Superman Returns Can Superman Be Saved?

[DvilDog]

Venom its not that your not nice my friend. Its the fact of how you word your statements. I cant see your face so i dont know ur facial expression for anger sarcasm or anything. So when someone reads something you post, and it seems defensive or sarcastic, or it seems like your opinion is the only one that matters, it tends to get people on the defensive.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Venom its not that your not nice my friend. Its the fact of how you word your statements. I cant see your face so i dont know ur facial expression for anger sarcasm or anything. So when someone reads something you post, and it seems defensive or sarcastic, or it seems like your opinion is the only one that matters, it tends to get people on the defensive.

Thank you DvilDog for taking the time to tell me what is the matter. I will keep this in mind for future posts. I will admit, alot of my posts are anger filled, because Ive waited a long time for the new Superman franchise to be done right, and Ill admit Im worried about the character. But I will try to be more sensible in my posts and open to debate in the future.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Hey Venom, you still looking forward to Braniac attacks?

 

[NotFadeAway]

Im still buying it deff., but Ill admit Im upset about what I hear of the Lex Luthor in the film.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Yeah, they should've just kept him as is, it was my favorite version of Luthor in film or cartoon.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Mine as well, I wanted to go off when I saw the picture of him on this board. No matter if this movie is good or not, it shouldn't influence other established versions of the character.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Thats the truth. I'll probably get that DVD and then prepare myself for Returns. I wish I could buy more of the DVDs but I just won't have the money.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Ill admit right now, that while I will buy that dvd, I spend to much money on buying dvd's as is. I walk in the mall to buy a couple shirts, the next thing I know Im in the video store buying dvd's.

 

[Superman79]

I think actually you might be missing the point...

First off, the reviewer is making a judgement purely on what we've seen so far and he makes mention of this. Let's just assume that his assessment of the movie is correct and that SR will rely on visual effects and engaging storytelling for its success (not too irrational a claim.)

The reviewer is simply stating that in order for a new Superman movie to pack the same kind of impact that Donner's did, it has to follow suit with Donner's flick not in style or even storytelling, but in novelty. It has to challenge the audience and make them think differently about the hero. Whether or not Superman was as well known before Donner's movie is irrelevant. Superman the movie made the world look at Superheroes in a very different light and set the benchmark for today's hurricane of superhero flicks.

However, the question I have is: is it even possible for lightening to strike twice? I mean, we've seen campy versions of Superman, serious versions of Superman, musical version, and everything in between. One could argue that ever incarnation of Superman has already been done to noteriety in some way shape or form. Singer's task is a million times harder then Donner's was in my opinion. All Donner had to do was move away from Adam West and Burt Ward and adhere to his verissimilitude.

Today, Superman, and virtually all superhero flicks, have backed themselves into veritable novelty corners. We're a jaded audience. And short of showing Superman on a holographic screen or re-writing the legend completely, it would take monumental creativity to create the same impact of novelty that Donner achieved.

I have to agree with you SA...my one thing would be, in order to make the movie stand out in this day and age, couldn't Singer simply have stuck to the "true blue" SUpes if you will. IE- No angst, no kid, no emotional instability (at least not in the cliche fashion that has come to be represented on screen)...make SUperman different by having him be what he is, a hero, the good guy, a boy scout if I may. All these other hero's these days have something wrong with them. What would be the probelm (yes, audiences are drawn to flawed heros, but who knows...) with haveing Superman simply BE super?? I dunno...It's just a knee jerk thought I figured I'd share

 

[TheBat812]

LOL, Buron got nothing wrong, after Returns the whole franchise went to hell, thats why they had to reboot it.

well, he got the character wrong, and made the movies less about Batman and more about his surroundings, but I suppose the movies themselves weren't bad. (and that's the difference between thinking like a fanboy, and thinking like the general public)

 

[TheBat812]

Why do another origin for one that pretty much EVERYBODY knows... Singer is doing the important part anyways (showing when he discovered his powers) rather than showing something everybody's either seen or knows about. It would have simply wasted time to REDO the origin, nobody would want to sit through another origin, let alone one we've seen before... not to mention that had he done an origin, it would either be similar to the one Donner presented us with (at which fanboys would criticize him for "lacking originality") or come up with something unique (at which fanboys would have criticized him for "not staying true to the comics"). it's a lose-lose situation if you go by the origin path. But, by using the "vague history", he is able to not only pay homage to a great movie, but also avoid conflict. It also leaves him more time for his own story.

 

[DvilDog]

Thank you DvilDog for taking the time to tell me what is the matter. I will keep this in mind for future posts. I will admit, alot of my posts are anger filled, because Ive waited a long time for the new Superman franchise to be done right, and Ill admit Im worried about the character. But I will try to be more sensible in my posts and open to debate in the future.

Hey man im not perfect. If you want some bad posts read what i wrote on the suit and hair thread last night. Even i make mistakes. Im not saying ur making them. I think ur a cool cat man, just like i give you the advice to take it easy, i gotta do the same thing ya know.

 

[Eteric]

I didn't read through all of this... But... How can you do something completely new in an age where everything has been done and is possible? Donner made S:TM in a time when we didn't have computers, etc, to do shots. EVERYTHING had to be done with string a gum, pretty much.

 

[DvilDog]

^^^ U pose a good question. Anybody have any answers for that. As usual I am slow to think of anything

 

[JamalYIgle]

In reply to DorkyFresh's comments toward me..........

About the suit and greenscreen, well the suit changing is not a big deal at all. The only people who truly care are die hard wanker fanboys. No matter who made the film, the suit would have changed, ecspecialy the neckline. And all the really did was bring the neckline up, darken the colors, shrink the S shield, and make the suit look more rubberish. Big deal. And of course Singer is going to use different green screen techniques and FX, Donner's stuff is almost 30 years old. Id sure hope he used different filming techinques. And one of the points the article that started this thread made were that " fancy smancy wancy fx " DON'T make a film.

About the past idea's, sure there's nothing wrong with incorporating a few here and there. But to make a SEQUEL to a film that is almost 30 years old goes a little past just incorparating Id say. And the Fleischer cartoons, yea they were good, but there even older. Obviously, Singer doesn't care about anything thats been done with the character after the Donner movie. It's like that stuff doesn't matter to him, and it upsets me greatly. I feel a much better movie would have been an adaption of either Birthright or the Animated Series. Hell, maybe even Man of Steel. Atleast Byrne dared to be different and not stale. There is so many ways you could have tould the story of Superman coming to be, so many different angles to approach it from, but Singer choose to stick with a 30 year old version.

Im also no pyschiatrist, but I don't have to be one to tell you that most casual movie-goers arent going to sit there and break down whats going on in Lex's head, that because he is making jokes to Superman's face that he is unstable and sociopathical as some on here would say. Casual movie goers don't look that deep, or they atleast need it explained. As for the " gods are selfish beings" and "Goodbye.....Superman" lines, they both remind me of something the Green Goblin would say in the Spider-man movie, ecspially the Goodbye....Superman line. That line reminds me of " We will meet again, Spider-man". And thats not a good thing. I think that if anything, this Lex will come off like an older, de-powered version of the Green Goblin. And it might be a good thing to you, but not me.

Singer has injected his own style. Maybe with fx and what not, but Singer himself said this is a totally different movie than he has ever made before. Light hearted, Romantic, funny. Not a typical Singer movie. He is basically adding alot of depth to the love story between Lois and Superman. Thats where the character driven part of the story is based, and I actually like that, so Ill let that slide, even though the love story was the worst thing about Singer's X-men movies.

And about the wheel thing, no you don't reinvent the wheel. You do however make new wheels. Singer is basically taking the old wheel and sticking it on a brand new suped up car, hence the fx and love story.

And I saw in another post you said had this been an origin story, Luthor would have had to be the villian. Not really. Braniac fits into an origin story and could have been the lone villian for the first film, and like Batman Begins did with the Joker, have Lex in the sequel.

Id just like to say as well, that everytime something negative about the film surfaces, there is always some "excuse" that people on these boards have. So many people here are full of excuses and copouts.

well considering that he says" So Long... Superman" after stabbing him in the back with a Kryptonite shiv and dropping him in the ocean, I say that's a hell of a lot different than the Green Goblin in Spider-man

 

[Agnarr]

. . . Poetry? . . . it shows. The author was reaching for his thesaurus a bit too much. And he wanders around when he could make his point in half the space. But this is simply a pre-judgment, since we haven't seen the film. Its heresay. I always thought Singer was being creative with doing his "requel." It hasn't been done before, has it? I like the idea. Change the elements that don't fit or were unpopular, and move ahead. What's the big deal?

I would have loved to see an origin . . . but I'd much rather dive right in, so we are that much closer to seeing Brainiac/Darkseid/pick your villian.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Why do another origin for one that pretty much EVERYBODY knows... Singer is doing the important part anyways (showing when he discovered his powers) rather than showing something everybody's either seen or knows about. It would have simply wasted time to REDO the origin, nobody would want to sit through another origin, let alone one we've seen before... not to mention that had he done an origin, it would either be similar to the one Donner presented us with (at which fanboys would criticize him for "lacking originality") or come up with something unique (at which fanboys would have criticized him for "not staying true to the comics"). it's a lose-lose situation if you go by the origin path. But, by using the "vague history", he is able to not only pay homage to a great movie, but also avoid conflict. It also leaves him more time for his own story.

I agree completely. I don't want to sit through a 2 1/2 hour movie in which I know the events of the first hour (the origin). I also don't want to see them screw up the origins by changing it either. He's the most iconic character of all time, we know his story already. Besides we'll get a little history in the film.

This isn't like Batman Begins either because the first Batman (atleast to most of this generation, the Burton flick) really didn't do it right in the first place. It worked for BB for this reason, but not Superman.

I'm going to watch S:TM before seeing SR anyway, so it works out fine for me.

 

[bosef982]

Can Superman Be Saved?

In 1978, director Richard Donner’s “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 spectacle—a 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 1970’s 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 movie’s total gross, but because to audiences of the late 1970’s, 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 public’s 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 movie’s 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 1950’s 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 it’s 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 won’t 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 Donner’s 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 Lane’s 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 Luthor’s bad guy female assistant stole a kiss from the Man Of Steel just as he’s 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 Singer’s 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 70’s and 80’s 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 it’s 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 before—that 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 today’s 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 world’s 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 buildings—that is, shake up a tired movie industry—in 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​

I'm way too tired to respond to all the logic holes and loops in this piece. But, I'll start with the a big one:

Over-sentimentality does not make Superman: The Movie a great film. In fact, it just proves it was only a good one.

 

[StarvingArtist]

I have to agree with you SA...my one thing would be, in order to make the movie stand out in this day and age, couldn't Singer simply have stuck to the "true blue" SUpes if you will. IE- No angst, no kid, no emotional instability (at least not in the cliche fashion that has come to be represented on screen)...make SUperman different by having him be what he is, a hero, the good guy, a boy scout if I may. All these other hero's these days have something wrong with them. What would be the probelm (yes, audiences are drawn to flawed heros, but who knows...) with haveing Superman simply BE super?? I dunno...It's just a knee jerk thought I figured I'd share

There's nothing wrong with nixing the angst angle and having Supes be all icon no human. However, I don't necessarily think that that would capture the audience's imagination anymore then what we've been given.

I seriously think that the only way SR could set the same benchmark that Donner's did is if SR was shot using a holographic camera or some revolutionary piece of technology (the new camera they used doesn't count) where you can literally watch supes fly around the theater or something. I dunno, it would just have to be something the audiences quite literally just have not seen before and would go crazy over in the same suit as Star Wars and STM.

 

[AsteroidMan]

I seriously think that the only way SR could set the same benchmark that Donner's did is if SR was shot using a holographic camera or some revolutionary piece of technology (the new camera they used doesn't count) where you can literally watch supes fly around the theater or something. I dunno, it would just have to be something the audiences quite literally just have not seen before and would go crazy over in the same suit as Star Wars and STM.

Cut them some slack, they've got 20 minutes of 3D in IMAX. Not really holographic, but still the first feature movie to do this... Yeah, I know, one has to go to a 3D capable IMAX theatre, but if they would have done the holo thing, it would have still needed special equipment

Seriously, I know you were speaking figuratively, and I think you have a point. Still, I expect the movie to give ME goosebumps. I don't care who else will get them. I like me.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Just to chime in......yeah, Burton's film was something of a revolution of sorts in terms of film.....and superhero/comic book films. It's kinda the reason why a film like THE CROW might have even got greeen lighted......b/c it proved dark and gothic could be successful in terms of boxoffice.

With these characters.....Batman.....Superman.....those guys have been around for so long, yeah....of course it feels like everything's been done with them....b/c everything practically has been. When your around for about 70 years....that happens.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Cut them some slack, they've got 20 minutes of 3D in IMAX. Not really holographic, but still the first feature movie to do this... Yeah, I know, one has to go to a 3D capable IMAX theatre, but if they would have done the holo thing, it would have still needed special equipment

Seriously, I know you were speaking figuratively, and I think you have a point. Still, I expect the movie to give ME goosebumps. I don't care who else will get them. I like me.

Oh believe me I'm with you bro. I plan on getting misty eyed seeing Supes save the day again. I'm just playing devil's..er...reviewer's advocate. I agree that in terms of the wide world of cinema, SR might not be as big on the radar screen as STM was. However to me and I'm sure every Superman fan, it'll be one hell of a homecoming

 

[Spare-Flair]

really? and what of the awesome visuals and shots we've seen from the trailers? i guess those lack inspiration also...

The visuals so far have bored me to tears and made me cringe at the quality of CG used. The design, characters, storyline, etc. all reek not of inspiration but stagnation to me.

so...how exactly is Superman Returns more redundant than redoing Superman's origin story? it's been done in SM:TM and most recently in Smallville....do we really need ANOTHER telling of Superman's origin?

People don't get it. It's not the plot, but the narrative and how you present it. The Superman comics have been revisting Superman's origin story over and over again through the years through elseworlds stories, through artistic impressions, through powerful one-shot series. Go read Superman for All Seasons, Superman Birthright, etc.

It's how you show the character, how you frame the picture, how you develope the storyine, how you can come up with something that is breathaking as if every frame were a masterpiece and every scene is innovative in it's presentation. You can have Superman narrate a morality play, a classic fable, make it an allegory to something powerful or a theme of humanity as something like Superman: Peace on Earth. Do something innovative, risque, moving. Present the whole thing from the perspective of someone unexpected, like from Lex Luthor's point of view as in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

The comics have long moved past the prototypical plot progression, the films have that capacity to. In the end, as a comic book fan, that's what I desire most out of a film that sounds like it is dangerously recycling plot points from a 30 year old franchise and reveling in cliches of the Superhero genre. Here we have a chance to start over, to get away from all the Superman movies and TV series that have been with us non-stop since 1978. Get away from all that and present Superman in a diffeent way. Do what the comics do, keep the traditional image and all the anchors and archetypes of the mythos - that's essential because it anchors the viewer, but find new, moving, and involving ways to tell it's story.

 

[NotFadeAway]

well considering that he says" So Long... Superman" after stabbing him in the back with a Kryptonite shiv and dropping him in the ocean, I say that's a hell of a lot different than the Green Goblin in Spider-man

You missed my point there. I was saying the line had the same "feel" to it that the GG line had.

 

[JamalYIgle]

You missed my point there. I was saying the line had the same "feel" to it that the GG line had.

no it doesn't have the same feel because you took the line out of context. If you know the scene and what leads up to that line, then it 's not a corny line. This is indicitvie of the problem I see with alot of people on this board all the time. people taking things out of context,prejudging a movie you haven't seen yet.It becomes more important to push your agenda than to actually have an open mind.