Downplaying The Romance In Superman

[charl_huntress]

A majority of American can't tell where Iraq and Afghanistan are on a map. So what if they remember Megan Fox.

Ask those Americans if Fox helped Bumblebee? And then ask then what Lois Lane did in SR? Then get back to me

 

[charl_huntress]

Don't you know?

Shut up!

 

[I Am The Knight]

Shut up!

Hey...! I didn't say anything...

 

[Superark]

Don't you know?

LOL

 

[Timstuff]

I want a Superman reboot very badly, but the way some people talk you'd almost think they wished it was a Michael Bay movie (that's not a knock against bay BTW, because I love his movies). I keep hearing "Less plot, less romance, more action, yadayadayada..." The Superman / Clark / Lois love story is too important to be just shoved into the background, but a lot of people seem to want that. I do not think that it should be the movie's primary angle like in Bryan Singer's movie, but it should be one of the main pillars of the story's structure.

I am getting tired of seeing so many people who just want the next Superman movie to be a dumb action flick with no plot. That's not what made The Dark Knight great, so if people want anything close to the Superman equivelent to TDK, they'd better hope that the producers know more about making a good Superman movie than they do.

 

[charl_huntress]

I want a Superman reboot very badly, but the way some people talk you'd almost think they wished it was a Michael Bay movie (that's not a knock against bay BTW, because I love his movies). I keep hearing "Less plot, less romance, more action, yadayadayada..." The Superman / Clark / Lois love story is too important to be just shoved into the background, but a lot of people seem to want that. I do not think that it should be the movie's primary angle like in Bryan Singer's movie, but it should be one of the main pillars of the story's structure.

I am getting tired of seeing so many people who just want the next Superman movie to be a dumb action flick with no plot. That's not what made The Dark Knight great, so if people want anything close to the Superman equivelent to TDK, they'd better hope that the producers know more about making a good Superman movie than they do.

Ha....glad I just said I didnt' want that.

Liberals

 

[SuperDaniel]

IMO, what hurt the movie wasn't the romance. Go ask Titanic fans. Or Spider-man. Or Notebook.

What hurt SR was that it was a ****ED UP romance story that completely changed the characters we all love.

A Lois& Superman romance should be at least one important part of the story. But it just have to be handled better than what we got in SR.

Plus, I HATE WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE SR TO WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW. I can't see anything remotely close to that story.

in WHTTMOT, Superman killed, broke his oath and judging himself unable to live up to the task of being people`s inspiration, took his powers away and started to live a normal life with Lois.

NOTHING LIKE SR AT ALL!!

Plus, dont ever compare ALAN MOORE to those two hacks or Bryan Singer.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The posts got jumbled for some reason my post wasn't responding to the one above.

Anywho:

As for some of the responses to my post, I disagree. I very much disliked the first Superman movie because after Clark got to Metroplis is turned into a dumb comedy to me, a very non funny one too, it was extremely campy and had way more cheese than the first two Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man one and two and Iron Man (which was just a light as Spider-Man, sorry nerds) are vastly better movies than any of the Superman movie's in my opinion. Superman would be lucky to have a movie as good as Iron Man or Spider-Man one and two, I damn sure would be lucky to like it as much as I liked those films, because so far I have seen one good Superman movie.

Just letting my opinion be known.

Peace.

 

[charl_huntress]

IMO, what hurt the movie wasn't the romance. Go ask Titanic fans. Or Spider-man. Or Notebook.

What hurt SR was that it was a ****ED UP romance story that completely changed the characters we all love.

So don't blame the the romance of Superman/Lois/Clark!! It was Singer who got that wrong....the romance is right.




Folks who want to do away with the romance of Superman are idiots. It will lose him all the female fans he has gained.

 

[SuperDaniel]

That`s what i said.

SINGER got it completely wrong with his idea AND HUGE EGO to put his own SPIN into the character...

 

[Superark]

That`s what i said.

SINGER got it completely wrong with his idea AND HUGE EGO to put his own SPIN into the character...

Just curious, what exactly makes Bryan Singer have a huge ego? Because he put own take on the character?

 

[charl_huntress]

Just curious, what exactly makes Bryan Singer have a huge ego? Because he put own take on the character?

Bait him if you will,.......silly *** tactics!

 

[Timstuff]

Bryan Singer had his own idea for what Superman represents, and apparently it's very different from what most fans envisioned. In that way, he did have a bit of an ego, injecting such a personal opinion into something that belongs to far more people than himself. It's not so much ego as it is selfishness. Bryan Singer made the selfish Superman movie that he wanted to see, and quite a few people were able to like it, but most people were not.

Basically, he made a movie of Superdickery. Maybe it was some kind of bizzare autobiography about Singer's experience with his own father, but for most people it didn't seem like Superman.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

"Romance" and Superman is totally overrated. No need for that.

 

[bunk]

They can do what they want with the "romance" aspect. As long as Superman is shown to have very strong emotional commitments to friends and family, it'll be fine. Batman is supposed to be more or less emotionally distant. Superman is always in tune with his "humanity". He wears his heart on his sleeve, it's supposed to be his weakness. I find it a bit disturbing, how so many of you seem to be willing to ditch almost any aspect of the character that could somehow steal time away from the "action".

 

[Batman Lives]

I never said I wanted to ditch the emotional aspect of Superman; its needed.

Just ditching the romantic comedy/drama/angst of Superman/Lois and Lois/Clark, majorly underplaying it.

Making it the chief focus over recent years has contributed to lame-ing up Superman's image.


Wow, this thread went offtopic on the previous page.

 

[afan]

I think Superman needs to be reinvented as an action hero and fighter and not a lover primarily.

No Superman film has truely shown this aspect of him as the main focus and I think it needs to happen in the next film.

Total agreement, tho there should be a sexual tension between Lois and Superman, it should always be a cleverly played innuendo.

As to the "no Superman film"........ I'm sort of a broken record here but may I suggest that, "Superman and the Mole Men", produced in the fifties starring George Reeves, is an example of exactly how the characters of Lois, Clark and Superman should be showcased. IMHO of course.

 

[Superfreak]

a superman movie without the emotional motivation of the romance within the story, will be a hollow movie. It would result in a film, that is purely action, with no heart whatsover. It will lack that punch, that will make the action feel desperate, there will be no emotion, and the movie would therefore turn out as an empty shell.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Basically, he made a movie of Superdickery.

LOL, priceless. What's even funnier is that at least in that picture Superman is thoughtful enough to leave Lois a note. He didn't even do that in SR. t:

 

[Showtime]

Haha

 

[GL1]

I agree it should be downplayed... its another reason I think that Lois and Clark should, I don't know, GET TOGETHER, so that she can be a supporting character as opposed to a whole plot line.

 

[Superark]

Bryan Singer had his own idea for what Superman represents, and apparently it's very different from what most fans envisioned. In that way, he did have a bit of an ego, injecting such a personal opinion into something that belongs to far more people than himself. It's not so much ego as it is selfishness. Bryan Singer made the selfish Superman movie that he wanted to see, and quite a few people were able to like it, but most people were not.

Basically, he made a movie of Superdickery. Maybe it was some kind of bizzare autobiography about Singer's experience with his own father, but for most people it didn't seem like Superman.

I would not say most fans as the feelings on the film are more 50/50. He did make a movie he wanted to see, so I agree there was selfishness there but I wouldn't relate that to ego. I mean what director doesn't put what they want to see on screen?

In this fan's opinion he stayed true to the character, as do many other fans feel. But I realize there is an equal number of you who don't feel the same.

Personally, I just wouldn't classify Singer as having an ego for putting what he felt was the right Superman on-screen. That's like saying Lee had an ego for his Hulk, or Raimi for his Spidey etc. etc.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Giving Superman a child is a clearly stupid thing for a first movie and why did he do that? Superman doesn`t need a child so that some great stories could be written about him.

It`s his ego, inabilty to understand the character with all this dysfunctional family BS. He wanted to do something different, THAT WASNT NEEDED in the first place, and payed the price.

Man, i love Bryan Singer but he should just do what's RIGHT and stay away from Superman.

 

[Nightwing1977]

The tone should be like Iron Man or Spider-Man.

Same here. Both films has that light-heart tone there. I like to see some more of that in MoS.

Singer, as a gay man, cannot tell a male/female love story.

Boy, this argument just make me laugh. Just because one is gay don't mean they can't direct a male/female love story. Isn't Joel Scumacher gay too? Last I check, he directed "Phantom of the Opera" & it is quite a love story between a young woman & a freak. You were saying? This is just an excuse on hating Singer or making big deal about his sexuality.

Jean and Wolverine DIED

oPPPSS

Wolverine live, Cyclops died, and Jean died.

LMAO!! I hate to break this to you, but Singer didn't directed X3. He has nothing to do with Jean & Cyclops being dead. It was Penn & Ratner. Make sure you get your fact straight next time there.

 

[charl_huntress]

Boy, this argument just make me laugh. Just because one is gay don't mean they can't direct a male/female love story. Isn't Joel Scumacher gay too? Last I check, he directed "Phantom of the Opera" & it is quite a love story between a young woman & a freak. You were saying? This is just an excuse on hating Singer or making big deal about his sexuality.

Don't delude yourself that I'm being "mean" to Singer. My point is I do no believe a gay man can direct the intracacies (sp...I would spell check but I'm on the run) of a male/female relationship. There are too many details that would be foreign to him. His observation cannot take the place of firsthand experience. I also believe this for any "gay" director, and trure to form...I think this applies for hetero directors when directing gay movie.

LMAO!! I hate to break this to you, but Singer didn't directed X3. He has nothing to do with Jean & Cyclops being dead. It was Penn & Ratner. Make sure you get your fact straight next time there.

Whatever

My point was the Ratner didn't change much Singer's original vision. He just changed the POV. Argue that if you want, but Singer would have made the same move storyline...it just would have lacked the action apparent in Ratner's flick