Superman Returns Do you want a sequel, or start over from scratch?

[explode7]

Yes he owned you so badly he basically has the rights to slap on a leash to you and walk you like a dog.

 

[Venom71]

Yes he owned you so badly he basically has the rights to slap on a leash to you and walk you like a dog.

Nope he didn't.....he gave his opinion and thats it..he thinks he stated facts but he didn't..you can think he owned me all you want..but I know he didn't.

 

[explode7]

Yes and owned you in the process. Deal with it.

 

[Venom71]

Yes and owned you in the process. Deal with it.

Still No..get a clue

 

[explode7]

Still in denial huh? Its cool.

 

[Venom71]

Still in denial huh? Its cool.

Nope..nowhere near Egypt and to get the thread back on topic...Sequel Please!

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Well, yeah, isn't it? Even Singer seems to know that fans wanted more action, otherwise why keep drilling the Wrath of Khan stuff?

Probably because he took the same approach with X-men?

To a lot of fans, SR was uneven at best, focusing more on a love triangle between the wrong characters (Superman, Lois Lane, and Richard White - not Clark Kent) and a young child (a plot point I doubt you'd EVER see in Spider-Man - and wasn't in WoK, for that matter) rather than the exploits of the greatest superhero the world has ever known.

You mean to the people here at SHH? Most people who are for the film...that actually voted for it on one of the polls here, don't even post about it. Hell, I didn't even post for two weeks because this place was as pleasant as a pirahna pond. So you don't think landing a 777 and throwing an island into space are considered "exploits of the greatest superhero the world has ever known?" I really want to know what it takes to please you. You like Smallville, right? How odd.

It was a calculated risk that (obviously) didn't pay off as well as Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. had hoped. For the most part, the critics enjoyed it. It was a well made film, but it lacked a roller coaster like joy that a lot of people were apparently expecting. How much of that is a direct result of the focus of the story is debatable, but Singer didn't help matters by instilling the wrong perception when he himself described SR as a "chick flick."

What it lacked was Johnny Depp and useless, mindless, swashbuckling action. If that's the kind of roller coaster ride that people are looking for, then they can all strap in and run the sucker right off the track. Yes, because I'm sure the general public picked up on that "chick flick" comment and it spelled utter doom for the movie. Singer really needs to watch his mouth next time.

I see that WormyT has already replied, but I have a hypothetical question for ya, AmbientFire: Would you still accuse WormyT of being misogynistic if WormyT were actually female and just wanted to see a more rough and tumble [read: masculine] representation of Superman? Just curious.

Explain to me how he'd need to be more rough and tumble? He spent the film saving people and pining for a chick. Not to feminine for my taste. It's not exactly as if he was prancing around the whole time yelling: "quick Gary, let's shift into roll mode!" People were making comments on Superman's feminism in the film since the day the first suit pic was released and Singer's sexuality became an issue and all the true homophobes shot out of the woodwork (especially around here).

I don't know the breakdown, but I do know the film skewed male on opening weekend, just as it did for BB and X-Men, and for just about every other comic-book based film. It's the nature of the beast. I think Para's point in noting the irony was that Singer (apparently) *tried* to attract woman as well as men to see SR when he really (apparently) should have been more focused on just pleasing his male audience.

I'm male, heterosexual (and married) and an avid fan of things like sports and naked chicks...and I liked it.

Oh pish! That doesn't even deserve a response.

Why not? Because your favorite hunk isn't sporting the cape and has a snowball's chance in Hades of being in the next movie?

"Superman?" I dunno, you tell me. It sure *seemed* like it was a slam dunk, but I guess nobody knows anything in Hollywood. (My apologies to Mr. Goldman.)

If Superman based material was selling like hotcakes based on brand-name alone then shouldn't Smallville be pulling in Seinfeld numbers by that logic? Or why was Lois and Clark or Superman:TAS each canned? Maybe because as a whole America (and the world) isn't as geared around Superman as a lot of fanboys and girls would like to believe.

We do? There's an argument that can be made from both sides here. Telling a tale about a character we know "everything" about is bow-RANG! The idea should be to peel away the layers of that onion and explore each facet. But there should be some tenets the writers adhere to in the characterization, and judging from the arguments made here an elsewhere, folks seem to have had a few *cough* problems with Superman's characterization in SR.

You see, that's just it. Having Superman try to function in a real-world capacity where he loves, gets hurt, and actually exists in real-life types of situations makes people uncomfortable because they think Superman is like Jesus or something, and he's definitely not. They don't like the fact that Superman might just get a little jealous of another dude sacking up with his old lady or that he just might still have deep feelings toward her that he can't pursue. They still want the Ward Cleaver Superman from the fifties and they didn't get it. Instead they put Superman in a situation where his fantastic abilites are worthless, and the real hero is the guy who can keep his chin up after life craps on him (rather than Spider-Man, who just throws hit oufit in the s***can). After all, it's not as if Lois turned into a sorority vampire or a re-incarnated witch or Harris and Dougherty had Clark choose between two people's deaths now, did they? Singer's outing stayed a hell of a lot more on track with the core elements of Superman than another nameless current adaption. I'll take Supes' eavesdropping over that tripe any day. If I need to peel the onion, I'll read Kingdom Come.

I thought it was because he wanted to protect her? Has anybody here ever argued Superman is a ***** for not coming clean to Lois?

Actually, Jeanette Khan and the writers of the comics realized he was either retarted, Lois was retarted, or he was just chicken...which is why they finally had him grow up and spill the beans to the lady he's worshipped since he's been in print. It could also be argued that without Lois always sniffing around because Superman is off doing other things while she's safe at home she's been plenty safer. So maybe he's a combination of wimp and moron. A "woron" if you will. And based on the continuity of the Donner films he was going to tell her in the apartment in the first film...but alas he "pussed" out.

 

[AgentPat]

Probably because he took the same approach with X-men?

That would make sense if the first X-Men were considered an "art" film like ST:TMP or SR. And as far as I know, he never used the analogy when he did X-M2. Why? Mmm... probably because he didn't have to.

You mean to the people here at SHH? Most people who are for the film...that actually voted for it on one of the polls here, don't even post about it. Hell, I didn't even post for two weeks because this place was as pleasant as a piranha pond.

So what's your excuse for posting now? It's still pretty brutal around these parts.

So you don't think landing a 777 and throwing an island into space are considered "exploits of the greatest superhero the world has ever known?"

When did I say it wasn't? I said the *focus* of the film was more on the love triangle, which wouldn't be a bad thing if that love triangle were between Clark, Lois, and Superman, but alas...

I really want to know what it takes to please you.

How 'bout an entertaining film, for starters? If it entertained you (I understand it did), bravo. Everybody is different.

You like Smallville, right? How odd.

Dif'rent strokes for dif'rent folks hon. I'm not condemning you for liking something I didn't. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

What it lacked was Johnny Depp and useless, mindless, swashbuckling action.

Jeeze, whatever. I personally didn't go to see SR to be enlightened. I went to be entertained. It didn't deliver for me. Oh well. Moving on...

If that's the kind of roller coaster ride that people are looking for, then they can all strap in and run the sucker right off the track.

Looks like that's exactly what folks are doing, and based on the Wrath of Khan comments, it's something Singer apparently wants to provide in the next installment.

Yes, because I'm sure the general public picked up on that "chick flick" comment and it spelled utter doom for the movie.

Hyperbole much?

Singer really needs to watch his mouth next time.

Yeah, he does, but he already knows that.

Explain to me how he'd need to be more rough and tumble?

Just look up. WormyT did a better job than I.

Hey Wormy, be lucky you aint a SV fan, 'cause you'd have to deal with all the strawman arguments, too.

He spent the film saving people and pining for a chick. Not to feminine for my taste. It's not exactly as if he was prancing around the whole time yelling: "quick Gary, let's shift into roll mode!" People were making comments on Superman's feminism in the film since the day the first suit pic was released and Singer's sexuality became an issue and all the true homophobes shot out of the woodwork (especially around here).

I'm male, heterosexual (and married) and an avid fan of things like sports and naked chicks...and I liked it.

Nice to hear. I'm female, heterosexual (and married) and an avid fan of things like bodybuilding and hunky studmuffins, and I was disappointed.

Why not? Because your favorite hunk isn't sporting the cape and has a snowball's chance in Hades of being in the next movie?

I love how the SV/Welling topic ALWAYS gets dragged into the conversation as rebuttal when a SV fan has anything even remotely negative to say about SR. You guys need to grow up. Seriously. Ten cyber dollars to the first person who can find ONE SV fan - nay, *any* Superman fan - who would have rather seen SV get canceled in order for Welling to have played Supes in SR as shot, or any of its potential sequels. Get real.

If Superman based material was selling like hotcakes based on brand-name alone then shouldn't Smallville be pulling in Seinfeld numbers by that logic? Or why was Lois and Clark or Superman:TAS each canned? Maybe because as a whole America (and the world) isn't as geared around Superman as a lot of fanboys and girls would like to believe.

Duh! I was agreeing with him, if you didn't pick up on that.

You see, that's just it. Having Superman try to function in a real-world capacity where he loves, gets hurt, and actually exists in real-life types of situations makes people uncomfortable because they think Superman is like Jesus or something, and he's definitely not. They don't like the fact that Superman might just get a little jealous of another dude sacking up with his old lady or that he just might still have deep feelings toward her that he can't pursue. They still want the Ward Cleaver Superman from the fifties and they didn't get it. Instead they put Superman in a situation where his fantastic abilities are worthless, and the real hero is the guy who can keep his chin up after life craps on him (rather than Spider-Man, who just throws hit oufit in the s***can). After all, it's not as if Lois turned into a sorority vampire or a re-incarnated witch or Harris and Dougherty had Clark choose between two people's deaths now, did they? Singer's outing stayed a hell of a lot more on track with the core elements of Superman than another nameless current adaption. I'll take Supes' eavesdropping over that tripe any day. If I need to peel the onion, I'll read Kingdom Come.

Hehehe, just for you, I'm leaving my sig on with this post, 'cause seeing a SV avatar here apparently pisses you off greatly. That makes me smile.

Actually, Jeanette Khan and the writers of the comics realized he was either retarted, Lois was retarted, or he was just chicken...which is why they finally had him grow up and spill the beans to the lady he's worshipped since he's been in print. It could also be argued that without Lois always sniffing around because Superman is off doing other things while she's safe at home she's been plenty safer. So maybe he's a combination of wimp and moron. A "woron" if you will. And based on the continuity of the Donner films he was going to tell her in the apartment in the first film...but alas he "pussed" out.

LOL! Nice. I like "woron." I think I'll file that in the lexicon with words like "requel."

 

[Showtime]

Yes and owned you in the process. Deal with it.

I didn't notice anybody getting "owned", then again, since I see you get "owned" up and down the boards maybe you're right.

 

[Masut]

Yes he owned you so badly he basically has the rights to slap on a leash to you and walk you like a dog.

Stop being a d**k. You and WormyT alike. With your 'owned this and that' and the way he looks down upon SR lovers. Pfft. You both suck.

Oh yeah.

Venom pwns u all to hell.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

That would make sense if the first X-Men were considered an "art" film like ST:TMP or SR. And as far as I know, he never used the analogy when he did X-M2. Why? Mmm... probably because he didn't have to.

How is it considered an art film? It's not like it's My Own Private Idaho or Basquiat. Usually I don't consider chick flicks art films. Most of my snobby art friends don't rave about Sleepless in Seattle.

So what's your excuse for posting now? It's still pretty brutal around these parts.

I've read a lot of stuff that begs for page long debates...or more bluntly: flame wars. I just haven't had the time or patience as of late to get in the trenches. However, I've the weekend off and an itchy trigger finger.

When did I say it wasn't? I said the *focus* of the film was more on the love triangle, which wouldn't be a bad thing if that love triangle were between Clark, Lois, and Superman, but alas...

Why is it a bad thing that it's not the old love triangle? Smallville doesn't use that to an extent...even though Lois has been there a couple of years. Not to piss you off, but I'm seeing a double standard here, that's all.

How 'bout an entertaining film, for starters? If it entertained you (I understand it did), bravo. Everybody is different.

It entertained me about as much as S:TM did. They're both a couple of my favorite movies of all time, but I still think neither of them is perfect for my taste, and I honestly haven't seen THE perfect comic adaption yet, especially when it comes to Big Blue. I've yet to see a concept, script, or film that would totally knock my socks off.

Dif'rent strokes for dif'rent folks hon. I'm not condemning you for liking something I didn't. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

It's not that I condemn you for liking anything. I just get a wee bit disgusted when I see someone like something which I feel bastardizes the source material beyond belief, whilst condemning something that I believe on a fundamental level doesn't. Like you said, though...different strokes. I try to bite my tongue most times, but it doesn't always work. Sue me.

Jeeze, whatever. I personally didn't go to see SR to be enlightened. I went to be entertained. It didn't deliver for me. Oh well. Moving on...

It all boils down to what entertains the masses when it comes to moneymaking at the BO. If people paid to see films based on critical acclaim and storytelling alone, then movies like Shine and Kramer vs. Kramer would hold the top spots on the all time list, but alas we have happy time with Johnny and Orlando tearing up those charts...

Looks like that's exactly what folks are doing, and based on the Wrath of Khan comments, it's something Singer apparently wants to provide in the next installment.

Singer understands what has been confirmed by a studio exec in that WB feels it underperformed and that the apparent lack of action is to blame. They see that X3 made loads more money and was chock full of action and story came secondary (as evidenced by the lovely reviews). It all comes down to money for them. After all, do you think the sequel would fare better at the box office if Singer came out and told the truth? Something along the lines of: "I made the film I wanted to make, but I think that those who disagree are idiots who watch mindless, emotionless drivel...and I'm doing the sequel the same way?" No way Pat, he'll say what they want to hear and probably drop more action in the next film so he can keep his job & appease the higher-ups.

Hyperbole much?

Usually just on Saturdays.

Just look up. WormyT did a better job than I.

Not hardly. He's another card-carrying member of the "superhero movies need fights to be good, group." He also likes to make assumptions as to the alternative viewing habits of comic movie fans. Find better backup.

Hey Wormy, be lucky you aint a SV fan, 'cause you'd have to deal with all the strawman arguments, too.

No, Wormy just be lucky you ain't a Smallville fan...because you ain't a Smallville fan.

Nice to hear. I'm female, heterosexual (and married) and an avid fan of things like bodybuilding and hunky studmuffins, and I was disappointed.

Neat. I'm a personal trainer and wish you the best in your endeavors. Even the hunky ones.

I love how the SV/Welling topic ALWAYS gets dragged into the conversation as rebuttal when a SV fan has anything even remotely negative to say about SR. You guys need to grow up. Seriously. Ten cyber dollars to the first person who can find ONE SV fan - nay, *any* Superman fan - who would have rather seen SV get canceled in order for Welling to have played Supes in SR as shot, or any of its potential sequels. Get real.

I figured you'd be used to it by now. And I just love when someone would champion something that I feel disrespects Superman on many levels and wants to debate. I need to grow up? Thanks for the After-school Special moment, mom. If you're right about you're ten dollar bet, then what were all those crazy "casting wars" about around here? Because the Smallville faithful DIDN'T want to see Tommy One Note sport the cape? Let me go run to Kryptonsite and ask a few of those people if they'd want to see the show end if it meant Welling being in a big-budget movie version. Do you use Paypal?

Duh! I was agreeing with him, if you didn't pick up on that.

Sorry. My mistake.

Hehehe, just for you, I'm leaving my sig on with this post, 'cause seeing a SV avatar here apparently pisses you off greatly. That makes me smile.

That's good. And I'll keep smiling from ear to ear that Smallville didn't get a movie and that I liked SR. Look, now we're both happy and I don't even need to change my sig.

LOL! Nice. I like "woron." I think I'll file that in the lexicon with words like "requel."

Combo words are a fine science. Glad I could be of service.

 

[skruloos]

SR IS a chick flick. How can you have a SuperMAN movie and not have the guy throw a single punch or fight a single bad guy. Thats superhero basics.

Is that what that was? I thought it was immature teenage fantasy. Nothing "manly" about it.

You need to watch the cartoons or read the books to know what I'm talking about. Get back to me when you do. And I don't mean Oprahs book club. It's mostly boys who read superman and so the stories are kind of geared that way.

Ah yes. That's why I find most of those same cartoons and comic books a bore. They were interesting when I was 12. I've since outgrown the need to see an inane throwdown and splash pages every other page. I suppose that's why the film actually interested me. To each his own.

 

[GarudA]

Stop being a d**k. You and WormyT alike. With your 'owned this and that' and the way he looks down upon SR lovers. Pfft. You both suck.

Oh yeah.

Venom pwns u all to hell.

You must be a sad little boy, because I just read your sig and it just made me crank up. Come on hating someone because you do not like the text they typed on the other side of the world? How pathetic is that? You need a reality check, seriously.

 

[echostation]

The film was pretty good in itself, i thought it was enjoyable at least but it did have some huge problems most of which have been identified on these boards already...

Did singer miss out on a great opportunity? to a certain extent yes, but i still really enjoyed what we got versus what we could've gotten in the past, but perhaps the Abrams version could've been really enjoyable if put to film, it would've been a different Superman but still lots of action which would've been fun... i stll really liked Superman Returns, thought it was a solid film despite its flaws

 

[The Kid]

stop with the long posts. it's too much scrolling...

 

[Venom71]

I didn't notice anybody getting "owned", then again, since I see you get "owned" up and down the boards maybe you're right.

Thank You Showtime

 

[Venom71]

Stop being a d**k. You and WormyT alike. With your 'owned this and that' and the way he looks down upon SR lovers. Pfft. You both suck.

Oh yeah.

Venom pwns u all to hell.

Nah..I am just trying to make certain people see what they say is not fact only opinion.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I see no point in restarting it now.
It should have been a restart from the get go, and not the sequel to the outdated franchise, which makes it an Elseworld movie.

But, as an Elseworld movie and a sequel, it´s an interesting take, so, i say, at least, make a last movie and end the franchise.

 

[AgentPat]

Sorry, Wesyeed.

How is it considered an art film?

It was beautifully shot using the latest technology, with an emphasis on cinematography, atmosphere, and contemplative, spiritual moments. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a perfect example - cerebral and visually epic - going so far over budget because of its grand scope, they didn't have any coin left for the planned narration and score (hence the use of classical music in the public domain.) THAT kind of "art" film. I'm not talking about something only seen at Cannes or trotted around college theaters in platform release. "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is seen by many Trekkies as an "art film" too, though "Khan" is widely accepted as the "better" film.

Usually I don't consider chick flicks art films. Most of my snobby art friends don't rave about Sleepless in Seattle.

Chick flicks, by definition, are films that have their greatest appeal to woman. I will forever be scratching my head why Singer chose to refer to SR as a "chick flick," 'cause it sure didn't appeal to me in that way - not that I'm into rom-coms or such ilk. I've yet to see "Sleepless in Seattle."

Why is it a bad thing that it's not the old love triangle? Smallville doesn't use that to an extent...even though Lois has been there a couple of years. Not to piss you off, but I'm seeing a double standard here, that's all.

You're not pissing me off, but you sure as hell are confusing me. You keep bringing up SV when you loathe it, and most people here - myself included - would EXPECT a $200+ million dollar blockbuster film to be on a whole different level than a television show. You seem to be using my appreciation for a TV show as a benchmark for how I should grade the pros and cons of a tentpole film. They're apples and oranges. A television skein has the benefit of being able to develop its characters over many hours of programming. Years, in fact. Films have to do it in about two hours.

It entertained me about as much as S:TM did. They're both a couple of my favorite movies of all time, but I still think neither of them is perfect for my taste, and I honestly haven't seen THE perfect comic adaption yet, especially when it comes to Big Blue. I've yet to see a concept, script, or film that would totally knock my socks off.

I'm not looking for the "perfect" comic adaptation. Even the comics aren't "perfect," so I think it's a misnomer to think there *could* be a perfect film about a superhero. That said, S:TM came really close to it. I think I saw it in theaters about four times, and lost count how many times I've seen it on TV since. It did what SR didn't: engage and entertain me to the enth degree. All SR did was copy a winning formula - badly - and added elements that made me cringe. No need to elaborate further as I've already said my peace repeatedly on those issues. And yes, it's just MY humble opinion.

It's not that I condemn you for liking anything. I just get a wee bit disgusted when I see someone like something which I feel bastardizes the source material beyond belief, whilst condemning something that I believe on a fundamental level doesn't. Like you said, though...different strokes.

Exactly. Different strokes, 'cause what you see as bastardizing, I see as broadening the mythology. In the most fundamental sense, I found the characters in SR to be unappealing at best. There was no joy in watching them, and I certainly didn't care about their problems. Well, all except for Richard, I guess.

It all boils down to what entertains the masses when it comes to moneymaking at the BO. If people paid to see films based on critical acclaim and storytelling alone, then movies like Shine and Kramer vs. Kramer would hold the top spots on the all time list, but alas we have happy time with Johnny and Orlando tearing up those charts...

It's called variety. It's the difference between going to a library to read a good book, or going to an amusement part. Both are considered personal "entertainment," but nobody is arguing folks should only choose one form. That said, I don't go to an amusement park to read a good book; I go to ride the roller coaster. I *thought* SR would be like a roller coaster ride, but it wasn't. Oh well.

Singer understands what has been confirmed by a studio exec in that WB feels it underperformed and that the apparent lack of action is to blame. They see that X3 made loads more money and was chock full of action and story came secondary (as evidenced by the lovely reviews). It all comes down to money for them. After all, do you think the sequel would fare better at the box office if Singer came out and told the truth? Something along the lines of: "I made the film I wanted to make, but I think that those who disagree are idiots who watch mindless, emotionless drivel...and I'm doing the sequel the same way?" No way Pat, he'll say what they want to hear and probably drop more action in the next film so he can keep his job & appease the higher-ups.

I think a superhero film SHOULD have a lot of action, but it doesn't have to be for lack of story either.

Not hardly. He's another card-carrying member of the "superhero movies need fights to be good, group." He also likes to make assumptions as to the alternative viewing habits of comic movie fans. Find better backup.

I don't need to find better back-up. I think Wormy (and Para) did a fine job summing up some of the problems folks here have been talking about, and neither of them are SV fans. Imagine that? I don't see you engaging them. How come? Or is it just easier to support SR by bashing SV?

Neat. I'm a personal trainer and wish you the best in your endeavors. Even the hunky ones.

Thanks. Been dedicated to it since April, 2004. I've had... hunky inspiration.

I figured you'd be used to it by now. And I just love when someone would champion something that I feel disrespects Superman on many levels and wants to debate.

Hmm. I didn't come *here* to *this* forum to debate SV. Whatever gave you that idea? I *thought* we were talking about SR. You're the one that keeps making the comparisons.

I need to grow up? Thanks for the After-school Special moment, mom.

I don't have kids, just for your info, but I do offer free advice every so often.

If you're right about you're ten dollar bet, then what were all those crazy "casting wars" about around here?

Reread my original comment. SV fans have the benefit of hindsight now. NOBODY would have wanted to see Welling in SR as shot. If it was a better film (opinion), maybe. But looking back, I'm glad things went down like they did, because I'm much happier having the show every week. It's ongoing entertainment of the first order for me. YMMV.

Let me go run to Kryptonsite and ask a few of those people if they'd want to see the show end if it meant Welling being in a big-budget movie version. Do you use Paypal?

I do, and I doubt you'll find ONE person who would trade the show for Welling to be in SUPERMAN RETURNS *AS* written and filmed. Again, reread what I wrote above. Go back in time two years and it's a whole different ball game. Nobody knew what to expect back then for the film, and we didn't have the fourth and fifth seasons either. Now we're heading into S6 with the potential for a seventh next year, depending on ratings. Maybe when the show ends, they'll do an actual SV film, who knows? But the current Donner bastardization (see, I can use that word too) can succeed or crash and burn for all I care. I have something that both entertains, inspires, and ultimately makes me happy. At the end of the day, that's all that's important.

You have something that makes you happy, and I have something that makes me happy. We're good. I do feel sorry for those who don't have either though. Guess it sux to be them.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

It was beautifully shot using the latest technology, with an emphasis on cinematography, atmosphere, and contemplative, spiritual moments.

You could say some of the same things about S:TM, but I hardly find that to be an art film. I guess we just have different definitions of the subject.

Chick flicks, by definition, are films that have their greatest appeal to woman. I will forever be scratching my head why Singer chose to refer to SR as a "chick flick," 'cause it sure didn't appeal to me in that way - not that I'm intorom-coms or such ilk. I've yet to see "Sleepless in Seattle."

It didn't appeal to you, but that doesn't mean it didnt appeal to other women who watched it. Since you're not into romantic comedies, then it looks like you're not in the intended demographic anyway.

You're not pissing me off, but you sure as hell are confusing me. You keep bringing up SV when you loathe it, and most people here - myself included - would EXPECT a $200+ million dollar blockbuster film to be on a whole different level than a television show. You seem to be using my appreciation for a TV show as a benchmark for how I should grade the pros and cons of a tentpole film. They're apples and oranges. A television skein has the benefit of being able to develop its characters over many hours of programming. Years, in fact. Films have to do it in about two hours.

You should have higher standards for SV. Just because the production budget is less than the film doesn't mean you can't hold a standard as to the adaption when it comes to the other aspects of the production (as a show it has a higher budget than a lot of them, anyway). It may have to benefit of developing the characters over multiple seasons, but after what, five of them, I feel it hasn't done a damn thing to further anything related to Superman for me except lousy teeny bopper entertainment with horrendous plotlines, dialogue, acting, and music selection that would make Kevin Williamson proud. You figure that after five years they'd try to iron some of these kinks out.

I'm not looking for the "perfect" comic adaptation. Even the comics aren't "perfect," so I think it's a misnomer to think there *could* be a perfect film about a superhero. That said, S:TM came really close to it. I think I saw it in theaters about four times, and lost count how many times I've seen it on TV since. It did what SR didn't: engage and entertain me to the enth degree. All SR did was copy a winning formula - badly - and added elements that made me cringe. No need to elaborate further as I've already said my peace repeatedly on those issues. And yes, it's just MY humble opinion.

There definitely could be something perfect for your own tastes. A film that hits on all the right areas for you. Of course S:TM came close to it for you, as it did for most. With exception to the nick-nack ending and the "Can You Read My Mind" sequence, it was pretty damn sweet.

It's called variety. It's the difference between going to a library to read a good book, or going to an amusement part. Both are considered personal "entertainment," but nobody is arguing folks should only choose one form. That said, I don't go to an amusement park to read a good book; I go to ride the roller coaster. I *thought* SR would be like a roller coaster ride, but it wasn't. Oh well.

And it's all in what you like. Roller coasters are a temporary fix that impact your life for a minute at best. A quick and cheap thrill. If that's what you were looking for, that's gravy. I wasn't.

I don't need to find better back-up. I think Wormy (and Para) did a fine job summing up some of the problems folks here have been talking about, and neither of them are SV fans. Imagine that? I don't see you engaging them. How come? Or is it just easier to support SR by bashing SV?

Maybe it could be that during the course of my scouring the posts...yours was the first I came across that piqued my interest when I did my first reply? I'll make sure to engage everyone with a differing opinion next time and read every single page to concoct my arguments against the entire Anti-SR posse. Sorry for not being as thorough as you like.

Hmm. I didn't come *here* to *this* forum to debate SV. Whatever gave you that idea? I *thought* we were talking about SR. You're the one that keeps making the comparisons.

Pat after an extended period with a sig that is basically a "kick-me" sign to a guy like me (Welling is Superman...blah, blah, blah...popsicle headache). What would you expect?

Reread my original comment. SV fans have the benefit of hindsight now. NOBODY would have wanted to see Welling in SR as shot. If it was a better film (opinion), maybe. But looking back, I'm glad things went down like they did, because I'm much happier having the show every week. It's ongoing entertainment of the first order for me. YMMV.

Which was an odd statement to begin with because there was no possibillity whatsoever that he was ever to be in the film in the first place. IF he would've said yes, then he'd have been in McG's rendition a year prior.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

stop with the long posts. it's too much scrolling...

My apologies. Once I start, I just can't stop...

 

[Smegger56]

I thought Spiderman 2 was better. But yes theres a 40 min yawn period in the middle( of spidey2). I still love it though, and it MORE than 'brings the noise' as far as action scenes.

I'll agree with you there. Spidey 2 had brilliant action sequences... even though they where short. But, the film just didn't hold my attention in terms of the drama aspect. The whole Peter/MJ relationship was poorly done.

I felt the drama in SR was better. For me, it just felt a better movie than spidey 2. But enough of the comparisons on my part.

I'll look at SR as being, no matter what Singer says, the NEW Superman 3. It is essentially. The sooner he comes out and says it, and acknowledges the amnesia kiss in SR-2, the better.

SR was a 're-introduction' to an exhisting characeter and universe. I felt that by imitating what the original Donner movie did, and bringing some new elements to it, was a good way for the audience to reconnect to it again. And i think, that if Singer gets to do the sequel, we will have an excellent, drama filled, action packed, superhero vs supervillian, adventure.

 

[Cinemaman]

Honestly, I'd like to see restart.

 

[AmbientFire]

If he/she had worded it the exact same way? Absolutely. If he/she had simply stated that they want more action? Absolutely not. Gender of the writer is not the point.

 

[AmbientFire]

SR IS a chick flick. How can you have a SuperMAN movie and not have the guy throw a single punch or fight a single bad guy. Thats superhero basics.

This movies isn't even an origin movie yet they somehow they manage to get the plot bogged down in boring drama (that didn't work) for 2 1/2 hours. Not to mention in all this boring time the hero hardly utters a single line of dialogue. And thats supposed to be good? Thats terrible! The movies about him!! Batman Begins managed to add an entire Origin story PLUS 4 villains from the books PLUS introduce another all in one movie packed with dialogue from the title character. It's obvious as hell Bryan had no faith in Brandons acting abilities hench the 8 lines of dialogue. Even Stallone had more dialogue written to mumble in Rambo.

If you want to add romance, cool! But make it work. Hire a real actor so he can interact naturally within these scenes. Brandon Routh couldn't do a good Clark Kent, he looked good as Superman but again, hardly spoke, never frowned, never acted assertive. The one oportunity we had to see Superman face his Nemisis after our 20 year wait and say or do something cool hes reduced to uttering 1 to 2 sentences. How utterly disapointing.
Kate Bosthworth was crap in this movie. insensitive, grumpy a basic emotional wreck. Where was the spunk? SHe had no charisma whatsoever and add that to Brandon and we have Queen Amidala and Anakin Skywalker part two. Ok not as bad as them, but not nearly as charming as Reeves and Kidder.

I don't know if you've heard but Superman is a bi weekly scifi/superhero comic book about a man from another planet. Theres romance, intrigue but more importantly to quote his mother in SR hes "..Put here for a reason..". Indeed. The reason is to to put the smack down on would be human/alien supervillains. Did he put a smack down on anyone in SR after 20 years. Eh...no my dear he got beaten like a wimpy drunk supermodel. Pathetic.
You need to watch the cartoons or read the books to know what I'm talking about. Get back to me when you do. And I don't mean Oprahs book club. It's mostly boys who read superman and so the stories are kind of geared that way. But women would definitely enjoy them too. Not all women love only romance, I know that. But the term 'Chick Flick' is a general term to suggest a cheesy predictable romance story involving love traingles and all that. Superman Returns had a lot of that and none of the 'Real Superman guy' stuff therefore it's a chickflick.

Bryan SInger is also quoted as saying he made chick flick BTW.

I don't NEED to watch the cartoons or read the comicbooks more than i already do - which is way more often than i should. You are completely missing my point though. It's not a matter of "SR had too much romance, or too little action" i'm not arguing that point of your statement in terms of the QUALITY of the movie at all - check my response to Para's to see what i am getting at.