Superman Returns First screening (for the press) report

[MoviesKickAss]

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

Your already doing that by posting in a Forum dedicated to this Movie

 

[DorkyFresh]

fans who are going to see this movie = hardcore superfans

fans who refuse to see this movie = hardHEADED superfans

no offense desk...just making an observation. i'm not trying to diss or make fun of you (nothin' wrong with bein' hardheaded sometimes). you're intitled to your opinion and that's cool.

 

[Gaurav Sharma]

Hey, in one of the Indian websites which is covering SR extensively, there's reference to this screening. You can read it at this link.

http://spotboy.rediffiland.com/iland/spotboy_diary.html

 

[Hunter Rider]

I think this is getting way over dramatic for a film
See it don't see it choice is yours but don't come to the boards talking about it if you haven;t seen the finished product

 

[Eteric]

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com

Another semi-review.

 

[romeogbs19]

Desk -- I find your arguments lacking major substance. You claim you understand the Superman mythos and where the comic books are -- and then you bash Singer's interpretation as if he's making something entirely different -- but then you bash him for NOT taking an original stance on the character. All in all, I think you're just confused.

I also don't think you know anything about the 20 year production history of this movie. Have you watched Kevin Smith talk about Superman Lives? Have you read any of the articles in Premiere, EW, Time that talk about all the misguided directions this film was taking? If you don't like Singer's version, I'm not saying you have to be happy with what we have, but based on all the politics and craziness, I hope you can agree we ended up with a best-case scenario.

And as for the comics, why can't Superman be emotional over Lois? I think the whole "I want to be human" is what makes Superman the character so interesting. I don't want to watch him fly around saving people for 2 hours -- that's cool, but that would get old SO quickly. And did you even read the recent McGuinness/Loeb run where Superman's marriage went rocky? I mean, Superman/Clark's emotional struggle to always do what's right with the world the way it is again what makes him interesting. I don't know what the heck you're talking about with Singer's take -- sounds right in line with me.

 

[JamalYIgle]

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

I think when you have almost no information and are relying on speculation and conjecture, you open your self up to ridicule.Especially on a film that you neither know the full story and refuse to see. So your basing your opinions on nothing.

I have a lot more info than you do, so I try to keep my comments to the facts.
As far as the emotional content, I think you haven't read alot of Superman comics . You see the difference is that I would prefer what Singer is doing, which is respecting everything that makes up Superman and adding new elements to the character. I don't want to see a direct comics adaptaition because it would bore me.
if you don't think Superman hasn't ever been emotional over the percieved loss of Lois' affection, you're sadly mistaken.
And I will enjoy it the movie. I'll enjoy the DC company screening next week and I'll enjoy it again when it hit's the theaters.

 

[MoviesKickAss]

& now watch that he will not be back until a "Negative Review" comes in

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Can you enjoy telling us whether or not definitively that the kid is his?

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Excuse me if it's old.

--

SUPERMAN RETURNS UPDATE

Superman Returns, transferred to film just hours earlier, was given its first screening for the press Thursday night in Los Angeles.

Executive producer Chris Lee introduced the film, noting that it had just been put to bed and that some minor tweaks -- i.e. color corrections -- still might be made.

He also asked that the press not leak spoilers -- including a major one not in the film's novelization.

After the screening, members of the press were given a preview of the 3D IMAX treatment the film is getting.

IMAX president of filmed entertainment Greg Foster said Superman Return's "DNA" was ideal for the 3D treatment. The first trailer, which was done in 3D to show director Bryan Singer, and examples of the film's coming-at-you action were shown.

"We showed this to Chris Lee, Brandon (Routh) and Kate (Bosworth) and they were jumping up and down and giving each other high fives," Foster said.

In other notes:

* Screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty have small roles in the film.

* The film seemed to generate a positive response, with applause at the end.

---


http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0606/08/index.htm

Sounds good!

im glad its going good

 

[bosef982]

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

Sigh.

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.

You're talking about making a movie against the mediocre average of the masses' tastes. This cannot be done.

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?

How about he decided to introduce elements that reflect the real world in which Superman will have to find and introduce himself? To simply tell the same old tell is redundant and old and sad. It's ironic that fans like you will lamblast Singer for using the "same old formula from STM" while also expressing massive anger over Singer introducing the elements into Lois Lane, which by your own admissions completely alters the traditional Superman tale you originally lamblast Singer for relying on...it makes no sense in this way.

Again, you're talking about Singer forfeiting his creative vision to you and other fans like you. This isn't how you make a film. Look at X3, where the vision wasn't forfeited as much as the fanaticism expressed was reflected in Brett Ratner, who going off of fan whining, jammed Sentinels, Angel, Beast into a film too small, too budeted, and too constrained by studio to really deal with them all properly and fully. You got exactly what opinions like yours are: generic, substanceless fluff that looks pretty but that upon closer examination, sinks.

Singer's a director, he's a creator, he's a storyteller. He's not a servant to the fanatic sentiment.

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 presume he has to satisfy you. You assume you have ownership over this character. You don 't. WB does. And they have chosen Bryan Singer to guide it. Also, realize, your expectations may be confused.

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.

Subvert? Singer has undermined, corrupted, or totally ruined Superman? Have you 1) seen the finnished product or 2) heard any of the interviews, seen any of the trailers? He's pushing Superman into a new generation. Generation's change -- deal with it. Superman is a reflection that cannot be tied down to one single set of moral values. And that's what we're talking aout here? -- the most subjective of all things? Morals. Morals.

Singer is telling a good story -- not one confined by the narrow, outdated, and idealized and overly-sentimental values of a bygone age. Most great literature, film, and music has had to break the mold. If the collateral damage of such a historical trend is you -- so be it. I'd say in that case, none gained, and certainly none lossed in respect to your sacrifce.

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.

Again your trying to inject a moral argument into a cinematic character that you do not own. You cannot expect your morals to be replicated in everything you like and see. Life is life -- stories about real people in real situations. Films are about real people. Superman is being realized as a real pwerson, with real human feelings. What better way to do that then see the flaws. Singer isn't using moral ideas to hide the reality of what we all as human beings face -- the complex, flawed, and tempting confusion that life can become sometimes. No. He's opening it up and showing how an inspirational figure can walk among us, be like us, feel like us, and still adhere to a sort of code that is fair and attainable for all people -- in a fair way that still respects them as individuals.

You want a Shake-n-Bake Superman, with Lois Lane's only dialogue being squeals when her typical "womanhood" gets her in trouble. The world, thank God, has moved on since then. Unlike Superman, you cannot turn back the world.

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

Then that is your problem, not ours or Singer's or this board. Unable or unwilling by the way or two different things. You are the architect of your own skewed, false, and glossed-over nostalgia which is leading to your fast stubborness.

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.

He's regal looking. He's powerful looking. And his actions are what make him a beacon of hope -- not the superficial and simple look of his colors. Please.

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

Yes, You have a man whos never met his mother or father, who wonders where he's from, who thinks about himself every once and a while. You are the perfect compnent of what Singer's trying to show. Which is that people view Superman in this easy, idealistic, almost selfish way, and how that must affect him is horrendous. Perhaps you are uncomfortble seeing the selfish, unreasonable expectations people have of Superman? Until you have been adopted, do not criticize one's need to satisfy a biological curiosity that you take for so much granted.

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

Unintentionally and in different circumstnaces that your narrow, constrained moral values do not account for. Superman and Lois were finally discovering who he was, he was sacrificing his powers, they had an entire time of expectaitons, curiosity, and love satisfied when he did that, and they had no idea where they were going, how this would work, or how he would react, but were touched by an action -- him sacrificing his powers (and thus his mission on Earth which you seem to havve no problem with) -- to be with Lois. So, forsake your messianic birthright or give a ring -- which one is the better proposal for marriage and utter love?

I dont think the Bible or social morals take into account super-powered aliens who fall in love with humans.

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.

Wa! Wa! He's flawed. We all have flaws. When we are denied,w hen we are in love, we do things that border on the obssessed. Stop being so uncomfortable with something that is inherently human to do -- and thus Superman doing it is so much more reveling and dramatic. We've always been on the ground, looking up at him in our awe and glory. Now, we are on the otherside of the looking glass, feeling and seeing his character and wait.

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.

And compared to what the comics were at that time, Donner's films revolutionzied and treated Superman in a way that even current comics fail to treat him. Respectfully and as a serious character. Luthor so far has come off as competely psychotic and dynamic, cruel and humorous, cunning and evil. his actions define the evil and insanity of his character. Where you see camp, I see great characterization. But, I don't know, maybe your bias or something before you een got to this point.

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.

So again, you want a retread. Sad. Pathetic. How unoriginal, but what can I expect from someone who's going to reiterate tired and old moral values on a comic book character.

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

Good. Are we suppose to be sad? Could you do us a favor and apply the same boycott to these boards?

 

[Retroman]

Excuse me if it's old.

--

SUPERMAN RETURNS UPDATE

Superman Returns, transferred to film just hours earlier, was given its first screening for the press Thursday night in Los Angeles.

Executive producer Chris Lee introduced the film, noting that it had just been put to bed and that some minor tweaks -- i.e. color corrections -- still might be made.

He also asked that the press not leak spoilers -- including a major one not in the film's novelization.

After the screening, members of the press were given a preview of the 3D IMAX treatment the film is getting.

IMAX president of filmed entertainment Greg Foster said Superman Return's "DNA" was ideal for the 3D treatment. The first trailer, which was done in 3D to show director Bryan Singer, and examples of the film's coming-at-you action were shown.

"We showed this to Chris Lee, Brandon (Routh) and Kate (Bosworth) and they were jumping up and down and giving each other high fives," Foster said.

In other notes:

* Screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty have small roles in the film.

* The film seemed to generate a positive response, with applause at the end.

---


http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0606/08/index.htm

Sounds good!

Very good to know I hope i feel the same way about it.

 

[JamalYIgle]

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?

It's not that controversial since it's some thing that' been discussed in the books as recently as last year.

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.

You can't ignore the characters history, You can't discount the people who grew up on those comics and prefer them to the current Superman books.

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 issue, here' s a tissue. but don't try and rewrite history.

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.

He's done it comics... twice

Superman:Exile
Superman exiles himself into deep space, wracked with guilt over breaking his oath against killing. It's an adventure that takes him further than he ever imagined, in stories that introduce the Eradicator, explore the history of Krypton, and feature a stunning battle that pits Superman against Mongul and the forces of Warworld. Painted cover by Jerry Ordway.
Softcover, 7x10, 304 pages. Full color.
and
Superman # 18(Second Series)

Both of them Post Crisis Stories.

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

You can't abandon a child that you didn't know existed.

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.

That's been done before also, too many times to count.

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.

Uhm again, you can't discount the older comics because they don't fit your veiw. try picking up a Superman archives once in awhile. That was Clark Kent and Lex Luthor, and not they weren't "inventions of Richard Donner"

 

[DorkyFresh]

wow! JamalYIgle with irrefutable evidence! you go boy!

 

[MoviesKickAss]

I highly doubt we will see Desk in this thread again. If we do I will be surprised. Usually when People start pretty much telling him what he thinks = bull **** & actually have proof like JamalYIgle has recently provided. We will not see him again until some new article bashes & or says something negative. Someone save JamalYIgle's post

 

[Desk]

Desk -- I find your arguments lacking major substance. You claim you understand the Superman mythos and where the comic books are -- and then you bash Singer's interpretation as if he's making something entirely different -- but then you bash him for NOT taking an original stance on the character.

Original, as in an "original" adaptation - not a reheated version of Donner's 30-year-old film which then takes the characters in directions I have no desire to see them go.

Superman: The Animated Series, Lois & Clark, Smalville - all of these are original Superman adaptations which, in my opinion, are generally quite respectful of the characters.

I also don't think you know anything about the 20 year production history of this movie. Have you watched Kevin Smith talk about Superman Lives? Have you read any of the articles in Premiere, EW, Time that talk about all the misguided directions this film was taking?

I'm very aware of all the permutations this long-gestating project has gone through - I've followed it with great interest, as any Superman fan would.

If you don't like Singer's version, I'm not saying you have to be happy with what we have, but based on all the politics and craziness, I hope you can agree we ended up with a best-case scenario.

Nope. It's like suggesting that being punched in the face is a "best-case scenario" because we could have been kicked in the groin.

And as for the comics, why can't Superman be emotional over Lois? I think the whole "I want to be human" is what makes Superman the character so interesting.

I have no objection to emotion featuring in this film. In fact, it's vital. One of my favourite sequences in Superman: The Movie is when an anguished Superman cradles a dead Lois in his arms before letting out a shattering scream.

However, this was an example of noble emotion. I don't want to watch a movie where "Superman" mopes around like a petulant, lovelorn teenager and spies on his ex-girlfriend and the new man who's raising his illegitimate kid as his own.

 

[JamalYIgle]

Original, as in an "original" adaptation - not a reheated version of Donner's 30-year-old film which then takes the characters in directions I have no desire to see them go.

Superman: The Animated Series, Lois & Clark, Smalville - all of these are original Superman adaptations which, in my opinion, are generally quite respectful of the characters.

And yet with out Donner's Superman, which btw influences all of the things you mentioned, none of these takes on the character would have existed. Something to ponder, I believe.

 

[Venom71]

Original, as in an "original" adaptation - not a reheated version of Donner's 30-year-old film which then takes the characters in directions I have no desire to see them go.

Superman: The Animated Series, Lois & Clark, Smalville - all of these are original Superman adaptations which, in my opinion, are generally quite respectful of the characters.


I'm very aware of all the permutations this long-gestating project has gone through - I've followed it with great interest, as any Superman fan would.



Nope. It's like suggesting that being punched in the face is a "best-case scenario" because we could have been kicked in the groin.


I have no objection to emotion featuring in this film. In fact, it's vital. One of my favourite sequences in Superman: The Movie is when an anguished Superman cradles a dead Lois in his arms before letting out a shattering scream.

However, this was an example of noble emotion. I don't want to watch a movie where "Superman" mopes around like a petulant, lovelorn teenager and spies on his ex-girlfriend and the new man who's raising his illegitimate kid as his own.

Jason is Richad's...and sinse you have no desire to see SR..you should have no desire to post on these boards anymore..the movie is finished..no amount of whining that you do will change it now..and from what we know of the movie..nothing needs changed...IMHO.

 

[Super Kal]

Jason is Richad's...and sinse you have no desire to see SR..you should have no desire to post on these boards anymore..the movie is finished..no amount of whining that you do will change it now..and from what we know of the movie..nothing needs changed...IMHO.

I smoewhat agree

 

[MoviesKickAss]

sense you have no desire to see SR..you should have no desire to post on these boards anymore..the movie is finished..no amount of whining that you do will change it now..and from what we know of the movie..nothing needs changed...IMHO.

He thinks hes debating

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

All right everyone listen up. Desk has no interest in seeing this film and has stated why. We do not need to hear anymore about it. You don't need to poke and prod at him and continue this argument ad infinitum. He has not said anything untoward, and he, as far as I can tell, hasn't resorted to calling names. So basically, if you don't like what he has to say there is such a thing as an Ignore Button. Continuing to argue with someone who has their mind made up is futile and wastes everyone's time.

As for Desk, you have made your point, and continuing to rehash it over and over only ventures into Troll territory

 

[Desk]

Oh dear, Jamal - you're obviously unaware that these old Fleischer prints have become dirty, grubby and faded over time. The colours as shown in your picture aren't the same as were seen where they were made...

I look forward to hearing what you have to say when restored versions of the Fleischer cartoons are included in the 14-DVD Superman box-set.

BTW, even if those dark colours had been used it still wouldn't have stood as anything more a one-off aberration, rather than a norm.

He's done it comics... twice

Really? For "five years"? Nope. Superman's absences from Earth have always been for short durations - at least from the perspective of its population.

You can't abandon a child that you didn't know existed.

Did I say "abandon"? No, I didn't. However, Superman is now the absentee father to an illegitimate child. It doesn't matter how honourable the character might be... he's ended up in a dishonourable position courtesy of Singer and the screenwriters.

Uhm again, you can't discount the older comics because they don't fit your veiw. try picking up a Superman archives once in awhile. That was Clark Kent and Lex Luthor, and not they weren't "inventions of Richard Donner"

Nope - not just Richard Donner, but Mario Puzo, Tom Mankiewicz, Gene Hackman and everyone else responsible for putting together the 1978 film, and their singular depictions of these characters.

 

[MoviesKickAss]

Continue what your doing Desk. Your stating the same things over & over again & as Dew said your in almost in troll territory. Please continue Desk please please please

 

[Desk]

Continue what your doing Desk. Your stating the same things over & over again & as Dew said your in almost in troll territory. Please continue Desk please please please

Check the times of the postings - I didn't prepare all that in under a minute.

I'm quite happy to now let the discussion rest.

 

[Eteric]

I own the cartoons on DVD, and they NEVER that bright. It would only be a brightish red when light was shined behind himm and even then it wouldn't be that bright.

The picture above is enough to give someone a seizure.