Superman Returns Essesence of superman

[mathhater]

Singer doesn't care about the essence of Superman. He just wanted to pay respect and tribute to a 20 year old movie...and he failed miserably.

 

[SatEL]

Singer doesn't care about the essence of Superman. He just wanted to pay respect and tribute to a 20 year old movie...and he failed miserably.

The most painful thing about this piece of crap film was that routh was wasted. Hopefully Singer realises he doesnt know **** about superman and bows out gracefully if he does that and thats a big if i might one day perhaps somewhere in the future watch another Brain Singer film.

 

[SatEL]

Heh heh. I like you.

 

[CGHulk]

Singer sucks! I sure hope he doesn't get to do a Star Trek movie, because he'd just do a remake of the Wrath of Khan!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

i know....sucks....then we have to wait how long for the next movie? three years? and it could very well be nothing more than a disappointment....

Well i have faith that Singer will deliver an amazing sequel, the guy hasnt dissapointed me a movie yet and X2 was a huge improvement over the already great X-Men.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That doesn't change the fact that sooner or later, the crooks would notice he was gone. Supes' should have given the cops and government a heads up.

Well of course they would, but i bet by then the polic and government would have realised the same thing. Face it, if Superman said he was leaving, even the public would hate him for doing so, thinking he is abandoning them. And he would get countless pleas and offers to stay, it would be a nightmare, IMO he did the right thing only telling his remaininf 'family', i.e Martha.

Singer's Superman isn't Superman - he's a cheap knock off of Spider-Man full of woe-is-me-pity.

Well i disagree with that, but its not the first time and wont be the last. . Do you think Singers Superman would EVER give up his powers for an easier life?

 

[Dr. Fate]

Singer doesn't care about the essence of Superman. He just wanted to pay respect and tribute to a 20 year old movie...and he failed miserably.

You got that right.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I concur.

He was just so stupid. Why did he have to rehash Donner's stuff? And using John Williams score, sure it was/still is great but they couldn't do anything new. The Elfman Batman theme is classic but Nolan didn't have to reuse it did he? No, he thought of something just as great for the whole movie.

Singer can't think of jack simpy because he knows nothing about Superman, nor does his lame writers. ANYONE, I mean ANYONE could rewatch Donner movies and make a lame distant sequel of it. It takes a good writer and director to take decades and decades of comic book work, put it together, and pull of an amazing movie like Nolan and Raimi have done.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I concur.

He was just so stupid. Why did he have to rehash Donner's stuff? And using John Williams score, sure it was/still is great but they couldn't do anything new. The Elfman Batman theme is classic but Nolan didn't have to reuse it did he? No, he thought of something just as great for the whole movie.

Singer can't think of jack simpy because he knows nothing about Superman, nor does his lame writers. ANYONE, I mean ANYONE could rewatch Donner movies and make a lame distant sequel of it. It takes a good writer and director to take decades and decades of comic book work, put it together, and pull of an amazing movie like Nolan and Raimi have done.

Yes but the Donner movies are more popular and well known to the general audience than the Burtpn Bat-movies were IMO. Also, i seem to remember most people on here were happy when it was announced that the Williams theme would be used.

Anyway, if Singer had done something different you would all be moaning that he never acknowledge the Donner/Reeve movies.

 

[Color Me Blue]

Well i have faith that Singer will deliver an amazing sequel, the guy hasnt dissapointed me a movie yet and X2 was a huge improvement over the already great X-Men.

can't argue with that....

 

[Mr. Socko]

Anyway, if Singer had done something different you would all be moaning that he never acknowledge the Donner/Reeve movies.

Seeing as I like Burton's Batman movies over Donner's..........No.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Seeing as I like Burton's Batman movies over Donner's..........No.

I prefer the Burton movies over the Donner ones as well, but universally, STM and SII are more popular AND well known i'd bet.

 

[dar-El]

Yes but the Donner movies are more popular and well known to the general audience than the Burtpn Bat-movies were IMO. Also, i seem to remember most people on here were happy when it was announced that the Williams theme would be used.

Anyway, if Singer had done something different you would all be moaning that he never acknowledge the Donner/Reeve movies.

Donners Superman is a classic film which perfectly captures the essence of Superman for that time period (I.E 1978). Back then he was the alien Kal-El who pretended to be Clark Kent. But since 1986 Superman & his supporting cast have changed considerably. The books (starting with John Byrnes Man of Steel right through to the current Superman comics), Lois & Clark, Superman animated and Smallville have moved away from the old pre '86 Superman. Instead they moved torward him being an alien raised as a human being. Or as many fans like to say Kal-El is who he would have been, but Clark Kent IS who he is, while Superman is what he can do. Singer doesent understand that. Nor does he understand that while we all respect the classics variations of the legend (of which there are many by the way) you simply cannot pick out one specific period of a characters history which only you like and make a film of it. Singer made a film which has the style and design of the 50's tv show (which he grew up watching) and the badly copied/ rehashed story of Donners classic. Singer admits this in the official movie guide. On page 14 he says " Superman has to appear as though he's stepped out of the comic books, and out of our collective memories. The character comes from the comic books, radio serials, the george reeves tv show and of course the Richard Donner film. So i combined visual styles to create that feel and then brought a modern story" Now what im saying is although Singer did acknowledge the old versions of Superman, he did not in any way acknowledge anything current. That is what ticks me off! Singer made a film that did not, in either style nor content, capture the true essance of todays modern Superman. That is why Returns failed. Do you think Sam Rami's Spiderman films would have been successful had he based his viision solely on the old cartoon and tv show? No they wouldnt have been anywhere near as successful. Sam knows the spiderman myth and understands that you can pay homage to the characters past without going over the top. Singer does not understand this. That is why a sequel would be just as bad. Studios need to learn that in order to make a truely successful comic book film that makes a lot of money, pleases the fan base aswell as critics, you must have a Director that a) understands the whole of the mythology (old and current) and b) is not going make a film that only pays homage to the bits he likes. and c) captures the essance of the modern character. Thought Warners learned that after Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Afterall isnt that why they got Nolan and Goyer to reinvent the Batman franchise? If they allow Singer to continue his vision, he'll do a Schumaker and Superman will go the same way!

 

[mathhater]

^ I totally agree. And what you say doesn't just apply to Singer's take of Superman. The Lex Luthor that was portrayed in SR died 20 years ago. He has grown SO much as a character since Donnor's movie, but Singer didn't come anywhere near grasping the complexity of the Luthor of today.

Shoot, I'm currently working through season 3 of Lois & Clark, and say what you will about that show, just watch the episode "Seconds." Yes it was in the middle of a pretty weak storyline, but John Shea had more to work with before the opening credits of that episode, than Spacey did in the entirity of SR. Singer really didn't grasp much in terms of what Superman is about in this day and age.

 

[mego joe]

Donners Superman is a classic film which perfectly captures the essence of Superman for that time period (I.E 1978). Back then he was the alien Kal-El who pretended to be Clark Kent. But since 1986 Superman & his supporting cast have changed considerably. The books (starting with John Byrnes Man of Steel right through to the current Superman comics), Lois & Clark, Superman animated and Smallville have moved away from the old pre '86 Superman. Instead they moved torward him being an alien raised as a human being. Or as many fans like to say Kal-El is who he would have been, but Clark Kent IS who he is, while Superman is what he can do. Singer doesent understand that. Nor does he understand that while we all respect the classics variations of the legend (of which there are many by the way) you simply cannot pick out one specific period of a characters history which only you like and make a film of it. Singer made a film which has the style and design of the 50's tv show (which he grew up watching) and the badly copied/ rehashed story of Donners classic. Singer admits this in the official movie guide. On page 14 he says " Superman has to appear as though he's stepped out of the comic books, and out of our collective memories. The character comes from the comic books, radio serials, the george reeves tv show and of course the Richard Donner film. So i combined visual styles to create that feel and then brought a modern story" Now what im saying is although Singer did acknowledge the old versions of Superman, he did not in any way acknowledge anything current. That is what ticks me off! Singer made a film that did not, in either style nor content, capture the true essance of todays modern Superman. That is why Returns failed. Do you think Sam Rami's Spiderman films would have been successful had he based his viision solely on the old cartoon and tv show? No they wouldnt have been anywhere near as successful. Sam knows the spiderman myth and understands that you can pay homage to the characters past without going over the top. Singer does not understand this. That is why a sequel would be just as bad. Studios need to learn that in order to make a truely successful comic book film that makes a lot of money, pleases the fan base aswell as critics, you must have a Director that a) understands the whole of the mythology (old and current) and b) is not going make a film that only pays homage to the bits he likes. and c) captures the essance of the modern character. Thought Warners learned that after Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Afterall isnt that why they got Nolan and Goyer to reinvent the Batman franchise? If they allow Singer to continue his vision, he'll do a Schumaker and Superman will go the same way!

WHile I agree with your thoughts for the most part, I for one see nothing of the TV show in SR. Reeves played SUperman upbeat, positive, straight-laced to the hilt and there was hardly any romance even hinted at w/ Lois.


As for the Donner films. I would say they are a contemporary take on the classic version of the character, but pretty far from the actual comics of the time. IN 1978, Clark had a well defined character and life aside from Superman as the nightly anchor of the GBS Evening News. HE ahd actual friends including Jimmy, Lois and Lana, and he fit in quite well to society. As Superman he was actually dating Lois in an exclusive relationship and he really wasn't the lonely alien that the Donner films depict.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Donners Superman is a classic film which perfectly captures the essence of Superman for that time period (I.E 1978). Back then he was the alien Kal-El who pretended to be Clark Kent. But since 1986 Superman & his supporting cast have changed considerably. The books (starting with John Byrnes Man of Steel right through to the current Superman comics), Lois & Clark, Superman animated and Smallville have moved away from the old pre '86 Superman. Instead they moved torward him being an alien raised as a human being. Or as many fans like to say Kal-El is who he would have been, but Clark Kent IS who he is, while Superman is what he can do. Singer doesent understand that. Nor does he understand that while we all respect the classics variations of the legend (of which there are many by the way) you simply cannot pick out one specific period of a characters history which only you like and make a film of it. Singer made a film which has the style and design of the 50's tv show (which he grew up watching) and the badly copied/ rehashed story of Donners classic. Singer admits this in the official movie guide. On page 14 he says " Superman has to appear as though he's stepped out of the comic books, and out of our collective memories. The character comes from the comic books, radio serials, the george reeves tv show and of course the Richard Donner film. So i combined visual styles to create that feel and then brought a modern story" Now what im saying is although Singer did acknowledge the old versions of Superman, he did not in any way acknowledge anything current. That is what ticks me off! Singer made a film that did not, in either style nor content, capture the true essance of todays modern Superman. That is why Returns failed. Do you think Sam Rami's Spiderman films would have been successful had he based his viision solely on the old cartoon and tv show? No they wouldnt have been anywhere near as successful. Sam knows the spiderman myth and understands that you can pay homage to the characters past without going over the top. Singer does not understand this. That is why a sequel would be just as bad. Studios need to learn that in order to make a truely successful comic book film that makes a lot of money, pleases the fan base aswell as critics, you must have a Director that a) understands the whole of the mythology (old and current) and b) is not going make a film that only pays homage to the bits he likes. and c) captures the essance of the modern character. Thought Warners learned that after Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Afterall isnt that why they got Nolan and Goyer to reinvent the Batman franchise? If they allow Singer to continue his vision, he'll do a Schumaker and Superman will go the same way!

IMO, thats EXACTLy what Singer did with Superman in SR.

 

[dar-El]

Kind of true. But Singer took the wrong approach. He based his Superman on his own life experiences because he's also an only child who is adopted. Just because he has that connection doesnt mean the character would feel the same way as him. This story might have worked and been accepted more had it been an older well established Superman (say in his late 30's early 40's) who was having a mid life crisis rather than a younger Superman. (Its so vague as a film no one knows how old he is and whats gone on before it.) That would give more reason for him not fitting in as he would have tried and failed already and the kid couldve been more acceptable. Just for the record straight the line "The son becomes the father the father becomes the son" has absolutely nothing to do with Kal-El becoming a dad. It has everything to do with Jor-El giving up his soul and merging with Clark to give him his powers back as you will see in The Donner Cut of 2. For me Singer had the wrong appraoch & the wrong ideas (superman leaves? returns and stalks his ex? lex with the same plan?) Thats why as a longtime fan i dont like his version of superman. Its also why the film failed on many levels. People i know (and some i dont) who are not fans of the myth, came out of the cinemas saying it was an "ok" film. If it were a true Superman film they wouldnt be saying that. They would be saying holy cow that were awesome im gonna see it again. That didnt happen. Pirates2 is the film of the year and Singers Superman is doomed as a franchise.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Well, i know many people who enjoyed SR as much as i did, i remember asking someone from work if they had seen it, and they gave me a look as if to say 'Yeah i have and its amazing' Which he later confirmed to me. My brother saw it before me and guaranteed that i would love it. The worst i have heard about it is, 'it was alright' and that was from one person so.

 

[bunk]

Sorry, I had to.

 

[dar-El]

Lol! Well we can agree to disagree. If it was 1983 returns would just about fit into place but because its 2006 and the character (in the books and on tv) is vastly different to what Singer made, Returns will forever fall into the shouldve been way better category.

 

[dar-El]

Oh and for the record how many of the people you know (who liked it) are fans of the superman myth?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Non, but they still enjoyed it! But do they have to be Superman fans to like it?

 

[true316]

Sorry, I had to.

Don't apologize for that.

t:

 

[X Knight]

y'know what would have been the perfect approach to handling the kid???

Since Singer is adopted himself, and Superman is adopted, they could've played on that theme with the kid. That is, don't make the kid Superman's or Lois'.....but make the kid Richard's from a previous relationship ( perhaps the mom died or left Richard ).....

So....then Lois becomes the kid's step-mom....so to speak......and Richard dies at the end, heroically, to save the kid, making the kid an orphan. Perhaps, before he dies, Richard asks Lois and Supes to care for the kid. So, in the end, Superman "adopts" the kid as his own.

That would be an interesting parallel to Superman's adoption by his earth parents ( Kents ).....now an alien is adopting an earth child..........just food for thought.....

 

[Dr. Fate]

Donners Superman is a classic film which perfectly captures the essence of Superman for that time period (I.E 1978). Back then he was the alien Kal-El who pretended to be Clark Kent. But since 1986 Superman & his supporting cast have changed considerably. The books (starting with John Byrnes Man of Steel right through to the current Superman comics), Lois & Clark, Superman animated and Smallville have moved away from the old pre '86 Superman. Instead they moved torward him being an alien raised as a human being. Or as many fans like to say Kal-El is who he would have been, but Clark Kent IS who he is, while Superman is what he can do. Singer doesent understand that. Nor does he understand that while we all respect the classics variations of the legend (of which there are many by the way) you simply cannot pick out one specific period of a characters history which only you like and make a film of it. Singer made a film which has the style and design of the 50's tv show (which he grew up watching) and the badly copied/ rehashed story of Donners classic. Singer admits this in the official movie guide. On page 14 he says " Superman has to appear as though he's stepped out of the comic books, and out of our collective memories. The character comes from the comic books, radio serials, the george reeves tv show and of course the Richard Donner film. So i combined visual styles to create that feel and then brought a modern story" Now what im saying is although Singer did acknowledge the old versions of Superman, he did not in any way acknowledge anything current. That is what ticks me off! Singer made a film that did not, in either style nor content, capture the true essance of todays modern Superman. That is why Returns failed. Do you think Sam Rami's Spiderman films would have been successful had he based his viision solely on the old cartoon and tv show? No they wouldnt have been anywhere near as successful. Sam knows the spiderman myth and understands that you can pay homage to the characters past without going over the top. Singer does not understand this. That is why a sequel would be just as bad. Studios need to learn that in order to make a truely successful comic book film that makes a lot of money, pleases the fan base aswell as critics, you must have a Director that a) understands the whole of the mythology (old and current) and b) is not going make a film that only pays homage to the bits he likes. and c) captures the essance of the modern character. Thought Warners learned that after Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Afterall isnt that why they got Nolan and Goyer to reinvent the Batman franchise? If they allow Singer to continue his vision, he'll do a Schumaker and Superman will go the same way!

You are correct dar-el. Nice to know there are some folks with sanity around here.