Singer, Sequels, Originality, Vision

[bosef982]

I'm going to address a few things I'm reading on here concerning Superman Returns relationship to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and also concerns over how the plot points function to those movies and, if at all, how they mimic, copy, or what not from those movie's overall scripts.

Someone wrote that Singer was damned the day he made this movie. I agree. Superman is so universal to interpret the character succinctly and to everyone's satisifaction (or even a great deal of everyone's) is entirely impossible. The origin tale, as some want, is completely ridiculous. Between Smallville and Superman: The Movie, it is true that re-telling Superman's tell would prove redundant, unneccessary, and simply bad storytelling.

Superman functions as a figure, a collective archetype that resonates with everyone and whom with everyone's familiar. Superman: The Movie was a patently successful realization of Superman as a character, imbuing the mythology with higher, more serious Judeo-Christian archetypes and messages that solidified Superman's reputation as the Superhero Savior. Singer recognizes this, and just as it'd make no sense for someone to re-film Star Wars: The New Hope, it'd make no sense for Singer to retread ground covered in a film seen by almost anyone, or easily obtained should someone need to see it.

Even if the re-telling functioned as a sort of Mark Waid Birthright, it'd be unfullfilling. It'd have tones of been there, done that. Smallville is Birthright in many respects, and to see it again transfered to the screen is, as my point on this argument are, redundant. It's unneccessary. It's known.

But then people say Singer has no vision, no originality b/c he's linked this film to those. Why not? Why not use what Superman: The Movie as your template, especially if it does contain many successful elements. Superman II even contains great elements that can be harness for future use. Simply linking your films to previous versions is not a lack of originality, not totally redoing the established template is HUMILITY and respect, and in some ways requires much more creativity since you must now make that character function within THAT world, and not one where the convienece of total creation is at your fingertips.

In any respect, Superman Returns is already showing massive qualities of Singer's own directorial vision improving upon Donner's designs. Metropolis is redefined, a art-deco fantasty towering on the East Coast, timeless and austere. Superman looks fantastic, with a more alien atmosphere being brought to him in his space clothing and even his new costume. Not to mention, Superman's exploration of his homeworld is something altogether abandoned in SUperman II, even with Zod and them arriving. Superman II focuses on Superman forgoing his heritage for human love. Singer's pulling away from that, focusing on Superman and his heritage and Superman wanting to know where he's from. This alreayd insinuates a new vision that is much more emotional than things seen before.

Luthor is not the Donner/Lester Luthor. This has already been established. Anyone stating the otherwise is simply just closing their eyes. From stabbing Superman viciously, to his gang plummelling Superman, to his schemes and now his wealth, this is a much more viewable, arrogant, and psychotic Luthor than ever before. The mixture of humor, rage, jealously, and insanity should make Luthor a true well-rounded character, something never gotten from Hackman's version.

But what of Luthor's plan? So he's using Kryptonian technology to create a gigantic continent. Sounds like Superman: The Movie? In ways, yes. However, what villian doesn't always sound the same. Magneto is always attempting to destroy humanity and gain mutant rights. Green Goblin is always attempting to destroy Spider-Man. Joker is psychoticlly trying to test Batman, Two-Face as well, Poison Ivy the environmentalist. That's because these people are characters and these characters have goals and dreams. Luthor is world-domination, however now its mixed up with this rabid hatred for Superman and this ultra-pretenious humanist aspect.

However, in another thread, I already explored why Luthor wanting land is a viable and realistic aim for any meglomaniac and any character who should represent the base desires of humanity, as Luthor should contrast and juxtapose Superman's ultra-idealistic and moralistic take on what humanity should be. For more on that, find my Luthor, Land, and Evil thread.

Either way, Superman Returns is already showing an enormous amount of vision and origianlity -- and I'm not even touching the Lois Lane relationship dynamic, which is the most controversial and most unique and original aspect of the film. It is funny how the same people who deride the film's alleged triteness also critique Singer's approach to Lois/Superman/Richard/kid.

That right there is an inherent example of how people force Singer into a corner. In fact, they build the corner, the house, shove Singer in that house, and then push him into the corner.

[true316]

Good post! I agree that Singer has taken on a MAJOR challenge with this movie. I wish him the best and hope that it turns out well!

[Ita-KalEl]

I think that we have a movie that will improve the character in the comics.

[Hunter Rider]

I don't really agree but nicely written Bo

[The Game]

Nice read Bosef, but I don't personally see any Originality or Vision

[Cinemaman]

Intersting theory.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by bosef982

I'm going to address a few things I'm reading on here concerning Superman Returns relationship to Superman: The Movie and Superman II, and also concerns over how the plot points function to those movies and, if at all, how they mimic, copy, or what not from those movie's overall scripts.

Someone wrote that Singer was damned the day he made this movie. I agree. Superman is so universal to interpret the character succinctly and to everyone's satisifaction (or even a great deal of everyone's) is entirely impossible. The origin tale, as some want, is completely ridiculous. Between Smallville and Superman: The Movie, it is true that re-telling Superman's tell would prove redundant, unneccessary, and simply bad storytelling.

Superman functions as a figure, a collective archetype that resonates with everyone and whom with everyone's familiar. Superman: The Movie was a patently successful realization of Superman as a character, imbuing the mythology with higher, more serious Judeo-Christian archetypes and messages that solidified Superman's reputation as the Superhero Savior. Singer recognizes this, and just as it'd make no sense for someone to re-film Star Wars: The New Hope, it'd make no sense for Singer to retread ground covered in a film seen by almost anyone, or easily obtained should someone need to see it.

Even if the re-telling functioned as a sort of Mark Waid Birthright, it'd be unfullfilling. It'd have tones of been there, done that. Smallville is Birthright in many respects, and to see it again transfered to the screen is, as my point on this argument are, redundant. It's unneccessary. It's known.

But then people say Singer has no vision, no originality b/c he's linked this film to those. Why not? Why not use what Superman: The Movie as your template, especially if it does contain many successful elements. Superman II even contains great elements that can be harness for future use. Simply linking your films to previous versions is not a lack of originality, not totally redoing the established template is HUMILITY and respect, and in some ways requires much more creativity since you must now make that character function within THAT world, and not one where the convienece of total creation is at your fingertips.

In any respect, Superman Returns is already showing massive qualities of Singer's own directorial vision improving upon Donner's designs. Metropolis is redefined, a art-deco fantasty towering on the East Coast, timeless and austere. Superman looks fantastic, with a more alien atmosphere being brought to him in his space clothing and even his new costume. Not to mention, Superman's exploration of his homeworld is something altogether abandoned in SUperman II, even with Zod and them arriving. Superman II focuses on Superman forgoing his heritage for human love. Singer's pulling away from that, focusing on Superman and his heritage and Superman wanting to know where he's from. This alreayd insinuates a new vision that is much more emotional than things seen before.

Luthor is not the Donner/Lester Luthor. This has already been established. Anyone stating the otherwise is simply just closing their eyes. From stabbing Superman viciously, to his gang plummelling Superman, to his schemes and now his wealth, this is a much more viewable, arrogant, and psychotic Luthor than ever before. The mixture of humor, rage, jealously, and insanity should make Luthor a true well-rounded character, something never gotten from Hackman's version.

But what of Luthor's plan? So he's using Kryptonian technology to create a gigantic continent. Sounds like Superman: The Movie? In ways, yes. However, what villian doesn't always sound the same. Magneto is always attempting to destroy humanity and gain mutant rights. Green Goblin is always attempting to destroy Spider-Man. Joker is psychoticlly trying to test Batman, Two-Face as well, Poison Ivy the environmentalist. That's because these people are characters and these characters have goals and dreams. Luthor is world-domination, however now its mixed up with this rabid hatred for Superman and this ultra-pretenious humanist aspect.

However, in another thread, I already explored why Luthor wanting land is a viable and realistic aim for any meglomaniac and any character who should represent the base desires of humanity, as Luthor should contrast and juxtapose Superman's ultra-idealistic and moralistic take on what humanity should be. For more on that, find my Luthor, Land, and Evil thread.

Either way, Superman Returns is already showing an enormous amount of vision and origianlity -- and I'm not even touching the Lois Lane relationship dynamic, which is the most controversial and most unique and original aspect of the film. It is funny how the same people who deride the film's alleged triteness also critique Singer's approach to Lois/Superman/Richard/kid.

That right there is an inherent example of how people force Singer into a corner. In fact, they build the corner, the house, shove Singer in that house, and then push him into the corner.

I completely disagree and I just skimed the post. Sounds to me like Singer can do no wrong in your eyes.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by The Game

Nice read Bosef, but I don't personally see any Originality or Vision

Me neither...then again I didn't see any in X-men or X2...yes, you read that right fanboys/girls.

[DorkyFresh]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Sounds to me like Singer can do no wrong in your eyes.

what's "wrong" and what's "right" is really just a matter of opinion...

there's no "wrong" or "right" when it comes to Superman or any other superhero unless it's blatant or unfaithful (black suit, alien Lex, etc.)

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by DorkyFresh

what's "wrong" and what's "right" is really just a matter of opinion...

there's no "wrong" or "right" when it comes to Superman or any other superhero unless it's blatant or unfaithful (black suit, alien Lex, etc.)

"Wrong" would be sucky Super-changes that make a sucky superman movie.

[DorkyFresh]

sucky super-changes to you might be great changes to someone else.....once again, it's all a matter of opinion....

....no "right" or "wrong".

[C. Lee]

Opinions

They are plentiful and varied as the stars in the sky
Some make you laugh....some make you cry
Some are so profound they make you ponder and think
Some are so bad they quite literally stink
Some are awe inspiring with thier wonderful insight
Some are expressed just to start a fight
So here's the info to put your bickering to rest


Your opinion means nothing because mine's the best

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Opinions

They are plentiful and varied as the stars in the sky
Some make you laugh....some make you cry
Some are so profound they make you ponder and think
Some are so bad they quite literally stink
Some are awe inspiring with thier wonderful insight
Some are expressed just to start a fight
So here's the info to put your bickering to rest


Your opinion means nothing because mine's the best

LOL.

[The Kid]

We'll see how it goes... The pseudo sequel idea could work marvelously or it could be Batman Forever (luthor reminds me of the ruthlessly psychotic two face from that film actually): doomed to be the franchise's funny little step-child that's neither truly loved or truly hated by all.

[lujho]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Opinions

They are plentiful and varied as the stars in the sky
Some make you laugh....some make you cry
Some are so profound they make you ponder and think
Some are so bad they quite literally stink
Some are awe inspiring with thier wonderful insight
Some are expressed just to start a fight
So here's the info to put your bickering to rest


Your opinion means nothing because mine's the best

No, mine is. Really.

[Metropolis_Man]

Nice post bo. I agree with a lot of your points. Anyone doing a Superman movie would have a giant amount of pressure upon them. And to be honest, through all this bickering, I think Singer is giving us the best movie possible, compared to all the falied attempts and information we've had about previous scripts. This is my opinion and that only.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Your opinion means nothing because mine's the best

I disagree with your opinion that your opinion is better than my opinion. In my opinion, my opinion is better than your opinion. Since my opinion is always right, my opinion must be right. Thus your opinion is wrong, IMHO.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I completely disagree and I just skimed the post. Sounds to me like Singer can do no wrong in your eyes.

Maybe you should read the whole post instead of simply skimming?

Sounds to me like Singer can do no right in your eyes, going by your post history.

[C. Lee]

Originally Posted by SolidSnakeMGS

I disagree with your opinion that your opinion is better than my opinion. In my opinion, my opinion is better than your opinion. Since my opinion is always right, my opinion must be right. Thus your opinion is wrong, IMHO.

[bosef982]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Yep.


To SPIDEY,

Singer can do wrong in my eyes.

X-Men 1, to me, was a compromise at best with what the film should be. Singer himself even admits that. X2 is a great film, but suffers towards the end with the disjointed editing of the Dark Cerebro effects on everyone.

The Cyclops/Jean fight should've been longer, and their relationship is barely felt due to the lack of development in their characters. However, it pays off in the end due to the overly emotional scene.

The White House ending is sort of cheesy.

Magnetos' breakout is cool up until his King Tut pose.

They never adequately explain exactly how Magnet stopped Cerebro, or how rearranging panels inside would change the polarity of the machine to target humans, and how Magneto would know any of this on his own time, despite building it.

They never really resolve Magneto's disappearing at the end, and show no reaction to his entire plans be thwarted by Xavier.

In X1, a huge logical fallacy occurs when Logan jumps down into the machine that was spinning only moments before with thick rings that he later, after somehow jumping in between them, manages to strike and use to destroy the machine.

What was he thinking with Halle Berry? Nevermind her wig and accent?

The flames should've scoarched the police in X2 when Pyro was wielding them.

Singer can do wrong in my eyes. But his directorial vision and the way he handles things, and the overall quality of his movies, stand out to me far above many director today.

That's all.

And I utterly dispise, as much as I can without seeing the film, the idea of Superman having a child. However, within the context of the film, it could work. The idea of having Magneto attempt to mutate all the world leaders sounded lame at first ,as did Doc Ock being controlled by the tentacles, as did many of the aspects of Batman Begins. However, in execution, they worked.

[The Kid]

Jesus, lee that gave me a heart attack and almost killed me. You almost killed someone...

Ok back to the thread....

hmm, what to type... what to type...

Well it's pretty clear Singer's borrowing a lot from the first movie. Creativity? I think the most original thing about this movie is my favorite new character, Jason Lane, the potential Son of Superman. He'll add an interesting new and exciting element in the mythos. What more could any fan ask?

I somewhat disagree with the idea that a new origin story wouldn't be acceptable and just redundant. Nolan gave it a shot and it was a good enough springboard into a new batman franchise. Not everyone in the world loves Reeve or his superman movie and it is old and ended a long time ago. Smallville's on its way out soon as well so I think that a new incarnation of the myth would have worked marvelously similar to begins'. Though that's not to say Singer's pseudo sequel won't. As a member of G.S.A.C., I'm giving Singer a chance he's earned from entertaining my undeserving ass with his previous two superhero movies. Don't dissapoint me or I'll be angry and complain a bit, then find something else to do afterwards like fly a kite I guess...

heh

[C. Lee]

Originally Posted by Wesyeed

Jesus, lee that gave me a heart attack and almost killed me. You almost killed someone...

Like your avatar doesn't do the same thing.

[DorkyFresh]

Originally Posted by Wesyeed

I somewhat disagree with the idea that a new origin story wouldn't be acceptable and just redundant. Nolan gave it a shot and it was a good enough springboard into a new batman franchise.

yeah, but Batman's origins had never been fully told in the movies....not to mention Batman was in SERIOUS need of a restart....

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Like your avatar doesn't do the same thing.

It works? Not for me though... Through my browser, I just see Jason's head on a pink background. I orignally made it flash all sorts of colors as was suggested by Mentok, but when I uploaded it, it wasn't animated anymore.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by DorkyFresh

yeah, but Batman's origins had never been fully told in the movies....not to mention Batman was in SERIOUS need of a restart....

eh serious...yeah... those sequels were terrible like superman 3 and 4 but the origin in 89 worked well enough for me... I like my batman to be a mysterious emo guy rather than just regular emo guy who knows kung fu ... it makes him more interesting to me.

I think itd have been interesting to see superman's origin based closely on the comics similar to the cartoon, maybe have superman face someone new instead of luthor for the... what is it? this the third or fourth time? eh, just something else from his history as a comic making it to film for the first time for a change. My idea would be to have him face brainiac maybe or bizarro or....can't think of anymore... Nothing beats brando's Jor-el or Reeve's portrayal so it'd be a hell of an uphill battle from the start, unlike begins which was pretty much up against a danny elfman's score, burton's batworld's design, and keaton's batman... and it succeeded in surpassing none of them, I think but still was a good movie anyway.