Superman Returns AICN has an early review!

[Mentok]

"Boy, what a loser this Superman guy is, huh? Knocks up this chick, discovers some other dude's raising him as his son, then decides to hang around in disguise so he can fantasise about being with her and his kid!"

Hardly a super scenario, eh?

In fact, haven't Singer and co. ripped off Mrs Doubtfire?

Yeah, real loser. He puts the needs of others before his own.

 

[Desk]

I think you gotta understand this from Superman's perspective...

And I'll reiterate my argument that it doesn't matter that the fictional character is blameless for the situation he finds himself in... the scenario as conceived by the writers remains embarassing and ignominious.

Imagine this - through events outside his control Superman finds himself repeatedly covered in cow manure during the course of the film...

Would it be the character's fault for ending up in this humiliating and inappropriate position? No - it's the fault of the writers for deciding to place him in it.

 

[Paul-el]

Paul-el... long time no see...

Yeah, I've been busy with a lot of writing and schoolwork. How you been?

 

[Paul-el]

And I'll reiterate my argument that it doesn't matter that the fictional character is blameless for the situation he finds himself in... the scenario as conceived by the writers remains embarassing and ignominious.

Imagine this - through events outside his control Superman finds himself repeatedly covered in cow manure during the course of the film...

Would it be the character's fault for ending up in this humiliating and inappropriate position? No - it's the fault of the writers for deciding to place him in it.

And that's a very valid point, but think about this...

Everyone was bashing the production team for giving Spidey organic web shooters, but they didn't complain as much after seeing the film.

My point is, things that sound horrible on a message board don't necessarily reflect the movie itself onscreen. Let's wait it out and see what happens.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

What is written is translated quite different when put on film.

 

[Paul-el]

Yes, Robo, I agree

 

[Venom71]

Yeah, real loser. He puts the needs of others before his own.

"The Needs Of The Many OutWeigh The Needs Of The Few....Or The One."

 

[Mentok]

ROFL


Gotta love Spock

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Yes, Robo, I agree

 

[Showtime]

If you watch a film and then go back and read the script, whether the first draft or the final shooting script, it always reads much differently than it appears on film.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

While I never like Byrne's take on Superman, or the movement in the comics to get Superman and Lois married, I do like the fact that Superman has an internal struggle. I don't want Superman to be untarnished and completely perfect. There is no drama in perfection. I enjoy the Superman in Kingdom Come and Man for all Seasons because he is flawed with human frailties. He makes mistakes. But that doesn't mean his intentions aren't good.

I think that there is a delicate balance that writer's have to walk when they tackle Superman. Either you make him unrelatable and a 24/7 cop. Or you try to give him a personal life. Sometimes it works. Other times not so much. We can never forget that even though he is Kryptonian, he was raised by human parents. But that's always been the attraction of the character to me. He's a God but has the frailties of a human.

And it's funny that you bring up Superman 2. That's the one where Superman decided to completely give up his powers for Lois and a chance of love, isn't it? Seems to me the most human act capable for the character.

Yes, but the thing is, and perhaps this is my creative mind speaking here, but Superman from my understand of the Reeves movies, with all of his powers still had to sacrifice alot of things to do what is right for humanity's best interests. He realizes that he cannot share his life with Lois in Superman 2 because of A.) the immense danger he put her in. B.) the fact he is the savior of Earth and humanity itself. If Superman were involved with any one woman, not just Lois, his responsibilities to his family and to humanity would clash. Maybe this is what Singer is going for, but that doesn't mean I agree 100% with it. Superman is not so much just a superhero from a silly comic book. He's a symbol of what humanity can be if they put away all their petty foibles. How can he be a symbol to humanity if he embraces human weaknesses? I just don't think anyone in this day and age of dark heroes and PC crap realizes the depth of Superman's character past his God-like powers. He's not a human nor should he behave like one in every aspect. He was sent here by Jor-El to enlighten humanity on the path of what is good and pure, not assimilate himself as a human with all of our weaknesses and petty emotions.

*edit* P.S. Oh, and I do have to add this, but if I want to watch a Superhero movie where the main hero(s) have character flaws, I'll watch the X-Men movies or the Fantastic Four. I just don't think character flaws should be attributed to Superman.

 

[Showtime]

The immense danger he would put her in. B. the fact he is the savior of Earth and humanity itself. If uperman were involved with any one woman, not just Lois, his responsibilities to his family and to humanity would clash. maybe this is what singer is going for, but that doesn't mean I agree 100% with it. Superman is not so much just a superhero from a silly comic book. he's a symbol of what humanity can be if they put away all their petty foibles. How can he be a symbol to humanity if he embraces these human weaknesses? I just don't think anyone in this day and age of dark heroes and PC crap realizes the depth of Superman's character past his God-like powers. He's not a human nor should he behave like one in every aspect. He was sent here by Jor-El to enlighten humanity on the path of what is good and pure, not assimilate himself as a human with all of our weaknesses and petty emotions.

Thats the best part of it, Superman can't be entirely God-Like or flawless because he was raised as and by human beings. That is the point of his troubles, he can't balance between his human-like emotions and God-like tendencies. He wouldn't have turned back time in STM if he didn't have those human like feelings for Lois. He wouldn't have given his powers away in Superman 2 if he didn't have this human like emotion. It makes for good theater, do we want a robotic like Superman?

 

[afan]

Hmmmmmm.........

We are all working on the premise based on this AICN review that Superman is the father of the child, but still I'm not so sure.............

From the review:

"He’s(Singer)given Lois Lane not only a boyfriend, but a child! On paper, that sounds AWFUL. Lois lane? A mother! WHAT! Well yeah, that’s how it is, if your really narrow minded. What the child does is cement the fact that lois has MOVED ON.........."

Exactly how if the child is Superman's does that cement the fact that Lois has moved on?

Again from the review:

"And ya know, Im not dumb. The fans know Superman is the kids father. But in the movie it is not bad. Your almost wishing he is the father, just because you know he is supposed to be with Lois."

Very curious wording. Is it clearly stated in SR or is it something that "fans" would infer. The reviewer seems to be saying that based on his knowledge of the character he gets it( kid's father ) while the film may not actually reveal it.
Is there, even with this review, still room for reasonable parentage doubt????

 

[The Guard]

"Boy, what a loser this Superman guy is, huh? Knocks up this chick, discovers some other dude's raising him as his son, then decides to hang around in disguise so he can fantasise about being with her and his kid!"

Hardly a super scenario, eh?

In fact, haven't Singer and co. ripped off Mrs Doubtfire?

No, because he's not disguising himself as a woman. Using a plot point that happens to have been used elsewhere is not "ripping off" something. Or did you think MRS. DOUBTFIRE pioneered the idea of the father trying to get closer to his kids after seperation/divorce?

And I'll reiterate my argument that it doesn't matter that the fictional character is blameless for the situation he finds himself in... the scenario as conceived by the writers remains embarassing and ignominious.

It's embarassing in the sense that it prevents a complication and an obstacle in Clark's life, but not neccessarily in the broader definition of the word.
This sort of thing happens all the time in the real world, and isn't neccessarily always humiliating or inappropriate there.

[How can he be a symbol to humanity if he embraces human weaknesses?

Who says he even WANTS to be a symbol to humanity, especially after he leaves and they all move on without him? And who's to know? It's not like he's not going around telling humanity he has a son out of wedlock that he didn't know about.

I just don't think anyone in this day and age of dark heroes and PC crap realizes the depth of Superman's character past his God-like powers. He's not a human nor should he behave like one in every aspect. He was sent here by Jor-El to enlighten humanity on the path of what is good and pure, not assimilate himself as a human with all of our weaknesses and petty emotions.

And the Kents raising him as a human being should have no bearing on his humanity? He's every bit as human as you or I in his emotional makeup. He lived as humans do, in a human society, for years, and continues to do so, despite having powers.

*edit* P.S. Oh, and I do have to add this, but if I want to watch a Superhero movie where the main hero(s) have character flaws, I'll watch the X-Men movies or the Fantastic Four. I just don't think character flaws should be attributed to Superman.

Clark Kent essentially LIED to Lois Lane about being Superman for DECADES. Last time I checked, lying is a character flaw, despite his intentions. So, he already has shown character flaws. But with good intentions. Maybe, just maybe, the same holds true here?

You have sex with a woman. Unprotected sex at that. Then you immediately leave, without as much as an explanation (as evidenced in the trailer and various sources). I ask you this - is that the work of a nice man?

Unprotected sex does not always lead to conception. Especially between to different species.

You're making it sound like he just up and left the day after SUPERMAN II. You know what likely happened? Time passed, and he was still in love with Lois, and she was still in love with Superman, and he realized they couldn't be together for the same reasons he realized in SUPERMAN II. And then he left on a mission to seek out Krypton for whatever reason (Luthor?), not realizing how long he would be gone.

Rally cry of the absentee father. "I...I didn't know she was pregnant!"

Sometimes it's true.

Should he try impregnating one before he knows for sure?

Did he even ejaculate when they had sex? I mean, hell, as long as we're going to micromanage this plot point, let's think about where Lois was in her conception stage, and about how strong Kryptonian sperm are when they are made human...

It's the birds and the bees. If you haved unprotected sex, you should be mindful of the possible outcome. And you should be prepared for it. Are you saying Clark is stupid enough not to know how that all works?

Yes, but he had unprotected sex in 1980 something, when awareness wasn't...

This is just getting ridiculous. But you know what? Maybe he DID use some kind of protection. Maybe it didn't work. We didn't exactly SEE their sex scene.

We know how he left it with Lois. He didn't. In the trailer, her first question: "Why did you leave?" He didn't tell her anything. He just left.

Then think about this for a second. Either he didn't know he was going to be gone as long as he was, or he left because he can't BE with her and lead a normal life. Is he supposed to tell her that right before he leaves?

Well, thank God that the governments of most developed countries disagree with you.

There's a difference in Superman knowingly not supporting his child, and not supporting a child he didn't know he had. It's entirely possible, if it's his, that even Lois thinks it's Richard's. Stranger things have happened, after all.

Naive and flawed does not mean morally bankrupt.

How do you get "morally bankrupt" from removing yourself from a woman's life that you care about and don't want to hurt when you have no idea that she's pregnant?

I want to see Superman in a love triangle with Lois, fight Luthor's nefarious new plot, do awesome stuff, inspire me, and put it to bed. That was the beautiful simplicity of Donner's vision of Superman, and it worked incredibly well.

And you will see all that and more in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I don't want to relate to Superman. I want to be inspired by him.

And you can't be inspired by someone who has made mistakes?

Yes. Which is why they don't explore the reality of irresponsibility of unprotected sex or being an absentee father.

He has a point.

 

[Desk]

No, because he's not disguising himself as a woman. Using a plot point that happens to have been used elsewhere is not "ripping off" something. Or did you think MRS. DOUBTFIRE pioneered the idea of the father trying to get closer to his kids after seperation/divorce?

You know, I wasn't being entirely serious with that allegation... perhaps I should have stuck on a smiley for the benefit of those without a sense of whimsy.

Saying that, I did find the concept of a man disguising himself as someone else in order to lurk around his ex-wife and kids a little seedy and unsettling in Mrs Doubtfire, and the essential premise doesn't seem to be too far removed from what we'll see in Superman Returns.

And you can't be inspired by someone who has made mistakes?

The problem is that he no longer lives up to his billing.

Perhaps he should change his name to Averageman or Flawedman... Mopeyabsenteefatherman? - please note the smiley!!

 

[Mentok]

Perhaps he should change his name to Averageman or Flawedman... Mopeyabsenteefatherman? - please note the smiley!!

I choose to ignore your smiley of peace and argue with you about how a character should be depicted in film.


Note my Smiley of rage --->

 

[bosef982]

If Superman is too perfect, the character is unrelatble, static, and fails. Take Screenwriting 101 and get back to us.

Two, the only thing that I'm kind of "what" about is that Superman's suppose to go to the hospital but the review mentions nothing of it!

 

[The Guard]

Agreed. Incredibly poorly written review for supposedly being so "spoilerish".

 

[Hunter Rider]

If Superman is too perfect, the character is unrelatble, static, and fails. Take Screenwriting 101 and get back to us.

There was plenty of relatble elements in there already without the kid

 

[Bad Superman]

There was plenty of relatble elements in there already without the kid

What he said.

 

[Showtime]

If Superman is too perfect, the character is unrelatble, static, and fails. Take Screenwriting 101 and get back to us.

Two, the only thing that I'm kind of "what" about is that Superman's suppose to go to the hospital but the review mentions nothing of it!

Are you a screenwriter? If not, it's hard to tell somebody to read up on something you know nothing about.

Maybe the kid plotline is to make the character of Superman even more relatable. I think that Superman was a relatable character on screen as far back as STM.

You are right about the hospital scene, there has been no mention, no video or photos since the early photo evidence.

 

[Octoberist]

I can't imagine WHY Singer would incude the kid. Imagine..you're the one who will bring back Superman to the big screen. And you include a Kid, which is basically a plot device.

I hate kids in sequels. I hate them. Look at the Mummy Returns.

The only movie that handled it well (well, he wasn't an offspring though) was Shortround in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

 

[The Guard]

I'm pretty much just going to wait and see what the kid's purpose in the story is, and how well done it is. I'm pretty sure it's more than "a plot point" or "pointless drama". I'm praying Singer makes it "The kid who flew with Superman" style of story. I'd love to see that on the big screen.

 

[Tzigone]

Look at the Mummy Returns.

I must be the only one here who loves The Mummy Returns. I mean, the first movie is pretty good, but I much prefer the second one. And I'm not the only one (I know my sister agrees with me). I'll admit a large part of the reason that it works though, is because it's comedic and fun, too.

Of course, I'm used to be in the minority. I don't like T2 very much at all, but love the first movie.

 

[Octoberist]

Liking THe Mummy Returns and not liking T2? You're a crazy man, Tzigone.