View Single Post
Old 09-02-2011, 10:07 AM   #12
Dr.'s Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,889
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide View Post
I appreciate that the guy has put together a very well thought out and cohesive arguement... but I feel like he glosses over the most jarring of complaints and focuses mostly on the one's he can counter with an arguement.

For instance:

1. He argues that it's wrong to complain about Richard because he is a good, likeable character.

But that's EXACTLY the problem.
Allow me to agree and disagree with you on this point.

Where I agree: Dude in video says that critics hated Richard. In my experience (and yours, apparently) that’s simply not the case. Even strident critics of SR seemed to like Richard. The complaint was that he was a nicer, nobler guy than Superman. Dude was arguing the wrong thing.

Where I disagree: Richard being a “good man” was an essential aspect to the overall theme of Supes’ alienation. Without the global and mythic responsibilities of a superman, Richard can afford to be a “normal hero” and have the normal life unavailable to Supes. When Lois was in peril, he could devote himself to the single task of rescuing her. On the other hand, Supes had to interrupt his attempt, turn around and attend to earthquake ravaged Metropolis first. His duties are far bigger than Richard’s – even to the point of sacrificing himself to save the world. That’s something that Richard – for all his nobility – could never do.

The son becomes the father... (okay, Superman has become a dad, I get that), the father becomes the son... (huh? Jor-el has become Superman? or Superman has become Jason? what the heck does that mean?)
Allow for a bit of poetry. It's a description of the passing of generations. The "father" recedes into a more passive role (the "son") when his own son assumes the "father" role. In any case, the line is lifted directly from STM. If you hated it in SR, you should reserve equal ridicule for its use in STM.

3. He address the film being boring, by saying there are plenty of action scenes. Here he is glossing over one of the most popular complaints - lack of fight scene.

FIGHT scenes.

Not action scenes.

No one is saying that there was no action in this film. Just that a superhero like Superman would have been a really exciting opportunity to see some spectacular fight scenes.
A fair criticism. But SR had exactly as many "fights" as STM. So, again, as long as you dislike both films for that reason... you're being consistent.

5. It's the same with Luthor's plot for me...

It's not that it's similar to the old films that bothers me. I get it, it's a homage.

It's that it makes NO sense. Even LESS sense than the first films land plot.

In the first film, he'd bought and secured the land that would be left. He would then OWN the coast. You can at least see where he would be making money here.

But in this film, Lex actual believes two INSANE things: 1. People will want to buy some land on his big green rock... 2. The government will allow him to keep it.

What rights does he have to that land? What ownership does he have? And beyond that, what in the world in stopped the army from just flying in and killing him.
I’d say the SR scheme was more “realistic.” In STM, we’re supposed to believe that after a nuclear blast, and the devastation of California, Lex could satisfy authorities by merely producing the deeds to his legally bought land. In SR, there’s no pretext like that. Lex’s control over nations would be derived by power and the fact that half of them are destroyed – not through implausible legal technicalities.

Dr. is offline   Reply With Quote