Can Superman Be Saved?
In 1978, director Richard Donners Superman: The Movie was released to box office glory (300 million dollars worldwide), to critical praise (A pure delight critic Robert Ebert called it), and to more prestigious awards (a special achievement Oscar and three other nominations) than any other superhero movie before it.
Superman: The Movie was not a manufactured hit. It was meant to be an innovative film, a spectaclea cinematic circus that would convince moviegoers that a man can fly. Along with George Lucas Star Wars, Superman: The Movie was pioneering the trend of the big budget, out-of-this-world action feature. The world of the late 1970s did not refuse to believe a man could fly, but everyone doubted if he could really sell tickets. The movie was a 55 million dollar gamble; not only because the production costs were as high as a typical movies total gross, but because to audiences of the late 1970s, comic book movies were Adam West and Burt Ward starring in Batman: The Series. A risky film like Star Wars was all but censored from the studio systems for daring to present action and science-fiction rather than sobering character study, and well, that movie at least had costumes, aliens and spaceships that could keep the kids happy. A film like Superman had only one thing going for it: outrageous visual effects taking place in a very real world. If the effects were unconvincing, it would be a bomb. If there were no substance to the story, the critics would lambaste the film, and the whole idea of the big budget superhero movie would be shot down by a Deer Hunter.
Nearly twenty years later, we look back in history and see Superman: The Movie not only as a tremendous success, but also as the continuing golden standard held by Hollywood by which all comic book movies should be. And come to think of it, not just comic book movies, but all movies released by a major studio are required to adhere to that standard. While not every protagonist is demanded to have superpowers, the more explosions, the more fantastic visual effects, the more action, the better. The fact that Hollywood now shoves superhero movies down the movie going publics throat, is surprisingly reminiscent of Flavius Theodosius making Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.
The paradox now unfortunately, is that no matter how faithful an adaptation a comic book movie is to its original source, no matter how convincing the visual effects are, comic book movies are no longer a novelty, and amazing superhero scenes are no longer a great achievement. Critics, along with the movie going public, no longer consider the visual or audio effects of a movie to be a movies greatest strength. Figuratively speaking, visual effects are cheap, compared to a really powerful story behind all the action.
In 2006, Director Bryan Singer of X-Men fame, will attempt to return The Man Of Steel to his prominent, alpha-superhero role, and hopes to restore the Superman franchise to the same prominence the 1978 debut ambitiously claimed. He will attempt to do the impossible and convince millions of moviegoers, not that a man can fly (by now we have seen dozens of flying men) but that we can actually care about such a bland blue-suited character with a 1950s red cape, already seeming to be severely out of touch with the Google Generation. (That is, the generation after the Generation-Xers)
Bryan Singer, and presumably many studio executives, are hoping that supplying Superman Returns with a good story and lots of human drama (perhaps even a heartfelt love story?) will complement its visual achievements nicely, and that audiences will once again embrace the legend, proving once and for all its not style but substance that makes a hit.
And if Bryan Singer goes this predictably unpredictable route, then Superman Returns will NOT be an overwhelming hit. It wont even begin to tug at the cape of the original 1978 film and its groundbreaking achievement.
The well meaning film may recover some of its costs and possibly, at the most, revive the franchise for a few more disappointing sequels. But Bryan Singer, as a true auteur, must realize what made Superman: The Movie truly a hit: that film, dared to be different. There was no set standard to follow, there were few precedents that could be referred to and there was no blueprint on how to make the perfect superhero movie.
Yet Richard Donner proved himself a ringmaster, a true showman of cinema, and with Superman: The Movie bedazzled a captive audience. He made a lot of promises; he delivered a new vision; he attempted and succeeded at doing things on screen that audiences had never seen before. And Richard Donners vision was theatrical in every sense of the word.
Marlon Brando was paid over 4 million dollars for an 8 minute performance. Gene Hackman chose to wear a series of ridiculous wigs rather than present Lex Luthor as an obviously bald madman. Mario Puzo of Godfather fame wrote the script. The dialogue was at once light-hearted and artsy. Lois Lanes romantic super-flight across the sky featured a number called Can You Read My Mind, a song without any music and sounding more like a poem read by Margot Kidder. Lex Luthors bad guy female assistant stole a kiss from the Man Of Steel just as hes dying of Kryptonite, correctly assuming she would never get the chance again after saving him. Finally, just when the real world collided with fantasy and Lois Lane met an untimely death, how did Superman save the day? Why of course, he circled the earth at light-speed, reversed the axis and rewound time itself.
Superman: The Movie had delusions of grandeur. It was truly a movie motivated by imagination. Not by visual effects, nor by emotional story telling. Only a truly ambitious filmmaker could have produced a finished result so fulgurous. Bryan Singer, who earned his reputation with the pulp 1995 crime thriller The Usual Suspects, certainly is an ambitious and imaginative auteur. Not surprisingly, he revitalized X-Men and produced a successful franchise that continues to thrive even despite losing directorial talent. (Brett Ratner, anyone? No? He made Rush Hour. Ohhh how unfortunate)
However, Bryan Singers approach to revitalizing Superman at this point in time sounds rather misguided. He is planning this movie as a direct sequel to the Superman franchise of the 70s and 80s starring all new faces with a familiar suit and with a script from preferred X-Men scribes Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty. Obviously, the cast has been rehired and kept forever young. The story follows continuity left behind in the movie, and brings out new scenes involving old characters, which of course look none too familiar 20 years later. The film allegedly contains over 1000 visual effects shots. The relatively unknown lead bulked up for his role. Complex storylines straight from the Superman comics were naturally discarded for a more crowd-pleasing story arc. The Superman symbol is kept shiny because its made up entirely little blue Superman symbols. Ah fascinating.
Preliminary reports indicate that Bryan Singer is attempting to make merely an exciting Superman flick, not a truly groundbreaking one. It appears that he is clinging to the past, picking up the Kryptonian remnants of a past era and repainting them with a new millennium finish.
But what will Bryan Singer truly accomplish with this updated version of Superman? Is he aspiring for the film to be a visual effects extravaganza with heart? If so, then he is miles behind Richard Donner, who sought to do so much more with his original vision of Superman: The Movie; to adapt a comic book to the screen was not enough. To bring a comic book directly to life, and to introduce something that had never been seen beforethat was truly the challenge.
In order for Superman Returns to be a great revival of a fallen hero, the movie must be cutting edge. Memories of the old movie, along with weekly episodes of the network series Smallville remind us that Superman in concept is hardly a new idea. To improve upon the Superman memories of the past, and to transcend the mindless action flicks of todays era which hide behind comic book origins, would require a director with cunning, craftsmanship and the clout to see his vision through. Singer has proven that he has the capacity to do great work with The Usual Suspects. With X-Men he showed his technical prowess for action and suspense. Reviving the tradition of Superman is quite the risk in this late day and age with a spoiled generation of comic book/superhero fans who have seen one too many visual effect shots. In order to be successful, the film would require a dramatic combination of both art and technical wizardry to capture the worlds attention. Bryan Singer has the talent but will art or commerce, good or evil, finally prevail?
Spiderman 2 taught us that comic book movies could be emotional and impacting. The Lord Of The Rings, while not a real comic book, taught us that fantasy could indeed be made of important subject matter. Independent movies based on comic books or graphic novels like Ghost World and A History Of Violence taught us that comic book movies are not limited to superheroics and mass explosions.
Superman Returns must teach us something entirely new if it is to matter in the least to American culture. It is only what we would expect, from the greatest superhero of all time, to leap tall buildingsthat is, shake up a tired movie industryin a single bound. If Bryan Singer is unsuccessful, then Warner Brothers Studio will prove to be the last remaining piece of Krypton that finally killed Superman once and for all.
http://www.miamipoetryreview.com/articles/superman-returns-movie300506.shtml
In 1978, director Richard Donners Superman: The Movie was released to box office glory (300 million dollars worldwide), to critical praise (A pure delight critic Robert Ebert called it), and to more prestigious awards (a special achievement Oscar and three other nominations) than any other superhero movie before it.
Superman: The Movie was not a manufactured hit. It was meant to be an innovative film, a spectaclea cinematic circus that would convince moviegoers that a man can fly. Along with George Lucas Star Wars, Superman: The Movie was pioneering the trend of the big budget, out-of-this-world action feature. The world of the late 1970s did not refuse to believe a man could fly, but everyone doubted if he could really sell tickets. The movie was a 55 million dollar gamble; not only because the production costs were as high as a typical movies total gross, but because to audiences of the late 1970s, comic book movies were Adam West and Burt Ward starring in Batman: The Series. A risky film like Star Wars was all but censored from the studio systems for daring to present action and science-fiction rather than sobering character study, and well, that movie at least had costumes, aliens and spaceships that could keep the kids happy. A film like Superman had only one thing going for it: outrageous visual effects taking place in a very real world. If the effects were unconvincing, it would be a bomb. If there were no substance to the story, the critics would lambaste the film, and the whole idea of the big budget superhero movie would be shot down by a Deer Hunter.
Nearly twenty years later, we look back in history and see Superman: The Movie not only as a tremendous success, but also as the continuing golden standard held by Hollywood by which all comic book movies should be. And come to think of it, not just comic book movies, but all movies released by a major studio are required to adhere to that standard. While not every protagonist is demanded to have superpowers, the more explosions, the more fantastic visual effects, the more action, the better. The fact that Hollywood now shoves superhero movies down the movie going publics throat, is surprisingly reminiscent of Flavius Theodosius making Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.
The paradox now unfortunately, is that no matter how faithful an adaptation a comic book movie is to its original source, no matter how convincing the visual effects are, comic book movies are no longer a novelty, and amazing superhero scenes are no longer a great achievement. Critics, along with the movie going public, no longer consider the visual or audio effects of a movie to be a movies greatest strength. Figuratively speaking, visual effects are cheap, compared to a really powerful story behind all the action.
In 2006, Director Bryan Singer of X-Men fame, will attempt to return The Man Of Steel to his prominent, alpha-superhero role, and hopes to restore the Superman franchise to the same prominence the 1978 debut ambitiously claimed. He will attempt to do the impossible and convince millions of moviegoers, not that a man can fly (by now we have seen dozens of flying men) but that we can actually care about such a bland blue-suited character with a 1950s red cape, already seeming to be severely out of touch with the Google Generation. (That is, the generation after the Generation-Xers)
Bryan Singer, and presumably many studio executives, are hoping that supplying Superman Returns with a good story and lots of human drama (perhaps even a heartfelt love story?) will complement its visual achievements nicely, and that audiences will once again embrace the legend, proving once and for all its not style but substance that makes a hit.
And if Bryan Singer goes this predictably unpredictable route, then Superman Returns will NOT be an overwhelming hit. It wont even begin to tug at the cape of the original 1978 film and its groundbreaking achievement.
The well meaning film may recover some of its costs and possibly, at the most, revive the franchise for a few more disappointing sequels. But Bryan Singer, as a true auteur, must realize what made Superman: The Movie truly a hit: that film, dared to be different. There was no set standard to follow, there were few precedents that could be referred to and there was no blueprint on how to make the perfect superhero movie.
Yet Richard Donner proved himself a ringmaster, a true showman of cinema, and with Superman: The Movie bedazzled a captive audience. He made a lot of promises; he delivered a new vision; he attempted and succeeded at doing things on screen that audiences had never seen before. And Richard Donners vision was theatrical in every sense of the word.
Marlon Brando was paid over 4 million dollars for an 8 minute performance. Gene Hackman chose to wear a series of ridiculous wigs rather than present Lex Luthor as an obviously bald madman. Mario Puzo of Godfather fame wrote the script. The dialogue was at once light-hearted and artsy. Lois Lanes romantic super-flight across the sky featured a number called Can You Read My Mind, a song without any music and sounding more like a poem read by Margot Kidder. Lex Luthors bad guy female assistant stole a kiss from the Man Of Steel just as hes dying of Kryptonite, correctly assuming she would never get the chance again after saving him. Finally, just when the real world collided with fantasy and Lois Lane met an untimely death, how did Superman save the day? Why of course, he circled the earth at light-speed, reversed the axis and rewound time itself.
Superman: The Movie had delusions of grandeur. It was truly a movie motivated by imagination. Not by visual effects, nor by emotional story telling. Only a truly ambitious filmmaker could have produced a finished result so fulgurous. Bryan Singer, who earned his reputation with the pulp 1995 crime thriller The Usual Suspects, certainly is an ambitious and imaginative auteur. Not surprisingly, he revitalized X-Men and produced a successful franchise that continues to thrive even despite losing directorial talent. (Brett Ratner, anyone? No? He made Rush Hour. Ohhh how unfortunate)
However, Bryan Singers approach to revitalizing Superman at this point in time sounds rather misguided. He is planning this movie as a direct sequel to the Superman franchise of the 70s and 80s starring all new faces with a familiar suit and with a script from preferred X-Men scribes Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty. Obviously, the cast has been rehired and kept forever young. The story follows continuity left behind in the movie, and brings out new scenes involving old characters, which of course look none too familiar 20 years later. The film allegedly contains over 1000 visual effects shots. The relatively unknown lead bulked up for his role. Complex storylines straight from the Superman comics were naturally discarded for a more crowd-pleasing story arc. The Superman symbol is kept shiny because its made up entirely little blue Superman symbols. Ah fascinating.
Preliminary reports indicate that Bryan Singer is attempting to make merely an exciting Superman flick, not a truly groundbreaking one. It appears that he is clinging to the past, picking up the Kryptonian remnants of a past era and repainting them with a new millennium finish.
But what will Bryan Singer truly accomplish with this updated version of Superman? Is he aspiring for the film to be a visual effects extravaganza with heart? If so, then he is miles behind Richard Donner, who sought to do so much more with his original vision of Superman: The Movie; to adapt a comic book to the screen was not enough. To bring a comic book directly to life, and to introduce something that had never been seen beforethat was truly the challenge.
In order for Superman Returns to be a great revival of a fallen hero, the movie must be cutting edge. Memories of the old movie, along with weekly episodes of the network series Smallville remind us that Superman in concept is hardly a new idea. To improve upon the Superman memories of the past, and to transcend the mindless action flicks of todays era which hide behind comic book origins, would require a director with cunning, craftsmanship and the clout to see his vision through. Singer has proven that he has the capacity to do great work with The Usual Suspects. With X-Men he showed his technical prowess for action and suspense. Reviving the tradition of Superman is quite the risk in this late day and age with a spoiled generation of comic book/superhero fans who have seen one too many visual effect shots. In order to be successful, the film would require a dramatic combination of both art and technical wizardry to capture the worlds attention. Bryan Singer has the talent but will art or commerce, good or evil, finally prevail?
Spiderman 2 taught us that comic book movies could be emotional and impacting. The Lord Of The Rings, while not a real comic book, taught us that fantasy could indeed be made of important subject matter. Independent movies based on comic books or graphic novels like Ghost World and A History Of Violence taught us that comic book movies are not limited to superheroics and mass explosions.
Superman Returns must teach us something entirely new if it is to matter in the least to American culture. It is only what we would expect, from the greatest superhero of all time, to leap tall buildingsthat is, shake up a tired movie industryin a single bound. If Bryan Singer is unsuccessful, then Warner Brothers Studio will prove to be the last remaining piece of Krypton that finally killed Superman once and for all.
http://www.miamipoetryreview.com/articles/superman-returns-movie300506.shtml
and some of those ''awesome visuals and shots'' look like shoody CGI and have been done millions of times
FOREVER!
Donner didn't direct this one, and many things have change around from his film. Might not seem so on the surface, before the movie comes out, but just wait until June 28th!!
