![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Banned User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The place in between...
Posts: 10,149
|
![]()
I just felt Singer tried to pander to Donner's films too much. The most annoying thing, for me, was Lex. I've never liked the portrayal of Lex in the Donner films. Hackman was a good villain, but he wasn't a good Lex. Same applies to Stacey.
Why not make your own film with your own vision? I thought Marsen's character was more likable and relatable than Superman. Kate Bosworth was a TERRIBLE choice for Lois Lane. And the whole subplot with the kid didn't really add much apart from TV soap opera melodrama. It could have worked, i guess. But it didn't. The action scenes were beyond mediocre. In short, I wanted to see a NEW Superman film. Not a rehash that had a poorly characterised titular character. A terribly cast Lois Lane. And NONE of the wow factor of the original two movies. A movie about Superman should be awe inspiring. This movie didn't come anywhere near that level. Last edited by The Morningstar; 04-21-2011 at 07:58 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |||
Clark Kent > Superman
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,848
|
![]() Quote:
I certainly didn't find it as obvious in STM as I did in SR... I mean did STM have Superman falling to earth with his arms outstretched like Jesus on the cross? It was just OTT. Quote:
...but isn't it a bit unfair to scold someone for discussing what is wrong with Superman Returns in a thread called 'Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' didn't work?'... What on earth are we supposed to be discussing in this thread if not that? I don't know how frequent SuperDaniel's SR bashing is in other threads, but surely in this one, it's justified. Quote:
But I hate what the film did. What it achieved (or failed to achieve). How far it actually set Superman fans back. And how hard it makes it to justify myself as a Superman fan to my friends. I hate the blatant disregard for it's OWN continuity. I hate the ideas present in a storyline that basically has Superman romancing an engaged woman. I hate that they lacked the originality to come out with a villainous plot with Lex, that wasn't almost exactly the same as the previous (even containing the same dialogue of 'Do you know what my father told me' 'Get out' 'No, LAND! blah blah'... There is plenty to complain about, and yet shamefully, I watch it quite often. ![]() I agree, Marsden's character came across as a really decent guy, selfless, understanding and heroic.
__________________
Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."
Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?" Superman: "To catch them if they fall." |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | ||
Your Friend In Time
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 41,473
|
![]()
Go with your usual instinct then.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Your Friend In Time
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 41,473
|
![]()
SuperDaniel has been a solid poster and was one of the few who stuck by Cavill through all of it, but lately it's SR talk everywhere all the time...and it's not the talk that is bothering people...it's the way it is presented. Same comments over and over again. I directed him to talk in here, which he obliged and did, but its the manner in which he posts.
I normally leave you guys alone and let you do your thing, but complaints are complaints and I am getting them.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Side-Kick
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,564
|
![]()
disappointed with SR because it has great concept, but stupid execution. all the main characters were set wrong!
__________________
What's the answer to mindless undeserved hate ? Mindless love. :D http://dceufilms.proboards.com http://dceu-positivity.tumblr.com https://twitter.com/dceufacts https://www.facebook.com/manofsteelfansgiveshope/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Titan
Posts: 20,533
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Side-Kick
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,696
|
![]()
Considering how Singer took the X-Men to the big screen in such a successful way, it still bemuses me how many wrong turns he took with Superman Returns.
I enjoyed the film on first viewing. But I'll freely admit that was totally down to the excitement of seeing Superman on the big screen for the first time. I'd seen all the Superman movies many time of course, but only on TV/video. Repeated viewings of Superman Returns simply do not hold up. There are many problems with the film - the suit, the film style, scripts, effects, acting in places, story sequences, Lex Luthor once again being a real estate villain, etc. However, nearly all of these things could have been fixed in a sequel, if it had happened. A new suit, better scripts, better effects, more action, brighter colours, a new villain for Superman to square off against, etc. What couldn't be fixed with a sequel - and what I consider the main underlying problem with Superman Returns, and what audiences found difficult - was the kid. Superman has a child with Lois. Who, from what we can gather, has superpowers of his own, albeit at a very early and undeveloped stage. And this kid believes Richard is his father, and Richard believes it is his son. Does Lois know who the father is? We're not sure, but it seems like she starts to realise what's going on when junior fires a piano at one of Luthor's henchmen. Now Superman is meant to be the very symbol of truth and honesty, but the film ends with him seemingly content to keep a watchful eye on his son from a distance whilst Lois/Richard/Junior carry on with their arrangement ......... with Richard still believing it's his child. This is a great deceit, and whilst it might be for the greater good, it seems totally at odds with the values we associate with Superman. And on that topic, let's not get started on Superman doing some superstalking and using his X-Ray vision to spy on Lois's happy home. How could they have dealt with the kid in a sequel? Kill him? Kill Richard? Have him not be Superman's son via some intricate plot device? I doubt anything would have worked well enough for audiences to buy it - either too far fetched, too sad or too ...... well, 'wrong' for want of a better word. It was one big mistake for Singer ever to include him, right from the beginning. Perhaps he went into it thinking a modern approach - indicative of the modern dysfunctional family - would make the film very relateable for audiences. It didn't. Note to Singer - we go to the movies to escape from real-life for 2 hours, not to be confronted with it. Asides from this, my other complaint with SR is that the film just lacks energy. I don't know if it's the pacing, the line deliveries or the effects - but asides from the airplane save (which was admittedly, a great scene), the film just feels like it's limping along at times. I can barely watch the full film anymore - I fast forward to the 'good bits'. So again, I find it hard to believe that Bryan Singer did so much right with X-Men, then did so much wrong with this. And I'm surprised anyone at WB signed off on this, knowing elements of the story such as the kid and the main threat (Luthor getting more land yet again). Last edited by elgaz; 04-21-2011 at 11:23 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | ||||||
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even so, being a fan of the Donner movies I couldn't help but enjoy it. Quote:
Wikipedia: "Superman was released with critical acclaim and financial success. Reviewers noted parallels between the film's depiction of Superman and Jesus." So people did notice those references in STM. Donner said that "I had life threats, because people accused me of approaching Brando as God and his son was Jesus. I literally had people saying my blood would run in the streets for doing that." Link: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...#ixzz1KBFwLLqt About the audio commentaries of the dvd: "Donner, Tom Mankiewicz and Ilya Salkind have commented on the use of Christian references to discuss the themes of Superman. Mankiewicz deliberately fostered analogies with Jor-El (God) and Kal-El (Jesus). Donner is somewhat skeptical of Mankiewicz' actions, joking "I got enough death threats because of that." Quote:
![]() ![]() There you have the crucifixion to save all people. The injury on Jesus' side. Descent from the cross. Crucifixion pose again and resurrection. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Noble Savage
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,344
|
![]()
So Superman Returns didn't work because of the audience, there was nothing wrong with the movie.
Yeah Bryan, sure there wasn't.
__________________
"Year off, got no rules, tripping off of them toadstools More green than my Whole Foods And I'm too fly: Jeff Goldblum " - Childish Gambino |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
|
![]()
I think he said he directed the movie to the wrong audience. That's admitting his own fault when selecting the target.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Powerful User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,593
|
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
A few of the Marvel Superheroes are somewhat niche characters that aren't extremely versatile, thus they don't have a lot of longevity potential. For example, Namor is a water guy, Silver Surfer is a space guy, Dr. Strange is a magic guy, and so on. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
|
![]()
Yep. Some opinions are just stinky hot air.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,782
|
![]() Quote:
Sorry but you guys feel like dictators and we cant talk about anything else anymore freely. This is a thread about why SR didnt work. What the hell am i supposed to talk here then? i thought america was the land of freedom and not policing. Im not bashing any posters or calling people's names. Im bashing Singer and the movie because he is obviously clueless about the problems of the movie. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,782
|
![]()
El payaso, the Spider-man scene has more to do with the hero's sacrifice than jesus. Its a fleeting moment in the movie and we get it. In Sr is in your face all the time. You cant possible compare Spider-man to the way Superman has wrongly been portrayed in the movies.
Superman is not and should not be a jesus allegory. He is an allegory of greek gods, moses etc. His creators were jews and did not believe in Jesus. Donner just didnt understand the character's roots also which is why am glad this new movie is going in a different direction. The difference is...In the Donner movies this is just a small problem i have with it and i can excuse it because it is was the 70's and it is a great and a fun movie with a bunch of awesome scenes. Cant say the same for SR. And every little problem I have with it becomes greater than it is because of expectations I have for a modern Superman movie and what can be done with the character after reading so many great stories in the comics. Singer never read the comics and he does not get Superman as whole. He gets on interpretation of it. The whole problem with SR is that the story is an interpretation of a interpretation of a story about Superman done in the 70's. And not a story about SM himself in modern times. The whole plot of the movie and the Luthor characterization and his land plan is simply ridiculous and doesnt work anymore. It barely did in the 70s but in 2006 both are unnaceptable and a joke. Last edited by SuperDaniel; 04-21-2011 at 07:29 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Serenity now!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 3,059
|
![]() haha... he did seem to be in and out of consciousness... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |
Your Friend In Time
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 41,473
|
![]() Quote:
You're a smart guy, if you can't understand why two moderators are calling you out, and not anybody else talking about the same thing...then I don't know what to tell you. It is a privilege to post on this forum. Not a right. If you want to continue to argue with moderators on the forum, about forum policy, you're just continuing to do more of the same. As I already said, which should be more than clear, it's not what you're talking about but how you're talking about it. Your most recent post, perfectly fine. I'm sure I won't get PMs from your fellow posters complaining about it because it's actual debate. I think where done talking about this...take the hint.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
The Spider-Totem Awakens
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oklahoma, US
Posts: 8,852
|
![]()
I love Superman Returns. But Bryan Singer doesn't sound like he knows anything about Superman.
![]() Why the heck didn't this man make X-Men 3?! ![]()
__________________
Keep Hope Alive: Fox's days are numbered. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Your Friend In Time
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 41,473
|
![]()
Looking back at all of this, he probably should have.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
The World's Finest
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In the Sage's lair
Posts: 47,068
|
![]()
Though if SR hadn't happened, would the movie we're getting now have been made?
__________________
Everyone brings joy to this forum. Some by coming in. Some by going out... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | ||||
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
|
![]() Quote:
How was it different? Or did Superman say "This I do it in the name of Jesus"? No. It was Superman's sacrifice and no one else's. The train scene fleeting? No, you're not getting it. All the time? He makes a crucifixion pose for 10 seconds and that's all the time? In fact Spiderman makes the crucifixion pose far more time than Superman. Quote:
What's the difference then? Bias. Quote:
Moses, yay. Jesus, nay. Thing is both Biblical characters are compartable to Superman. Jesus has as many or even more similitudes than Moses. So, why one and not the other exactly? Care to explain? And I'm sure Stan Lee didn't believe that Frankenstein or Jekyll & Hyde were real, nevertheless he used those references for Hulk. Quote:
Yes, that's why it's a sequel. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |
Banned User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The place in between...
Posts: 10,149
|
![]() Quote:
But I thought it was pointless, and somewhat lazy, to just rehash Donner's films and themes and what not. Plus, the execution was lacking. Superman himself was poorly characterised, Lois Lane was terrible. And it just didn't have that WOW factor that the first two Superman movies have even to this day. Like i said, why not just make a new version? I honestly believe if they did create a new vision for Superman instead of pandering to Donner's films, we'd be getter a sequel right now instead of a reboot. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,782
|
![]()
El payaso, if you think Spider-man has been portrayed as a jesus allegory on the same level Superman has been in the movies, theres nothing more to be said about the subject.
Its one scene in spider-man (done much better in that movie than in SR) versus the whole characterization of krypton, jor-el and Superman. Plus, the jesus allegory is just one of the minor problems. Its not the fact that they used it because superman has those connections but its the fact that they ONLY used that interpretation and whenever Singer talks about Superman, he talks about it. He clearly doesnt know the comics or the character at all to me or has a interpretation of the character that didnt sit well with a lot of fans and even the general public. My big problem with the movie is The whole plot that simply doesnt work, the luthor scheme is ridiculous, superman is out of character by spying on lois, breaking up families, lois lane being horrible characterized also. He got the foundations of the superman story wrong. Superman, lois and luthor. I dont like the whole story of the movie. That simply isnt Superman to me. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Banned User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In Superman's arms
Posts: 54,628
|
![]()
The spying thing is funny to bring up and it is a very curious scene but I think that it's talked about far too much. It's not even in my top 100 list of problems with the film.
After five years of talking about it I guess I can say that my main problem with the movie besides the rehashing was the film's complete lack of energy. It's just a fairly boring movie in almost every way. If all of those strange plot points would have been in an exciting more I think that Superman 3 would be coming out this summer. Singer isn't as good as a director as he believes IMHO. He isn't good enough to make a down to earth Superman movie with no physical threat, exciting or interesting enough. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |||||
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
|
![]() Quote:
But no, not at the same level but it's there if you want to believe it's there. With Uncle Ben giving Peter guidance ala Jor-El, through lucid dreams, both Peter and Ben sitting in the middle of a heavenly white surrounding. Quote:
[/DEJA VÙ] Quote:
Quote:
Lois Lane is also modelled after Kidder's take, selfish and ambitious. Sequel. Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
IKYN Guy Groupie
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 80,970
|
![]()
It seems to me like he's saying, "Its the audience's fault, they didn't get it!" I never like when directors go that route to justify a bad box office. Its too easy. Look internally. SR got some things right (the plane scene, for example). But it also got a lot wrong. Singer should look internally, see what he did wrong and try to grow as a filmmaker from that. Blaming the audience is just a cop out.
Last edited by Matt; 04-23-2011 at 10:01 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|