film. There was a great deal of magic missing from Routh's performance... although he nearly got Clark Kent right. Well.. maybe I'm being too harsh on the film. The only thing I really remember about the movie is the airplane rescue scene. Plus, the guy sitting next to me in the theatre was farting repeatedly.
Pretty much, yeah.

Some points needed further explanation and you should have really got people into the story of the old moivies before start telling what happened next.

I'm sure that only a few remembered that the crystals could grow a fortress of solitude. Or that Lex had been in the FoS.








Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
I don't think Donner's Jesus thing was so much in your face as Superman Returns. That' why I hate the Donner cut. More of this Jesus comparison that I've never liked.
When you say that the Jesus parallel in SR wasn't "so much in your face as Superman Returns" you're basically admitting that it WAS in Donner movies. That's all I said, Singer didn't create this. And what was so in your face, the crucifixion pose? Because that was also in Spiderman 2 you know. The saviour thing? That was in Byrne's Man of Steel.

Now, you liking it or not has little to do with the parallels being there or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
Superman, imo, has nothing to do with Jesus except both being forces for good. But this crap that Jor-el knows all his decisions and sent him here to save is us just...CRAP.
Alrighty then. But blame Donner for that. He invented that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
Exactly. Loneliness is a theme for Superman but there's so much MORE than that and the problem is that Singer never understood that Superman is about optimism and he never had that in the movie. The whole Clark Kent persona comes from the fact that he wants to be human and has human emotions.
But it's good to know that you're aware that loneliness is a theme for Superman. A theme that was explored in STM and SII but Singer treated it a bit more seriously. And at the end of SR Superman was flying with a smile and an optimistic tone was there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
He was just a loner the whole movie, acting like Spider-man. "Nobody loves me and nobody cares about me but my mother."
So... since when does Spiderman have the monopoly of the troubled character type?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
He almost didnt go to save the plane. The thing is that Singer doesnt know how to write DC characters or know that Superman is supposed to be an archetype of goodness just like the Joker is an archetype of chaos.
So you say that when Superman saved the plane and all those accidents around the world, when he saved Metropolis from the earthquake, leaving Lois alone in Lex's yatch in order to save the whole city, and when, in spite of having kryptonite inside his body lifted the whole continent... you didn't find that some kind of goodness?

But anyways, characters such as this are always in danger of becoming stale because of becoming mere archetypes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
The Donner movies were bright, fun and adventurous. Singer only did that during the plane sequence.
After all those movies it was time to explore a different angle of the character.





Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
You can talk about money all you want. Money comes from people going to the theaters and having a good time in the theaters. When they go to watch a Superman movie, they have expectations of what a Superman should be. And this Devil wears prada audience crap is not what people expect from a Superman movie.
Yes, and more people went to see SR than BB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
And the movie underperformed because of what?
Expectation being higher. After all those expensive attempts I don't blame them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
Why more people didnt go to watch the movie? Because it sucks.
Like many people went to see Transformers 2 because...? Yeah, because it's a jewel from cinema.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
The Superman name alone brought a lot of people to the theaters and gave it a box office better than Batman Begins but when people realized the movie sucks, they stopped going.
So what stopped people from seeing BB more? According to you because it sucked more than SR since less people went to see it.





Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
The fact it didnt not get a sequel proves that my idea of whats wrong with it is not far from the truth after all.
But of course. As I said, cinematic gems such as Transformers 2 get sequels. It's all natural.

Sequels = quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDaniel View Post
He obviously wont know what is so wrong with the movie because he is ignorant of the character of Superman as a whole and SR just proved that.
Actually it didn't.

Superman was heroic and everything he usually is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mego joe View Post
To be honest, it's more engaging and interesting to discuss what you don't like as opposed to what you like.
Not necessarily. Some people love to hate what they hate more than loving what they love.

I go and post more in TDK forums than in BB because I liked it more. And I don't post much in the Raimi's Spiderman movies because I didn't like them too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mego joe View Post
There's only so much 'rah rah' that is palpable. But when you get into a good argument about the merits or lack of merit of a film that is engaging. And addicting.
Thing is if you get addicted to the lack of merits disucssion or the merits discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mego joe View Post
I really haven't thought much about SR until the Snyder film started getting some actual news and then Singer's news item. I actually plan on watching it again in the next few days after Superman:TM and the Donner cut of II. I'm hoping it will put a little different perspective on it for me. It's a Superman film, I want to like, but so far my attempts have been in vain...
I have to admit I haven't met many people who don't think of something but make constant attempts of dealing with that something. Usually when people don't think about something they barely talk about it... because they don't remember it.

El Payaso is offline   Reply With Quote