Superman Returns First screening (for the press) report

[Ita-KalEl]

It's funny. In the report is about the good reaction of the critics and we are talking about the "kid angle"
We prefer speculations and ignore facts.

 

[LuvSupes]

And if it's Clark's...well like Doc said, no one wants to see Superman have a child. If it is then all of the sequel movies will have to take place in one age or the kid will grow up and be the 2nd Superman

Wrong, there are people who want the child to be Superman's. Like me.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Jesus H. we need to get a final, definitive answer once and for all about this f**kin kid thing. I was JUST starting to get used to the idea, AGAIN, that Singer wasn't bullsh***in when he said the kid is Richard's. Now I gotta get used to the idea AGAIN, apparently, that the kid will be Superman's.

Ita: Speculations and facts? The thread is about other people's opinion. There's no fact there. Unless you mean it's a fact other people had opinion. But then again--I don't know who these people are, or if they seem to look at the movies the same way I do, so there's not much in the way of discussion, not for me.

but this spoiler that's not in the novel? Guh.

I guess there's a possibility, since this spoiler IS sort of in the novel, just not overtly said out loud, that there could be something different?

...nah. Probably not.

 

[Desk]

No because you are serving two different audiences.

Really? Superman fans don't also make up part of the general movie-going public?

The die hard comic book fans would never be happy no matter what was done.

That may be true, but I'm sure they would have been a lot less unhappy had Singer decided not to include some of the elements he chose to.

There would certainly have been a lot less division and discontent on these forums had he not felt the need to introduce "Jason." Was Singer incapable of telling a story without introducing this controversial new addition to the Superman mythos, or was he simply oblivious to how widely divisive and controversial this new element would prove?

You can't please everyone, and frankly he shouldn't have to try. He is the director, he is an artist and like any artist he's allowed to present his vision.

He's allowed to dress Superman up as Ghengis Khan and have him ride around on a robotic pony if he likes. Doesn't mean I have to accept that he's doing justice to the character, though, or that he's satisfying mine and others' expectations.

You're assuming he's not being respectful to the source material based on your opinion.

In the end it's all down to personal, objective "opinion," isn't it? Mine is that he isn't being respectful of the source material, and would have been better advised to create his own original character if he wanted to tell this tale, rather than subvert a popular existing one.

His vision of Superman is shaped by the source material he respects, the original TV series and Superman the movie. Both of which are faithful to their source material , the comics of their time.

Comics of the 1950s and the 1970s. Is Superman Returns faithful to today's comics, which are the result of thirty years of development? No. I don't even feel that Singer is being particularly respectful of the original TV series and Superman: The Movie which he claims to have based this film on. I'm a big fan of Superman: The Movie - saw it when it cinemas when it came out - but I find myself objecting to the notion that Singer's film is some sort of supposed continuation when it takes its characters and stories in such awful, disrespectful directions.

I'm working on a book,Firestorm, that has had constant moaning from some quarters because we're not doing what some fans want us to do. I should not have to be swayed by the whims of a few fans because ultimatley every one wants something different. I mean look at this board as it is so far we have multiple camps.

* Those who want a John Byrne Man Of Steel version
*Those who want a direct adaptaion of Superman: Birthright
*Those who want a version closer to Superman:the animated series
*Those who want a remade origin story
*Those who want a version of the Death of Superman, with Doomsday as the Villian
*Those who want Bizarro as the villian
*Those who want Mettalo as the lead villian
Those who want Metallo as a stooge of Lex Luthor
*Those who want Braniac as the Villian
Those who want a more comic book version of Braniac( The Coluan world mind)
*those who want a Kryptonian Braniac like S:TAM

So do you see the problem here? there are so many versions of Superman to choose from, nearly 80 years worth of stories taht it would be impossible to take everything and mesh intpo a single vision.

My issue is that Singer is presenting a take on Superman that I am unable to reconcile with any common depiction of the character...

You have a "Superman" wearing dull, dingy colours, which seems to entirely miss the point of the notion that he's supposed to be bold, bright, confident, eye-catching beacon of hope for humanity.

You have a "Superman" who willingly abandons his "Neverending Battle" for a five-year personal sojourn back to the ruins of Krypton.

You have a "Superman" who fathers an illegitimate kid, and was then absent while it was raised as another man's son.

You have a "Superman" who mopes around after Lois Lane, and then uses his powers to spy on her and her family in their house.

Meanwhile, we have Clark Kent as a unbelievable, clumsy, Inspector Clousea-style bungler and a Lex Luthor who is a camp, corny pantomime villain who marries old women for their money. These aren't common depictions of these characters - they're exclusive to the films originated by Richard Donner.

So you have to go with the vision that the public already knows , which is Superman the movie(Which is as I type this, playing in the background on Cinemax right now)a movie that has been in constant rotation for the last 27 years and build on it.

You don't "have to" do anything. If Singer is as skilled a movie-maker as many would have you believe he would be able to craft an entertaining, respectful "must-see" Superman film at least partly inspired by modern day comics, cartoons, and live-action TV series such as Lois & Clark and Smallville.

That's why this movie will work.

Hope you enjoy it. I won't be seeing it.

 

[MoviesKickAss]

I was JUST starting to get used to the idea

You got about Two Weeks

 

[MoviesKickAss]

Hope you enjoy it. I won't be seeing it.

Why waste your time posting on a Message Board about a Movie you won't be seeing

Do you have nothing better to do

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

He's openly admitted a couple times already he's in this for the antagonizing

His arguments end up being totally kneecapped by his free admission he typically overstates what he DOES know and what he doesn't know doesn't stop him from arguing in the first place. He's broadcasting live from Tunnelvision on a wide signal with a fistful of tired arguments and a barely working knowledge of what's going on.

He also has an amazing sense of self-righteousness and over 2/3rds of all his arguments involve setting up straw men and speaking from a position of false authority, attributing his own opinions to a faceless horde of "many others" that seem to exist solely to prop up his own personal opinions in lieu of having anything solid on his own. Because if he did, he'd have no problem just presenting his arguments as "I think" as opposed to "Fanboys" "We all" "real fans" "Comic lovers"

He could speak for himself, he chooses not to, and as such, dilutes his opinion tremendously.

 

[MoviesKickAss]

He's openly admitted a couple times already he's in this for the antagonizing

Usually the mods remove users like that from the Board in question

 

[Desk]

Why waste your time posting on a Message Board about a Movie you won't be seeing

Do you have nothing better to do

Right at this moment? Nope!

You do realise that this is a forum for discussion and debate about the project, and not just a place to post love letters to Singer's film?

 

[J.Howlett]

For me, it's all about having the proper explaination of the kid if it is in fact Superman's heir.

If Singer is using the first film and parts of the second film as reference and the kid is his, I just want it to be explained to where it doesn't come off as a plothole to this particular film and Superman II.

If he explains it reasonably well, I could care less which way he goes. I'm not opposed to the idea whatsoever.

 

[MoviesKickAss]

You do realise that this is a forum for discussion and debate about the project

Yes but your not really debating if you know your not seeing the Movie. Debating is for both sides that will see the Movie & give it a chance first

 

[Desk]

He's openly admitted a couple times already he's in this for the antagonizing

That's an outright lie, you realise?

You might want to consider editing your post.

 

[Venom71]

Really? Superman fans don't also make up part of the general movie-going public?


That may be true, but I'm sure they would have been a lot less unhappy had Singer decided not to include some of the elements he chose to.

There would certainly have been a lot less division and discontent on these forums had he not felt the need to introduce "Jason." Was Singer incapable of telling a story without introducing this controversial new addition to the Superman mythos, or was he simply oblivious to how widely divisive and controversial this new element would prove?

He's allowed to dress Superman up as Ghengis Khan and have him ride around on a robotic pony if he likes. Doesn't mean I have to accept that he's doing justice to the character, though, or that he's satisfying mine and others' expectations.


In the end it's all down to personal, objective "opinion," isn't it? Mine is that he isn't being respectful of the source material, and would have been better advised to create his own original character if he wanted to tell this tale, rather than subvert a popular existing one.


Comics of the 1950s and the 1970s. Is Superman Returns faithful to today's comics, which are the result of thirty years of development? No. I don't even feel that Singer is being particularly respectful of the original TV series and Superman: The Movie which he claims to have based this film on. I'm a big fan of Superman: The Movie - saw it when it cinemas when it came out - but I find myself objecting to the notion that Singer's film is some sort of supposed continuation when it takes its characters and stories in such awful, disrespectful directions.


My issue is that Singer is presenting a take on Superman that I am unable to reconcile with any common depiction of the character...

You have a "Superman" wearing dull, dingy colours, which seems to entirely miss the point of the notion that he's supposed to be bold, bright, confident, eye-catching beacon of hope for humanity.

You have a "Superman" who willingly abandons his "Neverending Battle" for a five-year personal sojourn back to the ruins of Krypton.

You have a "Superman" who fathers an illegitimate kid, and was then absent while it was raised as another man's son.

You have a "Superman" who mopes around after Lois Lane, and then uses his powers to spy on her and her family in their house.

Meanwhile, we have Clark Kent as a unbelievable, clumsy, Inspector Clousea-style bungler and a Lex Luthor who is a camp, corny pantomime villain who marries old women for their money. These aren't common depictions of these characters - they're exclusive to the films originated by Richard Donner.


You don't "have to" do anything. If Singer is as skilled a movie-maker as many would have you believe he would be able to craft an entertaining, respectful "must-see" Superman film at least partly inspired by modern day comics, cartoons, and live-action TV series such as Lois & Clark and Smallville.


Hope you enjoy it. I won't be seeing it.

Yeah sure..you spend time reading and posting on these boards...you will see it..you wouldn't waste your time posting on this boards if not...you may not see it opening week...but yeah..you will see it.

 

[Desk]

Yes but your not really debating if you know your not seeing the Movie. Debating is for both sides that will see the Movie & give it a chance first

Says who? You're suggesting that you have to commit to seeing a film before you're allowed to discuss its development?

 

[MoviesKickAss]

Says who? You're suggesting that you have to commit to seeing a film before you're allowed to discuss its development?

No you dont have to commit. No one has to see anything right away. But with someone like you already deciding thats not really debating with the ones that do & will see the Movie

 

[Desk]

Yeah sure..you spend time reading and posting on these boards...you will see it..you wouldn't waste your time posting on this boards if not...you may not see it opening week...but yeah..you will see it.

You're free to believe what you want, and please choose to believe this if it makes you feel happier.

Me? I honestly have no desire to have the film pollute my perception of the Superman character and mythos.

 

[Super Kal]

You have a "Superman" wearing dull, dingy colours, which seems to entirely miss the point of the notion that he's supposed to be bold, bright, confident, eye-catching beacon of hope for humanity.

wait one damn minute there...

trhe colors themselves are NOT "dingy". Yes the red is, IMO, but the point is these colors stand out very well in the color palette that singer is using

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

That's an outright lie, you realise?

Nope. And I'm not editing a damn thing

Again, with the straw men and the overstatement. There's never any grey area with this dude. The debate going hasn't been exactly all fun and happy, but the instant someone challenges him, suddenly this thread is "posting love letters to Singer all day."

and then you guys BUY THAT and roll with it and get defensive, when it's just a stunt. It's a straw man. the same reason he has so much trouble speaking for himself and hiding behind the ideal of intelligent debate (instead of actually exercising it) is the same reason he tries to constantly tilt the playing field as opposed to leveling it.

It's not in his interest to level it, or "discuss" it. His interest is to piss people here off and establish a sense of intellectual superiority by baiting and nitpicking and obfuscating what few real points he has behind grandiose statements and a small armada of straw men.

Constantly

For months on end

With not a single will, desire, or inkling to ever see the film he's endlessly rehashing the same 5 arguments from 2003. Baited and hooked, every time. At this point probably half of you could write the posts FOR HIM.

Add a dash of presumption, 2 tbsp of self-righteousness, stir in a cup of "dingy colors" a cup of "mopey" 2/3rds "Sullied and Tainted," 1/2 cup diced "Singer disrespects you." and 3 lbs of hot air. stir that all up and stuff it into about 30 different scarecrow suits to stack in front of you so people won't mistake your opinion for something you feel, they'll believe the 30 other scarecrows dancing are backing you up.

 

[Venom71]

You're free to believe what you want, and please choose to believe this if it makes you feel happier.

Me? I honestly have no desire to have the film pollute my perception of the Superman character and mythos.

Well IF you don't see it you most likely will be missing a great flick....I feel bad for you.

 

[Super Kal]

You're free to believe what you want, and please choose to believe this if it makes you feel happier.

Me? I honestly have no desire to have the film pollute my perception of the Superman character and mythos.

I now have no respect for you as a Superman fan. Buggs0268, even though he absolutely HATES everything about this movie, is still going to see it because he is a Superman fan. I have more respect for him more than you because al least he's gonna show his support for Superman Returns.

You dont wanna see it because it wasn't made the way YOU wanted it. Singer isn't creating for you or any other single fan... he's making it for everyone.

At least support the character by watching the movie...

 

[gkokujin]

You do realise that this is a forum for discussion and debate about the project, and not just a place to post love letters to Singer's film?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAA! awesome, i would post that in my signature if i had a higher post count.

 

[Super Kal]

Nope. And I'm not editing a ***damn thing

Again, with the straw men and the overstatement. There's never any grey area with this dude. The debate going hasn't been exactly all fun and happy, but the instant someone challenges him, suddenly this thread is "posting love letters to Singer all day."

and then you guys BUY THAT and roll with it and get defensive, when it's just a stunt. It's a straw man. the same reason he has so much trouble speaking for himself and hiding behind the ideal of intelligent debate (instead of actually exercising it) is the same reason he tries to constantly tilt the playing field as opposed to leveling it.

It's not in his interest to level it, or "discuss" it. His interest is to piss people here off and establish a sense of intellectual superiority by baiting and nitpicking and obfuscating what few real points he has behind grandiose statements and a small armada of straw men.

Constantly

For months on end

With not a single will, desire, or inkling to ever see the film he's endlessly rehashing the same 5 arguments from 2003.

even though I agree with you, I would appreciate it if you edited your swearing...

 

[gkokujin]

I now have no respect for you as a Superman fan. ...

this my friends is the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Desk]

You dont wanna see it because it wasn't made the way YOU wanted it. Singer isn't creating for you or any other single fan... he's making it for everyone.

He's obviously not making it for me, as what he's produced doesn't appeal to me at all.

At least support the character by watching the movie...

Why would I want to reward what I believe to be a poorly rendered Superman adaptation?

Why would I want to encourage the filmmakers to produce more of the same?

 

[Super Kal]

I respect him as a human being and his opinion, but when he bashes a film that hasn't even come out yet, and he's not even gonna support the film, EVEN THOUGH he posts about it on a Superman forum, he's acting very childish and close-minded.

I dont like the suit, but I still like the character enough to support him in the new movie by going to go see it.

Why would I want to encourage the filmmakers to produce more of the same?

the same!?

you know, maybe Tim Burton should of made his movie. That way I would of agreed with you. Compared to Burton's, Ratner's, and Abram's ideas for the movie, Singer is a traditionalist.